The underlying nature of the Protestant Reformation can be seen in the natures of the key figures that provoked many of the discontented faithful into heresy. Martin Luther in Germany and King Henry VIII in England are prime examples of such figures (see short quotes below about them). Their interest to separate from Catholicism was motivated by excessive desire for money, women and power. This being the roots of the so-called Protestant Reformation, shows us that it was rooted in the flesh and not the spirit. That is, the Protestant ancestors of all our separated brethren, were "ministers of the flesh". And today their myriad churches have grown up to be like them. How could they not? As the fruit reveals the seed, today’s Protestants are likewise "ministers of the flesh".

Only the Catholic Church will survive, as it was built on rock and not human flesh. Thus there is no reason to think that it doesn’t matter which Christian denomination one belongs too. We need to oppose characteristically Protestant thinking in charitable and visible ways when necessary, possibly causing discontent in would-be friendships. The use of strong words here is important because it can prevent easily influenced Catholics (like myself) from becoming fallen-away Catholics. Do you agree that today’s Protestants, all non-Catholic Christians as a loose unit, with their particular belief system, are indeed "Ministers Of The Flesh"?

The following are quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia entries for the two men mentioned.

Quote from Henry VIII: Such was Henry when, probably about the beginning of the year 1527, he formed a violent passion for Mary's younger sister, Anne. It is possible that the idea of the divorce had suggested itself to the king much earlier than this (see Brown, "Venetian Calendars", II, 479), and it is highly probable that it was motivated by the desire of male issue, of which he had been disappointed by the death in infancy of all Catherine's children save Mary. Anne Boleyn was restrained by no moral scruples, but she saw her opportunity in Henry's infatuation and determined that she would only yield as his acknowledged queen. Anyway, it soon became the one absorbing object of the king's desires to secure a divorce from Catherine, and in the pursuit of this he condescended to the most unworthy means.

Quote from Martin Luther: His [Erasmus's] sententious characterization that where "Lutheranism flourishes the sciences perish", that its adherents then, were men "with but two objects at heart, money and women", and that the "Gospel which relaxes the reins" and allows everyone to do as he pleases, amply proves that something more deep than Luther's contentiousness made him [Erasmus] an alien to the movement. Nor did Luther's subsequent efforts to reestablish amicable relations with Erasmus, to which the latter alludes in a letter (11 April, 1526), meet with anything further than a curt refusal.

F.Y.I. >> Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467-1536) was termed the "second eye of Germany". Vivacious, acute, and witty, he was the leader and literary oracle of the century, while his name, according to the testimony of a contemporary, had passed into proverb: "Whatever is ingenious, scholarly, and wisely written, is termed erasmic, that is, unerring and perfect."

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 30, 2003

Answers

Ministers Of The Flesh

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 30, 2003.

The reformation movement in Germany and the creation of the Anglican Church in England were two different policical dynamics.

Luther (at least at the beginning) did not intend to leave the Church.

The Catholic Church is currently teaching both sides of the historical events in order to avoid the mistakes that led to the uprising.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 30, 2003.

Mike:

Consider the recent example of the Australian Baptist missionary Graham Staines in a remote tribal area in India. He was burnt to death along with his two young sons when Hindu fanatics set his car on fire, while the people he was serving stood around and watched. Following this loss, his wife decided to stay on in the area with her daughter and continue to work with the same people. The vast majority of Christians in India are Catholics and the Church enjoys some political clout. Should it use it to support Mrs. Staines?

Consider also the recent exposure of unspeakable depravity among Catholic clergy in the U.S. and elsewhere, and the revelation that the Church, far from fighting this almost unimaginable immorality, was busily covering it up. That this cancer is still with us is illustrated by a recent post on another thread here. The vast majority of Christians in the U.S. are Protestants. Should they use their political clout to force the Catholic hierarchy to clean up its act? Or should they leave it to the Catholics, inspite of the bad record of the Catholic establishment?

Erasmus may be a dubious posterchild for traditional Catholic values? Also the Church leadership or Catholic leaders at the time of the reformation may not compare very well with Luther or Henry VIII?

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Protestant doctrines are just plain wrong (well where they differ from ours). But it doesn't follow that Protestants are bad Christians or particularly that their ministers are "ministers of the flesh".

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), May 31, 2003.

Stephen

You say,

plain wrong doctrine does NOT = bad Christian

You have a point, any one Protestant, particularly those who were born in Protestant families, may not live like Luther or King Henry VIII. There are Protestants who perhaps do better than the founders did. Am I too judgmental? Also when I recall all those in the line of Jesus and David, there were some with questionable backgrounds but lived to improve their lives. And a good Catholic could have bad parents or a bad priest, but prosper spiritually in spite of it.

So I will have to retract part of my post. This part: todays Protestants are likewise "ministers of the flesh". Baby I was born to retract !!! Sung to the tune of born to be wild. I was making a sweeping generalization or improper judgement. I'm sorry.

However, if I am considering becomming a Protesant but I am currently a Catholic than I have to make a black and white comparison of the two faiths. Why would I really want to become a Protestant if I was currently a Catholic? It might be because I wanted to sin and not feel guilty. If I wanted to become fleshy or to backslide in my spiritual growth, one serious way would be to become a Protestant.

I mentioned in my original Question why I called them "ministers of the flesh". I said, The use of strong words here is important because it can prevent easily influenced Catholics (like myself) from becoming fallen-away Catholics.

Considering the purpose I have in mind here, "ministers of the flesh" is an appropriate descriptor albeit best used semi- privately. This is a Catholic forum. So I am speaking to Catholics and those interested in Catholicism. I would not walk up to a Protestant friend or a Protestant acquaintance and say those words directly to him or her. Sometimes I have loose lips. I didn't present the idea very well. After I posted this I was hoping this one Protestant friend of mine wouldn't read it.

Did I recover?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 31, 2003.

Mike:

Gotcha, I agree. I think I read somewhere (could be wrong) that most Catholics who convert to Protestantism in the U.S. do so because of marriage/divorce issues. It's probably a bit more complex in Latin America though. Paul Johnson (The Quest for God) claims that the appeal of Protestantism there is because the local Church has got too entangled in liberation theology.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 01, 2003.

