Defenders Of The Church, Take Your Stand

  • Thread starter Thread starter churchcamefirst
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are indeed correct about defending the church, but mistaken as to from whom. I have attended many different protestant services, not once did I hear the Catholics being even discussed from the pulpit, if this is happening, it’s an anomoly and not the accepted norm.

What we need to defend the church from is from the gates of hell, for she is facing it right here and now. We have watered down our view of his word, Christs teachings, even the basics of the OT, it is accepted within it and of course, at this very board promoting an athiest agenda, for that is the PC direction it has gone to.

After V2 did it’s thing, the church has broken from tradition on so many levels, it’s out right scary how many changes have happened. It is not the same church as it was 30 years ago, it has became weaker, it has not stood up and spoken of the truth in an attempt to make it appear more inviting to the non believer. We have compromized just about everything and the number of true believers are dwindling. Time is short, we must repent or will face God’s wrath.
 
Blah blah blah, heretics, blah blah. It’s interesting in a thread saying how Catholics never attack other faiths, Catholics attack other faiths as heretical. Ah the wonders of internet forums.
Well, “other faiths” are, by definition, heretical to some degree, inasmuch as they are, well, “other faiths,” and not the One Faith. But in any event, merely pointing out that such are heretical should not be construed as an “attack,” but simply as an abiding by the Biblical command to correct those in error. Don’t you agree?
You are indeed correct about defending the church, but mistaken as to from whom. I have attended many different protestant services, not once did I hear the Catholics being even discussed from the pulpit, if this is happening, it’s an anomoly and not the accepted norm.
Maybe you haven’t heard any negative comments against Catholics from those pulpits (for which we can all be grateful, and which is indeed wonderful), but I think you would agree that the internet is certainly awash in outright lies and slanders against all things Catholic! Check out for example, the results of the following search strings.

catholics " mary worship"

google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=catholics+&as_epq=+mary+worship&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

catholics “worship mary”

google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=catholics&as_epq=worship+mary&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

And this all time favorite!

“whore of babylon” catholic

google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22whore+of+babylon%22+catholic&btnG=Google+Search

Talk about “vain repetition” and “vain babbling!”

From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling 1 Tim. 1:6 (Douay-Rheims)

In this, these folks are simply and truly followers of this man.

And I suspect that most, if not all of these anti-Catholic folks, are very much like those in St. Peter Damian’s day who loved to expound their sundry opinions on matters most sublime, despite their abject ignorance of these very matters! But what does Damian say of them? Let us hear him.
The same thing occurs in our own time as rustics and fools, who knew almost nothing but how to plough up the fields and how to guard the pigs and the enclosures for the various herds, now do not blush to debate the judgments of the holy Scriptures at crossroads and public streets before their fellow herdsmen and before mere girls. Moreover, what is worse to say, during the day they are not afraid to treat the words of angels while at night they lie in heat between the thighs of women. And in this way they pass judgment on the words of the holy doctors.
Peter Damian, letter 121, to three archpriests (Lent 1065).

The Letters of Peter Damian, 121-150 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation) by Peter Damian (Author), Owen J. Blum (Translator), Irven M. Resnick (Translator), Catholic University of America Press (July 2004), ISBN 081321372X, p. 4.

Preview this letter here:
amazon.com/Letters-121-150-Fathers-MedievalContinuation/dp/081321372X

Yet I can by no means approve the scurrility and contempt with which the Romanists have often been treated.
John Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic Priest, 1739.
books.google.com/books?q=%22Yet%20I%20can%20by%20no%20means%20approve%20the%20scurrility%20and%20contempt%22&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Oyx&as_qdr=all&filter=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp
Venerate the martyrs; praise, love, proclaim, honor them. But worship the God of the martyrs.
St. Augustine, sermon 293:9:3

*Sermons 273-305 (Works of Saint Augustine) *(Hardcover) by Saint Augustine Of Hippo (Author), John E. Rotelle (Author), Edmund Hill (Translator), 1994, New City Press, ISBN 1565480600, p. 21.
amazon.com/Sermons-273-305-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480600
And to Him by good works give worship and adoration, and venerate and revere the most holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary as true Mother of God, and all the saints as His attendants.
Doing thus, you will be a right worshiper of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of the one Godhead, to whom be glory and honor and adoration forever and ever. Amen
St. John Damascus, On Heretics,

