The Protestant Brothers...Why do we have to listen to them?

[Ricardo_Gomez]

According to David Hunt, the author of “A Woman That Rides The Beast”, Catholics are the worshippers of the devil (pg453). As described by Mr. Hunt, our Catholic Church possesses the doctrine of the one world religion destined to live the grace, and then, the fury of the Antichrist (pg 465). Mr. Hunt’s book might seem truthful and reasonable, but the root of his theory has been exposed by Carl E. Olson, author of “Will Catholics Be Left Behind”.

This si not the first time our Catholic Church has been accused of wrong doing. As stated by Hunt (pg14), the Protestant brothers have identified the evil work for over two centuries. Olson, however, puts it real simple: “Even before the United States were formed, the New World was the home of prophetic aspirations. Colonized by Christians such as the Puritans, Nort America was thought to be a Promised Land where millennial dreams would be realized” (pg 167). The prophetic aspirations required prophecy experts; therefor, Hunt describes himself as such in the back cover of his book.

The Promised Land with the millennial dreams has been the house of fundamentalist, and Hunt’s work “is one of the most anti-Catholic, staunchly fundamentalist books of the 1990s” Olson (pg198). Also, “Harvest House, Hunt’s publisher is one of today foremost publishers of fundamentalist, dispensionalist books” Olson (page 198n).

In conclusion, Hunt’s remarks are rooted in the 1994 treaty tiltled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the 3rd Millennium”. In my personal opinion the decrease of hte moral values in the general population has affected Catholics and Protestants alike, and the leaders of the differentChristian denominations have realized it. For example, same sex marriage is on the rise and there are some protestatn denominations already practicing it, while child pornography has its supply matrix in the U.S. of America. There for, where Mr Hunt sees the work of the devil (the 1994 treaty), logic and common cense could be easily appreciated.

 

[Della]

There was bound to be a backlash within Evangelical circles to a document like “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the 3rd Millennium.” I readily found evidence of this fact on the www. It seems this document has had little to no impact in any practical way. In all the time I’ve been on this board I’ve never read any post by any Evangelical invoking it as a means to understanding one another. The fact is, ,many Evangelicals don’t want to acknowledge the Catholic Church as truly Christian–a laughable proposition to us Catholics and any real student of history.

Only the Holy Spirit can ultimately bring people to see the truth. Our job is merely to help them with their questions and concerns, not convince them of anything. As I recently wrote to another poster, even Jesus couldn’t convince everyone while he was on earth, what makes us think we can? As apologists I believe our job is to defend the faith, to answer questions, and to pray, pray, pray!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Dave Hunt, not even us protestants take him seriously. Only exterme anti-catholics think his books are worth reading. As for Harvest House, no one in serious scholarship takes that publisher seriously. Harvest House has the author sign a statement that the author has checked all his quotes. So, when I found many mis-quotes in Hunt’s Beyond Christianity or something like that, I wrote the publisher who sent a form letter saying it is the authors responsiblity to check quotes for accuracy. Then I wrote Hunt and got hate mail in response in the form of a form letter saying I must go to the library and do more research that God will show me the truth of his views. I have no respect for Hunt or Harvest Hosue at all.

Are the documents of the ECT online anywhere to read?

I am interrested in their documents on scripture & tradition, and on Mary.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

The only reason I follow “protestant” is because there is so many teachings out there its hard to know which one. And Im speaking of ALL religions.
So I narrow it down to Christ and then theres still a big choice of those who respect Christ.
Then narrow more to those that say Christ is the Son of God and died on the Cross.
That leaves catholics, protestants like baptist, pentacostal, etc
Then one finds them arguing about who is first or correct one.
Its a wonder anyone can find God with all this confusion.

So thats why this sola scripture comes out, yes I see theres still arguement of who wrote what and what history is involved. But to someone whos been called to God all they want to do is follow Him. So we narrow down again to just the bible to hopefully aviod confusion. Yes theres topics that come up in the bible and scripture to interpert BUT we stick with the scripture. BESIDES one can read the bible again and agian and still find more blessing inside its pages. Thats obvously the way God made it to instruct us in His ways.

If I attend another church the first thing I look for is what their basic statement of what they believe is. If it follows along the lines of the Nicene Creed then it deserves my attention. Until I find something I cant agree with then comes the ole interpertation. Then I decide if its something I can live with or not. Then make decisions of whether I attend. Apply that to books movies teachings etc.

