What do Protestants think of the church built by Jesus?

[Eden]

Regarding St. Thomas More, “In his and again in (both in 1533) he defended the principle of punishment of heresy by secular power on the ground that it threatened the peace and safety of the commonwealth. As Chancellor it was his duty to administer the civil laws of England, which prescribed the death penalty for obstinate heretics. Nevertheless, during his term of office only four, it seems, were burned, and these were relapsed persons, whom he had no power to reprieve.” (Only recalcitrant heretics were turned over to the state who exacted punishment.) Thomas Madden’s article is a good source of background information:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

It is true that the Church defended the burning of heretics by secular authorities. The defense was based on the Biblical “Mosaic Inquisition”. “There was an “Inquisition” recorded in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 17, we read: “If there is found among you . . . a man or woman who . . . has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, . . . then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones” (Deut. 17:2–5).” catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807chap.asp

Heresy had been a crime against the state in Europe. Secular authorities carried out punishment. Thankfully, times have changed.

 

[Shibboleth]

Eden:

Jesus very clearly gave us a “visible Church”. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disiple of St. John and so he received both revelation and the interpretation of revelation directly from the Apostles. In his writings, St. Ignatius shows that the Church Christ founded was “visible”. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of a visible Church when he outlines its nature in 107, marking it, for the first time of which we have record, as the “Catholic Church”: “Where the bishop is found, there let the people be, even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

I agree with you Eden. I should point out though that the writings of Ignatius of Antioch hold about as much water as the writings of Dr. Seuss to the average Protestant when it comes to such things.

 

[jusher7281]

Shibboleth:

I agree with you Eden. I should point out though that the writings of Ignatius of Antioch hold about as much water as the writings of Dr. Seuss to the average Protestant when it comes to such things.

Why wouldn’t his writings, or those of any other Church Father, carry any weight? Is it because they aren’t part of inspired Scripture? Maybe not, but Ignatius in particular, was a direct disciple of The Beloved Disciple, John, so he would know what the real deal was, don’t you think?

 

[Catholics4Life]

jusher7281:

Why wouldn’t his writings, or those of any other Church Father, carry any weight? Is it because they aren’t part of inspired Scripture? Maybe not, but Ignatius in particular, was a direct disciple of The Beloved Disciple, John, so he would know what the real deal was, don’t you think?

I have often wondered this myself. They believe Paul. Why? I guess because his writings are in Scripture. But where did our approved Books of Scripture come from?

I have had Protestants tell me that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine and that believing in things like the Real Presence is just pagan and JW say that the early Christians didn’t believe in the Trinity, that it is also pagan. So I show them where the earliest Christians believed in these things, and there response is “I don’t care about history, I only care about the bible”.

 

[Contarini]

Eden:

The Jesuits who owned slaves at Georgetown is quite troubling. I found this article which says “When Pope Pius VI in 1823 ordered the society to surrender the slaves, the American Jesuits turned to an international rule that prevented Rome, a foreign power, to intervene in American affairs.” This illustrates that the Jesuits who owned slaves were acting against Church teaching and it was not nuanced in this case.

Here is the source: thehoya.com/features/020299/features1.htm

Eden,

Thanks for that article. As so often, the Catholic Church comes off a bit better when you know the details. The story still is troubling, but it’s reassuring to know that the Pope did try to get them to sell the slaves. And, of course, it’s rather interesting (this isn’t the only instance) that in the 19th century American Catholics were defying moral injunctions from Rome! It makes even me admit that centralized papal authority is not always a bad thing . . . .

Edwin

 

[Hegesippus]

Shibboleth:

I agree with you Eden. I should point out though that the writings of Ignatius of Antioch hold about as much water as the writings of Dr. Seuss to the average Protestant when it comes to such things.

And this is really truly sad that Protestants would do away with certain Apostolic Tradtions. This was a man who walked and talked with the Apostle John.

