Posted on 07/26/2013 3:22:28 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Gift – The Testimony of Former Roman Catholic Priest Charles Chiniquy
I was born and baptized a Roman Catholic in 1809, and I was ordained priest in the year 1833, in Canada. I am now in my seventy-fourth year, and it is nearly fifty years since I received the dignity of the priesthood in the Church of Rome.
For twenty-five years I was a priest of that Church, and I tell you frankly that I loved the Church of Rome, and she loved me. I would have shed every drop of my blood for my Church and would have given a thousand times my life to extend her power and dignity over the continent of America, and over the whole world. My great ambition was to convert the Protestants, and bring them into my Church, because I was told, and I preached, that outside the Church of Rome there was no salvation, and I was sorry to think that those multitudes of Protestants were to be lost.
A few years after I was born we lived in a place where there were no schools. My mother became my first teacher, and the first book in which she taught me to read was the Bible. When I was eight or nine years old I read the Divine Book with an incredible pleasure, and my heart was much taken up with the beauty of the Word of God. My mother selected the chapters she wished me to read, and the attention I gave to it was such that, many times, I refused to go and play with the little boys outside in order to enjoy the pleasure of reading the Holy Book. Some of the chapters I loved more than others, and these I learned by heart.
But after my mother died, the Bible disappeared from the house, probably through the priest who had tried to obtain possession of it before. Now this Bible is the root of everything in this story. That is the light which was put into my soul when young, and, thanks be to God, that light has never been extinguished. It has remained there: it is to that dear Bible, by the mercy of God, that I owe today the unspeakable joy which I feel at being among the redeemed, among those who have received the light, and are drinking at the pure fountain of truth.
But perhaps you are inclined to say, “Do not the Roman Catholic priests allow their people to read the Bible?” Yes, I thank God that it is so. It is a fact that today, almost all over the world, the Church of Rome grants permission to read the Bible, and you will find the Bible in the homes of some Roman Catholics.
But when we have confessed this we must tell the whole truth. When the priest puts the Bible in the hands of his people, or when a priest receives the Bible from his church, there is a condition. The condition is that though the priest or people may read the Bible, they must never, under any circumstances, interpret a single word according to their conscience, their intelligence, or in their own mind. When I was ordained a priest I swore that I would interpret the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers.
Friends, go to Roman Catholics today, and ask them if they have permission to read the Bible. They will tell you, “Yes, I can read it.” But ask, “Have you permission to interpret it?” They will tell you, “No.” The priest says positively to the people, and the Church says positively to the priest, that they cannot interpret a single word of the Bible according to their own intelligence and their own conscience, and that it is a grievous sin to take upon themselves the interpretation of a single word. The priest says in effect to the people, “If you try to interpret the Bible with your own intelligence you are lost. It is a most dangerous book. You may read it, but it is better not to read it, because you cannot understand it.”
What is the result of such teaching? The result is, that though both the priests and the people have the Bible in their hands, they do not read it. Would you read a book if you were persuaded that you cannot understand a single word by yourself? Would you be such fools as to waste your time reading a book which you were persuaded you could not understand a single line of? Then, my friends, this is the truth about the Church of Rome. They have a great number of Bibles. You will find Bibles on the tables of the priests and of Catholic laymen, but among ten thousand priests there are not two who read the Bible from the beginning to the end and pay any attention to it. They read a few pages here and there; that is all.
In the Church of Rome the Bible is a sealed book, but it was not so with me. I found it precious to my heart when I was a little boy, and when I became a priest of Rome I read it to make me a strong man, and to make me able to argue for the Church.
My great object was to confound the Protestant ministers of America. I got a copy of the “Holy Fathers,” and I studied it day and night with the Holy Scriptures, in order to prepare myself for the great battle I wanted to fight against the Protestants. I made this study in order to strengthen my faith in the Roman Catholic Church.
But, blessed be God! every time I read the Bible there was a mysterious voice(1) saying to me, “Do you not see that in the Church of Rome you do not follow the teachings of the Word of God, but only the traditions of men?” In the silent hours of the night, when I heard that voice, I wept and cried, but it was repeated with the strength of thunder. I wanted to live and die in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I prayed to God to silence the voice, but I heard it yet still louder. When I was reading His Word He was trying(2) to break my fetters, but I would not have any fetters broken. He came to me with His saving light, but I would not have it.
