T
Tomster
Guest
Actually, its all about Grace.
- Status
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Dear Jolly Joe,
That is a rather tough critique of the catholics on this forum. It would be helpful if you listed one falsification you ran into with one or more of the Catholics here.
I am sure you have ran into a few tough-talking Catholics. I might be one of them. Sometimes while we go through some threads, we end up being bashed by a few less than cordial non-Catholics and we get a buildup of negativity in us and respond to one thread with the buildup of discontent of the many threads we have just read…for this please accept my apology.
Many of us just get defensive and respond rather harshly. We’re not perfect, just Catholic.
I would like to hear some falsehoods you have witnessed in these threads, not to argue over, just to contemplate over.
May God help us all to be more compassionate.
By the way, I believe the Commandment about false-witnessing is the most broken commandment of the Ten.
Stay jolly, Joe.
jpaul1953
T
Tomster
Guest
We all admit that Christ established one, and only one Church. Protestants admit this with us, for if you ask them whether Christ established all these different sects which now exist they answer and say that He did not and that He could not. Christ established, they say, only one Church and the difficulty is to find out which Church is the Church of Christ. You say yours is, and I say mine is, everyone as they were brought up to believe.
This is a common feeling among Protestants and it is only those who do care about truth in the practice of religion, that say that there is not some one true Church.
Looking over the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, we are forcibly struck by the importance given to the Church, which from the descriptions given was evidently to be a visible body. It should be visible because nothing else could answer the descriptions given of it in the Scriptures, “A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.” (Matt. 5:14)
If the Church were invisible how could St. Paul admonish us “to hear the Church.” Again St. Paul calls the Church “the pillar and the ground of Truth.” The Church is in a sense invisible, e.g., in the working of grace through the Sacraments, prayer, etc. God alone can distinguish the effects which the sacraments produce in different souls.
And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and actions of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.
The being a member of and acknowledging the visible Church is the means ordained by Jesus for participating in the invisible treasures of grace which the Church dispenses to her children just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it.
The Church is then a visible body invested with authority. This authority was exercised by the apostles and their successors. Jesus selected them and gave them a commission to teach all nations and to bring these nations into the one fold. “Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). The Church is a visible society with a regularly appointed government.
We do not find Christ insisting that each one is to read the Bible and draw his own doctrine from it, or commanding the apostles to write books, but we find Him sending the apostles to preach to the people: “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” and binding the people to accept their teaching: “He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” In fact the Church was in existence and doing its work of converting the nations before a line of the New Testament was written and for almost a century before St. John wrote his Gospel. The books of Sacred Scripture were not collected for centuries after the establishment of the Church and many of them were known only to particular churches.
The best way to show you that Christ established one visible, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is to show you from the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, which speak of the Church, its nature, establishment, government, etc.
Are you ready?
C
Contarini
Guest
But Jolly Joe isn’t objecting to “tough talking.” He’s objecting to the falsification of history.
It is convenient for Catholics on this forum to pretend that Protestants are objecting to their “vigor” or “zeal,” because that can be explained away as the natural effect of your love for the Truth. But in fact what most of us object to (at least what I object to and what JJ is objecting to) is the extent to which your love for what you believe to be the Truth leads you (not you personally, but many Catholics on this forum) to play fast and lose with the plain old truth. Can you see why this would not predispose us to accept your version of the Truth?
One obvious example of this would be the repetition of false claims about Luther (such as that he refused to defend the translation policy behind his “insertion” of the word “allein,” or that he believed that habitual and unrepentant sin was compatible with saving faith in Christ) in spite of the fact that they have been refuted over and over. Another would be the frequent denial of the charge that the Catholic Church has often discouraged Bible reading by the laity (instead, it is claimed, the Catholic Church has only ever been concerned to discourage heretical translations and has always encouraged orthodox ones where the level of literacy and interest in Bible reading by the people made this appropriate). Or again, one finds it claimed that the Spanish Inquisition was really a benevolent institution designed to protect Christian society from fifth columnists, or that the Albigensian crusades were justified because the Albigensians were, as a whole, murderous perverts who were violently destroying Christian society. One could go on and on listing the false or at least distortingly one-sided claims made about history on this forum. That’s before we even get into the more strictly theological distortions, which are somewhat harder to pin down.
I should note that in spite of this, this forum is the best place for religious discussion on the Internet. And that says something about the intellectual richness and rigor of Catholicism.
Edwin
H
Hisalone
Guest
Tom you could not be more wrong.
This concept of yours of One True Church is nothing more than a ploy to beat nonCatholic Christians into submission.
