How should a Catholic respond to these charges?

[Sir_Knight]

Need some help defending the Catholic position on the following points …

1. 
   *] The clear intention of the Luther was to reform the church from within. Try reading his 95 theses and To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation on the Improvement of the Christian State. and On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church The RCC did not wish to be reformed and so excommunicated the Reformers. RC theologian Hans Kung writes the following in reference to Luther: “A Rome unwilling to reform responded to the Reformer’s demand for a return to the gospel of Jesus Christ as simplistically as ever with the demand for submission to the teaching of the church, presupposing that the church, the pope and the gospel were identical…Anyone who has studied this whole story can have no doubt that it is not the reformer Luther but Rome, unwilling to reform – and its German minions (notably the theologian John Eck) – which is mainly to blame for the fact that the dispute about the right way to salvation and the practical reflection of the church on the gospel very rapidly turned into another dispute, about the authority and infallibility of pope and councils. In view of the burning of the reformer John Hus and the prohibition at Constance of the laity drinking from the chalice at the eucharist, this was an infallibility that Luther could not in any way affirm”.
   
   Nowhere have I suggested that we should celebrating division, but if the choice is between compromising your Christian faith with paganism and being separate I will be separate every time.
   
   *] You must instead be the apostles spiritual descendants and not merely be able to claim a historical lineage. Historical lineage is no guarantee of purity of doctrine. Like Jesus I answer you “If you were the apostles successors, you would do the works of the apostles and teach their doctrine". Fortunately even as God could raise up sons of Abraham from stones (Matt. 3:9) then he can raise up spiritual successors of the apostles now.
   
   Aside from this the fact of apostolic succession is very much in issue. From the 8th century on, certain popes annulled ordinations and reordained priests. Popes also decided that where ordinations involved payment of money - simony- they were invalid. So corrupt was the RCC that this may well have wiped out apostolic succession.
   
   *] RC theologian Hans Kung in his book “The Catholic Church” writes “From its earliest times until the present, the church has been, as it still is, the fellowship of those who believe in Christ, the fellowship of those who have committed themselves to the person and cause of Christ and attest it as hope for all men and women”.
   
   Christ did not establish any office or elders, nor did he ordain bishops or priests or pope. The church did not come into being until after his ascension.
   
   Hebrews 12:23 refers to the church of the firstborn as those whose names are written in heaven. Are you really suggesting that all RCs have their names written in heaven and that any non-RC is automatically excluded from this heavenly roll?
   
   *] The RCC is not the “church the Son of God established” since it has made many errors. The guidance of the holy spirit is promised to believers as they seek him. Nothing in the context indicates that it was to be automatically given and merely to the hierarchy of an “official” church.
   
   … Thanks in advance.

 

[flatliner]

Sir Knight:

Need some help defending the Catholic position on the following points …

K. No problem.

1. Nowhere have I suggested that we should celebrating division, but if the choice is between compromising your Christian faith with paganism and being separate I will be separate every time.

The protestant theology is wrong. Catholicism isn’t pagan.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct1_anticathresp.html ftp://radio.catholic.com/calive/1998/ca980914.rm

1. 
   *]
   

   You must instead be the apostles spiritual descendants and not merely be able to claim a historical lineage.

   Um, what’s wrong with both? <>
   

   Historical lineage is no guarantee of purity of doctrine. Like Jesus I answer you “If you were the apostles successors, you would do the works of the apostles and teach their doctrine".

   having no guarentee is no reason to think that the historical lineage does not teach properly.
   

   Fortunately even as God could raise up sons of Abraham from stones (Matt. 3:9) then he can raise up spiritual successors of the apostles now.

   Why would He need to do that? If that was plan, why would He have even had apostles in the first place? Heck, why even bother coming in the flesh at all?
   

   Aside from this the fact of apostolic succession is very much in issue. From the 8th century on, certain popes annulled ordinations and reordained priests. Popes also decided that where ordinations involved payment of money - simony- they were invalid. So corrupt was the RCC that this may well have wiped out apostolic succession.

   this is a horrible argument. It goes: the chruch was corrupt through and through, all those who were corrupt have been annuled, thus, no apostolic succession. Althogh it is dedectuively valid, both premises are false. At best, they are wild speculations. newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
   <>
   

   RC theologian Hans Kung in his book “The Catholic Church” writes “From its earliest times until the present, the church has been, as it still is, the fellowship of those who believe in Christ, the fellowship of those who have committed themselves to the person and cause of Christ and attest it as hope for all men and women”.
   Christ did not establish any office or elders, nor did he ordain bishops or priests or pope. The church did not come into being until after his ascension.

