Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[guanophore]

So you think those who have converted and given detailed explanations of why they finally realized the error of reformed theology are not a good enough background to understanding how reformed-theology adherents think?

I think that depends upon the convert. Some Reformed Christians do not understand their faith any better than Catholics who have not studied it. Is that where you are getting your information?

I would recommend reading Francis Beckwith’s Return to Rome. He goes into quite a lot of detail in the second half of the book into the protestant understanding of justification. A lot  more than those that I have read in these forums.  And there is a lot of credibility where he is concerned because he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Definitely a good read.

You are assuming that the NT meant that it was forensic. If it was indeed forensic then the Church Fathers must have been wrong and the Catholic Church must be wrong.

When I read the NT, I read Paul using legal language to talk about justification. That is what I meant by “forensic”. Apparently you are using the term differently.

I think Coptic made a differentiation somewhere. But the quote I posted regarding nominalism explained it. It means that justification is a mere declaration that we are just but it does not actually mean that we are indeed just.

Do you not find this consistent with the NT writings? Do you not read Paul scolding those who were justified in baptism for not behaving in a justified manner?

As I said in my earlier reply, it would seem like God declared you sinless when in fact nothing has happened, you are left you as vile as you were. Then the sanctification process kicks in to make you indeed sinless. So it was like God says a lie then proceeds to make that lie a truth.

Ok.

The monergism / synergism is what was contrived to make sense of the split.

If you say so .
benedictus2;8325212:

Sanctification must have come as an afterthought because Luther realized that God could not possibly take you to heaven still full of sin.

It does not seem that you have read or understand much of Luther’s thought. Perhaps you have only read the wild polemic?

Exactly. Because as far as the Catholic Church is concerned there is no split between justification and sanctification. We don’t say God first declares you just then He proceeds to make you just. God declares you just when you have been made just and not before.

Well, I guess we read it differently. Understanding that we have been declared just when we are not yet fully sanctified does not require that a “split” be made.

Yes. Based on my post, show me how I am close minded.

Actually, I think we need to get back on topic. I was going to suggest that we move the whole discussion to a new thread, providing, of course, that you are interested in discussion.

benedictus2:

But there is no mentioned of sanctification in that text. It just says justifified then glorified so how do can they possibly support this J-then-S schema.

They are taught that the one who justified them will also sanctify them.

1 Thess 5:23-24
23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.

Phil 1:5-6
6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

And if we go with that understanding we’d be as awful as Calvin.

What is so “awful”? I was not suggesting that we “go with it”, but trying to show how it is understood by those who embrace it. They consider sanctification a necessary part of the Christian life.

But that is absolute rubbish. Luther was a Catholic too.

And where do you find that Luther’s ideas on sanctification depart from Catholic faith?

And to say they read it that way, we do it this way is a slip into relativism.

No, it is not. Relativism would mean that we affirm that interpretation as being just as accurate and valid as the one handed down to us from the Apostles. You will not become a relativist by just understanding how others see things differently than you do.

If justification is forensic then it cannot be said to be a Catholic understanding.

I see that you are using the term differently, so I will not pursue this point. Reformed Christians get their understanding of the legal aspects of salvation from the New Testament.

So you think that St Paul meant forensic? So you think the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church got Paul wrong?

Paul uses forensic language to talk about justification. Obviously, you are using the term differently, but you still seem to have an intractible avoidance of understanding the implications of Pauls legalities. It is, however beyond the scope of this thread, so I think it is best if we cease and desist.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think that depends upon the convert. Some Reformed Christians do not understand their faith any better than Catholics who have not studied it. Is that where you are getting your information?

Definitely a good read.

When I read the NT, I read Paul using legal language to talk about justification. That is what I meant by “forensic”. Apparently you are using the term differently.

Do you not find this consistent with the NT writings? Do you not read Paul scolding those who were justified in baptism for not behaving in a justified manner?

Ok.

If you say so .

It does not seem that you have read or understand much of Luther’s thought. Perhaps you have only read the wild polemic?

Well, I guess we read it differently. Understanding that we have been declared just when we are not yet fully sanctified does not require that a “split” be made.

Actually, I think we need to get back on topic. I was going to suggest that we move the whole discussion to a new thread, providing, of course, that you are interested in discussion.

They are taught that the one who justified them will also sanctify them.

