Quote:

---

And Catholic councils do not have divine authority. They are fallible and don't determine what is biblically true.

---

Q: Where is the record of the first ecumenical council found?
A: Acts 15.

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Richard Dawkins Stumped When Asked To Give An Example Of An Increase In DNA via Mutations

Fre3dombear said:

---

There is something powerful and freeing sitting face to face with someone and telling them out loud your worst mistakes (and not worry as well). The acknowledgement drives accountability and out best attempt to go and sin no more

---

Evangelicals absolutely do this, they just call it having "accountability partners".

However the Sacrament of Confession in Orthodoxy is handled differently than either the accountability partners of evangelicalism or the Sacrament of Reconciliation of Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Catholic catechism states "Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels...God above confirms what priests do here below. Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift."

Orthodoxy never makes a claim that it is the priest who forgives sin. God forgives it. In the Orthodox church you confess to God before the altar rather than to the priest in an confessional or to a buddy at lunch.

In practice, though done individually it ends up working more like the corporate confession of the Lutheran divine service than what is practiced in either Roman Catholicism or Evangelicalism.

The priest becomes one's guide in our efforts to "go and sin no more" as Christ told people multiple times in the scriptures.

Fundamentally the Orthodox Church doesn't see sin as the breaking of a rule, a violation that needs a pardon. Instead, it sees sin as sickness that needs healing and the rule breaking as symptoms of that sickness. Or as Saint Paul says in Romans "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." (Romans 6:12)

So our whole approach to Confession and healing from sin becomes more about "what spiritual medicines has God given us to heal?"

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I also wonder how many here who have Martin Luther to thank for their various denominations have delved deeply into his thoughts on Mary and the Catholic Church. Could they even expound extemporaneously on what his 95 theses even were and how many other things were nailed to the wood that day as was the custom.

---

I actually have a lot of respect for confessional Lutheranism, having preserved pre-Tridentine worship in the west. But the children of Zwingli and Calvin are a long, long way from the faith once delivered to the saints.

---

Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

And Catholic councils do not have divine authority. They are fallible and don't determine what is biblically true.

---

Q: Where is the record of the first ecumenical council found?
A: Acts 15.

---

Acts 15 is Scripture. Scripture is infallible.

And the Jerusalem council was not a Roman Catholic council. Not a single priest or bishop was there. Peter wasn't the pope. In fact, if anyone there was the leader making the final decisions, it was James. It's really hard to argue that Peter was the pope, going by Acts 15.

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving of all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions of people, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding the person who's never heard of Jesus - it is and always will be a tough question. Whatever God does, it will be perfectly fair and just. I don't know what happens to them, and neither do you, so you shouldn't presume anything. It seems fair to us for God to judge those who've never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel based on how they've responded to God's revelation via nature, morals, etc.

---

Here, you are exactly in accordance with Catholic teaching. We don't know the status of those people (or anyone else who hasn't heard the gospel. The Catechism states in CCC 847 -

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciencethose too may achieve eternal salvation."

God does not work in absolutes for salvation. 1 Timothy 2:4, states that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

God is NOT going to ask the impossible of the 14th Century Native Americans to obtain their salvation. Just like Jesus is not going to require the thief on the cross to be baptized. It would have been impossible for him to do so.

---

You went from "we don't know what happens to them" to asserting "God does not work in absolutes for salvation". You can't assert something to be true when you don't know. And 1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't support that assertion. This is just more double talk.

---

It's interesting that you always call it "double-talk" when I present solid logic because it doesn't fit YOUR interpretation.and/or narrative.

With respect to the language that I chose, I was trying to meet you with your words.

The Church believes exactly what is stated in the CCC 847. God wants all to be saved. We don't know what's in the heart of every specific 14th century Native American. Only God does.

You stated those who "responded to God's revelation via nature, morals, etc" may obtain salvation even though they never heard of Jesus. The Church makes a similar assertion as stated in CCC 847.

EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING -
Referring to letting preaching to others so that they would also know the truth.

I just heard a great quote from Fr. Mike Schmitz that he got from another priest -

"Jesus loves us just as we are. But he loves us to much to stay as we are."