   Heh, I love it when this happens. This says this. See the quote I have pulled out of context. Therfore, Jesus never set up a physical church. LOL. newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
   There are others, but I couldn’t find them. Catholic answers has a good one that I can’t seem to find. Check for it. I think it’s called, “did christ set up a physical chruch?”
   

   Hebrews 12:23 refers to the church of the firstborn as those whose names are written in heaven. Are you really suggesting that all RCs have their names written in heaven and that any non-RC is automatically excluded from this heavenly roll?

   I don’t understand this point. It is hardly compelling.
   

 

[flatliner]

1. 
   *]
   

   The RCC is not the “church the Son of God established” since it has made many errors.

   The church is attacked by the deciever just like everyone else. The only thing is, the Church will never fall to that scoundrel. And it hasn’t, not in 2000 years.<>
   

   The guidance of the holy spirit is promised to believers as they seek him.

   So there are how many denominations all claiming to be guided by the holy spirit? If they are all seeking jesus and the guidance of the holy spirit, why do they all contradict each other on important doctrinal issues?
   

   Nothing in the context indicates that it was to be automatically given and merely to the hierarchy of an “official” church.

   Plenty in the context. He gives the keys of the kingdom to peter. etc.
   
   catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
   catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

 

[Christy_Beth]

I’d like to address the bit about Luther. He wasn’t after reformation. Yes, the church back then had problems. But not the problems that Luther accused it of. He didn’t merely leave the church, he was excommunicated for teaching heresy. He had been warned repeatedly about it. But he persisted, so he was excommunicated.

For the full story, read, “The Facts About Luther.” It shows, from his own writings and those of his contemporaries, what kind of man he really was.

 

[Apologia100]

Sure, this is a typical Protestant ploy. Your “reverse engineer” your arguement. I.e., you begin with the points that you intend to prove in your arguement, then sytematically mischaracterize the Catholic Church and Catholic Dogma to illustrate why your position is correct. To those that are not well read and cannot see through this house of cards, it appears to be a well rationed, solid case against the Church, but since you started with the premise that you were going to defeat your own creation, the arguement doesn’t hold water. That is why the Protestant arguement only works on the unwary. But, for those of us that have been on both sides of the arguement, you will see that it is as thin as rice paper.

 

[Todd_Easton]

It was right and good for Martin Luther to point out the abuses going on in the Church but, as someone who preached the primacy of Sacred Scripture, you would think he would have been the foremost in observing and encouraging others to observe the command of Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.” It is only through obedience and submission to our leaders that we can avoid schisms.

For a brief overview of the beginnings of the Reformation and Martin Luther, I suggest Karl Adam’s book, Roots of the Reformation, translated by Cecily Hastings (Coming Home Resources, 2000). The following is from pages 25-26 of that book:

. "It was night indeed in a great part of Christendom. Such is the conclusion of our survey of the end of the fifteenth century: amongst the common people, a fearful decline of true piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and neglect of duty; and amongst the very Shepherds of the Church, demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion of holy things. Both clergy and people must cry mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! *
. "Yes, it was night. Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marvelous gifts of mind and heart, his warm penetration of the essence of Christianity, his passionate defiance of all unholiness and ungodliness, the elemental fury of his religious experience, his surging, soul-shattering power of speech, and not least that herosim in the face of death with which he defied the powers of this world—had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time and the cleansing of God’s garden from weeds, had he remained a faithful member of his Church, humble and simple, sincere and pure, then indeed we should today be his grateful debtors. He would be forever our great Reformer, our true man of God, our teacher and leader, comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people, the refounder of the Church in Germany, a second Boniface…
. “But—and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation and of German Christianity—he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself, founded upon Peter, bearing through the centuries the successio apostolica; he let them drive him to commit what St. Augustine called the greatest sin with which a Christian can burden himself: he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ.”*