The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation, Vol 37 (1958), Roy Joseph Deferrari, Friedrich H. Chase, New York, p.163.

archive.org/details/fathe…echur009511mbp
 
You are indeed correct about defending the church, but mistaken as to from whom. I have attended many different protestant services, not once did I hear the Catholics being even discussed from the pulpit, if this is happening, it’s an anomoly and not the accepted norm.

What we need to defend the church from is from the gates of hell, for she is facing it right here and now. We have watered down our view of his word, Christs teachings, even the basics of the OT, it is accepted within it and of course, at this very board promoting an athiest agenda, for that is the PC direction it has gone to.

After V2 did it’s thing, the church has broken from tradition on so many levels, it’s out right scary how many changes have happened. It is not the same church as it was 30 years ago, it has became weaker, it has not stood up and spoken of the truth in an attempt to make it appear more inviting to the non believer. We have compromized just about everything and the number of true believers are dwindling. Time is short, we must repent or will face God’s wrath.
First of all the council produced 16 documents, some of which are described as the greatest expressions of Catholic social teaching in church history.
Vatican II marked a fundamental shift towards the modern church, the decisions of the council, especially those regarding the liturgy, affected the lives of Catholics around the world. After Vatican II, the use of vernacular language was permitted in the celebration of the Mass and in 1970, the new sacramentary and Novus Ordo (new order of the Mass) were established.
Increased participation by the laity distinguishes Catholic life after the second Vatican council. Bible study groups, marriage encounter, social action organizations, and the charismatic renewal movement are all fruits of the council.
Vatican II made possible the many post-councillor official church documents on Catholic social teaching.
**The basic doctrines did not change **with the council, it’s influence and documents created more profound changes for the Catholic church than occurred in the previous five hundred years.
Since pope John Paul XXIII spoke of “opening the windows” of the church, great and gradual changes have occurred.

BTW, the Roman Catholic church is not only the leading religion with over 1.12 billion members, there are 800,000 converts every year in Africa alone. We are getting stronger and always have, It is people who don’t know or hear from others about the RCC that they believe that the church is getting weak. Not a chance.
 
First of all the council produced 16 documents, some of which are described as the greatest expressions of Catholic social teaching in church history.
Vatican II marked a fundamental shift towards the modern church, the decisions of the council, especially those regarding the liturgy, affected the lives of Catholics around the world. After Vatican II, the use of vernacular language was permitted in the celebration of the Mass and in 1970, the new sacramentary and Novus Ordo (new order of the Mass) were established.
Increased participation by the laity distinguishes Catholic life after the second Vatican council. Bible study groups, marriage encounter, social action organizations, and the charismatic renewal movement are all fruits of the council.
Vatican II made possible the many post-councillor official church documents on Catholic social teaching.
**The basic doctrines did not change **with the council, it’s influence and documents created more profound changes for the Catholic church than occurred in the previous five hundred years.
Since pope John Paul XXIII spoke of “opening the windows” of the church, great and gradual changes have occurred.

BTW, the Roman Catholic church is not only the leading religion with over 1.12 billion members, there are 800,000 converts every year in Africa alone. We are getting stronger and always have, It is people who don’t know or hear from others about the RCC that they believe that the church is getting weak. Not a chance.
Vatican II was very good and brought about some much needed changes. However, some individuals’ interpretation was out of line. For example “inclusive language” which I find irritating. Suddenly the H Spirit is a she. There was a laissez faire attitude by some priests who practiced some kind of “coffee table Mass” - very “folkloric” practices. They think they are cool. I hate all that.

I was a very revolutionary individual in my youth and rebelled against the status quo. At the time I had left the Church. Now that I am back and am learning more and more about my Catholic Faith I am finding myself more orthodox and don’t mind it one bit. I believe that we cannot and should not compromise our Faith. I am proud of the stand of the CC against abortion, artificial birth control, embryonic stem cell research etc. Look what happened when Protestants compromised and accepted artificial birth control - was it not the Anglicans in 1931?

