When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[brakelite]

There is also ample documentation that the Catholic Church has preserved the truth of the Christian faith since the time of Jesus by identifying those heretics and ex-communicating them.

Mmmmm, so perhaps you could provide a sample of such excommunicated heretics and their particular crie? For example, what was the heresy of the Waldensians against whom Rome waged relentless war over several centuries?

 

[Mungo]

Seriously? I find it curious that you constantly refer to those who are anti-catholicism as being 'anti-catholics'. I fully understand that Catholics are anti-protestantism, but I don't resort to an attempt to make the discussion personal by saying Catholics are anti-protestants'. Despite the many thousands, if not millions, killed by Catholic armies over many centuries, but that's another conversation.

Another set of lies you mean.

 

[Mungo]

Interesting that you don't actually counter any of it. Just express a general ridicule without any real critique.

Since you find it interesting I'll tell you why.

Several years ago I discovered that forums are full of this sort of stuff.

They come in two types.
The first is “lists” of supposed Catholic errors contra-biblical doctrines or practices. There seem to be loads of these on ant-Catholic websites. Someone does a cut and past job which takes them a few seconds and then expects Catholics to spend hours tracking down answers. When you give an answer one of three things happens:
1. the person never replies – it’s a drop and run job
2. they pick on one tiny (usually irrelevant) point and ignore the rest of the reply
3. they give a cheap answer like “That’s not convincing”.

I discovered it is a total waste of time because the perpetrators have no intention of entering into a serious discussion.

The second type is worse. It is people who come up with a “theory”. They will not listen to any response and have so much personal capital tied up in their “theory” that will accept no contra-arguments and, like you, when errors or absurdities are pointed out, will avoid a direct response but move onto attack in another direction.

I also avoid getting involved in eschatology sections because that is where people with crazy theories seem to hang out. These theories usually involve the books of revelation and Daniel. People seem obsessed by them.

So no, I’m not going to waste time on your nonesense.

 

[heretoeternity]

Bottom line on all this, the pagan Roman system and it's religion, known as "catholic" or "universal" church is the counterfeit church which does not follow the Bible, has it's own man made traditions it lives by instead of the Bible, has an "infallible" human as leader, who dictates policy, which usually does not correspond to Biblical truth...this Roman system has polluted the vast majority of spirituality on the planet known as "christianity"..
The good news is God will destroy it as per Revelation 17 and 18...thats why He says "come out of her my people" so you are not destroyed along with this counterfeit christianity system.

 

[brakelite]

Since you find it interesting I'll tell you why.

Several years ago I discovered that forums are full of this sort of stuff.

They come in two types.
The first is “lists” of supposed Catholic errors contra-biblical doctrines or practices. There seem to be loads of these on ant-Catholic websites. Someone does a cut and past job which takes them a few seconds and then expects Catholics to spend hours tracking down answers. When you give an answer one of three things happens:
1. the person never replies – it’s a drop and run job
2. they pick on one tiny (usually irrelevant) point and ignore the rest of the reply
3. they give a cheap answer like “That’s not convincing”.

I discovered it is a total waste of time because the perpetrators have no intention of entering into a serious discussion.

The second type is worse. It is people who come up with a “theory”. They will not listen to any response and have so much personal capital tied up in their “theory” that will accept no contra-arguments and, like you, when errors or absurdities are pointed out, will avoid a direct response but move onto attack in another direction.

I also avoid getting involved in eschatology sections because that is where people with crazy theories seem to hang out. These theories usually involve the books of revelation and Daniel. People seem obsessed by them.

So no, I’m not going to waste time on your nonesense.

So the counter-reformation work of the Jesuits is of no consequence to our discussion...too much contrary evidence you can't deny. Two different eschatological hermenuetics from the one order of priests. Hardly a surprise coming from the elite of the Vatican's undercover squads. You have just accomplished what you have accused me of doing. Cutting and running.
I am not talking about doctrine here. The manifold persecutions attributed to the Vatican are a matter of documented history, attested to by numerous historians. There are castles still intact with the instruments of torture still on display in some places. And yes, I know that the Church of England did the same...that does not exonerate Rome. I suggest you read some real history written by non-Catholics. May I offer Wylie's History of the Waldenses?. Available free online in PDF form...fascinating people. Allow me to quote the opening paragraphs, not just for you, but all the readers here who may be unaware of who these people were.