 

[Contarini]

Eden:

Regarding St. Thomas More, “In his and again in (both in 1533) he defended the principle of punishment of heresy by secular power on the ground that it threatened the peace and safety of the commonwealth. As Chancellor it was his duty to administer the civil laws of England, which prescribed the death penalty for obstinate heretics. Nevertheless, during his term of office only four, it seems, were burned, and these were relapsed persons, whom he had no power to reprieve.” (Only recalcitrant heretics were turned over to the state who exacted punishment.) Thomas Madden’s article is a good source of background information:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

It is true that the Church defended the burning of heretics by secular authorities. The defense was based on the Biblical “Mosaic Inquisition”. “There was an “Inquisition” recorded in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 17, we read: “If there is found among you . . . a man or woman who . . . has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, . . . then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones” (Deut. 17:2–5).” catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807chap.asp

Heresy had been a crime against the state in Europe. Secular authorities carried out punishment. Thankfully, times have changed.

Eden,

I grant everything you say, but my point was simply that someone in the sixteenth century could not have gained perfect moral clarity on this point by following what the Church was saying. The Catholic Church’s teaching was clearly influenced by cultural factors (particularly the heritage of Roman law, which is where the very concept of an “Inquisition” comes from) in precisely the ways that Catholics now reproach mainline Protestants. On the whole, I’d agree that abortion is far worse than executing heretics, but contraception IMHO is far less serious. The broader point is simply that all churches (whether or not they can claim to be infallible in terms of solemnly defined dogma) have fallen down at some point in terms of upholding the values of the Gospel over against the world’s values.

Edwin

 

[Eden]

Contarini:

Eden,

I grant everything you say, but my point was simply that someone in the sixteenth century could not have gained perfect moral clarity on this point by following what the Church was saying. The Catholic Church’s teaching was clearly influenced by cultural factors (particularly the heritage of Roman law, which is where the very concept of an “Inquisition” comes from) in precisely the ways that Catholics now reproach mainline Protestants. On the whole, I’d agree that abortion is far worse than executing heretics, but contraception IMHO is far less serious. The broader point is simply that all churches (whether or not they can claim to be infallible in terms of solemnly defined dogma) have fallen down at some point in terms of upholding the values of the Gospel over against the world’s values.

Edwin

A difference between the Inquisition and abortion is that the leaders of the Church who promoted executions of heretics believed that heresy was a grave sin. They were acting on a belief that they were protecting the Gospels. I don’t see how accepting abortion under certain circumstances can be paralleled here as there is no perceived threat to the faith from these unborn babies.

Here is one source that speaks to the idea of heresy as a grave sin:

ewtn.com/library/answers/inquis2.htm

“Before approaching the history of the Inquisition, one must keep in mind two basic points: First, the Church has been entrusted by the Lord to preserve the deposit of faith and to hand on the authentic faith to later generations. At the ascension, Christ said to the Apostles, “Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Therefore, heresy—“the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith” (Catechism, No. 2089)—was seen as a particularly grave sin. Not only was a heretic’s soul in jeopardy, but also his false teaching jeopardized the souls of others. The Church, as the guardian of souls, had to “root out” any such heresy.”

Here is a source that speaks to the issue of the Inquisition and abortion:

“The reason why accurate information about the Inquisition fails to penetrate the popular mind is not such a mystery after all. Numerous people have a vested interest in keeping the traditional image alive, and unhappily some of them are Catholics. Those who resent the Church’s claim to moral authority use as their most effective weapon the allegation of hypocrisy - how can this Church which has the blood of millions on its hands dare to condemn abortion? For some Catholics the good news that the Inquisition was not as bad as they thought is really bad news, and they refuse to hear it. Post-conciliar Catholicism has spawned in many people a permanent attitude of obsequiousness before the secular world, and they know no other stance except that of continuous apology. Their view of the present Church requires them to believe that the Church of the past centuries was really a nightmare from which we are finally waking up.”
Source: catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html

 

[Shibboleth]

Catholics4Life:

I have often wondered this myself. They believe Paul. Why? I guess because his writings are in Scripture. But where did our approved Books of Scripture come from?
:

A few things here…

First I also agree that it is sad that some Protestants disregard the Church Fathers unless they support their point of view.

In regards to some of the comments on the above post… Protestants believe in the writings of Paul because they are inspired – that is they are actually God’s words. The Church Fathers, although very wise and close in temporal proximity to the Apostles, didn’t have this charism. The infallible proclamations of the Magisterium are not even considered inspired – which brings me to the second part.

