tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post9156313708318865165..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Answering Four Common Protestant Objections to the PapacyJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-8207679163232515062011-11-10T14:56:17.041-06:002011-11-10T14:56:17.041-06:00Daniel,
It took me forever to respond to this (i...Daniel, <br /><br />It took me forever to respond to this (it's been in the back of my head for a while), but I have a post on Eastern Orthodoxy up <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/11/orthodox-question-why-catholic-and-not.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Also, did you read the post on the Robber Council a while back?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-51997051834524134692011-10-16T10:36:28.238-05:002011-10-16T10:36:28.238-05:00I do not think the real question, if Peter really ...I do not think the real question, if Peter really was the first Pope or if we can proof-text the catholic understanding of the Papacy. The real question is: How can I trust the Popes given what they have done in history? My question in return would be: How can you trust the Protestant theologians and ministers, given what they have done in recent history? Because basically we have to depend on our church. For most of us it is not possible to obtain a degree in Ancient Greek, church history, philosophy and theology. Therefore we must rely on our church leaders. Let's let the Reformation and the crimes committed during this time aside. Let's look only into the last century in my country. <br />Rev. Hans asked, "Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?" So my question: "Would you really want <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_M%C3%BCller_(theologian)" rel="nofollow">Ludwig Müller</a> to be the next Presiding Bishop of your Luthern Chruch?"Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15802215026321893191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-40233116583689816392011-10-16T10:36:27.488-05:002011-10-16T10:36:27.488-05:00I do not think the real question, if Peter really ...I do not think the real question, if Peter really was the first Pope or if we can proof-text the catholic understanding of the Papacy. The real question is: How can I trust the Popes given what they have done in history? My question in return would be: How can you trust the Protestant theologians and ministers, given what they have done in recent history? Because basically we have to depend on our church. For most of us it is not possible to obtain a degree in Ancient Greek, church history, philosophy and theology. Therefore we must rely on our church leaders. Let's let the Reformation and the crimes committed during this time aside. Let's look only into the last century in my country. <br />Rev. Hans asked, "Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?" So my question: "Would you really want <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_M%C3%BCller_(theologian)" rel="nofollow">Ludwig Müller</a> to be the next Presiding Bishop of your Luthern Chruch?"Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15802215026321893191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-68538855074609982992011-10-13T15:23:57.342-05:002011-10-13T15:23:57.342-05:00Rev. Hans,
I'm already one comment behind, so...Rev. Hans,<br /><br />I'm already one comment behind, so let me just say that it's not really an issue of whether or not I'd happen to want Leo X as pope. The pope is there because God wants him there. After all, would you really want Judas as an Apostle? Obviously not. But Christ did. <br /><br />I've met Christians who don't care for Paul's writings, finding him too harsh. But you can't accept or reject Apostolic Christianity on the basis of how well you happen to like the Apostles. The same thing applies with the papacy.<br /><br />That said, I do think Leo X gets a bad rap, so I wrote <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/10/revisiting-reformation-pope-defense-of.html" rel="nofollow">a post defending him</a>. God bless,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-50877091964621500692011-10-13T15:13:24.180-05:002011-10-13T15:13:24.180-05:00When urim and thummim are used in the old testamen...When urim and thummim are used in the old testament when the high priest speaks from the seat of Moses, the result is infallible teaching in faith and morals.<br /><br />Christ established a corollary when he set up Peter to have the keys to the kingdom.<br /><br />You can't even prove the Trinity from Scripture alone with the older texts (Alexandrian codex, etc.)Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01915100833433055951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-75107396410676013022011-10-13T14:34:52.134-05:002011-10-13T14:34:52.134-05:00Where does this concept of infallible teaching com...Where does this concept of infallible teaching come from? I can see this teaching coming from Mark 13:11, where Jesus instructs the disciples (including Peter) not to worry when pressed for an answer at a trial because the words will come from the Holy Spirit. This is where my Lutheranism will really show because I understand that passage to include all Christians. I trust that Holy Spirit will provide, which is a great assurance because I do not trust my sinful self. Similarly, I view any Pope as a sinful person because he is still human. I would hope that his teaching would be without error, but I know that we can make mistakes. Peter made many mistakes in the gospels. Peter is a bad example of a Pope because he was also married and Jesus called him Satan after a famous mistake. (See, Luther was right for calling the Pope Satan!) <br /><br />Does this understanding also apply to excommunications?Rev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-88120407187374655522011-10-13T13:41:21.146-05:002011-10-13T13:41:21.146-05:00"Would you really want Leo X to be the next P..."Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?"<br /><br />The question implies an assumption that the pope is merely a man in all respects. But that is not what Catholics believe. We believe he is "protected" from teaching error when he determines to publicly teach the Church. That is a supernatural protection. <br />Personally I would not want Leo X as the next pope, but NOT because he might teach error, (that could never happen and HAS never happened) I would want someone like SAINT Pius X because he would be a better man and a better leader, and perhaps bring more people to Christ. Just remenber, a pope could murder and pillage and do all sorts of evil yet still be protected from teaching error. Think of the prophecy of Caiphas.David Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-39579994114526952952011-10-13T11:57:35.005-05:002011-10-13T11:57:35.005-05:00I don't like Jimmy Carter, but that doesn'...I don't like Jimmy Carter, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to having a President.<br /><br />There are good popes and bad popes. Some are saints and all are sinners.<br /><br />But they have never made a mistake when instructing the faithful ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01915100833433055951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-60509037236251523442011-10-13T11:16:28.312-05:002011-10-13T11:16:28.312-05:00Joe,
Good points! Antilegomena sounds great beca...Joe,<br /><br />Good points! Antilegomena sounds great because it is pretentious. We should not use it too much or scholars would require us to change the title of these books. We should create the Apocalypse Canon, which would include Dan, the Apocrypha, and the Book of Revelation. This is me sliding into Protestantism's attempt to organize the Bible based upon human logic. I will admit that using the "Jewish" texts is hard because there was fluidity in the standards at the time of Jesus. I was not aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls included any of the Apocrypha. This may be the evidence we (Lutherans) need to change our mind about it all.<br /><br />By the way, you never answered my question about the Medieval Popes. Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope? Lutherans have concern with the Papacy, which was the point of your blog entry, because of such popes. You clearly know your history well. Would you like Leo X as the next Pope? I know that I would not. Peace!<br /><br />Your reforming brother in Christ,<br />HansRev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-62729407106935728152011-10-13T11:08:01.470-05:002011-10-13T11:08:01.470-05:00Rev Hans,
When using the Hebrew text base, does o...Rev Hans,<br /><br />When using the Hebrew text base, does one use the Qere or Ketiv? Who has the authority to decide which is correct?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01915100833433055951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-64636203404562173932011-10-13T10:28:43.076-05:002011-10-13T10:28:43.076-05:00Rev. Hans,
Thanks for following up. I wanted to ...Rev. Hans,<br /><br />Thanks for following up. I wanted to clarify a couple of points, though. First, Deuterocanon does mean "second canon," but it's meant chronologically. Certain Books were immediately recognized as canonical, others took deliberation and debate within the Church. There's a New Testament Deuterocanon, too -- those New Testament Books we talked about with Luther above. <br /><br />So the term wasn't originally meant to signal a secondary authority. Using the term "Apocrypha" is unhelpful, since that's the term used for everything from 3 Maccabees to Gnostic literature. If we really wanted to get technical, the best term would probably be Antilegomena ("spoken against"), but that's clunky and pretentious-sounding.<br /><br />And you're right about Jerome, but we should remember that Jerome doesn't set the canon. He's not even a bishop: he's a monk, a priest, and an excellent translator. I know he had qualms about the inclusion of the Deuterocanon, but he ultimately deferred to "the judgment of the churches."<br /><br />And while you're right about most modern Jews, the Jews at the time of Christ had multiple canons. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Sirach (cave 2) and Tobit (cave 4), which we would consider canonical, and you would not. In addition, other texts, like Enoch (cave 6) and Jubilees (cave 11) are recognized by both Protestants and Catholics as spurious.<br /><br />I should mention also that at least one ancient Jewish community has continued to consider part of the Deuterocanon as Scripture for millenia: the Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel). Although they're mostly in Israel now, they continue to use a separate canon, including Tobit, Sirach, and Judith as canonical. <br /><br />Of course, they also have other Books you and I would both reject, but that's part of my point. The myth of a monolithic historic Jewish canon is just that: a myth. On the sidebar, there's a set of posts entitled "Helpful Posts." Many of these deal with the canon question at greater length. <br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-67728742364117607192011-10-13T10:08:27.320-05:002011-10-13T10:08:27.320-05:00Joe,