I have no bad feeling against Roman Catholic priests. Some of you may think I have. You are mistaken. Sometimes I weep for them because I know that the poor men – just as I did – are fighting against the Lord, and that they are miserable as I was miserable then. If I relate to you one of the struggles of which I speak, you will understand what it is to be a Roman Catholic priest, and you will pray for them.
(Rest at Link)
Have you forgotten that the Apostles used the Old Testament scriptures when they taught the truth of Jesus being the Messiah? And, curiously enough, as did Jesus when he taught? Are those Apostles still alive and teaching today or does their teaching (given to them by the Holy Spirit) still reside with us in the form of the sacred Scriptures? The "traditions" that made up the rule of the Christian faith are now enscripturated for us all in the Bible. That is why sola Scriptura is every bit a viable and necessary doctrine today.
But you felt the need to post your "Yawn" comment anyway? Here's a tip...if you don't want to read what another Freeper posts, skip reading it. Just be aware that what you presume is "old anti-Catholic bigotry" is, in fact, the truth and your ignoring of it, continuing to post as if no one ever told you differently, makes you appear to be the ignorant one, over and over again.
As for your Luther quote, it is quite insipid to quote a man (out of context) to bolster ones point but then to disparage and condemn him with the next breath. It's dishonest and bigoted.
Another weird post, I’m not doing a narrative, you are.
Post 6 was very simple, and evidently accurate according to Catholic sources.
Let me put it another way. I get tired of reading cut and paste articles from Wikipedia I also never put down Luther.
He was a good man who wanted changes made in the Church and they were made. He never wanted the Church to break apart. He always said the authority for the Church was Rome. He always believed in the “real presence” at the Eucharist. He would have never wanted a religion called Lutheran and most certainly would never wanted 35,000 religious demoninations, with no central authority, setting their doctrine by a show of hands instead of the word of God. Luther weeps at what PROTESTants have done to God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth. I’ve always wondered what are they still protesting 600 years after the reformation.
“Did you NOT read the passage?”
Did you NOT read the scripture?
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
So, why is there a SCALE IN HEAVEN, WITH YOUR BAD WORKS BEING WEIGHED AGAINST YOUR GOOD WORKS? And why is a ROSARY being used to, not even to wash away these sins, but simply to outweigh them, which presumably means some weightier sin could still be placed to outweigh even the rosary? If Christ died for our sins, why are those sins not washed away and forgiven us, but are still hung over the head of the faithful as a threat if one does not say a Rosary?
I think the problem here is that you are so hung up on Roman works of merit, that you do not know the difference between biblical prayer, which is to God alone, and not for to earn salvation (salvation is given by God alone, even the impetus to religion is God’s, as Ambrose observes, commenting on the teachings of scripture, “Whom Christ has mercy on. He calls.” Again. “When He will, He makes out of careless ones devoted ones.” And again, “But God calls whom He condescends to call; and whom He will, He makes religious.”), and your Rosaries, which are done to receive salvation as a reward and to make amends to sin, instead of the blood of Christ which well and truly makes amend to all sin for all those who come to Him.
On some level I think you are probably aware of this internal contradiction between the teachings of scripture and your Rosary practice, since you keep chest beating instead of properly trying to defend your religion.
“He never wanted the Church to break apart.”
Luther on the Roman Catholic Church:
First, addressing your arguments in this thread:
“The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God’s Word, boast of the Church’s authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church.”
On the Pope and his war against him:
“But I fall upon the pope’s soul, his doctrine, with God’s word, not regarding his body, that is, his wicked person and life. I not only pluck out his feathers, as the king of England and prince Georg of Saxony do, but I set the knife to his throat, and cut his windpipe asunder. We put the goose on the spit; did we but pluck her, the feathers would soon grow again. Therefore is Satan so bitter an enemy unto us, because we cut the pope’s throat, as does also the king of Denmark, who aims at the essence of popery.”
Luther on the fall of the Papal temporal empire, as well as some commentary on Italians in general:
“’Tis wonderful how, in this our time, the majesty of the pope is fallen. Heretofore, all monarchs, emperors, kings, and princes feared the pope’s power, who held them all at his nod; none durst so much as mutter a word against him. This great god is now fallen; his own creatures, the friars and monks, are his enemies, who, if they still continue with him, do so for the sake of gain; otherwise they would oppose him more fiercely than we do. The pope’s crown is named regnum mundi, the kingdom of the world. I have heard it credibly reported at Rome, that this crown is worth more than all the princedoms of Germany. God placed popedom in Italy not without cause, for the Italians can make out many things to be real and true, which in truth are not so: they have crafty and subtle brains.”
