The Whore of Babylon

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given the individualistic manner in which Protestants treat the issue of salvation, I would disagree with this. It also displays too earthly a focus, since the body of the church is all the saints wherever they may be, that's why Catholics pray through the dead after all (yes I said 'through', not 'to', don't panic!).

Ah, but the Church can reasonably be said to be the felowship of God's servants. If the Catholic Church was ever just then it would follow that it was the earthly manifestation of this fellowship. It's proposed decline into depravity therefore constitutes an abandonment by God of the greater part of what should be the body of Christ. Since in Calvinistic theology the precise membership of said body is defined by God, that means he has allowed the Earthly manifestation of the body to rot. Further, the Roman Catholic Church must have once been the body of Christ, and the Pope it's Earthly head because he authorised the Biblical Canon, which ensured it was those books which Calvin asserted were infallable.

This is why Biblical infallability can ONLY be asserted by Roman Catholicism.

I don't understand what you mean by this? Why would only people blessed with the gift of prophecy be saved?

There is a reason Reformed Churches are smaller than other denominations; they contain only the Elect, and the Elect are God's special servents, his prophets and his servents on Earth. This is the horror of Calvinism, admitted by Calvin but denied today, Calvinism proposes a far less merciful and loving God.

Almost every branch of Christianity believes there are the elect, and the reprobate (man that word sounds harsh but it's what they use). The only difference is how they came to be that way, and for all a Calvinist knows the other person could be destined to be saved on their deathbed.

Actually, the words are praedestini (fore-chosen) and praesciti (fore-known) in Latin. Elect and Reprobate are Early Modern inventions and have no basis in the Latin theological language of the West.

Far from being totalitarian, Calvin actually argues extensively on the importance of 'liberty of conscience'. It was practically Cromwell's cathphrase and I've seen other figures like Edwards used it a lot as well. I do indeed believe everything takes place within the framework of God's providence, but that does not mean that people are not all rational actors. Also, with the Calvinistic understanding of human nature, surely it glorified God more than any other, since the regeneration that he grants is fully transformative, taking sin and making it into righteousness. As opposed to other understandings, in which God merely helps people along a bit, usually at thier own bidding.

"Liberty of Conciense" is only exercised after the application of Calvinistic Grace. It isn't relevent to the discussion we are having, therefore.

[Centurion1]

Ok A. that is not 25 AD.
B. it was heavily Edited for King James from culdee version.
C. Culdees are weird

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

im praying hes kidding because if not hes a flipping imbecile (no offense unless he believes it of course). KJV was written in King Jame's time......... yah know the king of ENGLAND! bit beyond 25ad

I do liket he KJV i use one and im a godless popist.

The RSV or NRSV are much better, the latter glosses extensively.

An unglossed Bible is like an unshod horse, of no use for traveling hard roads.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually it is known as the KJV because it only became widely published during James' time when the Puritans wanted to read it more. KJV-onlyism can be traced back to the Culdees who brought it to Britain in the 3rd century to defend against Romish expansionsim.

Just so eveyone knows: He is talking total rubbish, the KJV is based primarily on the Latin Vulgate.

[Centurion1]

Just so everyone knows: He is talking total rubbish, the KJV is based primarily on the Latin Vulgate.

actually he is partially correct. however, the KJV is only a little bit the culdee "bible". He is stretching the significance. Basically they replaced some vulgate lines with culdee ones. But not very many.

I don't know i dont think god would mind i use a KJV even though im catholic. I just like my family copy its very very very nice.

[Slyspy]

If the Bibles been mucked around with so much, what is the point of this discussion?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

actually he is partially correct. however, the KJV is only a little bit the culdee "bible". He is stretching the significance. Basically they replaced some vulgate lines with culdee ones. But not very many.

I don't know i dont think god would mind i use a KJV even though im catholic. I just like my family copy its very very very nice.

It also took lines from the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles, it was still the Vulgate though.

Found this site; mostly silly nonsense: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...formation.html The date it gives for the Culdees though is Dark Age, not Late-Classical. So more of the Vulgate there as well, I suspect. after all, the Bible would have arrived in Britian either via the Vulgate or the inferior Old Latin Bibles.

A Catholic perspective, far less overtly political: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04563b.htm

Wiki seems not to know either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdee

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.

