The Protestant Reformation and Women

There was a French author, Robert Beauvais, who said, "We all wake up each morning a little more Protestant." The Protestant spirit has dominated the outlook of Western Civilization since the 1500s. It traveled to America with the Mayflower and became the dominant mentality of Early American life. So many social commentators, from Max Weber to Robert Nisbet, have written about how it has been transfused, like lifeblood, into the economic, social and political life of the West. It is natural then, that this revolution had a strong influence on women, and this is the topic I want to address here.

Sometime ago, I spoke about how the natural and civil rights of women were respected in the Middle Ages [See audiocassette available from Tradition In Action, "The Middle Ages and Women"]. I told how under the influence and protection of the Holy Church and through the practice of virtue, Catholic queens and princesses converted their pagan husbands and gave birth to the Catholic nations of the West. I spoke about their role and impact on local and national affairs, in education and hospitals. Only in the Middle Ages could the simple daughter of a town cloth dyer, Catherine of Siena, exercise the authority to promote crusades, reconcile bandits and counsel her beloved Babbo - Pope Gregory XI. Christopher Dawson, a great 20th century English historian, noted that women at the end of the Middle Ages had a wider share in social life and a greater influence on civilization than at any time in history.

The role of women changed significantly after the Protestant Reformation.
How and why this was possible is what I want to examine here.

Allow me to first make a brief review of some essentials of Protestant doctrine so that we can look at their effects on women and society.

From the beginning with Martin Luther and John Calvin, there have been some basic common principles of Protestantism:

Let's look first at this loss of any intermediary relationships - the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, and the Church.

In my opinion, the greatest loss to the high status women had gained by the end of the Middle Ages was doing away with the cult and devotion to Our Lady. In the Catholic Church, there is the Kingship of Christ, and also the Queenship of Our Lady. In a Catholic nation, while the king was the father of families, in the household, the man was king of the family. As devotion to the Blessed Mother increased, the role of women likewise took on increasing dignity inside the home and family. Her queenship, similar to the Queenship of Our Lady, was emphasized. Subject to the head, the mother of a family was nonetheless imbued with the rights, dignity, and respect due a queen. This aspect of the mutual respect and dignity suffered a blow with the Protestant reformation.

By closing the convents and insisting that women marry, Protestantism also stripped the high respect and honor the Catholic Church had always given to virgins. In fact, the religious life for women, like that for men, following the three counsels for perfection that Our Lord gave - obedience, chastity and poverty - was considered a higher state of life. The religious vocation was the higher state of life, because it involved a complete dedication to the true work of God, which in the Middle Ages was understood as the praying of the divine office, which never ceased to be said. Hence, the name laus perenne - uninterrupted praise and glory to God. No, this is not a practical work by today's standards, because it existed first and foremost for the glory of God.

Further, as religious, they dedicated their lives to assist others, either through works of charity (teaching, nursing, etc) or prayer. These propitiatory prayers and sacrifices had the intermediary action of earning the salvation of others.

Neither this intrinsic good of prayer for the greater glory of God, nor this intermediary action for the salvation of others was considered "necessary" in Protestantism. Note I stress this word necessary - because one of the characteristics of the mentality that came from the Protestant Revolution is this tendency to reduce everything to the status of a useful good, the bonum utile, and the blindness to the reality of things that can be classified as bona honesta, intrinsic goods. An intrinsic good is something desirable for its own sake and not merely desirable for its ability to help us attain something else. A cloistered convent of Poor Clares, whose life centered around the praying of the Divine Office to give glory to God was the kind of bona honesta rejected by Protestantism. According to Luther and Calvin and all the reformers, convents and monasteries were places for idleness and sin, and the women in convents were either lazy or coerced to be there.

For man cannot be pure, according to Calvin and Luther's doctrine of depraved man. Of course, we know that the Catholic Church teaches that perfect chastity, in imitation of Our Lord and Our Lady, is possible with the supernatural life. The rejection of the supernatural life led Luther to say something very naturalistic, that most modern man raised with Freudian notions, would agree with: "A Christian body must generate, multiply and behave like those of birds and all animals. He was created by God for that. Thus, where God performs no miracle, man must unite with woman and woman with man."

