Confessional Lutheran Perspective on the Mother of God as given by a Lutheran "father" of the Church, Arthur Piepkorn

[gurneyhalleck1]

Understand what separation means. Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church Christ founded, declaring Luther’s doctrines to be true and the Church’s to be false. We are separated. We can hope for one another’s good, but we are separated. Unity is broken. Christ’s command that His followers be one is disobeyed. The consequences will be severe.

There is one Church. There are not two or a thousand. There is one. There is not one in heaven and another one on earth. There is one in heaven and on earth. You can belong to her or be separated from her. There are no degrees of separation as one can not be a little pregnant. We are together or apart.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations teaching various peculiar doctrines based on private interpretation of scripture, following Luther’s example, claiming scripture gives them authority to do so and form separate bodies, as did Luther.

They are separated. They are not of us. They have separated themselves from us by their own doing and remain apart. This division done under the claimed authority of scripture is diabolical and the result will be the destruction of Christian civilization, a descent into chaos. We are witnessing it happening. A house divided will not stand.

We have Christ’s promises that His Church will not be overcome. He will be with us until the end of time. But when branches are cut off from the vine they eventually die.

Protestantism is by its nature doctrinally chaotic. By nature it divides itself. It multiplies divisions. History proves this. It is inevitable. Luther saw it himself. Every man has license to define truth for himself based on his read of scripture. So we have a branch separated from the vine and then chopped into thousands of pieces. We love them, but they are not one with us or themselves.

If Luther condemns Catholic dogma as diabolical he is either right or wrong. He forthrightly states his convictions and separates himself and his followers from the ancient Church.

Denominationalism is diabolical. It is of the devil. It is disobedience to Christ’s explicit command to His Church as found in scripture.

I hope everyone notes that this was Grandpa’s quote, for some reason it looked as if I had said it in my last post here when I tried to quote him?

 

[thirdn6]

Sometimes Christians who are separated from Christ’s Church become aware of the disconnect. What they try to do is find some ancient saint or early father to find a quote from his or her writing they agree with. They use this to try to reconnect themselves with the ancient faith. We agree with what Basil or Crysostum said about such and such so therefore our doctrine or belief is correct. Essentially they realize that it is necessary to establish some connection to the those who came before. If they can do that it proves that they did not make up something crazy out of nowhere.

The problem with this is that if they were to take everything that paricular saint said back in antiquity their novel doctrines would be refuted.

They have to isolate some statment and agree with it, but they can not take the netire body of the saint’s wring and doctrine, because it will be inevitably Catohlic. In other words they have to pick and choose from the whole body of doctrine.

Nevertheless it makes heretics comfortable to say, see we agree with Augustine on this, or Basil on that.

The definition of a heretic is someone who picks and chooses.

I admire your speaking up for truth, grandfather!
MAYBE, the adoption of the ‘Nicene Creed’ by them is one overused example of that, imo.
In this confused Christian world, people come here to find answers, Catholic Answers- TRUTH, not peace or charity. Agreeable or not.

 

[Steadfast]

The problem with this is that if they were to take everything that paricular saint said back in antiquity their novel doctrines would be refuted.

Do you not realize that EXACTLY the same things may be said of Catholics?

Or do you really believe that everything an Irenaeus said (for example) is taught today by your church?

Hasn’t your church picked and chosen?

Didn’t it, on the matter of Papal primacy, pick and choose which sayings of the fathers it liked and which it did not?

This is nonsense.

You’re a bombastic grandstander, Grandfather, and the worst kind of triumphalist.

I’ll pray for you.

 

[Steadfast]

But I know what his “out” will be.

We will be told that his church has the divinely given authority to determine from the testimony of the fathers what is true and what is not while these (snarl) Protestants do not and make their choices based on convenience and fancy.

This is something we’ve heard a lot around here. In one form or another we hear it every day.

And yet, we remain uncompelled. It looks so subjective. It looks, for all the world, like the person saying this, or a variation of this, has decided to accept the testimony of his church because he likes it.

How can so spectacularly unconvincing, (and may I say poorly substantiated) a set of authority claims continue to be put forward by intelligent people?

It boggles the mind.

You see, most of us have seen “the evidence”; the constant references to Matthew 16 and all the other passages where, in the Catholic interpretational revision, Jesus is seen to be establishing a hierarchical church replete with autarchal popes and dependent bishops and a submissive, doctrinally uniform laity.