Ah, but the Church can reasonably be said to be the felowship of God's servants. If the Catholic Church was ever just then it would follow that it was the earthly manifestation of this fellowship. It's proposed decline into depravity therefore constitutes an abandonment by God of the greater part of what should be the body of Christ. Since in Calvinistic theology the precise membership of said body is defined by God, that means he has allowed the Earthly manifestation of the body to rot.

The thing is it was never the 'Catholic Church' back then, it was just part of the wider catholic church. The earthly manifestion of a church was your local congregation. As the scripture says, some were given the gift of prophecy, others teaching, others preaching etc... but all were equal members with Christ alone as the head.

And it's hardly surprising that God would allow the earthly state of the church to decline. The prophets themselves give enough indication that this was always going to be the case

Further, the Roman Catholic Church must have once been the body of Christ, and the Pope it's Earthly head because he authorised the Biblical Canon, which ensured it was those books which Calvin asserted were infallable.

This is why Biblical infallability can ONLY be asserted by Roman Catholicism.

The Protestant position on the scripute is justified by the scripture itself (circular I know, but they did argue it was a sort of self-evident truth). Also, the Synod of Hippo which finalised the canon far preceded any concept of the Roman Catholic Church, since the very term 'Roman Catholic' would have appeared to be an oxymoron to the early patriarchs of Rome. And even then, all the fantastical stories about temporal influences suddenly declaring the canon for their own ends are myths, there had increasingly been a general consensus within Christianity in what ought to be regarded as scriptural for hundreds of years prior to that date.

Furthemore, the Reformers never took the Papacy's position on the grounds of Papal authority. Luther of course changed his views a number of times, and Calvin addresses Luther's concerns in the Institutues, and provides his own reasoning for why certain books ought to be considered canonical. They never simply followed the RCC's decision.

There is a reason Reformed Churches are smaller than other denominations; they contain only the Elect, and the Elect are God's special servents, his prophets and his servents on Earth. This is the horror of Calvinism, admitted by Calvin but denied today, Calvinism proposes a far less merciful and loving God.

The way in which God's mercy is displayed is different in Calvinism. Without God's sovereingty in our salvation, people must save themselves, and so really his mercy is revealed to no one. With Calvinism, God saves those that were sin itself, and makes them blameless before him. The fact that God saves some may seem harsh when we are still looking through a glass darkly, but it should be remembered what the chief end of all things are - to glorify the Lord.

Actually, the words are praedestini (fore-chosen) and praesciti (fore-known) in Latin. Elect and Reprobate are Early Modern inventions and have no basis in the Latin theological language of the West.

Good point, unfortunately I have no knowledge of these linguistic things, other than what they sometimes point out during a work. But since neither of us use the "you choose but he knows first" cop out, these terms have a similar effect to 'elect'?

"Liberty of Conciense" is only exercised after the application of Calvinistic Grace. It isn't relevent to the discussion we are having, therefore.

I thought when you called Calvinism totalitarian you were referring to the fact that we are not able to alter our fate, there is no choice as such. Surely if God refused to administer grace to a fallen mankind, that would make him more of an absentee landlord than a totalitarian ruler?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.

The Roman Celtic Church was Nicene etc. and therefore Catholic. Pre-Dark Age Britain probably had four Archbishops. So the whole proto-Protestant thing is just silly rhetoric.

The thing is it was never the 'Catholic Church' back then, it was just part of the wider catholic church. The earthly manifestion of a church was your local congregation. As the scripture says, some were given the gift of prophecy, others teaching, others preaching etc... but all were equal members with Christ alone as the head.

Not so, Episcopacy and Arch-Episcopacy were far more effective in the Roman Empire because of the excellent secular administration.

And it's hardly surprising that God would allow the earthly state of the church to decline. The prophets themselves give enough indication that this was always going to be the case

An assertion, not an argument.

The Protestant position on the scripute is justified by the scripture itself (circular I know, but they did argue it was a sort of self-evident truth). Also, the Synod of Hippo which finalised the canon far preceded any concept of the Roman Catholic Church, since the very term 'Roman Catholic' would have appeared to be an oxymoron to the early patriarchs of Rome. And even then, all the fantastical stories about temporal influences suddenly declaring the canon for their own ends are myths, there had increasingly been a general consensus within Christianity in what ought to be regarded as scriptural for hundreds of years prior to that date.

Hippo was the Domain of Augustine, the great Catholic Christian. Augustine sepnt his whole life as priest and bishop fighting heresy. To suggest he had no conception of a Catholic Chuch as an institution is patently false; he would also have recognised the Pope as its head. After all, Hippo was not a General Synod and Augustine's conclusions had to be authorised by the Pope in order to take general effect.