So the convents were closed and the women were "liberated." A woman, who as the Bible said, should be governed by a man, no longer had any right to any vocation but marriage. The Church as the Bride of Christ was eliminated. From this came a new tragedy for a woman: that is, the tragedy of not being married. You can see how deeply entrenched this Protestant notion is in our own society with the negative connotations of the "old maid."

So, what should women do? What they were built for, according to founders of Protestantism. Let's go straight to the words of the major Reformers, or rather, Revolutionaries.

I will quote Luther, the self-proclaimed authority on family, for he said of himself: "Before my day nothing was known, not even what parents or children were, or what wife and maid." Until him, "not one of the Fathers wrote anything notable or particularly good concerning the married state."

This: "The saintly women desire nothing else than the natural fruit of their bodies. For by nature woman has been created for the purpose of bearing children. Therefore she has breasts. She has arms for the purpose of nourishing, cherishing and carrying her offspring." Again, the purely natural view of woman. Nothing of the supernatural.

Or this: "Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die. That is what they are there for."

Calvin said many similar things. In Protestant Geneva, motherhood became a sign, even a precondition, of a woman's moral and physical health. It was impossible for a woman to be good Christian except through marriage and motherhood.

John Knox, Scottish reformer: "To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or cities is repugnant to Nature; contumely to God, a thing contrary to His revealed will and approved ordinance. Finally, it is the subversion of good order, or all equity and justice." Good bye then to the women who were heads of orders and communities, who exercised such considerable influence in the Middle Ages through the ownership of property and privileges.

It really comes as no surprise to me that several centuries later, the feminist revolution and emancipation movement found fertile ground for growth, and particularly in the Protestant countries. It was in part a reaction to a distorted view of women, quite different from the view of the Middle Ages, in a Catholic society where there were many outlets for a woman to exercise her influence and capacities.

In Protestantism, what replaced virginity and poverty as the essential female virtue that signal holiness? For surely it couldn't be poverty anymore - a beggar woman like St. Fina or Margaret of Costello could never be held up as holy with the Protestant notion that the predestined souls can be identified by success in this life. Nor could it be charity like that practiced by St. Elizabeth of Hungary, because good works are no longer necessary, but "faith alone" saves.

Rather, the essential virtue for women became obedience, but it was an exaggerated obedience with no rule or intermediary, the Catholic Church, to govern its practice.

I'd like to tell a story that illustrates well a change in mentality that took place from the time of the Middle Ages to the era of the Protestant Revolution.

With Chaucer, it is clear that Griselda is a playful allegory of the virtue of Patience, and is not in any way an attempt to discuss everyday behavior. And just in case someone might be taking the story too seriously, Chaucer says at the end: (permit me to make a loose translation) 'This story is told not for wives to imitate Griselda's actions, for it would be insupportable if they should.'

However, by time Boccacio repeats the same story in the Decameron, he leaves off this warning at the end. This story actually became popular and was taken seriously as an ideal of perfect obedience the wife owed to the husband in the age of Protestant Revolution.

It is interesting to see that Protestant fundamentalists still stress this kind of unthinking obedience, ungoverned by any higher law of a Church, in the submission a woman owes a man. This point is driven home in a popular Protestant book, Me, Obey Him? by Elizabeth Rice Handford (more than a half million in print a few years ago). Several years ago, a Catholic woman gave me this book and asked my opinion. And in fact, it has many good points on the hierarchical structure of marriage established by Christ and the submission owed by the wife to the husband. Many Catholic women have also looked to it for "Biblical" guidance, because of a certain vacuum in recent Church guidance on the matter of obedience. Since the Council there has been much talk of complementarity and different but equal roles, but nothing about submission and obedience a wife owes her husband.

However, there are essential Protestant errors in Handford's book, such as her false reading of the Esau and Jacob story. Further, without sound direction, today's Catholics can become confused over the insistence that Handford placed upon obedience -- to the point that if a wife's husband does not want her to go to Church, she should not go.

What if the husband asks her to have an abortion? According to Mrs. Handford, you ask God to change your husband's heart on the matter. But if his heart doesn't change, the woman can have the abortion and kill her child, provided she obeys lovingly from the heart every command of her husband (like the patient Griselda). With this kind of fundamentalist interpretation, it is no wonder to me there should be a woman's liberation movement. I don't condone it. I only understand its existence.

