The History of the Reformation…Rome and Romans (Part 7)

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | December 12, 2004 | Tom Browning

[Claud]

Why is it if someone dares to post something that might not cast the RCC in the best light they immediately are denigrated. Is your faith so weak it can't stand in the light of the day?

wmfights, I agree, and I humbly ask all of my fellow Catholics on these Reformation threads to refrain from any personal invective and/or denigration of people's motives or intentions. Frankly, even if these were totally insidious (which I don't believe is the case at all), the best response is simply to deal with the charges made in these articles and correct the record where appropriate.

We hope that our arguments can be listened to in love and pondered by our Protestant brethren, and they have every right to expect the same from us.

[Campion]

Why is it if someone dares to post something that might not cast the RCC in the best light they immediately are denigrated.

Pointing out inaccuracies and errors is not "denigrating" anyone. These posts are full of them.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Well, it happened didn't it? "

It happened that Luther was the Messiah? No it did not happen. You've equated Wittenberg with Bethlehem.


"Scriptural? no."

It's good you appreciate that point.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Now to state that as plainly as I can, the Catholic Church taught that when a person sinned they lost the grace that they had first obtained in their baptism."

Incorrect.

It also taught that a person could restore themselves to a state of grace by doing works of penance.

Also Incorrect.

God’s grace was first obtained in baptism and then if lost reattained through penance.

Incorrect Again.

[bigsigh]

…the trip from Erfurt to Rome is just about exactly the same distance as a trip from Arlington to Denver.

Actually, 1685 miles.

[InterestedQuestioner]

According to your article:

"Now to state that as plainly as I can, the Catholic Church taught that when a person sinned they lost the grace that they had first obtained in their baptism."

Incorrect.

It also taught that a person could restore themselves to a state of grace by doing works of penance.

Also Incorrect.

"God’s grace was first obtained in baptism and then if lost reattained through penance."

Incorrect Again.

[HarleyD]

IQ from Post #7-“Show me where people complain about what a hateful person you are. Threads and post numbers, please Harley.”

Cheverus from Post #17 (same thread) “You're wasting your time talking with HarleyD…You can't reason with bigots.”

Will this do?

[jo kus]

From the article:

The question then became and this was a very important question…what does a person do to restore themselves to the state of grace they had before. The answer was they were to do works of penance. The Council of Trent put it this way…

"As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost."

Another fine example of lousy interpretation of the Council of Trent. The Sacrament of Penance is called "works of penance", which naturally twists the whole idea of the Sacrament. We are absolved of our sins BEFORE WE DO ANY PENANCE! We are forgiven based on our sorrow and the eternal value of Christ's death and resurrection applied to our own subjective redemption and sanctification. Thus, the author, yet again, misinterprets not only what Trent says, but adds fuel to the fire by mixing his own theological beliefs and contrasts them with the "incorrect teachings" of Catholicism. Again, a poor excuse of history when one presents an inaccurate picture of what Catholicism is. Isn't the above quote from Trent clear enough?

For any interested in understanding Catholicism, don't bother reading these "histories" as the definitive sense of the Reformation. If you can't even get Catholic teaching correct, how can you understand why the Protestants protested?

Regards

[wmfights]

"We hope that our arguments can be listened to in love and pondered by our Protestant brethren, and they have every right to expect the same from us."
_____________________________________

A great thought!

[wmfights]

"Pointing out inaccuracies and errors is not "denigrating" anyone. These posts are full of them."
_____________________________________

I would agree and it makes for a great read. However, calling someone a "bigot" is over the top in my book.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Will this do?"

That's a good one, Harley. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another group's views, and a bigots views are generally intractable to reason.

You have posted against the Catholic Church on a daily basis for months, and have posted quite a bit of disinformation about the Catholic Faith. After it has been prov-en to you that your points were wrong, you nonetheless return and re-iterate the same charges against the Church.


"People have spent a great deal of time complaining what a hateful person I am and how I must hate the Catholic Faith by posting such a corrupt view of history."


I see, after haranguing Catholics on a daily basis for months straight, suddenly you're the martyr.


Since people have spent such a great deal of time stating that you are full of hate, no doubt you can actually show me a few posts that say as much. I haven't been on Free Republic much lately, Harley, so no doubt I've missed the great deal of time that has been spent telling you that you're full of hate. Right now, the only thing I'm seeing a great deal of time spent on is an attack against Catholics and the Catholic Faith by HarleyD.


When last I asked, you stated that Catholics are unobjective, and you have a divine commandment to point out our errors to us.

Is it that we don't believe God is the Creator of Evil?

(I think Isaiah 45:7 was used as the prooftext to support that claim in a discussion I previously had with you and another Calvinist.)

