Debate Under Taylor Marshall's "10 Differences"

Commenting on Taylor Marshall's "10 Differences" · Debate Under Taylor Marshall's "10 Differences" · Continuing the debate

7:07 Please note, Lutherans and Anglicans generally tend to believe in the Real Presence in some sense, with positions ranging from rarely fullblown Zwinglian or Calvinist positions to nearly Catholic ones, accepting even Transsubstantiation, but not the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Once someone who accepts Real Presence comes to also accepts the Sacrifice of the Mass, he generally converts, either to Catholic or to Orthodox.

In some cases, it's the other way round, for instance I was in the process of converting before accepting the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Anne Francis Elizabeth

THE SEVEN SOLAS OF THE REFORMATION

Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
Solus Christus (“through Christ alone”)
Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)
Sola ecclesia (“through the church alone”) /Priesthood of all believers
Sola caritas (“by love alone”)

The primary difference is SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Let us apply "the Jesus Test" - by their fruit, you shall know them (Matthew 7:15-20)! The Apostolic Church had dispersed authority. James governed the Church, Peter provided leadership, while Paul wrote most of its dogma (James administered, Peter led, Paul taught). In today's apostate RCC, every authority is subsumed in an infallible Pope, with disastrous consequences. Let me start with consequences for society.

Both the Orthodox and the Romanists believe in the Supremacy of Tradition. Consequently, they both rejected the Reformation, by which the true Church returned to the Supremacy of Scripture which Jesus and the Apostles believed. The direct result of their heresy was that all the monsters of power in Europe (Adolf Hitler, Frances Franco, Benito Mussolini, Tito, Lenin, Stalin, the Napoleons, King Leopold, all the Communist dictators, and even today's Vladimir Putin) have been produced EXCLUSIVELY by those two denominations. The nations and sub-nationalities that accepted the Reformation were totally spared of these monsters. No nation of the Reformation became a victim of any of those radically evil -isms (Communism, Leninism, Fascism, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism). Nazism was the brain child of a would-be RC priest. No nation of the Reformation has had a Head of State or Head of Government judicially executed or toppled by force of arms or via an insurrection since 1800.

What is the essential difference between Haiti (a basket case) and Jamaica (a thriving country). One is Romanist, the other mainly Anglican. What is the essential difference between South America (with so many "issues") and North America (with long-sustained stability and democracy). One is Romanist, the other largely anti-Romanist. Why was colonialism in Nigeria or Ghana so benign while in Congo or Namibia it was rapacious. The colonizers in Congo, etc. were Romanists, and the ones in Nigeria, etc. were Reformed (in fact, it was mainly because of relentless pressure from Britain that the Belgians were forced to reform their reign of terror in Congo). Why was there a movement for the abolition of slavery in the UK, but not in Italy. The populace of one nation has (or rather, used to have) a Bible-based conscience; the other has ritualist Christians. Same reason you have an intractable mafia problem in most RC- majority countries (including Italy) but not in the nations of the Reformation. The ill effects of Romanism are so profound that TODAY while all the nations of the Reformation retain the Cross of Christ on their flags, not a single RC-majority nation does so.

Have you heard the common joke in Italy that only Italians could have taken Christianity and turned it into the Roman Catholic Church? Even the Italians have enough self-awareness to understand the distance between Apostolic Christianity and Romanism. The license to (mis)interpret Scripture and the wild liturgical innovations of Rome were by-products of the Italian character (i.e., highly romantic, imaginative, and licentious). Good for art and architecture, but disastrous for a historical faith like Christianity which is founded on truth.

PS: Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible contains every truth nor that there is no truth outside the Bible. That is a popular Roman Catholic caricature of that fundamental doctrine. Sola Scriptura means that nothing can be taught as doctrine (i.e., saving truth) unless it is based on the Bible. Sola Scriptura is common sense. It is like saying that every law in a nation must agree with its Constitution. If saving truth can be found outside the Bible, then the Primitive Church (the Church nearest to Jesus) was not fully saved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anne Francis Elizabeth "The primary difference is SOLA SCRIPTURA."

