Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

My new book, The Protestant's Dilemma, shows in a myriad of ways why Protestantism is implausible. We sifted through many arguments to boil the book down to the most essential. A few chapters didn't make the cut but are still good enough to share. Here's one of them.

There's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.

Protestants and Catholics both believe that God has revealed himself to man over the course of human history, culminating in his ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ. But whereas Catholics believe that Christ founded a visible Church—which subsists in the Catholic Church—and has protected its doctrines from error, Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.

“No one is infallible.” If Protestantism has a universal belief, this is it. Luther pioneered this idea when he asserted that popes and Church councils had erred. If they had erred, it meant God had not guided them into all truth; instead, he allowed them to fall into error and, worse, to proclaim error as truth.

And so the most a Protestant can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his church, pastor, or denomination, since those statements, being fallible, could be substantively changed at some time in the future. We see this all the time in Protestantism, most commonly when a Protestant leaves one church for another due to doctrinal disagreement, especially after his church changed its position on an issue he considered important.

Consider the question of same-sex “marriage.” Until quite recently, all Protestant denominations taught this was a contradiction in terms. But now many have modified or even completely reversed this doctrine. Those Protestants who accept this new teaching believe that the old one was wrong—an erroneous human opinion that became enshrined in their church’s statement of faith. They can do this confidently, knowing that none of their fellow church members can plausibly claim that it contradicts an irreformable dogma that was infallibly revealed by God.

Ultimately, then, a Protestant (who remains Protestant) studies the relevant sources—Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition—and chooses the Protestant denomination that most aligns with his judgment. But then, they say, Catholics do the same thing: studying the sources and then choosing the Catholic Church based on their own judgment. So they see no difference in this regard.

Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.

How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant's, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ's.

And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie. For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that. But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it. And assenting to yourself is no assent at all.

If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.

Devin's Dilemma

Devin Rose, a professional software developer and lay Roman Catholic apologist, holds like Rome to a novel basis for determination, preservation and assurance of Truth, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, and that is contrary to how God provided and preserved Truth and faith, and the basis upon which the church began. He thus has effectively invalidated the NT church and supplanted it with the largest deformation of it, which exalts itself and is more cultic in its basis for Truth than Christian. Even though enough Truth is retained so that a relative few souls within it may actually come to Christ as damned and destitute sinners, casting all their faith upon the risen Son of God to save them by His sinless shed blood, and which is my prayer.

Others and myself I have refuted this amateur RC apologist Rose before, by God's grace, and he would not contend further and then deleted all my responses on his web site. Maybe he will at least allow a link to this one on his site, though that is unlikely as he preys on the ignorant or those willing to be deceived by his superficial reasoning and specious conclusions compelled by unreasonable cultic devotion to an elitist church.

There's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation...Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.

Besides "Protestant" meaning anything from a Unitarian to a Baptist for RCs, what is rejected is not that God preserves Truth and faith thru people speaking Truth, but that of a claim of insured personal infallibility or perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), which is nowhere exampled or essential in Scripture.

Instead, both men and writings of God were discerned as being so without a perpetually infallible magisterium, and God often provided and preserved Truth and faith by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to correct it.Which is why the church began with the foundation of apostles and prophets, (Eph. 2:20) both being considered rebels by those who sat in the seat of Moses.

For rather than the the church beginning under the RC premise for determination and assurance of Truth, in which the historical magisterium and recipient of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation are the assuredly infallibility authority on Truth,

the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus while Devin Rose imagines he is engaging in Reductio ad absurdum, showing that assuming the opposite of the RC model leads to absurdity, with nothing is left to do but but to accept the conclusion, the opposite is true, as under the RC model 1^st century souls could not have had assurance of Truth as to what was of God apart from, an assuredly infallible magisterium, and should not followed itinerant preachers whom the but should have submitted to the historical magisterium.

Indeed, yet not universally totally, but as seen in Scripture, while leaders and laity can err to various degrees though God uses them, He has always preserved Truth and a remnant of faithful believers who held to salvific Truth and passed it on, too often in dissent from leadership.

