Skip to comments.
Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism
Celledoor.com ^
| 1940
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII
The Idealization of Protestantism
246. Protestants claim to belong to the Apostolic Church.
The claim cannot be sustained. That Church alone can be truly Apostolic which reaches back to the Apostles by the historical, spiritual, and social bond of uninterrupted succession. Jesus chose and commissioned the Apostles, and they formed the authoritative body in the Church. And in the same Church today there must still be an authoritative body derived from them. This derivation must be historically and socially evident in a visible Church. The whole chain depends on the first link, for that links the Church to Christ.
247. The Reformation was to restore the Apostolic Church.
So it is said. But Protestants do not claim an Apostolic character for their Churches in the right sense of the word. As a rule, they seek to attach themselves to Christ directly, without any intermediary society possessing historical continuity. They rather claim to have a religion "like" that of the Apostles, than one given them "by" the Apostles and their lawful successors. The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the Eternal Son of God became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social incarnation. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and tradition.
248. We cling to the traditions of the Apostles.
You mean that you have the same doctrines as the Apostles. That is not really true. But even were it true, it would not be enough. To profess someone's doctrine on the grounds of one's own approval of them does not mean social continuity with him. The Church is a society, and its life is collective and organized under one authority. Protestantism has no central authority, and no priesthood properly so-called. It has not an apostolicity such as the true Christian Church requires.
249. The Reformed Church has always acknowledged the Roman Catholic Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic; but that Christian judgment is not reciprocated.
Do all the Protestant Churches constitute the one "Reformed Church"? If so, would Methodists or Presbyterians admit that they are one with Judge Rutherford's Witnesses of Jehovah? After all, Judge Rutherford has as much, or as little right to set up his new Protestant sect as John Knox had to set up Presbyterianism. And it is not true, of course, that the Protestant Churches have always acknowledged the Roman Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic. The first Reformers rejected the Catholic Church as antichrist, and spoke of it with the utmost horror. Preaching in Edinburgh, in 1565, John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, declared that the Church is limited to those who profess the Lord Jesus, and have rejected papistry." The Catholic Church must be forgiven for refusing to admit relationship with Protestant Churches which originated with men who denounced her, and left her, and never returned to her. Is it reasonable to suppose that the new Churches set up by the Reformers are really in union with the Church they left? History and logic leave no room for the modern claim of Protestants to belong also to the Catholic Church.
250. Whom do members of Protestant Churches acknowledge as head of their Church on earth?
They have various systems of government. In some, as the Congregationalists, the members of each congregation are a law to themselves. In others, as the Presbyterians, authority is vested by the members in elected office-bearers, different assemblies prevailing in various localities. In these cases there is no universal bond of unity in the strict sense of the word. In Churches which have bishops, as the Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Episcopal or Anglican, power is vested in those bishops. In the Greek Church the power is ultimately traced back to one or other of almost a dozen different Patriarchs. There is no such thing as one united Greek Church. In the Anglican Church the final authority is traced back to the Crown of England. In the Catholic Church all authority on earth centers in one supreme bishop independent of any national rulers — the Bishop of Rome. Thus we have a genuine ecclesiastical unity side by side with the required universality of one and the same Church throughout the world.
251. Do the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches exist in such foreign countries as Germany, Russia, France, Spain, Norway, etc.?
They may have what may be termed "agencies" in some of those countries to cater for English-speaking tourists of the different denominations. But, insofar as any nationals of these countries profess Protestantism, they usually profess a type of Protestantism peculiar to themselves. Where the Catholic Church unites men of different nationalities in one and the same Christian doctrine, Protestantism permits variations in doctrine to suit the national differences of outlook amongst men.
252. You habitually speak of your own Church as the Catholic Church. What right have you to drop the prefix "Roman"?
Either ours is the Catholic Church, or there is no Catholic Church. The expression "Roman Catholic," though frequently used, is really meaningless. Grammatically it involves a contradiction in terms. For the word Catholic means universal or "not limited." To use the word "Roman" as a qualifying adjective of limitation or restriction is like speaking of the "limited unlimited." Again, geographically, the Catholic Church is that Church which exists in all the different countries of the world for members of those different countries. And our Church is alone truly Catholic in that sense of the word. The Church subject to the Bishop of Rome exists in every country precisely for the people of each different country. No other Church is universal in this sense of the word.
