let the truth be told

[JonNC]

That’s a nice looking number, though, I must say. Very engaging. I trust your sources, Jon, and I’m tempted to use this number in the future whenever I get involved in the, “You’re divided, we ain’t, you’re lopsided, we’re quaint,” debate. Yes, it’s definitely a superb number. One of the most persuasive – if not the most persuasive – numbers I’ve encountered during the last few minutes.

Have you let Bill Pick know about it?

Cordially,
Mick

Glad to have been of service. I don’t recall definitively, but certainly our friend Bill could have been the source. More likely, though, I simply made it up in the last little bit.

Jon

 

[Portrait]

I guess the main theme in the early days after the Reformation would have been the conviction that the Catholic Church was corrupt and that for some considerable time it had been making people worse instead of better. Those Catholics who were unable to escape that conclusion would doubtless have felt a range of emotions – sadness, betrayal, anger, and despondency. Perhaps they even felt despair? I’d imagine the idea that there was no such thing as the One True Church (as they would have perceived their predicament) and that they now had to work out their salvation by themselves could have left them so. I suspect the idea that the Catholic Church makes people worse instead of better still prevails inside non–Catholic Western Christendom. So perhaps a not unreasonable conclusion is to declare that the denominations were “born” as a result of a mindset that entered into Western Christendom as a reaction to the rottenness of mediaeval Western churchmen?

Speculatively,
Mick

Dear Mick,

Seceding from the Catholic Church, however, would not prove to be the panacea for all their ills, rather it was the beginnig of sorrows for them. Notwithstanding the many problems within the Church at that time, and no one would argue that fact, they should have remained within the one true Church established by Christ (see St. Matt. 16:18) and sought to reform it from within. The Protestant Churches today have not fared well and are hot beds of doctrinal and moral error - I wonder why?

I was a member of the Church of England for some 25 years and I am bound to say that that denomination is a three ring circus which is in terminal decline. Many orthodox Anglicans are converting, as the Venerable Newman did before them, to Catholicism as the most natural place to migrate to.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5893914:

I guess the main theme in the early days after the Reformation would have been the conviction that the Catholic Church was corrupt and that for some considerable time it had been making people worse instead of better. Those Catholics who were unable to escape that conclusion would doubtless have felt a range of emotions – sadness, betrayal, anger, and despondency. Perhaps they even felt despair? I’d imagine the idea that there was no such thing as the One True Church (as they would have perceived their predicament) and that they now had to work out their salvation by themselves could have left them so. I suspect the idea that the Catholic Church makes people worse instead of better still prevails inside non–Catholic Western Christendom. So perhaps a not unreasonable conclusion is to declare that the denominations were “born” as a result of a mindset that entered into Western Christendom as a reaction to the rottenness of mediaeval Western churchmen?

Speculatively,
Mick

Dear Mick,

Seceding from the Catholic Church, however, would not prove to be the panacea for all their ills, rather it was the beginnig of sorrows for them.

I welcome you to the speculation.

Notwithstanding the many problems within the Church at that time, and no one would argue that fact, they should have remained within the one true Church established by Christ (see St. Matt. 16:18) and sought to reform it from within.

I would speculate that those who rejected Catholicism did so because they perceived the Catholic Church to be rotten from top to bottom and concluded that it was spiritually dangerous for them to continue to recognize its authority. Perhaps those who chose to remain inside it did so because they still believed in the Catholic Church? Or perhaps they were too frightened to leave it? At any rate, it seems reasonable to suppose that in both camps there may well have been people who followed their consciences and others who did not. That being a strong probability, I think we who live centuries later can safely shelve our latter–day judgments as to what action ought or should have been taken and leave the judgment to the Lord.

The Protestant Churches today have not fared well and are hot beds of doctrinal and moral error - I wonder why?

The same accusation is made of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Christendom has never been short of Christians that are eager to pass judgment upon each other and portray one another in a negative light.

