How can anyone who believes the Bible dispute that one is justified by faith working in love? From the biblical standpoint, it's an impeccable statement: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Of course your life as a Christian starts by putting your faith in Jesus, but love should follow immediately and is more important than faith itself: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2) "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) It's mind-boggling that some say "by faith alone" and "by Scripture alone" in the same breath when James 2:24 reads: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." True faith perfectly coalesces with works just like the body with the spirit: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26) St. Paul confirms that faith with bad fruit is useless: "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21) Most Protestants cherry-pick verses like Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." They don't realize that if you really believe Jesus is the Lord, you will behave toward him as toward your lord, i.e. you will obey him.
By "tradition," protestants often mean anything outside the Bible, which leads them to sola scriptura. But they are always at a loss when you ask them where in the Bible they find a list of the books of the Bible.
Rob B. The answer is in the N.T. it was written or dictated by the Apostles Jesus picked .Study John and Heb. 1. &2.ALSO IN THE Westminster Confession .
From the well over seventy non-canonical "gospels", the Catholic church made the determination which were sacred, and inspired by the holy spirit, and worthy of inclusion in the New Testament. Seems very curious that protestants would cling to scriptures that are only present in the bible because the "evil" Catholic church deemed them holy. Yes? You are either misinformed, or willfully obtuse.
You can not believe in scripture and the tradition of the Church of Rome. Scripture makes it clear on many occasions that the two are water and oil: Isaiah 8:20, 2 Peter 1:20, Matt 26:24, Mark 7:7-13, 2 Tim 3:16 , Deut 4:2, Gal 1:6-8 and so forth. The Church of Rome hates the Bible, Yahweh and his LAW. Catholics are not Christian.
Ryan Reeves Galatians 5:6 since in Christ Jesus it is not being circumcised or being uncircumcised that can effect anything -- only faith working through love.
In the catechism I received from the rcc, it says that the rcc acknowledges the Reformation and the churches practices and In correcting some of them, though it does not go into detail as to which
Zero Saber because the protestant reformation was basically, "whoa whoa, a lot of this isn't in God's Word, so we're going to only do things it says in there to do, like we were supposed to, as the Waldensians and others do." I'd be more concerned about the RCC which ignores and promotes its errors rather than acknowledging manmade heresies being wrong.
Another balanced presentation, thank you for almost all of your presentations being balanced. I'm learning a great deal. Now if I could teach you some STEM subjects you might improve the FEW errors in a few subjects like: Yersinia pestis is a bacteria, not a virus, and Lyell was a lying lawyer.
I really enjoy your lectures and learn so much. I however feel that a piece is missing. The anabaptist story is not there, and if someone deserve respect it is them. They were persecuted by both catholics and protetants. You did mention one little piece when a group of anabaptist went nuts about the end time and used violence. However, they should be seen as a breakaway group and not anbaptist. What they did was not the view of the majority of anabaptist.
After 24 spiritually dark dismal years😢 in Roman Catholicism(1972 to 1996) i was set Free n since then, in have been a Protestant Christian with Freedom in CHRIST!!😄
I don't understand the difference between the Lutheran idea of God being truly present in the Sacrament, which is a mystery, and the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation whereby God is truly present in the sacrament, which is also a mystery. A Catholic contemplates a divine mystery and coming together of the presence of God with the recipient, he/she does not focus on a methodology, which is the emphasis of the Transubstantial. What unites both is the mystery of Communion. Protestant denominations who emphasise only the memorial or symbolic aspect of the Sacrament, are not committed to the same truths, but I fail to see any practical difference between Luther's position and its precedents. It seems more like the Council of Trent attempting to find difference in Sacramental theology against which to define orthodoxy, than a genuinely alternative understanding.
Cannot remember the source, but I have heard that Lutherans believe God is truly present in the Eucharist only at the time of Holy Communion, whereas the Catholic idea is that the substance is permanently changed, even after communion. That is why the Host is kept in the tabernacle, locked away even after Holy Communion, and why Catholics at times venerate the Host when held in a monstrance, i.e. Eucharistic adoration.
First of all, this was a good overview of the Catholic Reformation. I thought the tone was rather moderate, and objective. I do think it is odd that there is concern over the user of a pejorative such as "counter" is considered, yet they go on calling us "protestants". A couple of notes: On transubstantiation, I would think this is something that could be reconciled (especially in the modern/scientific repudiation of alchemy). On the Jesuits: I would like to see it expounded on why this is what it means to be Catholic in the modern world?
