Acts 11:26 KJV -
Catholics are really the first Protestants
Catholics are really the first Protestants
In defense of Cruciform; Traditions of Men
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
They were Christians in the beginning of the Church, not Roman Catholic
Non-biblical, objective historical evidence that the "Christians in the beginning of the Church" were not Catholic? You are making a potentially empirically verifiable, historical claim. Do you have any empirical evidence to verify it?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is exactly this sort of Romanist mythology that is at issue. Sadly not a few Protestants take this smuggled in bait and unwittingly buy into Rome's unfounded claim's of monolithicity concerning its checkered history or its conflation of the early church and Rome's Church by its ill-equipped apologists.
I suggest you do your homework more carefully before making sweeping generalizations about the lack of response. The plain facts are that Cruciform has been answered over and over again...in detail...by me for one...and his typical rejoinder is his usual unsubstantiated boilerplate spam.
For that matter, Cruciform, when he is not repeating his one-liners, simply posts something he ran across in Rome's basements and declares victory for Rome. So tell me why anyone is obliged to respond to a man who is basically making blog posts? Exactly why do you presume anyone is required to resort to fisking just because a Romanist found some content by another and posts it herein?
AMR
AMR:
With all due respect, you wrote this specifically in answer to this comment that I made:
"Protestantism did not exist prior to the 1500s. Protestantism, by its very definition, is a man-made historical reaction to the Catholic Church. Protestantism, by its very definition, is parasitic upon Catholicism."
The root word of "protestant" is "protest." What are protestants protesting against? At what point in time did they begin protesting? What I said in my comment is true by definition, i.e., that protestantism is parasitic upon Catholicism.
You might very well insist that non-Catholic sects existed prior to the 1500s, but that's a different point entirely.
With respect to the early Church, i.e., prior to the Council of Nicea, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that they weren't Catholics. If there were evidence of this, it should be pretty easy to recognize.
Just find me, say, a letter written by a relatively early Christian saying something to the effect of: "So, this guy Bob started repeating the words of Jesus at the last supper and claiming that the bread and wine on the table literally became Jesus...that's never happened before. What's with that guy?"
Again: "What's up with all of these people claiming that the apostles appointed successors and that they are the successors of the successors of the apostles...? Nobody's ever claimed this before."
You aware of any such documents?
At any rate, you guys seem to be picking up on this point that I've made, but it's really not the main point that I was making, which was that the comment of Cruciform is true and germane every time he says it. The protestants constantly accuse us of believing in man-made traditions and not the words of the Bible alone...as though you protestants have no "man made" traditions, e.g., of scriptural interpretation.
I can't speak to your situation in particular, but if you consider the case that I cited previously (for which Cruciform received the infraction), you'll find that his comment was spot on and utterly germane to what he was answering.
AMR, with all due respect, I am not claiming that anyone has an obligation to answer what Cruciform says. Do it or don't do it...it's all the same to me. :idunno:
My sole point in this thread is that what he said isn't any more spam than the stuff that the protestants on this forum insist on spewing out. It's repetitive, but not spam.
Again, if you insist on telling me, over and over again, that 1+1=3, then I'll insist on telling you, over and over again, that 1+1=2 and that you should learn math.
brewmama
New member
This is so true. It does get very old, and they actually think they are making some point, when it is nothing of the sort. It's mind-boggling. And embarrassing, especially when one is used to reading great thinkers and saints of the Church, or even something like Touchstone magazine or First Things magazine.
Another good point. Ironically, Orthodoxy views Catholicism and Protestantism as 2 sides of the same coin.
One favorite example protestants use and view through their filter is always pulled out to "prove" sola scriptura,
"2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV /
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
All true, but says NOTHING about sola scriptura. And notice how they pass right over that "equipped for every good work" part. (Good works are BAD!)