1 Thess 5:23-24
23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.

Phil 1:5-6
6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

What is so “awful”? I was not suggesting that we “go with it”, but trying to show how it is understood by those who embrace it. They consider sanctification a necessary part of the Christian life.

And where do you find that Luther’s ideas on sanctification depart from Catholic faith?

No, it is not. Relativism would mean that we affirm that interpretation as being just as accurate and valid as the one handed down to us from the Apostles. You will not become a relativist by just understanding how others see things differently than you do.

I see that you are using the term differently, so I will not pursue this point. Reformed Christians get their understanding of the legal aspects of salvation from the New Testament.

Paul uses forensic language to talk about justification. Obviously, you are using the term differently, but you still seem to have an intractible avoidance of understanding the implications of Pauls legalities. It is, however beyond the scope of this thread, so I think it is best if we cease and desist.

Dr. Scott Hahn disagrees with you in his expose of the Book of Romans. This is the book Protestants use to explain justification. The language is Covenant Language not forensic language. This is not to suggest that Protestants do not use forensic language. In the context of the Book of Romans justification is a covenant process. Dr. Hahn makes the point that the backdrop as he calls it of the book of Romans is not legal forensic juridical language rather it is Covenant language…

 

[guanophore]

Dr. Scott Hahn disagrees with you in his expose of the Book of Romans. This is the book Protestants use to explain justification. The language is Covenant Language not forensic language. This is not to suggest that Protestants do not use forensic language. In the context of the Book of Romans justification is a covenant process. Dr. Hahn makes the point that the backdrop as he calls it of the book of Romans is not legal forensic juridical language rather it is Covenant language…

The parameters of the Covenant are the basis for the entire Jewish legal and judicial system. I don’t disagree with Hahn. I think Calvin misunderstood this concept, though. Therefore, his use of forensic language comes out with entirely different meanings than what Paul was teaching.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a statement from the forum guidelines:
Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable. It does not seem like you are willing to have a dialogue or a discussion on this topic, so I wondered why you are here.

Perhaps you need to re-read the thread title.

Also, please show me in which post/s did I breach the above forum guidelines.

Yes, the question above is logical. Why would you go to a forum of that kind, especially if it was DESIGNED to promote understanding, if you had no desire to understand? If you just want to hit the people over the head with bricks who had abortions, why come to a discussion forum?

So if you do not agree with abortion you should not be in an abortion thread? Totally ludicrous!

Please show where I hit anyone with a “brick” on this thread.

Perhaps I just don’t understand your use of the words. Having been steeped in Reformed theology, I understand them differently than the way you use them. It seems to me that you are arguing from a point of view that Reformed Christians don’t espouse.

Which is exactly why I gave a definition. If you want to use a different (perhaps imputation) that’s fine. We end up with the same thing.

I dont think it would be, but it is not likely that you will be able to do this if you are not on the same page with the terms being used.

Which is precisely why I gave that long explanation a few posts before.

You said legal so you did understand it.

I agree, but Luther did not share the concepts Calvin created about justification and sanctification. They had very different theologies, which you seem to be pressing together.

And the concept I was discussing with 1voice was not about predestination either.

Luther had a very Catholic conception of sanctification, and after a lot of polemic, so did Calvin.

Oh, really? Sola Fide is very Catholic is it?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please return to the main road

 

[benedictus2]

I think that depends upon the convert. Some Reformed Christians do not understand their faith any better than Catholics who have not studied it. Is that where you are getting your information?

So I suppose Scott Hahn, Beckwith, et all did not understand their faith.

Definitely a good read.

If you’ve read it then why ask me what I mean about Luther’s nominalism and what I mean by forensic justification? He went into a very thorough analysis of it in the second half of the book.

When I read the NT, I read Paul using legal language to talk about justification. That is what I meant by “forensic”. Apparently you are using the term differently.

So you do understand what forensic means. And you are right it is legal language. It essentially declares someone just whether that someone is indeed just or not.

A court of law can declare you not guilty even if you are guilty.

Do you not find this consistent with the NT writings? Do you not read Paul scolding those who were justified in baptism for not behaving in a justified manner?

How exactly does Paul’s scolding them for behaving badly prove that the justification we had at baptism is forensic? Are you saying that the Church was wrong all along?

If you say so .

Yes, I say so.

It does not seem that you have read or understand much of Luther’s thought. Perhaps you have only read the wild polemic?