Thank you for your comments, especially your...Joe,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments, especially your explanation of Tobit and Wisdom. It has been a long time since I have read these books. I will still call them the Apocrypha because it means "the revealing" or "hidden things (revealed)" and these books are clearly in the style of Apocryphal writing. You say that they are "Dueterocanon" but claim that they are not second in authority. That sounds like a contradiction. Duetero means "second", so these are literally "second canon." It would make more sense to describe them as Apocryphal then Duterocanon if you believe that they are on the same footing as the rest of the OT. <br /><br />You are right about the NT being written in Greek, but Protestants want the OT books to be written in Hebrew (mostly). I personally think that St. Jerome messed up a lot with his translation, which came to eventually be the basis of the King James Version. He translated the Apocrypha and gave little prefaces before these books about their distinct status. These prefaces were soon dropped and people understood them to be just part of the canon. (that info came from the NOAB's introduction to the Apocryphal Books) It is interesting that Jews agree with Protestants about the books of the OT, even if we messed up the order slightly. I rather stick with the Jews and the Dead Sea Scrolls than St. Jerome, but I have some St. Jerome issues. Peace!<br /><br />Your brother in Christ,<br />HansRev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-57493153489554049662011-10-13T09:31:17.438-05:002011-10-13T09:31:17.438-05:00Rev. Hans,
Good question regarding the canon. As...Rev. Hans,<br /><br />Good question regarding the canon. As a Catholic, I follow the canon laid down at the Third Council of Carthage, and confirmed by Pope Damasus I, and enshrined in the Latin Vulgate. It's the same canon explicitly laid out by St. Augustine in <i>City of God</i>.<br /><br />That canon includes the longer versions of Daniel and Esther, as well as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Books collectively known as the Deuterocanon. <b>These Books are on the same level as any other Book of the Old Testament</b>. We don't consider them Apocryphal, or secondary in authority. But this canon never included 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, or 3 Maccabees, although sometimes non-canonical books were preserved for historical purposes in the back of the Vulgate, lest they be lost forever.<br /><br />You asked of the Deuterocanon, "Do you really read these parts of the Bible for spiritual growth?" Yes, absolutely. In fact, I suggest you read Wisdom 2:12-22 (the NAB has a good translation), and compare it with Matthew's account of the Passion (particularly Mt. 27:41-43). I don't see how to avoid conceding that Wisdom is inspired, given how specifically it prophesies Christ. <br /><br />Or look at Tobit 12:15, in which Raphael says that there are seven angels around the Throne of God, a fact affirmed centuries later by Revelation 8:2-5. How'd Tobit know that, if not through prophesy? That's a weird thing to simply guess. <br /><br />And compare how similarly Raphael and Gabriel speak of themselves (Tobit 12:15 with Luke 1:19): "I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord" and "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God." In both cases, they define themselves in relation to where they stand before the Glory of the Lord.<br /><br />Given that Wisdom and Tobit were written long before Matthew, Luke, and Revelation, it's not as if the Deuterocanon stole these things from the New Testament. Rather, these are the very sort of prophetic statements we should expect in Scripture.<br /><br />In contrast, you correctly note that the Deuterocanon was written later, and much of it appears to have been written first in Greek. As Christians, we accept a whole lot of later-written Books originally composed in Greek: the New Testament. As for purgatory, this gets back to my original point: are you going to base our beliefs off of the Bible? Or base the Bible off of your beliefs? <br /><br />As Catholics, we see absolutely nothing anywhere else in Scripture conflicting with Purgatory, and other places supporting the doctrine (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 3:11-15, Luke 12:58-59, Matthew 21:31, etc.). And the early Church believed in after-death purgation, even if there were differences in what that looked like.<br /><br />When I said Luther cut James out of the Bible, I should have been more careful. He denied the Apostolic authorship and inspiration of James. In other words, he believed that James 1:1 was false, and that much of the theology presented was not only uninspired, but actually false, and contrary to the true Scriptures.<br /><br />So yes, it's true that he technically left the Book in his Bible, although he moved it to the back and warned people against believing in it. But he rejected it as a source of doctrine or as something inspired by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br /><i>Loved</i> the Lutheran joke. Glad we're not the only group of Christians with relentless self-effacing humor.