Not only do they throw out scriptural verses that don't say what they claim , but they ignore all the many verses that belie their claims of truth they obtain from one cherry-picked verse out of the blue and out of context somewhere. Oh, it gets SO old.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No I did not. My point was quite clear in that the one-liner Cruciform persists in posting is pregnant with unsubstantiations on many matters concerning Rome. He has been called on them often and in detail...by me for certain. It is within your means to search out these posts and see for yourself.
Now you may persist in avoiding the real matter of Rome's claims versus that of "sects" with "man-made" traditions, all of which clearly underlies Cruciform's particular usage, but I believe you are being intellectually dishonest. Anyone that is informed on the topic understands the weight cast by the words being used. It is disingenuous to claim he is merely throwing back what is thrown in his direction, when in actuality the point he is attempting to make is to imply the difference between Rome's regal views and the sad, man-made, views of those in sects. The mockery contained therein is not lost on me and is quite intentional by Cruciform.
AMR
Yes. This is partly the reason that I don't bother having scriptural debates on this website. Why bother? I could discuss scriptural interpretation with a protestant...or I could do something else.
Let's see...
Have a scriptural debate which will amount to: "I interpret this verse in this way...after all, this is how it's traditionally been interpreted"; "Nooo, you are wrong. This verse actually means this. My pastor says so."
Or I could read the writings of someone who is educated and actually knows what he's talking about. :idunno:
Or video games.
Let's see...
Video games...or debate scripture with a protestant...video games...metaphorically bang my head against a wall...
Yeah, I'll take video games.
Do they really?
That's pretty funny if true.
Yes, that's a great example. The irony is even greater because, if they take this verse too far, they would actually have to reject the entirety of the New Testament, including this very verse. St. Paul was talking about the books of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonical books.
Yup.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be more than happy to do a Bible study with a protestant. I invited TOL to such an affair a while back when I wrote a commentary on St. John's gospel for an atheist friend of mine (who didn't even bother reading it). For some reason, though, the thread wasn't particularly popular. Go figure. [I'm not particularly surprised, by it, of course...protestantism and cherry picking seem to go hand in hand.]
But an argument which would devolve to citing random Bible verses? No thanks. I have other stuff to do.
genuineoriginal
New member
Not at all.
I specifically mentioned that there were no Catholic bishops.
That does not mean there were no bishops of Christian churches, only that there was no Universal bishops accepted by all the churches the way the Roman Catholic church has brainwashed you to believe.
Before the church of Rome revolted against the Christian churches, each church had equal say.
At the revolt, the church of Rome declared itself the head of the churches and declared the bishop of the church of Rome as the Catholic bishop, aka the Pope.
genuineoriginal
New member
Which is the way it has been since the beginning.
That is why the scriptures say, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
genuineoriginal
New member
Of course the first Christians were not Roman Catholic.
You would have to be a fool to think that they were.
Before 325 CE, Catholic meant "universal", afterward it meant followers of the Church of Rome.
Now if you want to stop your semantic shift fallacy and ask your question again, go ahead.
Lon
Well-known member
Honestly? I think you should spend about 15 minutes (or less even) back reading some of his exchanges (provided in 'spoiler' just below). He was asked to move beyond the vitriolic one-liner. If he is so jaded, he can't even carry on a conversation anymore, then it is perhaps a good time, for a time out?
Not nearly that direct....or clever
:nono: There is no need for illustration:
Sit back, this is going to be Looooooooong (only a one month snippet! :noway: ):
Spoiler
This is just the tip of the iceberg known as "December 2015."
To myriads of people, concerning all manner of disagreements with Catholicism. It doesn't address "give me a scripture please." But that was indeed his response. if he is this tired of it, it may be time to move on, no?
I like Cruciform. I even 'used' to like his posts but reading the same thing over and over again (more literally than your complaint which is a generalization), has left me skipping past his posts. There is nothing new for me to learn or delve into. He sometimes will go the extra mile for me, but I have to coax him anymore
No, it is unreasonable. Catholics on a Protestant website that encourages a smack of truth debate, isn't interested in the same punch below the belt (Spam/trolling). That list goes WAAAAAY past December, and even way past last year, and in fact stretches to as long as Cruci has ever been on TOL, but the spam/troll offensive it has been more recent as the pat rejoinder.
