Why do Protestants waste their time here?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Protestantism has destroyed the true faith in the lands where it prevailed five hundred years ago. Christianity has been virtually decimated in western europe. Catholics are aware protestantism is a man-made religion which is doomed. No self respecting catholic will bother converting to the satan inspired religion of luther, calvin and other rebels. Lutheranism, calvinism and other religions invented by rebels in western europe are on their deathbed. So dont waste your times soiling this site with the satanic message of luther.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003

Answers

Response to Why do protestants waste their time here?

You forget that the Catholic Church put the bible togather so how exactly is this showing the Church that Christ founded is satanic?

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), December 05, 2003.


Protestantism is "satanic" because protestants denie that parts of the Bible that do not fit their theology. Catholics do not.

Protestants deny the need for works while Catholics don't. Why do protestants? Because they want to be lazy and only believe, so they deny the parts of the Bible that tells them that they need works. Catholics are truely faithful to Christ's message because they believe one needs faith and works. We don't throw out the parts of the Bible that we don't agree with. Hence why Luther wanted to throw on the Letters of James because they said one needed to do works.

Also, to J, Europe is the way it is not because of Protestant theology but because of the secularization of society, which was a result of the Wars of Religion that took place between Catholics and Protestants. The present Europe is a reaction to religious violence, not theology.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.


Scott, Protestantism is not "satanic". Protestants are in error. Our job is to set them on the correct road. Being in error is not satanic.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


I didn't mean "satanic" as in satan worship but in the fact that satan has made them change their theology.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Scott said: 'I didn't mean "satanic" as in satan worship but in the fact that satan has made them change their theology. '

OK, but there is plenty of blame that should go to Rome at the time as well for not handling the situation properly. Remember, Martin Luther started out as a devote monk. Men make mistakes...in monestaries and in the Vatican.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.



Yeah! What Bill said! :D

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

It won't matter to God, I'm sure. He sent the Holy Spirit to be with Christ's Holy Church.

We see this as a plain matter of faith. Either we'll keep our faith in Christ and his apostles with the Holy Spirit, or; we'll trust in a church cooked up by men.

Christ didn't call Luther to reform anything. Luther committed a grave sin rising up against the successor of Peter. Just look at it as a historical fact. Jeannie's so-called church is built upon the sinful actions of a heretic. She may love Jesus Christ in her heart, but she is unfaithful to the one Church founded by Jesus.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.


If I remember right, wasn't Pope Leo (the whatever) selling indulgences to peasants telling them that they can go to heaven if they did just so that he could build St. Peter's Bacillica? Read Luther's 95 Thesis sometime!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

No-one actually "sold" indulgences, ever. Indulgences were, and still are, validly attached to various kinds of charitable and devotional acts, including financial contribution to God's work. In this way we may "store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal" (Matthew 6:20). It is historical fact however that some members of the Church in Medieval times, in their intense zeal to provide a fitting monument to the glory of God, did exceed proper administrative protocol in their fund-raising efforts, and thereby may well have created the impression of "selling" spiritual blessings.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

Oh ok if u say so :)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


Well; when the anti-Catholic ''says so,'' don't you swallow it whole, like a duck eats a june bug? The basher says, ''sold indulgences to peasants (the gullible)-- ''

And it's gospel true far as you're concerned. You never question it. You don't investigate.

You come here and pour it on like hot oil. Who's the ignorant one?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.


What Paul said about indulgence is true. Johann Tetzel did exaggerate the monetary aspect of the indulgence, but he was not acting in accord with Church teaching. Even the silly saying about the "coffer" cannot be traced to Tetzel with any certainty. He did teach a version of what the saying conveys, but it was -- again -- not the official teaching of the Church, as is often implied. The view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence, and the pope had not taught this, as Luther falsely charged.

Background Source: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: pp. 342-34

In Christ, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


Jmj

Bill, you wrote:
"OK, but there is plenty of blame that should go to Rome at the time as well for not handling the situation properly. Remember, Martin Luther started out as a devote monk. Men make mistakes...in monestaries and in the Vatican."