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-11068342172236453672011-10-13T08:42:37.739-05:002011-10-13T08:42:37.739-05:00Joe,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If ...Joe,<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If Leo X was as thorough as you, then the Reformation would not have happened (another "what if" of history). Thank you for the Luther reference at the end with "Here I stand." Very Nice! <br /><br />Should there be topics that are no longer discussed? I think that every person and every generation needs to discuss these topics for themselves. Do we still follow church doctrine? Yes. You are right that Luther broke from his vow of obedience. It is rather clear that the Pope broke from the clear teachings of the gospel during the time of the Reformation. God is ultimately going to judge us (not very Lutheran today unfortunately) and so we need to live according to how we understand the Gospel. Luther had to speak up because he saw an abuse. Did that speaking up violate his vow of obedience? Yes, it did. So who do you follow: Christ as he is presented in the gospels and church tradition or Leo x? I am thankful that the RC has had Popes that follow Christ so that this issue is not real today.<br /><br />"Instead, he simply cut James out of the canon of Scripture." Luther did not cut out James from the Bible. All of your quotes about Luther are true, but it needs to be noted that Luther left those NT books in the Bible. He did get rid of the Apocrypha. Ironically, "Liberal Protestantism" has actually brought it back. Do you really read these parts of the Bible for spiritual growth? Then do you read 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, or 3 Maccabees? Those are books in the Apocrypha of the Greek and Slovanic Churches but not in the RC. Where do you draw the line? Protestantism has a standard for not using these books on a regular basis, which is that the languages used were of later date than the rest of OT and the theology did not clearly fit the rest of Scripture (purgatory). Another reason is the lack of quotations from these books in the NT. I say lack because there is a reference in the Epistles if my memory serves me well. Lutherans do believe in Purgatory because at some point we need to sober up before going to God. (horrible Lutheran Joke, I know)<br /><br />Your brother in Christ,<br />HansRev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-60049683895437899502011-10-12T22:17:06.872-05:002011-10-12T22:17:06.872-05:00Andre,
Feel free to share this with your (former)...Andre,<br /><br />Feel free to share this with your (former) pastor if you want. I'd love to start a dialogue.<br /><br /><br />Daniel,<br /><br />I'll try and do a post on both of those subjects in the near future. If you're interested, there's an Eastern Orthodoxy tag you can click at the bottom of the screen. <br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-29673902918285843782011-10-12T19:22:47.317-05:002011-10-12T19:22:47.317-05:00Joe, can you do a post on Honorius and arguments a...Joe, can you do a post on Honorius and arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy?<br /><br />You are like the Heritage Foundation of apologetics!Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01915100833433055951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-51827331220871742462011-10-12T15:55:53.277-05:002011-10-12T15:55:53.277-05:00(continued)
Regarding Luther vis-à-vis the pope, ...(continued)<br /><br />Regarding Luther vis-à-vis the pope, one of those two men was placed at the head of the Church. The other was an Augustinian monk, who voluntarily swore a vow of obedience to his religious order. It’s fine that Luther “wanted to have a clear discussion and debate about faith, the Bible, and the practices of the church in his day.” But he wasn’t in charge, and certain conversations in Christianity are rightly considered closed. The pope isn’t required to debate any issue Luther wants to debate, whenever Luther wants to debate it. <br /><br />After all, the whole point of Councils and Creeds and the rest is to definitively put an end (once and for all) to certain arguments. This is why we’re not still debating monophysitism. Protestantism’s refusal to accept any discussion as closed has been a disaster: she’s stuck in debate over Calvinism v. Arminianism, women’s ordination, polity, universal salvation, homosexuality, and the like, and there’s no way to ever solve these disputes.<br /><br />Don’t get me wrong: Luther had plenty of good points, which the Council of Trent implicitly recognized, and as the pope acknowledged <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/07/interesting-sermon-on-justification-and.html" rel="nofollow">recently</a>. The Church just handled this problems at Her a more deliberate pace. Luther was impulsive, and Christianity is still paying for it five hundred years later, well after the cessation of the sale of indulgences. <br /><br />So I don’t think I’m motivated by any psychological “Luther issues.” I just view Luther’s numerous contributions to Christianity as coupled with the damage caused by his pride and impatience. If you can show me where I’ve treated Luther unfairly in the above post (or in this comment), I’ll gladly retract and edit. Here I stand. I can do no other. <br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-65817620695664678912011-10-12T15:55:18.382-05:002011-10-12T15:55:18.382-05:00Rev. Hans,