Mike,

"Ministers of the flesh"??? Considering the problems among Catholic clergy these days, this seems an ill-conceived barb at best.

As to the primary motivation for a Catholic to convert to Protestantism, one former church I attended had 2,500 - 3,000 regular Sunday morning attendees, 80% of which had left the Catholic Church. These were mostly people who had been filled with the Holy Spirit and received gifts of the Spirit and found inadequate ways of learning about and expressing that level of spirituality in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Charismatic movement is not significantly represented in many areas and when God fills one with the Spirit, the Holy Spirit compells that individual to seek intense worship and teaching and prayer and focus on holiness that is not present in non- Spirit-filled congregations. Most of these people are extremely attuned to personal holiness and can be considered anything but "minister of the flesh". So the majority of people, in my experience, that left the Catholic Church, did so to seek out greater expressions of holiness and spirituality. Just wanted to provide an alternative picture to the one you've painted with such a broad brush.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

david,

no offense. thats a load. it takes more than going to mass three times to consider yourself an ex catholic. ask some of these superholy friends of yours what all seven of the sacraments are, in order, and see what they actually know. thats not even a good charictaristic of a true catholic either.

HA they left the catholic church because it didnt have the spirit? no, they left the catholic church because it didnt pat them on the back and make them feel good. see, our worship doesnt focus on emotion... the focus is on faith. you worship God because your church gives you warm fuzzies. we worship God because we realize the severe nature of our sins, their consequences, and the love of our father.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for validating the reason for my post. You see, there's an entire world of very devote, faith-filled, holy believers in Jesus Christ out there that you're totally out of touch with. If it makes you feel better, you can continue in your ignorance and characterize them as inferior, fleshly, schmismatic, separated, yada, yada brethren or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that these folks are serious about God in a way that's far deeper than anyone I ever encountered in the Catholic Church. And I faithfully attended Mass weekly, was an altar boy for 6 years and participated in many extra activities during the week and weekend for 20+ years.

One of the primary reasons I wound up leaving the Catholic Church was because after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I was desparately seeking a place where people were pursuing God passionately and seriously with every fiber of their being. I wanted to hear the meat of God's Word taught to me and I only was getting milk for 5 minutes every Sunday morning. I wanted to be in a place where people sung to God for an hour and didn't want to stop; instead I was getting 3 hymns in which 1 out of 3 actually were brave enough to sing along to. I wanted to be around people who took holiness seriously and who pursued God in their everyday life through daily prayer and worship and enjoyed talking and learning about God every day; instead I was around people who knew and cared little for their faith mostly going through the motions and relegating God to Sunday mornings only. Once the Holy Spirit filled me, I needed more. And I didn't find it in the Catholic Church. I found it in the world of Christianity that you so carelessly malign out of ignorance.

Whatever makes you feel superior. Just realize you're kidding yourself.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

Hi Dave:

I certainly wouldn't call any Catholic congregation "non spirit-filled" since (a) every adult member would have received the sacrament of confirmation, and (b) we pray for the Holy Spirit during the Mass. To call the congregation "non spirit-filled" is therefore an offence against faith, since it implies that God doesn't answer this prayer, clearly contradicting several scripture texts that I'm sure you're familiar with.

To infer "non spirit-filled"-ness from the form of worship is a rush to judgement IMHO. Suppose there is an ardent Charismatic sitting at Mass next to a staunch traditionalist with SSPX sympathies. Both of them likely have acute reservations about the form of worship, but they have still been brought to the same Church to offer the same prayer to the same Christ.

How can we say that this is not the Spirit at work, maybe doing something a lot more wonderful than getting them to sing in tongues or faint in the aisles? 1 Cor. 13 comes to mind.

And by the way, here's a spirit-filled word from a beloved old Catholic minister expressing his simple happiness in his favorite prayer.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 01, 2003.

Dave,

What did the peope do that didn't have your relegion, up until about 100 years ago do?

Did they invent something new in the 19th century? Wasn't the Pentecostal relegion started around 1905? You can trace the first pope all the way back to Jesus. You can't even trace the relegion you left the Catholic Church for back before the first automoblie(or close to it)

May the Lord open your mind to the truth, and help you understand, and bring you back home.(not judging on the hymns).

If its screaming and music you want, than you are probably cool where your at. But, if you want the "unwatered down" truth, than trace it back,-over 2000 years.

Didn't you change relegions a few times in the past? How solid is your foundation? Why did you change your relegion again after you left the Catholic Church?

Who's fooling who?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 01, 2003.

Dave B,

You said, "Once the Holy Spirit filled me, I needed more, and I didn't find it in the Catholic Church."

If the Holy Spirit filled you, than what more could you need? Did you find it in a relegion that was started 1900 years after the Catholic Church?

Maybe you left your faith before you truly understood it, and thats why you are unsettled and bouncing around?

Don't make it harder than it is. The truth is right where you left it, and you have the free will and the brains to see this?

Where where the Pentecostals from the fist century up until 1900? See what I mean? Its people like you with all due respect)that there are over 30,000 different relegions now, with a new one started every day.

-- David (David@excite.com), June 01, 2003.

there's an entire world of very devote, faith-filled, holy believers in Jesus Christ out there that you're totally out of touch with.

actually, having been force fed protestant church for years, im not exactly out of touch with protestant believers. i know what protestants stand for, and i dont want it.

If it makes you feel better, you can continue in your ignorance and characterize them as inferior, fleshly, schmismatic, separated, yada, yada brethren or whatever,

as ive told you, im not ignorant at all about what youre selling. and i will continue to characterize protestantism as inferior to the catholic faith, cus ive been in both worlds, and only one of em is spinning in the right direction (i'll give you a hint, its not yours)

but that doesn't change the fact that these folks are serious about God in a way that's far deeper than anyone I ever encountered in the Catholic Church

just how many TRUE catholics do you know? five? i bet ALL the 'former catholics' attending your church were C.E. catholics and couldnt even name the seven sacraments, so before you count how many 'catholics' you know, you have to leave those foolish idiots off the list. either way, if your worship is deeper than mine, tell me why your eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, which our Lord commanded us to partake of? that is worship, not just mere singing or jibberish tongues that you people fake.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

Dave -- non-Catholic Christian

One of the primary reasons I wound up leaving the Catholic Church was because after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit...