Is it that God WANTS to damn men to hell before they are even born, and in fact, creates them for that very purpose? (In defending this view previously, you went so far as to claim that the Catholic Church teaches this. Oy Vey! Later you acknowledged that this view was completely incorrect, but then reversed yourself and claimed that it was, not your belief, rather it was Scripture.

Is it that you feel you are doing the will of God when you commit sins?

Are these the errors that need to be pointed out to Catholics?

[P-Marlowe]

I see you are catching a lot of heat from your detractors, but I don't see much light from them. (they must be using infra-red). They accuse you of being Anti-Catholic when in fact it seems to me that these threads simply point to the reasons why the reformation came about. Now your detractors can argue about whether or not the Reformation was necessary, but I have not seen any legitmate criticism of whether or not the Reformers had legitimate reasons to criticize and ultimately separate from the Roman Church.

This was a very interesting and enlightening article. Thanks for posting it.

[annalex]

If you can't even get Catholic teaching correct, how can you understand why the Protestants protested?

LOL.

[jo kus]

The problem with that was that the underlying Hebrew and Greek words for “to justify” both carried the nuance “to declare righteous” rather than “to make righteous.” I hope you can see why that matters. If not maybe this will help. I am reading from Alister McGrath’s Reformation Thought.

Here, we have a false conclusion. The word "declare" does not necessarily have to mean something is only legally or extrinisically a reality. The author is trying to prove that Jerome believed in imputed justification, which is utter nonsense. The word "declare" can also actually mean what God intends it to be. If something is declared righteous, then it IS.

I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye [that are] escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god [that] cannot save. Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall [one] say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: [even] to him shall [men] come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed (Isaiah 45:19-24)

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

And I will make Jerusalem heaps, [and] a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant. Who [is] the wise man, that may understand this? and [who is he] to whom the mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth [and] is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through? And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them: (Jer 9:11-14)

It is fictional to believe that God, who created the heavens and the earth out of nothing with His Word, cannot make a man righteous, but must resort to some legal fiction. Thus, the premise is based on a false assumption.

Regards

[InterestedQuestioner]

"They accuse you of being Anti-Catholic when in fact it seems to me that these threads simply point to the reasons why the reformation came about."

Excuse me, P-Marlowe, are you saying that HarleyD is not anti-Catholic?

"but I have not seen any legitmate criticism of whether or not the Reformers had legitimate reasons to criticize and ultimately separate from the Roman Church."

Then you haven't been reading the posts. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize the Church, whether one is speaking of it in the first century, the 15th century, or today. The Apostle Judas, chosen by Christ Himself for a role in the leadership, embezzled money from the Church. 15 centuries later, we still see the same issues. Corruption was rampant, for example, John Calvin's father was convicted of embezzling money from the Church, and was subsequently excommunicated, prior to his erstwhile son's set off to found a religion of his own.

So tell me, P-Marlowe, what, exactly, would you consider a legitimate reason for leaving the Church and founding several 1000 new religions which contradict each other on fundamental doctrines? According to what Scripture, P-Marlowe, should you and I set out today to found a new religion?

"I see you are catching a lot of heat from your detractors, but I don't see much light from them."

Allow me to offer a little light then, P-Marlowe.

God desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God freely created man to share in His own Blessed Life. God loves all men, and draws close to man at all times. God takes no pleasure from the destruction of the wicked man, but rather He rejoices when man turns to Him and is saved.

[P-Marlowe]

Excuse me, P-Marlowe, are you saying that HarleyD is not anti-Catholic?

Yes indeed, I am saying that, as I have known Harley for several years and I have yet to see him utter one ill word against Catholics. He does not agree with Catholic Doctrine, nor does he bow to Rome, but that does not make him "Anti-Catholic" any more than I am or any other Protestant is. I would suggest that there are a lot more Anti-Protestants that occupy these threads than Anti-Catholics, although I have seen some comments which could fall into the category of Anti-Catholic, I have never seen one from HarleyD.

Allow me to offer a little light then, P-Marlowe. God desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God freely created man to share in His own Blessed Life. God loves all men, and draws close to man at all times. God takes no pleasure from the destruction of the wicked man, but rather He rejoices when man turns to Him and is saved.

I agree with much of that. Does that make me a Roman Catholic? Harley and I have our disagreements in regard to soteriology, but that does not make Harley an Anti-Marlowe nor am I Anti-Harley.

Unfortunately it is posts like yours on this thread that contribute to the rancor between Catholics and Protestants on these threads. You can't seem to simply disagree, you have to question the motives of those who disagree with you. Well in this case I can attest to the fact that Harley has no ill will towards Catholics and I am certain that it is his desire that Catholics come to the same knowledge of the Truth that results in saving faith that all members of the Body of Christ have or will come to.

