Protestantization of U.S. Catholicism

[savrx]

Timothy17;7426659:

larkin31;7426543:

That does not make one a “Pope,” nor certainly does it make one a “Jesus.” Jesus did not ever interpret the Bible.

He often did, actually.

Pax,
Tim
I meant the NT. Gospels.

Unless I’m missing something here…this is like questioning why King George II never commented on the Declaration of Independence.

How is it that we’re to expect that Christ would have directly interpreted texts which didn’t exist in written form while he lived on earth? Much less how is the declaration of the fact that this didn’t happen germane to the topic at hand?

 

[t68ware]

I was Protestant for over 40 years, and have been Catholic for almost 2 years now, and from what I see, the issue is with lukewarm, hot and cold Catholics, just like I saw in the Protestant church. Many cradle Catholics do not realize the richness and greatness of the Church, and just attend Mass out of obligation and treat it like someplace to be for an hour. As one who came from outside the Church, I stand in disbelief when Catholics do not appreciate what they have, and that is the fullness of truth. The degree of faithful living happens in the Catholic and Protestant church, but we who have the fullness of truth need to be more vigilant in our faithful living, and let the petty disagreements fall by the wayside.

 

[larkin31]

Unless I’m missing something here…this is like questioning why King George II never commented on the Declaration of Independence.

How is it that we’re to expect that Christ would have directly interpreted texts which didn’t exist in written form while he lived on earth? Much less how is the declaration of the fact that this didn’t happen germane to the topic at hand?

That was exactly my point. I just used the wrong term. It came up when Protestants were once again smeared on a CA thread. So I begged to differ on the point.

We can return to the regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I was Protestant for over 40 years, and have been Catholic for almost 2 years now, and from what I see, the issue is with lukewarm, hot and cold Catholics, just like I saw in the Protestant church. Many cradle Catholics do not realize the richness and greatness of the Church, and just attend Mass out of obligation and treat it like someplace to be for an hour. As one who came from outside the Church, I stand in disbelief when Catholics do not appreciate what they have, and that is the fullness of truth. The degree of faithful living happens in the Catholic and Protestant church, but we who have the fullness of truth need to be more vigilant in our faithful living, and let the petty disagreements fall by the wayside.

 

[CradleCath]

After coming back to the Catholic church last year I am surprised about how many factions there are with in the church – to the extent that many people claim that the others aren’t really Catholics. At the very least the polemics hurled from TLM/EF vs OF sure looks like most other denomination wars with in the U.S. and sure lacks love and “universality”.
The condemnation of other parishes’ sanctuaries because they don’t meet with your approval of what “holy” should look like or the music or singing is not to your style sure smells of protestantism, i.e. Baptist vs methodist vs Presbyterian, etc. or maybe even the polemics of East vs West church.
If the Catholic Church were really “catholic” shouldn’t we embrace our diversity rather than try to subversively dismantle the “style” we don’t like?

Dave in Dallas, I’ll admit that I’ve only read part of this thread. Before I could comment on your post, I’d need to know why you left the Catholic Church in the first place.

 

[Layman]

That does not make one a “Pope,” nor certainly does it make one a “Jesus.” Jesus did not ever interpret the Bible.

If you have a personal interpretation of the Bible, contrary to Catholic doctrine, then you are making yourself your own Pope. I would include in this: the ‘pastors’ of the 20,000+ Protestant denominations and those people who say “I don’t care what the Catholic Church says, I know Jesus loves me and thus tolerates what I do”. i.e. They worship their own, personal version of Jesus.

 

[larkin31]

If you have a personal interpretation of the Bible, contrary to Catholic doctrine, then you are making yourself your own Pope.

No. This is not what the Pope does. Are you casting this aspersion upon the Pope?

I would include in this: the ‘pastors’ of the 20,000+ Protestant denominations and those people who say “I don’t care what the Catholic Church says, I know Jesus loves me and thus tolerates what I do”. i.e. They worship their own, personal version of Jesus.

WHat pastor has ever said such a thing? This is just shallow prejudice. Get over yourself already.