253. I cannot accept your verdict of Protestantism. You seem quite blind to all the positive good it has accomplished.
I am not blind to the good to be found in Protestantism side by side with its errors. But I am concerned with the Reformation movement as such; and I say that it was not justified.
254. When the Romish Church rose to power she abandoned the teachings of the Gospel until the people were fed up with the deal given by Rome.
The Catholic Church never abandoned the teachings of the Gospel. The laxity of many of her members in practice was made one of the excuses for the Protestant Reformation. But the Protestant defection from the Church was a great mistake.
255. The people gladly accepted the teaching in which the Apostles gloried.
You would find it very difficult to set out clearly the teachings of the Protestant Reformers which you believe to harmonize with those of the Apostles. For the Reformers themselves were anything but agreed as to what should be believed. They fought against each other's teachings bitterly, indulging in violent mutual recriminations.
256. Protestantism is a witness to the great truths that have stood the test of time.
It used to witness to some of them. But unfortunately it is allowing most of them nowadays to be denied without protest, and even by its official teachers and ministers.
257. Protestants believe the Bible to be the standard of Christian truth, and the very Word of God.
Many of their leading exponents dispute that today. But even amongst those who still accept the Bible, there is little agreement as to what the Bible means. The Catholic Church defends the Bible as the very Word of God, and is alone capable of giving the authentic interpretation of the sense intended by God.
258. The Bible gives spiritual freedom such as all Protestants enjoy.
The Bible nowhere gives freedom to believe as one pleases, or to worship as one pleases. It demands our submission to the truth that we may be free from error, and obedience to the Church that we may be free from false forms of religion.
259. The Reformation limited the power of priests, and liberated the people from an autocratic hierarchy.
It abolished the priestly office, limiting the ministry to the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of some of the Sacraments.
260. It meant a purifying of the ministerial office to an extent that makes it difficult to realise now the evils to which it was subject.
It is true that there were many evils amongst the clergy at the time of the Reformation. I will go so far as to say that, had the Catholic clergy of the time been all they should have been, the disaster would not have occurred. At the same time, if many were not true to their obligations, many also were strictly faithful, and some were saints fit for canonization. Nor did any really holy priest dream of leaving the Church. I deny, of course, that the ministry was purified by abandoning the priesthood, abolishing its obligations, and adopting definitely lower standards. However, as I have admitted, if the Reformation did not itself purify the ministry, it did occasion a vast movement of reform strictly so-called within the Catholic Church; and the Council of Trent made the most stringent legislation for the better formation of future candidates for the priesthood, and the elimination of abuses. While the Reformation, then, did not purify the ministerial office, it did challenge the Catholic Church to do so.
261. Protestant Churches are founded on personal trust, and freedom as to how and where we shall meet our Lord in prayer.
The Catholic Church does not exclude personal trust in our Lord. She insists upon it. And Catholics are perfectly free to seek union with Him in prayer whenever they wish. But the Catholic Church rightly forbids Catholics to seek union with the assemblies of others who profess doctrines other than hers. Whatever charity we have for the persons of others, we cannot extend approval to their erroneous teachings and forms of religious worship. You may be my friend; but your religion is not my religion; and you should not expect me to behave as if it were.
262. Protestantism at least has meant liberty.
It liberated people from the Catholic Church. But that was a liberation from the restraints of the truth revealed by Christ, and from His moral laws. In his excellent book on "Luther and His Work," Mr. Joseph Clayton, F.R.H.S. writes, "Whither has Luther led his followers? Into what promised land, after the years of wandering outside the Catholic unity, are now brought the Protestants who date their emancipation from Martin Luther? Four centuries of journeying since Luther started the exodus, and yet the promised land of the Lutheran evangel, so often emergent, fades from sight even as the mirage vanishes in the desert. It is the wasteland of doubt that Protestants have reached — a wasteland littered with abandoned hopes and discarded creeds."
263. The Reformation meant the restoration of public prayer to its right place as the duty and privilege of every servant of God, and not the monopoly of a select class of monks and nuns called ironically the Religious.
