Thomas A. Droleskey on the Lies of Protestantism

Protestantism is founded on many lies: (1) That Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church. (2) That there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful. (3) That each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God. (4) Having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness. (5) This state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner. (6) That grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the "dungheap" that is man. (7) That there is only one source of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture. (8) That each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture. (9) That there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule. These lies have permutated in thousands of different directions. However, they have sewn the fabric of the modern state and popular culture for nearly 500 years (I shudder to think how the Vatican is going to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 theses on the church doors in Wittenberg fourteen years from now).

Here below are explanations of these lies and their multifaceted implications for the world in which we live:

(1-2) The contention that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical church vitiates the need for a hierarchical, sacerdotal priesthood for the administration of the sacraments. It is a rejection of the entirety of the history of Christianity prior to the Sixteenth Century. It is a denial of the lesson taught us by Our Lord by means of His submission to His own creatures, Saint Joseph and the Blessed Mother, in the Holy Family of Nazareth that each of us is to live our entire lives under authority, starting with the authority of the Vicar of Christ and those bishops who are in full communion with him. The rejection of the visible, hierarchical church is founded on the prideful belief that we are able to govern ourselves without being directed by anyone else on earth. This contention would lead in due course to the rejection of any and all religious belief as necessary for individuals and for societies. Luther and Calvin paved the way for Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution that followed so closely the latter's deification of man.

(3-6) Baptism is merely symbolic of the Christian's desire to be associated with the Savior in the amorphous body known as the Church. What is determinative of the believer's relationship with Christ is his profession of faith. As the believer remains a reprobate sinner, all he can do is to seek forgiveness by confessing his sins privately to God. This gives the Protestant of the Lutheran strain the presumptuous sense that there is almost nothing he can do to lose his salvation once he has made his profession of faith in the Lord Jesus. There is thus no belief that a person can scale the heights of personal sanctity by means of sanctifying grace. It is impossible, as Luther projected from his own unwillingness to cooperate with sanctifying grace to overcome his battles with lust, for the believer to be anything other than a dungheap. Thus a Protestant can sin freely without for once considering that he has killed the life of sanctifying grace in his soul, thereby darkening his intellect and weakening the will and inclining himself all the more to sin-and all the more a vessel of disorder and injustice in the larger life of society.

(7-8) The rejection of a visible, hierarchical Church and the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation protected by that Church leads in both instances to theological relativism. Without an authoritative guide to interpret Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, individual believers can come to mutually contradictory conclusions about the meaning of passages, the precise thing that has given rise to literally thousands of Protestant sects. And if a believer can reduce the Bible, which he believes is the sole source of Divine Revelation, to the level of individual interpretation, then there is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same with all written documents, including the documents of a nation's founding. If the plain words of Scripture can be deconstructed of their meaning, it is easy to do so, say, with the words of a governmental constitution. Theological relativism paved the way for moral relativism. Moral relativism paved the way for the triumph of positivism and deconstructionism as normative in the realm of theology and that of law and popular culture.

(9) The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as it was exercised by His true Church in the Middle Ages by the Protestant concept of the separation of Church and State is what gave rise to royal absolutism in Europe in the immediate aftermath of Luther's handiwork. Indeed, as I have noted any number of times before, it is arguably the case that the conditions that bred resentment on the part of colonists in English America prior to 1776 might never have developed if England had remained a Catholic nation. The monarchy would have been subject in the Eighteenth Century to same constraints as it had in the Tenth or Eleventh Centuries, namely, that kings and queens would have continued to understand that the Church reserved unto herself the right to interpose herself in the event that rulers had done things-or proposed to do things-that were contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and/or were injurious of the cause of the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their subjects. The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ deposited power first of all in the hands of monarchs eager to be rid of the "interference" of the Church and ultimately in the hands of whoever happened to hold the reins of governmental power in the modern "democratic" state. Despotism has been the result in both cases

We are not "consulting the dead" but asking their intercession before God. Apparently, the difference is lost upon you. Anyway, we certainly wouldn't pray to dead Protestants, but we will continue to pray to live Catholics in heaven and purgatory for their prayers.

Symantics again. We weren't talking with the dead, we were just talking with the dead. We didn't ask anything of them, we just asked them to do something for us. But wait, asking them to do something requires talking to them. A paradox? Indeed. Double talk - definitely. Acceptable - umm, no. Communing in simplest terms is used here to mean communicating with. This was outlawed in the form of witchcraft, necromancy, spiritism, communing with familiars, etc. Any flavor of communication with the dead that you can imagine is covered in some form of pagan right and explicitly banned in the laws and defined as sin. Not only sin; but, sin worthy of physical death. These things didn't stop being sins, the law is not done away with but fulfilled. What was sin, still is.

If you attempt to contact the dead in any form you are trying to communicate with them. At that point you are already in sin. It doesn't matter the method or motive, it is already sin. And since Ecclesiastes says they can't hear or respond, you've accomplished precisely nothing but to rebell against God's word. You might as well break and enter into an empty bank and get caught. If you think you're getting away with it, you forget you answer to God for it. If we can see it how do you think you can hide from the Lord God.