 

[Timothy17]

No. This is not what the Pope does. Are you casting this aspersion upon the Pope?

WHat pastor has ever said such a thing? This is just shallow prejudice. Get over yourself already.

Protestantism establishes its own (read : personalized) churches, doctrines and beliefs. The precedence of which gives license to all to do the same. This is exactly what differentiates it from Catholicism. If you defend and justify your own rebellion then what grounds do you have to restrict the same in your own children ? That is the height of hypocrisy.

This is not my prejudice. I noticed this before I chose to convert to Catholicism. If you can script together enough Scripture passages, for example, to justify your own beliefs in some particular way or system of doing things (as opposed to the teaching of your congregation), then you can justify seperating yourself from a congregation or go further and establish your own, for example. If something doesn’t seem right to you, or if you believe things ought to be done differently, then that fact alone suffices to be a sufficient cataclyst for denial, disobedience or change. We don’t have to look hard to see this happening in even more traditional, mainline and mainstream Protestant congregations, to a point where they have even brazenly discarded sola scriptura by going against the perfectly clear commandments of scripture (I am thinking here of the acceptance (as opposed to the tolerance) of homosexuality).

Pax,
Tim

 

[savrx]

No. This is not what the Pope does. Are you casting this aspersion upon the Pope?

The Pope’s “function”, if you will, is as a final arbiter and teacher in matters of faith and morals. His authority IS the authority of Christ, not his own.

Read Isaiah 22 about the office of prime minister and how the King gives his authority freely to his minister, expressly to wield in his name. The prime minister is not himself so important as the authority of the King expressed through him. This is the context in which Jesus gives the keys to Peter (and nearly verbatim quotes from).

So in the context of this discussion, what we’re saying is that with protestant theology that final arbiter is not a single man (the Pope) who wields the authority of Christ to bind and loose, but every man (you and I and every other believer). This is the crux of the difference.

 

[Roy5]

** Yes, it’s true. Protestantism has many divisions, many differences of opinion**. When it comes to baptism, for example, some baptize babies, others insist upon believers’ baptism by immersion. They argue that this is following Christ since he was baptized at age 30 in the Jordan River, etc. Personally, I don’t think the Bible is clear on this question.

** On the other hand - am I being the ‘devil’s advocate’ here? - what is attractive about Protestantism, especially mainline Protestantism, is the way in which it allows room for divergent views.** I find among Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC members, Episcopalians, and even many Lutherans and Baptists there is a wide variation of belief. Some are traditionalists, who believe that the Bible is inerrant. Others are skeptics about some parts of the Bible, certainly the genocide found in some of the bloody Old Testament passages that tell of how Joshua and Saul and others slaughtered whole tribes to take their land. These various opinions are permitted, and you even hear them voiced in Bible study groups.

** Now, contrast that with traditional Catholicism and fundamentalist Protestantism**. Both seem to believe that there is only one way, their way. If you don’t accept the views of the Magisterium or (in the case of some Protestants) a certain sect or pastor, you are looked down upon as some sort of heretic. Rigid Catholics will dismiss you as an arrogant egotist, putting your own opinion above that of the church. Fundamentalist Protestants will accuse you of denying the Word of God.

** Let’s think and let think. God has provided us each with a brain.** This world is so incredible, so mammoth, so mysterious, and so miraculous that none of us - in my view - can claim to understand it. And I can’t believe that GVod would punish anyone for using his/her brain in an honest search for truth.

When the Church Fathers and the early Church Councils wrote about or endorsed this theological concept or that they lacked so much of the information that we have now. They thought the earth was the center of the universe, that heaven was up in the sky somewhere, that hell fire was in the bowels of the earth, etc. To be stuck with their conclusions in the 21st century is like riding a horse and buggy in the age of spacecraft.
** But it's important to try to love everybody,** including those faifthul traditionalist Catholics and those "born-again' fundamentalist Protestants. As long as they do their best to obey the two great commandments, love God and love one another, God bless 'em. In fact, God bless everybody!