Luther on the idolatry of Catholic ordination, since they do not encourage the teaching of the scripture, but only the celebration of mass:
“The papists in their ordinations make no mention of preaching and teaching God’s Word, therefore their consecrating and ordaining is false and unright, for all worshiping which is not ordained of God, or erected by God’s Word and command, is nothing worth, yea, mere idolatry.”
Luther wishing he wasn’t so mild against Popedom:
“There are many that think I am too fierce against popedom; on the contrary, I complain that I am, alas! too mild; I wish I could breathe out lightning against pope and popedom, and that every word were a thunderbolt.”
Luther on Catholic gullibility:
“A German, making his confession to a priest at Rome, promised, on oath, to keep secret whatsoever the priest should impart unto him, until he reached home; whereupon the priest gave him a leg of the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem, very neatly bound up in silk, and said: This is the holy relic on which the Lord Christ corporally did sit, with his sacred legs touching this ass’s leg. Then was the German wondrous glad, and carried the said holy relic with him into Germany. When he got to the borders, he bragged of his holy relic in the presence of four others, his comrades, when, lo! it turned out that each of them had likewise received from the same priest a leg, after promising the same secrecy. Thereupon, all exclaimed, with great wonder: Lord! had that ass five legs?”
ROFL
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1535luther.asp
“He was a good man who wanted changes made in the Church and they were made. “
Watch this opinion change in 5-4-3-2-1...
” He always believed in the “real presence” at the Eucharist. “
Luther denied transubstantiation and affirmed the sufficiency of grace for salvation, making the mass irrelevant to salvation.
“He would have never wanted a religion called Lutheran and most certainly would never wanted 35,000 religious demoninations, with no central authority, setting their doctrine by a show of hands instead of the word of God. “
Which is exactly why he coined the phrase “sola scriptura,” something Catholics don’t believe in.
“The “traditions” that made up the rule of the Christian faith are now enscripturated for us all in the Bible. That is why sola Scriptura is every bit a viable and necessary doctrine today.”
That is an illogical leap to say the least. My point was proven already. The Apostles never used a Bible as we know it. They had only the OT. That is irrefutable.
“So, why is there a SCALE IN HEAVEN, WITH YOUR BAD WORKS BEING WEIGHED AGAINST YOUR GOOD WORKS?”
Prayers. When you admit that the passage said the scale held prayer from the faithful for the king, I’ll be happy to continue the conversation. To be intellectually dishonest is par for the course for Protestant anti-Catholics. That doesn’t mean I have to agree to allow it.
Here’s the quote:
“whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example. It was found that the Rosaries weighed more than his sins.”
What is described as being on each scale. Can you tell me? Or will we just get more evasion from a Protestant anti-Catholic?
It is "illogical" to say that the teachings of Jesus Christ revealed to New Testament prophets were preserved in sacred Scripture in the same manner as the prophets of the Old Testament were? Of course the Apostles never used a Bible as we know it, who ever said they did? They COULDN'T have, could they? Yet, the "noble Bereans" were commended because they "searched the Scriptures daily" to ensure what the Apostles were preaching was true. Now what "scriptures" could Paul have been speaking of?
If I post certain paragraphs that help explain a point I am trying to make, I make sure to cite the source and not pretend the words are all my own. That's the rule here.
Your version of what Martin Luther did or did not think or do doesn't comport with the truth. Many of the points you make don't match the truth. It will probably be a huge waste of my time to prove your fallacies here point by point since you have already indicated you won't read them. Some people get comfortable in their ignorance and no amount of proof will budge them. I'm not here to defend Martin Luther. The truth of the gospel is clearly revealed in sacred Scripture. The Holy Spirit is in the world to convict it of sin, righteousness and judgment. For those who have been given eyes to see, it WILL be plain to see.
It is illogical to say they had the Bible when they didn’t.
Let's explore your narrative, shall we?
Post 6 was very simple...
