Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Diego last won the day on September 1 2017

Diego had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

67,607 Excellent

About Diego

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Interests
    Chess, Writing, reading, time with the wife and family...


  • Occupation
    Historian and writer.


  • Gender


  • State (No Abbreviations)

City Name

  • City Name
    Sioux City

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status


  • Den


  • Country
    United States
  1. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN, thank you for liking my posts. I appreciate the encouragement.
  2. Diego

    The Good News: a Modern Christian Apology

    Okay where to start. Well I guess we should start with the Athanasian Creed. So beginning at the beginning. "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep hole and undefiled, without doubt He Shall Perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the Majesty Co Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such as the Holy Ghost.The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not 3 eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not 3 almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor create, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor be gotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons Are co-Eternal together, and co-equal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the unity in Trinity and the trinity in unity is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved must think of the trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to Everlasting salvation that he also believe Faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ: one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation; descended into Hell, Rose again the Third Day from the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life Everlasting; and they that have done evil, into Everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." Okay. I have gone through and I have corrected as many grammatical issues as I needed to to make it make sense. Where the capitalization rules were significant to what was being said, I corrected them. When it wasn't particularly relevant, I left it alone. I read them aloud, directly into the phone. Using Speech-to-Text, so it will cause some issues. But I read it aloud directly from the Book of Concord. Now, where it talks about works at the end of the text, that can be interpreted in the Lutheran way. What that means, is that we have our faith alone our grace alone and our scripture alone. However, after our faith starts us in Christ, we will produce good works as a result thereof. But not in order to save us. But, our works will be looked at as a sign of our faith. We can discuss that more later. Right now I just wanted to get this going on the Trinity.
  3. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    Although I understand that OutlawState will no longer be responding to these posts, for everybody's edification I thought I would add a few things. He was certainly right to say that the papal Authority was claimed from very early on. It really started gaining force in about the 7th century or so. But it was never absolute. It could not be, as the various Kings and Emperors of Europe would not let it be. For example, the kings of France were absolutely certain that they had more authority over the Gallican Church then the pope did. Not necessarily more Authority, but at least equal Authority, although that Authority was in a different way if you will. They believed that the pope was Superior in strictly ecclesiastical matters. However, they in their mind were Superior in matters temporal. And the line between those two, the temporal and the spiritual, was very fuzzy in their mind. The Kings of England after the Norman Conquest were so certain of their Authority, that William the Conqueror gave orders that no papal dictate should be permitted to enter the country without his approval. This started a very interesting back and forth, back and forth matter between the Kings of England and the popes of Rome that finally culminated in Henry the 8th and the independent Church of England. The Holy Roman emperors were so certain of their Authority especially during the Ottonian Period, and later the Salian Period, that the idea of allowing the pope to select Bishops without the interference of the emperor was absolutely unthinkable. This of course resulted in a lot of different things. At one point Gregory Hildebrand was Superior in this whole situation, and Henry, I believe the 4th, ended up going barefoot to Canossa in the snow. But, just a few years later, the emperors would end up Superior over the Popes, and then ended up getting pretty much what they wanted. The Concordat of Worms effectively ended the Investiture Controversy, and gave the emperors much of what they wanted. The Popes got some of what they wanted, but the emperors ended up pretty much Victorious. In the twelfth Century, an anonymous person from Normandy, probably a clergyman, although that's not certain, wrote a very interesting text. The text is referred to by historians as the Norman Anonymous. The Norman Anonymous was a very interesting text. What it proposed, is that a king was Vicarius Dei. This means in Latin the Vicar of God. Now the Popes claimed to be the Vicar of Christ. But according to this text, the pope was just another Bishop. Sure, an important Bishop. Perhaps Supreme above all Bishops. But what was a bishop? The bishop, according to this document, and even according to church doctrine, is the heir of the Apostles. This is where we get the idea of apostolic succession. Now, if the pope is a bishop, the bishop of Rome, that means that he's a very important Bishop. Again, he may in fact be the most important Bishop. He may be superior over them all. But, that makes him a successor to Peter, one of the Apostles. The King, on the other hand, was Vicar of God. In fact, according to the Norman anonymous, the coronation of a king could be compared to the ordination of a priest. Therefore, a king in some ways was superior to the Pope. Taken to its logical extreme, which the Norman Anonymous did not do, it could get to the point that one would expect the king to be able to ordain priests and even create Bishops! Certainly Archbishop Cranmer thought so. Of course, the Archbishop did state that the only way the King could do this was when there were no Bishops to do it in the area in question. This would apply particularly where a king entered a territory and conquered it and said territory was heathen. Since there would be no Bishops, and no priests, the king would be authorized to ordain the clergy. Extreme? Absolutely. But, under Henry the 8th, there was some pretty extreme things claimed. The only point that I am trying to make here is that there were always limits on papal Authority. The Roman Catholic Church may not like to admit that, but it happens to be a fact of life. And for anyone to suggest otherwise is complete garbage. I mean, look, as a Lutheran, I reject the authority of the Pope. I think it gets way out of hand. I might be willing to accept a first among equals, but everything that the Catholic Church claims, no. But, one cannot allow one's religious beliefs to go completely crazy. One cannot allow them to dictate what one wants history to be. One has to accept history for what it was. As always, do pardon any of the errors in capitalization, or paragraphing, or any other orthographic mistakes. I am using speech-to-text, and although I did correct the most egregious mistakes, I don't have time to correct every little capital letter. So except where it was absolutely necessary, I left those pretty much alone. It should also be added that when the king of France was crowned as king, he was allowed to receive Holy Communion in both forms, the body and the blood of Christ. This was never, ever done for any non-clergyman. And the King only did it the one time during his coronation Mass. But the fact that he was allowed to do it at all, When that was generally reserved to clerics makes it very clear that the position of a king was a bit different than that of the average Layman.
  4. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    I would also add that there is no such thing as hyper-Calvinism. Although I disagree most certainly with Calvin, and the Five Points of Calvin, and the TULIP, calling something hyper-Calvinist is simply a straw man that you set up to be able to bash true Calvinists. I even have some arguments with Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will", and I thank God that it was never included in the Confessions. But that is another matter.
  5. Diego

    Is it rude if I say I am Jewish?

