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

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

[InterestedQuestioner]

"I do think that the comparison between Harley and the KKK (which was the poster's intent) was beyond the pale."

There has been no comparison made between HarleyD and the KKK. You specifically lectured me on not assigning intent to others, and now you have assigned it to me, P-Marlowe. The reference to the KKK was an attempt to explain to you that you do not understand anti-Catholicsm, which you do not.

I do not experience HarleyD as a hateful person, but for the life of me, I do not understand why he relentlessly misrepresents Catholicism, nor do I understand why this has been done by him daily for the past two months. It does appear there is an obsession with the Church, and it is an obsession that manifests as a relentless distortion of the Catholic faith. I do not remember the last time I logged onto Free Republic and did not see new posts by Harley against the Catholic Faith. If there's a legitimate interest, so be it, but what we are seeing is a persistent distortion that is refractory to discussion.

HarleyD, do you see that post 36 was a distortion of Catholic doctrine? Do you understand this? I am picking this out as an example. Can you recognize a difference between what the Catholic faith teaches, and what you have claimed it teaches?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"The latter quotes are from your post 64 and taken together state pretty clearly that other Christians not believing Roman Catholic doctrine are apostate."

No they don't.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Thank you for your clarification.

[PAR35]

Jan Hess

Was she related to Rudolph Hess?

[PAR35]

I admire your self control in dealing with bozos. Thanks for these threads.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Lol. Jan Huss.

[Conservative til I die]

On that note, I'm hoping to gain a plenary indulgence this week. I'm heading to 7 AM Mass to see if I can corner Father into hearing my confession. He seems intent on the usual 4-4:30 Saturday Confession.

[Dahlseide]

Thanks again. I praise God for Hus, Wycliffe, the Lollards, Luther, Calvin, Knox ... & oh yes Augustine.

[wmfights]

Thanks for the posting.

I'm surprised that with all the defense of the RCC that there was no discussion about mistaken translations by Jerome. I'm not fluent in Greek or Hebrew it would have been illuminating to hear from someone who is.

[HarleyD]

I'm surprised that with all the defense of the RCC that there was no discussion about mistaken translations by Jerome.

That is an excellent point and one I would like to investigate. I was surprised by that as well.

[HarleyD]

Boy Harley, see all the trouble I got into just trying to show that deep down your are a pretty good guy?

Now, now. Just keep in mind it is pretty deep down. :O)

I do appreciate your support. I find it interesting that since there isn't anything of substance in these articles to argue against that some have chosen character assassination. Bigot??? KKK???

It is a little overboard.

[Claud]

You are too kind sir! It is easy to be a gentleman when I am debating with gentlemen. :)

[Between the Lines]

... the trip from Erfurt to Rome is just about exactly the same distance as a trip from Arlington to Denver.
Actually, 1685 miles.

Arlington, Texas to Denver. 787 miles.

[Claud]

You guys just are so sensitive that any challenge to your peculiar practices and beliefs is seen as Anti-Catholicism.

P-Marlowe is right on this one. Frankly, I am sick to death of the term "anti-Catholic" and wish it were abolished from our lexicon permanently. It smacks too much of weakness , timidity and victimhood, and it contributes exactly nothing to the debate. True rabid anti-Catholics (Communists, Nazis, KKK et al.) don't give a flying flip that you call them that and wear it like a badge of honor. Other people, who are convinced of the "errors" of the Roman Church but have no particular animus toward we its members, do not deserve to be lumped in with those.

I understand that devout Catholics get their back up about some of these threads, but as folks point out here, the Catholic threads (on the papacy, Immaculate Conception et. al) do *exactly* the same things to Protestants. And they should not feel that in asking honest questions or raising objections they are being accused of bigotry. And frankly, even the true bigots (of which there are thankfully few on this forum) deserve answers to their points. Even if it doesn't help them personally, it may help someone else who reads it.

I would ask Catholics, that if you find yourself getting angry at a thread like this one but are not capable of equipped to handle it on an intellectual and rational level, then leave it in peace and offer a Hail Mary or two for the conversion of heretics. There are plenty of well-informed Catholics on this forum who specialize in these areas and who are very equipped to answer objections and do so charitably, factually, and without denigrating the other person.

It is a scandal, and a temptation for all of us, to often pass up opportunities to teach the truth in love in order to do the Evil One's work of division.