We offer other interpretations, ones more in keeping not only with the immediate context but the larger context of the whole of Scripture (not to mention history), but the fingers go into the ears and we hear the refrain, “Lalalalalalalala”.

Then we get to do it all again elsewhere, all over again, with a new triumphalist freshly minted in the laboratories of Catholic Answers and This Rock.

Because Fundamentalists don’t listen.

This is the lesson here.

Do not waste your time casting pearls before swine. Once you determine that your interlocutor is more interested in his agenda than in dialogue, it is best to cut short your conversation with him.

Life is too short and there are too many decent people out there who know how to behave properly and evaluate information charitably to waste it on those who only want to cast you down.

Don’t you see the perversion here?

TU took the time to transcribe a lengthy passage giving evidence of Lutheran admiration and veneration of the Mother of God, and it was used as an opportunity to belittle and ridicule him, his belief and the historical personages he admires.

“Grandfather” (what an irony), basically, took the opportunity to lay a fresh turd on what TU wrote and dismiss it as the revisionist ramblings of a heretic.

Lord have mercy.

 

[grandfather]

Grandpa, I appreciate your zeal for Christ but Catholics are called to charity and love of Protestants.

Christ commands us to love all, no exceptions. We must will the good of all, not simply in hoping something nice happens to everyone, but sacrificing ourselves for others no matter what religion they are.

We are not to sit in the seat of judgment and declare how is broken and who is whole.

We hear a lot of talk about reunifying all the disparate groups that are split apart and separated from one another. A Lutheran minister told me he hopes for reunification. If it is acknowledged that reunification is a goal we should work for then it is implicit that we lack unity. That means we are separated. We have different beliefs. We are not of one mind as St. Paul commands. How this happened, who caused it and what the differences are is history not theology. Trying to make believe we are not separated will not help. To say Christendom is divided into a thousand parts is facing the truth, not judgment of anyone.

There are many of our protestant brothers in Christ who are on FIRE for the Lord more than many Catholics.

Jesus calls everyone to be holy. He commands it. “Be ye holy even as your Heavenly Father is holy”. What does that mean? Maybe you would say it means being on fire for the Lord. I would agree, but use a different term. It means loving the Lord. I can not judge any man’s love of God, but what does it mean to love God? “The love of God consists in this, that we keep His commandments.” John wrote. And Jesus says, “If a man loves me he will keep my commandments.” Surely many or most Catholics fail, as I suspect most Protestants do. Who knows the secret of another mans heart? No one. Only God knows and can judge a soul. Many people profess high moral standards, but have a secret life. We can not judge others, Protestants or Catholics, but the Church can judge doctrine. She is empowered by Jesus to teach and given the authority to do so. “Whatever you bind on earth I will bind in heaven. Go into all the world and teach all nations all I have taught you. I will send you the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth. I will be with you until the end of time.” So while we can not judge others we can know the difference between true and false doctrine. The Church has condemned Luther’s novel doctrines as false. Those who embrace them are separated from us by false doctrine, or the Church is wrong. Let’s not make believe there is no problem. This separation disobeys Christ and the consequences of division will be terrible.

You cannot tell me that the Holy Spirit does not work in protestants or that God does not hear their prayers or that they are diabolical.

I did not say that at all. Someone quoted Luther as saying Catholic Marian dogma is diabolical. False doctrine or dogma would indeed be diabolical, lies from the father of lies. I believe I also said that denominationalism is diabolical. It is. There are thousands of Christian denominations separated from one another. The cause of this is a diabolical false doctrine that says all authority to determine truth is in scripture. Luther concocted this false doctrine to justify his teaching, but scripture teaches that Christ gave authority to His Church. The endless chopping up of the population of Protestant believers into pieces is evil. That is not saying individual Protestants are diabolical or God does not love them or hear their prayers.

 

[grandfather]

We need to respect their views with charity and disagree with love, gently and kindly.

Certainly, and we also have to tell the truth.

We Catholics are NAIVE if we think the Church didn’t bring a lot of the Reformation upon OURSELVES in the Middle Ages.

The spiritual cause of our suffering division is sin. We are being punished for sin. There were so many arrogant evil churchmen including popes that we did not have the grace to maintain unity. It is easy to blame Luther and he had a major part to play in triggering the evil of denominationalism, but the blame can not stop there. Catholic society had plenty of corruption. Suppose a civil government is corrupt and needs reform. Cuba is an example. The dictator Batista was an evil man. Castro overthrew him and the population has suffered for a half century. The tsars of historical Russia were not so nice. Ivan the Terrible was bad. What took their place was far worse. By dividing Christendom the consequences that are unfolding are not a flowering of faith and goodness, but the destruction of once Christian western civilization. This is evil.