It went back and forth for about 4 posts as the spoiler shows, but that spoiler also shows when it wasn't an adequate answer. He tends to be non-engaging lately on TOL. Post # or "Man-preferred man-made sect" aren't great rejoinders, at all.
As you can see in the spoiler, and AGAIN remember it is only one month of this, it is NOT BR's problem. BR only makes up a very short exchange of that spoiler.I agree. Bright Raven's comment didn't contribute anything meaningful or original to the discussion.
Show me where this would ever be a 'correct/appropriate' spam:
Again, this only one month of many years of it, by example. If you are reactionary, and feeling attacked, and want that attack to stop it 'might' suffice for that, alone, with not much else BUT that isn't, in fact, always happening. Take a few moments, as I have done for you and given for you, and read a few of those exchanges past the ones with Bright Raven. They have not a lot to do with anything going on in conversation.
"Not effectively employed/used" imho. I'm not a mod, but it was an opinion I echo that another brought to mod's attention, several times. It is, non-engaging and unsatisfactory. Look, I'm a Calvinist. I know as well as any Catholic what it is like on TOL. This isn't my board either. We learn to communicate with whom we associate with or we deserve a time-out for 'doing it wrong.' There are, as shown, several TOL rules broken by shallow repetition because it amounts to spam and trolling and non-engaging behavior.
Again, follow a few of those links of his to the threads. It was over-used and abused imho.
:nono: Spamming the same thing over and over should get any one of us in trouble for violating rules. The owners and moderators have every right to expect sincerity and substance from us. The day I don't give that, I will need some time off to think about meaningfully contributing.
No, I've seen it. Most doing it actually type that in. They aren't cutting and pasting or simply/mindlessly repeating dialogue. Again, I'm a Calvinist. I've seen the same thing over and over and over BUT it is usually posted in a person's own words and I try to address them by engaging them and their concerns. Now, I realize a 'pat' answer is good for not reinventing the wheel, but it cannot be the only tool in my bag. If it is, it stops serving TOL dialogue. Be honest, how many of the
did it take before your eyes glazed over??? I think TOL has been incredibly patient when it is well over years now, that this tired cut/paste is all that is in his belt. Again, when did your eyes gloss?
Haven't you had enough of it too???????
:think: So are you saying there is no longer a need for Catholics to be on TOL? It has all been covered? Is this the only reason you are on TOL?
(this is important) Think, what other reasons do you still enjoy coming to TOL for? Next question: Does
help fulfill any of those reasons? I'd say "No." Do you agree?
Um, you and I are conversing nicely AND meaningfully. Some repeat? Well, only because we are covering material about a person who is on a small hiatus for spamming/trolling. If it drags out too much longer, it will become tedious and less meaningful as well. Right now, however, you haven't copy/pasted on repetition. That's good right? If you can do it; If I can do it, then is that really an unreasonable expectation here? I don't think so. People are simply asking (complaining) for a meaningful response (dialogue). I think that is a reasonable request and expectation. To me, a month ofYou want a different link or a different point? Then say something that hasn't been said a billion times before.
is about enough. Can you think how long my spoiler will have to be to do even just 2 years of this????? In Him, -Lon
I'm deliberately avoiding the use of the word "Roman." For me, "Roman" Catholic signifies a Catholic of the Roman rite. There are lots of Catholics who are in communion with the pope, but aren't of the Roman rite. Consider the various branches of eastern Catholics.
At any rate, I have no desire to engage in a purely verbal disagreement. Let the following be established. In order to assess whether the early Christians were or were not Catholics, let us ask the following:
1. Did they believe in apostolic succession (i.e., that the apostles appointed successors, i.e., the bishops, who in turn appointed successors), and that an infallible teaching authority is invested in the apostles and in their successors?
As even St. Augustine says: "Unless the Catholic Church commanded me to believe (in virtue of the authority of Her bishops) in Jesus and the gospel, I would not believe."