The bottom line for me is Mary, while the catholics say one doesnt HAVE to believe if one doesnt then they are not catholic. I wont attend regularly any church that pushes something (not included in the basics) as something I have to believe. And Im doomed if Im not catholic.

No Im christian first and church second. I follow Christ not the name on the building. The problem is ALL who ackowledge Christ as their Savior are christians and He will make us one church. Not now but when He comes again. Im painfully aware of this history of the handed down church and it may be.

BUT it still doesnt address those who are not of the privilage of time to find a catholic church. Theif on the cross, death bed, pioneers who dont have a church nearby, Third world nations, Its illogical to concieve that God who looks for the last sheep would put all eggs in one basket of a church for people to find Him.

Satan learned the lesson in Babylon and hasnt had one religion since, a bunch that still direct those to him. Since satan cant come up with a original idea himself, where does one think he got it from?

Did anyone ever think that we are all of different personalities and will respond to different things? Maybe that explains the reason for different churches still wanting to worship the Risen Christ as Savior. Does ones children all show love the same way? no we are alll individual and the sooner we get that through our thick skulls the better. Because theres bigger problems than if someone attends a particular church

(remember the basics, dont mention those that dont recognize Christ as Lord, they are in a totally different group )

 

[joshua_b]

Kitty, you gave a very well thought and honest answer and I feel the need to commend you for that. I feel the need to clarify a few key points of the Catholic faith with you.

First, the Church does not state that you MUST be Catholic to go to heaven. The Church can not and does not claim to know the fate of any individual soul. We believe that the Catholic Church was the Church instituted by Christ and given to us with the FULL means for salvation.

As far as Mary is concerned, a noted Catholic aposogist who is a convert from a Protestant denomination once said, in his journey home, that he had only 3 final things to resolve about the Catholic Church…Mary, Mary, and Mary. I want to give you a challenge, and of course it is totally up to you to accept it. I challenge you to research as much as you can the Catholic teachings, where they originated, and what their basis is.

I myself am a “revert” who left the Catholic church, and ultimately came back, but experiencing other faith traditions really gave me an appreciation and understanding of non-Catholic Christianity (and ultimately led me BACK to Catholicism).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

joshua_b:

Kitty, you gave a very well thought and honest answer and I feel the need to commend you for that. I feel the need to clarify a few key points of the Catholic faith with you.

First, the Church does not state that you MUST be Catholic to go to heaven. The Church can not and does not claim to know the fate of any individual soul. We believe that the Catholic Church was the Church instituted by Christ and given to us with the FULL means for salvation.

As to that first sentence: this is certainly not what the CC used to teach - there may well be several perfectly honourable, truthful, reasonable, Catholic, orthodox & Christian explanations for the difference between the teaching of the Council of Florence and that of today, but the difference is in some sense real enough.​

The Fathers were even sterner - they all treat bodies not in communion with the Church as at best valueless for salvation. Non-Catholics were not less richly endowed with the means of salvation than Catholics - they were completely without those means. And salvation could be had in only in the Church: the bodies they were in - Donatist, Arian, Monophysite, Montanist, or whatever - had nothing of the Church but the name and the appearance. Christ did not save Montanists, but only Catholics. If Montanists (say) wanted to be saved, they had to leave their worthless sacraments behind, and their priests who were not priests, and the other worthless trash of their sect, and become members of the Church; otherwise, they were as sure of hell as unbaptised idolaters. That’s why, when writing of the burning alive of the Montanist deacon Metrodorus in the persecution under Diocletian, Eusebius of Caesarea is careful not to say of him (as he does of Catholic martyrs) that “he was perfected”.

The Fathers, the Church after them, the Catholic Church until at least the 18th century, all believed this. So did the Reformers.

I’m not saying there is a contradiction or change in the CC teaching - only that today’s teaching was not that of the Catholic Tradition in the past.

Catholic doctrine has a very severe temper and tone in some things - however imperfectly (sometimes very imperfectly indeed), this echoes the tone of the “hard sayings” in the Gospel. Damnation is a stern possibility: the Church still teaches it; and it used to be no less stern in its teaching about non-Catholics. There are good reasons for the presence of this tone and temper of in Christianity - the preaching of the Apostles was as severe and extreme in warning of judgement by Christ Crucified.