So now you are saying that Beckwith’s presentation is wild polemic. I thought you said it was a “good read”.

Well, I guess we read it differently. Understanding that we have been declared just when we are not yet fully sanctified does not require that a “split” be made.

McGrath disagrees with you and he’s reformed.

And I don’t know how you can even say that considering you said you read Beckwith. He quotes McGrath there regarding this disjoint.

Actually, I think we need to get back on topic. I was going to suggest that we move the whole discussion to a new thread, providing, of course, that you are interested in discussion.

And what do you think I have been doing all this time - doodling?

They are taught that the one who justified them will also sanctify them.

1 Thess 5:23-24
23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.

Phil 1:5-6
6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

So where is it stated in the above verses that justification and sanctification are two separate processes and that a forensic justification happens first followed by sanctification?

What is so “awful”? I was not suggesting that we “go with it”, but trying to show how it is understood by those who embrace it. They consider sanctification a necessary part of the Christian life.

And did I ever question that?

No, it is not. Relativism would mean that we affirm that interpretation as being just as accurate and valid as the one handed down to us from the Apostles

Huh Two different interpretations , one contradicting the other are equally valid and both are as accurate as the one handed down to us from the apostles ?!

. You will not become a relativist by just understanding how others see things differently than you do.

You will if you affirm they are equally valid and equally true.

I see that you are using the term differently, so I will not pursue this point. Reformed Christians get their understanding of the legal aspects of salvation from the New Testament.

I don’t know which Reformed Christian you are talking about then.

There was another website (I will have to dig it up) who actually made a thorough analysis of the difference in understanding and I read it before I read Beckwith. Beckwith confirmed it. As a matter of fact CopticC also made a similar point a few posts back.

Paul uses forensic language to talk about justification. Obviously, you are using the term differently, but you still seem to have an intractible avoidance of understanding the implications of Pauls legalities. It is, however beyond the scope of this thread, so I think it is best if we cease and desist.

Legal language but not merely legal implication.

 

[benedictus2]

The parameters of the Covenant are the basis for the entire Jewish legal and judicial system. I don’t disagree with Hahn. I think Calvin misunderstood this concept, though. Therefore, his use of forensic language comes out with entirely different meanings than what Paul was teaching.

So therefore Paul was teaching a purely legalistic justification? You and the Reformed understanding are both correct and the Church is wrong?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you need to re-read the thread title.

I guess the point you are trying to make here is that the concept of forensic justification has produced a great evil in Christendom. Is that right?
benedictus2;8325494:

Also, please show me in which post/s did I breach the above forum guidelines.

I moved my reply to you to a new thread to prevent derailing this one. Several of your posts struck me as intolerant and uncharitable yesterday, so I am sure it is just my frame of mind.

So if you do not agree with abortion you should not be in an abortion thread? Totally ludicrous!

If you do not wish to DISCUSS and have DIALOGUE with a person who disagrees with you, and DISCUSSION and DIALOGUE is the PURPOSE of the forum, then yes, you should not be there.

IT is no different than a Protestant coming here and telling us our beliefs are wrong. It is unproductive.

Please show where I hit anyone with a "brick" on this thread.

I moved my responses to another thread, so as not to derail this one.
benedictus2;8325494:

 Which is exactly why I gave a definition. If you want to use a different (perhaps imputation) that's fine. We end up with the same thing.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

You said legal so you did understand it.

We understand it differently.

And the concept I was discussing with 1voice was not about predestination either.

OK.

Oh, really? Sola Fide is very Catholic is it?

You seem to have a way of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. How does it cost you anything to affirm what is Catholic within the faith traditions of others?

Have you ever read any of Luther’s writings on sanctification?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

I gather that you see some good in the Protestant Reformation?

Personally, the good that I see is that the Catholic Church, guided by Christ was not destroryed.

God bless

I guess the point you are trying to make here is that the concept of forensic justification has produced a great evil in Christendom. Is that right?

I moved my reply to you to a new thread to prevent derailing this one. Several of your posts struck me as intolerant and uncharitable yesterday, so I am sure it is just my frame of mind.

If you do not wish to DISCUSS and have DIALOGUE with a person who disagrees with you, and DISCUSSION and DIALOGUE is the PURPOSE of the forum, then yes, you should not be there.