>>>> Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration.

>>Do you not know scripture?! Jesus had a Vision. Go read it again. Scripture does not say that they were present. It says he saw them in a vision. Christ even Corrected Peter for saying that they were present. Do we need to call him down to correct you to? Astonishing.

"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias"

Nothing says "They appeared to be there," but rather "they appeared there." Nothing says it was *merely* an image, but rather, that they in fact did talk with Jesus.

And absolutely, positively nothing says, "No, Peter, that's not them, it's just *looks* like them." The only thing Jesus corrected Peter on was that he should not construct tents (something you do if you plan on staying for a long, long time.)

It's amazing the concoction people will invent to support their own doctrines!

>>>> Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration.

>>Do you not know scripture?! Jesus had a Vision. Go read it again. Scripture does not say that they were present. It says he saw them in a vision. Christ even Corrected Peter for saying that they were present. Do we need to call him down to correct you to? Astonishing.

Surely you are not saying Jesus spoke with *false* visions? "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias"

Nothing says "They appeared to be there," but rather "they appeared there." Nothing says it was *merely* an image, but rather, that they in fact they did talk with Jesus.

And absolutely, positively nothing says, "No, Peter, that's not them, it's just *looks* like them." The only thing Jesus corrected Peter on was that he should not construct tents (something you do if you plan on staying for a long, long time.)

It's amazing the concoction people will invent to support their own doctrines!

The Catechism admonishes members to pray to those who, because of their good works, have been declared by the church to be "saints:"

"The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives... They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world." Pg. 645, #2683 (See also Pg. 249, #956)

This chapter must begin by defining the word "saint." Catholicism teaches that a saint is one of a select few who, because of good works while alive, is declared a saint after death:

"By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors." Pg. 219, #828

According to Scripture, however, anyone who is born again by faith in Christ is a saint. Paul wrote to all the saints (Christians) in Rome:

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:7

Many other verses express the same truth:

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" Ephesians 3:8
"...Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints," Jude 1:14

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" Ephesians 4:11-12

(See also Acts 9:13; 9:32; 9:41; 26:10; Romans 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 15:26; 15:31; 16:2; 16:15; 1 Cor-inthians 6:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, plus dozens of other New Testament references.)

Why this doctrine?

In short, the scenario goes like this. Catholicism discarded the scriptural definition of a "saint" and devised a new one, then instructed members to pray to these unscriptural "saints."

The question is, why pray to anyone else when the God of the universe is in heaven waiting to hear and answer prayers?

Are "saints" intercessors?

Supposedly, these so-called saints "intercede with the Father for us." But we have already learned that Jesus Christ is our only intercessor. Therefore, to suggest otherwise is but a man made tradition.

Here's another interesting Catechism quote concerning saints:

"Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ..." Pg. 249-250, #957

According to the Catholic church, praying to saints brings people closer to Christ. However, you will not find this doctrine in Scripture either. It is another tradition of men that neither Jesus nor the Bible ever taught.

In fact, this practice of communing with the dead treads dangerously close to necromancy, another practice strongly condemned in the Bible. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12.)

Conclusion

The nagging question you must answer here is: Why would the Catholic church rather have members pray to dead men than to the living, all-powerful, prayer-answering God?

Keep in mind that if these traditions of men are not true, then all your prayers to "saints" are but worthless chatter.

If you pray to God, though, you may claim many wonderful Biblical promises:

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16

Luke 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: [31] Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.. [9] And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Nothing says "They appeared to be there," but rather "they appeared there." Nothing says it was *merely* an image, but rather, that they in fact did talk with Jesus.. It's amazing the concoction people will invent to support their own doctrines!

Yes, amazing the things Jesus would concoct to support .. oops, huh.

>> Uh, no it wasn't. It was called by Constantine.

No, Constantine asked for the Bishop of Rome to call it. Even so, the Bishop of Rome refused to call for it in Rome, instead choosing Nicea, where it would be freer of Constantine's influence. (Constantine did, um, help ensure attendance.)

>>There was, as yet, ... no such thing as a pope.

This is true. The term, "Pope" is merely a nickname, meaning "Papa." Just as "Fathers" are really "reverends," the official title of the Pope is "Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter."

>>There was, as yet, no such office called the Papacy.

Papacy, coming from the name, "Papa," was also not in existence. However, the Bishop of Rome did assert the fact that he was a successor of Peter as a grounds for compelling attendance.

I suppose now we break down into the typical squabble:

Did not... did too... This is the historical record... The Catholics destroyed the *real* record... Yadda yadda yadda.

Still stuck before the resurrection; Ecclesiastes describes pre-Christian Jews. I'm talking about the firstfruit saints.

Who cares what you call it. It doesn't change the fact that it's sin. If you get busted smoking pot in a car, you can say "aw i was just.." what ever you want, doesn't change the fact of you're being busted smoking pot. And unless or untill you can show specific scripture stating that this changed when Christ said it had not been done away with, then you are doing nothing but spouting false doctrine.

But describing things which were happening (albeit in a symbolic way) or which will happen.

So what, that is prophecy. It came from God, not from men in heaven. Huge difference.