As a young woman I decided not to take the pill because I figured that it might have adverse effects long term and I think I was right. I am still all intact and healthy and most of my friends cannot say the same.

Faith is not a matter of opinion (“I don’t agree”) We have to remember that Faith is believing because we love and trust God whether we like it or not. Jesus gave us the Apostles who gave us the Magisterium and the Bible and and and. Jesus took care of all our needs.

In my experience during all the years I attended Convent schools I never heard a nun or priest speak against Protestants. Yes, they did say they did not have the full truth but they never called them names.

There were more Protestants than Catholics at our Convent and the former would always say “she did wrong…and she is a Catholic!” It was as if they expected more from us!

I was amazed and shocked when I read Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” where he quotes the names of several individuals whose aim in life was to bring down the Catholic Church. The lies and terrible attacks on the Church were amazing. These people made a career out of attacking the Church. They will have to account for their actions one day. 😃

I believe with all my heart that we should be teaching the Faith in the schools with more detail - we should be teaching apologetics so that young people can defend the Church. 👍

Yes there is a great deal of hatred of the CC and it is all born of ignorance. It is so unintelligent.

🙂
 
Well, “other faiths” are, by definition, heretical to some degree, inasmuch as they are, well, “other faiths,” and not the One Faith. But in any event, merely pointing out that such are heretical should not be construed as an “attack,” but simply as an abiding by the Biblical command to correct those in error. Don’t you agree?
No, not necessarily. I disagree with Catholicism on a number of doctrinal levels but I do not consider Rome to be heretical. Heresy is denying a chief article of faith of the Christian religion. Typically this would manifest as a denial of an article taught by any of the three ecumenical creeds. Arius, Nestorius, Mani, etc. were heretics for this reason.

I agree that declaring a religion heretical is not necessarily an attack, but when used in an ad hominem sense, as was done with Luther, it most certainly is. Aside from the heresy issue, it’s also presupposing that a particular poster follows a religion founded by a man, and another Art Sippo versions of apologetics.
 
I disagree with Catholicism on a number of doctrinal levels but I do not consider Rome to be heretical.
Which doctrines of Catholicism do you disagree with? And what do you consider The Church of Rome to be, then, if it’s not heretical??

May the holy martyrs pray for us that we should not only celebrate their feasts but also imitate their virtues. Let us love their confession of faith, let us applaud their crowns, and let us not despair.
  • St. Augustine, Sermon 299F:4:1, On the Birthday of the Holy Scillitan Martyrs. Possibly after 425 A. D.
The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century, Sermons (273-305) on the Saints, Vol. 8, part III, Edmond Hill, John E. Rotelle, eds., and trs., New City Press, New York, ISBN 1565480600, p. 273.
amazon.com/Sermons-273-305-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480600
 
Which doctrines of Catholicism do you disagree with? And what do you consider The Church of Rome to be, then, if it’s not heretical??
Heterodox. For what I disagree with, I would suggest reading the Smalcald Articles, which is a Lutheran confessional document that lays out disagreements with the teachings of Rome.

]
 
But in any event, merely pointing out that such are heretical should not be construed as an “attack,”
I think that would depend on whom you ask. A great many Catholics would say that anyone calling Catholicism heretical are “attacking Catholicism”. (Then again, you might get a different answer if you ask the ones doing the “attacking”.)
 
it’s influence and documents created more profound changes for the Catholic church than occurred in the previous five hundred years.
Perhaps; it’s kind of a close call to make.

For example, the Council of Trent decreed that the Roman Rite must be used in all places except those that had been using another rite consistently for two hundred years. This led to the near-extinction of all the other Western rites.

Was that a more profound change than those changes created by Vatican II? Hard to say.
 