Between the wretched abuse of indulgences, the corrupt real estate dealings of the Vatican, priestly and papal scandals, too much bureaucracy drowning out the Gospel, apathy from the top, and much suppression of science, art, and expression, the Church imploded from within. We need intellectual honesty to admit our shortcomings.

Amen. We must face our sins. There is no escaping them.

The Church was, often times, a bright light and a beacon of hope in the medievel world and without the Church where would we be? But the truth is that Church had and actually still has no checks and balances, it had no watchdog to police its own dirty deeds and the Reformation resulted.

Who is the pope’s watchdog today? To whom is he accountable? Where are the checks and balances? He answers to much more terrible omnipotent, omniscient judge than Martin Luther. It would be shocking if some of the wicked popes were not in hell. Think about David and Saul. David would not raise his hand against God’s annointed, the man God chose to lead Israel. Saul was corrupt and evil. So was pope Alexander VI, for example. I understand anyone who would want to depose him and find a new or better more moral person to lead the Church. So I admire Savanrola. I may think with good reason my bishop is a nutcase. That does not give me the authority to start my own Church, or Luther to start his.

The result of that reformation is protestantism. The protestants we have today who are good, prayerful people by and large come from this development hundreds of years ago and they are raised in that belief structure. They are not knowingly diabolical and our catechism calls us to charity toward them. Our catechism, while it calls everyone to catholicism, makes it clear that protestants can be saved.

I agree that there are sincere dear Protestants. I know and love many. That does not mean that I accept their errors. We need to pray that denominationalism by the grace and power of God comes to an end. We have to will the salvation of all, none excluded, to the point we would give our lives for it.

I understand your points about denominationalism and God’s desire for unity that we may all be ONE. I understand. But we will not obtain the unity you seek through Pharisaic, condescending overemphasizing our differences but rather we should start by emphasizing our commonalities…then go from there…

Think if someone in your family was sick with alcoholism and that person had a lot of good qualities, but was suffering this terrible disease, how would you approach it. There is normally an intervention. The person is confronted and told they are sick and need treatment. This is what is wrong with you life and unless it is fixed you and your family will suffer more harm. That is what believing false doctrine is like. You can have beliefs that are true, but the false ones are going to cause trouble eventually. They can not be ignored while we pat one another on the back and congratulate one another on all the things we agree on. That never gets to the problems. It is acceptable to many today that believing some doctrines that are false is ok. A Baptist minister told me all denominations have some errors in their doctrine. I asked him which of his doctrines are false. He said he did not know, but it is arrogant for anyone or a church to presume it is right. If you do not know which of your doctrines are false, then you don’t know which are true. Jesus promised to lead His Church into all truth, not some.

charity

Yes!

 

[grandfather]

I hope everyone notes that this was Grandpa’s quote, for some reason it looked as if I had said it in my last post here when I tried to quote him?

Sorry I messed that up.

 

[grandfather]

I admire your speaking up for truth, grandfather!
MAYBE, the adoption of the ‘Nicene Creed’ by them is one overused example of that, imo.
In this confused Christian world, people come here to find answers, Catholic Answers- TRUTH, not peace or charity. Agreeable or not.

I do not think we can separate truth from love. They are both infinite perfections of God. Telling people they are wrong does not mean we do not love them or wish them peace. I am not offended if someone says Catholic doctrine is untrue. I would rather them say what they believe than be phony and pay insincere compliments. Get it all out on the table. If I thought Protestant doctrines were true I would be a Protestant. I am not Protestant, because I believe their doctrines are false. We are spearated. That does not mean we can not love one another, or that we hate one another. It means we think they are wrong and vice versa.

 

[grandfather]

Do you not realize that EXACTLY the same things may be said of Catholics?

Or do you really believe that everything an Irenaeus said (for example) is taught today by your church?

Hasn’t your church picked and chosen?

Didn’t it, on the matter of Papal primacy, pick and choose which sayings of the fathers it liked and which it did not?

This is nonsense.

You’re a bombastic grandstander, Grandfather, and the worst kind of triumphalist.

I’ll pray for you.

Thank you, sincerely.

The saints wrote many things it is true. They also submitted their teaching to the authority of Holy Church as opposed to starting their own. Read what Aquinas said on his deathbed of all his teaching. The job of the theologian is to speculate. The Church defines truth, accepts or rejects the speculation. The saint does not insist he is right and the Church is wrong.