IT is no different than a Protestant coming here and telling us our beliefs are wrong. It is unproductive.
benedictus2;8325494:

Please show where I hit anyone with a "brick" on this thread.

I moved my responses to another thread, so as not to derail this one.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

We understand it differently.

OK.

You seem to have a way of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. How does it cost you anything to affirm what is Catholic within the faith traditions of others?

Have you ever read any of Luther’s writings on sanctification?

 

[CopticChristian]

I moved my reply to you to a new thread to prevent derailing this one. Several of your posts struck me as intolerant and uncharitable yesterday, so I am sure it is just my frame of mind.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

We understand it differently.

OK.

You seem to have a way of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. How does it cost you anything to affirm what is Catholic within the faith traditions of others?

Have you ever read any of Luther’s writings on sanctification?

Guanophore: When I read the NT, I read Paul using legal language to talk about justification. That is what I meant by “forensic”. Apparently you are using the term differently.

My research into the notion of Forensic justification does not come from NT reading, rather imposing notions of OT readings, biasing NT interprestation as was done in the reformation.

The few following examples are enough. “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked” (Deu 25:1). “I will not justify the wicked” (Exo 23:7)

"Concerning the Hebrew word hitsdiq, usually rendered ‘justify,’ more often than not it is used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning not ‘to make just or righteous,’ but, ’ to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.’ George Eldon Ladd notes that “he is righteous who is judged to be in the right” (ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1).

"As Anthony Hoekema observes, ’ The opposite of condemnation, however, is not ’ making righteous but declaring righteous.’ Therefore by dikaioo, Paul means 'the ‘legal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner.’ " This sounds good, but it is wrong as shown in the following excerpt from Finney’s Systematic Theology:
The whole system of sacrifices taught the doctrine of pardon upon the conditions of atonement, repentance and faith. This, under the old dispensation, is constantly represented as a merciful acceptance of the penitents, and never as a forensic or judicial acquittal or justification of them. The mercy seat covered the law in the ark of the covenant.

"The term forensic is from forum; ’ a court’. The ground of a judicial or forensic justification, invariably is and must be universal obedience to the moral law. If but one crime or breach of the law is alleged and proved, the court must inevitably condemn, and can in no such case justify or pronounce the convicted just. Gospel justification is the justification of sinners; it is, therefore, naturally impossible and a most palpable contradiction, to affirm that the justification of a sinner, or of one who has violated the law, is a forensic or judicial justification. That only is, or can be a legal or forensic justification that proceeds upon the ground of its appearing that the justified person is guiltless, or, in other words, that he has not violated the law, that he has done only what he had a legal right to do.

Paul informs us as to what justification was in the sense that the Old Testament saints understood it in Rom. 4: 6-8

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.’

This quotation from David shows what both David and Paul understood by the term justification; to wit, the pardon and the acceptance of the penitent sinner."

And it is still being done today.

 

[JonNC]

A man believes so is supposedly “justified” by his belief. He leads a rather not so exemplary life but dies in sin (but still recognized Christ as God).

So he goes to heaven because he has been justified? I mean if sanctification can happen in an instant, there is absolutely no need to lead a good life is there?

Dear friend in Christ Cory,
I responded to this on guanophore’s thread.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Hi, Guanophore,

I gather that you see some good in the Protestant Reformation?

Personally, the good that I see is that the Catholic Church, guided by Christ was not destroryed.

God bless

What did I say that made you “gather that”?

1 Cor 11:18-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Because a thing "must be’ for greater good to come does not make it a “good” thing.

 

[CopticChristian]

tqualey;8326197:

Hi, Guanophore,

I gather that you see some good in the Protestant Reformation?

Personally, the good that I see is that the Catholic Church, guided by Christ was not destroryed.

God bless

What did I say that made you “gather that”?

1 Cor 11:18-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Because a thing "must be’ for greater good to come does not make it a “good” thing.

Rape is evil. The child that is conceived is not. The act produced an innocenct child.

And if the Protestant Reformation was Heresy. Heresy is evil. The offspring of those acts are innocent and it is God that works to good in all things.

 

[guanophore]

Rape is evil. The child that is conceived is not. The act produced an innocenct child.

And if the Protestant Reformation was Heresy. Heresy is evil. The offspring of those acts are innocent and it is God that works to good in all things.