Oh yeah, and 1+1+1=1 is a perfectly correct mathematical formula in finite mathematics; or X+Y+Z=X or Y or Z where X=Y=Z= infinity in infinite math. So either side of Titus 1:12 you wish to take still makes sense. Or, physically, length, height and width being equal but different spatial measures when infinite is reached. Yeah, I know, math breaks down at certain types of infinity (different types of infinity are recognized) just as prophesied by Epimenides as recorded in Titus 1:12. Took me 2.5 years to scratch the surface of Titus 1:12.
What strikes me realy bad is that "our church - their church" thinking in the comments. Both protestant and catholic! Jesus founded ONE church. No matter how it is called or ministered through time and place, it is one christian church. Get over it, it is not the choice between Luther and the pope that matters.
I know this wasn't your point as such, but traditional Catholics post Vatican II insist on the small "t". The reason for this is because a new religion was created with the so-called advent of Vatican II. Traditional Catholicism, like the doctrine practiced by the SSPX for instance is *not a new faith*, and to use the capitalized "T" would suggest otherwise. Are you going to do a lecture on the diabolical "Council of Apostasy", which is Vatican II, and the fight against the Modernism of the counterfeit Church, by the traditionalist Catholic movement? This would clear up a lot of things to many Protestants, who have no knowledge of this crisis, or perceive it wrongly. I'm sick of explaining it, because it's somewhat complicated, but not for a man with your skills. Thanks for this wonderful series of lectures.
*+thenowchurch*; Vatican II was infested with Protestants/Freemasons and as such, a new new religion was created. Vatican II is a Council of Apostasy that changed tradition. Tradition cannot change because truth does not change. The counterfeit Catholic Church was created in 1962.
I about spit out my coffee when you say Protestants don't believe in traditions at all. "No creed but the Bible"? Right. I'm sure that's why they kept Sunday. . . .
I have read Acts, actually. I see Paul there going to the synagogue wherever he went. (They meet on the 7th day, by the way). Acts 17:2 "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." And about the new converts, James, the head of the Jerusalem council, gave 4 prohibitions around pagan worship and then added "Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him - being read in the congregations every Sabbath.” In other words, it was expected that new converts could learn the Torah on the Sabbath at the synagogue. AND, just in case you think that was then, why did Yahshua/"Jesus" warm that the last times flight not occur ON A SABBATH?? He evidently expected that the Sabbath would still be observed. Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And just in case you want to fall back to Acts 20:7--the phrase mia ton sabbaton means one of the sabbaths (referring to the counting of the Omer betweed Ha Bikkurim (First Fruits) and Chag Shavuot ("Pentecost)--not "first day of the week." The Greeks were flummoxed by the word "shabbat" (Judges 12:6) so they transliterated it to "sabbaton" (plural).
Jenna The examples you give are of Paul's preaching the gospel to the Jews, not the gathering of the church for the breaking of bread and prayer and teaching. 1 Cor. 20.:7.upon the first day of the week,when the DISCIPLES came together to break bread Paul preached unto them,- -.
The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy. When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites. All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind and dazzle and captivate the imagination, and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery. To give them greater power, a bull was issued re-establishing the inquisition. Notwithstanding the general abhorrence with which it was regarded, even in Catholic countries, this terrible tribunal was again set up by popish rulers, and atrocities too terrible to bear the light of day were repeated in its secret dungeons. In many countries, thousands upon thousands of the very flower of the nation, the purest and noblest, the most intellectual and highly educated, pious and devoted pastors, industrious and patriotic citizens, brilliant scholars, talented artists, skillful artisans, were slain or forced to flee to other lands. (The Great Controversy)
Was Jesus only, ...the founder of The Catholic Church ? Sad to see Popes and Curia live in Castles instead of following the humility Jesus came to teach us.( Pope Francis is trying so hard to make a change) Jesus came to give the world His message of Love dying for each and everyone of us. Even agnosics can learn from His teachings. ( I hardly speak English but I think I made a point)
What a convenient and twisted interpretation of revelation to push your anti-Catholic rhetoric. " I say to you that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mathew 16:18.
Well, then Peter didn't start the Protestant church either. By your point of view there was NO Christian church (or maybe even Christians) between 100 CE and perhaps the era of Wycliff and Hus because there was no one who believed in your interpretation of the Bible and therefore your definition of Christian church. The only churches that existed were the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Coptic churches.