The Ecumenical Councils didn’t give us the inspired Books of scripture it simply infallibly confirmed which books are part of the Canon. The ecumenical decision of which books belonged in scripture was not divinely inspired. When one states that a thing has the charism of infallibility it doesn’t mean that they have a special knowledge – it means that the Holy Spirit will not allow them to make a false statement or decision on this issue.

In regards to the Canon of scripture it was compiled originally by those without any authority of any kind. So in that sense the Protestants were the same as those in the Early Church. It wasn’t until the scriptures came into question that the tool of infallibility was utilized to say that this Canon is true and this one is not…

Since Protestants don’t believe in infallibility they simply hold to the fact that we are still like the Early Christians and the guide on what belongs in Canon is careful study and prayer.

 

[Catholics4Life]

Hi Shibboleth, thanks for your reponse. I have a question though before I address some of the things you mentioned. You said:

Shibboleth:

In regards to some of the comments on the above post… Protestants believe in the writings of Paul because they are inspired – that is they are actually God’s words. The Church Fathers, although very wise and close in temporal proximity to the Apostles, didn’t have this charism.

And this reponse was somewhat anticipated and that is why I referred to Paul, rather than say, John. Paul was not an original Apostle and he did not set out to give an account of Jesus, as did the writers of the four Gospels. He wrote the letters to the Corinithians for example and my bible notes that:

“Paul’s first letter to the church of Corinth provides us with a fuller insight into the life of an early Christian community of the first generation than any other book of the New Testament. Through it we can glimpse both the strengths and the weaknesses of this small group in a great city of the ancient world, men and women who had accepted the good news of Christ and were now trying to realize in their lives the implications of their baptism. Paul, who had founded the community and continued to look after it as a father, responds both to questions addressed to him and to situations of which he had been informed. In doing so, he reveals much about himself, his teaching, and the way in which he conducted his work of apostleship. Some things are puzzling because we have the correspondence only in one direction. For the person studying this letter, it seems to raise as many questions as it answers, but without it our knowledge of church life in the middle of the first century would be much poorer.”

So he wrote about the early Church, right? So why are his writings considered “God’s words” but St. Ignatius’ words are not? Who had the authority to decide whether or not Paul’s word’s were divinely inspired? Are they considered to be divinely inspired simply because Paul’s letters were written first and were put into Sacred Scripture? Did God’s Divine intervention stop at Paul?

 

[Contarini]

Eden:

A difference between the Inquisition and abortion is that the leaders of the Church who promoted executions of heretics believed that heresy was a grave sin. They were acting on a belief that they were protecting the Gospels. I don’t see how accepting abortion under certain circumstances can be paralleled here as there is no perceived threat to the faith from these unborn babies.

It is distasteful to me to summarize a position with which I so strongly disagree, but pro-choice Protestants would say that they support abortion rights only because there are circumstances in which tragic decisions must be made and a greater evil would follow from compelling the mother to carry the pregnancy to term. (The UMC, which admittedly has a more moderate statement than some due to the recent influence of conservatives, speaks of “tragic conflicts of life with life.”) So in fact, horrifying as it may seem, these folks really think they have good theological and ethical reasons for wanting the legal option of abortion preserved.

Very few people really see abortion as a good thing or as a morally trivial issue, and as far as I know none of those people (whom may God bring to repentance) are or claim to be Christians.

I said explicitly that I did not think that the execution of heretics was on the same level as abortion. The issue initially raised was contraception, not abortion. Therefore my point stands–on a serious moral issue (the death penalty for heretics) the Catholic Church (albeit non-infallibly) took a position that we all agree now was seriously wrong. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the Catholic Church has always spoken with perfect moral clarity against the immorality of contemporaneous society. As government became more coercive and deliberately brutal in the later Middle Ages and early modern period, the Church also took a harsher and harsher line, and threw its weight more and more behind the use of government power in ways that we regard as reprehensible today. The Catholic Church, like all other religious bodies, is influenced by the society in which it lives, sometimes in deplorable ways. (Indeed, the Catholic Church played a leading role in instituting Roman law, and often urged governments to be harsher toward heretics; however, for the sake of my argument the standard defense that the Church was following a secular lead works extremely well.) This does not refute the Catholic Church’s claims–it simply nuances them significantly.