 

[grandfather]

]But I know what his “out” will be.

We will be told that his church has the divinely given authority to determine from the testimony of the fathers what is true and what is not while these (snarl) Protestants do not and make their choices based on convenience and fancy.

This is something we’ve heard a lot around here. In one form or another we hear it every day.

And yet, we remain uncompelled. It looks so subjective. It looks, for all the world, like the person saying this, or a variation of this, has decided to accept the testimony of his church because he likes it.

It is the testimony of scripture that tells us the Church has authority. If you say all authority is in scripture how can you reject the authority scripture says is in the Church? Doing so rejects scripture, your sole rule of faith.

How can so spectacularly unconvincing, (and may I say poorly substantiated) a set of authority claims continue to be put forward by intelligent people?

It boggles the mind.

Read the Bible.

You see, most of us have seen “the evidence”; the constant references to Matthew 16 and all the other passages where, in the Catholic interpretational revision, Jesus is seen to be establishing a hierarchical church replete with autarchal popes and dependent bishops and a submissive, doctrinally uniform laity.

So be Protestant.

Then we get to do it all again elsewhere, all over again, with a new triumphalist freshly minted in the laboratories of Catholic Answers and This Rock.

So don’t read them.

Life is too short and there are too many decent people out there who know how to behave properly and evaluate information charitably to waste it on those who only want to cast you down.

This is a great misunderstanding. I have no wish to cast anyone down. To the contrary, I hope only for your good. It is your doctrine that needs to be demolished.

Don’t you see the perversion here?

Wow! Pretty strong! A little touchy are we? Please don’t take anything I say personally. Please make the distinction between what I say about heresy itself and immortal souls who all need mercy. We are all kind of like beggars arguing over the right way to beg. I hope you receive infinite blessing and eternal life with God and His saints. I believe the Church is right and you believe Luther was right. There is a lot at stake, so we can get angry with one another, but lets not. Say what you will about what you believe. Ad hominem attacks are never helpful. I am not attacking you although you are taking it that way.

TU took the time to transcribe a lengthy passage giving evidence of Lutheran admiration and veneration of the Mother of God, and it was used as an opportunity to belittle and ridicule him, his belief and the historical personages he admires.

I think I criticized his opinion.

Lord have mercy.

on us all.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Who is the pope’s watchdog today? To whom is he accountable? Where are the checks and balances? He answers to much more terrible omnipotent, omniscient judge than Martin Luther. It would be shocking if some of the wicked popes were not in hell. Think about David and Saul. David would not raise his hand against God’s annointed, the man God chose to lead Israel. Saul was corrupt and evil. So was pope Alexander VI, for example. I understand anyone who would want to depose him and find a new or better more moral person to lead the Church. So I admire Savanrola. I may think with good reason my bishop is a nutcase. That does not give me the authority to start my own Church, or Luther to start his–grandpa quote—

Saying that the Pope’s watchdog and check/balances come from God is hardly what I mean. I mean here in the temporal world. Popes are immune from criticism and accountability because they are in a hierarchy with no checks and balances, no watchdog. God is the watchdog in the afterlife and yes, the Popes like Alexander VI will answer to Him then, but on earth they have plenty of time to run amuck at will if they wish to do so. And I notice that when they do things like lock up Galileo in prison for the rest of his life, I hear guys like Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers say, “Galileo wasn’t locked up for his views of heliocentrism or scientific proposals, he was locked up for criticizing the papacy and the pope himself. He should have been locked up for that!” That scares the heck out of me.

If we had not had the Protestant Reformation, it is presumptive and anachronistic to suppose there would have been an internal catholic reformation anyway. The counter-reformation came after protestants had launched their revolt. Would we have had Vatican II, communion in both kinds to the laity, the Mass in our own language, the bible given to laity and studied at our churches, and other things that protestants criticized Rome for in those days? It’s easy to say “yes” but the probability is “no.”