As far as Mary is concerned, a noted Catholic aposogist who is a convert from a Protestant denomination once said, in his journey home, that he had only 3 final things to resolve about the Catholic Church…Mary, Mary, and Mary. I want to give you a challenge, and of course it is totally up to you to accept it. I challenge you to research as much as you can the Catholic teachings, where they originated, and what their basis is.

A problem here is that historical research is full of surprises. Some of them are not easy to digest if one holds to a particular doctrinal view. There are shocks in store for us all, whatever the doctrine we hold - even for us Catholics. Not all facts favour, support or are easily compatible with Catholicism - just as not all people are. Which is exactly as might be expected. And this is as true of studying the history of teaching about, & of devotion to, Mary, as it is true of any other thing one cares to name.​

Should we listen to Protestants ? Of course - their sufferings and joys are graces are ours, and ours are theirs. ##

I myself am a “revert” who left the Catholic church, and ultimately came back, but experiencing other faith traditions really gave me an appreciation and understanding of non-Catholic Christianity (and ultimately led me BACK to Catholicism).

 

[Della]

joshua_b wrote:

First, the Church does not state that you MUST be Catholic to go to heaven. The Church can not and does not claim to know the fate of any individual soul. We believe that the Catholic Church was the Church instituted by Christ and given to us with the FULL means for salvation.

Gottle of Geer wrote:

As to that first sentence: this is certainly not what the CC used to teach - there may well be several perfectly honourable, truthful, reasonable, Catholic, orthodox & Christian explanations for the difference between the teaching of the Council of Florence and that of today, but the difference is in some sense real enough.​

The Fathers were even sterner - they all treat bodies not in communion with the Church as at best valueless for salvation. Non-Catholics were not less richly endowed with the means of salvation than Catholics - they were completely without those means. And salvation could be had in only in the Church: the bodies they were in - Donatist, Arian, Monophysite, Montanist, or whatever - had nothing of the Church but the name and the appearance. Christ did not save Montanists, but only Catholics. If Montanists (say) wanted to be saved, they had to leave their worthless sacraments behind, and their priests who were not priests, and the other worthless trash of their sect, and become members of the Church; otherwise, they were as sure of hell as unbaptised idolaters. That’s why, when writing of the burning alive of the Montanist deacon Metrodorus in the persecution under Diocletian, Eusebius of Caesarea is careful not to say of him (as he does of Catholic martyrs) that “he was perfected”.

The Fathers, the Church after them, the Catholic Church until at least the 18th century, all believed this. So did the Reformers.

I’m not saying there is a contradiction or change in the CC teaching - only that today’s teaching was not that of the Catholic Tradition in the past.

Catholic doctrine has a very severe temper and tone in some things - however imperfectly (sometimes very imperfectly indeed), this echoes the tone of the “hard sayings” in the Gospel. Damnation is a stern possibility: the Church still teaches it; and it used to be no less stern in its teaching about non-Catholics. There are good reasons for the presence of this tone and temper of in Christianity - the preaching of the Apostles was as severe and extreme in warning of judgement by Christ Crucified.

Apparently, Gottle, you are basing your statements on a very simple misunderstanding. What Florence and the Church Fathers were addressing was FORMAL HERESY. A formal heresy is one in which a member(s) of the Church decides, deliberately and with full knowledge some heresy, and so that member(s) is culpable of formal heresy, a very grave matter of mortal sin.

However, what the modern Church is more often dealing with is MATERIAL HERESY. A material heresy is one learned from another, usually one’s parents, and so is not a conscious decision to disbelief some teaching(s) of the Church. Such a person is not culpable of formal heresy since s/he/ is not guilty of it. The Church does not hold people accountable for what they do not know or have an insurmountable obstacle that prevents them from knowing the truth.

Recognizing that most modern Protestants are material not formal heretics, the Church tells us that they are not guilty of mortal sin, and so their baptisms have not been violated, as it was in the case with those who purposefully left Church teaching to embrace heresy. Does that help you understand the differences between Florence, the Church Fathers, and the current CCC?

 

[Contarini]

Della:

There was bound to be a backlash within Evangelical circles to a document like “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the 3rd Millennium.” I readily found evidence of this fact on the www. It seems this document has had little to no impact in any practical way. In all the time I’ve been on this board I’ve never read any post by any Evangelical invoking it as a means to understanding one another. The fact is, ,many Evangelicals don’t want to acknowledge the Catholic Church as truly Christian–a laughable proposition to us Catholics and any real student of history.