Again, thus the church began in dissent from "the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:27-28)

In response to which the Divine Son of God invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher whom they presumptuously rejected as not being sanctioned by them who like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written. (cf. 1Co. 4:6) And as these authorities represented the historical magisterium, to be consistent RCs must reject John the Baptist and so on, as they do other itinerant preachers who dissent from the historical magisterium.

Meanwhile, despite DV arguing as if Rome cannot err, he must admit that it has, unless he wants to affirm all that popes and Rome has ever taught is without error, and thus RC rulers must yet exterminate all "heretics" from their land. Maybe he does, as others here evidence they support this.

However, what DV does not admit is that only a minority of what Rome teaches is considered infallible, though just what is infallible is subject to interpretation, as is the magisterial level other teachings fall under (and thus the level of required assent), as can be aspects of their meaning.

While Rome allows for the possibility of non-salvific error in non-infallible teaching, all such assurance is based upon the premise of the insured infallibility of Rome, which RCs have assurance of because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.Which is not Scriptural, but is cultic, like as seen in cults who also effectively operate according to the basic sola ecclesia model Rome presumes.

Also as an aside, that the church has already been lead them into all truth is itself an error, as even Rome allows for further public revelation at the future manifestation of the Lord Jesus, nor does it hold that Christian faith has apprehended the full significance of what has been revealed. (CCC 66)

False, as unlike RCs who are to provide cultic assent to RC decrees, the true Prot (basically evangelical types) are to "prove all things" by the only established assured wholly infallible word of God, the Scriptures (as Christ did with the devil in Mt. 4), which RC "infallible" decrees cannot claim to be.

We see this all the time in Protestantism, most commonly when a Protestant leaves one church for another due to doctrinal disagreement, especially after his church changed its position on an issue he considered important. Consider the question of same-sex “marriage.” Until quite recently, all Protestant denominations taught this was a contradiction in terms. But now many have modified or even completely reversed this doctrine.

And thus they must can obey Scripture which commands,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?...Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (2 Corinthians 6:14,17)

Which is in contrast to RCs, who must remain even with proabortion, prohomo, promuslim pols whom Rome treats are members in life and in death, and a near majority which support such - which partly evidences what Rome really believes (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and is more substantial and speaks louder than some paper conservative statements.

Those Protestants who accept this new teaching believe that the old one was wrong—an erroneous human opinion that became enshrined in their church’s statement of faith. They can do this confidently, knowing that none of their fellow church members can plausibly claim that it contradicts an irreformable dogma that was infallibly revealed by God.

And conversely, evangelicals historically have contended against heresies such as the rejection of the deity of Christ, based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation being determinative of doctrine, not infallibility of office, under which RC model cult members also are bound to believe whatever the latter office teaches.

For while the unScriptural premise of assured magisterial veracity is the easier means of preservation of doctrine and unity, the problem is that it can just as well propagate and perpetuate error and fables as doctrine, as Rome and cults have. Even to a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, nor even supported by early "tradition," being "remembered" 1800 years later and made binding doctrine.

And as under the RC model "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906), which extends beyond infallible teaching, then in one century a RC is obey the pope in torturing even suspected witnesses to heresy, while in another that is (non-infallibly) intrinsically wrong.

In addition, under the RC solution to doctrinal disunity the magisterium can contradict itself by basically redefining past teachings, which results in disunity among those who do not simply follow the Pastors like a docile flock, unless it is something infallibly defined.

As one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

The difference is that under Rome, what Scripture, history, and the writings of authoritative figures only assuredly consist of and mean what she says. Rather than assurance of Truth, even of who and what is of God, being based upon the weight of Scripture substantiation, as with the beginning of the church, to be consistent, the RC must hold that that one cannot even know what Scripture is apart from Rome.

Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

"..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Thus rather than attempting to prove Rome by the Scriptures and the Scriptures by Rome, which is circular reasoning, RC apologists resort to appealing to Scripture merely as an historically accurate document, out which they imaginatively extrapolate perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), by which one has assurance that said document is of God.

However, it is clearly evident that most of what we hold as Scripture was discerned and established as being so before there was even a church, and which began with common people discerning who and what was of God without a perpetual infallible magisterial office.