What would the world look like had Rome retained full control over the Western world? We wouldn’t probably have democracies as those ideas came out of Lutheran ideas like the freedom of the Christian man, personal religious freedom of expression, humanism from guys like Erasmus, the idea of secularism (and yes, many secular arts, literature, television, music, and culture are not evil), etc. Would we have the idea of a separation of powers in government, a constitiution that promises religious liberty, sciences that are saving lives, etc. etc. The church was hostile to humanism, the secular world, science, and criticism of its hierarchy or institutions.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded by protestants, Calvinists to be exact, who believed they were part of the elect of God. They were simple folks and very industrious. And the other colonies fled religious persecution. Catholics played a small part in comparison to the protestants that spearheaded the Revolution, developed our Bill of Rights, Constitution, government, and society. The Protestant Reformation broke the West out of Roman Catholic control and there were many democratic, social, and scientific, artistic benefits to that freedom. Using intellectual honesty, I can say that without the Reformation I doubt we’d be where we have been for the last 500 years in our progression toward democracy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh man, I just gave protestants compliments and was honest about their positive legacies, get ready for the barracudas and sharks to attack. I’m in for it now…<ducking for cover from the incoming scud missles!> LOL

 

[grandfather]

What would the world look like had Rome retained full control over the Western world? We wouldn’t probably have democracies as those ideas came out of Lutheran ideas like the freedom of the Christian man, personal religious freedom of expression, humanism from guys like Erasmus, the idea of secularism (and yes, many secular arts, literature, television, music, and culture are not evil), etc.

We will get into some very controversial areas in exploring the what if ideas you raise. Here are a couple more. We would not have abortion and millions of dead babies, the cancer of pornography that destroys souls, men marrying men, and other moral evils that are sanctioned by our civil government under the guise of a disordered notion of freedom.

Would we have the idea of a separation of powers in government, a constitiution that promises religious liberty, sciences that are saving lives, etc. etc. The church was hostile to humanism, the secular world, science, and criticism of its hierarchy or institutions.

The notion that there are two jusrisdictions in government, civil and religious, that are separated came from Saint Augustine, not the American founders. He came at a time in history when antiquity had just ended and the medieval age began. He wrote the City of God, the blueprint that built Christendom. So we see in history civil rulers governing civil affairs and popes and bishops settling questions of morals. The American founders produced a document that formed a civil government, but left religious affairs in anarchy, or in a vacuum, calling it freedom. They appealed to divine right in declaring legitimacy of the formation of their government. “All men are endowed by their creator…” Whenever there is a vacuum something will fill it. So when we have a moral (religious) question today the civil government (by the people) steps in to resolve it. Can men marry men? Is it permissible for a doctor and mother to kill an unborn baby? The jurisdiction over morals is claimed by the civil government by the people. How did that happen?

God is the giver of the moral law. We recieve it in faith, not by voting on it. The chaos we experience, how can we even be talking about men marrying men, comes from the false notion that men can make the moral law. We can make it or change it by voting on it. This is as crazy as voting on the law of gravity or what temperature water boils. Lets vote to lower the temperature that water boils. It will save energy. Lets vote to ban gravity. Planes will not crash and kill people and old folks won’t fall and break bones. The moral law is what it is, but we think we can establish or change it on whim, so our government by the people, under the auspices of freedom and democracy sanctions murder of the unborn. The rise of Hitler to power was very democratic. The Crucifixion of Christ was the will of the crowd.

If God is the giver of the moral law, but in our system today the people determine the moral law, then the civil government of the people have usurped the place of God. This is precisely why our civilization is unravelling, falling into moral and civil chaos.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded by protestants, Calvinists to be exact, who believed they were part of the elect of God. They were simple folks and very industrious. And the other colonies fled religious persecution. Catholics played a small part in comparison to the protestants that spearheaded the Revolution, developed our Bill of Rights, Constitution, government, and society. The Protestant Reformation broke the West out of Roman Catholic control and there were many democratic, social, and scientific, artistic benefits to that freedom. Using intellectual honesty, I can say that without the Reformation I doubt we’d be where we have been for the last 500 years in our progression toward democracy.

And at best, the jury is still out on what the outcome will be. From where I sit we are not doing very well. I can not call 40 million murdered babies progress. There are many things done under the guise of freedom that lead to slavery. People are confused about what freedom is. They insist on sexual freedom and destroy themselves.

What makes a government legitimate? Is it legitimate if it is elected? Remember the American founders claimed their government was legitimate, because certain liberties are granted to us by God. They claimed it is a divine right for the people to govern themselves. Were they right? The founders claim of legitimacy did not come from the people, but from God. The same claim was made by the English king legitimizing his goverment of the colonies.