You might be surprised to learn that despite your logical and entirely scriptural response to the anti-Catholic bigot above, some protestants have found a unique (some might say desperate) reply to the scripture passage you cite; apparently, when Jesus said "...And on this Rock, I will build my church", Jesus was pointing to himself. Many protestants apparently maintain that Christ was referring to himself as "The Rock", and not to Peter. Of course, it doesn't mention this in scripture, makes no logical sense in the context of the biblical passage (in light of Peter's confession of faith, Jesus confers on him the name of "the Rock"...and then supposedly points to HIMSELF?) The amount of obtuseness, denial, hubris, and mental gymnastics required to justify the protestant position staggers the mind. None so blind as those who refuse to see...
@chris so according to you the gates of hell prevailed against the church that peter started then? I dont think so , Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. yet we see of mystery babylon mother of all harlots and abominations of the earth Rev 17 & 18 that she is filled with demons and every unclean thing.( gates of hell prevailed..)
@chris so according to you the gates of hell prevailed against the church that peter started then? I dont think so , Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. yet we see of mystery babylon mother of all harlots and abominations of the earth Rev 17 & 18 that she is filled with demons and every unclean thing.( gates of hell prevailed..)
I have never met a Catholic who was distinguishable from the world in any way other than perhaps they attend mass. I remember laughing at the notion of last rites pompously pronounced over Kennedy scuz. I still find it hilarious.
*+Dick Stephenson*; The depravity of man is well known. Protestants do not hold a monopoly on it. In addition; Kennedy put himself away from the Church many years ago. To hold up Ted Kennedy as some example of a Pius Catholic individual is a false argument, you know it, Catholics know it, and everyone on this thread knows it.
How can anyone who believes the Bible dispute that one is justified by faith working in love? From the biblical standpoint, it's an impeccable statement: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Of course your life as a Christian starts by putting your faith in Jesus, but love should follow immediately and is more important than faith itself: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2) "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) It's mind-boggling that some say "by faith alone" and "by Scripture alone" in the same breath when James 2:24 reads: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." True faith perfectly coalesces with works just like the body with the spirit: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26) St. Paul confirms that faith with bad fruit is useless: "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21) Most Protestants cherry-pick verses like Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." They don't realize that if you really believe Jesus is the Lord, you will behave toward him as toward your lord, i.e. you will obey him.
Ryan is the best and giving a clear picture on his topics
By "tradition," protestants often mean anything outside the Bible, which leads them to sola scriptura. But they are always at a loss when you ask them where in the Bible they find a list of the books of the Bible.
Rob B. The answer is in the N.T. it was written or dictated by the Apostles Jesus picked .Study John and Heb. 1. &2.ALSO IN THE Westminster Confession .
From the well over seventy non-canonical "gospels", the Catholic church made the determination which were sacred, and inspired by the holy spirit, and worthy of inclusion in the New Testament. Seems very curious that protestants would cling to scriptures that are only present in the bible because the "evil" Catholic church deemed them holy. Yes? You are either misinformed, or willfully obtuse.
You can not believe in scripture and the tradition of the Church of Rome. Scripture makes it clear on many occasions that the two are water and oil: Isaiah 8:20, 2 Peter 1:20, Matt 26:24, Mark 7:7-13, 2 Tim 3:16 , Deut 4:2, Gal 1:6-8 and so forth. The Church of Rome hates the Bible, Yahweh and his LAW. Catholics are not Christian.
Hello Ryan. What do you think of James Wylie's History of Protestantism with regard to his section on Ignatius and the Jesuits?
Could you give a lecture on what the core concepts are; justification, sanctification, works - or brief history of their origin and evolution?
Glad to. I like the idea of doing a survey of the development of particular doctrines over time. I'll get to work! ;)
Ryan Reeves Galatians 5:6 since in Christ Jesus it is not being circumcised or being uncircumcised that can effect anything -- only faith working through love.
Apologies. You did cover Loyola. No St. John Fisher?
Oh you're right. Fisher would be a great topic. Not enough people know about him. Thanks! :)
Ryan Reeves & St. Thomas More.
In the catechism I received from the rcc, it says that the rcc acknowledges the Reformation and the churches practices and In correcting some of them, though it does not go into detail as to which
Wouldn't reformations in religion make it less authentic? Why would people still keep up the faith then?
Zero Saber because the protestant reformation was basically, "whoa whoa, a lot of this isn't in God's Word, so we're going to only do things it says in there to do, like we were supposed to, as the Waldensians and others do." I'd be more concerned about the RCC which ignores and promotes its errors rather than acknowledging manmade heresies being wrong.
Another balanced presentation, thank you for almost all of your presentations being balanced. I'm learning a great deal. Now if I could teach you some STEM subjects you might improve the FEW errors in a few subjects like: Yersinia pestis is a bacteria, not a virus, and Lyell was a lying lawyer.