Edwin

 

[Eden]

You make a good point about the issue of moral clarity and the Inquisition. My initial respose is that I don’t have one. If I come up with a good response to that, I’ll let you know.

The one problem I have with your reasoning, is that you are using the fact that the Church condoned the execution of heretics as an illustration that both the Church and Protestant churches have been influenced by contemporary culture. The reasoning that the Reformers had in breaking away from the Church was that they were *improving *upon a corrupt Church. It’s not a valid argument to say that Protestant churches are guilty just as the Church was (in your argument) guilty. Today every Protestant church teaches at least one of these un-Christian values: abortion in some cases, contraception, divorce, homosexual unions/practicing homosexual ministers. I was not there in the Middle Ages so I can only read various historical analyses to reach conclusions on the Church at that time. What I do know is that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that presents moral clarity today. That is clear proof to me that the Church is the Church established by Christ and that the Protestant churches were a fallible experiment of men.

 

[Shibboleth]

Catholics4Life:

Hi Shibboleth, thanks for your reponse. I have a question though before I address some of the things you mentioned. You said:

And this reponse was somewhat anticipated and that is why I referred to Paul, rather than say, John. Paul was not an original Apostle and he did not set out to give an account of Jesus, as did the writers of the four Gospels. He wrote the letters to the Corinithians for example and my bible notes that:

“Paul’s first letter to the church of Corinth provides us with a fuller insight into the life of an early Christian community of the first generation than any other book of the New Testament. Through it we can glimpse both the strengths and the weaknesses of this small group in a great city of the ancient world, men and women who had accepted the good news of Christ and were now trying to realize in their lives the implications of their baptism. Paul, who had founded the community and continued to look after it as a father, responds both to questions addressed to him and to situations of which he had been informed. In doing so, he reveals much about himself, his teaching, and the way in which he conducted his work of apostleship. Some things are puzzling because we have the correspondence only in one direction. For the person studying this letter, it seems to raise as many questions as it answers, but without it our knowledge of church life in the middle of the first century would be much poorer.”

So he wrote about the early Church, right? So why are his writings considered “God’s words” but St. Ignatius’ words are not? Who had the authority to decide whether or not Paul’s word’s were divinely inspired? Are they considered to be divinely inspired simply because Paul’s letters were written first and were put into Sacred Scripture? Did God’s Divine intervention stop at Paul?

Ok, I will play devil’s advocate.

I don’t have time to go into detail. The reason that Protestants hold Paul as having apostolic privileges is because scripture states that he is an apostle. I know, I know it is a tautology but that’s the argument.

For instance in 1 Cor 9:1 Paul defends his Apostolate.

Even the Catholic Church admits that inspiration and revelation were gifts that ended with the Apostles.

The Church Fathers were not spoken of as being Apostles. In fact the Gospels themselves speak of the Apostles leaving the scene and what authority they delegated at this point. Titus 1 Speaks of this… alas I have run out of time to write. A better arguement would have been Tim in my eyes.

 

[azcelt]

eden,for the most part i agree with you that the catholic church is the only church teaching moral clarity,although i.m not roman catholic i do put a lot of stock in what the church teaches,and even grant that the pope is first among equals of the western churches,though i don,t concede infallibility,you may consider what the moral teachings of the lutheran church-missouri synod are they seem to be very close to the catholic church on morality,stridently pro-life,against gay marriage,male only pastors,no gay clergy,etc.on moral issues the catholic church has a strong friend there. in christian unity,celt

 

[azcelt]

Speaking of moral clarity and teachings,i agree that most mainline churches lost there orthodox christian credentials with wishy washy positions on abortion,gay clergy,divorce,etc.but really how can catholics have the superior moral outlook when their own bishops,priests,and even the vatican looked the other way and let those monsterous pedophiles priests continue to abuse those poor defenseless children and allowing them to be transferred to other parishes instead of protecting the innocents.seems like hypocrisy to me to cast stones at other denominations about morality. in christ,celt

 

[Catholics4Life]

Shibboleth:

Even the Catholic Church admits that inspiration and revelation were gifts that ended with the Apostles.