Della,

I think you’re right that the document had little direct impact. It reflected rather than causing a shift. But the shift is huge. Evangelicals (as opposed to fundamentalists, or the quasi-fundamentalist, usually Calvinist types who like to call themselves Evangelicals with a capital “E” as opposed to regular old evangelicals) have a very different attitude to Catholicismt han they did 50 years ago.

J.I. Packer was one of the signers of the ECT statement–Chuck Colson was another. Packer is one of the most solidly respected Calvinist evangelical theologians; Colson has huge influence in the political wings of evangelicalism. These guys are not just eggheads in an ivory tower–they speak for large sectors of evangelicalism. No, you aren’t going to find a lot of ordinary folks citing the ECT statement. But you are going to find them reading Packer and Colson, listening to Focus on the Family, subscribing to Christianity Today, etc.

The number of evangelicals who would say that “Catholicism is not Christian” is relatively tiny. There are a lot of evangelicals, so sure, there are still a good few hardline fundamentalists, and they’re disproportionately represented on the Internet. But in real life the situation is very different.

Here’s just one anecdote to illustrate the kind of shift I’m talking about. I had a conversation some months ago (just after the election of Pope Benedict) with the archivist of a Southern Baptist seminary. This is a guy close to the leadership of the SBC, which is hardly a wishy-washy institution these days. We got talking about the new Pope, and I expressed my admiration for his theology and encouraged the archivist to read some of his works. He was interested in what I had to say, and ended the conversation by saying, “I’m going to write him a letter on seminary stationery”–i.e., a letter congratulating him on his election on behalf of the seminary and in some sense on behalf of the whole SBC. (Yes, that sounds like a funny way of going about it–but these are Baptists we’re talking about!) What I got from the conversation was a sense that this archivist, like many Southern Baptists and other conservative evangelicals, really admired the Catholic Church for its stand on basic issues of traditional Christian doctrine and morality. I think that is the major factor in overcoming old-fashioned anti-Catholicism. More and more Protestants, both influential and rank-and-file, are coming to see Catholicism as an ally rather than an enemy. They may still disagree with aspects of Catholicism, but they are tending more and more to see these differences as “nonessential” in the same category as differences among Protestants (infant baptism, eternal security, etc.). Important, yes, but not of primary importance.

I do know something about what I’m talking about here. I have contacts in evangelicalism from the editorial staff of influential magazines to seminary professors to ordinary people in various Protestant denominations. Yes, anti-Catholicism lingers, but it’s decidedly on the wane. The reason the real anti-Catholic fundamentalists are so shrill is that they are contending not only with Catholics and liberal/mainline Protestants but with the vast majority of evangelicals who no longer feel the need to define themselves over against other Christian believers. The ecumenical trend within evangelicalism is one of the most important developments in North American Christianity in the past century.

Edwin

 

[Della]

Yes, anti-Catholicism lingers, but it’s decidedly on the wane. The reason the real anti-Catholic fundamentalists are so shrill is that they are contending not only with Catholics and liberal/mainline Protestants but with the vast majority of evangelicals who no longer feel the need to define themselves over against other Christian believers. The ecumenical trend within evangelicalism is one of the most important developments in North American Christianity in the past century.

Edwin

Oh, I agree. Your comments stirred within my mind a phenomenon that I think many may have missed–of how various Protestant groups started out strongly supporting some position at variance with the Catholic Church and are either wandering even farther out until they have all but left true Christianity behind or they find themselves reconciling themselves with Catholic teaching, usually unaware of the fact until a Catholic points it out to them.

I believe it is a part of the winnowing process in which the wheat (those who tend towards the truth) remain while the chaff (those who have given up the faith “once delivered”) drift farther and farther off. Jesus asked his Father that we all be one, and since the Father always answers the prayers of the Son, those who allow the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth will draw closer to the Church Christ founded, and those who decide to follow the spirit of the age will distance themselves more and more from it.

This last group includes, oddly enough, both fundamentalists as well as the worldly heterodox since both pull away from the Church in order to follow their own opinions, be they motived by hate, on one extreme, or by the desire to be loved by the world on the other.