2. Did they believe in the seven sacraments? In particular, did the early Christian church celebrate the mass? Did they believe that, when one of their priests said the words of consecration, the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Jesus?
3. Did they believe that the bishop of Rome was the successor of St. Peter and enjoyed some kind of primacy among the bishops?
I have no reason for doubting that the early Christians believed these things. What's your evidence to the contrary? Again, I simply refuse to accept the Bible as evidence.
Further, even if you deny 3, you'll be left with the conclusion, not that the early Christians were anything like modern protestants, but that the early Christians were basically like the Eastern Orthodox.
Last edited:
What's your evidence for thinking these things? Again, I simply refuse to admit scriptural evidence.
HisServant
New member
There is historical evidence for this all over the place.
My take on Rome is the following.
1.) Constantine saw his vision and forced Christianity on his empire, which caused a ton of problems, because unlike today, the pre-christian roman religions were state sponsored and required of ever Roman citizen.
2.) As Rome started to understand the ramifications of what it was trying to do, it ran into some big political problems... it couldn't just fire all the pagan priests and virgins and replace them with something that didn't exist... there weren't sufficient Christians within the Roman empire to meet the societal and political requirements of running the empire.
3.) This showed itself no more plainly in that of the Roman Army, which was built on Mithraism... its sacramentalism and practices were REQUIRED of all who served in the military... it had to be replaced with something or there would have been chaos within the military.
4.) So you see the remolding.... harmonization of Roman religious and societal sensibilities with Christianity over many centuries.
5.) Much of this is evident as Rome spread out through the world, as it did, it adopted and/or permitted many local customs to passify those that were conquered to keep the peace.... over time, you end up with everything diluted.
6.) As evident in the Romanized Catholic religion, you also see the entrenchment and politicizing of the institution... which is evident today where the church hierarchy is a hybrid of patronage and men elected with votes only from the inside.
Compare all of this from what we see in scripture and what we know of from the 1-3rd century pre-romanized writers and what you see is polar opposites.... yet through the centuries the Roman Church has skillfully crated a position for itself where it cannot be questioned.
Basically, during the Reformation, you see the unraveling of all the patronage and the starting of free thought.... tradition is the ONLY thing that has allowed it to survive.. its morally bankrupt and culturally irrelevant and has been for the last few centuries and that will never be turned around...
You didn't provide the relevant contexts. I freely admit that Cruciform repeats himself a lot. What I deny is that his repetition, even if copy/pasted, is spam. I'll make this easy for you, Lon. Show me just one instance in which Cruciform made this reply and the reply was not germane the discussion. Provide the context.
It's entirely fitting to answer this way. You want a scriptural text in evidence for my position? There are two problems with that: 1. whatever I offer in support of my position, you'll reinterpret based on your own interpretational lens, and 2. your insistence that a scriptural text is even necessary is a protestant presupposition, a presupposition that I do not share. Furthermore, 3. if you bothered to check out the links he posts, you'll probably find scriptural texts.
Yes, it is. If the person at hand is simply asserting, without evidence, the views of his given protestant sect, that is a perfectly legitimate answer. "Oh...you are simply blindly asserting that what Calvin said is true? Good for you, but I don't recognize the authority of Calvin, and you've given me no other evidence for his position. Oh, you have scriptures? Insofar as interpreted by John Calvin, whose authority I don't recognize." To my mind, Cruciform's way of phrasing it is much more concise.
Many, if not all, of the Protestants on this board (yourself included, most likely, at some point or other) tend to repeat nonsense like that constantly. Again, same input? Then same output. Makes sense to me.
Then pretty much all of the protestants on this board should receive bannings.
What difference does it make if a protestant copies and pastes "traditions of men" or writes it out each time? It's equally mindless, equally repetitive and equally annoying.
You know what makes my eyes gloss? You know what I've had enough of?
Long, extended sections of cherry picked, out of context, unexplained scriptural verses.
Repetitive and mindless recourse to anti-Catholic Protestant slogans and catchphrases.