This is a good analogy. I wish some more Traditional Catholics could grasp this.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a good analogy. I wish some more Traditional Catholics could grasp this.

This message comes to you by way of Catholic Answers Radio and Patrick Madrid.

 

[adrift]

This is from Wikipedia: Cardinal Albert of Hohenzollern (German: About this sound Albrecht von Hohenzollern (help·info)) (28 June 1490 – 24 September 1545) was Elector and Archbishop of Mainz from 1514 to 1545, and Archbishop of Magdeburg from 1513 to 1545.
In 1514 he obtained the Electorate of Mainz, and in 1518 was made a cardinal at the age of 28. Meanwhile to pay for the pallium of the see of Mainz and to discharge the other expenses of his elevation, Albert had borrowed 21,000 ducats from Jacob Fugger, and had obtained permission from Pope Leo X to conduct the sale of indulgences in his diocese to obtain funds to repay this loan, as long as half the collection was forwarded to the Papacy. An agent of the Fuggers subsequently traveled in the Cardinal’s retinue in charge of the cashbox. For this work he procured the services of John Tetzel, and so indirectly exercised a potent influence on the course of the Reformation.
So, Tetzel and the good Archbishop didn’t sell indulgences?

Wikipedia is not an unbiased or accurate source for this information. It is false that Pope Leos X sold or permitted the selling of indulgences. This is a lie perpetuated by those who hate the Church. It was a misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of what the indulgences were.

 

[adrift]

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).

 

[guanophore]

Wikipedia is not an unbiased or accurate source for this information.

This is certainly true.

It is false that Pope Leos X sold or permitted the selling of indulgences.

I think you reading of history might be a bit biased. Leo wanted money to build St. Peters.

This is a lie perpetuated by those who hate the Church.  It was a misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of what the indulgences were.

Of course, it is a misunderstanding but it was certainly promoted, and the flock was certainly fleeced. This is why Trent reformed the way indulgences were applied so that the appearance of them being “sold” would no longer occur.

There was a great deal of simony going on, and the German bishop owed a tidy sum to Leo for his position.

 

[benedictus2]

I guess the point you are trying to make here is that the concept of forensic justification has produced a great evil in Christendom. Is that right?

Any lie is an evil (that is how we ended up in this quagmire in the first place. Some of them seem innocous enough but they become spring boards for other evils.

The concept of forensic jutification essentially says that God lies to Himself declaring us just when in fact we are not - we are the same miserable sinner that we are. Can you think anyting more ludicrous than that?

This forensic understanding (as I have detailed in a previous post) derives from a very bankrupt philosphy - nominalism - whicfh happens to be the father of deconstructionism and relativism.

It is no wonder that the pick and choose mentality is what underpins protestantism and it is not wonder that this ever splintering group is able to justify the splintering. This also becomes teh bedrock of Sola Scriptura and the rightness of private interpretation.

We have to understand that evil starts with a lie. Without it, it can’t be sustained.

 

[guanophore]

 The concept of forensic jutification essentially says that God lies to Himself declaring us just when in fact we are not - we are the same miserable sinner that we are. Can you think anyting more ludicrous than that?

The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified and sanctified in baptism, however this does not remove concupiscence, which is our sin nature (tendency toward sin). Do you think that state of being is “miserable sinner”?

From the forensic point of view, the person has been “covered” by the blood of Christ, or as I was taught, that when God looks at me, he does not see all my shortcomings, but only His Son Jesus.

2 Cor 5:20-21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Ps 32:1-2
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

Paul retrieves this notion of imputation in Romans.

Rom 4:2-8
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.”

Here Paul is using the language of accounting. God has made a “deposit” into our account.

The difference for Catholics, is that we don’t think God is just doctoring the books (imputed righteousness) but that an actual deposit (infusion) of righteousness has occured. But one can see why they interpret it that way.

  It is no wonder that the pick and choose mentality is what underpins protestantism and it is not wonder that this ever splintering group is able to justify the splintering.  This also becomes teh bedrock of Sola Scriptura and the rightness of private interpretation.

Although I agree with you, it is incumbent upon us to look to the log in our own eye first. There is an abysmal amount of “pick and choose” Catholics in America that are also causing splintering in the Church. I would sooner see a Reformed Christian living the Gospel message to the best of their ability than pews full of lukewarm Catholics who think they can choose Church teachings as if they are in a cafeteria line.