So you left the Catholic Church because while you were in the Catholic Church you were given a special gift? How preposterous! That reasoning isn't even close to sanity. Why would you leave the family that brought you the gift? You could have remained Catholic and still fellowshiped with charismatics of any Christian denomination.

I was desparately seeking a place where people were pursuing God passionately and seriously with every fiber of their being. I wanted to hear the meat of God's Word taught to me and I only was getting milk for 5 minutes every Sunday morning.

You could have gone to daily mass as well. As we all ought to. Then you could have gotten 35 minutes in your old church or gone to another Catholic Church which took more time to preach. I don't know of any Catholic parishes that give 5 minute Sunday sermons. And I don't know of any common Protestant denomination that has daily services.

I wanted to be in a place where people sung to God for an hour and didn't want to stop; instead I was getting 3 hymns in which 1 out of 3 actually were brave enough to sing along to.

So maybe God wanted you to go to mass, and stand next to these slothful singers and show them what it means to worship in song? Now you can't fulfill that mission. Instead of evangelizing at home you found some foreign group who could sing loud. When I read the bible I never got the notion from Jesus that loud vocals was critical issue in salvation. You could have joined the choir.

...instead I was around people who knew and cared little for their faith mostly going through the motions and relegating God to Sunday mornings only. Once the Holy Spirit filled me, I needed more. And I didn't find it in the Catholic Church.

What a force you might have been for all these lost souls you mention. Are we not to shephard the flock? Was it not God you raised you up out of your Catholic boredom? And what did you do? You abandoned them. And now you come back here to the Catholic forum, out of guilt for having left the spiritual family God gave you. You are trying to make up for it here today. Could you not have done better by building up the Church from within. Yes it would have been a difficult task. People may have looked at you funny or ignored you. How easy it is to walk away from difficult tasks, all the while pointing the finger. You criticize from afar, that's easy to do. You dropped your cross.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), June 02, 2003.

Paul,

I'm not "selling" anything. Just because I strive to explain someone's misinformed opinion, doesn't mean I'm trying to convince anyone to leave the Catholic Church. At best, my goal is to have you just pull your head out of the sand to see that the world is a bit different than the insular view you've formed.

Mike H,

So you left the Catholic Church because while you were in the Catholic Church you were given a special gift?

Well, the gift was bestowed through non-Catholic Christians praying for me and laying on of hands (which is the way Catholic Charismatics received the infilling of the Spirit back in the late 60's), so I didn't associate the gift with Catholicism. I stayed in the Church for a while afterward seeking Spirit-filled believers and found none - literally. And I did ask my priests, who were and still are my friends. There just isn't strong Charismatic representation in my area otherwise there's a good chance I never would have left.

I don't know of any Catholic parishes that give 5 minute Sunday sermons.

Well, the 5 or so Catholic Churches I've attended over the years have never had homilies lasting more than 5-10 minutes - lest the front row starts to shift in their seats and tap their watches worrying that they'll miss the start of the football game. And the homilies are always milk. I've never heard excellent teaching from the Catholic pulpit - devotional thoughts 'yes', but not in depth teaching.

What a force you might have been for all these lost souls you mention. Are we not to shephard the flock? Was it not God you raised you up out of your Catholic boredom?

Perhaps, but I was not in a position to teach. I needed to learn and that wasn't going to happen where I was. I was a spiritual babe, not a mature teacher/leader. 20 years later - yes, now perhaps I have that level of maturity - though I suspect you'd disagree with that assessment.

And now you come back here to the Catholic forum, out of guilt for having left the spiritual family God gave you.

Huh?? Guilt? Remember, I'm not Catholic anymore. I'm no longer guilt-ridden :-) Couldn't resist that one :-)

You are trying to make up for it here today.

Actually I'm just participating in an interesting conversation. I'm not here with an agenda or on a mission. I've been visiting this forum off and on since 1999 - earlier than anyone else here except Chris Butler and Enrique (who stills pops his head in every once in a while).

You criticize from afar

My intention wasn't critiicism - it's explanation and perspective. What I've said isn't to denegrate the Church, it's to explain how and why someone (me)left - which was one of the underlying points of this thread. No one leaves something because they're content. You initially asserted that people leave to pursue the flesh. That may indeed be true for many people who leave for Protestant denominations, but I countered with an alternative that's just as true - that many leave to pursue God in deeper and more powerful ways. That you don't want to accept that is understandable, but it doesn't change the truth.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.

Dear David Bowman,
You said You said, "Once the Holy Spirit filled me, I needed more, and I didn't find it in the Catholic Church." A self-serving judgment if ever there was one.

First: You aren't filled with the Spirit. Get real.

Second, The Catholic Church isn't in this world to give you esoteric outlets. You have no cause to blame her for your greed after ecstacies.

Plenty of Catholics have been true mystics. Mystics, visionaries, stigmatics, and great saints. You may have aspired to such grandeur, but you really blew it leaving the Church Jesus Christ gave you. To arrive here saying you ''couldn't find'' some odd pie in the sky amidst Christ's faithful is pure balderdash.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.

--Sorry--
Meant to write Bowerman.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.

Eugene,

Speaking of self-serving judgments . . . I realize that it protects your biased theology to think that I haven't been filled with the Spirit, but you are neither capable of nor in a position of authority from which to judge me in that matter.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 04, 2003.

David, My friend.
The best authority is the Holy Spirit. Let Him speak for Himself. I'll believe Him. People with the Holy Spirit aren't ostentatious about it, - -and, wouldn't signal it by disparaging the Church of the holy apostles. You can see why I don't fall for those yarns. It's clear many deceive themselves in this life; that's the bias you're inclined to. I can still care about you, and I'll pray for you. I don't have to agree with you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

Dave, We all have our personal journeys. Mine has been winding. The Holy Spirit works in many ways. God isn't through with us yet.

We may make turns in order to help others on their journeys.

Please be open to what the Spirit continues to tell you.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 04, 2003.

The Holy Spirit is active in souls who give him a chance. Those who love Jesus Christ have the comforts of the Holy Spirit; David has them and feels them. But ''filled'' with the Holy Spirit is the great grace experienced only by prophets and saints. Mary was filled, singing her Magnificat. The apostles on Pentecost preaching to the assembled Jews, and on many glorious ocassions.