I was a member of the Church of England for some 25 years and I am bound to say that that denomination is a three ring circus which is in terminal decline.

If you were a member of the Church of England for a quarter of a century then members of the Church of England together with Anglican beliefs and practices have influenced you and shaped you. You would not be what you are today had you not had that experience. I do not accept that you are in any way bound to make snide remarks about the Church of England in a public forum. You could simply declare, “I was a member of the Church of England for some 25 years,” and leave it at that. In choosing to insult members of your former faith community you cause them pain and bring discredit upon yourself, the Catholic Church, and the Lord you serve. You can do better than this, Portrait, I feel sure.

Many orthodox Anglicans are converting, as the Venerable Newman did before them, to Catholicism as the most natural place to migrate to.

There is always movement between faith communities as people engage the enemy in the spiritual battle, search for truth, and try to satisfy their longing for the spirit of peace.

Somberly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

 

[Portrait]

I didn’t say it did sanction the separation. But it does rebutt your implication that only those of us not in communion with Rome are responsible for the sin of separation. I believe, however that you are correct that the healing of the division would, of course, involve reconciliation between our communions, though we would again need to discuss and reconcile our understandings of the power of the papacy, in keeping with the early preschism teaching of it, in order for “submission” to happen.

There are Protestant groups who have never touted sola scriptura, liberal or not. And again, some of the very latest evangelical groups do not subscribe to sola scriptura, either, but instead solo scriptura.
And the Orthodox have never accepted SS. The point being, your claim that sola scriptura is the blame for separation has these flaws.

And they would and do make this claim of Rome.

Perhaps this is so from your perspective, but I, as aLutheran, wouldn’t consider it the reality. Maybe this will help:
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

Dear JonNC,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

Even when allowance is made for sin on both sides of the Reformational divide, the Reformers had no divine authority to commence new ecclessial assemblies and they did so in direct opposition to the clear teaching of the New Testament. A reform, not a* repudiation* of the Church was what was required. Our Lord said that His church would would be like a net holding good and bad fish. Now I concede that at the time of the Reformation there were altogether too many bad fish. However, bad fish do not make a bad net; rather than striving to turn the bad fish into good ones, the Reformers began to make new nets and this was their big mistake and their big sin. Christ had made one original Net, and had said that it would never fail (St. Matt. 16:18), indeed it has not failed, even in these times of unprecedented spiritual declension and apostasy from the faith “once delivered” (St. Jude 3). It is the Catholic Church alone today which refuses to compromise on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Nearly all of the Reformational communions are now in a state of terminal decline and are doctrinally and morally lax, impaired by liberalism and sinisterl political correctness. The strands of their nets are all ruptured, and the fish are swimming off in any direction they please, some coming home to Rome, others, alas, losing their faith completely. Those who want the “fullness of truth” will find it only by returning to that Catholic Church that their forefathers should never have departed from, and from which they themselves are separated through no fault of their own.

The pedantic argument over sola scriptura or solo scriptura is really a red herring since it does not grapple with the real issue of authority. Basicly people need to know the truth, but where do they find it?: who is right and why are they right? Why should we necessarily take the Baptist line or the Brethren line or the Methodist or Lutheran or Anglican? They all claim biblical authority. Now I, and many others, would contend that this is utter chaos. Quite so, if there is no objective authority to interpret Sacred Scripture; it all boils down to a matter of opinion - you choosing what you think the Bible means and me choosing what I think it means. Flip a coin, so to speak. This is almost risible and in any case it is inconceivable that our loving heavenly Father should have left His Church without a visible guide and head. The Catholic Church alone claims to provide such an infallible guide in the person of the Pope. Moreover this is not merely a matter of personal opinion or taste, on the contrary it is a self-evident truth which emerges from the character of God. For example just as we infer from the justice of God that deception by Him is inconceivable, so we may infer from His love for His Church and His high purposes for it that it is likewise inconceivable that He should leave it to fall into error and divide into 30,000+ denominations. Thus an authoritative visible guide is an inevitable consequence of the character of God. Now if such a Church exists in this world then men must be able to locate it - “A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” (St. Matt. 5: 14). Only the Catholic Church fulfills all of these criteria.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[JonNC]

=Portrait;5898048]Dear JonNC,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

Even when allowance is made for sin on both sides of the Reformational divide, the Reformers had no divine authority to commence new ecclessial assemblies and they did so in direct opposition to the clear teaching of the New Testament. A reform, not a* repudiation* of the Church was what was required.