That's why we proclaim the gospel, even if it puts others "at risk."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I JUST told you what determines salvation. In the very paragraph you are responding to. I've been saying what determines salvation throughout this whole thread. I already told you to not consider me a "protestant" or any other label, and just deal with what I'm saying based on its own merits. You are so caught up on what church people belong to, instead of the actual substance of what they believe. In the end, that's all that matters. God doesn't save churches. He saves people.

---

Jesus gave us a Church. It is an historic fact that the church that Jesus created was the Catholic Church.

"Protestant" is the label for those that protest against the Church. You are protesting (strongly against the Church.

If your not with the Catholic Church, then you are a protestant, whether you like the label or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Once again, please understand what the Nestorian heresy is before you accuse others of it. This is three times now you've gotten it wrong, and instead of doing the intellectually honest thing, you've tripled down on it.

---

I know what the Nestorian heresy contains. But you have denied that Mary is the "Theotokos," God-bearer. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Catholic councils do not have divine authority. They are fallible and don't determine what is biblically true. Catholic councils made it a requirement to believe in completely unbiblical and invented beliefs like Mary's sinlessness, bodily assumption, and perpetual virginity upon penalty of being anathematized to hell. They even anathematized the rulings of their own previous councils! If that doesn't reveal to you they do not have divine authority and are fallible then perhaps nothing will.

---

The Council of Ephesus IS considered infallible. Both Catholics and Orthodox hold and agree doctrine that ecumenical councils are infallible.

Jesus promised Pete, in Matthew 16, that what ever he bound on earth would be bound on heaven and what he loosed on earth, would be loosed in heaven. In Hebrew practice, "binding and loosing" refers to the authority of religious leaders to declare certain actions as forbidden ("bound") or permitted ("loosed") based on their interpretation of Jewish law. Did Jesus give your church that power? Did Jesus start your church? NO. He started the Catholic Church. Bad laypeople, bad priests, bad nuns, bad bishops, and even bad Popes have tried their best to destroy the Church, but they can't. Jesus won't let them. He promised us this in Matthew 16.


The Church is the servant of the Word of God. The Church is blessed to have all three legs that support her - The word of God, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (teaching office of the Church - the Pope and all the bishops in union with him.)

Remember, the Church came BEFORE the Bible. It was the Church, thru God, that gave the bible to the world using Sacred Tradition. It was the Church that determined, by guidance of the Holy Spirit, what 27 books belonged in the NT. It was the Church that developed doctrines of hypostatic union, Jesus is consubstantial with the father, when public revelation ended, etc. Those are NOT found in the bible.

SO, how DO we determine what is Biblically true? Do you get to decide? You've stated your self that you are fallible. You have "no label". If you're version is the only truth, then you have made yourself pope of your own church. Congrats, pope BTD17! I assume that BusyTarpDuster2017 is your new papal name. I wonder if people will come to your church for pilgrimages. Your authority is a man of one among the 100+ billion people that have walked the earth.

Your church has one leg. The bible. Your church disagrees with baptismal regeneration. How will you sort that out with the non-Catholics like the Lutherans and Methodist? What about the other articles of faith that you disagree with them? What then?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

---

Nope. The attention that Mary gives ALWAYS points to Jesus. We venerate (showing great respect - per Oxford) her. We don't worship her. You can type that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Show me an official Catholic Ecumenical Council or Doctrine that literally says that Catholics should "worship Mary as God" or never state that again.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding the person who's never heard of Jesus - it is and always will be a tough question. Whatever God does, it will be perfectly fair and just. I don't know what happens to them, and neither do you, so you shouldn't presume anything. It seems fair to us for God to judge those who've never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel based on how they've responded to God's revelation via nature, morals, etc.

---

Here, you are exactly in accordance with Catholic teaching. We don't know the status of those people (or anyone else who hasn't heard the gospel. The Catechism states in CCC 847 -

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciencethose too may achieve eternal salvation."

God does not work in absolutes for salvation. 1 Timothy 2:4, states that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

God is NOT going to ask the impossible of the 14th Century Native Americans to obtain their salvation. Just like Jesus is not going to require the thief on the cross to be baptized. It would have been impossible for him to do so.

---

You went from "we don't know what happens to them" to asserting "God does not work in absolutes for salvation". You can't assert something to be true when you don't know. And 1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't support that assertion. This is just more double talk.

---

It's interesting that you always call it "double-talk" when I present solid logic because it doesn't fit YOUR interpretation.and/or narrative.