The Waldenes stand apart and alone in the Christian world. Their place on the surface of Europe is unique; their position in history is not less unique; and the end appointed them to fulfill is one which has been assigned to them alone, no other people being permitted to share it with them. The Waldenses bear a twofold testimony. Like the snow-clad peaks amid which their dwelling is placed, which look down upon the plains of Italy on the one side, and the provinces of France on the other, this people stand equally related to primitive ages and modern times, and give by no means equivocal testimony respecting both Rome and the Reformation. If they are old, then Rome is new; if they are pure, then Rome is corrupt; and if they have retained the faith of the apostles, it follows incontestably that Rome has departed from it. That the Waldensian faith and worship existed many centuries before Protestantism arose is undeniable; the proofs and monuments of this fact lie scattered over all the histories and all the lands of mediaeval Europe; but the antiquity of the Waldenses is the antiquity of Protestantism. The Church of the Reformation was in the loins of the Waldensian Church ages before the birth of Luther; her first cradle was placed amid those terrors and sublimities, those ice-clad peaks and great bulwarks of rock. In their dispersions over so many lands—over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, England, Calabria, Naples—the Waldenses sowed the seeds of that great spiritual revival which, beginning in the days of Wycliffe, and advancing in the times of Luther and Calvin, awaits its full consummation in the ages to come.
In the place which the Church of the Alps has held, and the office she has discharged, we see the reason of that peculiar and bitter hostility which Rome has ever borne this holy and venerable community. It was natural that Rome should wish to efface so conclusive a proof of her apostasy, and silence a witness whose testimony so emphatically corroborates the position of Protestantism. The great bulwark of the Reformed Church is the Word of God; but next to this is the pre-existence of a community spread throughout Western Christendom, with doctrines and worship substantially one with those of the Reformation.{HOW 2.1}
The Persecutions of this remarkable people form one of the most heroic pages of the Church’s history. These persecutions, protracted through many centuries, were endured with a patience, a constancy, a bravery honorable to the Gospel, as well as to those simple people, whom the Gospel converted into heroes and martyrs. Their resplendent virtues illumined the darkness of their age; and we turn with no little relief from a Christendom sunk in barbarism and superstition to this remnant of an ancient people, who here in their mountain-engirdled territory practiced the simplicity, the piety, and the heroism of a better age. It is mainly those persecutions of the Waldenses which connect themselves with the Reformation, and which were, in fact, part of the mighty effort made by Rome to extinguish Protestantism, on which we shall dwell. But we must introduce ourselves to the great tragedy by a brief notice of the attacks which led up to it....." End quote.

Much has been written about these people, including a great deal of misinformation....J A Wylie doesn't pull any punches, but lays the truth bare and reveals history in a light which should illumine any honest seeker of the truth. And the Waldenses are but one example.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You also are not understanding the serious nature of what happens when logical fallacies are used in conversation. They involve fallacious/erroneous reasoning. They divert attention away from the content of the conversation.

Attacking Dave Hunt with an Ad Hominem fallacy does not nullify kepha's concern, but it prevents discussion about the content of that concern because of the illogical methodology used.

You ask: 'Have you medically diagnosed David Hunt? Is it possible he is a nut job??' First, you need to understand that Dave Hunt is at home with the Lord. He's in his presence. Dave Hunt has been in my house and I know he is not a nut job. He was a person concerned about what was happening with false doctrine in the churches.

I didn't change the course of the conversation. I exhorted Kepha to stop his changing the course of the conversation by the use of an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Tom, to say, 'You pulled out the OLD logical fallacy card', is to use a red herring logical fallacy.