Do you not think that Jesus knew there would be divisions amoung us? Did he not know the human heart? His prayer that we would be one as He and the Father are one. Are the Father and Jesus one visibly?
The concern of “The One True Church” is not one of Protestants that is a Catholic concern. There is a visible church made up of the Body of Christ all believers and they are one when they operate “In Christ” but become seperated again when they operate “in the flesh”.
Christ operating in and through His believers constitutes His visible Church.
T
Tomster
Guest
Please, it is not a “ploy” to beat anyone in the head. Get over your persecution complex.
Truth is truth. Errror is just that, error.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Truth is found in Gods word to us which is the scriptures. When a Papal pronouncement conflicts with scripture then where do you go to find truth? Scripture of course.
K
kalt
Guest
God’s Word is more than Scripture.
Do you have a specific pronouncement in mind?
Edit - Sorry said that wrong. It should be - Sacred Scripture is more than the Bible.
T
Tomster
Guest
First of all, tell me why I should believe your personal interpretation of Scripture? Millions upon millions of individiual non-Catholic Christians have disagreed among themselves in regards to the interpretation of Scriptures. Please explain.
Secondly, which Papal pronouncements are you speaking of? I know of none that conflict with Scripture.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s just not true. Give me documented evidence of Protestants saying that their denomination is the true Church founded by Christ. There are a few who would, but almost none. Not at least without very heavy qualifications.
It’s hard to generalize about Protestants (which is, of course, a polemical point for you). But pretty much all Protestants think that the Church founded by Christ is much bigger than their denomination.
Edwin
H
Hisalone
Guest
Yes Gods word is more than scripture, however we find Gods word in scripture.
What was the one that started it all? The treasury of merit.
T
Tomster
Guest
Please re-read # 303. And, if what you say is true, by saying that almost none (Protestants) of them consider their church to be the true Church, that really says a lot about Protestantism. You have made my point.
BTW- The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, I’ve given you some ammunition to make a different point.
Indeed, what I have said indicates that there is a big difference between how Protestants think of their denominations and how Catholics think of the Catholic Church, which justifies this claim on your part. If you were right, and every denomination claimed to be what the Catholic Church claims to be, then the statement “the Catholic Church is not a denomination” would be nothing more than a triumphalistic assertion.
Edwin
T
Tomster
Guest
Look, let’s cut to the quick. With rare exception, the Protestant churches (plural) owe the beginning to the religious upheaval in the 16th century when Luther, Calvin, and their followers broke with Roman unity and began religious institutions of their own. You know it and I know it. Few of these sects will admit this, of course. They claim to be the original Church of Christ which goes back to apostolic times. But when they try to prove their claim, they fall back on two expedients: either they deny Catholicism was ever the true Church and trace their geneology through the gallery of heretics from Marcion and Arius and Luther, Calvin and Zwingli; or they admit that Catholics formed the true Church up to the Reformation but, contrary to the promise of Christ, were overcome by the gates of hell so that a new church had to be founded. Certain denominations, like the Lutherans emphasize the second method. Other, like the Baptists and Episcopalians, prefer the first. Sometimes the lineage from Reformation times is not very clear historically; but their is never any doubt about the transmission of ideas from the original Reformers to moden sectarians. I think it was Orestes Brownson who charged that Protestantism has no fixed and permanent character except hatred for Catholicism and no principles, doctrines, or forms which, in order to be itself, it must always and everywhere maintain. He oversimplified the case. But substantially it is true to say that Protestantism as a form of Christianity is essentially changeable and unstable. Whatever religious stability individual sects may show, they owe to whatever doctrines or practices they still share in common with the Catholic Church. The instability of Protestantism is due to a strange concept of human autonomy which the Reformers injected into the body of Christian tradition.
Church historians correctly say there are two fundamental principles of the Reformation: the supreme authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith. Against these the Catholic position is that Scripture alone is not sufficient, but tradition is also needed; and that man is is justified or made pleasing to God not only by faith but also by the good works he performs. However, beneath these two Reformation issues lay a deeper error from which they are both derived. This was the assertion of man’s independence of any society as the final arbiter in questions of faith and morals. It was the Protestant belief in the inspiration of the individual and the consequent right of private judgment. So basic is this principle that by it we may explain not only the Protestant imperviousness to history which is so incredible to Catholics, but also the resistance among Protestants themselves
to any attempt on the part of their leaders to unite the churches under “authoritarian domination.” By this standard the Catholic Church is accused of being the worst pretender in history. If this is what you mean by Catholic triumphalism, then that is just fine with me.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is sad that you are so angry.Wasting your time patting each other on the back is accomplishing nothing in the way of your limited understanding of the truth.