So that torpedoes your argument pretty neatly, I think. The Bible is Catholic.

Furthemore, the Reformers never took the Papacy's position on the grounds of Papal authority. Luther of course changed his views a number of times, and Calvin addresses Luther's concerns in the Institutues, and provides his own reasoning for why certain books ought to be considered canonical. They never simply followed the RCC's decision.

Calvin and Luthor only had acces to the authorised Catholic texts in Greek and Latin. Do you not see the inherrent problem? Their Bibles were also "textually deffective" as we say.

Sorry, got to go now.... will respond to the rest later.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Roman Celtic Church was Nicene etc. and therefore Catholic. Pre-Dark Age Britain probably had four Archbishops. So the whole proto-Protestant thing is just silly rhetoric.

Of course it's silly rhetoric, as I said I was joking, I thought someone, particularly Gaelic Cowboy, might get what I was on about. And while it's absurd to talk about the Celtic Church as Protestant, there was certainly no such thing as the "Roman Celtic Church" (I've never heard such term bofore). All 'Celtic Christianity' is is a collective term for the various forms of Christiainty which existed before Britain came under Papal influence. Furthermore, although it was episcopal, the nature of episcopal authority was very different from the forms it took on the continent. One of the most distinguishing features within Celtic Christianity was the fact that it was heavily monastic based. All the major religious centres in Britain during this term emerged from monasteries, the best known example being Iona.

That's not to say that the myth of the Celtic Church somehow being purer and less corrupt by power politics is true. Iona is well known to have played a big role in the dynastic politics of Dalriada, with its leaders such as Adomnan coming to support the Cenel nGabrain dynasty, and rewriting their name into the history books. This is what gave Scotland the myth of the ancient King Fergus that founded Scotland in the 6th century.

Not so, Episcopacy and Arch-Episcopacy were far more effective in the Roman Empire because of the excellent secular administration.

How efficiently they maintained their episcopal system isn't the matter at hand. My point was that there was no church based in Rome that claimed to be the sole, universal church of all believers. If anything, Constantinople was dominant after the other 3 centres at Antioch/Jerusalem/Alexandria fell to the Mohammedans. And remember that quote I gave in reply to CR earlier from Pope Gregory - if the See of Rome was to claim supremacy, it would be regarded as a a sign of antichrist.

An assertion, not an argument.

I'm in a bit of a rush now but I'll look up the qoutes later, there is plenty of doom and gloom talk on the fate of the church.

Hippo was the Domain of Augustine, the great Catholic Christian. Augustine sepnt his whole life as priest and bishop fighting heresy. To suggest he had no conception of a Catholic Chuch as an institution is patently false; he would also have recognised the Pope as its head. After all, Hippo was not a General Synod and Augustine's conclusions had to be authorised by the Pope in order to take general effect.

So that torpedoes your argument pretty neatly, I think. The Bible is Catholic.

As I said above, there was no such thing as the 'Roman Catholic Church' during Augustine's time. There was a church based in Rome, but no RCC. There was no RCC when the Synod of Hippo took place, and even then that was as I said merely the consolidation of what was widely accepted throughout almost all the Christian world for well over a century before. The RCC of today cannot rightfully claim any monopoly on the establishment of the scripture.

Calvin and Luthor only had acces to the authorised Catholic texts in Greek and Latin. Do you not see the inherrent problem? Their Bibles were also "textually deffective" as we say.

Sorry, got to go now.... will respond to the rest later.

I thought we were talking about the selection of canon, rather than the differences in accuracy between various translations? When discussing what should be canon, the Reformers tended to look at things such as the extent of their use by early Christian writers, how consistent they are with the scripture as a whole (that's why Luther threw out James/Hebrews/Revelations, he thought some points were against the 5 Sola's), and in particular whether or not they were attributes to an apostle, and the evidence to support this was sufficient.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhy, you are stubonly ignoring historical fact. As early as the 4th Century AD the Pope declared himself leader of the Church, indeed his role as sole Western Patriarch and effective Chancellor of the Emperor made him de-facto ruler of the Western Church. Jerome undertook the Vulgate translation under Papal endorsement and Augustine had Pope Leo authorise the conclusions of the Non-Ecumunical Council of Hippo. ALL Western Christianity, in Britain and elsewhere looked to Rome. The "Celtic Christian" tradition diverged after the Legions abandoned Brittania, but in 400 AD it was as Roman as anywhere else. The point about all this is that there is no independent tradition which the Reformers drew upon. Everything came from within the Catholic Church, including the scripture.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy, you are stubonly ignoring historical fact. As early as the 4th Century AD the Pope declared himself leader of the Church, indeed his role as sole Western Patriarch and effective Chancellor of the Emperor made him de-facto ruler of the Western Church.