I see one inescapable sign that this isn't how Dave or any charismatic or pentecostal is ever in that exalted state.

He slips and states: ''Once the Holy Spirit filled me, I needed more.'' I'm puzzled how a ''spirit- filled'' soul could ''need more''.

And, we hear other absurd things: ''many leave to pursue God in deeper and more powerful ways. That you don't want to accept that is understandable, but it doesn't change the truth.''

Leave to pursue God? If I'm a faithful child of the Church (there's only ONE) and I have full communion with the whole Church and her Bridegroom, why would I go elsewhere to ''pursue'' Him? What is ''more powerful'' about staying away from the sacraments? Because, Jesus hasn't asked me to pursue Him. He's with us in the holy tabernacle perpetually. He's with His people till the end of the world. We have all His teachings from the apostles. We communicate with Him by prayer, meditation and reading scripture & the works of many saints. To ''go pursue Him''. tells me there was no faith where you were to begin with. I mean, in your heart.

He pursues US. We answer His call and love Him. The entire framework of this charismatic movement is jury-rigged for elitist consumption. Here's David: ''I stayed in the Church for a while afterward seeking Spirit- filled believers and found none - literally.''

Isn't that strange? just what I said to Dave last night. You are NOT ''spirit-filled at all --Get real.

He found none because there are none; as he understands the category. And he isn't one, as he understands the word ''filled''. He's a pilgrim in this world, like all of us.

But he left the true Church on a yellow-brick road, looking for more powerful sensations. Ho-hum!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

Perhaps this will clarify . . . note in the Book of Acts how the 120 disciples were all filled with or baptized in (depending on translation) the Holy Spirit while in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. Among those who were filled were Peter and Mary. And then recall that a few chapters later, Peter and others pray for boldness to proclaim the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit once again "fills" them. Weren't they filled just a few days/weeks earlier? So did they leak? What does it mean to be filled? What power/authority did they receive each time that they didn't have before? How did they exercise that power/authority? How does that relate to the concept of anointing? Did they instantly know how to function in miracles and deliverance and healing, etc? Or did the Holy Spirit teach them little by little? Were their lives any different after they were filled each time? Did the way they prayed change? Did they worship differently?

These and many other questions and issues are among the "things" that I "needed" after the experience of being filled. I needed someone to teach me who also was similarly filled and could speak from experience. I needed to be around others who were similarly motivated and passionate about God.

Understand, that once this happened to me, my concept of a fun Satuday night literally changed one weekend to the next - from drinking and partying to the next weekend wanting to fast for the entire weekend and spend the time in prayer and worship without even sleeping - that's not an exaggeration. And needing to be around others who were similarly motivated and who would join me in fellowship was and is important. I felt like a toddler who figured out how to walk and run and didn't want to crawl anymore and wanted to be around others who could also walk and run and didn't want to hang around those who could only crawl.

My life changed dramatically and I needed to learn about those changes. Before, I would talk with someone about the Lord and it was just an interesting college discussion (I was 21 when this occurred). After being filled, I would talk to someone on campus about the Lord and they literally would start crying and repenting in the middle of my conversation and ask me to pray for them. Reluctantly, I would pray for them and things would happen - people were touched by God, some started speaking in tongues as soon as I touched them, some were healed of things I wasn't even aware they had problems with (they came back later and would tell me), some were delivered from demonic things (reporting to me later demonic manifestations that had stopped). Such things must have happened a dozen times in just those first few months.

I realize that most of you don't believe a word I'm typing (and that's OK, I understand), but there are those who read this forum who've had similar experiences and can at least relate to what happened to me and know that it's not all that far-fetched and then can understand what I meant when I said I needed more.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 04, 2003.

dave,

After being filled, I would talk to someone on campus about the Lord and they literally would start crying and repenting in the middle of my conversation and ask me to pray for them.

was this a school for... ahem... special kids, because, (ah, i dont know how to put this lightly, so i guess i wont) youre just not that inspiring.

Reluctantly, I would pray for them and things would happen -

just like a protestant, has a gift and doesnt want to share it... reluctant? if you were truly filled you would shout it from the mountain tops, if you had faith the side of a mustard seed you could command a mountain to move and it would.

people were touched by God, some started speaking in tongues as soon as I touched them,

was this at a party? just a thought, cus ive seen ALOT of high or drunk people speak giberish while drunk. hell, i speak in french while i sleep, even though its a small second language. alkbjoekjaltkjlskdjfljdg. there, i was typing in tongues.

some were healed of things I wasn't even aware they had problems with (they came back later and would tell me), some were delivered from demonic things (reporting to me later demonic manifestations that had stopped).

a common cough goes away after a couple of weeks dave, if you talked to them and their cold got better, thats a pretty good chance that you didnt really do it. second, you dont cast out demons, thats BS. ive read transcripts of Demonic excorcisms and to put it simply, you dont have the faith and devotion required to perform a true excorcism. and youre too arogant. a demon would eat you alive. in your ignorance you dont even begin to understand what demonic possession is like. you dont even begin to understand the base nature of evil. read malachi martins 'hostage to the devil' and then tell me if you think that youve actually bumped into a demon.

Such things must have happened a dozen times in just those first few months.

one dozen colds healed!!! a dozen drunks speaking in tongues!!! its a miracle, Dave is the prophet of Christ, someone else should proclaim him so that he doesnt have to do that himself anymore.

HEY EVERYONE, DAVE HAS COME TO PERFORM THE MIRACLES OF THE LORD, WATCH AS HE GIVES COUGH SYRUP TO SOMEBODY AND THEIR SYMPTOMS GO AWAY.

but the sad thing is, dave, i helped a friend recover from sickness once. i brought her soup, and medicine, and sat by her until she felt better. but i dont chalk that up to my holyness... that was CHARITY

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2003.

Without realizing it Paul, your reaction is illustrating one of the other reasons why I needed to leave the Catholic Church. You see, my experiences, while so wildly unbelievable in your eyes, are somewhat normative in Charismatic circles. Most Charismatics can relate very similar events following when they were filled with the Spirit. We speak of such things not to brag for we ALL know it has nothing to do with us and everything to do with Jesus. How welcome do you think such experiences would be in the Catholic pews? That's one of the reasons why many Charismatics left the Catholic Church. There are many who remained such as Theresa, who posts here on this forum. But so many left in the 70's and 80's, that the Catholic hierarchy clamped down on many of the Charismatic ministries - which is where I came in when I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the early 80's. When I looked for Charismatic Catholics, I wasn't able to locate any but had heard that the local Lamb of God community had been shut down just years before.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 04, 2003.