In a Catholic society, the family, for all its importance, does not control the whole existence of its members. There remains a spiritual side of life that belongs to a spiritual society. In it, authority is reserved to a celibate class. A child must be obedient, but has a right to choose his or her vocation.

In a marriage, marriage is an "order of Love," as St. Augustine says, an order that calls for the primacy of the husband and the willing obedience and ready subjection of the wife. However, as Pius XI says in Casti Connubi, the husband may not command his wife to disobey God's law. And how does the wife know when her husband may be asking her to act contrary to God's will? A well-formed conscience should be her guide. He also distinguishes the subjection of the wife from the obedience that children owe parents.

The limits to the Catholic wife's submission are established by the Magisterium of the Church. Without this authority, early Protestantism sought for a new point of authority, and found it in an exaggerated authority of the husband and father, more reminiscent of the Old Testament Law than the New.

Of course, this Puritanical patriarchal power conflicts with the Protestant principle of equality. Therefore, while first movement of the Protestant revolution would uphold a strict family structure with an exaggerated authority given to the husband and father, the seeds of the revolt would eventually produce a different kind of family structure. It would be the feminist revolution that would demand absolute equality not only in matters of religion and private interpretation, but in every social institution, including marriage.

Here is another contradiction. While this first Protestant prototype of family emphasized the male and made the family the religious and social base of society, at the same time it struck a powerful Herculean blow to the stability of the institution of marriage itself with the introduction of divorce.

In the Catholic Church, The Church seals the sacrament of Marriage as an inviolable union. A union so sacred that St. Paul makes it the symbol of the union between Christ and his Church. As St. Frances de Sales said: "God joins the husband to the wife in a union so strong that the soul must sooner separate from the body of the other, than the husband from the wife."

However, this was not the way Luther and the Protestant revolutionaries interpreted St. Paul's words. Luther was clear about this: Marriage was a civil affair, "something to be ruled by local traditions, without any kind of Christian standard." "A material thing, like any other secular business." It shows how far free judgment may go in dealing with the most sacral of things.

Was this a good for the woman? Remember, her sole function in society now is marriage and childbearing. Now, further, with the introduction of divorce, she is denied the security and benefits - both psychological and economic - which come from an indissoluble marriage that affords her the security to raise her children without going to work and have a stable home.

Even Protestant historians agree that divorce, even though it was rare at the beginning, tended to favor the husband, not the wife. Further, divorce has been a major factor contributing to the present crisis in the family. Today more and more sociologists are agreeing that divorce is detrimental to the children, and has contributed to a narcissist, egocentric society we have been reduced to today.

I am sorry to say that the Protestant "reformers" are the remote cause for the sin and disorder that have followed in the wake of divorce in our day. Thus one modern feminist professor can teach: "Beginning with Henry VIII's attempts to divorce Anne Boleyn, the Protestant Reformation in England was from the start a reformation of gender and sexual politics."