Why, I haven't argued against what you just stated (although I am highly dubious that papal supremacy was asserted in the 4th Century, maybe you mean primacy?). You say yourself he was head of the Western Church, and I have no problem with that. What I was complaining of is Papal supremacy, whereby the Popacy claims to be the sole manifestation of the church of all the saints on earth. There are no foundations for such a doctrine, it is heretical. I would not take issue with the Bishop of Rome, if he was indeed all that that title suggests. Furthermore, the nature of his headship of the church has changed. The spiritual authority granted to the Popes has been gradually increasingly for the past 1,500 years or so. The early bishops of Rome would never have dreamt of assuming such authority for themselves, and there are a number of quotes to the effect of the one I gave CR above where the past Popes denouce the actions of their successors as those of antichrist. This poses a major problem for the Pope when his position is based on continual apostolic succesion from those same Popes.

Jerome undertook the Vulgate translation under Papal endorsement and Augustine had Pope Leo authorise the conclusions of the Non-Ecumunical Council of Hippo. ALL Western Christianity, in Britain and elsewhere looked to Rome.

I never denied that all of western Christianity looked to Rome. My point is that you are exaggerating the role of the Papacy in the formation of the canon. Hippo was the conslidation of what was already accepted - the gradual formation of the canon took place by consensus throughout all of Christendom, indeed the greatest single influence came from Athanasius in Alexandria, which Pope Damascus copied a few decades later. There is no reason to attribute the canon as it exists today to Rome.

The "Celtic Christian" tradition diverged after the Legions abandoned Brittania, but in 400 AD it was as Roman as anywhere else. The point about all this is that there is no independent tradition which the Reformers drew upon. Everything came from within the Catholic Church, including the scripture.

Of course, the Reformers never drew upon the Celtic Church, 'tis a myth that the Celtic Church was some sort of pure, uncorrupt predecessor of the later Reformed churches. But it is equally untrue to say that it was as Roman as anywhere else, especially as early as 400AD. The decline of Celtic Christianity only really began after the victory of the Roman faction at the Synod of Whitby in 644 AD in which the old Celtic method of calculating easter was abandoned. Indeed, Scotland only officially came within the authority of a Roman archbishopric in 1151. York and Canterbury had claimed authority over Scotland for some time before that, although it was never recognised in Scotland itself, leaving it in a somewhat ambiguous position. Although it is fair to say that Papal influence was still very strong by that point, it just lacked a formal stance.

[gaelic cowboy]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.

Yes I remember a lot of that stuff it seemed to start entering public discourse in maybe early to middle nineties especcially the Cruithin stuff which came from an earlier more academic field. It's rubbish really mostly used as a kind of "Lost Tribe of Israel" narrative to further UDI for the North some really bad fellas were involved in spreading that stuff back in the day. I think it was picked up again in the nineties because there was a feeling under the surface the Conservatives were going to betray the UUP and the wider unionist community.

There was no "Celtic Church" as such but it was heavily influenced by a more I suppose Celtic cultural tradition stuff like Abbots being top dog etc. The Abbot of Iona was effectively the boss and there were many differences of doctrine with Rome which for a long time was completely cut off diplomaticaly. It would not be true to say it was separate but it was not administered by Rome either it was on autopilot effectively for a while till Rome got back on its feet.

The decline of Celtic Christianity only really began after the victory of the Roman faction at the Synod of Whitby in 644 AD

Correct. The faction was defeated and retreated to more remote areas of Britain they of course acknowledged the successor of Peter as it were but had wanted a separate system I believe there is precedent for it today in Western Ukraine.

[Shaka_Khan]

Washington DC was first named Rome and America was modelled after Rome. The whore of babylon has been often associated with the statue of Liberty,

America is the end of the world!

I always thought the Statue of Liberty looked hot. She reminds me of a young Brooke Shields.

[Don Corleone]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

[Strike For The South]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

I knew it....I bet it's the good protastent babies to....with our bonde hair and blue eyes

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmmm heretics

[Centurion1]

i like babies. its how the church has controlled the irish population for so long.