Thus the church of Rome, which took much of its form from the Roman empire in which it began, has a fundamentally different foundation than that of the NT church.

Because Catholicism is true, Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.

But which presumes what it needs to prove, and which assertion that Catholicism is true is based upon the false premise that PIMO is essential for discernment and preservation of Truth, and that in any conflict the only correct understanding of Scripture, history, and the writings of authoritative figures, is that which Rome declares.

Thus the classic recourse of no less an authority than Manning,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. ” — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.”

Thus once again under the Catholic model for discernment, preservation and assurance of Truth then 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation and recipient of the promises, rather than non-infallible souls discerning both men and writings as being of God.

Which, like Moses overcoming the magicians who duplicated his first 3 miracles, (Exodus 7:10-11, 21-22; 8:6-7) requires establishing what is of God as the apostles did, "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Thus the authority of the apostles did not rest upon historical descent of office, but such attestation as,

in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

In contrast, Rome is like the Pharisees:

The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

And to whom John said in response to their argument by descent:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie.

Which, as said, rests upon the fallacious presumptuous premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (PMIO), which ultimately is circular, while in Scripture both men and writings of God were discerned as being of God and authoritative without an infallible magisterium. And the church began by Truth claims being established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Like the Pharisees, Rome presumes a level of veracity based upon historical descent, and like a cult, she presumes supremacy over Scripture, and wants all to implicit assent to her.

For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that.

Apparently the amateur apologist holds that infallible pronouncements are wholly inspired of God, which they are not.

Meanwhile, rejecting assured personal or perpetual magisterial infallibility does not negate the magisterial office (which Westminster affirms) and its authority, as under the Old Testament disobedience to the magisterium could even be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) As can disobedience to just civil powers. (Rm. 13:1-7) They can be wrong, and dissent can be right, but until replaced then those under their power are subject to them.

However, discipline by the NT church was only by the passive means of disfellowship, or use of remedial spiritual chastisement. (Matthew 18:17; Acts 5:5-10; Romans 16:17;1 Corinthians 4:20-21; 5:5,11-13; 2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:2;1 Timothy 1:20)

But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it.

Misleading. Both Prots and Caths make choices of which infallible authority they will assent to as supreme, Scripture or Rome, and interpret each (RCs do), and both also make choices as to what they will assent to from their church. While Rome would have all to render implicit assent to her leaders, yet as Ratzinger said,

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience [which is to be properly formed] confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" [though not necessarily being correct]. - (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1).

In addition, while Rome would have all to render implicit assent to her teaching, only a minority of them are held as infallible, and the rest allow for some degree of private dissent. Yet Rome effectually teaches this is much larger, and can be public.

Likewise, the fundamental evangelical movement, which most strongly holds to the primary distinctive of the Reformers which Caths attack, that being the supremacy of Scripture, began due to a common commitment to core Truths, and a member who is known to deny such will typically be corrected or censored by his church. The mature Prot. also recognizes the teaching office and the wealth of extensive evangelical commentary, the likes of which the RC is deprived of, and is encouraged to examine.

The Reformers themselves made use of past writings, “...

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position. — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46)

If Protestantism is true, all are fallible.

That all are fallible does not mean no one can speak infallible truth, as even pagans whom Paul quoted did, nor does it mean one cannot know what Truth is, what is of God vs. what is not, which judgment is just what we see in Scripture and under which the church began, as a perpetually infallible office never existed, or was necessary, yet both men and writings were correctly judged to be of God.

So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church.

Rather, again, both Caths and Prots rely upon their own fallible judgment as to what their supreme infallible authority is, and both engage in various degrees of interpretation of their teachings, and both of the faithful (to their heritage) hold to core binding Truths as well as those who which may allow some dissent. Of course, the scope of which varies between churches, but DV relies upon Rome vs. a broad brushed body of churches versus one to one. And the EOs also substantially differ with Rome.

But in addition to PMIO being unBiblical, a key difference is that Rome can redefine its teachings, as with the case of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, while Scripture remains the same.

And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible.