God gives governments legitimacy. An elected government can be illegitimate in the eyes of God. Why did we fight Hitler? He had to be deposed, because his government was doing evil things that made it illegitimate. The vast majority of the German people loved him. Our government has sanctioned the murder of 40 million babies. It does not matter that it is elected. It is illegitimate. So it will inevitably collapse, just as it was inevitable that Israel suffered destruction when it turned from God, so will any nation fall. But you are right that the path or direction that has led to where we are today is established as you say, by Protestants, and very well meaning ones I would add.

 

[Peter_J]

And I notice that when they do things like lock up Galileo in prison for the rest of his life, I hear guys like Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers say, “Galileo wasn’t locked up for his views of heliocentrism or scientific proposals, he was locked up for criticizing the papacy and the pope himself. He should have been locked up for that!” That scares the heck out of me.

Touché. I really surprised that such a statement would come from Jimmy Akin. (Then again, maybe there’s a side to Jimmy Akin that I don’t know about? I don’t make any claim to be an expert on him.)

If we had not had the Protestant Reformation, it is presumptive and anachronistic to suppose there would have been an internal catholic reformation anyway. The counter-reformation came after protestants had launched their revolt. Would we have had Vatican II, communion in both kinds to the laity, the Mass in our own language, the bible given to laity and studied at our churches, and other things that protestants criticized Rome for in those days? It’s easy to say “yes” but the probability is “no.”

I agree that would be presumptive. I would add, though, that I think speculating on the question at all is pretty difficult.

Plus, I think it’s largely unnecessary, since most of the time there were more than one reform going on at the same time. For example, there’s no need to ask “Would St. Catherine of Genoa have done what she did if Savonarola hadn’t done what he did?” To quote Fr. Benedict Groeschel,
“While Savonarola (who is really admirable for telling the truth) was storming up and down Italy predicting the scourges God had revealed to him, St. Catherine of Genoa was home looking after the sick and the poor. She never left Genoa or did anything more dramatic than organize prayer groups which cared for the sick poor. Yet history has judged that she, and not the fiery preacher, ‘began the effective reform of the Catholic Church in those troubled times.’”

Similarly, Luther and Zwingli were two very different reformers* – operating at the same time, but not collaborating with each other.

(*) although alike in one important respect, that both were, sooner or later, excommunicated.

 

[IowaJay]

Piepkorn is great - thanks for posting.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Grandfather, I could NOT agree with you more about your moral concerns. I DETEST abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and so many of the immoral biproducts of democracy. I am sickened at the “right to choose” lingo that comes with the pro-abortion lobby. I am also sickened at the greed and avarice of the Bush administration, the blatant milking of the federal gov’t by Bush and his cronies with no-bid gov’t contracts, invading third world countries that haven’t attacked us, sanctioning torture, and turning a blind eye to the poor. I’m also sad to see what pornography has done and the over-sexualized culture we live in.

I appreciate your moral outrage and share it. The Great Experiment of the United States is sure encountering some nasty speed bumps culturally and financially. However, take a look at the alternatives. Would you prefer to live in a nice theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Also, your points about Augustine’s City of God I can’t totally agree with. Augustine lived in a world of great paganism side by side with Christianity. He detested the circus maximus theatrics and games of death in gladiatorial games. Sexuality was extremely perverted in Rome as well. So, there was never a Christian utopia where everything was hunky-dory. The Church has always lived side by side with sin. Who was worse–Rome or the U.S.? Both sanctioned abortion, homosexuality, etc.

You constantly bring up men marrying men. I share your disgust but you can’t blame protestants for that. Luther would have vomitted up his lunch if he had seen “gay marriage” like that which exists nowdays.

The problem with America is NOT the protestant heritage it has but the fact that the protestant heritage it has enjoyed has become quiet and weak as the liberal fringe has ascended and dominated the national discussions and media outlets.

The Middle Ages was not this benevolent utopia with checks and balances and justice and secularism with a pope ruling ONLY the morality of Europe. Popes meddled and interfered in politics appointing kings, threatening nobles and scientists, taking the British people’s money throug Peter’s Pence and other annates and benefices and then giving it to their enemies in France.

Did you miss out on the whole period where the Pope actually encouraged publicly the ASSASSINATION AND OVERHTROWING of Elizabeth I when she issued the Elizabethan Compromise establishing the Church of England? The Pope collaborated with nobility and the establishment in governments to obtain ridiculous amounts of real estate and gross wealth. The pope led the crusades against Islam and it was Roman Catholic troops that sacked, trashed, raped and pillaged through Constantinople and the Orthodox communities. That was a great move toward reconciliation!