Heterodox. For what I disagree with, I would suggest reading the Smalcald Articles, which is a Lutheran confessional document that lays out disagreements with the teachings of Rome.
But how is it possible that the Church of Rome, whose faith Scripture proclaims as the universal faith of the whole world, and which was so highly praised by the apostle (Rom 1:8) as well as by the Church Fathers, how is it that this Church, of all churches, should become heterodox?

And when did it become so?

With regard to the Smalcald Articles, do you consider them binding on the consciences of Christians?
I think that would depend on whom you ask. A great many Catholics would say that anyone calling Catholicism heretical are “attacking Catholicism”. (Then again, you might get a different answer if you ask the ones doing the “attacking”.)
Yes, I understand you point. However, the sense in which I was using the term “attack” was more in connection with those who, not so much out of ignorance, but rather out of a sheer malice (born often of carnality and worldliness), attempt to justify their disunity and error by condemning the Church, oftentimes with highly inflammatory rhetoric (though usually not nearly so inflammatory nor nearly as vulgar as that used by Luther).

But against just such kinds of people Augustine had to speak in his day:
Just as spiritual people, you see, take pleasure in unity, so worldly people are ever ready to wrangle….So they should stop foolishly flattering themselves, and saying to us, “What are we going to receive when we come along to you, since you admit that we already have the baptism of Christ?
  • Sermon 269:3:1
*Sermons 230-272 (Works of Saint Augustine) * by Saint Augustine Of Hippo (Author), John E. Rotelle (Author), Edmund Hill (Translator) ISBN 1565480597 p. 285.

amazon.com/Sermons-230-272-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480597

And elsewhere he says:
Charity is possessed only in the unity of the Church. Contentious persons do not possess it, as the Apostle Jude says: “These are they who set themselves apart, sensual men, not having the Spirit.” (Jude 1:9) “Who set themselves apart.” Why do they set themselves apart? Because they are “sensual men, not having the Spirit.” They slide away because they do not have the stabilizing force of charity.
  • Sermon 265:9:1
Saint Augustine, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation, 1959, Roy Joseph Deferrari, Catholic University of America, vol, 38, p. 418.
archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009512mbp

It is not this visible sun, but its invisible creator, who has consecrated this day, when the virgin mother gave birth, from her fertile and unimpaired womb to the one who became visible for us, by whom in his invisibility she herself was created; a virgin in conceiving, a virgin in giving birth, a virgin when with child, a virgin on being delivered, a virgin forever. Why be astonished at these things, O man?
— St. Augustine, Sermon 186:1, On Christmas Day,

Works, v. 6, part, 3, p. 24. ISBN1565480503

amazon.com/Sermons-184-229-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480503
 
But how is it possible that the Church of Rome, whose faith Scripture proclaims as the universal faith of the whole world, and which was so highly praised by the apostle (Rom 1:8) as well as by the Church Fathers, how is it that this Church, of all churches, should become heterodox?

And when did it become so?

With regard to the Smalcald Articles, do you consider them binding on the consciences of Christians?
The universal faith of the whole world is that Christ is the Son of the Living God. This faith is no different in Rome as it is in Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem. The faith doesn’t emanate from Rome, nor does Scripture say this. If it were not possible for Rome to embrace heterodox teaching, then why would Paul himself warn the Roman Christians about this very thing in his letter? If there was some mystical gift given to Rome exclusively that she would not fall from the faith, such a warning would be meaningless. Yet it stands there as an apostolic teaching regardless of vainglorious attempts by a Church body to teach its own superiority and indefectibility. It’s that very hubris that led her down the road of embracing false doctrines.

When did it occur? I would argue the early Middle Ages. Of course, such things can never be p(name removed by moderator)ointed to one time period. False doctrine always creeps in very slowly.

I don’t consider the Smalcald Articles themselves binding on the conscience. Since they are an accurate statement of what Scripture teaches, however, they, like the ecumenical creeds, faithfully communicate that which is binding; apostolic teaching as given in Scripture.
 