[Strike For The South]

i like babies. its how the church has controlled the irish population for so long.

Racist....my dog is Irish

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded. I didn't create this thread just because I stumbled across Ian Paisley's site, or just because I'm a Scottish Protestant. In the past I just always presumed the Catholic Church was Christian but maybe a little corrupt, when I came across the doctrine first it was in Calvin's 'Institutes' (a very thorough book on doctrine indeed), and that's what made me wonder and take it more seriously.

If you are an atheist and dismiss Revelation, then fine. But if you are a Catholic, can somebody please tell me why I shouldn't believe John speaks of Rome? Or if that is conceded, then why I should think he only speaks of Imperial Rome despite the evidence in the OP to the contrary? Or why the early Bishops of Rome appear to denouce specific actions of their successors as those of antichrist?

And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why, I haven't argued against what you just stated (although I am highly dubious that papal supremacy was asserted in the 4th Century, maybe you mean primacy?). You say yourself he was head of the Western Church, and I have no problem with that. What I was complaining of is Papal supremacy, whereby the Popacy claims to be the sole manifestation of the church of all the saints on earth. There are no foundations for such a doctrine, it is heretical. I would not take issue with the Bishop of Rome, if he was indeed all that that title suggests. Furthermore, the nature of his headship of the church has changed. The spiritual authority granted to the Popes has been gradually increasingly for the past 1,500 years or so. The early bishops of Rome would never have dreamt of assuming such authority for themselves, and there are a number of quotes to the effect of the one I gave CR above where the past Popes denouce the actions of their successors as those of antichrist. This poses a major problem for the Pope when his position is based on continual apostolic succesion from those same Popes.

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

I never denied that all of western Christianity looked to Rome. My point is that you are exaggerating the role of the Papacy in the formation of the canon. Hippo was the conslidation of what was already accepted - the gradual formation of the canon took place by consensus throughout all of Christendom, indeed the greatest single influence came from Athanasius in Alexandria, which Pope Damascus copied a few decades later. There is no reason to attribute the canon as it exists today to Rome.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.[/QUOTE]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

Hay Don,

I know you're offended, and so am I, but you've come up with some doozies in your time too. You once told me Canterbury sought to supplant Rome.

As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.

The relevance of Papal Supremacy is that it is only once this doctrine is asserted that we can truly say such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church existed, in the sense that it is the sole, catholic/universal church, based in the city of Rome. And while this was an issue of governance within the western church as you said, it is for our purposes here a much more important point. It is only after this (what maybe even you may see as) heretical doctrine was declared that the legitimate position of the Bishop of Rome was usurped by the power that would emerge as the Papacy we know today. The reason why I am saying all this is because you said that in declaring the authority of Hippo, the western church accepted the canon on the grounds of Papal authority. But I would argue there was no Papal authority at this time, since there was no Roman Catholic Church. No claims of supremacy, just the Bishop of Rome.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

The fact that more people believe something doesn't make give it any more weight in an argument. Most 'Christians' today wouldn't even be considered such when taking their own statements of their faith and pitting them against Jesus' own words.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

Heh, I guess when we have threads like this, there are always going to be so many differences underlying our positions that it's hard to understand where the other person is coming from. If you agree with most Catholic practises, you will see the expansion of the RCC as the flourishing of the church on earth. If you disagree, you will see its expansion as the terrifying and unstoppable fulfilment of apocalyptic prophecies.

Remember, despite assertions, often by atheists, that Catholics/Protestants are forever attacking each other over minor points of doctrine, this simply isn't true. In many respects, Catholicism is the polar opposite of the religion I practice. Catholicism is based on ecclesiastical hierarchy, ritualistic worship, a belief in human goodness, free will, mysticism etc. I don't just slightly deviate from these, my beliefs are the total opposite. 0% agreement.

If this wasn't the case, I would have no problem with the ecumenical movement (which for me, is fast becoming what multiculturalism is to Fragony). I go to a Presbyterian church, even though I disagree with a number of its practises which came about as a result of liberal influence. Another Christian I know wonders why I don't just join his own much more fundamentalist Baptist Church. But, I try not to get all righteous and turn away Christian fellowship just because of minor doctrinal differences. Look what Paul put up with with the Corinthians! But with Catholicism as I said it's more than this, it really is the opposite of what I believe. It's the opposite of my conception of what Christ taught and what he was, hence it is antichrist.

[HoreTore]

Racist....my dog is Irish

You keep an Irishman as your dog?!?