Calvinist calls himself Catholic?

[jmtosh]

As I said, semantics. I have a hard time believing that Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary. I understand that there is dulia and hyperdulia. Whether you call it veneration or obeisance or respect it is still *de facto *worship. In every Catholic Church there is a statue that is venerated. The Catholic faithful pray to the virgin and use her as a mediatrix and lavish affection upon her. To say this is not worship is ludicrous. Must I, as Cardinal Newman would have it, just throw my Bible and brain away and stop questioning what the “Church” teaches or should I be like the Bereans (another group everyone loves to identify with) and search the scriptures to see if these things are so?

As I said above we have communion with the saints through Christ and His Church spiritually as in Hebrews12. The Apostolic Church is Christ’s body - those believers that have repented, have faith in Jesus Christ and in Him alone for salvation. The Church is made up of believers throughout all the ages and across all continents.

 

[zdon011]

Dear jmtosh,

We’ll have to agree to disagree, brother. If you insist on a sharp distinction between the Apostolic Church and present-day Catholics/Orthodox, the conclusion is that God abandoned his entire Church to apostasy, idolatry and error for more than a millennium, before somehow re-revealing himself to rebel priests like Wyckliffe and Luther. Christ promised to Peter that the ‘gates of hell’ would never prevail against his Church: St Paul’s instructions to the churches emphasized the transmission Apostolic ‘Tradition’ through the authority of the successors (Bishops and Presbyters) appointed by the Apostles. If Protestantism was truly needed to re-found the Apostolic, then both of these promises came to nought: God would be a liar.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

As I said, semantics. I have a hard time believing that Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary. I understand that there is dulia and hyperdulia. Whether you call it veneration or obeisance or respect it is still *de facto *worship. In every Catholic Church there is a statue that is venerated. The Catholic faithful pray to the virgin and use her as a mediatrix and lavish affection upon her. To say this is not worship is ludicrous. Must I, as Cardinal Newman would have it, just throw my Bible and brain away and stop questioning what the “Church” teaches or should I be like the Bereans (another group everyone loves to identify with) and search the scriptures to see if these things are so?

As I said above we have communion with the saints through Christ and His Church spiritually as in Hebrews12. The Apostolic Church is Christ’s body - those believers that have repented, have faith in Jesus Christ and in Him alone for salvation. The Church is made up of believers throughout all the ages and across all continents.

I’m sorry you have a hard time letting go of the notion that Catholics worship Mary, the Mother of God. It’s all about levels and gradations of how we hold other beings, whether mortal or divine. Catholics simply practice what is written in the Bible at this verse: Luke 1:48; indeed, Catholics do call Mary blessed.

It is perfectly acceptable to have a desire to question what you believe or what other believe, but why would you make it harder on yourself and search only scriptures when investigating beliefs?

 

[Newsy]

As I said, semantics. I have a hard time believing that Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary. I understand that there is dulia and hyperdulia. Whether you call it veneration or obeisance or respect it is still *de facto *worship.

Is this another way of saying “I understand, but it doesn’t fit my argument”? What you are saying there is a difference between the two, however you don’t care. You asked for a response and then you ignored it.
I suggest you consider the Catholic Faith like an acorn. It doesn’t look like an oak tree, but it becomes an oak tree. Through centuries of study we have found more ways to worship God through actions. The Life of the Church is a growing and maturing life, it is not expected to look the same as it did in 33ad.

 

[jmtosh]

“If there is no connection between the Catholic Church now and the Early Church then, when and where did the Catholic Church come from?”

If I really answered this honestly I would upset a whole lot of people. But since you ask…

After the persecutions ended with Constantine the devil tried a new strategem. Before every Christian knew in Whom and what they believed and were prepared to suffer anything for Him. Their hope was everlasting life in heaven with their Lord (not a purgatorial sentence to cleanse them as they were cleansed - the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin).

Now, the Church became subject to the Emperor (Pontifex Maximus) and incorporated all the paganism of Roman religion, merely changing the names of gods for the names of saints. Constantine was not a Christian, he still worshipped the Sun god. Now, the “Church” gradually became paganised and ritualistic. Just exactly when it lost the way cannot be ascertained but it was shortly after this time. By the end of the 7th century Rome dominated the Church. In the Dark Ages of the struggle against Islam and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire it had completely ceased from preaching the gospel and substituted a ritual religion akin to the former mystery religions.