Amazing. So you abandoned the Church God had provided as the foundation of truth, the channel of grace, and the means to salvation, in favor of charismatic experience, which is not necessary for salvation, even though truth and grace are. I guess you didn't know that charismatic experience originated in the Holy Catholic Church, and is still available in its fullness in that Church. I have belonged to a charismatic Catholic parish for 35 years. However, if the bishop tomorrow said that charismatic gifts were no longer to be exercised in the diocese (he won't), I couldn't even imagine abandoning God's own Church, the life-giving Sacraments, the real presence of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ, and the fullness of Christian truth, to adopt the traditions and partial truths of some manmade sect, just so I could continue speaking in tongues. What a paltry and twisted spirituality that would be!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2003.

David,
Let me say for whatever it's worth. You are precious to me, a fellow Christian.

For now we are separated. But by grace and the infinite love of Our Holy Redeemer we will unite someday soon; giving Him praise and adoration. His love will bring us all together in a banquet not of this world.

Faith will be our motto. God will be the King and Judge. --Jesus Christ, who loves you, and loves me as well. Don't let this life discourage you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Paul,

If being Charismatic was just about tongues, then I'd agree with you completely, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. And who said anything about abandoning grace and truth as if the Catholic Church has a monopoly on that? I understand your perspective that the entire and fullness of these things reside in the Catholic Church, but the same argument with the same reasons can be said of the Orthodox Church and they don't lack grace and truth. As it stands, I am in a church that believes in and practices the Real Presence. So much so that we have a letter from the local Catholic Cardinal who approved of our sacraments and litury and has allowed CEC members (my church) to receive Catholic sacraments at his churches. We even have a global letter from the Greek Orthodox patriarch providing a similiar statement of acceptance and unity. So I have all seven sacraments operating in my church AND I have powerful 45 minute teachings each week on subjects such as hearing the voice of God, prophesying, knowing God's will for your life, witnessing to non- believers through the Word/testimony/and the gifts of the Spirit, how to lay hands on the sick, fasting and prayer, and many other topics that would never or rarely be heard from a non-Charismatic pulpit. An each Sunday after receiving Eucharist, I can go the another priest in the back and receive prayer and be anointed for healing, God's direction in life, etc. And the priests are extremely anointed by God. Just a month ago, one of our priests laid hands on a teenager who had been in a horrible accident (he was in the shock trauma unit)- and he wasn't expected to live very long. He was surrounded by family and teen friends when he arrived to pray for the young man. As our priest laid hands on him and anointed him with oil, the man's body began to physically shake under God's power. All of the teen friends gasped out loud in wonder. That young man made a dramatic and stunning recovery - it wasn't instanteous, but it very obvious that God touched him to all those who witnessed the prayer and their lives have changed. That's the only kind of church I want to attend.

Eugene,

Thanks for your kind words.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.

Dave,

You don't belive in infalliable Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgins' virginity.

I wonder if the Bishop you qoated would still feel the same way about receiving the Sacraments, if he knew that you pick and choose as what to believe?

May the Mother of God pray for us sinners.

-- David (David@excite.com), June 05, 2003.

actually dave, that bishop is wrong

his words contradict the direct teaching of the church and are therefore invalid. your consumption of the sacrament of the Eucharist, while knowing that you are not in a position to take it, constitutes grave sin on your part. i would not recommend that. best wishes.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2003.

David,

You don't belive in infalliable Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgins' virginity. Correct I don't. But the CEC holds to the teachings of the undivided catholic church prior to the Orthodox schism which at that time did not have that doctrine. They support believers who choose to believe that as well as believers who do not - it's the same approach the Orthodox take - they don't believe in doctrinal development like Catholics do.

I wonder if the Bishop you qoated would still feel the same way about receiving the Sacraments, if he knew that you pick and choose as what to believe? Yes, he actually does know that about me and we have wonderful fellowship.

Paul,

Actually, it was a Cardinal, not a bishop. And I suggest not being so hasty about judging his decision. There are many discussions going on today between the CEC and the Vatican. The Cardinal is following an advised direction I can assure you. And he is a very long time and personal friend of our Archbishop. There is good reason to believe that the Vatican will soon declare the CEC to have valid sacraments, much as the National Catholic Church of Poland. Not that it makes much difference to me, but it lends itself to this discussion.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.

Oh David, I forgot to respond to one of your earlier comments, specifically, when you see references to my attending different churches, let's not exaggerate and miscontrue please. I spent 21 years as a Catholic, made a deliberate change to the Assemblies of God which lasted 18 years and then made a deliberate change this past year to the CEC. I've attended some different Catholic or different AG churches due to relocation.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.

Dave,

But the bottom line is that you made a few changes with you relegion.

Which is your free will. It is not Catholic to me to talk about your belief of Jesus in the Eucharistic, and speak out against believing in Marys' perpetual virginity.

This is what is mixed up about your thoughts. You can't pick and choose whaT[David B.] wants to.

Next thing you know you will be having a different opinion on contraceptives and so forth.You do follow Catholic teaching on the evil of contraceptives don't you?

I think it would be best if you stay away from the Eucharisit until you follow the Churches teachings.[Just my thoughts and no more]

-- David (David@ecite.com), June 05, 2003.

Actually, it was a Cardinal, not a bishop

well, then the cardinal is wrong too. the only reason the orthodox churches were permitted to take communion in our churches is because there is absolutely NO doctrinal difference in their innactment of the sacrament, something your church cannot claim.

further, their church was having serious talks about a reunion with the roman catholic church. although these talks have fallen apart recently, it is still the hope of JPII that the catholic churches can be reunited under the true church of Christ.

from your aparent postings here you dont have the beliefs required to be celebrating the eucharist in the catholic church. therefore the cardinal made a hasty judgment which would automatically nullify itself based on the words from the vatican. even the lutherans, and the episcopaleans who are ALMOST catholics as well, are not allowed to take communion in the catholic church. and episcopalean is as close as you can be to catholic without actually being such. your church is not even as close as them, so on what grounds does your cardinal base his decision to dissent from rome?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

From a posting (by Ed Richards) on another thread:

canon 844, 4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic faith" in these sacraments.

