A Response to Catholics (Edited Title)

[John_Bugay]

It’s very nice that there’s a thread devoted just to discussing little old me here. That comment thread is now up over 500 comments. There were a number of questions asked of me, and I’d like to go back and answer some of them, as I’m able, beginning with this [fairly fundamental] question by paulc.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7870661&postcount=517

You know, John, you seem to have made it your life’s mission to try to pull people away from the Catholic church.

You should note first of all that I write for Protestant blogs, and primarily to Protestant audiences. I seek to warn Protestants who may be coming under the influence of Roman Catholicism that they are making a mistake. But I do not come here and try to win converts. (Although I am here because I seem to be an ongoing topic of interest, and I want to try and correct certain factual errors.)

In my own life, I’ve spent many years trying to understand issues between Protestants and Catholics. The Reformation happened 500 years ago, and in some ways, it seems as if no progress has been made. But in other areas, especially Biblical studies and history, I think very much progress has been made. And it seems evident to me that Roman Catholicism is backpedalling precisely because of our increased understanding in Biblical and historical studies – just note the difference in attitude between Vatican I and say, “Ut Unum Sint” on the topic of the papacy.

Let me ask you a question: Why did the papacy fight so hard, for centuries, to maintain its “primacy,” “supremacy,” “infallibility,” only for Pope John Paul II to ask for theologians to help him find “a new situation”? What made “ecumenism” such a hot topic in the late 20th century, when all along, the Roman Catholic Church was rejecting that notion? John Paul II said, “The experiences of these years have made the Church even more profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history” (UUS 3) – Isn’t the clear implication here that, prior to this moment, “the Church,” in emphasizing the doctrinality of papal primacy, was somewhat less “profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history.”

But really, John ,what are you saving people from? Catholics believe everything you believe AND MORE.

It’s the “more” part that I find terribly disturbing. Roman Catholicism is quite open that it was a “syncretistic” religion – it “assimilated” various cultural elements. And to some degree, this is both unavoidable and acceptable.

You may recognize the phrase “both/and” as a major theological theme designed to account for this syncretism. (See also this theological definition of syncretism.)

Christianity is a “revealed” religion. First, there is “general revelation” by which many things can be known about God and creation.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23 ESV)

So we can see one part of the process by which man’s hearts are “darkened”: “Although they knew God [because they could clearly see his eternal power and divine nature in created things], “they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but … they … exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling moral man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

So erring in that direction, through mere natural revelation, is itself an offense to God.

continued

 

[John_Bugay]

But through the Scriptures, what Protestants know as “special revelation,” God reveals things about himself we cannot know through nature and natural means. The Old Testament Scriptures go into far more detail. The Old Testament is thick with reference to the jealousy of God. John Frame, in his work “The Doctrine of God,” says this:

[The jealousy of God] is a passionate zeal to guard the exclusiveness of a marriage relationship, leading to anger against an unfaithful spouse. In Numbers 5:11-31, Moses describes “a grain offering for jealousy” (v. 15) and a test of fidelity to be given when a man suspects his wife of unfaithfulness. To my knowledge, Scripture never presents jealousy as a negative trait ….

Here, fiery jealousy is part of love, the prerogative of love that is as strong as death. It is the proper attitude of a man toward his wife (cf. Prov. 6:34) It is entirely right for him to be jealous for her purity and for the exclusiveness of her love for him….

Jealousy is an important attribute of God:

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:4-6; cf Deut 5:8-10)

The reason for the prohibition of idolatry (and possibly for the first commandment as well) is that God is jealous. God’s jealousy is always directed against idolatry (see Deut. 32:16, 21; Josh 24:19-20). But note the close connection between God’s jealousy and his name. In Exodus 34:14, Yahwah says, “Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (“The Doctrine of God”, pgs 458-459).

So it is not simply the making of images that infringes upon God’s jealousy: it is the mere making of them and the bowing down to them that infringes upon God’s jealousy.

You may note, too, that the Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott pointed out in his work “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” that “Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).”

