A Reflection on Apostasy

The Diocese Report/DRBlog ^ | Wednesday, August 14, 2002 | Brian Mershon

[ultima ratio]

I didn't forget, I just don't buy it. I know all about the FSSP--especially since its traditionalism is being watered down by Rome deliberately. SSPX has--and must--retain its freedom as long as the Novus Ordo apostates have control. It is at best highly doubtful Archbishop Lefebvre was anything other then a holy man who saw the disaster the modernists, were engineering. He refused to play along.

[TomSmedley]

Evangelical Christians believe, from the Bible, that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will come when Israel accepts Jesus as their Messiah. That is the "trigger" that Jesus is waiting for before He chooses to return.

The better thinkers among evangelical Christians are not dispensensationalists, and do not believe this.

[TomSmedley]

Why didn't the reformers look in that direction first before forming the myriad flavors of Christianity we have now?

Cyril Lucaris, patriarch of constantinople at the time of the reformation, carried on cordial correspondence with the Reformers.

[babyface00]

Could you please explain to me what the historical ancestry of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church has to do with God's plan of salvation?

This is only my opinion, but if Jesus established the church and said it would be around essentially forever, and since the only game in town was the RC church up until the 11th century (Othodox) and then up until the 16th century (Reformation), then for that to be true, whatever manifestations of the church that was around in those 500 years would have to be the true church.

As I'm RC, I'm trying to understand how many Protestant faithful can condemn the RC church as being somehow invalid, but yet participate in a church that essentiallly didn't exist for 3/4 of the time since Jesus' coming. I picked the Orthodox schism because its conveniently just before the crusades and first inquisition (usually used as examples to point out why the RC church can't be "the way"), then you have the Orthodox church sitting out there, pretty much doing what it was doing in the first millenium and basically ignored by the Reformation.

Seems to me, if Jesus really meant he would be with the church always, then either the RC or the Orthodox traditions (or both) must be valid, at least in the form they were in for the 500 years between the schism and the reformation.

AnalogReign's comments have been very helpful in understanding the Protestant position for me. I'm certainly not condemning Protestant beliefs, but one can trace a large portion of RC and Orthodox faith tradition nearly all the way back to Christ. It's not an accident. My observation is that anyone with a Bible can start a new flavor of Protestant Christianity and be accepted because there's no real authority absent one of the two historical churches. It seems a little fuzzy, as a Catholic looking over to the Protestant side. Satan is a pretty creative guy, and Catholics are quite aware of his meddling in the RC church. As a Protestant, how do you know what you're hearing is what Christ taught?

I mean, faith exists in the RC world too, but you can get som pretty divergent manifestations of it both within the RC church and taking all of Christendom as a whole. The RC and Orthodox churches can at least say they've made a pretty good effort of taking what Christ taught and preserving it through two millenia (no small task).

Certainly there's been stumbling, and continues to be. But comments that RC's should essentially abandon the church in favor of interpreting the Bible on their own? To me that's like attempting surgery by reading a copy of Gray's Anatomy. Sure, everything you need to know is in there, but wouldn't you be better off getting advice from someone who has studied surgery extensively? Yes, even trained surgeons make an occassional mistake, but most of the time, they're spot on. The RC church isn't perfect, but can you name any other organization with the historical, theological, philosophical and (believe it or not) scientific resources devloted to any subject, much less devoted to understanding the word?

[TomSmedley]

I don't think its hard to believe that the risen Christ has seen to it that there are faithful followers of His within all (small "o") orthodox denominations... and that human organizations are secondary to how people exercise His love in their lives toward each other. His kingdom--and the true one Church universal--are nothing less.

D'accord!

[semaj]

I would respectfully disagree that Christ ordained the building of a monolithic structure to be the sole administrator of salvation here on earth. Yes a Church was created, any and all who have accepted and follow Christ are part of it. Leadership is ordained, yes, but when the leadership fails that leadership can be, and will be replaced. As an example, I offer you King Saul.

[berned]

The Gospel of Matthew.

Chpt 23 -- 37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me.38And now look, your house is left to you, empty and desolate.39For I tell you this, you (ISRAEL) will never see me again until you say, `Bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'" .

Also in Zechariah chpt 12:

9 For my plan is to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David ( That's Israel) and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced (That's Jesus -- PAST tense -- "have piercED) and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.

The "better thinkers", Tom, believe what is written by God in the Bible.

[semaj]

Another and better example of replaced leadership would be the replacement of Eli with Samuel. Eli failed to take corrective measures against his sons' behavior (whore-mongering gluttony). It is implied in the story that Eli had plans for his sons to replace him in his ministerial position, as they could claim "historical ancestry" to that calling. God had other plans.

[arthurus]

It's the only church other than RC who can claim any historical ancestry to the early church

Not quite. There are still Nestorians and monophysites in the world

[babyface00]

I think you missed my point. It's not the historical succession per se, its the fact that they were around.

If the RC church was so corrupt as to be invalid, then there essentially was no major Christian church other than Orthodoxy until the Reformation. And since the reformers didn't choose to go with Orhtodoxy, it would seem that they believed that it wasn't up to snuff either.

From the point of the reformers then (at least by the time they they started their own churches), there wasn't a church from sometime before the schism up until the reformation. The opinion of many Protestants appears to be that the RC hierarchy is incapable of instructing Catholics with any sort of authority. Under what authority, then, do Protestant churches certify their teachings and what makes them any more or less valid than the RC church, since they didn't exist until 500 years ago? And, if the RC church is somehow invalid, and was invalid, then unless the Orthodoxy is valid, there was essentially no church from whenever the RC church got off track enough to be invalid up until the Reformation.

I'll buy that "the church" is really the sum of its members, but aren't those same members part of the RC church? Isn't it plausible that the RC church is at least as likely to be "right" on matters of faith than any other thoughtful Christian religion?

[tang-soo]

I'll repeat my comments I made yesterday on the original thread concerning this story ...

From original statement ...Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus.

Interesting that they do not mention The Scriptures as playing any role in their decision, only man inspired teachings and statements by the current holder of the papacy. Guess they haven't read John chapter 3 and Christ's conversation with Nicodemus who was the most religious of the most religious yet would be denied The Kingdom unless he was reborn. Sigh - another notch in the belt of Satan!