 

[CradleCath]

And tying it with the topic of the thread, many would even say that the use of vernacular language is a Protestant thing. It is not. The East has always used the vernacular or a more formal version of the current vernacular. They have never used language that is totally alien to the people in the Church.

While the Church has spoken highly of Latin, it does not condemn every other language out there. People here are too quick to make an assumption the Church never makes.

How many Eastern Orthodox
are there in the USA?
The quick answer: Far less than usually reported.

The longer answer: According to a recent study of Orthodoxy in the United States, the real membership (number of adult adherents and their children) in all Eastern Christian Churches in the USA can be estimated at about 1,200,000 persons.

hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question17.html

Latin (western) Catholics in the U.S. number 72,240,000
wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Catholics_are_in_America

In all kindness, I have to say that I don’t believe that the O.P. was asking about the “Protestantization” of the Eastern Churches. I think that it’s very laudable that you are so enthusiastic about your Eastern Catholic faith, but…to be truthful…most of the Traditional Catholics (on this *Traditional forum), *are far more concerned about the languages used in the Latin rite.

A year ago, I would have said (&did) that, while I enjoyed the language of the Tridentine Mass…Latin, just give me the Mass itself, the ** imploring, pleading prayers, that say "yes, I’m a sinner, so please help me, please forgive me.** A year ago I would have said that the Sacred Silence, the priest praying with me, not AT me, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the actual Roman Canon…which says that I’m part of the Communion of Saints…kneeling to receive the Eucharist, etc…was enough.

Today, I’ll say that using the vernacular in the Mass was just part of the “dumbing down” of the Mass. The Latin in the TLM requires a certain amount of actual MENTAL participation which is so much harder (& so much more fulfillinb) than physical participation…as I pray my Latin/English Missal, there is no way that I can just stand there & mindlessly recite, “And also with you” (in response to the priest’s exhortation) & the rest of the laities’ responses. I remember the first year that the New Order of the Mass came to our city. There were these tiny pamphlet type missals in the seats, for everyone to follow along, within 3 months I noticed that no one even picked them up, no one including ME. There was no need to.

And, yes, I believe that the use of the vernacular (& I know that some of you attend the NO. & have some Latin “thrown in”, but surely you know that this is NOT common.) was a BIG mistake.

 

[dcointin]

Cradle - are you in St. Louis by chance?

 

[CradleCath]

No. This is not what the Pope does.** Are you casting this aspersion upon the Pope?**WHat pastor has ever said such a thing? This is just shallow prejudice. Get over yourself already.

This twisting is not working anymore, Larkin31. You’ve used it too many times. :coffeeread:

The fact is that too many Catholics & Protestants have turned God into a Grandfatherly old man, that pats our head when we sin & says “Don’t worry about it, I UNDERSTAND, I am COMPASSIONATE & there is no Hell. I nice guy like me wouldn’t have a hell around.”

This is not about the Pope, nor especially about pastors, both Protestant & Catholic. This is about US. If a Catholic priest or a Protestant Minister were to give a few sermons about sin & hell… as both were taught in the NT., how many parishioners would find a new “home”.

 

[CradleCath]

Cradle - are you in St. Louis by chance?

Nope, though I love that city & visit whenever I get a chance. I’m in the Northwestern part of the state. Thank God & your Archbishop Burke (now Cardinal Burke) we have a new Bishop, trained by Cardinal Burke, who is turning things around right now. However, he faces SO MUCH opposition…both from priests & the laity…that he must take it slowly. Pray for Bishop Finn.

 

[Victorious]

Nope, though I love that city & visit whenever I get a chance. I’m in the Northwestern part of the state. Thank God & your Archbishop Burke (now Cardinal Burke) we have a new Bishop, trained by Cardinal Burke, who is turning things around right now. However, he faces SO MUCH opposition…both from priests & the laity…that he must take it slowly. Pray for Bishop Finn.

Bishop Finn is one of my heroes. Orthodox, outspoken in defense of the faith and of life, and a friend of the Traditional Latin Mass. Plus, I understand he canned the entire chancery staff when he started as bishop and shut down a big lay “ministry” education operation.