I can hardly imagine comparing Augustine of Hippo to Thomas Jefferson? I like Jefferson’s model much better–a nation with a seperation of Church and State where each Christian is FREE to choose his destiny and accept or reject religion. I choose to accept it and am thrilled to have a nation that affords me free will. God wants to be worshipped freely and by choice, not through a phony and overt government-forced ‘faith.’

The Middle Ages saw the rise of the papacy that had never held such powers in the early church. A first among equals rose to ‘infallibility’ and hierarchy got out of control with bureaucracy and corruption.

I cannot imagine living in a world where science is constantly threatened and monitored by the papacy to such a high degree. Most hard-core EWNT Catholics would reply: “yeah, science is great—stem cells, cloning, in vitro fertilization, yeah, science is really great!” (sacastically). But that’s a cheesy position because science has lengthened our lives, given us better health care, is helping to improve our environment, understand the natural world around us, is saving children’s lives like my little baby. My son almost died and were it not for the technology at Children’s Hospital Madera, CA, I’d have a dead son. We must respect science and medicine to some degree and be angry and outraged with the negative baggage that comes with it.

Galilego and the scientists that were treated like garbage by the papacy, native peoples that were tortured and mistreated in the New World and in places like the Philippines, Jews and Muslims and other folks brutalized in Spain during the Inquisitions, and people accused of witchcraft and every other thing were not dealt with too nicely in the Middle Ages utopia that Catholics dream so much about.

I’m very sad about the state of affairs in the U.S. and Europe but I’d still take our democracies anyday over theocracies and dictatorships. I would consider the papal domination that occurred in the Middle Ages to be a dictatorship of sorts with many benefits and MANY downfalls/assaults on personal freedoms that I cherish.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And at best, the jury is still out on what the outcome will be. From where I sit we are not doing very well. I can not call 40 million murdered babies progress. There are many things done under the guise of freedom that lead to slavery. People are confused about what freedom is. They insist on sexual freedom and destroy themselves.

What makes a government legitimate? Is it legitimate if it is elected? Remember the American founders claimed their government was legitimate, because certain liberties are granted to us by God. They claimed it is a divine right for the people to govern themselves. Were they right? The founders claim of legitimacy did not come from the people, but from God. The same claim was made by the English king legitimizing his goverment of the colonies.

God gives governments legitimacy. An elected government can be illegitimate in the eyes of God. Why did we fight Hitler? He had to be deposed, because his government was doing evil things that made it illegitimate. The vast majority of the German people loved him. Our government has sanctioned the murder of 40 million babies. It does not matter that it is elected. It is illegitimate. So it will inevitably collapse, just as it was inevitable that Israel suffered destruction when it turned from God, so will any nation fall. But you are right that the path or direction that has led to where we are today is established as you say, by Protestants, and very well meaning ones I would add.

And also, I want to make it clear that I don’t feel 40 million babies is “progress.” I never even eluded to anything like that. I am firmly against the Roe vs. Wade decision as well as the “gay marriage” movements. And I never said that secular society was perfect or that elected leaders are somehow God’s speakers and harbingers of justice and God’s providence. I’m simply saying that you had mass murder, injustice, stifled arts and sciences, violence, executions, persecutions, and dark times during the papal domination of the Middle Ages and you have many of these evils now.

Grandfather, you list all the things you hate about our nation now…may I ask what your solution is? It’s easy to list evil and judge and spit all over the system, but what is your answer and rational plan? And I mean REALISTIC plan? We are a pluralistic, free nation, not a theocratic Catholic country with a Pope and a curia running the show. What is the alternative to the great experiment of the United States?

The great thing about America is that you have a voice and so do I. If you want to end abortion, get out and hit the bricks, march and protest, vote pro-life, write to your local paper, pray, complain, talk to your co-workers, volunteer your time and make a difference. If you hate gay marriage, send money to the Proposition 8 folks in California to fight it. March, protest, write, and raise he$$ about it! God bless you! But to just give up on our country and say it’s all over, it was broken to begin with because Protestants started it and just assume because it isn’t a papal nation that it’s diabolical, that’s cop-out isn’t it?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The great thing about America is that you have a voice and so do I. If you want to end abortion, get out and hit the bricks, march and protest, vote pro-life, write to your local paper, pray, complain, talk to your co-workers, volunteer your time and make a difference. If you hate gay marriage, send money to the Proposition 8 folks in California to fight it. March, protest, write, and raise he$$ about it! God bless you! But to just give up on our country and say it’s all over, it was broken to begin with because Protestants started it and just assume because it isn’t a papal nation that it’s diabolical, that’s cop-out isn’t it?