Flat assertions of some protestant doctrine with absolutely no objective, rational evidence presented for it.
If a student of mine were to do things like these, he'd receive a bad grade. Thankfully, the protestants on this board are not my students, and I don't have to waste my time.
As I said, I don't engage in scriptural debates on this website. It's just not worth it.
At least Cruciform is "honest" about his general refusal to engage people in a one-on-one, personal way. Unlike protestants, he doesn't even bother to pretend.
I haven't made those claims.
Then say something meaningful and worthy of dialogue. Most protestants on this board don't. :idunno:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sigh. This is yet another example of how Rome's apologists deploy quotes from the ECF anachronistically in hopes of supporting their position against their views.
Much has been made by Romanists of the following actual quote by Augustine as Rome's apologists seem entitled to their own "facts":
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
The context of Augustine's statement and answer to the argument the Romanist employs:
Augustine is not teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it. Rather Augustine is simply teaching that there would be no certainty of the gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the church did not impel them.
And this he clearly confirms a little later, saying:
"When I praise what I believe, and laugh at what you believe, how do you think we are to judge, or what are we to do? Should we not forsake those who invite us to a knowledge of things certain and then bid us believe things uncertain? Must we follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet strong enough to see, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may become worthy to comprehend what we believe with God himself, not men, now inwardly strengthening and illumining our mind?"
This passage of Augustine is also rendered elsewhere as:
"You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."
- NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.
Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God's Truth on him inwardly:
"Let me hear and understand how in the beginning Thou didst make the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote and departed, passed hence from Thee to Thee. Nor now is he before me; for if he were I would hold him, and ask him, and would adjure him by Thee that he would open unto me these things, and I would lend the ears of my body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth. And should he speak in the Hebrew tongue, in vain would it beat on my senses, nor would ought touch my mind; but if in Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know whether he said what was true? But if I knew this even, should I know it from him? Verily within me (Intus utique mihi), within in the chamber of my thought, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without the organs of voice and tongue, without the sound of syllables, would say, "He speaks the truth," and I, forthwith assured of it, confidently (et ego statim certus confidenter) would say unto that man of Thine, "Thou speakest the truth." As, then, I cannot inquire of him, I beseech Thee, "Thee, O Truth, full of whom he spake truth," Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and do Thou, who didst give to that Thy servant to speak these things, grant to me also to understand them.
- NPNF1: Vol. I, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book 11, Chapter 3.
And again, in his work on The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), he expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world," has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that instructor happen to be "I will not say, any great man " but even an angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the ministry of a bodily voice, but yet "neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally besprinkled with that light which remains for ever (sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet), and which shines even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not understood by the darkness of folly.
- NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37.
Augustine could not have expressed himself clearer; his epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of the light that only God can give.
Of course Augustine was "catholic" (Romanists have a habit of writing 'Catholic' and 'Church' every time they see 'catholic and 'church'). He was bishop of Carthage in an era that knew only one church, from Gibraltar to Britain to Syria to Ethiopia—the universal one, and one I might add where there was no universal allegiance to Rome or any other primate, even if Augustine deferred to him. So much for the papist's typical slap.
And Augustine's deference was far from the powers claimed later by Rome. It is incredible that Augustine would have accepted an appointment to the Carthage bishopric from the Roman bishop, when he was called by the church of Carthage to be its pastor.
Some obviously need to brush up on a few points...
Spoiler
Would that Rome's apologists were willing to dig deeper and actually study history not written by its own marketing department.
Don't buy into the claim that Romanism existed for two thousand years and were it not for Rome we would be bereft.
We should recognize why Crucible et al cannot go much further than re-stating Rome's dictates or linking to content by other equally confused folk. Crucible and his companions actually think they are raising up "gothas!" that have not been driven to ground time and again.
Indeed, asserted and answered time and again, which is but one of the many reasons why I am not a Roman Catholic as no peace can come from within its ornately appointed walls thinly covering its errors.
Last edited:
glassjester
Well-known member
Evidence?