 

[savrx]

When it comes to baptism, for example, some baptize babies, others insist upon believers’ baptism by immersion. They argue that this is following Christ since he was baptized at age 30 in the Jordan River, etc. Personally, I don’t think the Bible is clear on this question.

Sure, baptizing entire households doesn’t explicitly state babies were baptized. Although it strains credulity to suggest there weren’t some small children in at least some of those families. No specific ban on baptizing babies is in there either. Additionally, Christian baptism is the fulfillment of what circumcision represented in the OT covenant: entrance into the covenant Family of God. Paul himself refers explicitly to baptism as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:10-11). When were Jews circumcised? As babies.

Roy5:

** On the other hand - am I being the ‘devil’s advocate’ here? - what is attractive about Protestantism, especially mainline Protestantism, is the way in which it allows room for divergent views.** I find among Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC members, Episcopalians, and even many Lutherans and Baptists there is a wide variation of belief.

You’re correct, there are a massive amount of divergent views within Protestant Christianity, the problem is none of them ever get resolved authoritatively. The list just keeps getting longer. To prove it, give me a well-known case in which two feuding sects within Protestant thought reconciled their differences and reunited. I can’t think of any. The reason it almost can’t exist is because there is no structural authority that can interpret as Christ for them. They all say they can, but WHO determines which one is correct?

Roy5:

** Now, contrast that with traditional Catholicism and fundamentalist Protestantism**. Both seem to believe that there is only one way, their way. If you don’t accept the views of the Magisterium or (in the case of some Protestants) a certain sect or pastor, you are looked down upon as some sort of heretic.

That is a false dichotomy. The Catholic Church allows and encourages a wide wide array of debate on all matter of issues related to living out our call as disciples. In fact, considering the 2000 year history of the Church…she has issued infallible edicts typically only in cases where dispute has run amok and is threatening unity. There is a difference though in “debating” something which has long been settled by the church as authoritative. Would you consider debate on the legitimacy of the Trinity as “attractive”? Of course not, you would call it by it’s true name…heresy. The issue is not so much whether debate and discussion are permitted within the Catholic Church, so much as the dividing line of what the Church has determined is Truth via the Holy Spirit. That is the Church’s mandate (“the pillar and foundation of Truth” - 1 Tim 3;15), and it takes it very seriously as it should.

Pretend that if Christ Himself were standing here as judge in these theological disputes. I think we would all agree (at least I hope we would) that He would render a definitive answer on all of them, laying out exactly what the Truth is and how it should be interpreted. It would be immanently clear that there is but One Truth. Following that directive, would any of us consider it attractive if groups continued to bicker over His answers? From the Church’s perspective, that is what is going on. Christ has given his answer through the Church (the King’s authority is granted to his prime minister…his master of the palace…the one who opens and no shall shut and shuts and no one shall open). Assuming further that the Church is correct in this ministry…why do we marvel at Her attempts to stamp out such unnecessary debate?

Roy5:

When the Church Fathers and the early Church Councils wrote about or endorsed this theological concept or that they lacked so much of the information that we have now.

The arrogance of that statement is shocking. If that is the case, why has the Church not “rescinded” any of it’s infallibly defined doctrines? Surely, as all governments, kingdoms, dynasties and other human institutions…they need to “change” Truth in order to fit the modern times eh?

Who knows your father’s life story best? You, your children and your family who knew and walked in his presence…or historians and academics 2000+ years from now reading fragments of his letters, commentary and such? Regardless of what technology is available in that time, I certainly would rather hear your words and thoughts about his life, not theirs. That is the Fathers for the Church. To ignore them is to proclaim that you know better than they do about truths which they fought (and died) to safeguard for us and all generations.

Roy5:

** But it's important to try to love everybody,** including those faifthul traditionalist Catholics and those "born-again' fundamentalist Protestants. As long as they do their best to obey the two great commandments, love God and love one another, God bless 'em. In fact, God bless everybody!