My method is not to end a conversation but to show that if anyone uses a logical fallacy it sends a discussion into erroneous reasoning and does not deal with the issues being raised. But you don't get it! :huh:

Oz

The only thing preventing the discussion was YOU throwing out the "logical fallacy" accusation. In an attempt to keep the discussion on topic (which I don't think you really want to do) you could have said to Kepha:

Kepha: You said David Hunt is a psycho. Prove it!! Here is my rebuttal to your catholic.com link on this matter.........

And now I see you are pulling out the old "red herring logical fallacy" card!

You still haven't rebutted his position in which he provided the link (Hunting the Whore of Babylon). How sad. I expected more from someone who has a PhD!!

If you are one of those people that believes David Hunt and support his miss-interpretation of Revelations then say it. Stop skirting the subject by shutting down the conversation with false accusations of logical fallacies.

 

[tom55]

It does if you realize that the Roman Rite are the only people we really debate with but that they tend to use Catholic to try to convey normalcy when it is not. The fact that there are different rites within the CC is never an issue unless those different Catholics debate amongst themselves.

What do you mean by "there are different rites within the CC"?

 

[tom55]

Seriously? I find it curious that you constantly refer to those who are anti-catholicism as being 'anti-catholics'. I fully understand that Catholics are anti-protestantism, but I don't resort to an attempt to make the discussion personal by saying Catholics are anti-protestants'. Despite the many thousands, if not millions, killed by Catholic armies over many centuries, but that's another conversation.
With regard to 'stretching and fiddling the past'...and 'inventing a future to fit', you seem to be unaware of the counter-reformation work of the Jesuits. Every major reformer pointed their collective fingers at the papal system accusing her of being the Antichrist of scripture. Bear in mind that those who pointed the finger at the Papacy as the great Antichrist were highly educated. Most were experts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Many reached their own conclusions independently of others. Their works were saturated with quotations from Daniel 7 (the little horn), Revelation 13 (the beast), Revelation 17 (the harlot), II Thessalonians 2 (the Man of Sin), and Matthew 24 (the Abomination of Desolation). Their testimony was unanimous and covered the entire European Continent.
The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (born in the year 37 A. D.), believed that the little horn of Daniel 8 (and perhaps also the little horn of Daniel 7,though we are not sure) was Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who governed from 174 till 163 B. C. In this, Josephus shared the view of the LXX (I Maccabees 1:10) and many other Jewish scholars of his day.
In the second century A. D., an enemy of Christianity named Porphyry, corresponded with the early church father Tertullian and tried to persuade him that Josephus’ view was correct. Needless to say, Porphyry was unsuccessful. But in the late 16th century the view which Tertullian had rejected became the accepted teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Luis de Alcazar, Jesuit from Seville, Spain, picked up on the idea of Josephus and the LXX. From 1569 onward Alcazar worked to counteract the Protestant view of the prophecies. He wrote a 900-page commentary on the book of Revelation titled: Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi [An Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse]. The book was published posthumously in 1614. In this volume, Alcazar affirmed that Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in the distant past. His system of prophetic interpretation came to be known as preterism. Alcazar believed that the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first six centuries of the Christian era and that Nero was the predicted Antichrist. By relegating the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past, Alcazar argued that they could not apply to the Papacy in the 16th century. If Alcazar’s view was correct, then the Protestant view was gravely wrong. Alcazar’s alternative method of prophetic interpretation removed the incriminating finger from the papacy and pointed it at Antiochus and Nero!!
Another Jesuit was the scholar Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), from Salamanca, Spain. Ribera was a brilliant student who specialized in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He received a doctorate in theology from the University of Salamanca and joined the Jesuit Order in 1570 when he was just 33 years old. This Jesuit scholar capitalized on the incomplete views of the early church fathers. In 1590 he published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse where he expounded upon the prophecies of Revelation using the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism. The main tenets of Ribera’s eschatology are “ascribed to aliteral three and a half years reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—and all in this brief space of three and one-half years!”
Ribera was a brilliant researcher and writer but not an outstanding lecturer. Furthermore, his life was cut short when he died at the early age of 54. Ribera’s views therefore needed a shrewd and articulate champion to carry his message beyond the realm of academia. The champion was found and his name was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). Bellarmines views were picked up by John Darby, carried to the new world, placed into scripture through the notes of Shofield, and the rest, as you say, is history.
Conclusion....if you accuse me of having a splinter in my eye regards prophetic interpretation, and the particular hermenuetic I use, best you take the log out of your church's eyes who has promoted two opposing hermeneutics all with the obvious intent to hide the truth.