I really enjoy your lectures and learn so much. I however feel that a piece is missing. The anabaptist story is not there, and if someone deserve respect it is them. They were persecuted by both catholics and protetants. You did mention one little piece when a group of anabaptist went nuts about the end time and used violence. However, they should be seen as a breakaway group and not anbaptist. What they did was not the view of the majority of anabaptist.
After 24 spiritually dark dismal years😢 in Roman Catholicism(1972 to 1996) i was set Free n since then, in have been a Protestant Christian with Freedom in CHRIST!!😄
Hi William, why were they spiritually dark? What were your experiences?
David Rudometkin, I completely Agree with you!!
+will i am you had an imaginary friend then and you have an imaginary friend now. what is the difference?
Willy is going to freeze.
I don't understand the difference between the Lutheran idea of God being truly present in the Sacrament, which is a mystery, and the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation whereby God is truly present in the sacrament, which is also a mystery. A Catholic contemplates a divine mystery and coming together of the presence of God with the recipient, he/she does not focus on a methodology, which is the emphasis of the Transubstantial. What unites both is the mystery of Communion.
Protestant denominations who emphasise only the memorial or symbolic aspect of the Sacrament, are not committed to the same truths, but I fail to see any practical difference between Luther's position and its precedents. It seems more like the Council of Trent attempting to find difference in Sacramental theology against which to define orthodoxy, than a genuinely alternative understanding.
Cannot remember the source, but I have heard that Lutherans believe God is truly present in the Eucharist only at the time of Holy Communion, whereas the Catholic idea is that the substance is permanently changed, even after communion. That is why the Host is kept in the tabernacle, locked away even after Holy Communion, and why Catholics at times venerate the Host when held in a monstrance, i.e. Eucharistic adoration.
First of all, this was a good overview of the Catholic Reformation. I thought the tone was rather moderate, and objective. I do think it is odd that there is concern over the user of a pejorative such as "counter" is considered, yet they go on calling us "protestants". A couple of notes: On transubstantiation, I would think this is something that could be reconciled (especially in the modern/scientific repudiation of alchemy). On the Jesuits: I would like to see it expounded on why this is what it means to be Catholic in the modern world?
Oh yeah, and 1+1+1=1 is a perfectly correct mathematical formula in finite mathematics; or X+Y+Z=X or Y or Z where X=Y=Z= infinity in infinite math. So either side of Titus 1:12 you wish to take still makes sense. Or, physically, length, height and width being equal but different spatial measures when infinite is reached. Yeah, I know, math breaks down at certain types of infinity (different types of infinity are recognized) just as prophesied by Epimenides as recorded in Titus 1:12. Took me 2.5 years to scratch the surface of Titus 1:12.
What strikes me realy bad is that "our church - their church" thinking in the comments. Both protestant and catholic! Jesus founded ONE church. No matter how it is called or ministered through time and place, it is one christian church. Get over it, it is not the choice between Luther and the pope that matters.
I know this wasn't your point as such, but traditional Catholics post Vatican II insist on the small "t". The reason for this is because a new religion was created with the so-called advent of Vatican II. Traditional Catholicism, like the doctrine practiced by the SSPX for instance is *not a new faith*, and to use the capitalized "T" would suggest otherwise. Are you going to do a lecture on the diabolical "Council of Apostasy", which is Vatican II, and the fight against the Modernism of the counterfeit Church, by the traditionalist Catholic movement? This would clear up a lot of things to many Protestants, who have no knowledge of this crisis, or perceive it wrongly. I'm sick of explaining it, because it's somewhat complicated, but not for a man with your skills. Thanks for this wonderful series of lectures.
Johnnyc drums.
I think that the professor is rather fond of Vatican 2 and thinks it may have brought Rome closer to truth.
*+thenowchurch*; Vatican II was infested with Protestants/Freemasons and as such, a new new religion was created. Vatican II is a Council of Apostasy that changed tradition. Tradition cannot change because truth does not change. The counterfeit Catholic Church was created in 1962.
Johnnyc drums.
Well both the pre and post Vatican II Churches claim to be the sole authority of God on earth outside of which is no salvation.
Not my Catholicism.
I about spit out my coffee when you say Protestants don't believe in traditions at all. "No creed but the Bible"? Right. I'm sure that's why they kept Sunday. . . .