The spirit of lawlessness is catholic idolatry of intercession/veneration of saints and it's sexual immorality of homosexual and fornicating priests and nuns and bashing of Christians as you heretic catholics do. Catholic response to reformation is known as counter-reformation.Since reformation was christian,counter reformation can only be anti-christian.After the reformation of 16th century catholics started Jesuit secret militia founded by Ignatious Layola to destroy christianity.Incidently the name of the society was “society of Jesus” aka Jesuits.From birth of catholicism(around AD350) it was the most potent antichristian organization in the world which did everything through the power of satan, to keep people from knowing the truth.They didn’t allow common people to read bible and know the truth until about the 15th century reformation. Before going into counter reformation activities of catholicism let’s go back into history and check, why i said catholicism is anti christian.They(catholics) did idolatry by changing names of old pagan idols to ‘christian’ sounding names and praying and worshiping using these idols(intercession of saints).They taught anyone who is a member of catholicism can do any grevious sin or evil and still enter heaven through purgatory.They taught sins are forgiven by attending eucharist,when christ Jesus and apostles taught only one who has repented of his sins and accepted Jesus as his saviour and has undergone water baptism after the repentence,should receive eucharist(lords supper,holy qurbana,holy communion).Even after repentence if a person backslide he must come back to god in repentence and be cleansed by the blood of Jesus to take part in eucharist.that is only those who are right with god can attend eucharist.If a person who does’nt satisfy above requirments takepart in eucharist,he is sinning against God and sickness and curse shall befall such a person. Catholics massacred early christians saying they were dualistic(those who worshiped both God and satan) pagan heretics like followers of mani(3rd-15th century),early arab and north african christians like danatists,arian christians aka gothic christians3rd-6th century),paulicians,bogomils(6th-12th century,massacred by catholic crusaders en route to jerusalem by secret directive from vatican and perhaps the real aim of the crusades),waldensians(12th century-to present day),cathars(12th-14th century,massacred in albunesian/cathar crusade) and finally protestantS/reformed church(15th century-to present day). Coming back to counter reformation activities of catholics,it started under the leadership of Ignatious layolola,with the name of ‘Jesus’ but working against him.Catholics made another secret organization which will be under their total control inorder to have better infiltaration among protestants.Since intend of Jesuits was more public and most protestants knew they were working against them,it was necessary to create another secret agency to infiltrate protestants and destroy their society and it was called freemasonry(this Jesuit-Freemason link is a highly probable logical assumption based on the historical and cultural evidences .Solid proof may never be obtained as these are secret societies born to decieve mankind and instill them with fear and hatred).This secret society is christian(protestant) superficialy by harping on the words like ‘great architect of universe’,but on inside it will be purely anti christian totally controlled by catholics. Thus protestants will be attracted to this society,and those who become members will be trained by catholic Jesuits to destroy christianity,by teaching them feminism(lie that men and women are created/evolved equal in all aspects -truth is woman are created as help mates and companion for men) and secularism(true biblical government should give freedom of conscience rather than freedom of “false” religion that blaspheme the living God). Thus most of the founding fathers of USA are freemasons,and today USA has only 50% christians compared to 99% in 1790AD.While the numder of pagans who fake as christians(catholics and orthodox) has risen to 25% from less than 1% in 1790.George Washington said in USA every child would be taught the Bible in scools,but everybody knows exactly opposite happened.Why?.George Washington along with most of the founding fathers were freemasons,who are/were a mere puppets in the hand of catholic counter reformation activists.Abraham lincoln although not a memeber of any church,was a believer.He said just before his death,that civil war and feminist movement was the work of catholic Jesuits,and few days after he said this he was assasinated by Jesuit catholics. Catholics(Jesuits) taught freemasons and co-masons(womens wing of freemasonry) that women were oppressed by men and Jesus came to release them from protection and control of males,so they can go out and do anything they want(feminism).Thus they became pioneering feminists(suffragists) of protestant lands.When in reality Christ Jesus and apostles taught women to obey and respect their husbands as church obeys and worships Jesus.They also taught Men to be chivalrous and sacrifice themselves for their wives as christ sacrificed on the cross for all who would believe. Thus within a few years Protestant women started cutting their long hair and started wearing mens dresses to look like men, started disobeying their husbands and teaching and having authority over men,thinking it is the ‘christian’ thing to do,when in reality slowly but steadily they were unknowingly destroying their own society through gender role reversal and thereby spreading sexual immorality.The main reason for great depression of 2008 which started in USA was feminist lie which promoted a lifestyle of excessive spending,without