And I could say that Rome had no divine Authority to separate itself from Orthodoxy, or to claim universal jurisdiction in direct opposition to scripture. So, you see, one person’s divine authority is another’s doctrinal innovation.
I would also contend that it was reform that Luther and Melanchton had in mind. The first repudiation came with the demand of a single word: “recant”.
But all of that is history. How do we bridge the current gap. Clearly, mutual condemnations have failed to work over 500 years.

Our Lord said that His church would would be like a net holding good and bad fish. Now I concede that at the time of the Reformation there were altogether too many bad fish. However, bad fish do not make a bad net; rather than striving to turn the bad fish into good ones, the Reformers began to make new nets and this was their big mistake and their big sin. Christ had made one original Net, and had said that it would never fail (St. Matt. 16:18), indeed it has not failed, even in these times of unprecedented spiritual declension and apostasy from the faith “once delivered” (St. Jude 3). It is the Catholic Church alone today which refuses to compromise on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Where is that one net? Rome? Antioch? Maybe Jerusalem? And aside from your (Catholic) say so, how am I to know?

Nearly all of the Reformational communions are now in a state of terminal decline and are doctrinally and morally lax, impaired by liberalism and sinisterl political correctness. The strands of their nets are all ruptured, and the fish are swimming off in any direction they please, some coming home to Rome, others, alas, losing their faith completely. Those who want the “fullness of truth” will find it only by returning to that Catholic Church that their forefathers should never have departed from, and from which they themselves are separated through no fault of their own.

Then my suggestion is to wait patiently for the inertia of Protestant decline to complete.
In the meantime, reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy sure would make the decisions of a Protestant lost in the downward spiral a bunch easier. So, you have your work cut out for you. In addition, Catholics would do well not to continually condemn Protestants as that triggers defensive urges, and may only slow the inertia down.

This may sound sarcastic, but I do not mean it that way. I consider it a serious approach.
Keep the light on, and arms open.

JOn

 

[Portrait]

I don’t dispute the number you’ve adduced although I think the defenders of Catholicism who like to keep up with such things are now quoting the number as 38,000. This latest number may be more apparent than real, of course, but that’s always a possible scenario in the numbers game. At any rate, your wording leads me to suppose that you may not have grasped the point I was attempting to make. Here is what I actually posted.

Logical idea but phrased using incautious terminology. C+.

I recommend dissection of detail and for such purposes I posit the Wesleyans and the Methodists and pose the following questions. Are there doctrines that greatly divide them? To what extent are they in constant disagreement with each other? Are they (to employ a somewhat curious term you used in an earlier post) warring denominations?

Which is the Eastern Orthodox Church, right? No Sola Scriptura for Orthodox Christians! Moreover, Holy Orthodoxy offers a Biblecomplete of 76 books. Catholic Bibles (only 73 books) and Non–Catholic Western Bibles (only 66 books) are very good efforts, though, and deserve an A– and a B+ respectively.

Schismatically,
Mick


Dear Mick,

Thankyou most kindly for your detailed response to my posting,

Leaving aside the number of different ecclesial assemblies for the moment (even one rival would be one too many for their is only one Church), how do you justify the scandal of numerous Protestant denominations? Moreover, to the impartial observer it is incontrovertible that Protestantism does indeed have a patholigical tendency to divide. Given the ever increasing number of ecclesial groups that is surely a self-evident truth.