Now you might say that partaking in the sacraments is not necessary, but can you really say it is harmful ot the soul. Likewise, how can devotion to Mary and the Saints hurt our relationship with Jesus, since they show us how to love Jesus more purely.

I firmly believe that the syncretism the Roman Catholic church is at the very least the beginning of idolatry – and I know you will say that the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction idolatry – merely “dulia” and “hyper-dulia”.

But in this case, would you “just flirt a little bit” with another woman, on the ground that such relationships with other women merely help you to love your wife more?

The God of the Old Testament was extremely jealous. This is not a minor theme, but a major theme of the Old Testament. The entire book of Hosea is devoted to this very theme.

Christ did not change this aspect of what we know about God. Jesus Christ, though he is the “exact representation of [God’s] being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” He said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What should one think of an organization that claims to be authoritative, and yet which sanctions “dulia and hyper-dulia” – bowing down before images of things on the earth?

And again, I know there have been attempts to make theological justifications of such things. But why not err on the side of caution? Why flop the understanding of God’s jealousy completely?

It claims to have done so on its own authority.

And you might say that doing good works is unnecessary to demonstrate your faith, but can you really say that doing works of mercy are detrimental to the soul.

This is a misstatement of Protestant doctrine. Works are not necessary for justification. God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our accounts, and we are precisely as righteous before God as Christ is. That is the point of the atonement.

But works are necessary to demonstrate such justification before men. See my comments on 1 Tim 3:15).

You see, John, if you are right and the sacraments and good works and the various devotions that Catholics do are superfluous to salvation and that all that was necessary was belief in Jesus, then devout Catholics have nothing to fear, because all those things start with the belief in Jesus which you espouse. This is clear from the “First things” article above.

I’ll say again: Israel “started with a belief in One God” and then, by their flirtations, made quite a mess of things.

continued

 

[John_Bugay]

However, John, if you are wrong and you do need sacramental grace to go to heaven and you do need to stay in the state of grace through love, good works and the avoidance of sins and if the various devotions do indeed strengthen our love and increase our ability to avoid sin, then John, you are responsible for steering a lot of people away from heaven and toward hell by telling them that these things weren’t necessary and perhaps that they were in some way detrimental.

I have studied these issues long enough and hard enough, and my conscience is clear, both with respect to my own self, and with respect to my children. I did not come to these understandings overnight, but I came to them as the result of much prayer, sweat, and anguish.

By the way, you aren’t very clear about why you left the Catholic Church. You vaguely state that it had something to do with justification. Do you think the Catholic Church asks too much? But what can be too much to give to our Lord? Do you think it teaches anything that is actually detrimental to the soul? If so, what is harmful and in what way?

This entire posting has been a partial response to this question.

 

[John_Bugay]

So it is not simply the making of images that infringes upon God’s jealousy: it is the mere making of them and the bowing down to them that infringes upon God’s jealousy.

oops. Should read, “So it is not just the worship of images … it is the mere making of them and bowing down to them …”

 

[Farsight001]

I have studied these issues long enough and hard enough, and my conscience is clear, both with respect to my own self, and with respect to my children. I did not come to these understandings overnight, but I came to them as the result of much prayer, sweat, and anguish.

I’ve got to get to sleep, as it’s past my bedtime, so I might have more to say later, but I was curious about this. How long is “long enough” and how hard is “hard enough” to you? I ask this because I have come across many anti-Catholics (not calling you one) who say things like that they have “studied the RCC for a long time” or “researched extensively” and other similar things, but when I ply them enough, they reveal that their extensive study was actually spending a week of their spare time perusing the articles on carm.org or something similar.

 

[Omega_Protein]

That comment thread is now up over 500 comments.

Many if not most of the comments were on various tangents not related to you.

You should note first of all that I write for Protestant blogs, and primarily to Protestant audiences

.

Not only ‘Protestant blogs’ but particularly virulent Protestant blogs.

And it seems evident to me that Roman Catholicism is backpedalling…

John, you are wrong.