With respect to the language that I chose, I was trying to meet you with your words.

The Church believes exactly what is stated in the CCC 847. God wants all to be saved. We don't know what's in the heart of every specific 14th century Native American. Only God does.

You stated those who "responded to God's revelation via nature, morals, etc" may obtain salvation even though they never heard of Jesus. The Church makes a similar assertion as stated in CCC 847.

EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING -
Referring to letting preaching to others so that they would also know the truth.

I just heard a great quote from Fr. Mike Schmitz that he got from another priest -

"Jesus loves us just as we are. But he loves us to much to stay as we are."

That's why we proclaim the gospel, even if it puts others "at risk."

---

I called it "double talk" because that's what it is. How else do you describe saying that something is required, and also that it's NOT required?

I never said that it is true that those who respond to God's revelation via nature, morals, etc obtain salvation. You need to be more careful with my words. I specifically said that it seems fair to us for God to do that, but we don't know if it's true or not, so we should not declare it as truth. That's one of the problems of Roman Catholicsm - they rest too much of their doctrine on what they believe God "would" do according to their understanding. Since God would do something, Catholics reason, it means that he actually did it. This is called the "suitability" argument, and it's highly flawed, and even the early church fathers warned against it. It's the primary basis for false doctrines such as all the Marian dogmas, as well as others.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I JUST told you what determines salvation. In the very paragraph you are responding to. I've been saying what determines salvation throughout this whole thread. I already told you to not consider me a "protestant" or any other label, and just deal with what I'm saying based on its own merits. You are so caught up on what church people belong to, instead of the actual substance of what they believe. In the end, that's all that matters. God doesn't save churches. He saves people.

---

Jesus gave us a Church. It is an historic fact that the church that Jesus created was the Catholic Church.

"Protestant" is the label for those that protest against the Church. You are protesting (strongly against the Church.

If your not with the Catholic Church, then you are a protestant, whether you like the label or not.

---

"Catholic" just means "universal". It means the total body of believers in Jesus. It most certainly does NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate Christianity that compromised with pagan god and goddess worship. That is a historical fact. It perpetually distorts the gospel and promotes heresy and idolatry by building itself on the very false concepts of church infallibility and infallible non-Scriptural tradition. One only has to read the constant warnings from the apostle Paul and Jesus in the New Testament about heresies and false gospels entering the church to know that those concepts are completely false.

Your concept of what the "church" is, is wrong. Your concept of church infallibility is wrong. If you can't see that the Roman Catholic practice of making people pay money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory" (i.e. indulgences) was a ridiculous and shameful, even EVIL departure from God's word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, thus completely justifying the Reformation, then you just aren't alilgned with God. But that was already clear by your inability to see how you worship and idolize Mary. If you can't see that this isn't Jesus' true church, then you are spiritually blind and deceived.

Jesus' true church protests the Roman Catholic Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Once again, please understand what the Nestorian heresy is before you accuse others of it. This is three times now you've gotten it wrong, and instead of doing the intellectually honest thing, you've tripled down on it.

---

I know what the Nestorian heresy contains. But you have denied that Mary is the "Theotokos," God-bearer. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

---

Denying that Mary is the "Theotokos" is not the Nestorian heresy. You are just trying to make the false association. You are intellectually dishonest.

You say it's heretical. Ok, then answer the question - is Mary the "bearer" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, i.e. God? If you say no, then you're saying Mary is not the "bearer" of God, and you are heretical by your own standard. If you say "yes", well, then that's a heresy all it's own.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Catholic councils do not have divine authority. They are fallible and don't determine what is biblically true. Catholic councils made it a requirement to believe in completely unbiblical and invented beliefs like Mary's sinlessness, bodily assumption, and perpetual virginity upon penalty of being anathematized to hell. They even anathematized the rulings of their own previous councils! If that doesn't reveal to you they do not have divine authority and are fallible then perhaps nothing will.

---

The Council of Ephesus IS considered infallible. Both Catholics and Orthodox hold and agree doctrine that ecumenical councils are infallible.