You are right to say that "Men make mistakes" -- and, ironically, you are a man who has just made a mistake! It's OK for you to make a mistake, but it is not good when that mistake gladdens an anti-Catholic like Jeanie. That's why I am speaking up, so that she does not come away with a wrong impression.

It is true that "men make mistakes ... in the Vatican" -- in the area of prudential judgments. Your words, I think, were meant to imply that men in the Vatican made prudential, not doctrinal, errors in "handling the situation [of Luther] properly." I don't think that we as Catholics are authorized to say such a thing. You know that Pope John Paul II, leading up to the Jubilee Year 2000, expressed regret for sins committed against non-Catholics by certain "sons and daughters of the Church." But never did he express regret for the way in which the 16th-century popes and other leaders of the Church handled the case of the heretic, Fr. Martin Luther. Accordingly, you and I have not been given permission to say that "blame should go to Rome at the time as well for not handling the situation properly."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.


John, I don't see anything telling me Magistarily, that I can't find fault in what some in Church history did outside of faith and morals. We have made a lot of mistakes over the years. I think how we handled Luther and his followers was one of the big ones. Had we done a better job, and cleaned up some of our administrative excesses earlier Luther would have continued to be an advocate for Rome instead of a vocal critic who eventually became a heritic.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.


Just because you have the benefit of hindsight doesn't mean you can blame the Church now.

We lament the fact one priest couldn't relent to the lawful authority of his pontiff; as nine out of ten clerics would have. But no one knew then how it would play out.

The Church isn't liable to your charge of misunderstanding or mismanagement. The causes of the tragedy are solely one person's. Martin Luther, who disobeyed. The Pope had no duty to obey him; although if he'd had your hindsight to guide him, he would've been easier to persude, no doubt.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2003.



Back tot he topic. I come here to learn.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 07, 2003.

Bill, I agree with Eugene.
I would add this, which I implied last time:

The Vatican today is in a much better position than simple laymen like you and me to judge whether or not "how we handled Luther and his followers was one of the" Church's "big ones" ("mistakes" "outside faith and morals"). And, since the Vatican has not said that the Church made mistakes in the case of Luther, I have to ignore your opinion as unsubstantiated.

I didn't say that you are forbidden to voice an opinion. I said that you are not authorized by the Church to voice one on behalf of Catholicism. Since this is a Catholic forum, I didn't want non-Catholic visitors to think that your simple opinion (which I don't share) reflects an official point-of-view of the Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


Reading this site just about brought me to tears. I do not know if anyone is still involved in this thread or not since it has been over a year since anyone has posted, but look at how terribly divisive your arguments are. The founding Fathers of our faith set before us the things that are essential to being a Christian in the Creeds. (Nicene, Apostles, etc) They developed these to weed out those who were preaching against the core of what it means to be a Christian (gnostics, arianism, and the like) These statements of faith along with the Holy Scriptures tell us the basis for our faith. There is a famous statement that says, "In essentials, let there be unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity" There is no use arguing about the things we don't agree on. The important thing is that we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one God in three persons and that belief in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ will grant us an eternity with Christ. In the one recorded prayer for the Church, Christ prayed for unity among the Brethren not uniformity, unity. How amazing would it be if instead of arguing over these things we refuse to agree with each other on, we would stand together on the core foundations laid out in the creeds. How different would the world be if Christians would act like Christians and love one another in spite of differences. If we could agree to disagree in some areas and let Christ set us straight when we are before His judgement seat. We make the central issue infant baptism, or the Gifts of the Spirit, or the 'Right Bible,' instead of making the central issue Christ the Son of God crucified and risen for our sins...

No part of the Church universal is satanic the one true Church is not a denomination, but the Body of Christ the whole Body, not just the Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, or Protestants. It is all who profess faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. How arrogant to say one denomination or form of worship is the right worship of God. No wonder the Church is such a mess. All denominations worship God differently and that is okay. Catholics stress God as Father, Evangelicals stress God as Son, and Pentecostals stress God as Spirit. Is any one of these better than the others? No God is God however he is worshipped. To think otherwise denies God the glory he deserves. "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God."

As long as Christians have these elitist attitudes towards each other Christ will be just a dismembered body spread throughout the world. How terribly sad.

-- Laura H. (laurempear@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.