So you are suggesting that since two Jesuits, Luis de Alcazar and Francisco Ribera, wrote down their (opposing) views on the anti-Christ that the Catholic Church has a log in their eye?

That is a bizarre conclusion!

Lets pretend you started a church and you have 100 followers. You preach to your 100 followers that it is the doctrine of Brakelite church, based on your interpretation of Revelations, that the RCC is the anti-Christ. Two of your members stand up and say, "We disagree with you Brakelite and here is why we disagree.....".

Does that mean YOUR prophetic interpretation of Revelation and the particular hermeneutic you used is wrong? Do you now have a log in your eye because two of your members disagree with you? Does it mean that your church is promoting two opposing hermeneutics all with the obvious intent to hide the truth?

 

[tom55]

Mmmmm, so perhaps you could provide a sample of such excommunicated heretics and their particular crie? For example, what was the heresy of the Waldensians against whom Rome waged relentless war over several centuries?

I suspect you have access to the same documents I have via the internet. If you were to take the time and read those documents you would know there were multiple heresies the Waldensians were accused of. However, since you seem to be of the opinion that no one has authority to declare a heresy then no one can commit a heresy therefor it is a waste of time for you and I to discuss this.

 

[tom55]

So the counter-reformation work of the Jesuits is of no consequence to our discussion...too much contrary evidence you can't deny. Two different eschatological hermenuetics from the one order of priests. Hardly a surprise coming from the elite of the Vatican's undercover squads. You have just accomplished what you have accused me of doing. Cutting and running.
I am not talking about doctrine here. The manifold persecutions attributed to the Vatican are a matter of documented history, attested to by numerous historians. There are castles still intact with the instruments of torture still on display in some places. And yes, I know that the Church of England did the same...that does not exonerate Rome. I suggest you read some real history written by non-Catholics. May I offer Wylie's History of the Waldenses?. Available free online in PDF form...fascinating people. Allow me to quote the opening paragraphs, not just for you, but all the readers here who may be unaware of who these people were.
The Waldenes stand apart and alone in the Christian world. Their place on the surface of Europe is unique; their position in history is not less unique; and the end appointed them to fulfill is one which has been assigned to them alone, no other people being permitted to share it with them. The Waldenses bear a twofold testimony. Like the snow-clad peaks amid which their dwelling is placed, which look down upon the plains of Italy on the one side, and the provinces of France on the other, this people stand equally related to primitive ages and modern times, and give by no means equivocal testimony respecting both Rome and the Reformation. If they are old, then Rome is new; if they are pure, then Rome is corrupt; and if they have retained the faith of the apostles, it follows incontestably that Rome has departed from it. That the Waldensian faith and worship existed many centuries before Protestantism arose is undeniable; the proofs and monuments of this fact lie scattered over all the histories and all the lands of mediaeval Europe; but the antiquity of the Waldenses is the antiquity of Protestantism. The Church of the Reformation was in the loins of the Waldensian Church ages before the birth of Luther; her first cradle was placed amid those terrors and sublimities, those ice-clad peaks and great bulwarks of rock. In their dispersions over so many lands—over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, England, Calabria, Naples—the Waldenses sowed the seeds of that great spiritual revival which, beginning in the days of Wycliffe, and advancing in the times of Luther and Calvin, awaits its full consummation in the ages to come.
In the place which the Church of the Alps has held, and the office she has discharged, we see the reason of that peculiar and bitter hostility which Rome has ever borne this holy and venerable community. It was natural that Rome should wish to efface so conclusive a proof of her apostasy, and silence a witness whose testimony so emphatically corroborates the position of Protestantism. The great bulwark of the Reformed Church is the Word of God; but next to this is the pre-existence of a community spread throughout Western Christendom, with doctrines and worship substantially one with those of the Reformation.{HOW 2.1}
The Persecutions of this remarkable people form one of the most heroic pages of the Church’s history. These persecutions, protracted through many centuries, were endured with a patience, a constancy, a bravery honorable to the Gospel, as well as to those simple people, whom the Gospel converted into heroes and martyrs. Their resplendent virtues illumined the darkness of their age; and we turn with no little relief from a Christendom sunk in barbarism and superstition to this remnant of an ancient people, who here in their mountain-engirdled territory practiced the simplicity, the piety, and the heroism of a better age. It is mainly those persecutions of the Waldenses which connect themselves with the Reformation, and which were, in fact, part of the mighty effort made by Rome to extinguish Protestantism, on which we shall dwell. But we must introduce ourselves to the great tragedy by a brief notice of the attacks which led up to it....." End quote.
Much has been written about these people, including a great deal of misinformation....J A Wylie doesn't pull any punches, but lays the truth bare and reveals history in a light which should illumine any honest seeker of the truth. And the Waldenses are but one example.