Amen! I hope all Christians would take to heart the two great commandments. But that is just the beginning. Christ commanded the Apostles to go forth, baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

That is a lot to teach, it is not all easy…and yet that is the command. To teach “all things” Christ commanded. The Apostles knew what those things were, and so can we for it has been handed on under the protection of the Holy Spirit. All we have to do is submit humbly to that Word.

 

[Roy5]

SAVRX

 A few thoughts - in response.

 (1) **Various Protestants of different ideas have merged.** I am particularly acquainted with Canada where two sizeable Calvinist groups (Congregationalist and Presbyterian) united with the (Arminian) Methodists to form the United Church of Canada. A similar union has been established in places like Australia and North India. Remember, too, that mainline Protestant groups the world over cooperate through the World Council of Churches and in the USA through the National Council of Churches. They do not necessarily compromise on their beliefs, but they recognize the right of Christians to hold differing views on issues where scripture is less than clear. Mainline Protestants also switch denominations quite easily, especially if, say, Methodists move and find that a Presbyterian Church is much closer or has a better Sunday School or is friendlier or.... 

 (2) **As I have indicated already, my inclination is to feel that none of us knows all that much about the ultimate mysteries of life.** Is it Psalm 119 that says something about such things 'are too high' for us to fathom? We're called upon to live by faith and not by sight. I can't see why it is such a problem to let Catholics have more freedom when it comes to doctrine. Is it obligatory to believe, for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, that the rock Christ spoke about was Peter rather than Peter's confession, that we should pray to various saints for this or that favor, etc. And some of the miracles the Lords tell about on EWTN. Wow! The modern mind has to struggle to believe that they include some stories that are a difficult (an understatement) to believe. Did Padre Pio actually levitate, bilocate, etc.? Hm!

 (3) **The core of the gospel, at least as I read it, is love God and one another**. Emphasis on doctrinal conformity has resulted over the centuries in bigotry, arrogance and even violence when the Church should be teaching tolerance, humility and peace. I have enormous admiration for the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Amish and other 'peace churches' which seem to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously. See Matt.5:21-26; 6:43-48. 

 (4)** I always have been deeply impressed by the parable of the Good Samaritan, where doctrine isn't mentioned, as well as Matt. 25:31ff., where again there is no hint that either doctrine or church connection is related to entering life eternal.** Again, both focus on serving Christ through serving one another.

 Merry Christmas to our brothers and sisters of the Eastern Church who still celebrate according to the Julian calendar. I believe that today (June 6) is their Christmas Eve this year.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, it’s true. Protestantism has many divisions, many differences of opinion. When it comes to baptism, for example, some baptize babies, others insist upon believers’ baptism by immersion. They argue that this is following Christ since he was baptized at age 30 in the Jordan River, etc. Personally, I don’t think the Bible is clear on this question.

Actually anyone, even an atheist, is able to baptize using the Church’s approved formula. We all become “brothers” in that sense.

 

[savrx]

SAVRX
(1) Various Protestants of different ideas have merged. I am particularly acquainted with Canada where two sizeable Calvinist groups (Congregationalist and Presbyterian) united with the (Arminian) Methodists to form the United Church of Canada. A similar union has been established in places like Australia and North India. Remember, too, that mainline Protestant groups the world over cooperate through the World Council of Churches and in the USA through the National Council of Churches. They do not necessarily compromise on their beliefs, but they recognize the right of Christians to hold differing views on issues where scripture is less than clear.

Point taken, reunification does occur. However you must admit that is the exception and that the norm is to simply create yet another competing set of theories, many of which overlap, but that yet again lead to a sort of anarchic structure of evangelization as seen by the unbelievers of the world.