Actually not.

"The Apostolic Church had dispersed authority. James governed the Church, Peter provided leadership, while Paul wrote most of its dogma (James administered, Peter led, Paul taught)."

St. James governed Jerusalem only after St. Peter had left for Antioch. St. Paul's epistles were approved by St. Peter, as teaching needs papal approval.

"Both the Orthodox and the Romanists believe in the Supremacy of Tradition. Consequently, they both rejected the Reformation, by which the true Church returned to the Supremacy of Scripture which Jesus and the Apostles believed."

The Reformation is contrary to Matthew 28:16-20, because its premise is contrary to it.

"The direct result of their heresy was that all the monsters of power in Europe (Adolf Hitler, Frances Franco, Benito Mussolini, Tito, Lenin, Stalin, the Napoleons, King Leopold, all the Communist dictators, and even today's Vladimir Putin) have been produced EXCLUSIVELY by those two denominations."

You forget that apart from Franco (who wasn't a monster), all of them owed doctrine to Revolutionary doctrines going back to ... the Reformation. None of them (except Franco and Napoleon III, who was also not a monster) was faithful to either of the two denominations.

You also forget monsters like Cromwell and Karl Marx being Protestant, and what Hitler owed to Protestants like Gustavus II Adolphus or Otto von Bismarck. Equally monsters.

"The nations and sub-nationalities that accepted the Reformation were totally spared of these monsters."

Tell the Irish and Scottish Highlanders all about how Cromwell and William of Orange were merciful and peaceful rulers ... or how the Reformation took root in Scotland, England and Sweden.

"No nation of the Reformation became a victim of any of those radically evil -isms (Communism, Leninism, Fascism, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism)."

Eugenicism was only among Protestant nations. Hitlerism was Eugenic thanks to Germany's Protestant predominance. SS was c. 1/2 Protestants, 1/4 Catholics and 1/4 Nazi Neo-Mystics. Eugenicism continued in states of the US and of Canada, as well as in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland - these being Lutheran nations - into the 70's.

School compulsion and a state "Church" that promotes Evolution and the Gay Maffia are, with an overbloated psychiatry and CPS, the totalitarian burden of Lutheran Sweden.

"Nazism was the brain child of a would-be RC priest."

Anton Drexler seems to have had no such plans. He was a locksmith. Karl Harrer was from Beilngries in the Palatinate - a region with Protestant background. Since Harrer had background in the Thule society, that was founded by Rudolf von Sebottendorf, an occultist. You know the kind of thing that could flourish in England and Netherlands, because they had no Inquisition.

That Hitler ever planned to become a priest seems pretty taken out of nowhere. He admired Protestants like Karl May, Otto von Bismarck and the Hohenzollerns. Quoting the German wiki:

Den Religionsunterricht bei Franz Sales Schwarz verachtete er, nur der Geografie- und der Geschichtsunterricht bei Leopold Pötsch interessierten ihn.

He despised Catechism for Franz Sales Schwarz, and only the Geography and History for Leopold Pötsch was to his taste.

"No nation of the Reformation has had a Head of State or Head of Government judicially executed or toppled by force of arms or via an insurrection since 1800."

But they started the trend with the execution of Mary Queen of Scots.

After 1800, they are their own type of impersonal monster. No personal power = no toppling by force.

"What is the essential difference between Haiti (a basket case) and Jamaica (a thriving country). One is Romanist, the other mainly Anglican."

What is the essential difference between Haiti and Dominican Republic? The latter always had Catholic régimes, and Haiti had Revolutionary ones.

"What is the essential difference between South America (with so many "issues") and North America (with long-sustained stability and democracy)."

And in that "stability" evils like Eugenics and later Abortion ... both c/o Margaret Sanger.

"The colonizers in Congo, etc. were Romanists, and the ones in Nigeria, etc. were Reformed (in fact, it was mainly because of relentless pressure from Britain that the Belgians were forced to reform their reign of terror in Congo)."