"I suggest you read some real history written by non-Catholics. May I offer Wylie's History of the Waldenses?.'

So your version of "real history written by non-Catholics" is a book written by anti-Catholic James Wylie about the RCC? Hmmm....I wonder if he has any bias in his "history" book about the RCC and the WALDENSES?? :blink:

"The manifold persecutions attributed to the Vatican are a matter of documented history, attested to by numerous historians."

The Vatican has acknowledge/apologized for the bloody history of The Church in general and last year Pope Francis apologized to the Waldenses church for past discretions. Why do you recognize the history of the RCC when it has bad things to say about it but don't recognize the good things about the RCC in history? When the history books don't fit your agenda (attacking the RCC) you then say the RCC wiped out or somehow changed what was written. Very dishonest of you...how sad!

 

[mjrhealth]

RCC when it has bad things to say about it but don't recognize the good things about the RCC in history

The only good thing that teh RCC ever did was teach us eveyrthing about what God is not. But the bible does quiet secificcaly say that people would rather believe the lies of men than the truth that is in Christ, and so it is. the blind leading teh blind.

 

[OzSpen]

The only thing preventing the discussion was YOU throwing out the "logical fallacy" accusation. In an attempt to keep the discussion on topic (which I don't think you really want to do) you could have said to Kepha:

Kepha: You said David Hunt is a psycho. Prove it!! Here is my rebuttal to your catholic.com link on this matter.........

And now I see you are pulling out the old "red herring logical fallacy" card!

You still haven't rebutted his position in which he provided the link (Hunting the Whore of Babylon). How sad. I expected more from someone who has a PhD!!

If you are one of those people that believes David Hunt and support his miss-interpretation of Revelations then say it. Stop skirting the subject by shutting down the conversation with false accusations of logical fallacies.

Here you go with another red herring fallacy.

Bye, bye. opcorn:

 

[tom55]

Here you go with another red herring fallacy.
Bye, bye. opcorn:

LOL!! :wub:

 

[brakelite]

So you are suggesting that since two Jesuits, Luis de Alcazar and Francisco Ribera, wrote down their (opposing) views on the anti-Christ that the Catholic Church has a log in their eye?

That is a bizarre conclusion!

Lets pretend you started a church and you have 100 followers. You preach to your 100 followers that it is the doctrine of Brakelite church, based on your interpretation of Revelations, that the RCC is the anti-Christ. Two of your members stand up and say, "We disagree with you Brakelite and here is why we disagree.....".

I suspect you have access to the same documents I have via the internet. If you were to take the time and read those documents you would know there were multiple heresies the Waldensians were accused of. However, since you seem to be of the opinion that no one has authority to declare a heresy then no one can commit a heresy therefor it is a waste of time for you and I to discuss this.