And the RC convert fallibly decides that Rome is orthodox based upon his interpretation of the Bible and or other testimony. And as is clearly seen, they also judge what is infallible or not, and whether V2 teaching to papal teaching in encyclicals and bulls etc. is orthodox, while having a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) Scripture in seeking to to support Rome.

Meanwhile, though lacking a central magisterium (which is the ideal), yet in its outworking where it counts, evangelicals testify to far more unity in basic values in basic values and core truths than the fruit of Catholicism overall.

Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.

If this is impossible then so is the church, as under the RC model the laity could not even have ascertained which men and writings were of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium, yet the church actually began with Truth claims being established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. It remains that under the RC model 1st c. souls should not have followed itinerant preachers whom the historical magisterium rejected, but who established their Truth claims under the premise of Scripture being supreme.

But it is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

While Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, "the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) It is the lack of Biblical apostles under which the NT church realized its limited unity that is the main cause of the evangelical diversity today. Yet among which is most found the essential fellowship of the Spirit, due to a shared conversion and Scriptural relationship with Christ that transcends external lines, and is greater than their differences, as it is centered upon Christ and His unchanging Word, not one particular elitist church with its inventions .

I for one am proud to follow his religion. On the Jews and Their Lies

Then unlike us who neither preach a particular church as supreme nor are to follow men as popes, then you must own up to the like manner of stones which you throw from your glass house.

It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

In 1466,

in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

“When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.”

See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555. It takes its name from its first words:^[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers ^[2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

If RC want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity, then they need to see to your own house. And Rome has been too partial toward the Muslims as regards the Promised land.

Meanwhile, though RCs imagine we look to Luther as a pope, evangelicals are the strongest supporters of the Jews, not simply or because of how they fit into a rapture expectation.

Portuguese Inquisition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition)...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

Spanish Inquisition

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada: The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32]

One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html: While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492..

The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance.

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved.

Goa Inquisition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition)

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2]

Which tribe do you belong to? (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, Galatians 3:24-29, Colossians 3:10-11)

James 1:1 (KJV) - James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Are you a servant, child of God, or a child of disobedience? (Romans 8:13-17, Galatians 4:1-9, Ephesians 2)

Revelation 1:1 (KJV) - The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The Bible is God's Will and His Wisdom. God's Word is alive and very profitable in the instruction in righteousness. It is a Blessing when rightly divided. Every verse is written FOR Believers, but not every verse is ABOUT or TO Believers. If you attempt to apply James 2 to Salvation, you undermine every letter from Paul to the Body of Christ. And you are at odds with God's Revelation to His Church. Because, there is NO Salvation in works. There is only frustration, failure, and condemnation to those who attempt to earn their way to God's Grace. Jesus told his disciples that their righteousness must EXCEED that of the Pharisees - the sect that put a high emphasis on keeping every single Law and tradition, and flaunted their self-righteousness. Jesus used "hard sayings" like this to show folks that this is an impossible standard. They MUST HAVE a Savior. (Matthew 5:20, John 3:14-17, 14:1-31, Romans 3:20-28, 10:1-13) There is NOTHING you can do to earn Salvation. Jesus did it all. See Abraham, he was declared righteous because he BELIEVED God before the Law even existed. (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:1-3) It is our faith that pleases the Father. (Hebrews 11:6)

John 6:28-29 (AMP)

28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?]

29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger].

From the dawn of time, men have sought their own way to God. They have rejected His Word, and attempted to worship him in a thousand different ways other than by faith. Consider just ONE example - Cain and Abel. By faith, Abel offered a lamb as his substitute as a sacrifice to God. It was accepted. Since Abel did it by faith, we know that he followed God's Word (faith comes from hearing God's Word - Romans 10:17). Cain offered produce from the cursed ground. It was not accepted. There is a profound contrast here. Following God's way versus man's way. One was by faith, while the other was by works. All religious error, including much within Christianity, flows from a choice between following Christ, or religion, God's Grace, or human merit, His Word, or the reasoning of theologians. Choose your path wisely. It will save you from much frustration. (Genesis 3 & 4, Romans 1, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 11:4)

James is not talking about Salvation. His letter was written to Jewish Believers, so that should raise a yellow flag to proceed cautiously. God sent Paul to the Gentiles, and gave him the revelation of the Body of Christ. James is addressing Believers - people who have accepted Jesus as their Savior, even if some were still zealous of the Law. James CANNOT be about Salvation. It is a teaching on faith, or put in a better way, the Anointing to do what God desires.