...

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.

And why not?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 06, 2003.

first,

ed richards is a schismatic nut who believes the vatican is under the control of a demonic conspiracy.

second, dave does not have catholic faith in the sacrament and therefore is not eligable.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

Also, as usual, Mr. Richards quotes only those specific details which, plucked out of their explanatory context, appear to support his personal views - exactly the same way other Protestants quote scripture.

The Canon in question reads:

"If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed".

Is there danger of death involved here?

Other grave and pressing need?

Is it the judgement of the bishop that such grave need exists?

Are such sacraments unavailable through ministers of the non- Catholic's own community?

Do the potential recipients hold the CATHOLIC faith regarding these sacraments?

Are they properly disposed to receive them?

Have they spontaneously requested these sacraments? (In other words, such sacraments cannot be "offered" to them or simply "allowed" in any general sense).

If ANY of these specific requirements is lacking, the canon does not apply.

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

David,

Next thing you know you will be having a different opinion on contraceptives and so forth.You do follow Catholic teaching on the evil of contraceptives don't you?

Only those that could cause an abortion such as IUD. My beliefs align, again, more with the Orthodox who do not teach against contraceptives in principle. So once again, if you condemn me for that belief, you also condemn the Orthodox, who share in your apostolic lineage - and they have recognized sacraments don't they? So your condemnation of the CEC's Eucharist is not warranted.

Paul,

the only reason the orthodox churches were permitted to take communion in our churches is because there is absolutely NO doctrinal difference in their innactment of the sacrament, something your church cannot claim.

Not true. The Orthodox hold to the Real Presence, not the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. In essence, it's very similar. But the Catholic Church has attempted to define the specific nature of the change that occurs to the host and wine whereas the Orthodox believe there isn't sufficient scriptural or traditional foundation to make such a fine distinction, so they leave it in the realm of mystery - which is where the CEC leaves it as well. Orthodox and CEC clearly state that they don't find offense in transubstantiation, but neither do they share that doctrine.

further, their church was having serious talks about a reunion with the roman catholic church. although these talks have fallen apart recently, it is still the hope of JPII that the catholic churches can be reunited under the true church of Christ.

Possibly, but not likely. The few core issues that divide them are pretty substantial. The concept and impact of doctrinal development is a major barrier as is the authority of the Pope. The Orthodox haven't changed doctrines since the 800's and don't support many of the Catholic dogma and doctrinal statements that have followed that time - they may actually share the beliefs as individuals (they allow that freedom), but they realize that those later doctrines were in fact not passed down from the Apostles and shouldn't be elevated to the level of doctrine and are not required for salvation.

As far as the CEC being similar to the Lutherans and Episcopalians, that's not exactly true. The CEC didn't split off from the Catholic Church, so it can't be reunited with her. The founders of both the Lutherans and Episcopalians were formally excommunicated which poses a different kind of barrier to unity. The CEC was formed from individuals who have never belonged to the Catholic Church but who find themselves in like faith and the Apostolic lineage was bestowed from a Catholic line much like the National Catholic Church of Poland which has Vatican recognized sacraments. Both the National Catholic Church of Poland and the Catholic Church of Brazil (who anointed the CEC's leaders with the Apostolic line) were formed in extraordinary circumstances surrounding WWII and the Vatican's involvement with Germany's leadership. The Catholic Church of Brazil was formed when the local bishop refused to cooperate with the Vatican's order for them to hide Nazi war criminals at the end of WWII. I suspect that is today viewed as being somewhat justified under the circumstances and perhaps the Vatican today has a much more understanding attitude and perhaps the sense of responsibility for what happened. Anyway, the bottom line is, the door to the CEC remains open at this point from what I understand.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

Dear David,
It's a shame that only a day later and after wishing you well, Your very untrue statements must be denounced by us.

You say some outrageous things here, about the Church, and also with no basis in reality. Your history is skewed, and prejudiced against the Church of the apostles.

--Each and every Christian community on earth is descended through history from only ONE Church, David. All, whether schismatic, eastern, western, Polish, Brazilian or protestant, every one is an errant Catholic community. Not an errant offshoot, but a dissident and heretically tainted lost tribe. Christians who at one time acknowledged the successors to Saint peter; but were separated from him by men.

The motives for these differences are also misrepresented in your post. I'm sure you hold the opinions somewhat sincerely; but that doesn't make them true. I expect you'll defend them. But you stand convicted of error as it seems now. I really had hoped you were more impartial; and could be realistically considered a man of some charism. Now, seeing the confusion you are living in, I truly have no doubts you were seduced. It happens in the best of families. Too bad!

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

Do you have a specific objection Eugene? What historical perspective am I missing? I find the topic of the Orthodox/Catholic split to be very interesting and I'd like to learn more. Perhaps that should be a separate thread.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

Oooooh, it just dawned on me that you were referring to my stating the reasons for the National Catholic Church of Poland and Catholic Church of Brazil splits . . . sorry, missed that the first time. I thought I was saying well-known stuff. Perhaps it does comes across too one-sided. Let me check a few things out and then I'll clarify. First just to explain that I wasn't referring to the exaggerations that have proliferated about Vatican and Nazi ties or any of that garbage. But there were Vatican-based individuals who did cause problems in WWII. And that's what I was referring to, but there's always two sides to every story and I'm sure I haven't represented a complete picture there. Back shortly with more - if time allows today (on my lunch break).

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

dave,

your schooling in history is obviously provided by someone with little expertise. i will divulge with a correction tomorrow when i am more alert. for now, bump to top.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

[bumping for paul's correction]

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

I wish I could take that post back as if it never were posted, but I can't. Sorry. I fully am aware of the history of exaggerated misinformation that's been published about supposed Vatican conspiracies with Hitler and all that and I have actually denounced such accusations publically before (on a Charimatic forum). Especially those put forth from the Chick camp. Some here may even recall my seeking and obtaining your help in refuting Chick and Ian Paisley (who puts forth similar garbage).