During the Holy Roman Empire, through the Middle Ages it gradually added more dogma and teachings. The Eastern schism of the 9th and 11th centuries and the papal schism of 1300s show that the Church was not that of the Apostles. The “Church” at this stage ruled the world through the Feudal system and became increasingly corrupt. Those that wished to question her doctrines and left to form their own fellowships were ruthlessly suppressed. Labelled heretic they were slaughtered in thier hundreds of thousands (Rome gets upset at the word millions, but nonetheless history bears it out!).

Waldo, Hus, Wycliffe, Luther et al, all proclaimed justification by faith in Christ and the corruption of the Papacy. They only left when it became apparent that the “Catholic Church” was not the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Newsy]

My friends, I know that it is easy for anybody to claim that they are the Church of the Apostles. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and a myriad of false cults do that, including the Klisti which are a depraved cult of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Cathars. My point is that the scriptures alone adjure us to test if we are in the faith and in Christ by showing us how the Christian life is lived.

My point is that the sects you named are of recent origin. They can say whatever they want, but cannot prove any link to the Early Church.
I will again pose the question “Who started the Catholic Church and when”? Please research this and prove that it was not Jesus appointing the Apostles, since you don’t believe the Catholic Church.

 

[Newsy]

“If there is no connection between the Catholic Church now and the Early Church then, when and where did the Catholic Church come from?”

If I really answered this honestly I would upset a whole lot of people. But since you ask…

After the persecutions ended with Constantine the devil tried a new strategem. Before every Christian knew in Whom and what they believed and were prepared to suffer anything for Him. Their hope was everlasting life in heaven with their Lord (not a purgatorial sentence to cleanse them as they were cleansed - the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin).

Now, the Church became subject to the Emperor (Pontifex Maximus) and incorporated all the paganism of Roman religion, merely changing the names of gods for the names of saints. Constantine was not a Christian, he still worshipped the Sun god. Now, the “Church” gradually became paganised and ritualistic. Just exactly when it lost the way cannot be ascertained but it was shortly after this time. By the end of the 7th century Rome dominated the Church. In the Dark Ages of the struggle against Islam and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire it had completely ceased from preaching the gospel and substituted a ritual religion akin to the former mystery religions.

During the Holy Roman Empire, through the Middle Ages it gradually added more dogma and teachings. The Eastern schism of the 9th and 11th centuries and the papal schism of 1300s show that the Church was not that of the Apostles. The “Church” at this stage ruled the world through the Feudal system and became increasingly corrupt. Those that wished to question her doctrines and left to form their own fellowships were ruthlessly suppressed. Labelled heretic they were slaughtered in thier hundreds of thousands (Rome gets upset at the word millions, but nonetheless history bears it out!).

Waldo, Hus, Wycliffe, Luther et al, all proclaimed justification by faith in Christ and the corruption of the Papacy. They only left when it became apparent that the “Catholic Church” was not the Church of Jesus Christ.

Are you saying that for 200 years people didn’t know what they believed? Are you also saying that before Constantine there were no martyrs? It seems to me the early Church wouldn’t be martyred if they didn’t know what they believed.

 

[jmtosh]

Hi Zdon011,

Yes. We can agree to disagree.

I also say Mary was blessed in that she had the immense honour of being the maiden that gave birth to the Messiah. From henceforth all generations - (in Israel in particular) will call me blessed. Elizabeth clarifies this context in v.45 saying “blessed is she who believed”. Mary acknowledged God was her Saviour and mirrors the worship of Hannah at the promised seed.

Newsy. The Church from the Apostles and through the 400s was trly Catholic and Apostolic and proclaimed Christian truth and the Word of God. I said that after this it gradually became corrupt. If you want to deceive people you do it softly, softly catchee monkey…not all at once. The Dark Ages of History from the fall of the Roman Empire to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire was when Roman Bishopric exercised its power over the Church by consorting with the Germanic princes - Pepin, father of Charlemagne.
Prior to this the Bishops of Antioch, Hippo, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage were all on a par with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[jmtosh]

Newsy - If you read my post carefully I am saying that the persecutions ended with Constantine - i.e. he stopped the persecutions. So, obviously there were many matyrs before Constantine. The persectuions kept the Church pure.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

You didn’t answer Newsy’s first question, and you have been evading mine.

a Christian’s hope for everlasting life actually does not clash with the reality that they may need to undergo purgation before entering Heaven.

Would you provide proof that the gods of greco-roman mythology became renamed as Christian saints?

I think you’ll find that the Church tries to be more corrective before letting secular authorities be coercive with heretics if you study. The problem with many heretics were that they also preached against the secular authorities at the time and thus were problematic for both Church and State.