The universal faith of the whole world is that Christ is the Son of the Living God. This faith is no different in Rome as it is in Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem. The faith doesn’t emanate from Rome, nor does Scripture say this. If it were not possible for Rome to embrace heterodox teaching, then why would Paul himself warn the Roman Christians about this very thing in his letter? If there was some mystical gift given to Rome exclusively that she would not fall from the faith, such a warning would be meaningless. Yet it stands there as an apostolic teaching regardless of vainglorious attempts by a Church body to teach its own superiority and indefectibility. It’s that very hubris that led her down the road of embracing false doctrines.
Whoa! One thing at a time, my friend! How about we start with this:
The universal faith of the whole world is that Christ is the Son of the Living God. This faith is no different in Rome as it is in Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem.
First, may I say (respectfully) that you haven’t actually responded to what St. Paul said, and so I think you are missing some crucial points here. For example:
  1. St. Paul is addressing a very specific Church (Rome), and he makes some very specific and unique statements regarding that Church.
  2. Since these statements are inspired statements, they must surely be given for our instruction, edification, and salvation. So I’m certain we can find some agreement on that score, yes?
So come now, let’s look a just what the saintly apostle has to say about the Great Church at Rome. You might be surprised. We can start with this inspired statement:

“To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 1:7

First of all (and this could not be more obvious), we see *how different *this statement of apostle is from the whole world of Protestantism!

Listen again.

“To all in Rome who are loved by God.”

Do you not see how different, how infinitely different, this is from Protestant contempt of the same Church at Rome!

“To all in Rome who are loved by God.”

Just ponder those words for a few minutes. Then compare / contrast them with those of Luther, Calvin et al in regard to the Roman Church! And then ask yourself, who really should I believe, the Inspired Word of God, or some *self-appointed *reformer?

Now again, I would remind you that Paul is here addressing, not the church at “Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem,” but specifically the Church at Rome.

So *Rome alone *is the focus of attention here.

Now listen to this next statement, again, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom. 1:8

Now just stop for a moment and think about the significance of that inspired statement.

Do you not see that, even prior to Paul’s having written this epistle, the faith i.e., the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman Church, had already been universally proclaimed and been universally received? Moreover, “if the Church of Rome’s faith was not correct, or even complete, St. Paul would not be thanking God for it, nor would it have gained acceptance ‘throughout the whole world.’” {1}

Thus we have a Biblical witness to the fact that all of early Christendom,* even before the New Testament was written,* was already acknowledging and honoring (as did St. Paul himself) the faith of the Great Church at Rome!
  1. Adam S. Miller, The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?, 2006, Tower of David Publications, p. 8.
    lulu.com/content/335642
Now there’s more to say, but it’s late, and I want to give you time to ponder what’s been said. I’ll try to respond more tomorrow.

And I myself, in Rome, heard it said openly in the streets, “If there is a hell, then Rome is built on it.” That is, “After the devil himself, there is no worse folk than the pope and his followers.”
*Against the Roman Papacy, An Institution of the Devil *( Wider das Papstum zu Rom vom Teuffel Gestifft, A. D. 1545)

Luther’s Works, Church and Ministry III, American Ed., Helmut T. Lehman, Eric W. Gritsch, eds., Augsburg Fortress Press, 1966, Vol. 41:279. ISBN 0800603419 ISBN 9780800603410.

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
 
Actually, it doesn’t. The name came from the Lutheran princes in 1529 who protested the decision of the Holy Roman Emperor at the 2nd Diet of Speyer to revoke religious freedoms. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church per se. Since I live 500 years after that event, in that sense, I am not a Protestant. 😃

What was changed? Obviously, I don’t accept your baiting presupposition.

Blah blah blah, heretics, blah blah. It’s interesting in a thread saying how Catholics never attack other faiths, Catholics attack other faiths as heretical. Ah the wonders of internet forums.
These answers are unacceptable…you can’t even answer my questions. For you to say ‘I don’t accept your baiting’? This is not myself but Christ whom then you cannot accept.
 
But how is it possible that the Church of Rome, whose faith Scripture proclaims as the universal faith of the whole world, and which was so highly praised by the apostle (Rom 1:8) as well as by the Church Fathers, how is it that this Church, of all churches, should become heterodox?
Excellent! I’ll have to use that the next time my in an argument with Fundamentalists.
 