Jesus promised Pete, in Matthew 16, that what ever he bound on earth would be bound on heaven and what he loosed on earth, would be loosed in heaven. In Hebrew practice, "binding and loosing" refers to the authority of religious leaders to declare certain actions as forbidden ("bound") or permitted ("loosed") based on their interpretation of Jewish law. Did Jesus give your church that power? Did Jesus start your church? NO. He started the Catholic Church. Bad laypeople, bad priests, bad nuns, bad bishops, and even bad Popes have tried their best to destroy the Church, but they can't. Jesus won't let them. He promised us this in Matthew 16.

---

Just two chapters later in Matthew, Jesus tells that to ALL of the disciples.

Jesus told that to the original apostles. Not the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church hasn't been destroyed. Christians who do not believe the Roman Catholic Church and who have not fallen to her heresy and idolatry are still here.

Quote:

---

The Council of Ephesus IS considered infallible. Both Catholics and Orthodox hold and agree doctrine that ecumenical councils are infallible.

---

How can Roman Catholic councils be infallible, when their councils anathematize their own previous councils?

Quote:

---

The Council of Ephesus IS considered infallible. Both Catholics and Orthodox hold and agree doctrine that ecumenical councils are infallible.

---

Catholics hold that their own councils are infallible? Pretty convenient.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Council of Ephesus IS considered infallible. Both Catholics and Orthodox hold and agree doctrine that ecumenical councils are infallible.

---

Catholics hold that their own councils are infallible? Pretty convenient.

---

And sadly obvious from History.

Of course, there is no shortage of arrogant ministers from Protestant churches as well.


I think nothing makes Satan laugh more than bringing down someone who followed Christ but fell away out of Pride.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

---

Nope. The attention that Mary gives ALWAYS points to Jesus. We venerate (showing great respect - per Oxford) her. We don't worship her. You can type that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Show me an official Catholic Ecumenical Council or Doctrine that literally says that Catholics should "worship Mary as God" or never state that again.

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

---

Nope. The attention that Mary gives ALWAYS points to Jesus. We venerate (showing great respect - per Oxford) her. We don't worship her. You can type that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Show me an official Catholic Ecumenical Council or Doctrine that literally says that Catholics should "worship Mary as God" or never state that again.

---

I saw a post in your response. I think that person misunderstands what happened south of texas in the years that followed the appearance of our Lady of Guadalupe 500 years ago, what stopped and what started.

Catholicism isn't the #1 represented church in texas because all those Latinos that came here are Marians

I guess the devil failed in what that miracle of an image he created (in some people's minds) as it brought millions and millions to the Catholic faith. That's undisputed history.

Expi fail devil. You suck! (Not that we don't already know that)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

---

Nope. The attention that Mary gives ALWAYS points to Jesus. We venerate (showing great respect - per Oxford) her. We don't worship her. You can type that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Show me an official Catholic Ecumenical Council or Doctrine that literally says that Catholics should "worship Mary as God" or never state that again.

---

"Honey, I think of her all the time. I call or text her every day. I go on dates with her. I kiss her. I have sex with her......but never have I ever SAID that I am cheating on you with her. Show me one time when I've ever SAID that. So since I've never SAID such a thing, never say that I'm cheating on you again".

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'm Curious if any Protestants here have really studied scientifically Our Lady of Gaudalupe which defies all science as we understand it (similar to The Shroud).

Someone here (or I may be conflating my message boards) may have alluded to the devil did that. Is that a generally held Protestant belief? So much good came from it, affecting literally millions and an entire continent and beyond. Never knew the devil to do so much good but he plays the long game so maybe he trickin me

---

"You shall know them by their fruits."

The fruits of alleged Marian apparitions and miracles is the giving all focus and attention to Mary, leading to her glory, veneration, and worship by millions and millions, thus directing it all away from Jesus. They've succumbed to doctrine and beliefs that are completely unbiblical and a complete distortion of the saving gospel itself. So if this isn't the "doctrine of demons", I don't know what is.

---

Nope. The attention that Mary gives ALWAYS points to Jesus. We venerate (showing great respect - per Oxford) her. We don't worship her. You can type that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Show me an official Catholic Ecumenical Council or Doctrine that literally says that Catholics should "worship Mary as God" or never state that again.

---

I saw a post in your response. I think that person misunderstands what happened south of texas in the years that followed the appearance of our Lady of Guadalupe 500 years ago, what stopped and what started.

Catholicism isn't the #1 represented church in texas because all those Latinos that came here are Marians

I guess the devil failed in what that miracle of an image he created (in some people's minds) as it brought millions and millions to the Catholic faith. That's undisputed history.