Also, how can the Church established by Christ become corrupt if Jesus promised that hell wouldn’t prevail against it?

 

[alveolate]

let me be the first to thank our brother jmtosh for calling individual Catholics to understand their own faith. indeed, our much-maligned popes have written much on Faith & Reason, and their encyclicals prove to be very amenable to mainstream protestant leaders.

i myself have often wondered: do some of our older generation truly meditate on the mysteries of Christ while “saying” the Rosary? does repeating the same bunch of words 50+ times really constitute any form of prayer? then i remember… i can’t read their minds, much less know their hearts. i know that when i myself pray the Rosary, i struggle from time to time with distractions - it is a very long prayer! yet i also recognise how it mirrors the very real everyday struggles we have in our daily lives. the quiet tone of repetition serves to silence my heart so that there i may converse with my blessed Mother regarding the mysteries of Christ’s life on earth. (by “conversing” with Mary, i really mean just being silent and marvelling at God’s unfathomable works). in short, “spending time” with Mary - regardless of whether you call it worship or not - helps me to grow closer to God. and why not, since she was as close as it gets to Him!

indeed, us Catholics are rather brazen in the face of the serious accusations of our Protestant brethren. i mean, the least we could do is take down some statues right? even our Orthodox brethren could do that! but let us look more closely at iconoclasm.

the basic analogy is the photograph: when we stare at the photo, we do not adulate that piece of paper - we mean our affection for whom the photo represents. similarly, we do not think that Jim Caviezel really is the Christ, even tho he was pretty convincing in Gibson’s movie! nonetheless, my heart breaks when i am able to visually connect with the passion scene of our Lord. one part of my mind logically remembers that Jim isn’t being torn apart by the Roman Cat’o’nines, but my heart is aching terribly knowing that Jesus had to endure something similar just for my sins. do i sound like an idolator so far? because… that’s basically how i “pray to” or “venerate” the statues… they just serve as helpful reminders, to focus my easily distracted senses on a work of beautiful art which was made to draw us to God.

now our Orthodox brethren felt that 3D was a little excessive, and in an age long ago (before Hollywood effects) there may have been believers who were drawn to statues as if these figures contained some tangible essence of God Himself within their material existence. their practice was to therefore restrict holy icons to 2D with a particular spirituality in its artistry. the Roman church simply clarified her teachings with councils and exhortations, making use of its extensive hierarchies worthily.

to be completely honest, i still think some Catholics, especially those who are not well-catechised, could stray into idolatrous ground, or just simple hypocrisy when they think their speed-mumbled Rosaries are pleasing to anyone. and indeed, a large quarter may still think that going to church on Sundays = enter heaven when dead. well, i can’t vouch for these Catholics, whether they truly have accepted Christ and are using their time on earth to seek His will, but i have faith and hope that the church may reach these individuals - all in His time. in my concern, i do my best to remind my juniors where we stand before God. works alone do not justify us - only Christ can. but when we truly become His followers and take up our crosses in humble imitation, we cannot but produce great fruit through the works which St James enunciates in no equivocal terms. as a lay individual, i am certainly in no position to assure you that all 1 billion of us are built on Christ the rock, but i can say that the Catholic church has the only theological and social structure sound enough to even try saving/evangelising all 1 billion within her fold. yup, i’m proud of Holy Mother Church, not because i am blind, but because i earnestly study her and know her well enough.

as for her history… well. let’s just say that every flock has its black sheep. and just in case you think we consider the “black sheep popes” to be “infallible”, please understand that papal infallibility only applies to ex cathedra pronouncements and has actually only been invoked… twice? the pope can and does make mistakes - he is only human. his divine authority over the faithful comes from none other than God Himself as attested to in the Gospel. and yes, we’ve had terribly popes, pedophile priests, totally sinful parishioners, etc. well, we are here for the sick, they are the ones that need the Healer, right? i’ll cast the first stone when i attain Mother Mary’s purity. nonetheless, Pope John Paul the Great has taken an incredible step forward to apologise for some of the darker deeds of the Catholic Church. tbh, his apologies gave me great peace too… for i was quite troubled with the Inquisition, Crusades, and fallen popes. i wish God would make the Church more perfect - but i guess He has a greater plan? it is in our weakness that He is strong, and He uses the foolish to shame the wise. i have to admit i can’t truly grasp His plan, but i’ll make do with what He has made clear so far: He is with us until the end of time.

whew. sorry i completely over-ranted there. peace and all good!