Why did the papacy fight so hard, for centuries, to maintain its “primacy,” “supremacy,” “infallibility,” only for Pope John Paul II to ask for theologians to help him find “a new situation”?

Nowhere does JP2 or any successor to St. Peter abdicate primacy or infallibility. JP2 expressly affirms primacy, supremacy and infallibility in many places. The Church still maintains her primacy, supremacy and infallibility.

John Paul II said, “The experiences of these years have made the Church even more profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history”

The Church is always growing in understanding the deposit of faith in such a way as to not do damage to the doctrines she possesses. So far you are merely guessing and wishing what is meant in these statements. You seem convinced that such a statement is JP2 really saying something like “We made up all this stuff about primacy just for fun…” Needless to say, that is not the point.

Christianity is a “revealed” religion.

Amen. Thus the Catholic Church rejects the man-made (not divinely revealed) errors of the Reformers.

So it is not simply the making of images that infringes upon God’s jealousy: it is the mere making of them and the bowing down to them that infringes upon God’s jealousy.

Your comment and tangent here merely demonstrates that you never understood Catholic devotion. Worshiping of images is not the same as venerating images (in worship) to point to the reality that the image represents. Your worrying about images, if you are consistent, should also be directed to God himself for having the Israelites construct an Ark replete with heavenly images. In fact, the ‘image’ question has been most certainly handled on this forum countless times. I suggest you go back and read those threads.

I firmly believe that the syncretism the Roman Catholic church is at the very least the beginning of idolatry

It’s amazing that the Catholic Church has not become full blown idol worshipers on account of Her Marian devotion for over 2,000 years. Amazing. The Presbyterian Church in the United States takes about 100 years to go into full blown heresy and now allows openly gay clergy but those Catholics, man, they have been just one Marian shrine away from being full blown idols for centuries! Somebody better let them know!

And again, I know there have been attempts to make theological justifications of such things. But why not err on the side of caution? Why flop the understanding of God’s jealousy completely

Because Catholic faith and practice are not framed by the opinion of Protestant bloggers.

 

[105lynne]

"But in this case, would you “just flirt a little bit” with another woman, on the ground that such relationships with other women merely help you to love your wife more? "

I debated on whether or not to even reply to you because I highly doubt there’s anything I could say that would change your opinion about Catholicism, just as there’s nothing you could say that could change my mind. But since you fell it necessary to come to a Catholic website and express your distaste for our faith, I feel the need to tell you this. I personally feel this analogy of yours about the mother of our Lord is weak. A better analogy would be to say that, in order to know one’s own spouse better, they would go to their spouse’s mother. Yes, you absolutely need to have a personal and intimate relationship with your spouse. But your spouse’s mother knows your spouse in a way that NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH ever could. Being a mother myself to three boys, I know for absolute certain that no one loves those boys more perfectly than i do. (I know, of course, that my capacity to love them seems tremendous but is NOTHING like the way God loves them.)
I speak to my mother-in-law on a regular basis. I absolutely love her, but the love I have for her is nothing like the love I have for my husband! I love the mother of our Lord in much the same way. No other human on earth knew our Lord the way she did or LOVED him the way she did. And a point that others dont seem to make is this. No one loved her more than THE LORD! I highly doubt that on my judgement day our Lord is going to say “you know what, you had such a respect and admiration for my mother. I’m sorry, but you can’t come in…”
Whatever you reply to this (if you do at all), I will not respond. I’ve said my peace and that’s all I can do. Arguing about it isn’t going to change the fact the I love the mother of our Lord and I try to love Jesus the way she would have. There’s no love more pure than a mother’s. I can relate to that love, which is why I choose her as an example for me. My personal relationship with Jesus is very close. I’m welling up with tears right now thinking about it. He is my Lord and Savior forever and ever. I trust His mercy and love for me and can’t wait to see His exquisite face one day! God bless you and your loving, caring heart!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

John,

While it’s apparent to me that you have a higher education, than myself, I am not convinced by your arguments.