Indeed. You said, "The thing that baffled me...was, I couldn’t figure out how they conducted services without bibles." Glad you used past tense for your bafflement since you are aware that Scriptures are contained in missals, as you acknowledged in post #65: "Catholic parishes usually supply missalettes, which contain ...the Scripture readings." In post #65 you stated, "A missal isn’t the Bible, it is a missal. Therefore your narrative seems to be that without a complete set of scriptures available in the pews, it's problematic when a lector or Priest reads the Word from the pulpit.
Your narrative also seems to indicate that LISTENING to the Word without a full set of scriptures is problematic too. In post #65 you quoted Catholic Answers as saying "Some parishes prefer that congregants listen only to the lector rather than silently reading along..." Are there not numerous scriptures that point out the importance of HEARING the word? Or are those scriptures reserved only for nonCatholics whose pews have no Bibles and no hardcopy of scripture in any form?
LOL, your weaving of long irrelevant narratives don’t change what I said, “The thing that baffled me the first time I attended a Catholic church as a youth, was, I couldn’t figure out how they conducted services without bibles.””
It turns out my observation was correct, that the people posting to me that the bibles were right there in the holders behind the pews was wrong, and your attempts to portray a couple of sheets of paper as “the Bible”, is just wild and a waste of time. Attempting to change the subject in post after post of your narratives is not useful either, it is just a waste of time and doesn’t change the facts of my post.
You need to post those narratives about listening to a sermon, and missalettes to someone else, they don’t have anything to do with my statement on the Bible.
“The truth of the gospel is clearly revealed in sacred Scripture”
Who compiled and safeguarded that sacred scripture? For the first 1,500 years after Christ’s death there were only Catholic Christians. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. No Jesus Christ. No nothing. It’s about time that protestants start accepting the fact that the One True Church is the Catholic Church. I am not saying that other Christians can’t make it to heaven, but the easiest way is to follow the faith instituted by Christ himself, for only it has the fullness of the faith.
“We know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true Church..... The chief marks of the Church are four: It is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic”.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm
Can you not defend your position without putting words in my mouth? I never said a missal was a Bible. I said missals contain scripture. A few sheets of paper? Readings for 1 month to 3 years, depending on the missal(ette) is more than a "few sheets of paper." That's quite some disinformation from someone who prides himself on fact!
the people posting to me that the bibles were right there in the holders behind the pews was wrong
That may be. I'm not responsible for what other people post. The fact is, there are scriptures in the pew in most Catholic parishes, unlike most nonCatholic churches I've been in, where there is no scripture in ANY hard copy form in pew backs. Only hymnals, which may contain some scriptures. I racked my brain to think of hardcopy scriptures I've seen in nonCatholic Churches. Can't recall a single church with a complete Bible in the pew. The only thing I can remember is sometimes receiving a bulletin as I walked into the service. And inside the bulletin would be some scripture relevant to the pastor's sermon topic that day. It may be for reading after church. Or following along as the pastor read. Or for reading aloud as a congregation. You were saying something about "a couple sheets of paper?"
Attempting to change the subject in post after post of your narratives is not useful either
Challenging your spin is not change of subject, LOL. Although your reference to "listening to a sermon" certainly is. I didn't speak about sermons at all. I spoke of proclaiming/reading the Word during Mass. You know, formal reading of Sacred Scripture during public communal worship by a priest or lector while folks in the pews LISTEN to Scripture being proclaimed instead of reading along in a Bible provided in the back of the pew.
You singled out Catholics for a lack of Bibles in the pews but have given nonCatholic churches without them a free pass. Call that changing the subject if you like. I call it hypocrisy.
Wow, it seems that the narratives just get longer and longer and more wide ranging.
Well, we agree that missals aren’t bibles and Catholic sources confirm the lack of bibles in Catholic services, so my original point was accurate.
So (allowing the claim that the NT church is that of Rome, despite the contrasts ), your argument is that being the stewards of Holy Writ and inheritor of promises of God requires or affirms they are the infallible interpreters of it, to whom her required submission is necesary?
You are probably not familiar with Dr. Scott Hahn, but please read his story and tell me what you think about it. Thanks.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html
So was mine: Great numbers of nonCatholics don't use Bibles in their services, therefore it's hypocritical to single out one group for criticism but not the other. A commenter unwilling to man up to his hypocrisy is a commenter whose words hold no further interest for me. Peace be with you.
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.