Leopold II was the heir of a fairly Masonic and Liberal Belgium.

"Why was there a movement for the abolition of slavery in the UK, but not in Italy."

In 1830, no one in Italy owned slaves. The armed abolitionist in French service Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was of Italian origin.

"Same reason you have an intractable mafia problem in most RC- majority countries (including Italy) but not in the nations of the Reformation."

You mean the Capitalist maffia anyway owns the governments in the nations of the Reformation?

And that by their riches they have long destabilised Catholic countries, creating maffia problems of a smaller reach?

"If saving truth can be found outside the Bible, then the Primitive Church (the Church nearest to Jesus) was not fully saved."

Sorry, but this is the exact reverse of the facts ...

I presume that by "Bible" you mean sth which includes 27 books of the New Covenant, and none of them existed on Pentecost day.

But the Church did, and therefore Her tradition.

Anne Francis Elizabeth

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Thanks for at least making an attempt to explain (even if you actually explain away) the stark difference between the results of Romanism and true (Reformed, biblical) Christianity. I was shocked when the truth struck me.

What you have done is to get stuck in minor details, whereas the big picture is very clear.

Perhaps I should allow you "finish" your explanations before I respond. Please keep your answers straight to the point.

First, please take a look at the flags of EU nations. Now explain why all the nations of the Reformation retain the Cross of Christ on their flags (the symbol of their ethos), while not a single RC-majority nation does so. Cheers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anne Francis Elizabeth "Now explain why all the nations of the Reformation retain the Cross of Christ on their flags"

Netherlands have a cross? Germany, which was Protestant majority in 1870, had a cross?

You have lots of cross flags in cities in RC majority countries.

But a clue might be, cross flags come from the Crusades, and there is a correlation between Northern Crusades, Teutonic Order and the Reformation.

@Anne Francis Elizabeth "What you have done is to get stuck in minor details, whereas the big picture is very clear."

Yes, preferring stability over justice is called Mammon, and it is clearly the ethos of Protestantism.

It couldn't achieve it straightaway, and when finally achieving it (after 1800, as you said) only did so by discarding most remains of Christianity.

Btw, you forgot the deposition of Gustavus IV Adolphus from the Swedish throne. It was in 1809.

Catholicism being Christianity prefers justice over stability, but ideally both. And used to have it, until infected by Protestantism at the Enlightenment. Since NOT completely dechristianised or Protestantised, the Protestant version of stability is obviously resisted, and rightly so. Hence upheavals.

In the end times, I think the most stable nations will be non-Christian nations of the East, followed by Protestantism, with Beast system mainly unchallenged.

Anne Francis Elizabeth

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am eager to learn from you (provided you stick to verifiable facts).

If St. James began to lead the Church because St. Peter went to Antioch, how do you explain the first Catholic Council?

It is obvious that the task of governing the Early Church fell to St. James the Just, precisely because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. At the Council of Jerusalem, St. James the Just, being the Patriarch of Jerusalem (the headquarters of the Early Church, later usurped by Rome) played 4 roles, viz:
i. Convener
ii. Host
iii. President
and iv. final Arbiter

REFER TO Acts 15.19 - the Apostolic Decree of St. James where James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”.

At what point did "Tradition" change and Peter's so-called "successors" (Peter was never Pope!) started usurping the role of the Bishop of Jerusalem?

RSVP!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anne Francis Elizabeth réponse sera faite :

"how do you explain the first Catholic Council?"

It happened when St. Peter was already in Antioch.

"the task of governing the Early Church fell to St. James the Just, precisely because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem."

He became so when the 12 split up with for instance St. Peter going to Antioch.

"the Apostolic Decree of St. James where James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”."

First, it followed St. Peter's testimony.
Second, the decree was not taken by that judgement alone, but only in verse 22:

Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

"At what point did "Tradition" change and Peter's so-called "successors" (Peter was never Pope!) started usurping the role of the Bishop of Jerusalem?"