Such a sneer at those who consecrated their lives to God in the Religious Orders is unworthy of a Christian. Meantime, while the suppression of the monasteries meant the suppression of the worship offered to God within them in the name of the whole Church, what have people made of the duty and privilege of public prayer? Protestant clergymen complain regularly of lost congregations, empty Churches, and the neglect of public worship. That scarcely sounds like the restoration of public prayer to its proper place as the right and duty of all the faithful. On the other hand, Catholic Churches are filled to overflowing.
264. The Reformation meant a purifying of family life.
In what way? The Catholic Church certainly cannot be blamed for the growth of loose ideas of marriage, easy divorce, the widespread plague of contraceptive birth control, and other acknowledged evils tending to break down family life.
265. How can you escape the evident success of Protestantism?
I deny that its success is evident, at least from the genuinely Christian point of view. Genuine Christianity leads to supernatural rather than to merely natural ideals. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world, and definitely bade us "love not the world." A spiritual and unworldly outlook is therefore the outstanding characteristic of the Catholic religion. I do not say that it is the outlook of all individual Catholics. But insofar as he has not a spiritual and unworldly outlook, a Catholic has drifted from Catholic ideals. On the other hand, Protestantism does not, of its very nature, lead to a spiritual and unworldly outlook. If some good Protestants are truly spiritual, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it. The contrast is evident in the fact that Catholicism will propose as one of her heroes a St. Francis of Assisi who utterly rejected worldly goods, sought poverty and holiness of life, and ended up as a canonized Saint. But the heroes of the Protestant tradition grow from penniless boys into millionaires, or travel from log cabin to White House. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholicism; christianity; protestantbash; protestantism; radiorepliesvoltwo; religion; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-375 next last
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
1
posted on
05/08/2010 9:30:28 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
To: fidelis; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; Graing; bboop; ...
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
2
posted on
05/08/2010 9:31:22 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
3
posted on
05/08/2010 9:32:23 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
4
posted on
05/08/2010 9:38:36 PM PDT
by
rogue yam
To: GonzoII
5
posted on
05/08/2010 9:49:40 PM PDT
by
Cronos
(Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
To: GonzoII; Alex Murphy; JesusBmyGod; Whenifhow; rom; Hanna548; DvdMom; leftyontheright; FrdmLvr; ...
I have but one question for you GonzoII, and other Catholics on FR who have been itching for a fight with FR Protestants lately.....
Why do you wish to pick a fight with those who hold to the Protestant and non denominational faith?
Do you really desire to debate, or just incite a fight? What purpose is there in questioning the very legitimacy of the protestant reformation, which in turn would pit the reasons for it against the well documented heretical practices of the Catholic Church leading up to and since the reformation?
It seems that many Catholics on FR lately are itching for a fight.
My question is why?
What to you expect to gain by it. Do you even realize that all you will accomplish is the ridicule of those on both sides? I say that because history proves that neither the FR Catholics, nor the FR Protestants ever back down. At least never on FR.
Yet you tempt fate anyway?
So far, I personally I have not yet taken the bate. Not in the twelve years of my membership, and very active participation in apologetic Christian discussions. I do admit that it is tempting, but each time I am almost drawn in I back off. Not for fear of losing the debate, but from fear of making us all look like the fools the left desires to see on display here.
All you do, both sides who push the issue here, is divide Christian conservatives who see eye to eye. I ask myself if some of you who wish to start this fight are even true conservatives. After all, the liberals have been wanting to divide Christians for a long time, and what better place to start then with the Catholic vs the Protestant faiths.
It is, after all, a proven fact that election after election Catholics overwhelmingly vote Democrat while Protestants overwhelmingly vote Republican. I also have noticed that in the last few years there has been an increase of new freeper members who are Catholic. It has been since that influx that we have had more divisive arguments here about the reformation vs the legitimacy of the Pope.
I know for a fact that the Catholic Church has been pressing hard to increase the membership of the Catholic Church because of so many who have left because of all the scandals. You and others on FR seem to be like the many Catholics I have ran into in my dealings the last few years, who are beginning to get very aggressive in attacking the legitimacy of the Reformation and thus the Protestant faith itself.