 

[elvisman]

Newsy. The Church from the Apostles and through the 400s was trly Catholic and Apostolic and proclaimed Christian truth and the Word of God. I said that after this it gradually became corrupt. If you want to deceive people you do it softly, softly catchee monkey…not all at once. The Dark Ages of History from the fall of the Roman Empire to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire was when Roman Bishopric exercised its power over the Church by consorting with the Germanic princes - Pepin, father of Charlemagne.
Prior to this the Bishops of Antioch, Hippo, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage were all on a par with the Bishop of Rome.

WRONG.
This is an anti-Catholic lie perpetuated by books like Loraine Boettner’s "Roman Catholicism". The charge that temporal power of the popes was conferred by Pepin, King of the Franks is debunked by a rudimentary study of history.

**In 750, Pepin the Short had positioned himself to take charge of the Frankish kingdoms. Since he had been educated by Catholic monks and knew St. Boniface, Pepin asked Pope Zacharias for advice as to whether or not he should take control of the kingdom or not. Pope Zacharias told Pepin that since he held de facto power over the Franks, it was better for all that he take control. **
When we study the facts, it becomes clear that Boettner had his “facts” jumbled. Pepin never conferred temporal power on the Pope – it was the Pope who confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

I realize that this is off-topic, but you brought it up.

As for the Church - if it was “truly Catholic and Apostolic and proclaimed Christian truth and the Word of God”, for the first few centuries - when did it stop teaching the truth and what truths did it pervert?

 

[steve_b]

On another forum I asked a Calvinist not to call me a “Roman Catholic” because it’s strictly incorrect - I am a Roman Rite Catholic. A Catholic.

He refused, telling me I don’t have the monopoly on the word Catholic - that he uses the word to distinguish me and people like me who submit to Papal authority - and that he is a Catholic too.

Each forum has their own rules. Maybe on that other forum, there is no moderator who objects.

Someday, we will all assume room temperature. It’s one for one. God knows who is Catholic and who isn’t… And He knows His Church. Bottomline, that’s all that counts. There won’t be any such arguments or nonsense about this when that day comes.

 

[jmtosh]

WRONG.
This is an anti-Catholic lie perpetuated by books like Loraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”. The charge that temporal power of the popes was conferred by Pepin, King of the Franks is debunked by a rudimentary study of history.

"*In 750, Pepin the Short had positioned himself to take charge of the Frankish kingdoms. Since he had been educated by Catholic monks and knew St. Boniface, Pepin asked Pope Zacharias for advice as to whether or not he should take control of the kingdom or not. Pope Zacharias told Pepin that since he held de facto power over the Franks, it was better for all that he take control.
When we study the facts, it becomes clear that Boettner had his “facts” jumbled. Pepin never conferred temporal power on the Pope – it was the Pope who confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

I realize that this is off-topic, but you brought it up.

As for the Church - if it was “truly Catholic and Apostolic and proclaimed Christian truth and the Word of God”, for the first few centuries - when did it stop teaching the truth and what truths did it pervert?"*

Pepin petitioned the Pope by means of an embassy he sent to Rome asking if he could claim the royal title. Zacharias decided in his favour and Pepin was anointed King of the Franks. However, the relationship between the papacy and the German princes was mutually beneficial and a shrewd move.

In January 754 ***“Pope Stephen II arrived at Pepin’s villa …to ask for the help of the Franks against his neighbours, the Lombards. In 751 the Lombards had conquered the Exarchy of Ravenna, and the threat to the temporal power of the Pope had grown until King Aistulf was threatening the Roman ducatus itself. An alliance was formed and Pepin undertook to assist and protect the Papacy, and to restore the Pope the Exarchy as well as the Respublica Romanorum conquered by Aistulf”. ***
Peter Lasko, *The Kingdom of the Franks *[1971] Thames & Hudson, London.

As you said rudimentary History- should have read further! I have not read Boettner on this subject and so would not know about that. I go straight to the Historians for History.

As regards the Church, my point is that yes, Christ promised to build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ is in His body, the Church. The Church are believers in Christ not an institution or a building. Not based at the Vatican. Jesus taught that His Kingdom was not of this world. If any body of men abandon the proclamation of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death, burial and resurrection as taught by the Apostles in the Bible and by the early Church they are Anathema in the words of Paul himself.

With all due respect is it not true that the Roman Catholic / Latin Church has taught salvation by sacraments, works and yes, even by Crusade/ Is it not true that the “Church” denies the sufficiency of Christ’s blood atonement on the cross to fully satisfy and propitiate the Father?