These answers are unacceptable…you can’t even answer my questions. For you to say ‘I don’t accept your baiting’? This is not myself but Christ whom then you cannot accept.
Jesus said, (John 6:53-55) “…Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (54) Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life and I will raise them up on the last day. (55) for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.”

We Catholics believe exactly what Jesus said even though we do not understand because he made it quite clear that is *exactly *what he meant. When the disciples walked away he didn’t say “Hey come back here I didn’t mean it like that…” No repeated himself and then tested the reaction of the Apostles.

That is what Faith is - believing and trusting the word of God even though we do not understand.

When you come to think of it the Apostles were simple men, with very little education (who knows if Peter could read) but they were witnesses to Jesus - they saw everything - **so much so that they were prepared to die for Him and many were martyred.
**
Now Protestants do not believe John 6 - they say it is just a symbol.

That would be a heresy, would it not? :yup:
 
Whoa! One thing at a time, my friend! How about we start with this:

First, may I say (respectfully) that you haven’t actually responded to what St. Paul said, and so I think you are missing some crucial points here. For example:
  1. St. Paul is addressing a very specific Church (Rome), and he makes some very specific and unique statements regarding that Church.
  2. Since these statements are inspired statements, they must surely be given for our instruction, edification, and salvation. So I’m certain we can find some agreement on that score, yes?
Yes.
“To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 1:7
First of all (and this could not be more obvious), we see *how different *this statement of apostle is from the whole world of Protestantism!
Listen again.
“To all in Rome who are loved by God.”
Do you not see how different, how infinitely different, this is from Protestant contempt of the same Church at Rome!
“To all in Rome who are loved by God.”
Just ponder those words for a few minutes. Then compare / contrast them with those of Luther, Calvin et al in regard to the Roman Church! And then ask yourself, who really should I believe, the Inspired Word of God, or some *self-appointed *reformer?
Did Paul foresee the error that Rome would fall into, or is he addressing her as she is in the 50s A.D.?

When Paul writes this to the Philippians, “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

or any of the other salutary greetings Paul writes to the other churches it therefore establishes their preeminence over all of Christendom?
Do you not see that, even prior to Paul’s having written this epistle, the faith i.e., the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman Church, had already been universally proclaimed and been universally received? Moreover, “if the Church of Rome’s faith was not correct, or even complete, St. Paul would not be thanking God for it, nor would it have gained acceptance ‘throughout the whole world.’” {1}
This is an anachronism. You’re taking the medieval and present teachings of Rome and thrusting them 2000 years into the past. Where is your evidence that Paul was writing to a church that was teaching a monarchial episcopate? Indulgences? Marian veneration? Invocation of the saints? A doctrine of justification that contradicts Paul’s doctrine in the very same letter!? Infallibility, etc?

“For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Is this warning also inspired and revealed by God in Scripture? Most definitely. Does it teach indefectibility or that there was no possibility Rome could fall into error. If Paul considered Rome to be what modern Roman Catholics teach, such a warning would be pointless. Clearly, the possibility of Rome falling into error is presented here. We may maintain she has.
 
Did Paul foresee the error that Rome would fall into, or is he addressing her as she is in the 50s A.D.?
Well, you might believe that Rome fell into error, but if the holy apostle ever foresaw such a future “error” for the Roman Church, he never once mentioned it!

Now its one thing to say Rome has erred, quite another to show that she in fact actually has. And one would be hard pressed to find *a single Church Father *who believed Rome had, or could become, heterodox, or that she might at any time apostatize. Certainly, I’m not aware of any Church Father who ever even hinted at such a thing. On the contrary, the Fathers had only praise for this Church.
When Paul writes this to the Philippians, “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
or any of the other salutary greetings Paul writes to the other churches it therefore establishes their preeminence over all of Christendom?
I’ll go you one even better than Philippians 1:6! Listen to St. Paul’s praise of the Thessalonians.

“The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it.” - 1Thess. 1:8

Now compare this with Paul’s greeting to the Romans.