Now if you can just begin to understand that criticism of Catholic History and doctrine is not "anti-Catholicism" then perhaps we can all have a cordial discussion here.

[HarleyD]

"That's a good one, Harley. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another group's views, and a bigots views are generally intractable to reason."

That's the first time I've ever encountered someone claiming "bigot" in a positive light. However, since we are on the history of the Reformation I found the root of this word to be of interest.

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

I found it to be interesting and timely since the French and the Roman had their own Popes and Church structures for 70+ years. The derogatory term "bigot" came from this period of time when the French Catholics were nasty to the Roman Catholics.

[HarleyD]

We are absolved of our sins BEFORE WE DO ANY PENANCE! We are forgiven based on our sorrow and the eternal value of Christ's death and resurrection applied to our own subjective redemption and sanctification. Thus, the author, yet again, misinterprets not only what Trent says, but adds fuel to the fire by mixing his own theological beliefs and contrasts them with the "incorrect teachings" of Catholicism.

I would direct you to the Catholic website newadvent under Penances. The website states very clear:

It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

Catholic doctrine states that confession does not avail you anything. You must have a way of amending (indugences) your sin. This is consistent with the author.

[Cheverus]

Your out of context - it is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Unfortunately it is posts like yours on this thread that contribute to the rancor between Catholics and Protestants on these threads."

Excuse me, P-Marlowe, I thought it was threads like this that contributed to the rancor between Protestants and Catholics. Would you care to explain to me exactly how it's my posts that are creating the rancor? Honest question, I don't like these fights at all, and welcome your suggestions. The last time I asked one of Harley's Calvinist mentors how these conversations could go better and be less hurtful, I was basically told to go and shove it. Then my faith was attacked. You can check it out on the "Medieval Mistakes" Thread.

"You can't seem to simply disagree, you have to question the motives of those who disagree with you."

On the contrary, I have agreed to disagree, and my faith has been attacked after I did so. These "history" threads are full of statements that assign sinister motives to Catholics, which you apparently feel comfortable with. Moreover, they are littered with disinformation about Catholic teaching and bizarre beliefs.


"Yes indeed, I am saying that, as I have known Harley for several years and I have yet to see him utter one ill word against Catholics."

P-Marlowe, would you care to guess how many posts against the Catholic Church Harley has made in the last 2 months? A couple? Five or ten? A few dozen? One-hundred? Five-hundred? What would you guess would be a ballpark figure?

Honest question, P-Marlowe, how would you feel about someone intentionally mis-representing your faith, and doing so for months on end, despite having been corrected on it? What if you thought that your faith was actually true, and that in misrepresenting it and maligning it, a person might potentially impede the path to salvation for others?

P-Marlowe, this I can tell you: the person in question does not believe what he himself writes, but he attacks and misrepresents the beliefs of others. Moreover, there is only one faith that traces it's roots to the time of the Apostles, and only one Faith that it absolutely consistent with Scripture. This faith is the faith which the person in question has chosen to attack.

"I agree with much of that."

That's well and good, P-Marlowe, but the point is that you said little light was being shed. You asked for it, and you got it. God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God loves all men, and draws close to them at all times, and God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked man but rather desires that they turn from their wicked ways and be saved. As an important caveat, however, if the just man turns from the paths of Righteousness to evil, he risks the eternal wrath of God, despite having formerly been a righteous man. That is, if we become unfaithful, we too can be cut off.

By the way, P-Marlowe, I think that anti-Catholicism is something that you do not understand because you have not experienced it. I have had Protestant friends make statements such as, "it's no big deal, I don't see why people make such a big deal out of it." They stopped making those statements once they become Catholic. I will remind you, P-Marlowe, that the Ku Klux Klan is a Protestant organization that historically targeted three groups: African Americans, Jewish people, and Catholics. Anti-Catholicism is anything but benign, and not a matter of agreeing to disagree. If your experience of Protestantism is anything like mine, you simply take anti-Catholicism as a given within your religion. Anti-Catholicism is foundational to Protestantism, and this thread seeks to keep alive animosity toward Catholics and Catholicism. (Or do you see another motive at work here? If so, can you please point that out to me, and support it from the articles themselves? I'd love to see why, from your perspective, you feel these are loving articles about Catholics that improve relationships between Christians.)

P-Marlowe, I would rather see the level of religious discussion on this forum elevated, and there are people on all sides of the discussions who can contribute to much more more edifying and productive conversation. Threads like this, however, combined with a number of anti-Catholic posters, make their appeal to the lowest human sentiments: prejudice and bigotry. Until Protestants step in and 1) recognize anti-Cathoicism for what it is, and 2)Speak out against it, Catholics will be responsible for defending the faith against the mischaracterizations and attempts to portray Catholicism in the worst possible light.