 (2) **As I have indicated already, my inclination is to feel that none of us knows all that much about the ultimate mysteries of life.** Is it Psalm 119 that says something about such things 'are too high' for us to fathom? We're called upon to live by faith and not by sight. I can't see why it is such a problem to let Catholics have more freedom when it comes to doctrine. Is it obligatory to believe, for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, that the rock Christ spoke about was Peter rather than Peter's confession, that we should pray to various saints for this or that favor, etc. And some of the miracles the Lords tell about on EWTN. Wow! The modern mind has to struggle to believe that they include some stories that are a difficult (an understatement) to believe. Did Padre Pio actually levitate, bilocate, etc.? Hm!

Of course some things are “too high” for us, we are dealing with the finite (mankind) grappling with infinite (divine) truths! That is not the question. The question is whether that which has been REVEALED to mankind by God is knowable (fixed) and from where it can be known.

 (3) **The core of the gospel, at least as I read it, is love God and one another**. Emphasis on doctrinal conformity has resulted over the centuries in bigotry, arrogance and even violence when the Church should be teaching tolerance, humility and peace. I have enormous admiration for the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Amish and other 'peace churches' which seem to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously. See Matt.5:21-26; 6:43-48.

Emphasis on doctrinal conformity in orthodoxy has kept many a soul on the straight path as well. Focusing on abuses (sins) of specific individuals within a particular set of doctrinal beliefs does nothing to advance or retard one’s case in examining the legitimacy of said doctrines. For what we are contemplating is not truths as mankind has come to understand them, but the very source for the dissemination of absolute Truth in which all creation exists, and in which all truths mankind has come to know can be tested against.

As for your admiration of the sects you mention, I concur wholeheartedly (as does the Church) in not only admiring but proclaiming the Truth found in those traditions as from the same source, Christ Jesus. We do not however commit to stopping at the doctrines of unification that we share and relegate the remaining disputes to a secondary status, but rather forge on in charitable teaching to hopefully someday reach what Paul saw…“one Lord, one faith, one baptism”.

 (4)** I always have been deeply impressed by the parable of the Good Samaritan, where doctrine isn't mentioned, as well as Matt. 25:31ff., where again there is no hint that either doctrine or church connection is related to entering life eternal.**

Taking individual parts of Scriptures and fabricating doctrinal stances apart from the whole Word is something the Church categorically rejects. Are texts which discuss the Father exclusively to lead us to the necessary conclusion that the Godhead is not Triune in nature? Of course not. The Scriptures are God-breathed and thus they come from the same Breath and have the same Life.

As such, notions that the absence of explicit correlation to defined doctrines and or “church connection” as you put it are naive. As an example of this…following your Matt 25:31 reference is “(34) Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”. Explicit declaration of Christ as “king” has significant doctrinal implications in relation to Matt 16:18 in which Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter, quoting Is 22 in doing so. Why would the king give his authority to another? Of what kingdom is this authority? How long does he wield it? In what manner is that authority to be obeyed? These questions arise directly and cannot be ignored.

Or if you prefer an example about the Good Samaritan parable that you (and I) love so much. I would bet good money that your understanding of that parable is limited (like most) to the purely moral aspect of it. And that is certainly a legitimate understanding of it, in how we should approach each other as disciples…yes, even to outsiders. However the Fathers saw that story as a phenomenal portrait of exactly who Jesus is, a deeper understanding that has largely been lost within Christianity today. When you get some time, I urge you to listen to this sermon (14 mins) by Fr. Robert Barron of Chicago on exactly this topic. I think you will be surprised at how much “doctrine” can be gleaned from even such a parable.

 

[larkin31]

The Pope’s “function”, if you will, is as a final arbiter and teacher in matters of faith and morals. His authority IS the authority of Christ, not his own.

Read Isaiah 22 about the office of prime minister and how the King gives his authority freely to his minister, expressly to wield in his name. The prime minister is not himself so important as the authority of the King expressed through him. This is the context in which Jesus gives the keys to Peter (and nearly verbatim quotes from).

So in the context of this discussion, what we’re saying is that with protestant theology that final arbiter is not a single man (the Pope) who wields the authority of Christ to bind and loose, but every man (you and I and every other believer). This is the crux of the difference.

There is much Catholic dogma produced by other persons that the Pope never comments on. He is the highest authority, but he does not make all dogma.