There was an authoritative Church established by Christ. This belief does not rest upon a single verse, which by the way would be more than the belief of ‘sola scriptura’, or the private interpretation of scriptures, rests. Paul wrote, ‘That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,’ Paul also wrote, ‘Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.’

Looking only at the second verse provided, Hebrews 13:17, we see the Church was instructed to ‘obey your prelates’. There is no where in scriptures that anyone was ‘self appointed’, or appointed by others without authority, in the Church. Even when Paul was ‘converted’ he went to the Apostles, for confirmation. Most all of Protestantism is built upon ‘self appointments’, or appointments by those without authority in the Church. Who are those ‘prelates’ in the Churches of Protestantism?

Show us in scriptures where God told the ‘multitudes’, laypersons, they were to receive ‘private revelations’ of scriptures? Peter told us the prophecy scriptures did not come of private interpretation. The prophecy the Apostles wrote about were those that pointed to Christ, as written in the Old Testament. There was no New Testament. Christ built a Church and not a ‘Bible’ during His ministry.

Scriptures show us how people interpreted scriptures in Nehemiah 8.

Your presentation on statues ignores scriptures of instructions from the Lord. Tell us the specific instructions given on building the ark of the covenant. Why was it acceptable for Solomon to use images in building the Temple? When, at a later time than that, did it become unacceptable to use images in the house of God?

1Ki 7:35 And on the top of the base, there was a round compass of half a cubit, so wrought that the laver might be set thereon, having its gravings, and divers sculptures of itself.
1Ki 7:36 He engraved also in those plates, which were of brass, and in the corners, cherubims, and lions, and palm trees, in likeness of a man standing, so that they seemed not to be engraven, but added round about.

God gave Moses instructions to create an image to save the people. Wouldn’t this have been a ‘temptation’ to the people to ‘worship’? Not if they understood the holy from God.

Num 21:8 And the Lord said to him: Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live.
Num 21:9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.

You’re not here to pull Catholics away from the Church, but only to ‘warn’ Protestants about the Church? What Church do you direct Protestants too? Which Church has all the correct doctrines of the Lord?

 

[Third_Day]

John on your website you have this article of faith.

Article 52
In case anyone errs in doctrine or offends in conduct, as long as the sin is of a private character and does not give public offense, the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18 shall be followed

According to Matthew 18 there is a Church that one can go to settle issues. I assume you believe that one is justified by faith alone. The Church of Christ considers that a heresy and you a heretic. Only one of you is right.

To what Church will you and the Church of Christ member go to settle the issue and fulfill the command of Christ to “take it to the Church” and if you refuse to listen “even to the Church” you are to be excommunicated?. The decison by this Church is bound in heaven.

To what Church will you and the Church of Christ member take it to?

 

[DJgang]

I get so upset watching people trying to take Catholics away from their Church, trying to save them or whatever, shouldn’t you be spending your time teaching about Christ to those who do not know HIM?

I think you should use your energy somewhere else.

 

[Church_Militant]

You should note first of all that I write for Protestant blogs, and primarily to Protestant audiences. I seek to warn Protestants who may be coming under the influence of Roman Catholicism that they are making a mistake.

That’s okay, we’ve been countering such stuff since the Reformation and even long before.

In my own life, I’ve spent many years trying to understand issues between Protestants and Catholics. The Reformation happened 500 years ago, and in some ways, it seems as if no progress has been made.

Yep, you’re right. So long as Protestants continue to hold to the error of Sola Scriptura with all their various interpretations thereof they can make little progress. (MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY)

But in other areas, especially Biblical studies and history, I think very much progress has been made. And it seems evident to me that Roman Catholicism is backpedalling precisely because of our increased understanding in Biblical and historical studies – just note the difference in attitude between Vatican I and say, “Ut Unum Sint” on the topic of the papacy.

You can call it backpedaling if that makes you feel better about your position, but the fact is that the Church has taken a more pastoral stance and in so doing is calling all those outside the church home.