[annalex]

I was speaking of you in particular, and this conversation we just had about confession, penance and indulgences. The article series you are posting have problems of poor historicity in general -- they are polemical, not historical, -- and on occasion, they distort facts, like the way they presented the situation with availability of copies of the Bible or their translations. When they do, one Catholic (presumably) or another would point it out.

I trust your confusion about the Catholic doctrine of confession, penance and indulgence is genuine and not an intentional distortion, but again, given the amount of energy you put in explaining to us what the Catholic Church teaches, one would expect, for example, a familiarity with what "purpose of amendment" means, or at what point in the process a sin becomes forgiven. Like Jo Kus said, if you wish to protest, it is expected of you to figure out what you are protesting about. Yes, some distinctions in the Catholic doctrine are subtle. If it is too subtle for your comfort, well, unless you are thinking of coming back to the Church, you need not be bothered by these subtleties. I am sure when you put your questions about distinctions between

- the universal invisible catholic Church and the visible Catholic Church
- ordinary means of salvation (which the Protestants avoid) and extraordinary means of salvation (which the Protestants expect to avail themselves directly from Christ)
- veneration of Mary and saints and worship of God (and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament)
- Purgatory and Hell
- Indulgence and penance

, one of us here will give you an answer that will state these distinctions very clearly. If it still remains a big blur to you, we feel frustrated, -- not because you don't understand, which is your privilege, but because you appear knowledgeable about Catholicism, quote form New Advent site and the Church Fathers, but do not know the meaning of words used therein.

I think you got it this time about indulgences. It is "time out of Purgatory in return for doing things approved by the Church". It was wrong to sell them. It is fine to grant them or earn them. Who is uncomfortable? You are? Don't do them - they are not mandatory.

You seem to be defending Marlowe from me. I did not attack him an any way. He asked about St. Peter and papacy, and I gave a scriptural answer, just what he wanted. We did no discuss indulgencies with him at all.

[annalex]

some of the best Catholic posters don't do a very good job of refuting some of this stuff. It seems to boil down to semantics

I am not sure who or what you are referring to. Some of it is semantics. When someone quotes a text which uses a word in a well-defined sense and then uses it in a different sense and tell me "Aha!" then it becomes semantics. But see my previous post, -- I list some typical distinctions that Catholicism makes and Protestantism ignores. Are they semantics? I think they are subtle, but they are substantive.

[AlbionGirl]

I actually regretted the post to you, because I realized I must have confused you with someone else. So, sorry.

But as long as were on the subject of semantics, and if you're so inclined, what does the Church mean when it speaks of someone being accursed? Is it the same as 'let him be anathema', and if both of these assignations place a person outside The Body of Christ, which is necessary for salvation, does it not follow, that damnation is at the very least implied?

[jo kus]

Second, there is a level of frustration reached when a particular distortion of Catholic faith is presented, corrected, and then repeated by the same poster. When that happens, the claim of anti-Catholicism bigotry is justified, because then that poster is engaged in mere propaganda.

You read my mind, sister. I have no problems with those who disagree, or are ignorant of Catholic teaching. Heck, five years ago, I didn't know anything...What bothers me slightly is when I correct someone on their point of view on a teaching of Catholicism, and the very SAME DAY, this person will continue on his merry way saying the same thing unchanged. There is no concern for the truth in such people...One can only imagine that person's true motives.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Modern Catholic soteriology really bears little resemblance to the Arminianism of the reformation which seems to have affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. IMO the Catholic Church is mired in self righteousness and works based salvation to the point that it would seem that the work of Christ accounted for naught.

Perhaps you can begin to understand why some Catholics are bothered by you, because you repeat the same untruths over and over again, even after I personally corrected you on several ocassions. But I suppose you and your pastor know more about Catholicism then the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not our differences of opinion that bother Catholics here. What bothers me and many others, I think, is your refusal to even KNOW what we properly believe, even after told many times. I suppose it endangers the straw man and demolishes the necessity of a Protestant Reformation in the first place...

Comments? Please, don't take this in a negative way. I would love to discuss with you our respective views. But after we are done, at least know what we believe - even if you continue to disagree with it. The straw man you call Catholicism must be burnt at the stake...It doesn't exist. What would you say if I came here and started calling Protestants woman-beaters? Even after proven wrong, I continued to say it? Wouldn't you get slightly annoyed?

Regards

[jo kus]

There is no distortion of the Catholic faith in what this author is stating

Wrong. I have already posted you several examples in which you have not disagreed with.