As regards Wesleyans and Methodists, surely the former being ultra evangelical and the latter being now a fairly liberal organsisation, I suspect that they would be at variance with one another on many points of doctrine as well as morals. Incidently this just underscores why Protestantism is so problematic, I mean the Wesleyans were but one of the secessions from the original Methodists. Thus right here we have an instance of an historical division between members of the same denomination who supposedly agree to the same doctrinal position! This seems to validate the fissiparous nature of Protestantism to the casual onlooker. It semaphores to the thinking man that something is seriously amiss when he witnesses all these unhappy divisions within Christendom.

Finally, for now anyway, I have some very serious difficulties with Eastern orthodoxy. One being the lack of unity among the Orthodox Churches. The terms Eastern orthodoxy and Orthodoxy commonly designate the Orthodox Churches as a whole, but the terms are abstractions since there is no institution to which one can point and say, “There is Orthodoxy”. True the Churches hold basically the same Faith, but, jurisdictionally, they are very divided. As I understand it there are in America today almost forty separate orthodox jurisdictions and some are not even in communion with some of the others. Can you tell me how you claim to be the one true Church when you are not even* one* Church?

Eastern Orthodox logic is also defective. It says that Scripture must be interpreted in the light of tradition. What Tradition or which traditions? How can one know which are authentic? Eastern Orthodoxy responds: They must be tested in the light of Scripture. In other words, Scripture interprets Tradition, which interprets Scripture? However, Scripture and Tradition can’t be mutually validating criteria for each other - either simultaneously or sequentially. This is just circular reasoning and cannot solve the problem of authority.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

And I could say that Rome had no divine Authority to separate itself from Orthodoxy, or to claim universal jurisdiction in direct opposition to scripture. So, you see, one person’s divine authority is another’s doctrinal innovation.
I would also contend that it was reform that Luther and Melanchton had in mind. The first repudiation came with the demand of a single word: “recant”.
But all of that is history. How do we bridge the current gap. Clearly, mutual condemnations have failed to work over 500 years.

Where is that one net? Rome? Antioch? Maybe Jerusalem? And aside from your (Catholic) say so, how am I to know?

Then my suggestion is to wait patiently for the inertia of Protestant decline to complete.
In the meantime, reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy sure would make the decisions of a Protestant lost in the downward spiral a bunch easier. So, you have your work cut out for you. In addition, Catholics would do well not to continually condemn Protestants as that triggers defensive urges, and may only slow the inertia down.

This may sound sarcastic, but I do not mean it that way. I consider it a serious approach.
Keep the light on, and arms open.

JOn

Dear JohnNC,

Once again thankyou for a very interesting post.

Can I recommend an excellent book on the whole subject of authority and the Primacy of Rome? The book is:

Upon This Rock (St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church) by Stephen K. Ray, Ignatius Press 1999.

Stephen Ray was a former evangelical Protestant and his book was one of the many books that had a profound impact upon me prior to my conversion to Catholicism this year. If you do read it Jon I would be most interested to hear your comments or criticisms.

I agree that it is important that the unhappy division between Catholics and Orthodox is healed as a matter of urgency. Please God may it happen shortly.

What I would say to you and indeed to all my Protestant brethren, is contrast the fragmented condition of Protestantism with the unbroken unity of Rome. When this is done openly and calmly it becomes very evident that individual judgement leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whereas the infallible Church leads people to a common conviction as they share in the life of the one true fold.
This was for me a very powerful argument and one that I simply could not ignore.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[JonNC]

First, I have enjoyed our dialogue. Hope you have, too.

=Portrait;5898586]Dear JohnNC,

Once again thankyou for a very interesting post.

Can I recommend an excellent book on the whole subject of authority and the Primacy of Rome? The book is:

Upon This Rock (St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church) by Stephen K. Ray, Ignatius Press 1999.

Stephen Ray was a former evangelical Protestant and his book was one of the many books that had a profound impact upon me prior to my conversion to Catholicism this year. If you do read it Jon I would be most interested to hear your comments or criticisms.