"I suggest you read some real history written by non-Catholics. May I offer Wylie's History of the Waldenses?.'

So your version of "real history written by non-Catholics" is a book written by anti-Catholic James Wylie about the RCC? Hmmm....I wonder if he has any bias in his "history" book about the RCC and the WALDENSES?? :blink:

"The manifold persecutions attributed to the Vatican are a matter of documented history, attested to by numerous historians."

The Vatican has acknowledge/apologized for the bloody history of The Church in general and last year Pope Francis apologized to the Waldenses church for past discretions. Why do you recognize the history of the RCC when it has bad things to say about it but don't recognize the good things about the RCC in history? When the history books don't fit your agenda (attacking the RCC) you then say the RCC wiped out or somehow changed what was written. Very dishonest of you...how sad!

Does that mean YOUR prophetic interpretation of Revelation and the particular hermeneutic you used is wrong? Do you now have a log in your eye because two of your members disagree with you? Does it mean that your church is promoting two opposing hermeneutics all with the obvious intent to hide the truth?

In all three of the above responses you fail to actually engage the subject. I all 3 responses you attempt to deviate the topic away from the point in hand, and turn it towards me or some imaginery church I have built, or minimize the seriousness of the topic discussed.
1. I have read extensively regarding the Waldensian and Albigensian faiths. While I agree that they most certainly held to different doctrines than was being held and taught by the Roman church of the time, and that they assuredly refused to submit to Papal authority, that does not make them apostates from Biblical truth worthy of endless relentless vicious persecutions over centuries in attempt to wipe them out.
2. While Wylie may have been a Protestant, he was a genuine historian. To intimate that an historical record must be biased just because he holds to a different faith does not automatically mean his record of events is untrue...it may be the opposite; that his recording of events is more accurate. Like I suggested, you ought to read it; even just the first chapter in order to get a feel for his writing. Educate yourself. Unless you are nervous of finding out that your opinion may be invalidated by someone who knows and understands things better than you.
3. By throwing in a red herring you cannot invalidate my point. The Jesuits principle goal in life is to destroy Protestantism. That is their main cause for existing. Anything and everything they do is merely a means to that end. Whether to deceive the masses into believing they are a philanthropic agency for good, or a teaching ministry, or an entertainment franchise, (and they do all three, and more) whatever image they put on is designed to achieve the ultimate goal of the end of the Protestant faith. At the time of the Council of Trent, when the Protestants were pointing their fingers at the Papacy and accusing her of being the Antichrist, and using scripture to prove it through the historicist method or hermenuetic of studying prophecy, Rome had to come up with an answer. This became the work of the Jesuits, and they accomplished this by changing the hermenuetic by which people studied scripture. This even partly fufilled another prophecy regarding the little horn from Daniel 7, "he would seek to change times....", in this instance, prophetic times. Instead of waiting upon history to reveal fulfilled prophecy, those two Jesuits had the church look either backward or forward....successfully disguising historical reality in both instances.
I have another suggestion. Read a little on the subject of the Jesuits and their history. You don't even need to go to a Protestant historian to discover their evil history in their meddling with politics and institutions to the disdain of so many that they have been kicked out of more countries than I could name. Read the Jesuit oath. It official version is in the library of congress, but is available online. Remember , the current Pope swore this oath whe becoming a Jesuit priest. And you defend this evil?

 

[tom55]