Besides the obvious bull in the China shop that two of the most secular, socialist countries that have led the way in turning Europe into a cess pool of humanism and the manifestation of anti-Christ in our day are Catholic - Spain and France.

As always, gurney, awesome

 

[grandfather]

Grandfather, I could NOT agree with you more about your moral concerns…I appreciate your moral outrage and share it. The Great Experiment of the United States is sure encountering some nasty speed bumps culturally and financially. However, take a look at the alternatives. Would you prefer to live in a nice theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Also, your points about Augustine’s City of God I can’t totally agree with. Augustine lived in a world of great paganism side by side with Christianity. … The Church has always lived side by side with sin.

[/QUOTE]

 

[grandfather]

The Middle Ages was not this benevolent utopia with checks and balances and justice and secularism with a pope ruling ONLY the morality of Europe. Popes meddled and interfered in politics appointing kings, threatening nobles and scientists, taking the British people’s money throug Peter’s Pence and other annates and benefices and then giving it to their enemies in France.

There have been wicked popes, morally corrupt, blundering in their political meddling and contrivances. There are bishops who are enemies of God and Church. We are a fallen race.

What the Church’s mission is ultimately is the salvation of souls. God revealed truth to us that we need to know for our eternal good. He entrusted it to men. He founded a Church, on men. If this truth, the deposit of faith, gets distorted or corrupted, or we become confused about it, we are in peril. The unity commanded of us is dependent on this truth about spiritual matters we have been given. Jesus made promises to us. He gave us guarantees, that they would hold until the end of time. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us and lead us into all truth, forever. Truth can not contradict itself. You may hate abortion, and many Protestants and Protestant denominations do as well. The Church of England does not. I have seen their priests in the streets in front of abortion clinics defending them. I have an Episcopal friend (exfriend) who despises Catholic prolife workers. This is a house divided. How do we know truth? Do we vote on it? I followed the Lambeth conference daily. I read the accounts of the discussion in the English papers every day. The reason they are coming apart at the seams is they have no mechanism that works to determine moral or spiritual truth. They are adrift and the things they dispute should never be in question. How is it even possible that they are so lost? These things should not be controversial. They are struck dumb. They have no infallible means of ascertaining truth. As they fiddle their (our) civilization burns. It collpases around them, because they are not providing moral leadership. The Church if England is failed. I am not at all happy about it, but believe it was inevitable.

Did you miss out on the whole period where the Pope actually encouraged publicly the ASSASSINATION AND OVERHTROWING of Elizabeth I when she issued the Elizabethan Compromise establishing the Church of England? The Pope collaborated with nobility and the establishment in governments to obtain ridiculous amounts of real estate and gross wealth. The pope led the crusades against Islam and it was Roman Catholic troops that sacked, trashed, raped and pillaged through Constantinople and the Orthodox communities. That was a great move toward reconciliation!

There are many sins, moral failures. Have you ever read about how Elizabeth died, how her life ended? Have you read any of the accounts of the martyrs of the period, Campion, Fisher, Clitherow, etc.? It was a brutal time with all the drawing and quartering, etc. As far as the crusades go, this war is not over. Islam wil lsoon rule England it appears. Sharia law is established and Rowan approves. The disarray is beyond comprehension. History plays out. It is at times difficult to distinguish between the good guys and bad, because it can takes centuries for their fruits to be known or come to ripeness, or rottenness.

I can hardly imagine comparing Augustine of Hippo to Thomas Jefferson? I like Jefferson’s model much better–a nation with a seperation of Church and State where each Christian is FREE to choose his destiny and accept or reject religion. I choose to accept it and am thrilled to have a nation that affords me free will. God wants to be worshipped freely and by choice, not through a phony and overt government-forced ‘faith.’

Jefferson sounds great on paper, but we are on the verge of succumbing to the greatest tyranny in human history. But I did not make the comparison. You did. I said Augustine was the first person to come up with the idea that there are two governments and juristdictions, one civil and the other religious. It works well if followed. Today we have the civil government operating outside of its jurisdiction. The reason is there is no religious government. It is every man for himself. How do we know abortion is evil? Do we vote on it? The moral law comes from God. We don’t get to vote on it. We but into it or reject it.
We can blame Hitler and the Nazis for atrocities. We can blame Satalin for atrocities. We can blame the government by the people for the destruction of Christian civilization and atrocities. We have no moral compass. But God provided one. We lost it.