Jenna Caruthers not all of them keep Sunday, but you are right about the majority. (I am a Protestant).
jENNA that is right ,the early church met on the first day of the week , called sunday by the Romans .Read ACTS
I have read Acts, actually. I see Paul there going to the synagogue wherever he went. (They meet on the 7th day, by the way). Acts 17:2 "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." And about the new converts, James, the head of the Jerusalem council, gave 4 prohibitions around pagan worship and then added "Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him - being read in the congregations every Sabbath.” In other words, it was expected that new converts could learn the Torah on the Sabbath at the synagogue. AND, just in case you think that was then, why did Yahshua/"Jesus" warm that the last times flight not occur ON A SABBATH?? He evidently expected that the Sabbath would still be observed. Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And just in case you want to fall back to Acts 20:7--the phrase mia ton sabbaton means one of the sabbaths (referring to the counting of the Omer betweed Ha Bikkurim (First Fruits) and Chag Shavuot ("Pentecost)--not "first day of the week." The Greeks were flummoxed by the word "shabbat" (Judges 12:6) so they transliterated it to "sabbaton" (plural).
Jenna The examples you give are of Paul's preaching the gospel to the Jews, not the gathering of the church for the breaking of bread and prayer and teaching. 1 Cor. 20.:7.upon the first day of the week,when the DISCIPLES came together to break bread Paul preached unto them,- -.
An apologist's view.
The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy.
When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites. All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind and dazzle and captivate the imagination, and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery.
To give them greater power, a bull was issued re-establishing the inquisition. Notwithstanding the general abhorrence with which it was regarded, even in Catholic countries, this terrible tribunal was again set up by popish rulers, and atrocities too terrible to bear the light of day were repeated in its secret dungeons. In many countries, thousands upon thousands of the very flower of the nation, the purest and noblest, the most intellectual and highly educated, pious and devoted pastors, industrious and patriotic citizens, brilliant scholars, talented artists, skillful artisans, were slain or forced to flee to other lands. (The Great Controversy)
Was Jesus only, ...the founder of The Catholic Church ?
Sad to see Popes and Curia live in Castles instead of following the humility Jesus came to teach us.( Pope Francis is trying so hard to make a change)
Jesus came to give the world His message of Love dying for each and everyone of us.
Even agnosics can learn from His teachings.
( I hardly speak English but I think I made a point)
I suggest closing your lectures to "comments". They are mostly ignorant and sad....
Interesting how contorted evil deception is framed as nodal or right.
Sad . Pray that the vail of deception is lifted starting now through eternity .
Catholicism is the mother of all harlots rev 17,18. And God has called all those that areHis to come out of her Rev 18:4
What a convenient and twisted interpretation of revelation to push your anti-Catholic rhetoric. " I say to you that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mathew 16:18.
Well, then Peter didn't start the Protestant church either. By your point of view there was NO Christian church (or maybe even Christians) between 100 CE and perhaps the era of Wycliff and Hus because there was no one who believed in your interpretation of the Bible and therefore your definition of Christian church. The only churches that existed were the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Coptic churches.
You might be surprised to learn that despite your logical and entirely scriptural response to the anti-Catholic bigot above, some protestants have found a unique (some might say desperate) reply to the scripture passage you cite; apparently, when Jesus said "...And on this Rock, I will build my church",
Jesus was pointing to himself.
Many protestants apparently maintain that Christ was referring to himself as "The Rock", and not to Peter. Of course, it doesn't mention this in scripture, makes no logical sense in the context of the biblical passage (in light of Peter's confession of faith, Jesus confers on him the name of "the Rock"...and then supposedly points to HIMSELF?) The amount of obtuseness, denial, hubris, and mental gymnastics required to justify the protestant position staggers the mind. None so blind as those who refuse to see...
@chris so according to you the gates of hell prevailed against the
church that peter started then? I dont think so , Jesus said the gates
of hell will not prevail against it. yet we see of mystery babylon
mother of all
harlots and abominations of the earth Rev 17 & 18 that she is filled
with demons and every unclean thing.( gates of hell prevailed..)
@chris so according to you the gates of hell prevailed against the
church that peter started then? I dont think so , Jesus said the gates
of hell will not prevail against it. yet we see of mystery babylon
mother of all
harlots and abominations of the earth Rev 17 & 18 that she is filled
with demons and every unclean thing.( gates of hell prevailed..)
I have never met a Catholic who was distinguishable from the world in any way other than perhaps they attend mass. I remember laughing at the notion of last rites pompously pronounced over Kennedy scuz. I still find it hilarious.
Hahaha. See what I mean?
*+Dick Stephenson*; The depravity of man is well known. Protestants do not hold a monopoly on it. In addition; Kennedy put himself away from the Church many years ago. To hold up Ted Kennedy as some example of a Pius Catholic individual is a false argument, you know it, Catholics know it, and everyone on this thread knows it.