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” - Romans 1:8

The both sound very similar, yes? However, there is a important difference. Again, I quote from Mr. Adam S. Miller’s work:
The qualification, “throughout the whole world,” should remind us of the meaning of the word “catholic,” which means world-wide or universal. Thus, here in the Bible the Church of Rome and “catholic” are immediately associated while the Christian faith was in its infancy and still being formed (this is so even before most of the New Testament was written – let alone compiled under one cover).
Miller continues:
Surely this greeting to the Church in Rome is inspired and profitable to those who seek to find the historic continuity and visible unity that the Church founded by Jesus Christ must exhibit.
Yet, St. Paul declares that the faith of the Thessalonians was also known throughout (1 Thes. 1:8). Why can’t the same claim be made for this local church? The reason this claim can’t be made is because Christ’s Church would last through all time. God’s word lasts throughout all time. But the church of Thessalonica did not survive, nor did its faith. There is no “Church of Thessalonian” in existence any more. Therefore, this local church could not have embodied or represented Christ’s Church throughout the world. On the other hand, *the Church of Rome is still around and her faith is still proclaimed throughout the world. *Thus, it must be God’s will that the Church of Rome represents and embodies His one Church.
The Roman Catholic Church: A Human Invention or Divine institution? pp. 2-3. (Note: I’m quoting here from the original small pamphlet published in 1997, not the expanded version I cited above earlier).
This is an anachronism. You’re taking the medieval and present teachings of Rome and thrusting them 2000 years into the past. Where is your evidence that Paul was writing to a church that was teaching a monarchial episcopate? Indulgences? Marian veneration? Invocation of the saints? A doctrine of justification that contradicts Paul’s doctrine in the very same letter!? Infallibility, etc?
No anachronism here, because I’m not presently arguing the developed and particular doctrines of the latter Church back into Paul’s inspired greeting to the Romans (that’s somewhat beside the point, at least for the present discussion). What I am trying to convey here and focus on however, is simply this:

Paul very clearly praises the Roman faith and that he teaches that Rome’s faith was the faith universally accepted and universally renowned in the first century by all the churches of Christ, for he writes also in this same epistle,

“all the churches of Christ salute you.” Rom. 16:16

This inspired salutation, “all the churches of Christ” is accorded to no other church in the New Testament excetpt one – the Church at Rome. Surely therefore, there must be some very significance about this.
“For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Is this warning also inspired and revealed by God in Scripture? Most definitely. Does it teach indefectibility or that there was no possibility Rome could fall into error. If Paul considered Rome to be what modern Roman Catholics teach, such a warning would be pointless. Clearly, the possibility of Rome falling into error is presented here. We may maintain she has.
I would simply say that this passage indicates that individual branches can indeed fall from grace. But I don’t see it as anything about *the Church * falling away, for this is impossible, since the CHURCH IS CHRIST! Or, as Augustine would say, “WE TOO ARE HIMSELF”!

At any rate, I think a fair examination of the facts ought to lead you to conclude (or at least consider the very real possibility) that Father Paul did indeed establish a *preeminent position *for the Church at Rome.
 
  1. Adam S. Miller, The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?, 2006, Tower of David Publications, p. 8.
    lulu.com/content/335642
Interesting website. I like their description of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Proofs” by Vincent P. Lewis:
CONCISE, DIRECT, AND FORCEFUL! Even though heretics and modernists accept the phrase “There is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church,” as valid Catholic teaching, what it means is often distorted by them. What ARM has been doing to clarify what the doctrine really means (namely, “ONLY formal Catholics can get into Heaven”) is to run a series in THE ARMament (YOUR Textbook In Installments!). The series is titled “The Last Page.” Each entry is a completely independent support for the Doctrine. By popular demand, ARM has now put these “Last Pages” under one cover and . . . There simply isn’t another resource this useful anywhere! It also makes a great gift to those who do not understand-or continue to deny-the plain truth of the necessity of The Faith for salvation.
 
You might also want to check this out.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

I do agree that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, I also believe there are many who, though outside the visible communion of the one Church through no fault of their own, nevertheless have faith and salvation (something however, I think, Mr. Miller would probably reject). But on such matters we must defer to the Church’s teaching, and not our private interpretation of that teaching.