You can’t read papal encyclicals like Ecclesia de Eucharistia (especially sections 44-46) and see anything more than a careful statement of Catholicism that clearly explains and defends the differences between us.

You mistake the difference in times and circumstances has led to different styles of responses. For example:

(2). The Agitation Outside the Council. —The petitions concerning infallibility called forth once more outside the council a large number of pamphlets and innumerable articles in the daily papers and periodicals. About this time the French Oratorian Gratry and Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin opposed each other in controversial pamphlets. A letter published by Count Montalembert on February 27, 1870, in which he spoke of an idol which had been erected in the Vatican, attracted much attention. In England, Newman gave anxious expression of his fears as to the bad results of the declaration of infallibility in a letter writ—-ten in March, 1870, to his bishop, Ullathorne of Birmingham. The most extreme opponent was Professor Dollinger of Bavaria. In his “Romische Briefe vom Konzil”, published in the “Allgemeine Zeitung” and issued in book form (Munich, 1870), under the pseudonym of “Quirinus”, he used information sent him from Rome by his pupils, Johann Friedrich and Lord Acton. In these letters he did everything he could by distorting and casting doubts upon facts, by scorn and ridicule, to turn the public against the council. This was especially so in an article of January 19, 1870, in which he attacked so severely the address on infallibility, which had just become known, that even Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, an old pupil of Dollinger’s and a member of the minority, protested publicly against it. The Governments of the different countries also took measures on the subject of infallibility. As soon as the original draft of the decree “De ecclesia” with its canons was published in the “Allgemeine Zeitung”, Count von Beust, Chancellor of Austria, sent a protest against it to Rome on February 10, 1870, which said that the Austrian Government would forbid and punish the publication of all decrees that were contrary to the laws of the State. The French minister of foreign affairs, Daru, also sent a threatening memorandum on February 20 He demanded the admission of an envoy to the council, and notified the other Governments of his steps in Rome. Austria, Bavaria, England, Spain, and Portugal declared their agreement with the memorandum. The president of the Prussian ministry, Bismarck, would not change his attitude of reserve, notwithstanding the urgency of von Arnim, the ambassador at Rome. On April 18, the leader of the agitation, Count Daru, retired from his post in the ministry. The president of the French ministry, Ollivier, assumed charge of foreign affairs; he was determined to leave the council free.

Still, a refutation is a refutation

Let me ask you a question: Why did the papacy fight so hard, for centuries, to maintain its “primacy,” “supremacy,” “infallibility,” only for Pope John Paul II to ask for theologians to help him find “a new situation”? What made “ecumenism” such a hot topic in the late 20th century, when all along, the Roman Catholic Church was rejecting that notion? John Paul II said, “The experiences of these years have made the Church even more profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history” (UUS 3) – Isn’t the clear implication here that, prior to this moment, “the Church,” in emphasizing the doctrinality of papal primacy, was somewhat less “profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history.”

Probably because so many people on both sides of the issues didn’t have much clue as to what either side was saying. Many misinterpreted the Documents of the II Vatican Council and John Paul the Great was simply asking other bishops who, (like him) were there to help to clarify what was meant.
(cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s the “more” part that I find terribly disturbing. Roman Catholicism is quite open that it was a “syncretistic” religion – it “assimilated” various cultural elements. And to some degree, this is both unavoidable and acceptable.

You may recognize the phrase “both/and” as a major theological theme designed to account for this syncretism. (See also this theological definition of syncretism.)

So long as a cultural practice does not contravene Catholic belief then where is the harm? St. Paul did this when he was in Athens as shown in Acts. Religion should not combat cultures so that they seek to conform them to another alien culture. This was a problem as the exploration of the new world and persists today with most evangelical proselytism in central and South America.

Christianity is a “revealed” religion. First, there is “general revelation” by which many things can be known about God and creation.

Welcome to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter 1 I. The Desire for God

So we can see one part of the process by which man’s hearts are “darkened”: “Although they knew God [because they could clearly see his eternal power and divine nature in created things], “they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but … they … exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling moral man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

So erring in that direction, through mere natural revelation, is itself an offense to God.