Laura: There is no ''Church universal'' except the single Church founded by Jesus Christ. He called his apostles to be ''fishers of men''. His head apostle Peter was called to confirm all the brethren, and we know Peter as first Pope of Rome, our Holy Father. Every new Pope in succession is Peter speaking for Christ in the world.

In Peter stands identifiable the universal Church, as we call her now, the Catholic Church. The world cannot mistake another one as Christ's Church, all the faithful look to Peter. Christ's Church is One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic. No other church in the world has these four distinguishing marks, Laura. Therefore, churches not in union with the Bishop of Rome (Peter) lack universal character. They also have no unbroken succession coming from the apostles.

In such circumstances souls in other churches have no actual membership in the Mystical Body of Christ. They are branches torn off the Vine which is His Body. The Bible is not an attachment to Christ's body; the Catholic faith is.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 25, 2004.


There is only one Christian Church, and that is the Catholic church. No one who denies the sacraments given by the Lord can be called Christian. That is just a usurpation of the name. Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus still applies and always will.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 25, 2004.

So I am investigating 'christian' faiths. I am married to a catholic and am trying to understand it all... how I might mix better with the catholic faith. I would really like to take communion at some point, but I know it is not that easy. Anyway, am I to believe that the catholic church believes that I, as a practicing devout believer of God (I just happen to be Protestant), am not a Christian? I have been attending the catholic church, in addition to my own church, for approx 10 years and I have never heard such opinions/positions. I feel inspired by God, not by satan. Oh BTW, Protestants 'waste' their time here because they are looking for information. They should be respected just as I am respecting my husband's faith and am searching to know more.

-- MB Buckley (missy_buckley@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

MB, just ignore Meyer and J Fernandes. Of course the Catholic Church recognizes protestants as fellow Christians. We speak in our official liturgies of “all who call on the name of Christ”. Welcome to the site and I hope we can answer your queries satisfactorily. To receive Communion in a Catholic Church you would have to first be received into the Catholic Church (i.e. receive the Scarament of Confirmation, but you don’t have to be re-baptised if you belong to a denomination whose baptism is recognised by the Catholic Church). There are rare exceptions made in special cases where non-Catholics who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can receive Communion on a one-off occasion, but they would probably not apply in your case.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Miss Buckley.
It may surprise you to discover that all your ''Christian'' ancestors were Catholic Christians. Up to a certain period in western history every Christian was baptised into the same Church coming down in time from Saint Peter (Rome) and the apostles. Your ancestors believed Catholic doctrine and some were possibly saints.

Today you and other descendents of Christian origin belong to sects traceable back to the Church, as in Lutheran, Anglican, or Orthodox, in eastern Europe. That's barring the remote possibility that your ancestors came from Asia or Africa. Or, some who joined sects founded by other descendents of Catholic families. I like to call these ''free-lance Christians''. They took the Holy Bible as their sole rule of faith. Most of them still do.

But it keeps them tracing back to the Catholic faith, where the Bible originated in the world. No matter how distant, they come back to Rome. Everything historically certain about Christianity has roots in Rome. Saint Paul, for instance, addressed his great epistle to the Romans --to Catholic believers. In his day there could be no others, except certain sects denounced for heresy against the apostles' teachings.

Now that you've married a Catholic, Christ has brought you full circle. Rather, your ancestral family is coming back home --in you. I know this gives Jesus great satisfaction. He only founded ONE Church. That's where all Christians belong. Congratulations, Ms Buckley--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 08, 2004.


Maybe not ours, Eugene. They were most likely Jews.

I was reading an article in the LA Times on Monday, December 12, 2004. This priest in New Mexico had a test done onhim. He discovered he was a Jew in his DNA, done by the University of Arizona.

http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=J36020&special=true

Members: 87 Website: www.familytreedna.com/public/NuevoMexico

DNA PROJECT Description:

Juan De Onate led the first Hispanic colonization of New Mexico in 1598. Among the first colonists were many Crypto-Jews seeking to establish a new Jerusalem, and among these were COHANIM, descendents of Aaron, the brother of Moses, who were in Spain since the Babylonian Invasion of Jerusalem in 600 BCE. The book of Obidiah defines the Jews in exile in Sephardi (Spain). The descendents of Jacinto Sanchez de Inigo and the Duran Y Chavez family are COHANIM. Surnames in Project:

Aragon, Baca, Casaus, Chavez, Delgado, Esquibel, Garcia, Gonzales, Lopez, Lucero, Martinez, Moya, Ordaz, Perez, Romero, Salazar, Sanchez, Santistevan, Sisneros, Toledo Requirements:

Since a Surname Project in essence traces members of a family that share a common surname, and females (a) don't carry their father's Y- DNA, and (b) acquire a new surname by the way of marriage, in order to be relevant to the Surname Project, the tested individual must be a male that wants to check his paternal line (father's father's father's...). The test to be ordered is either the Y-DNA12, Y-DNA25 or Y-DNA37, and females should look for a brother or cousin with that surname to be tested.

New Mexico Project on Jewish Ancestry

Chavez - J2: Semitic origin. Mostly found in the Middle East. This haplogroup contains the Cohen modal lineage which is found in about 5% of those with this origin. Mostly found in the middle east, Mediterranean and North Africa. About 28% of Sephardic Jews have this origin. 43% of Ashkenazi Jews have this origin. 3% of modern day Spaniards share this origin.

So, Eugene Chavez, deep inside your roots have been Jewish for over 3,500 years.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com@srla.org), December 08, 2004.


I respect the protestant as I respect the sinner -I do not respect the sin or the protestant 'religion'...

protestantism is paganism...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 09, 2004.


Elpidio, the testing may be scientific as far as it goes. But the conclusions you and the LA Times reach from it are bunkum. First of all, the testing only applies to those who took the test. It can’t be extrapolated to everyone with the same surname, even before allowing for adoptions, etc. More importantly, the testing only picks up ONE ancestor in each generation. But you only have to go back 10 generations and you have 1024 ancestors. Go back 600 years and the number of ancestors is greater than the population of the Earth. Of course there is a lot of doubling up of ancestors. But it was recently calculated that you only have to go back about 2500 years to find a common ancestor for ANY two randomly selected people on the planet. So the idea of “a group of people descended from Aaron” or “descended from a group of Jews who went to Spain in 600 BC” is rubbish, because EVERYBODY can claim such descent.

Daniel, a pagan is someone who has never heard the Gospel. Or more broadly, someone who does not worship the one true God. Protestants have a distorted and limited version of the true Christian faith, but they are not pagans.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 09, 2004.


It took me 20 seconds and a superficial glance at Elpidio's post to see its irrelevance. I wasn't talking to Miss Buckley of genetic roots of her ancestors. Indeed any number may have been descendents of Jews. So what? The faith in which they were Christianized (baptism) had to be Catholic. I mentioned Asians and Africans because then there would not have been roots back to Rome; ancestors coming from these races likely were pagans in the recent past.

The truth is, Hebraic ancestors are to be found in many Catholic families; especially from Sephardic roots. They still converted to Catholicism in early times; not to protestant sects. To the great glory of God, who loves the chosen people. I fail to see what DNA has to do with faith. After all, Jesus and his followers were practically 100% Hebrews in blood. I'm thrilled about it, Elpidio. The Catholic faith fulfills to the letter God's promise to Abraham. Every believer in the Son of God becomes a spiritual heir of Abraham.

I saw a snide remark made by some atheist on the net once, about how Christ has ''never come back as he promised us''. But then I thought of the promise God made Abraham: ''As numerous as the stars are in the heavens shall your descendents be,'' Christ won't return to us until Abraham's descendents surpass the number of all the stars in heaven! That means every Jew from antiquity, joined with every faithful Catholic. Plus every convert the Church has ever gained from Judaism. That's a lot of souls! All of them descending from Abraham as God promised.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2004.


Irrelevance because it came from me, ha, Eugene?

Actually, Steve, Eugene's ancestors and mine are Jewish.

People were forcd to convert.

From this site: http://www.kulanu.org/old/marranonames.html Sephardic Last Names

The “marranos” phenomena started in Spain and Portugal long before the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Catholic Kings. They were forced conversions since the times of the Visigoth Kings. At different times the practices for name taking change. From the 14th century upward the costumes were:

A) to take the name of a geographic place like “Arroyo”, “Avila”, “Caceres”,“Sierra”, etc

B) to take the name of a holy day of the Catholic Church like “Ramos” for “Ramos de Pascua” (Palms Sunday) or “Quaresma”

C) to take the name or the family name of the Christian sponsor like “Perez” (meaning son of Pedro), “Nu��rdquo; (son of Nu�� etc.

D) keep the Hebrew or Moorish family name and prefixed it with 'Ben', 'Aben' or 'Ibn' like in the cases of “Abenarroyo” (Aben = son of plus Arroyo = geographical name), “Bendavid”, etc.

E) use a nickname like “Pardo” (brown) etc

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@tyahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


The Catholic Priest, Steven, is father William Sanchez. He is 53. He is at St. Edwin's church in Anburquerque New Mexico.

The Chaves from the article is Keith Chaves, 47, an engineer from Albuquerque. He found out through DNA he is Sephardim (Spanish Jew).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egoval@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Here is the article , same story as the LA Times.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/la-na- heritage5dec05,0,118490.story?coll=ny-leadhealthnews-headlines

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Elpindio;
Wish I knew why you think anybody has to be forced to convert from Judaism. Didn't the Saul the Pharisee become a Catholic on the road to Damascus?

The Jews who became Catholics in Spain were simply converts on the whole. Perhaps many converted for practical reasons, and never believed. These were Marranos; who eventually convinced Isabel Jews must either convert sincerely or leave her country. They had surreptitiously pretended to become Christians while enjoying a ''crypto-Jewish'' (as you term it) anonimity amidst true believers.

It shows something of a tawdry corruptibility in them; unwilling to suffer for what they believed. Opposed to Catholics, who frequently gave up everything, including their lives, for God.

I've seen Sevilla's grand cathedral, and can testify to the faith of my ancestors. It's something unbelievable. In my veins I could feel the love my ancestors had for that place. Possibly one of them helped in its construction, who knows? I'm a direct descendent of Field Marshall Duran y Chavez. Very much doubt he would like being called a crypto-Jew.

But I'm hard to flap that way, because I could never despise a Jew. You see, Jesus Mary and Joseph are Jews. Paul the apostle, as I stated, is a Jew who suffered and died for Christ. None of them stopped being Hebrew genetically and changed into Christians. Christianity embraces all mankind, there is no Jew or Gentile, Greek or Spaniard.

There are no Yahwist Christians, either, my friend. You must be all Christian and forget this world's factions. Christ is seated now at the right hand of the father almighty. he is God the Son. If you deny that, you aren't a Christian; sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2004.


You and I were born Catholics, Eugene.

Our ancestors were not.They were forced.

At least I agree with you on this part, Eugene. Christ is seated now at the right hand of the father almighty. At least that makes me a Christian.

As to Christian Yahwist? Weren't you and John Gecik telling me to use something else other than Catholic in this forum? I did not create the division.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Our ancestors didn't have to be forced, Elpidio. Speak for your own, not mine. Yours are Mexican, aren't they?

You don't seem to believe in evangelization. Are only Gentiles evangelized? The Jews must be forced?

Saint Peter, himself a Galilean and a fisherman by trade, converted more than 3,000 Jews in one afternoon.

But you use these leftist calumnies about Spain merely for shock value, not to show us the truth. Maybe it amuses you to lock & load at Chavez here; and let the air out of my balloon. I'm supposed to object to my bloodlines being exposed as Jewish, not Spanish? But you didn't teach us anything. Now it's necessary to spend a post exposing how Jews were victims in Spain. ''Forced'' to convert; meaning our ancestors. I don't follow the logic, Eli. God forces no one to believe. In any country, anytime. The Gospel is enough. It was sufficient in Jerusalem, and sufficient in Spain.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2004.


What does it matter to us today whether or not any of our ancestors were forced to convert to Catholicism? Each of us has made his own decision which religion he wants to practise. Catholicism isn’t in our DNA, it’s in our souls. Go back far enough and ALL of our ancestors were idolaters.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 09, 2004.

what about Adam, Steve?

What was he?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