I know that Pope Pius XII was very active in protecting and sheltering hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe and was honored with a forest of newly planted trees (800,000 of them) from Jewish groups following WWII to thank him for his help in saving 800,000 Jews from the holocaust.

Back to my post - It was very poorly worded, for that I sincerely apologize. That's what I get for being in a hurry and not taking time to think things through more carefully before hitting the Submit button.

Just to attempt to clarify what I meant to say . . . was that the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (who anointed the CEC's leaders with the Apostolic lineage) were formed in far different circumstances than that of Lutherans or Episcopalians. Here is the only information I've been able to locate on the web relating to the events that led to the birth of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil:

"Bishop Duarte-Costa's criticisms of the Vatican, particularly about Vatican foreign policy during and following World War II toward Nazi Germany, were not well received at the Vatican, and he was eventually separated from the Roman Church by Pius PP XII. This action was taken only after his public denunciations that the Vatican Secretariat of State was issuing Vatican Passports to some high ranking former Nazi officials, who were then fleeing to South America, from the Allies.

Realizing this is one-side of the story, I'm sure there's the Vatican's side, but I have no clue as to how to locate that. Anyway, the point the I was referring to was that perhaps those circumstances or even those approximately those as stated, may have a more receptive ear in the Vatican when viewing the validity of the Apostolic lineage and sacraments than perhaps would the Lutherans and Episcopalians.

With regard to the Polish National Catholic Church, the point I was trying to interject was that the Vatican has officially recognized that their Apostolic lineage as mentioned in the following statement in which the Vatican has put forth strict rules that would allow Polish National Catholic members to receive Roman Catholic sacraments and vice versa. Here's the link: http://www.rcab.org/eandi/guidelines.html.

It is this kind of recognition and relationship that I believe the CEC is actively in the process of defining with the Vatican - but I'm sure they have a long way to go.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), June 08, 2003.

dave,

granted that you retracted your statement while i was gone in paris, i dont need to post a correction. as i am to understand, it is vatican policy to grant two days of diplomatic immunity and sanctuary to people who wish it, during which time the church considers the person and whether or not their immunity should be extended. they ask first, before they shoot.

i dont know if this really is the case, but it happened in south america during a conflict with the US. the criminal ran to a church, recieved two days of immunity, then his demand for sanctuary was rejected and he was told to leave or be turned over.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 12, 2003.

Dave B,

Interesting thread. (or at least its tangent is)

During my teenage years, I had a Catholic friend who became very close to Jesus. I won't say he was filled with the Holy Spirit, because I could not be positive. Anyway, he too decided that he was not receiving enough from the Catholic Church to join some Christian denomination. At the time, I didn't really care but I have come to regret my lack of talking to him about what he was doing. So I guess I can agree with you that some people mistakenly leave Jesus' Church because they do not feel the Church fulfills their need. At the same time, most of those who do leave the Church are NOT properly catechised, which I believe was little paul's point.

The good news to me is I believe God is now slowly calling you back to His Church as He led you from the Assemblies of God to a denomination that is closer to the true Church. Praise God for that. May God continue to watch over you and your family.

God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), June 12, 2003.

We Catholics are taught, rightly, that reception in Holy Communion of the living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a mysterious truth, and that to our inner souls this is a foretaste of heaven. The words are plain. You receive a taste; by faith and meditation.

It's so. My own experiences over a lifetime have been very much a foretaste of heaven, and I never had to look elsewhere but the Holy Eucharist!

We may not want to admit it, but all of the senses are subjective by definition. No one excepted. From a Catholic mystic, to the old woman in the front pew, even a schizophrenic tied down in a mental ward is having an inner experience.

They can be exhilarating and very holy, or they can give no clue to our conscious mind, of a spiritual uplift.

Saint Theresa of Avila was visited with enormously powerful mystic feelings and messages. And, she's only one saint.

Her soul was often ravished in the glorious presence of Jesus Christ; and her most famous experience was related as having been pierced through the heart by a messenger from Jesus her spouse with a burning dart. A cherubim with a burning spear. She described it as intensely painful, and yet an ecstasy like no other! Heavenly is the word. Her communions with Jesus were model experiences, and she's a doctor of the Church. An example for all of us, in the spiritual life.

Yet, reading her works, one finds out that often she went through great stretches of empty, arid inner feelings. That's what she called them, aridity.

Her soul learned directly from Our Lord, that at all times, her soul was in heavenly rapture; but not always ecstatic in a grandiose way. She found out that her ''arid'' moments served Jesus in just as wonderful a worship & LOVE, as her delirious love did. He treasured her acts of love when she offered them despite her inner emptiness!!!

You are just the same. By giving Jesus Christ your willingness and devotion, without having a great ecstasy of emotion, or a levitation to the skies, or by babbling in some extra-terrestrial stream of gibberish; you SERVE Him; He gets the glory and the sweetness!

Too many Christians go their whole lives wanting great mountains of ecstacy to fall on them. They refuse aridity; and when they meet it, what's their answer???

They split over to those congregations of seers and channellers and talkers of unknown tongues and fallers and levitators and healers and holy rollers!!! THEY DEFECT from the Holy Church of the Apostles!

They want ice cream. Not GRACE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

Sorry this is so late, Glenn and Eugene ... but I wanted to say how pleased I was to read your excellent observations. May they be very helpful to the many who are in need of them.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2003.

I stumbled on to this site looking for something else. But it prompted me to point something out. By the way, I'm Protestant, my wife's Catholic.

It is best to remember, to paraphrase Jesus, that before removing the speck from someone else's eye it is better to remove the log from your own eye first. In other words, we have our hands full worrying about our own shortcomings before we go cricitizing somebody else.

The Protestant Reformation brought about many needed changes. The Catholic Church was performing services in Latin. Most of the people of Europe didn't understand a word of Latin. Giving church services in the vernacular was considered radical change at the time, but it was needed. The Catholics didn't come around to this change until Vatican II, nearly 500 years later. Change was a long time in coming for Rome.