M
Mickey
Guest
You noticed that too?
C
Contarini
Guest
Let’s not. Cutting to the quick usually leaves out a lot of really important stuff that is inconvenient for the cutter’s agenda.
Your experience of Protestantism does not appear to be extensive, apart from some of the more radical primitivist movements.
A few do.
You are assuming that Christ’s promise was made to the Roman see or something like that. If the promise was made to the Church as a whole, then the second argument you describe does not contradict Christ’s promise at all. According to this view (held by very conservative traditional Protestants), the Roman papacy and the religious body in communion with it fell into formal apostasy when it “anathematized the Gospel” at Trent. There was therefore no point at which the Church as a whole apostasized. The medieval Church developed various corruptions, both doctrinal and practical. The Reformers tried to address these corruptions Biblically. The “Roman Catholic Church” rejected these Biblical reforms and committed itself to doctrinal corruption, thus ceasing to be a true Church.
I disagree with this view strongly, and so do most Protestants. But it’s not an incoherent position and can’t simply be refuted by talking about “Christ’s promise.” (It is refuted by looking at what Catholics actually believe, by looking at Scripture without forcing it through the narrow gauge of Protestant confessionalism, and by looking at the evident holiness in the lives of post-Reformation Catholics.)
The more conservative Lutherans say this. The more moderate/liberal ones do not.
Not all Baptists do this. The position you have in mind is held by the most radically fundamentalist Baptists. Believe it or not, there are many Baptists who are not radical fundamentalists. The Baptist historian Leon McBeth, for instance, refuted this view in his book The Baptist Heritage, which is the standard history of the Baptist tradition (loaned me by a Southern Baptist pastor as the basic book to read to learn about Baptists).
Surely you are kidding! Episcopalians laugh when they hear this nonsense.
I think what you have in mind is the argument made by some Anglicans that Anglicanism somehow represents a pure “Catholic” Christianity in continuity with the early Church, never quite assimilated to the “Roman” Catholicism of Continental Europe. This is not the same thing as the “Trail of Blood” kind of argument, because it almost never goes along with the claim that Continental Catholicism was apostate. However, it remains a pretty silly line of argument, and most Anglicans would agree with me.
Most Protestants today, including practically all Anglicans, affirm that your Church is a true Church without any qualification. Even in the bitterly polemical sixteenth century, the great Anglican theologian Richard Hooker got into trouble with the Puritans by refusing to say outright that your Communion was *not *a true Church (though he put a lot more qualifications on it than we would do today). You are simply misinformed about what Protestants believe, just as many Protestants are misinformed about what you believe.
That’s true if you define Protestantism in opposition to Catholicism. In other words, Protestantism doesn’t have some kind of positive core that all Protestants share but Catholics don’t. Protestantism is a reaction to perceived problems within Catholicism, and the reaction has taken many different forms. I believe that various specific Protestant traditions preserve truths and practices that your Communion has lost or has failed to emphasize. But these aren’t things that you can necessarily lump together as a common “Protestant” heritage. They have a lot of things in common, but they take many different forms.
But it’s pretty much impossible to define these in a way that will include all Protestants and exclude all Catholics.
That’s anachronistic. It’s something that later Protestants, particularly in the era of the Enlightenment, came up with after the fact as a “basic principle of the Reformation.” it’s not something the Reformers taught.
You guys need to get out from under Newman’s shadow. He was responding to a particular kind of 19th-century Protestantism which *did *glorify absolute individualism and thus *was *impervious to history (because in the end only the perceptions of the individual Christian counted). This is by no means dead, but it has never been universally characteristic of Protestantism and is much less so now than it was in Newman’s day.
No, I mean the *Catholic *imperviousness to history, which results from the determination to read back into history what your Magisterium currently teaches, explaining away any historical evidence that is incompatible with this. Like its Protestant counterpart, this Catholic “imperviousness to history” is by no means universal. Imperviousness to history (or triumphalism) is not unique to Protestants or to Catholics. It just takes different forms among each.
Edwin
H
Hisalone
Guest
Proof positive that Tomster makes things up to suit his own purposes and agenda.
de⋅nom⋅i⋅na⋅tion /dɪˌnɒməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-nom-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
Use denomination in a Sentence
–noun 1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, he’s not making things up. General dictionaries are not the best source for defining theological terms. There are good reasons to avoid applying the word “denomination” to the Roman Communion. Denominationalism really is a Protestant phenomenon (and largely an American one, or at least an Anglo-American one, at least in its origins).
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
Correct.
- Status