Jerusalem ceased to be absolutely papal when St. Peter went to Antioch. But it ceased to be able to even function close to it on occasion, in AD 70. As the Church of Jerusalem fled to Pella, in Jordan. Today known as Tabaqat Fahil. By that time, Sts Peter and Paul had already been martyred in Rome and the Church had agreed that disagreeing with the Roman Church was disagreeing with Sts Peter and Paul. Hence 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, or in that area, you have St. Clement of Rome judging in a matter pertaining to the Church of Corinth.

Anne Francis Elizabeth

@Hans-Georg Lundahl LET ME REPEAT THIS ONE.

Thanks for at least making an attempt to explain (even if you actually explain away) the stark difference between the results of Romanism and true (Reformed, biblical) Christianity. I was shocked when the truth struck me.

What you have done is to get stuck in minor details, whereas the big picture is very clear.

Perhaps I should allow you "finish" your explanations before I respond. Please keep your answers straight to the point.

First, please take a look at the flags of EU nations. Now explain why all the nations of the Reformation retain the Cross of Christ on their flags (the symbol of their ethos), while not a single RC-majority nation does so. Cheers.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your retorts. These are no "copy and paste" answers which many Romanists indulge in. They are your own well-considered opinion. Well done, Sir!

However, one of the principles of interpretation is to accept the least complicated explanation. Do you not see that much of your thesis is works towards a pre-determined conclusion?

SECOND QUESTION: Please explain GALATIANS CHAPTER 2 (without explaining it away!). Quote: “As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message…For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles…James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. “

i. Verse 6: God has no infallible Apostle (no Romanist Cardinal or Bishop today would dare say: "the Papacy added nothing to my message")
ii. Verse 8: Paul regarded himself as the equal to Peter in his own jurisdiction (which included Rome)
iii. Verse 9: James' leadership at the Jerusalem Council was no accident as he is here again named first. No Romanist Cardinal or Bishop today would write solemnly to his flock: "Carlo Viganò, Francis the Supreme Pontiff and Marcel Lefebvre are pillars"?

Since throughout Church history, there is no instance of a Bishop presiding over a Council where the Pope was present, we must assume that identifying Peter as Pope was a fundamental mistake. No Chairman of a board would be at a board meeting and delegate the chair, precisely because that would render the meeting invalid. So James was not Peter's representative or nominee.

The simplest and best explanation is that the See (i.e., Bishopric) of Jerusalem was (and still is) the primus inter pares of the Church. Rome is a usurper (as predicted in the Apocalypse). Peter's role in the church was to lead its outreach ("Chief Evangelist", wielder of the key to eternal life). He was neither the chief doctor (i.e., teacher) nor the chief bishop of the Apostolic church.

May God continue to bless you with wisdom and courage to face the truth. Amen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Note: Part I is missing

Parts II and III

@Anne Francis Elizabeth Part II. Geneva was a possession of Savoy - with Crusader merits. Netherlands had a dynasty from Orange in France - with counts of Orange having been in the Crusades. Scotland had housed some of the disbanded Templars.

And if Switzerland used to have a Protestant majority, that would explain why it now has so many "No religion" ... to be fair, the numbers are not very far from Austria in that respect:

64.1% Christianity
________________
55.2% Catholicism
5.1% Orthodoxy
3.8% Other Christian
_______________
26.4% No religion
8.3% Islam
1.2% Others

Slovenia is better:

77.8% Christianity
______________
—73.4% Catholicism
—3.7% Orthodoxy
—0.7% Other Christian
______________
18.3% No religion
3.9% Others

"Do you not see that much of your thesis is works towards a pre-determined conclusion?"

That's true of pretty many who answer newcomers into their life, compared to what the newcomers would expect.

Galatians 2.