I don’t think that you can supply an authentic and authoritative case where the Catholic Church has in ant way contravened the scripture in Romans where that found.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

the big soldiers of the Faith are out in force now! :knight1:

 

[Church_Militant]

But through the Scriptures, what Protestants know as “special revelation,” God reveals things about himself we cannot know through nature and natural means. The Old Testament Scriptures go into far more detail. The Old Testament is thick with reference to the jealousy of God. John Frame, in his work “The Doctrine of God,” says this:

So it is not simply the making of images that infringes upon God’s jealousy: it is the mere making of them and the bowing down to them that infringes upon God’s jealousy.

You may note, too, that the Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott pointed out in his work “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” that “Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).”

Same old , same old… Iconoclasm: Or: Catholics Worship Graven Images NOT

I firmly believe that the syncretism the Roman Catholic church is at the very least the beginning of idolatry – and I know you will say that the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction idolatry – merely “dulia” and “hyper-dulia”.

That’s your misinterpretation of Catholic belief and nothing more than a straw man argument conjured by those who are unwilling to admit the Biblical position as shown in the link above and in the Catechism.

But in this case, would you “just flirt a little bit” with another woman, on the ground that such relationships with other women merely help you to love your wife more?

Fallacious analogy and attempt to poison the well for discussion. If you fell for that are willing to offer it to Catholics as an argument against our faith then no wonder you were led astray.:doh2:

What should one think of an organization that claims to be authoritative, and yet which sanctions “dulia and hyper-dulia” – bowing down before images of things on the earth?

One should realize that your arguments are fallacious and grossly misguided as well as pulled out of context in order to attempt to cast the Catholic faith in a bad light. This erroneous and misleading. Again…so this is the kind of reasoning that led you to depart from our most holy faith? Then perhaps there is something missing in your critical reasoning skills, as only someone ignorant of authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching would embrace such misinformation.

And again, I know there have been attempts to make theological justifications of such things. But why not err on the side of caution? Why flop the understanding of God’s jealousy completely?

There is no reason to do so when the Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterial teaching of the Church agree about it. The error on your part (and those others who have also embraces and espoused that error) is one of gross scrupulosity and dissemination of misinformation.

This is a misstatement of Protestant doctrine. Works are not necessary for justification. God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our accounts, and we are precisely as righteous before God as Christ is. That is the point of the atonement.

But works are necessary to demonstrate such justification before men. See my comments on 1 Tim 3:15).

Yeah well, meanwhile Matthew 25:31-46 flies directly in the face of your beliefs and preaching.

I’ll say again: Israel “started with a belief in One God” and then, by their flirtations, made quite a mess of things.

Gee… then I’m glad we’re not that Israel spoken of. The doctrinal “mess of things” would certainly be more like Protestantism (in general) since for the last 500 years, the majority of them have abandoned sound doctrine and been blown around on the new winds of doctrines of modern men to the consternation and condemnation of some. As St. James plainly states in the 3rd chapter of his epistle.
1] Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

 

[Church_Militant]

the big soldiers of the Faith are out in force now! :knight1:

Where? Where!?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You may note, too, that the Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott pointed out in his work “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” that “Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).”

A few responses to this:

Whenever I see contra-Catholic apologists such as yourself cite Ott, you do so by applying your own Protestant rules onto Ott’s text. In other words, Ott, a Catholic, obviously would see no problem with doctrinal development. Neither would the authors of Scripture, for that matter, whose theology develops clearer through time, like how Satan was never identified in the earliest works (just this weird serpent/dragon) but all the way to Revelation, it’s specific; or how Paul’s treatment on predestination is further developed in Romans than in his earlier works; etc… But since the Reformed tradition rejects development of doctrine (with the exception of the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, hypostatic union, and maybe some other doctrines), then we are supposed to think “OH! D*mning evidence against Catholics!” When the reality is, these misuses of Ott are only “useful” to predisposed fellow Reformers and their ilk. Perhaps you could post the entirety of Ott’s summary of iconography for our review? And frankly, that’s all off-topic anyway, because as a Reformed Christian you should not care what Ott says one way or another about doctrine.