As for the consecrating of Greaco - Roman gods. I wasn’t trying to avoid answering Newsy. There are at least 3 to 5 people that responded to me and I have not had time to basically respond to each so give me a break pal.

St. Bacchus the Matyr whose feast day is October 7th. St. Dionysius (which is the Greek Bacchus). The pagan “Festum Dionysi Eleutherei rusticum” or the ‘rustic feast of Dionysius Eleuthereus’ has been converted into the worship of 3 saints: October 9th - the Festival of St. Dionysius and of his companions, St. Eleuther and St. Rustic.

Other festal days are the feast of the Lupercalia becoming St. Valentines’ Day and Christmas, formerly the Saturnalia or the rebirth of the sun god after the winter solstice - December 25th.

The use of statues, halos and other paraphernalia were brought into the State “Church” from the Mystery Religions and the priesthood was borrowed from the Old Testament. There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

 

[tmj365]

Calvin was a Catholic (he considered taking Orders).

There are many faiths which claim to be catholic - some with more legitimacy than others.

For example, the Greek Orthodox claim to be catholic, and Rome does not dispute their claim. They have valid Orders, and their Sacraments are recognized as valid. If a Latin Rite Catholic visits an Orthodox church, he should genuflect before the tabernacle, because it houses the true Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and Humanity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ - the same as in the Catholic Church. But he may not receive thereof (except in extreme circumstance).

It is unusual to find a modern Calvinist who claims the title “catholic,” but he is correct in saying that “Roman Catholics” do not have a monopoly on the term. However, the Church does not refer to herself as the “Roman Catholic” Church, but rather the “Catholic Church.”

Good answer. We, in the Reformed traditional, affirm the historic Creeds of the Church and confess our faith in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Tom

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

Pius X condemned the proposition of the Modernists that the Church hierarchy is the result of a general historical development.
Christ delegated to the Apostles the mission which He, as man, received from the Father (John 20: 21)

 

[Newsy]

With all due respect is it not true that the Roman Catholic / Latin Church has taught salvation by sacraments, works and yes, even by Crusade/ Is it not true that the “Church” denies the sufficiency of Christ’s blood atonement on the cross to fully satisfy and propitiate the Father?

Other festal days are the feast of the Lupercalia becoming St. Valentines’ Day and Christmas, formerly the Saturnalia or the rebirth of the sun god after the winter solstice - December 25th.

and the priesthood was borrowed from the Old Testament. There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

The Catholic Church teaches the sacraments bring a closer communion with God. It teaches that Faith AND WORKS are needed for salvation. It also teaches that sin stains the human soul, forgiveness doesn’t erase that stain. You could check into these facts on this site as well.
The Dec 25 thing has been worked to death, but here it goes again. It was a pagan festival to honor the return of the Sun (the days getting longer). Early Christians used it as a celebration of the coming of the SON. It was another way for the early Church to evangelize.
Finally, the greek word presbyteros(may be spelled wrong?) is translated to either elders or priests. And yes, it was taken from old testament jews. The Early Church was a group of Jewish Converts, truly it is a completion of Judaism.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The use of statues, halos and other paraphernalia were brought into the State “Church” from the Mystery Religions and the priesthood was borrowed from the Old Testament. There is no mention of a Priesthood prior to the 3rd century but there were poatriarchs of the different Churches.

I guess you’ve never read Exodus 25, or 1 Kings 6. Both chapters are excellent proofs of cherubim being carved. So does Judaism fall into those “mystery religions” you talk about?

On the priesthood, you said it yourself in the above quote that there were priests in the OT, (before the 3rd century ). Also, what about James 5? Presbyters (priests!!!) are performing the sacraments of Anointing of the Sick and Penance!

I’m afraid you will have to get used to multiple people addressing your claims when you come to CAF. You’re a non-Catholic and we are quite enthusiastic for defending Holy Mother Church. I hope you stick around and that what you learn here will make you think!

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Good answer. We, in the Reformed traditional, affirm the historic Creeds of the Church and confess our faith in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Tom

Yes, and if the Scots Confession is one of the confessions that your denomination uses, it has some colorful language for us Catholics. Are you comfortable with such language being used in your church documents?

 

[tmj365]

Yes, and if the Scots Confession is one of the confessions that your denomination uses, it has some colorful language for us Catholics. Are you comfortable with such language being used in your church documents?

Truly unfortunate and a child of its times, much as was some anti-Protestant rhetoric of the same era. Both groups burned each other at the stake. I cannot see Jesus approving either party of that era.

Thanks for your post.
Tom