So, I ask you again sir.
What do you expect to gain by picking a fight with the Protestants and Non denominational Christians of FreeRepublic?
6
posted on
05/08/2010 10:07:54 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
To: OneVike
Got your back, brother. There’s a word for those who profess a Divine Right: SINNER!
7
posted on
05/08/2010 10:13:22 PM PDT
by
TruthHound
("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)
To: TruthHound
Thanks,,, It is always a good feeling to have backup.
8
posted on
05/08/2010 10:18:59 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
To: OneVike
I must admit to having the hair on the back of neck raise as I scanned most of the above. However, it is somewhat tempered by the quotes from “Catechism of the Catholic Church” he offers.
Still, it’s making me want to start a consistent series of daily threads against Catholicism.
9
posted on
05/08/2010 10:20:26 PM PDT
by
ConservativeMind
(Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
To: GonzoII
10
posted on
05/08/2010 10:25:54 PM PDT
by
TruthHound
("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)
To: GonzoII
My answer to #250 would be "Jesus Christ" is my "authority on earth, now and forever."
He and He alone is the Head of my Faith, for their is none other for a true Christian.
To believe other than that is to place mortals above God and that is not Christianity but paganism.
11
posted on
05/08/2010 10:29:57 PM PDT
by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower)
To: OneVike
Well Said. I’ll stand by you on that.
12
posted on
05/08/2010 10:30:38 PM PDT
by
c-b 1
(Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
To: ConservativeMind
Still, it’s making me want to start a consistent series of daily threads against Catholicism.
Exactly, I really do not want to become a Catholic basher, but my patience does wear thin.
13
posted on
05/08/2010 10:31:25 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
To: zerosix
"My answer to #250 would be "Jesus Christ" is my "authority on earth, now and forever." That's fine. That Jesus established a Church to be listened to.
14
posted on
05/08/2010 10:47:47 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: OneVike
"What do you expect to gain by picking a fight with the Protestants and Non denominational Christians of FreeRepublic?" Who's picking a fight? This concerns doctrine about which Protestants and Catholics have their differences.
15
posted on
05/08/2010 10:50:40 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: OneVike
16
posted on
05/08/2010 10:55:16 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: OneVike
"I say that because history proves that neither the FR Catholics, nor the FR Protestants ever back down. At least never on FR." These threads are for Catholics who have an interest in learning more or being more edified about their faith and all others who may be interested in the Catholic faith.
If you choose to define that as picking a fight that is your right of opinion.
In this day and age of PC I would think the straightforwardness of the Fathers would be appreciated if not their doctrine.
17
posted on
05/08/2010 11:02:16 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
It seems unremarkable that Catholic catechisms profess the inerrancy and essentiality of the entirety of Catholic doctrine. What is less clear is why I should simply take the Catholic church’s word for it ... regardless of whether those words are in catechisms or not.
Citing Catholic writings as proof of the inerrancy of Catholic writings creates something of a feedback loop.
SnakeDoc
18
posted on
05/08/2010 11:03:27 PM PDT
by
SnakeDoctor
("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
To: GonzoII
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way. Just a note on this. While most of British law was incorporated into Australian law, one big exception were most of the above acts. This is because the Australian Constitution included the following section from the time it became active in 1901.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
(If it looks somewhat familiar, it is because the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as used as a starting model for it).
This section rendered most of the anti-Catholic laws that had passed in Britain over the years irrelevant within Australia.
There was some anti-Catholic prejudice here, certainly, but at about the time Father Rumble began his radio broadcasts in Sydney, Australia elected its first Catholic Prime Minister. He may well have experienced anti-Catholic feeling - I'm sure he did at times - but it wasn't down to the effects of Acts of Parliament.
19
posted on
05/08/2010 11:05:02 PM PDT
by
naturalman1975
("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
To: SnakeDoctor
"Citing Catholic writings as proof of the inerrancy of Catholic writings creates something of a feedback loop." Previously Radio Replies has given purely historical evidence as to why the Catholic church is believed to be the true doctrinally inerrant body esablished by Christ.
20
posted on
05/08/2010 11:10:52 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-375 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