"Verse 6: God has no infallible Apostle (no Romanist Cardinal or Bishop today would dare say: "the Papacy added nothing to my message")"

A prophet certainly could say that. He could say the Popes never helped him edit, but only judged what he had submitted. Recall how St. Paul's calling made him a prophet-apostle? If in other conditions he had joined the Church after Pentecost, he would have been neither prophet nor apostle.

"Verse 8: Paul regarded himself as the equal to Peter in his own jurisdiction (which included Rome)"

No, he was regarding their work assignment as equally shared at that moment. Note, St. Peter is here called "Peter"

"Verse 9: James' leadership at the Jerusalem Council was no accident as he is here again named first. No Romanist Cardinal or Bishop today would write solemnly to his flock: "Carlo Viganò, Francis the Supreme Pontiff and Marcel Lefebvre are pillars"?"

Is the first Pope even mentioned in verse 9? The candidate for that role would be "Cephas" - which seems could have been a name shared by more than one (for instance Caiaphas seems to be the Hebrew version of Aramaic Cephas). Clement the Stromatist said, this was not St. Peter.

@Anne Francis Elizabeth Part III
"Since throughout Church history, there is no instance of a Bishop presiding over a Council where the Pope was present, we must assume that identifying Peter as Pope was a fundamental mistake."

Not really.

Hosius of Corduba, Nicaea I
Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople, Constantinople I
Cyril of Alexandria, Ephesus
Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople; A board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius, Chalcedon

At each of these, Papal legates were present, and in each case, it would seem they did not preside. But the question is somewhat moot, as we only conclude Hosius presided from his being the first signatary. I could not get who was papal legate from wiki. Here is Catholic Encyclopedia:

When the Council of Nicæa met, Hosius presided, together with the two Roman priests Vitus and Vincent. In what capacity he presided is a matter much discussed: Gelasius of Cyzicus is categorical in declaring that it was in the name of the pope (Hist. Nic. Conc., Bk. II, c. v). Hefele is of the same opinion. Chapman holds that he was nominated by Constantine. Leclercq inclines to the same opinion, but leaves the question open.

"No Chairman of a board would be at a board meeting and delegate the chair, precisely because that would render the meeting invalid. So James was not Peter's representative or nominee."

But local bishops are not essentially the Pope's representatives! By now they are most commonly his nominees, that's another issue, that's because local elections came to be abused in the Middle Ages, in the West, so this argument is already based on wrong assumptions on what the papacy is supposed to imply.

"The simplest and best explanation"

For a reconstruction, by mistrust of tradition, which in and of itself is not the simplest explanation.

"is that the See (i.e., Bishopric) of Jerusalem was (and still is) the primus inter pares of the Church."

Jerusalem was lots more than just that before St. Peter left.

As Jerusalem was where the council was held, the one who by then was heading Jerusalem was hosting.

"Rome is a usurper (as predicted in the Apocalypse)."

Those residing there now would be so.

"Peter's role in the church was to lead its outreach ("Chief Evangelist", wielder of the key to eternal life). He was neither the chief doctor (i.e., teacher) nor the chief bishop of the Apostolic church."

Pure reconstruction. And tactically chosen to contradict Catholicism.

The debate will be continued.

What was missing in part I of my response which got deleted?

1) A refutation of her final prayer, stating that I was actually facing the truth all the time as a Catholic. In other words, I am an Apologist, not her / their* adept.
2) An answer about cross flags.

This answer led up to part II and included a list of flags and an aside stating that Coligny was a war criminal. It is possible it was an aside to what I was stating, and it is possible that it was a direct answer to what she / they had written. But then edited out. The religious stats on Switzerland were here too. Remaining Christians more often Catholic.

I think this is the part where someone tried to wake me up after my internet session was over and push me to get back to the cyber. I didn't. Part I got deleted. Possibly that her "LET ME REPEAT THIS ONE." got edited so it didn't show what I had answered, or as said also possible what I wrote on Coligny was just an aside. Either way, part I of my answer should not have been edited out.

* Not sure if it is one person or three, with the middle one a man, since Francis is usually used for men.