In all three of the above responses you fail to actually engage the subject. I all 3 responses you attempt to deviate the topic away from the point in hand, and turn it towards me or some imaginery church I have built, or minimize the seriousness of the topic discussed.
1. I have read extensively regarding the Waldensian and Albigensian faiths. While I agree that they most certainly held to different doctrines than was being held and taught by the Roman church of the time, and that they assuredly refused to submit to Papal authority, that does not make them apostates from Biblical truth worthy of endless relentless vicious persecutions over centuries in attempt to wipe them out.
2. While Wylie may have been a Protestant, he was a genuine historian. To intimate that an historical record must be biased just because he holds to a different faith does not automatically mean his record of events is untrue...it may be the opposite; that his recording of events is more accurate. Like I suggested, you ought to read it; even just the first chapter in order to get a feel for his writing. Educate yourself. Unless you are nervous of finding out that your opinion may be invalidated by someone who knows and understands things better than you.
3. By throwing in a red herring you cannot invalidate my point. The Jesuits principle goal in life is to destroy Protestantism. That is their main cause for existing. Anything and everything they do is merely a means to that end. Whether to deceive the masses into believing they are a philanthropic agency for good, or a teaching ministry, or an entertainment franchise, (and they do all three, and more) whatever image they put on is designed to achieve the ultimate goal of the end of the Protestant faith. At the time of the Council of Trent, when the Protestants were pointing their fingers at the Papacy and accusing her of being the Antichrist, and using scripture to prove it through the historicist method or hermenuetic of studying prophecy, Rome had to come up with an answer. This became the work of the Jesuits, and they accomplished this by changing the hermenuetic by which people studied scripture. This even partly fufilled another prophecy regarding the little horn from Daniel 7, "he would seek to change times....", in this instance, prophetic times. Instead of waiting upon history to reveal fulfilled prophecy, those two Jesuits had the church look either backward or forward....successfully disguising historical reality in both instances.
I have another suggestion. Read a little on the subject of the Jesuits and their history. You don't even need to go to a Protestant historian to discover their evil history in their meddling with politics and institutions to the disdain of so many that they have been kicked out of more countries than I could name. Read the Jesuit oath. It official version is in the library of congress, but is available online. Remember , the current Pope swore this oath whe becoming a Jesuit priest. And you defend this evil? of the "imaginary church"

My point on the "imaginary church" you built with 100 followers was trying to convey how ridiculous it is to suggest that there is division in your church when only 2% of your followers disagree with your doctrine. Based on your logic wouldn't YOUR church then also be guilty of promoting 'two opposing hermeneutics all with the obvious intent to hide the truth'?

Comparing my "imaginary church" example to your example of two Jesuits in a church that has millions of followers and one can see how ridicules your example is.

1. We agree the Waldenses held different doctrines than The Church (which by dictionary and scholarly definition would in fact make them heretical and apostates). And we agree there should not have been an attempt to wipe them out. So we actually agree on point number one.

2. I will read and research Wylies claims in his book. Have you? Wylie made it clear he was anti-Catholic. He didn't just hold "to a different faith" as you have suggested. So when you make the statement about reading some real history written by non-Catholics and what you suggest one reads is a book written by an anti-Catholic is ridiculous and funny....for a lack of better words. That's like asking Satan what he thinks of the bible. <_<

3. I can not find the Jesuit oath online. Can you provide a link for me. FYI: I am a ware of the FAKE Jesuit oath on the internet. I would like you to provide me a link to the actual oath they take.

 

[epostle1]

I have already apologized for my ad hominem attack on Dave Hunt. I don't see the need to do so every time some repetitive accuser points out my mistake. Of course, it's open season on the Pope.

The Church develops, and is in a constant state of renewal. The Church is not in the 12th century, but it seems to me arrogant anti-Catholics want to keep her there. The Waldenses were heretics, and many of their unbiblical practices were eroded by the Protestant revolt. But the present Waldensian Church may be regarded as a Protestant sect of the Calvinist type.

Popes have been apologizing for bad behavior of crazy Catholics that happened centuries ago, since St. John Paul the Great. But not for fictitious exaggerations. And you will never see Protestants apologizing for the nasty things that they did.
It's ridiculous to hold Protestants or Catholics today accountable for what happened 1000 years ago. It was a totally different world.

Francis has become the first pope in history to visit a Waldensian evangelical church

 

[epostle1]

3. I can not find the Jesuit oath online. Can you provide a link for me. FYI: I am a ware of the FAKE Jesuit oath on the internet. I would like you to provide me a link to the actual oath they take.