Expi fail devil. You suck! (Not that we don't already know that)

---

Roman Catholics bow to and kiss statues of Mary, seek mediation through her in order to go to heaven, have prayers that call her "sovereign", "god of this world", "salvation of the universe", and "give all their heart and soul" to her, and have their own psalms that take the original Psalms of the Old Testament and replace God and Jesus with Mary......

.... and they don't even FLINCH.

The Devil failed?

I'd say that getting Roman Catholics to believe that's the case might be the Devil's greatest success.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Protestants didn't exist before 1517 AD. Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD. Within protestantism, there are three major streams of thought: Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. These are simple historical facts that have nothing to do with specific Christian doctrine.

Young men leaving traditional churches for 'masculine' Orthodox Christianity in droves

https://nypost.com/2024/12/03/us-news/young-men-are-converting-to-orthodox-christianity-in-droves/

The Triumph of Orthodoxy

https://www.theblaze.com/abide/why-young-men-are-embracing-orthodox-christianity

It is absolutely happening. My parish has tripled in attendance. When I became a catachumen, there were 3 of us. Now there are 30.

"But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10)

Read that verse carefully to gain a better understanding of salvation.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Protestants didn't exist before 1517 AD. Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD. Within protestantism, there are three major streams of thought: Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. These are simple historical facts that have nothing to do with specific Christian doctrine.

---

Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli did not invent the idea of a faith based on the authority of the original apostles and their testimony, i.e. infallible Scripture. That's how it was in the beginning and how it always should be. Protestantism is a return to the beginning, as well as a repudiation of man-made abuses of Scripture like the Roman Catholic concoction that you can pay money to the Roman Catholic church for "indulgences" to have yourself or departed loved ones avoid "purgatory". If you honestly believe that wasn't a cause for reform, then you really don't have any sense.

Quote:

---

the Roman Catholic concoction that you can pay money to the Roman Catholic church for "indulgences" to have yourself or departed loved ones avoid "purgatory". If you honestly believe that wasn't a cause for reform, then you really don't have any sense.

---

Absolutely was a cause for reform. Such things are heresy. But this teaching stems from the idea that the Roman Catholic church holds the keys to a Treasury of Merit, from which partial or plenary indulgences can be granted, applying the merits of Christ and the Saints to the seeker of the indulgence. These were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Roman Catholic faith by the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s AD. It was substantially revised in 1967 AD.

When the Roman Patriarchate went into schism in 1054 AD, it proceeded to go off the rails. Most of what an American recognizes as the Roman Catholic religion today is the product of its the Lateran, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II meetings with a scattering of other innovations added between them.

The flip side of that is that you cannot reconstitute the Church of the First Millenium by picking up a Bible any more than you can build a Ferrari in your garage with a Haynes manual. That is why there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with each other.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

the Roman Catholic concoction that you can pay money to the Roman Catholic church for "indulgences" to have yourself or departed loved ones avoid "purgatory". If you honestly believe that wasn't a cause for reform, then you really don't have any sense.

---

Absolutely was a cause for reform. Such things are heresy. But this teaching stems from the idea that the Roman Catholic church holds the keys to a Treasury of Merit, from which partial or plenary indulgences can be granted, applying the merits of Christ and the Saints to the seeker of the indulgence. These were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Roman Catholic faith by the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s AD. It was substantially revised in 1967 AD.

When the Roman Patriarchate went into schism in 1054 AD, it proceeded to go off the rails. Most of what an American recognizes as the Roman Catholic religion today is the product of its the Lateran, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II meetings with a scattering of other innovations added between them.

The flip side of that is that you cannot reconstitute the Church of the First Millenium by picking up a Bible any more than you can build a Ferrari in your garage with a Haynes manual. That is why there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with each other.

---

If you can't "reconstitute" the original faith from Scripture, then you can't do it at all. You certainly can't do it with tradition that you can't trace back to the original apostles at all. Scripture is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divinely inspired word of the original apostles, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

Then your faith is in vain, for until Gutenberg came along, wholesale distribution of said scripture was impossible...and even if it was possible, few could read it.

Historical Literacy Rates

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/estimated-historical-literacy-rates

Christ did not abandon the Church he founded for 1400 years.