The printing press made possible the mass production of the Bible so that all could read it, not just priests, monks and the scribes who transcribed it with quill pens. At the time, the Catholic Church opposed the reading of the Bible by the lay people. One underlying reason was they knew it would lead to 300 interpretations and 300 different churches, which is precisely what we have today, so there are two sides to the issue. I for one am not so sure having 300 Protestant denominations is such a good thing. Both sides had their points to make. But mass producing and mass distributing the Bible to everyone, and in the vernacular and not in Greek or Hebrew or Latin, did lead to a revival of faith, even if not unified. And it happened against the opposition of the Catholic Church. There was a positive spin-off of printing the Bible in the vernacular, a drive for literacy. Suddenly literacy became important, for the purpose of reading the Bible. The Reformation brought literacy, which spawned the Enlightenment. One thing follows another.

The Reformation also brought democratization. Europe knew only the state church. The classic example was Cardinal Richelieu and the King of France. The Catholic Church supported the divine right of kings. The kings supported the Catholic Church with taxes. The Huguenots were vigorously suppressed (i.e. killed) by the government of France at the behest of the Cardinal when their quarrel was with the Church, not with the state.

With the Reformation came self-governance of Protestant Churches, i.e. congregationalists and presbyterians, experiments in democracy. This soon led to a desire for democratic government as well as democratic churches. One follows the other. In other words, it is very likely that without the Reformation we would not have the Enlightment and the USA would still be a colony of Britain subject to the Queen, and a State Church. Some of us think that would be a bad idea.

Before judging Luther (judge not lest ye be judged) one should actually read his 95 theses.

Rome was in the practice of "sellling indulgences" at the time. This meant that the wealthy aristocracy could donate money to the Vatican and in exchange receive forgiveness of sin, even in advance of commiting it. I hope that sounds just a little queer even to a modern Catholic. We must remember that the "straw that broke the camel's back" and set off the Reformation to begin with was the Vatican's practice of forgiving sin in exchange for cash payments. Indulgences financed Michelangelo and the building of the Vatican. And as far as I know, the Vatican has never renounced indulgences. How does the saying go, all things work for good? Even though I hope we can agree that the practice of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sin is a bad idea, it did create the Statue of David, the Cistine Chapel and some of the world's greatest and most inspiring art.

Henry VIII is not a shining example of the Reformation. Everyone knows he broke from Rome over the issue of divorce and remarriage to sire an heir to the throne. But he did so in a Reformation environment already begun by Luther and Calvin, so there were legions of willing followers ready to go, otherwise he never could have carried it off. Let's remember Mary Queen of Scots, also known as Bloody Mary, whose solution to the Reformation problem when she gained the throne was to try to kill all the Protestants. And the solution of Protestant Elizabeth when she succeeded to the throne, to tolerate the Catholics. The Reformation of the Anglican Church was not complete until John Wesley and the Methodist movement came along in the Enlightenment Period, a movement also important in the American Revolution. We should not call Anglicans and Episcopaleans Protestant, they are in fact more Catholic than Protestant, they recognize the "Laying on of hands" and Anglican clergy can become Catholic priests with relative ease. It is the Methodists who are the Reformation end-products of England, even though they didn't come along until a couple of hundred years later.

I have the luxury of living with one foot in both Churches. I like the current Pope. He is a truly good man who has done great things in the world. And the Catholic Church is currently acting as a pillar of faith while so many liberal Protestant denominations are "going to hell in a handbasket" by rejecting Biblical teaching in favor of present-day worldliness. On the other hand, I continue to have problems with Catholic doctines of transsubstantiation, veneration of Mary, intercession, etc.

But let us not lose sight of the fact that the Reformation was NOT about women and flesh. It was, for better or worse, about Biblical fundamentalism, literacy, vernacular language, democratization of both Church AND government, and a call for the end of the practice of selling indulgences. It was the beginning of populism. It led directly to the Enlightenment Period and the American Revolution, among other things.

It serves no purpose to mischaracterize the Protestant Reformation. There were undeniably both good things and bad things that came of it and people, even Catholics, ought to be able to discuss both with candor and honesty, not dogma and blind ideology.

-- Jim P (jpowers2001@surewest.net), August 09, 2003.

"It [the Reformation] was, for better or worse, about Biblical fundamentalism, literacy, vernacular language, democratization of both Church AND government..."

Exactly. It was all about the things of man, the City of Man, the Cult of Man.

"On the other hand, I continue to have problems with Catholic doctines of transsubstantiation, veneration of Mary, intercession, etc."

Right... it always comes down to a rejection of things directly related to the very core of salvation. All about the things of God, the City of God, the Mystical Body of Christ.

Very astute observations indeed. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 09, 2003.

As an institution, however, Protestantism is failing at monumental speed. The Episcopal Church's recent fall to homosexuality will be a catalyst for the total annilation of Protestantism. (I say this with great sorrow)

St. Paul warns against divisions in Corinthians. Jesus warns that "A house divided against itself shall not stand." The fundamental foundation of Protestantism is rebellion. Satan is the Great Rebeller and is the author of this confusion.

Things have become so fractured within Protestantism that a "church seeker" is completely bewildered with all of the choices, taking literally years to find a church that "meets my needs." Heretics parade across the screens of our television sets promoting the latest "ear-tickling" doctrine designed to sensationalize and commercialize Christ. It is a complete spectacle to behold, and an embarassmemt to Christ.

God has allowed Protestantism, however, like the author above suggests. But will He continue to allow it? I dunno. Looks like the writing is on the wall!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 09, 2003.

If you think the Catholic Church is not in the pack heading towrds its end then you are naive too, Gail. But for God's final intervention to save the last few who attempt to foolow him it is just a matter of time.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), August 09, 2003.

From the book Life of Anna Katarina Emmerich, of which I hear an Italian translation was ordered by ordered by Pope Pius IX. I also hear Emmerich's beatification is in the works.

Note for the conspiracy theorists... don't like what the quotes say? Do your own research.

"But when the Rebel comes, Satan will set to work. There will be all kinds of miracles and a deceptive show of signs and portents, and everything evil for the deception of those who are bound for destruction because they did not possess the love of truth that could have saved them. The reason why God is sending a power to delude them and make them believe what is untrue is to condemn all who refused to believe in the truth and chose wickedness instead."

"I saw again the strange big church that was being built. There was nothing holy in it. In this church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single Saint helping in the work."

"I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new church, but God had other designs."

"I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet they are (ipso facto) excommunicated whenever they co-operate in enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdicts issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 09, 2003.