The Jesuit Oath is an expose of sheer stupidity, manipulation and anti-Catholic bigotry.

http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Anti-Catholicism/jesuit_oath_debunked.htm

When brakelite's lies get blown out of the water he just goes to his favorite bible hate site for the next item on the list. Persecuting Catholics with falsehoods is his religion. It amounts to programming and only God can heal such severe blind prejudice.

It's been a few years since I last debunked the Jesuit Oath LIE, but a little surfing and I am shocked at the growing number of Protestants who actually believe this garbage. They should be ashamed of themselves, once they discover the truth for themselves.

 

[mjrhealth]

God can heal such severe blind prejudice.

Well He seems to be having a lot of trouble with the religious as he always had. one should remove teh log out of ones own eye!!

 

[brakelite]

So six centuries of persecution, corporately condoned torture, institutionally established harassment against any that should dare to criticize or disagree with the Roman church is just swept under the carpet after some generalized 'apology' for a few 'wayward' Catholic leaders who were a little zealous but simply living according "to the barbarism of the times". And none of you recognize this as a sign of heresy of the church itself when Jesus said to judge according to their fruits? The murder, yes murder, of millions of innocent people, many if not most of them Christians themselves, with the approval of the church, and the torture beforehand being seen at the time as being a blessing to the heretic to save him, is not seen as evidence that the gates of hell had not prevailed against that church? That despite all the blood letting and agony of centuries, those popes that personally appointed the inquisitors, and celebrated and struck medals in honor of the thousands who were thus butchered by Catholic thugs and killers, were yet infallible in a long line of infallible popes from the time of Peter to this day???!!!!!
And simply because I choose to use this absolute historical truth as evidence of the church's own heresy and apostasy from the faith, I am called a bigot!!!! I am convinced that if I was in your power now and we were living in the 17th century, you all would be standing by and cheering as my battered and broken body is tied to a stake and burnt "so as to not afford any of my followers an opportunity to retrieve a relic" from my bones. None of you would disapprove of such an event, for you all minimize its import, fail to recognize the evil and wickedness of the philosophy that guided it, and refuse even to investigate further how deep, how far-reaching, how insidious, and how utterly abhorent the entire exercise was. Apology for former "indiscretions"! ???????
The more we discuss this, the more I realize you neither care nor want to know the truth of your church's abominable past, but are motivated solely to defend and turn everyone's attention away from it regardless of the enormity of it. Read Foxes Book of Martyrs. Read Wylies histories of the Waldenses and the Reformation. Read a web site where the person has actualy done some real research with documented facts and history that simply cannot be made up. Read the history surrounding Carcasonne. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Look into the manner and means by which various tortures were implemented. If upon doing so, and it doesn't make you sick to the stomach in contemplation of it, then your hearts are as cold and lifeless as were those of the popes, cardinals, bishops, who ordered their suffering, and Dominicans etc who were present to record the so-called "confessions" .

The following blog writer clearly has some angst against your church. However, that cannot be used as evidence his research is faulty. At least not all of it. Even if 10% of what he presents is false, the remainder cannot be dismissed as an "indiscretion" of the times.http://vaticannewworldorder.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/historical-overview-of-inquisition.html

 

[brakelite]

And kepha says I am persecuting Catholics??? "Blind prejudice"? Call me what you will...I am neither desisting or going away. I am Protestant. And no-ones accusations of "hate speech" or "bogotry" will cower me into submission to anyone who doesn't, with outright repulsion, unconditionally repudiates, condemns, and shuns any institution that holds such practices as explainable or excusable, believing such atrocious institutionally condoned practice can be forgotten on account of a weak meaningless apology. I am not a bigot. I am not against any individual catholics who are deceived by their teachers and leaders. But I am angry. Angry on behalf of all those innocent victims who lost everything but their dignity because in all good conscience they refused to bow down to the despotic power as displayed so callously by the medieval church. Angry at that church today because I know she hasn't changed, that if she had the power, she would repeat all that her predecessors had done. And angry at those today who blindly defend that same institution and accuse those who choose today to object to its practices as being wrong, of being "bigots" and "intolerant". You have no idea.