I will look into it.

I agree that it is important that the unhappy division between Catholics and Orthodox is healed as a matter of urgency. Please God may it happen shortly.

What I would say to you and indeed to all my Protestant brethren, is contrast the fragmented condition of Protestantism with the unbroken unity of Rome. When this is done openly and calmly it becomes very evident that individual judgement leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whereas the infallible Church leads people to a common conviction as they share in the life of the one true fold.
This was for me a very powerful argument and one that I simply could not ignore.

Just a couple of thoughts. First, I am Lutheran, so I don’t consider the fragmentation of Protestantism as a condition that impacts Lutheranism. IOW, I do not view Protestantism as somehow once one Church that has since splintered. And in fact, all Protestant communions are part of the western Church, and, it could be argued, splinters of Rome. So, other than being part and parcel of the sad separation of western Christianity, and part my desire for unity, the quagmire of competing opinions are outside the Lutheran Confessions, and, for the most part, always have been. I would be more concerned with Lutherans who fail to follow the confessions.

Jon

 

[Portrait]

Dear Mick,

Just some further comments by way of response to your comments.

A “common spirituality” is a wholly inadequate grounds for unity because truth requires consistency, and God has a right to be believed when He reveals a definite doctrine. No one who understands the N.T. could possibly entertain indefinite notions upon this subject. St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal.1: 8). To Timothy he wrote, “…remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1: 3). Again, “If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3). Thus it is plainly evident from the N.T. that doctrinal differences actually do matter very much, and that compromise in such matters is impossible. Clearly doctrine is decidedly “pivotal”, at least if we are taking the N.T. as our yardstick.

Our Lord sent the apostles to teach all nations in His name. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us through the Church, and always in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. God does not contradict Himself; He does not send the Holy Spirit to teach us one thing, and the Church to teach us another. If one finds oneself in opposition to the Catholic Church, we can be quite sure that the Holy Spirit is not responsible for our ideas. Of one thing we can be sure of and that is the Holy Spirit could not possibly have inspired all the conflicting opinions Protestants insists on attributing to Him.

Can you explain how the Catholic Church could be accused of being a hot-bed of doctrinal and moral error, surely the very opposite is the case?

The Catholic Church was not “rotten from top to botton” prior to The Reformation, certainly not here in England at any rate as Eamon Duffy has cogently demonstrated. His* The Stripping of The Altars *painstakingly compiles a huge amount of evidence to show that the pre-Reformation church in England was not the corrupt, clergy-ridden church portrayed by Protestant propagandists. Yes there were problems, but by and large it was a healthy, vigorous church that was struggling to adapt to the new technologies and social structures. Moreover it was enlivened by hearty involvement of the laity, who were surprisingly well-educated in their faith. Duffy’s work is unanswerable in general and detail.

It is a common fallacy to blame the Catholic Church because of the lax members in it, we should just blame, well the lax members in it. It is a fundamental error to assume that the Church in pre-Reformation times was all universal corruption and laxity. The reality is that there were saints in those times side by side with sinners e.g. Thomas A’ Kempis.

The word church has a twofold sense. Its proper meaning is an assembly of persons united not only in prayer or some “common spirituality”, but also in a definite creed, worship, and obedience. It is in this sense that we speak of the Catholic Church. Or again, it can refer to a building errected for purposes of worship by members of the Catholic Church, and in that sense we speak of *a *catholic church.

That the Catholic Church corresponds exactly to the religion established by Christ is proved from the following:

1. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ personally. All other churches disappear as you travel back into history. Christ said, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (St. Matt. 16: 18).
2. The Catholic Church has existed in all the centuries since Christ.
3. All members of the Catholic Church admit exactly the same essential doctrines.
4. The Catholic Church claims to be both universal and Catholic.
5. The Catholic Church speaks with a voice of true authority in God’s name. No other church claims to do this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait