Such as statement shows your complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.

There is no evidence that any of the distinctly Protestant doctrines and teachings existed prior to 1517. Doctrines such as the "Bare Rememberance Memorial Meal" (AKA "The Lord's Supper), "making a decision for Christ, salvation by "faith alone", etc. simply cannot be found being spoken of, preached about in sermons, or in any objective search of history. Your saying that is is so does not in fact make it so.

Ex hoc ergo....you are delusional.

And you are stupid as well. You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag because you don't have the common sense to recognize and refute a point when it is made.

The point of my United States parallelism to the Church is that neither one of them has anything in their official documents which endorses bad behavior by individuals within their walls. You might as well say that America sanctions the sexual molestation of interns because of what that louse Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office.

Do you understand the concept? Or do I have to get out the paper and crayons for you?

Nothing in any official documents of the Church which teach morals and behavior give sanction to the doing of evil. The evils done in the Church were the choices of individual men (and a rare few at that) and not of the Church as a corpus.

Jesus said that the kingdom would have in it both good fish and bad, both wheat and tares until the end of time when the angels would sort the good from the bad.

Why don't you study your Bible before you go runnin' off your mouth in such abysmal ignorance?

The main doctine of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone. The next was that the pope is the antichrist. This was taught from at least 1100 ad. by the true, persecuted church, which Rome calls heretics, and probably for much longer.

The Waldenisan "Noble Lesson" and "Treatise on Antichrist" date from about that time. The Waldensians claim their seperation from Rome from the time of Sylvester. Sylvester was the Bishop of Rome during the time that the Empire was removed to Byzantium.

So we see that the true church seperated when the bishop of Rome was freed from constraint by the removal of the empire and Emperor. (2 Thess. 2: 6- Rome falsely said the Waldensians went back only to Petrus de Lyon, who is also credited with the authorship of the Noble Lesson.

Not true. There were papal medals minted to boast of events like the Bartholmews massacre.

I don't think I was offensive to you and I'd appreciate it if you were not either.

On 2 Thessalonians 2

"Now anyone who has learned from Scripture what are the things that belong particularly to God, and who on the other hand considers well what the Pope usurps for himself, will not have much difficulty in recognizing Antichrist, even though he were a ten-year-old boy. Scripture declares that God is the only Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy (Jas. 4.12), and the only King whose office it is to govern men's souls by His Word. It represents Him also as the Author of all holy observances; it teaches that righteousness and salvation arc to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns the means and the method. There is not one of these things which the Pope does not claim to be his own prerogative. He boasts that it is his right to bind men's consciences with such laws as he pleases, and to consign them to eternal punishment. With regard to the sacraments, he either institutes new ones at his own whim, or corrupts and debases those which had been instituted by Christ. But more—he does completely away with them in order to put in their place the blasphemies which he has devised. He contrives means of attaining salvation which are wholly at variance with the teaching of the Gospel, and in a word does not hesitate to alter the whole of religion according to his inclination. What, I ask, does it mean to be lifted above all that is reckoned to be divine, if this is not what the Pope is doing? When in this way he deprives God of His honour, he leaves Him nothing but the empty title of God, while he transfers to himself the whole of His power. And this is what Paul adds shortly afterwards, viz. that the son of perdition would declare himself to be God. As we have said, Paul does not use the term God by itself, but indicates that the pride of Antichrist would be such that he would set himself apart from his position and rank as servant, mount the judgment-seat of God, and would reign with a divine and not human power. Anything that is put in the place of God, even though it does not bear the name of God, is, as we know, an idol.

In the temple of God. This one word fully refutes the error or rather stupidity of those who hold the Pope to be the vicar of Christ on the ground that he has a settled residence in the Church, however he may conduct himself. Paul sets Antichrist in the very sanctuary of God. He is not an enemy from the outside but from the household of faith, and opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. The question, however, is asked how the Church may be referred to as the den of so many superstitions, when it was to be the pillar of the truth (I Tim. 3.15). My answer is that it is so referred to not because it retains all the qualities of the Church, but because it has still some of them left. I admit, therefore, that it is the temple of God in which the Pope holds sway, but the temple has been profaned by sacrileges beyond number. " Jean Calvin

What was obvious to a 10 year old boy in Calvin's day should be obvious to a grown man today.

At the great Council of Francfort in A.D. 794 under Charlemagne 300 bishops protested against papish image worship. It was certainly a most remarkable protest of Western Christendom against that heathenish practice of antichristian superstition.—Nor was this all. For by its reception of Alcuin into the Council, and eulogium in its last canon on his erudition in ecclesiastical doctrine,1 it adopted and identified itself generally with Alcuin's published opinions on religion. What these were ap-pears both from other of his writings, and also from the Capitularies of Charlemagne drawn up by Alcuin : in the which there was set forth, says Bishop Newton, " doctrine respecting the sufficiency of the Scriptures, the worship of God alone, prayers in the vulgar tongue, the eucharist, justification and repentance, pretended visions and miracles, and other like points, such as a Papist would abhor, and a Protestant would subscribe." - E. B. Elliott


More later

There was a disputation on just this matter at the time of Charles the Bald A.D.845, says mosheim

From this we see that the current RCC teaching was new doctrine then and that before that each seemed to hold his own opininion on the matter.

With all of the debate heading many different ways and venues, I wanted to add that when it comes down to it, Christ is all in all.

If you are reading this, and you are attending a catholic church, maybe you have questions about what salvation really is? Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said:

It is not found in mary. It is not found in self. One does not "discover it". It is not through mary do we pray to our Lord Jesus Christ. Mary is not our mediator or intercessor.

Jesus Christ alone has these titles.

Jesus Christ loves you. he does not require that you go through rituals and liturgies, and masses to atone for works good or evil. He paid the price on Calvary, and desires you to accept His gift of Salvation.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 05, 2008 08:09 PM by Jim.