Reformed Theology Please Excuse me as I Express My Frustration.  Calvinism

Please Excuse me as I Express My Frustration.

Reformed Theology Please Excuse me as I Express My Frustration.  Calvinism
Please Excuse me as I Express My Frustration.

For the larger part of this/last year and on various websites, I have grown more…bitter towards the Roman Catholicism. I could've swear that every time a papist defend their position, something or someone innocent painfully dies. If you were to ask me in the past why I wasn't a Roman Catholic, my main reason would be their "veneration" of the saints seems idolatrous. Now, plus my previous answer and dozen different others, my main objection is deception. Catholics have a difficult time presenting others fairly.

For starters, whenever I research apostolic tradition by a early church father, it's not some oral secret that's only given to the highest position in the church. About 2/3 of traditions from the fathers are defined in the passage, while agreeing with the scriptures. Yet-And Yet! When point that out Catholics have the gall to say I'm taking them "out of context" without examining textual evidence and sometimes linking me to other early church father quotes that are part of the 2/3. What about the 1/3? you may asked. Many of which are either unspecified (only assume what they mean without having it discovered to us), or no one believes. Although in some cases of traditions only certain Orthodox group practices, but Catholics don't.

Interpretation. I've been accused for misinterpreted scripture so many times, just because I wasn't the pope. What the RCs won't tell you is that the Vatican has only "infallibly" interpreted twelve verses, most of them were founded in the council of Trent. So, whenever a priest/apologist interpret any other verse they using the same grounds as protestants, yet in their eyes we say something about scripture we're in the wrong! Even if we use the same words and meaning. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Catolicos using the rumor of 3.3*10 protestant denominations. Anyone who honestly believes this has never researched this strawman. The definition of Christian "denomination" has stretched beyond it's meaning. Its so embarrassing, if someone tells you that there this many denominational groups, assume either they're a Jesuit or a coconut dropped on their head when they were a child. Unless you are willing to fool yourself into believing Sedevacantist and other groups like Independent, Ukrainian Orthodox are protestants. Additionally, even if the Latin church adopted this definition for denomination, would you honestly agree they'll accept the idea there are fewer Anglican denominations than themselves, while they assert that lower numbers means more authoritative, unified church? I don't either.

Second to last issue, the biblical canon. If we ignore that all the Christian sects have an agreed idea how the bible was first constructed, also ignore when the church fathers say "catholic church" they mean in Greek translation of universal congregation of believers#Historical_use). There were different bible canons before and after of the councils of Hippo & Carthage. (And the Rome appears to be absent in both occasions) To this day there's a difference between the east of the west in their bible's table of contents. The early church fathers don't always agree on what book were scripture, even a bishop of Rome had apocryphal books in their bible.(apocryphal even to Catholics)

This final one is more or less a nitpick: the papal seat. If we ignore that fact the papal infallibility is relevantly new, or the claim Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is erroneous in the original text, or the use various documents to assert their authority (which we can observe through Pope Vigilius and Pope Boniface III), {The key of David still belongs to Christ](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A5-12&version=DRA) (TSoG), even when a pope tried to use his authority to spread the monophysitism heresy, etc. But Catholics claim that the church has a linear line of the papal reign, and its authority is identical now since St.peter's lifetime. However, history not only proves that the early church authority was ruled by a group of elders, but also the great papal schism occurred with multiple popes fighting for 4 decades. (No wonder why people like St.Bernard of Clairvaux, Nicholas of Lyra, Joachim of fiore, criticized Rome)
Although, despite these problems, I can't bring myself against the idea of a christian king operating Christian rule- how to he utilizes such christian principles is the essential issue.

'Course, there are other issues on dogmas, but these are the ones that I end up grinding my teeth at, because how Roman Catholics present them. I feel baited. As if I spent my life savings and a huge loan for something that isn't worth a half an Euro. Thank you for your time, and may we all proclaim the glory of our God.

P.S. Please forgive my grammar mistakes. I had a long night.

For the larger part of this/last year and on various websites, I have grown more…bitter towards the Roman Catholicism. I could've swear that every time a papist defend their position, something or someone innocent painfully dies. If you were to ask me in the past why I wasn't a Roman Catholic, my main reason would be their "veneration" of the saints seems idolatrous. Now, plus my previous answer and dozen different others, my main objection is deception. Catholics have a difficult time presenting others fairly.

For starters, whenever I research apostolic tradition by a early church father, it's not some oral secret that's only given to the highest position in the church. About 2/3 of traditions from the fathers are defined in the passage, while agreeing with the scriptures. Yet-And Yet! When point that out Catholics have the gall to say I'm taking them "out of context" without examining textual evidence and sometimes linking me to other early church father quotes that are part of the 2/3. What about the 1/3? you may asked. Many of which are either unspecified (only assume what they mean without having it discovered to us), or no one believes. Although in some cases of traditions only certain Orthodox group practices, but Catholics don't.

Interpretation. I've been accused for misinterpreted scripture so many times, just because I wasn't the pope. What the RCs won't tell you is that the Vatican has only "infallibly" interpreted twelve verses, most of them were founded in the council of Trent. So, whenever a priest/apologist interpret any other verse they using the same grounds as protestants, yet in their eyes we say something about scripture we're in the wrong! Even if we use the same words and meaning. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Catolicos using the rumor of 3.3*10 protestant denominations. Anyone who honestly believes this has never researched this strawman. The definition of Christian "denomination" has stretched beyond it's meaning. Its so embarrassing, if someone tells you that there this many denominational groups, assume either they're a Jesuit or a coconut dropped on their head when they were a child. Unless you are willing to fool yourself into believing Sedevacantist and other groups like Independent, Ukrainian Orthodox are protestants. Additionally, even if the Latin church adopted this definition for denomination, would you honestly agree they'll accept the idea there are fewer Anglican denominations than themselves, while they assert that lower numbers means more authoritative, unified church? I don't either.

Second to last issue, the biblical canon. If we ignore that all the Christian sects have an agreed idea how the bible was first constructed, also ignore when the church fathers say "catholic church" they mean in Greek translation of universal congregation of believers#Historical_use). There were different bible canons before and after of the councils of Hippo & Carthage. (And the Rome appears to be absent in both occasions) To this day there's a difference between the east of the west in their bible's table of contents. The early church fathers don't always agree on what book were scripture, even a bishop of Rome had apocryphal books in their bible.(apocryphal even to Catholics)

This final one is more or less a nitpick: the papal seat. If we ignore that fact the papal infallibility is relevantly new, or the claim Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is erroneous in the original text, or the use various documents to assert their authority (which we can observe through Pope Vigilius and Pope Boniface III), {The key of David still belongs to Christ](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A5-12&version=DRA) (TSoG), even when a pope tried to use his authority to spread the monophysitism heresy, etc. But Catholics claim that the church has a linear line of the papal reign, and its authority is identical now since St.peter's lifetime. However, history not only proves that the early church authority was ruled by a group of elders, but also the great papal schism occurred with multiple popes fighting for 4 decades. (No wonder why people like St.Bernard of Clairvaux, Nicholas of Lyra, Joachim of fiore, criticized Rome)
Although, despite these problems, I can't bring myself against the idea of a christian king operating Christian rule- how to he utilizes such christian principles is the essential issue.

'Course, there are other issues on dogmas, but these are the ones that I end up grinding my teeth at, because how Roman Catholics present them. I feel baited. As if I spent my life savings and a huge loan for something that isn't worth a half an Euro. Thank you for your time, and may we all proclaim the glory of our God.

P.S. Please forgive my grammar mistakes. I had a long night.

“>Link
Submitted March 13, 2017 at 01:09PM by MagneticLeanings