Look carefully at James 1. What is he teaching? That you must ask for wisdom in faith, not to be double-minded. Be patient in trials and be a doer of the Word. Bridle your tongue, or else it undermines your faith and service is futile. How are you a doer of the Word? Believe with your heart, speak it with your mouth, and act on what you believe. (Matthew 12:30-37, Mark 11:20-25, Luke 6:43-49, Romans 10:1-17)

The lesson continues into chapter 2. Show no favoritism. Walk in love. Be a doer of the Word. You cannot be effective in your Christian walk without a faith connection to God/His Word - you cannot separate God from His Word. Note the examples given - Abraham and Rahab. What made them DO what was described? Abraham was certain of God's Promise concerning Isaac, so he willingly offered him BY FAITH. (Hebrews 11:17-19) Consider Rahab's actions. What motivated her to assist the Jewish spies? (Hebrews 11:31) She placed her FAITH in God that He would preserve her entire family. Its not about Salvation, but putting "legs" to your faith. You can say all day you believe God's Word and get nowhere. But when you take a step of faith, act on the Word because you KNOW its TRUTH, that is when faith comes ALIVE. It is your faith that pleases God and glorifies Him. (Matthew 17:20, Mark 16:15-18, John 8:31-51 14:9-27, 15:1-8, 17:12-22, Acts 1:4-8, 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, Philippians 1:9-11, Colossians 3:1-25, 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10, Hebrews 11:1-40, 12:1-3, 1 Peter 4:1-11)

Jesus put it this way:

John 15:1-5 (AMP) - 1 I AM the True Vine, and My Father is the Vinedresser. 2 Any branch in Me that does not bear fruit [that stops bearing] He cuts away (trims off, takes away); and He cleanses and repeatedly prunes every branch that continues to bear fruit, to make it bear more and richer and more excellent fruit. 3 You are cleansed and pruned already, because of the word which I have given you [the teachings I have discussed with you]. 4 Dwell in Me, and I will dwell in you. [Live in Me, and I will live in you.] Just as no branch can bear fruit of itself without abiding in (being vitally united to) the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. Whoever lives in Me and I in him bears much (abundant) fruit. However, apart from Me [cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.

Religion, otherwise known as works of the flesh, cannot save you. God, who is Love Himself, because of His overwhelming Love for YOU pours out His Favor, or Grace, to all who believe. Receive by faith this ETERNAL TRUTH, God has Blessed Believers with EVERY Spiritual Blessing, delivered them from judgment, made those who were dead alive together with Christ, and raised them up to sit with Him in Heavenly Places. Grace is a Gift - so no man can boast - PERIOD. (Ephesians 1 - 3 - Read and prayerfully study these three chapters carefully and often. See also - Luke 18:9-14, Romans 3:20-31, 4:1-25, 2 Timothy 1:6-14, Titus 3:1-8)

Only by Faith, Love, and the Anointing and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can you really do anything Good. Then, its not work, its simply Zoe - the God kind of Life flowing through you - producing the fruit God designed you to produce. Its yielding to God's Will and purpose for you wherever HE placed you in the Body. God gave you the desires of your heart to be manifested at the proper moment to Bless the Body, and be a witness to the world. (Psalm 37:3-7, John 10:7-11, 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 12:27-31, 13:1-13, 2 Corinthians 9:6-15, Galatians 5:13-26, 6:1-10, Ephesians 2:1-10, 5:1-20, Philippians 1:9-11, Colossians 1:9-13, 2 Timothy 2:19-21, 3:14-17, Titus 2:11-15, 3:1-15)

Ephesians 2:8-10 (KJV) - 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

1 Corinthians 12:14-18 (KJV) - 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

BTW - Though some may respond with wrong motives, contending for the faith should never be considered vitriolic. (Jude 1:1-25) I treasure many of the posts on this forum, as they challenge me to renew my mind with God's Truth, and often edify my spirit.

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.