No, not true. Thank you for helping me to better understand what Protestants believe though. God bless you.

“The view that corresponds to Scripture is the Catholic understanding of a God who gives revelation to man in all periods-even today, in private revelations-not the Protestant view of a God who remains utterly silent, century after century.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9803chap.asp

 

[Eden]

azcelt:

Speaking of moral clarity and teachings,i agree that most mainline churches lost there orthodox christian credentials with wishy washy positions on abortion,gay clergy,divorce,etc.but really how can catholics have the superior moral outlook when their own bishops,priests,and even the vatican looked the other way and let those monsterous pedophiles priests continue to abuse those poor defenseless children and allowing them to be transferred to other parishes instead of protecting the innocents.seems like hypocrisy to me to cast stones at other denominations about morality. in christ,celt

Oh, no! The pedophile card! Just kidding. I agree that the the pedophilia of some priests and the complicity of their bishops was pure evil. We were never promised that evil would not penetrate the Church just that the Church would be led “into all truth” and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Pedophilia is not a doctrine of the Church. I also think that this was a decidedly American crime as it is not as common in the universal Church. That is also an indictment of the American culture. My Granddad used to say, “We believe in spite of these people.” In other words, we believe in the Church and the “deposit of faith” that is true and was given to us from Christ and the Apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit despite those touched by evil who without the the protection of the Holy Spirit would have destroyed the Church. I wrote in another thread about the book by Phillip Jenkins *Pedophiles and Priests *which at the time of its writing the estimate of pedophile priests was .2-1.7% while the amount of pedophile Protestant ministers was 2-3%. That certainly does not excuse the priests at all but it illustrates that pedophilia is a present in all Christian churches.

 

[Eden]

Catholics4Life:

No, not true. Thank you for helping me to better understand what Protestants believe though. God bless you.

“The view that corresponds to Scripture is the Catholic understanding of a God who gives revelation to man in all periods-even today, in private revelations-not the Protestant view of a God who remains utterly silent, century after century.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9803chap.asp

Shibboleth is referring to public revelation which did end with the death of the last Apostle. Private revelation still occurs to deepen our understanding of the deposit of faith. True private revelation does not contradict the deposit of faith.

 

[Eden]

azcelt:

eden,for the most part i agree with you that the catholic church is the only church teaching moral clarity,although i.m not roman catholic i do put a lot of stock in what the church teaches,and even grant that the pope is first among equals of the western churches,though i don,t concede infallibility,you may consider what the moral teachings of the lutheran church-missouri synod are they seem to be very close to the catholic church on morality,stridently pro-life,against gay marriage,male only pastors,no gay clergy,etc.on moral issues the catholic church has a strong friend there. in christian unity,celt

I don’t understand the idea that because evil exists we should not have moral standards. Because we have sinful priests the Church should no longer maintain its moral positions? The morality given to us is not the morality of the people but the morality given to us by God the Father. You cannot change God’s truths. That’s what happens when churches teach that abortion is acceptable in certain cases, that marriage does not have a sacramental bond - husband, wife and God thus a divorced person is not committing adultery when they remarry, that contraception is not an interference with God’s will, that homosexuality is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, that practicing homosexuals may be ministers - these are all examples of teaching against or “changing” God’s own design. I completely disagree that because pedophilia was covered up by bishops, the Church should no longer teach that abortion, contraception, divorce and homosexuality are wrong.

 

[Sherlock]

Azcelt,

You wrote: “how can catholics have the superior moral outlook when their own bishops,priests,and even the vatican looked the other way and let those monsterous pedophiles priests continue to abuse those poor defenseless children and allowing them to be transferred to other parishes instead of protecting the innocents.”

The Church’s teachings are not rendered invalid because there are sinners within the Church. And frankly, the same thing has gone on in Protestant denominations: my best friend’s daughter was molested by a minister at her Evangelical church, who hid the information and basically brushed off my friend: I guess she made them feel guilty. They did NOTHING. No newspaper stories; no lawsuits; nothing. My friend’s daughter is now an atheist.