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 previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 361-375 next last
To: sabe@q.com
You ARE right, it does reference Luther:
“I am conscious that after I am gone, evil wolves will come in among you, doing damage to the flock;...”
241
posted on
05/09/2010 3:52:18 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses
242
posted on
05/09/2010 3:57:42 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: sabe@q.com
"That isnt what scripture taught me and justifiably angered me." Sorry, but your dear Nana was wrong.
To: Natural Law
244
posted on
05/09/2010 4:00:15 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: grey_whiskers
I see a direct correlation to Saul calling up Samuel from the dead. Samuel was a great prophet of God, absolutely heaven bound, and Saul needed his help most desperately. He was not trying to cast a spell or some such. He was calling up Saul for “good” purposes. Yet, he did great evil.
Just as when you might want to call up St. Anthony or someone a godly man, presumably, for help over an upcoming airline trip. There is nothing wrong with praying for protection in time of travel. The grievous error is in calling up our beloved, departed dead in order to do so.
I hope that if in the past you have called on dead saints for spiritual help, you will stop. It is outside of the will of God.
Scripture is clear on this matter.
245
posted on
05/09/2010 4:04:21 PM PDT
by
Persevero
(If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?)
To: GonzoII
I assume what the Catholics are saying is that the Queen of England is damned,along with the Prince of Wales and everyone else in the royal household.
Shame on them being a bunch of damn Anglican.
To: GonzoII
“So they are alive. And we don’t “contact the dead” we ask for their prayers; not to get nosy news.”
I don’t think Saul was trying to get nosy news from Samuel either, but contacting him about a great matter of spiritual importance, and asking Samuel to INTERCEDE on his behalf.
I would say that if you pray to the dead and ask for them to intercede for you, you are contacting them. Or at least attempting to contact them. Both practices are sin. Hopefully if you were sinning in ignorance it will be forgiven.
247
posted on
05/09/2010 4:06:20 PM PDT
by
Persevero
(If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?)
To: sabe@q.com
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). Having attached yourself to the Arch-Heresiarch you thought yourself somehow worthy to accept a Catholic Sacrament? Why?
248
posted on
05/09/2010 4:09:19 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: Del Rapier
“I assume what the Catholics are saying is...”
Really? Why assume? Why not ASK?
249
posted on
05/09/2010 4:09:54 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses
Because I believed in my heart that according to Luke that both my grandmother and myself were worthy because of our love of God and our worship of him on the first day of the week.
250
posted on
05/09/2010 4:11:17 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: narses
It is wrong to assume that non-catholics automatically go to hell after a certain age?
To: sabe@q.com
And you cannot admit the possibility of error on your part?
252
posted on
05/09/2010 4:17:27 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses; sabe@q.com
How is Mel not living in sin? He was married to his wife for 29 years and then tried to say it was never a marriage. He had a baby with another woman to whom he was not married.
But ignore his public statements if you don’t trust them.
Look at his public behavior. Anyone who behaves as such will face an accounting that no pastor or priest can absolve.
253
posted on
05/09/2010 4:17:47 PM PDT
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: Del Rapier
254
posted on
05/09/2010 4:17:53 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses
Nope, neither can I for my grandmother. Why else would have Jesus Christ died on the cross?
255
posted on
05/09/2010 4:18:24 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: driftdiver
You have less faith in the salvic power of God than I do. So sad.
256
posted on
05/09/2010 4:18:35 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: sabe@q.com
So Our Lord died for you and everyone, yes?
257
posted on
05/09/2010 4:19:08 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses; sabe@q.com
Having attached yourself to the Arch-Heresiarch you thought yourself somehow worthy to accept a Catholic Sacrament? Why?It is Christ's cup, not the popes'
258
posted on
05/09/2010 4:19:22 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
To: roamer_1
Indeed. It is His, certainly NOT Luther’s.
259
posted on
05/09/2010 4:19:49 PM PDT
by
narses
( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
To: narses
“You have less faith in the salvic power of God than I do. So sad.”
Your judgement of my faith is what is sad, shame on you.
The Word of God says that adulterers will face an accounting. That if you divorce your husband or wife without cause and sleep with another then you are committing adultery.
Perhaps your problem is with the Word of God?
260
posted on
05/09/2010 4:21:22 PM PDT
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 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