Secondly, you use the term “God.” You use the verbal symbol of language to depict God. In doing so are you making Him jealous? The Jews once once taught that annunciating God’s name was forbidden. Did your doctrine from the OT practice develop? You are arguing that visual symbolism to depict God is bad, but verbal depictions are good. But if you read the commandment on graven images in contex—the purpose of forbidding the graven image was is linked to “no other gods but me” to prevent the worshipping of idols. So making an image of Christ to facilitate worshipping HIM is not like cheating on your spouse. The marital “jealousy” you point out is valid, but inapplicable to true Catholic and Orthodox use of iconography. If the icon was considered “another god,” your argument would then have weight. As it stands, it fails to demonstrate that there is a mistress in the form of a statue involved.

And thirdly, Christ came incarnate as God’s image. In doing so, did he violate your rules for what makes God jealous or not jealous? According to what you wrote, since Jesus said “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” Jesus violated the commandment. The Father must be jealous of the Son. But you know that in the Catechism the defense of iconography includes the incarnation of Christ as a “new economy of images”?

p.s. John, can you cite the Synod of Elvira’s text for us? I have sources that say there were only 21 canons, and another Ohio St. professor who said this synod was not totally “aniconic” and that it was only against “idolotrous use of” icons.

Canon 36 (if it is not a later addition) says icons should be avoided to avoid the temptation of worship. Other post-21 canons say that women should stay out of cemetaries too. Does the Reformed Tradition hold on to that one?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

I firmly believe that the syncretism the Roman Catholic church is at the very least the beginning of idolatry – and I know you will say that the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction idolatry – merely “dulia” and “hyper-dulia”.

But in this case, would you “just flirt a little bit” with another woman, on the ground that such relationships with other women merely help you to love your wife more?

The God of the Old Testament was extremely jealous. This is not a minor theme, but a major theme of the Old Testament. The entire book of Hosea is devoted to this very theme.

Another woman? Usually God in the bible is the man. Regardless, this claim still seems to insist that saints are equated with gods, which they are not. God tell us the honor people in the bible, does that mean He is asking us to flirt with another woman? Your argument only works if dulia means something like quasi-latria or hypo-latria

 

[John_Bugay]

I’ve got to get to sleep, as it’s past my bedtime, so I might have more to say later, but I was curious about this. How long is “long enough” and how hard is “hard enough” to you? I ask this because I have come across many anti-Catholics (not calling you one) who say things like that they have “studied the RCC for a long time” or “researched extensively” and other similar things, but when I ply them enough, they reveal that their extensive study was actually spending a week of their spare time perusing the articles on carm.org or something similar.

Farsight, I’d have to say it’s been about 35 years.

 

[JReducation]

I think you’re misunderstanding Ut Unum Sint or you’re quoting selectively. You’re saying

it seems evident to me that Roman Catholicism is backpedalling precisely because of our increased understanding in Biblical and historical studies – just note the difference in attitude between Vatican I and say, “Ut Unum Sint” on the topic of the papacy.

But Ut Unum Sint says:

The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.

There is no compromise on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome here.

You’re citing Exodus 34:14, Yahwah says, “Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” And claiming that it applies to the use of statues, icons and other religious images in Catholic Churches. However, you’re obviously do not understand the original intent of the author. The author is revealing God’s desire to have his people for himself out of love.

The images that you find in Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not foreign to the God who calls us to be his. They are all about him and about his great love and glory as he has manifested himself through the scriptures, the life of the Church and the lives of holy men and women. They don’t make statements about natural things, but about God’s work and glory revealed through the natural and supernatural. Therefore, God’s self-disclosure is not limited to one domain.