So our task then is simply to pray for our Protestant brethren (and for many Catholics and indeed, for all men) that all may come to a fuller understanding of God’s great love of unity and peace.

Certainly for Augustine, and indeed all the Fathers, unity was of paramount importance. Augustine says for example:
Therefore the woman shall be saved, who is a type of the flesh, by childbearing that is, if she do good works. But it is not every where that the dove can find a nest for herself where she may lay her young in the true faith, in the Catholic faith, in the fellowship of the unity of the Church let her bring forth her works.
Exposition of Ps. 84

A library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 1850, vol. IV, p. 154.
books.google.com/books?id=nigMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154&dq=augustine+%22a+virgin+of+God%22&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=h8rlR6jGJ4a4zATBtaz6BA

Also, though don’t have the full context at hand, you can get an even greater appreciation of the value to which Augustine attaches to unity just from these two notes of mine.

Sermon 260D: 4 – “attach your minds to the unity.” Editors note 13, p. 287 reads: “That is, the Catholic Church; a rather curious way of saying it!”

Note 13, p. 165: “The Donatists. As for the phrase ‘the unity,’ unity for Augustine is more than an abstract name signifying oneness. It is a name for the Catholic Church.”

I’ll check and get back with fuller citations on these.

Meanwhile, listen to Augustine’s rather interesting comment on those not in full communion with the “the unity,” again, his name for the One Church.
All the heresies, which you people also condemn of course, they all say, Jesus is Lord, And he’s not, of course, going to eliminate from the Kingdom of heaven those whom he finds to be in the Holy Spirit; and yet he did say, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:21). But: Nobody can say: Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit; nobody at all, evidently; but in the sense in which it was meant, that is in deeds.
Which is why the Lord went on to add, But the one who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven, that is the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:21). The same apostle, you see, also says of some people, They claim to know the Lord, but *deny it by their deeds *(Ti 1:16). As it can be denied by deeds, so it can be said by deeds. In this manner of saying things, Nobody can say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.”
So if you don’t accede to the unity, but continue to set yourselves apart, you will be worldly, not having the Spirit (Jude 19). If though, you accede under false pretenses, The Holy Spirit of discipline will put to flight false pretenses (Wisdom 1:5).
Augustine, Sermon 269: (working again from notes; this is the only ref info I have handy. I’ll check and get back).

Sermons 230-272 (Works of Saint Augustine), 1994, John E. Rotelle, Edmund Hill, New City Press, ISBN 1565480597

amazon.com/Sermons-230-272-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480597

God be praised, what an abundant, rich, and mighty thing is faith! I*t makes of man in every respect a god *to whom nothing is impossible, as Christ says in Mark 9:23: “Can you have faith? All things are possible to him who has faith.” And so also Psalm 82:6 says: “You are gods and all of your children of the most High.”
Martin Luther, The Gospel for New Years Day.

Luther’s Works, Sermons II, Volume 52, Hans J. Hillerbrand (Editor), Helmut T. Lehmann (Editor), 2003, Augsburg Fortress, Publishers, ISBN-13: 9780800603526, p. 157.

search.barnesandnoble.com/Luthers-Works/Martin-Luther/e/9780800603526
Nor, for that matter, should we find it a reason to despair of attaining a perfect dwelling place in heaven with the angels, that he said, Nobody has gone up to heaven, except the one who came down from heaven (Jn 3:13). He does, it is true, seem to be speaking about himself alone, as though none of us would be able to achieve that; but it was said because of the unity by which he is our head and we his body. So it does indeed mean nobody but himself, because we too are himself, insofar as he is the Son of man because of us, and we are sons of God because of him. That, indeed, is what the apostle says: For just as the body is one, and has many members; but all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so too it is with Christ (1 Cor 12:12). So Christ is many members, one body.
St. Augustine, Sermon 263A:2:2, *On the Ascension of the Lord. *

thumbsnap.com/v/Le8CShlG.jpg

Works, pt, 3, vol. 7, p. 223. ISBN 1565480597.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top