First off, thanks for your comment, as...Rev. Hans,<br /><br />First off, thanks for your comment, as always. You challenged the idea that Luther rejected much of Scripture, saying: “How do you reject ‘much’ of scripture and also uphold Sola Scriptura?” And that’s my point. On the basis of <i>Sola Scriptura</i>, <b>you can’t say which Books are and are not in the Bible</b>. So you can reject as much of Scripture as you want. <br /><br />Modern Protestants don’t acknowledge this, but Luther did. He cut out the seven Deuterocanonical Books, as well as large portions of Daniel and Esther. As for the New Testament, he said of Hebrews: “we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.” And of James: “I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle.” And of Jude: “no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle,” and “it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.” And of Revelation: “I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.” <br /><br />He relegated these Books to the back of his famous Bible, placing a warning page before them that said: “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.” If denying the canonicity or inspiration of <i>eleven</i> Books of the Bible (and shaving off large chunks of two more) doesn’t count as rejecting “much” of Scripture, how many would?<br /><br />This also answers your second point, that “Luther was willing to be wrong if he could be shown how he was wrong with the Bible and clear reason.” But Luther chose which Books he considered part of the Bible <i>based on his own views</i>. For example, he also said of the Book of James that it “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.” <br /><br /><b>This is a tacit admission <i>by Martin Luther</i> that the Book of James contradicted his understanding of justification.</b> And his solution wasn’t to submit to the Bible, as he so eloquently claimed he would at the Diet of Worms. Instead, he simply cut James out of the canon of Scripture. We see the same thing with Second Maccabees and Purgatory. My point is that Luther <i>didn’t</i> base his doctrines off of Scripture alone. He based his canon of Scripture off of his doctrinal beliefs. We wouldn’t accept this if it was Joseph Smith, so why accept it if it’s Martin Luther?<br /><br />(continued)Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-66004631639363920492011-10-12T15:10:36.257-05:002011-10-12T15:10:36.257-05:00Are Protestants missinformed? Yes, especially abo...Are Protestants missinformed? Yes, especially about the Papacy. Do I have grammatical mistakes? Yes. I hope that you can look past them. Peace!Rev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-69507217442903014472011-10-12T15:07:08.135-05:002011-10-12T15:07:08.135-05:00First, I am a Christian. My views are deeply infl...First, I am a Christian. My views are deeply influenced by Luther, and I am part of the Lutheran tradition. It bothers me how Luther and Lutheranism is described in this blog. I recognize that you are Catholic and have Luther issues; you are allowed to have Luther issues since he wanted to reform the church. <br /><br />"It's this rejection that resulted in Luther's rejection of much of Scripture, and it's what brings us liberal theologians and various heretical movements today." How do you reject "much" of scripture and also uphold Sola Scriptura? Yes, Luther did remove the Apocrypha. Luther kept the NT the way it was, even though he had questions. Luther wanted to have a clear discussion and debate about faith, the Bible, and the practices of the church in his day. The Pope was not keen on this idea. Luther was willing to be wrong if he could be shown how he was wrong with the Bible and clear reason. Luther was a faithful to the Christ first and the Pope second. If the Pope had been more faithful to the gospel, then the Reformation would have never happened (but we sadly cannot play "what if" with history). It is amazing to think about the Pope's of the last century and how faithful they were to the gospel. <br /><br />Yes, Protestants have concerns and questions about the Papacy. Our issues stem from some really horrible Popes in the Middle Ages and the Reformation. I hope that any faithful and honest Catholic would understand a Protestant's issues given the history of the church. I do not have as much issue with the current Pope or recent Popes. Would you really want Pope Leo X today?Rev. Dark Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12380701786666466708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-67524713356918782422011-10-12T11:22:19.175-05:002011-10-12T11:22:19.175-05:00Wow. Great article. Thanks. Andre, I'd be inte...Wow. Great article. Thanks. Andre, I'd be interested in your pastor's thoughts about this articleAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18305730072549519616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-36553667083125374232011-10-12T11:06:15.635-05:002011-10-12T11:06:15.635-05:00Joe,
Truly appreciate this! I am seeing the rich...Joe,<br /><br />Truly appreciate this! I am seeing the richness of the Catholic faith every day! I praise God for taking the blinders off.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06407349749045900365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-48536745546554287482011-10-12T10:49:09.637-05:002011-10-12T10:49:09.637-05:00You've left very little room for doubt. Well d...You've left very little room for doubt. Well done.G Lainghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09736882298990748417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-31704379609857122662011-10-12T10:46:45.108-05:002011-10-12T10:46:45.108-05:00Those are some pretty lame objections to the papac...Those are some pretty lame objections to the papacy :P<br /><br />Clear, direct and witty, good article Joe :)Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10502065336011597776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-35599590924536082302011-10-12T09:23:57.283-05:002011-10-12T09:23:57.283-05:00Great article, Joe!Great article, Joe!Brandon Vogthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658116461483425280noreply@blogger.com