any real savings. I say all these things because counter reformation will not prevail because of the prophecy of Jesus-“i shall build my church(protestant) on this rock(the revelation given to apostle peter that Jesus is the only eternal son of almighty God,not the degrading dead body of peter buried under vatican as catholics claim/believe)and gates of hell(catholicism and oter false religions/ideologies) will not prevail over it”. Very soon in the near future WW3(gog magog war -ezekiel 38) will start.After the war only true religion of god(the gods church-true christianity-non feminist protestantism) will exist in earth.All other religions which didnot acknowledge their creator and kept mankind in dark(catholicism,islam,hinduism and all other fake religions) will be destroyed.After the war all people living on earth will be members of Gods church-true religion and it shall be a golden age(very prosperous) for all mankind till the coming of christ. After the war The 3rd temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and it shall be called “the house of prayer for people of all nations” exactly as Jesus predicted nearly 2000 years ago.Animal and other sacrifices will be offered there in the tribute of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross,just as it symbolized the coming sacrifice of Christ in the old testament period.This will remain till coming of Jesus Christ ( rapture) . In rapture believers will be taken and hypocrites left behind to face great tribulation(such as never happened before or never will in the future) which will last for 7 years.In the half of this 7 year period antichrist will break his agreement with jews and put up the awful horror inthe holy temple.He will require all to have number 666 imprinted on them to buy or sell.Those who get this mark of 666 are damned for eternal hell.So anybody who happens to be in tribulation period,want salvation he/she has to die as martyrs or get the mark of christ(144,000 people). Counter-reformation did’nt start in 17th century,but way back in 4th century at the birth of catholicism,just as the true reformed ,protestant church was in existense from new testament times(AD30-70) as the apostolic church.Take a look at how vatican vainly planned to destroy the God’s church(non feminist protestantism) that almighty living God was/is building. ‘A wealthy Arabian lady who was a faithful follower of the pope played a tremendous part in this drama. She was a widow named Khadijah. She gave her wealth to the church and retired to a convent, but was given an assignment. She was to find a brilliant young man who could be used by the Vatican to create a new religion and become the messiah for the children of Ishmael. Khadijah had a cousin named Waraquah,, who was also a very faithful Roman Catholic and the Vatican placed him in a critical role as Muhammad’s advisor. He had tremendous influence on Muhammad. ‘Teachers were sent to young Muhammad and he had intensive training. Muhammad studied the works of St. Augustine which prepared him for his “great calling.” The Vatican had Catholic Arabs across North Africa spread the story of a great one who was about to rise up among the people and be the chosen one of their God. ‘While Muhammad was being prepared, he was told that his enemies were the Jews and that the only true Christians were Roman Catholic. He was taught that others calling themselves Christians were actually wicked impostors and should be destroyed. Many Muslims believe this. ‘Muhammad began receiving “divine revelations” and his wife’s Catholic cousin Waraquah helped interpret them. From this came the Koran. In the fifth year of Muhammad’s mission, persecution came against his followers because they refused to worship the idols in the Kaaba. ‘Muhammad instructed some of them to flee to Abysinnia where Negus, the Roman Catholic king accepted them because Muhammad’s views on the virgin Mary were so close to Roman Catholic doctrine. These Muslims received protection from Catholic kings because of Muhammad’s revelations. ‘Muhammad later conquered Mecca and the Kaaba was cleared of idols. History proves that before Islam came into existence, the Sabeans in Arabia worshiped the moon-god who was married to the sun-god. They gave birth to three goddesses who were worshipped throughout the Arab world as “Daughters of Allah” An idol excavated at Hazor in Palestine in 1950′s shows Allah sitting on a throne with the crescent moon on his chest. ‘Muhammad claimed he had a vision from Allah and was told, “You are the messenger of Allah.” This began his career as a prophet and he received many messages. By the time Muhammad died, the religion of Islam was exploding. The nomadic Arab tribes were joining forces in the name of Allah and his prophet, Muhammad. ‘Some of Muhammad’s writings were placed in the Koran, others were never published. They are now in the hands of high ranking holy men in the Islamo-catholic faith. This is further confirmed by verses in Quran and Hadith which says only one group of christians have remained true and they can be identified by their celibate leadership(which only Catholics have atleast for namesake).In one verse in Quran it says Christians are the best freinds of Muslims and in other verses it says Christians,Jews and all Pagans are their enemies.Thus it becomes clear that according to Quran and Hadith muslims can befriend only catholic heretics/liars/idolaters in this world.All over the world it’s a reality that only group with which muslims peacefully coexist is catholics-because catholics are their masters. Also Quran says that Jesus will come in last days to join muslims with ‘true’ christians(catholics). So all these facts only point to the reality that Catholicism might indeed be behind the creation of Islam.