    I hope that any attempts made to convert you are done courteously and with all due respect. But attempts will be made. If you are not in the mood to be converted, I ask you to be considerate of our need to fulfill the Great Commission in Matthew 28. That having been said, I hope that all my Christian brethren here will be kind to this visitor to our little corner of cyber-space. Judaism, although I disagree with it, has many aspects to it that are quite admirable. After all, our Lord was a Jew.
  6. Diego

    Is it rude if I say I am Jewish?

    It is certainly not rude. But, you may want a friendly warning, that people on this board WILL try to convert you. They would be terrible Christians if they didn't! But the Church proposes, She does not impose.
  7. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    Whether you agree or not is entirely beside the point. The fact is anybody who could read, usually read Latin. You say Latin was the exclusive preserve of the universities. That's true. But then again, the only people who could read had generally gone to university. So to try to argue that people who could read did not read Latin necessarily, is to make an argument that simply makes no sense. It is certainly true that the Roman Bishop had pretensions of dominance for years. However, until the Donation of Constantine, which was written in about the 8th century, he never really could claim it all out. Justinian simply gave him some power for jurisdictional purposes. I mean, when you take over the entire Western half of the Empire again, well, granted, not the entire half of it, but a lot of it, you need somebody to administer it. And the only people that could really do that were ecclesiastical officials. If it had not been for the Lombard descent into Italy, the papal pretensions never would have gotten to light. In fact, originally, they didn't even try that. They actually did seek the help of the Eastern Roman Emperor. When that was not successful, they turned to Pepin the Short. It was after that that any concern the Eastern Roman Empire might have with the West was rendered useless. As far as the Council of Nicaea in 325, you are correct that it was politically oriented in some ways. However, as a western Protestant, you generally have to accept the first four ecumenical councils. If you don't, you can't even really be qualified as a Christian let alone as a classical Protestant. So, even though we have to admit that the councils were in fact somewhat politically oriented, it doesn't matter. The Holy Spirit still guided them in their decisions. Lutherans accept the seven councils just like the Orthodox Church. In some cases, some of your Lutheran Churches may only accept really 6. Although the Lutheran Confessions accept all seven, some of your radically Protestant type Lutheran Churches admittedly don't really do much with the Seventh. The Anglicans were definitely Calvinist in the beginning. No one disputes that. The fact that they signed the Synod of Dort makes that clear. However, they are pretty much Arminian at this point. They really turned Arminian a bit before John and Charles Wesley came around. Forgive me for stating this bluntly. I am absolutely astounded that someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, really has very little knowledge at all. You have not impressed me so far. ​​​​​​As always, if there are any grammatical or paragraph errors in this post, the reason is because I am using speech to text. I have tried to go through and correct things, but I don't have all day to do this.
  8. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    It should be noted that there were German translations of the Bible in the 15th Century, and Alfred the Great translated the Psalms as far back as the 800's. To say that there were no non-Latin texts of the Bible before the Reformation is sheer idiocy.
  9. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    Right now, I must log off. But I shall return later, I am sure.
  10. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    That IS a good article. Thank you for posting it.
  11. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    That is hard to answer, as liberalism enters a body by different routes. It is rather like cancer, which can have effects on the body in all sorts of ways (bone cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc.). Any Church or government can be effected. OutlawState, in my opinion, has very little knowledge of anything, but that is an entirely different affair. What signs should we look for? When a Church begins to follow the "signs of the times" you can see the rot set in. Personally, I have found that it takes both State AND Church to hold back the Deluge.
  12. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    I agree that liberalism has entered every denomination. But it really started with the Unitarians of Massachussetts and Scotland, as well as Holland. After that, it spread like wildfire everywhere else.
  13. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    It should also be noted that there really was no need to translate the Bible before Luther, since in the Middle Ages, anybody who could read (about 5% of the Christian population of Europe) almost always read Latin before their own vernacular. Only the Jews (and then only the men) of Europe were universally literate, and then largely in Hebrew, and the better educated among them in Latin as well. But the number of people who could read the vernacular, or even want to learn to do so, was vanishingly small.
  14. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    And it is not ridiculous to refer to the Reformation after Luther as madness and disaster. As for the Bible being translated into native languages, Luther started that. The Church of England was always a rather sorrowful attempt to keep everyone in one Church, deliberately watering down doctrine as much as possible in order to do it. The Church of Scotland was a Calvinist Church, until, like most Calvinists, it opted for extreme liberalism (look at Holland and Massachusetts for more examples of this).
  15. Diego

    Anglican Catholic Church

    The fact that you do not read novels, when in fact they often show the mood and opinion of the pople writing (and reading) them about the Establishment, further proves that you are a lightweight. And it should be pointed out that none of the Churches that are "official" tax their members or non-members any more, except the Greek Church and in Germany, the State Church Tax, which is voluntary for one, and the taxpayer designates whether it goes on to the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church (which is markedly Low Church), or they can refuse to pay it, and put their money toward one of the Free Churches, or no Church at all.