You deny infallibility, but you state about yourself

I have studied these issues long enough and hard enough, and my conscience is clear, both with respect to my own self, and with respect to my children. I did not come to these understandings overnight, but I came to them as the result of much prayer, sweat, and anguish.

How am I to know that you’re understanding of truth is accurate? The local Lutheran minister, the Baptist Pastor on the next block, and the Jewish Rabbi up the street, all say the same thing, but disagree with you and with each other. Unless you’re claiming infallibility for yourself, your statement your personal understanding and your private faith, not necessarily a revelation from the Holy Spirit. Since all public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, we can add your statements to the long list of people of faith who have made many statements and some of them mistaken statements, even though they were made in good faith.

You’re quoting Robert Sungenis’ warnings about Pope Benedict XVI. Unfortunately, Sungenis is neither a theologian nor right. His article that you quoted contradicts itself. He begins by proclaiming his belief that Pope Benedict is going to kick butt and turn the Church back to its pre-Vatican II days. Then he goes into a long cautionary statement about what he considers Benedict’s unorthodox theology, with his crowning point being a ** In 1966 Fr. Ratzinger authored a book in German titled “Die sakramentale Begruendung Christlicher Existenz” (“The Sacrament is the Foundation for Christian Existence”) which downplayed the act of Eucharistic devotion based on the contention that God’s presence could not be localized. A popular translation of his words reads: “This is repugnant to the man of serious thinking who is aware of the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God, who is present, this is a senseless act which the modern man rightfully rejects.” Let’s hope that this view was merely a product of youthful theological indiscretion. Since he has never reiterated such a downplaying of Eucharistic devotion, it no longer seems to be a part of his thinking.**

I read the book in its original German. Contrary to amateur interpretation, it does not say what people are implying. Fr. Ratzinger was not denying that the consecrated host is truly the body, blood, humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ. However, even when Jesus walked the earth, God was not contained or localized in the physical man named Jesus of Nazareth. While those who knew Jesus, saw the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, they could not see the God-Head. Because the Trinity is not the Son nor is the Son the Trinity. Observe that he says “The Sacrament” referring to the Eucharist, “is the foundation for Christian existence.” He is not denying the centrality and the necessity of the Eucharist in Christian life. He is stating something that St. Bonaventure had stated 700 years ago. When we look upon the consecrated host in adoration, we are looking upon Jesus. However, just as God becomes man and at the same time remains eternal, so in the Eucharist, bread and wine become the second person of the Trinity, while the Trinity remains eternal. Therefore, the Eucharist does not deny the eternity of the God-Head.

You’re quoting an apologist who does not understand Franciscan Theology and is worrying about a part of thesis. This apologist had an ax to grind with Bl. John Paul II and Vatican II, not a very credible Catholic source.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EricFilmer]

John, seeing as you combed through the other thread, I thought there may be a chance that you missed my single comment therein, as found in Post #413. Now that you have started a new thread as a reflection of the other one, I will go ahead and re-post my comment below (in blue text) because I think you were “off base” in something you said to Pete Holter in your blog, and I think it is certainly something worth bringing to your attention…

On his blog, John Bugay said this to me:
“Lay off the ‘brother’ stuff – we’re not good buddies. I don’t even know you, and if you’ve gone from being Reformed into Roman Catholicism, I don’t consider that to be a ‘brotherly’ activity. There is a huge distance between Roman Catholicism and the Reformed faith; I’ll be polite and respectful, but I’m not inclined to get all kissy-faced with a Reformed convert to Roman Catholicism” (Ash Wednesday).

That sounds pretty cold. Two brothers can be completely at odds with one another, and do things that the other considers to be not brotherly activity, but they are still brothers. Do we all call Jesus our brother? If so then we must see each other as brothers and sisters, because our relationship with him puts us in a relationship with one another. Do we all call God our Father? If so then, once again, we must see each other as brothers and sisters. A house may be divided due to beliefs and ideology, but this does not dissolve the relationship shared among siblings. Apparently John Bugay only accepts as brother & sister those who “earn it” by conforming themselves to his personal interpretation of Scripture.