In Mathew 12:38-42 Jesus says this-12:38- Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” (Matthew 12:38-42 KJV)…these are words of Jesus in gospel of mathew and if it is true Jesus should be died for 3 days and 3 nights(72 hours).

But catholic church has twisted all this saying he died on a friday and rose on a sunday morning,which makes 42 hours at the most.

Besides this,in mathew 26:17 and certain other scriptures they omitted the word “before”.Mathew 26:17 now reads “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”.But when “before” is added as in the original manuscripts it should have read like this-Now before the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”

In leviticus 23 it’s clearly written that passover day comes before the 1st day of feast of unleavened bread.

Also catholicism and most churches claims jesus rose from the dead on 1st day aftersabbath.but in gospel of Luke it says- The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid; 56 then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to thecommandment.So the women with Jesus had to rest on “high”sabbath day.

Also scriptures tells us they had to rest on another “normal” sabbath day.(Mark 16:1).After that sabbath day on the first day of the week which is also the day of 1st fruits,the women came to the tomb saw it was open and witnessed resurrected Jesus(Mark 16:2-9 & other gospels).This day symbolizes the coming great harvest on pentecost which comes 50 days after and on this day resurrected Jesus appeared to women and his disciples.50 days after that on pentecost day(alias harvest day) 120 disciples were assembled on the upper room and holy spirit came on them and thus the church was given birth and also the start of the great harvest.

Also in gospel of John it says- Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Here “high sabbath” means 1st day of feast of unleavened bread.So from this verse it’s clear that Jesus was crucified on the passover day which is also the preparation day before the 1st day of feast of unleavened bread.

So from all this it’s clear that Jesus was crucified on passover day(9th hour that is 3PM-because Jewish calendar calculated day from 6PM onwards for 12 hours till 6AM ,and 12 hours from 6AM to 6PM make the 24 hour day,that is from 6PM on one day till 6PM on the next day was considered the full 24 hour day by Jews.The creation account also confirms this in Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 where evening comes before morning to form a full day) rose from the dead 72 hours later.That is on sabbath day 9th hour(3PM),and appeared to his followers on the following day morning-which was the day of 1st fruits.

Also its clear that catholic church omitted the ‘before ‘ from the scripture mathew 26:17 which now reads “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” ,when it actually read in the original manuscript like this-when “before” is added as in the original manuscripts it should have read like this-Now before the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
In leviticus 23 it’s clearly written that passover day comes before the 1st day of feast of unleavened bread.
Why did catholic ‘church’ do this?To make it in conformity with ancient pagan festival of ishtar(modern easter) so the majority pagans of roman empire can be converted easily to ‘christianity’ without any conversion.

I'm sorry but I have to admit I giggled my way through most of this article. Dr. Horvat, for all of her education seems to grasp little more than a cliche'd view of Protestant theology generally; and her understanding of such concepts as sola Scriptura and sola Fides in particular are insufficient for her to pass even a 10th grade Religion exam in a conservative Protestant Lutheran or Anglican parochial school. Please tell me this isn't an honest representation of how little Roman Catholic scholars understand of Protestant theology...please?

No, that is the level of RC polemics with its straw men that we see most often parroted here

1. The famous sola Scripturae - the source of revelation would be to be found in Scripture alone, and not in tradition.

Wrong, as not only does SS allow for natural revelation, but that not all that can be known is in Scripture, nor deny the role of Tradition, but that Scripture alone is the supreme and sufficient standard for faith, containing the knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness in its formal (limited) and material aspects, , as the wholly inspired and assured word of God

2. Free interpretation - each man could interpret Scripture the way he wants, and work out his religious truth. Therefore, ultimately, there would be no one fixed rule. Protestantism at base is a religion without a fixed dogma.

Wrong. How then could Reformers judge others as heretics? Westminster for instance, affirms the need of magisterial. The fact is that those who most strongly hold to the Reformed view of Scripture is where you see the strongest commitment to core Truths, while declension from those is what characterizes those who are more like RCs overall.

3. Sola Fides. Justification by faith alone. Works can be useful, but they would not be necessary.

Wrong. While man is justified by faith which is counted for righteousness, yet as Reformers taught , the only faith that is salvific is the kind that will effect the obedience of faith.

4. The absence of any intermediary between God and the believer, hence, the rejection of the principle of authority in religious matters.

Wrong: Westminster: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

What is utterly absent is a perpetually infallible magisterial office.

The believer, as his own interpreter of the Bible, thinks he would have 'direct line to heaven.'

Where would they ever get that idea?

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Hebrews 10:19-20)

Being in direct contact with God, he could do without the various mediators to whom the Catholic has recourse - the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, and the Church.

And just where do we see any heavenly intercessors btwn God and man by the Lord Jesus? Out of over 150 prayers in Heaven, there is not one single prayer addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Except by pagans.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

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.


Mid-Summer Hiatus Issue July 15 - September 1, 2002 volume 13, no. 104 TRUE ECHOES OF CATHOLICISM www.DailyCatholic.org