So now Revelations is nothing more than a vision, not a prophecy? Not truth?

Indeed, the book itself proclaims from the outset that it is a vision. Can you not read. The truth of the work was not questioned - your perversion of what was happening is what got challenged. And when you got called on it, you handwring and come up with THIS? Revelation may be prophecy, and nobody here disputed that. But that prophecy does not include the notion that it became ok to speak to dead people. Nor does it say that it later will. Nor does a vision of happenings in heaven mean that dead men can interfere with the goings on of the living. Ecclesiastes still rules the day.

>> This IS a corruption of the term. This is in no way even similar to the definition in scripture.

You do realize that the little dictionary section at the back of your bible is not scripture. Scripture ends at "Revelations." The dictionary and bible study are added by the publisher. :)
From dictionary.com:
Saint:
1. Abbr. St. or S. Christianity. A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.
2. A person who has died and gone to heaven.

Comes from the same root as "Sanctified."\

Grant you, I realize protestants don't recognize Catholic canonization, so we can discared definition 1. I think we agree on definition 2. The only thing we disagree on is *not* the definition of saint, but who is a saint.

Catholics believe that those who are not fully sanctified by a complete and perfect contrition are further purified after their deaths; Protestants believe that all the justified go straight to Heaven or enter soul sleep.

Since we do not know the duration of purgatory, Catholics refer only to those who skipped purgatory as being in Heaven.

Obviously, lying to obtain an annulment is a grave sin.

Tell that to Teddy Kennedy, and the other well connected. ..if you have the money the "church" will aid and abet your lie, and your adulteress marriage that follows

Gee, you don't Protestants who sin?

Tons but they do not have a church that forces it

This is very simple when a pastor is nothing more than an elected representative of the community.

They are ordained and assigned by their leadership and the community

No evangelical is truly "defrocked," since no evangelical is ever "frocked." But the Catholic Church *does* hold that homosexual is a mortal ("damnable") sin, and those who failed to remove such priests from ministry are also guilty of grave sin.

You seem to have a lot of Bishops that chose to ignore the sin and abet its continuance. protestant churches remove the credentials and remove them . One that covers sin to allow its continuance is as guilty as the perp..

, you say, "Only Anglicans do that." (In each case, Lutherans do too.) Did you know that 65% of Christians are Catholics? That 40% of non-Catholics are Orthodox? That 60% of non-orthodox, non-Catholics were episcopal and sacramental, like the Catholics and Orthodox, such as Anglican or Lutheran?

When you look at the number of Catholics that are even semi faithful (attend mass..but do not keep the church laws) your numbers drop significantly ..

The percentage of Catholics who attend Sunday Mass faithfully is about 32%. Surveys reported in the secular and Catholic press indicate that more than 60% of Catholics do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Rochester, NY Newsweek/CBS). Worshipping the Lord on the Lord's Day is a commandment, the will of God, a response to God's love, a union with God.
http://www.vermontcatholic.org/evangel/cathevan.htm

Protestants only count the people that "join " the church . The majority that you see in church on Sundays are not "official" members so they are not counted in the stats ..(BTW right now I am still on the rolls of the Catholic church as are my 6 Protestant children)

I attend a bible presbyterian church ,but I have not sought membership.So I am not counted by them

>> Yes, amazing the things Jesus would concoct to support .. oops, huh.

Where? Behind the snide comments, you show me nothing but talk of appearances and visions. Jesus said this; Jesus said that. Funny whatever Jesus does say, y'all are like "O, but he didn't *really* mean that" and you plug all sorts of nonsense into what Jesus does say.

No one is questionning whether it was a vision. Moses and Elijah had not been resurrected, and we know at least Moses rot in the ground. At issue was whether it was a FALSE vision, a MERE vision. When angels appear in visions, we don't hold that the angel didn't really exist; we know that unlike phastasms and dreams, appearances of angels are real visions.

Here we have a vision actually talking. Not merely appearing as a symbol, like the dove, but actually talking!

What is in dispute is whether Jesus ever corrects Peter that it is *merely* a vision. You failed to show where Jesus corrects Peter at all.

This kind of nonsense is why Sola Scriptura is bull which is self-contradictory and illogical. Yes, universal revelation *is* complete in the scripture, but historical context, interpretation and hermeneutics are necessary. Without them, you can deny any scripture you want and pull all sorts of bung out of your hole.

What on earth are you asserting, if you deny Moses and Elijah weren't there? That Jesus was talking to demonic phantasms? That he was performing a show for the apostles' benefits?

>>>> Saints are they who are completely purified by their lives on Earth and so enter directly to Heaven, without purgatory

>>And how does one know that ?

Well, see this is the problem with Sola Scriptura. Catholics *do* believe that universal revelation ended with the bible. The problem is that definitions, historical context, and interpretation are all necessary to understand any writing. "Tradition" isn't additional revelation; it's context, interpretation and definition.

The bible didn't come with a glossary in it. And even if it did, we could debate what the meanings of the words in the glossary is.

So how do we know what saint means? You tell me.

Meanwhile, as I noted elsewhere, I think everyone reading agrees with the notion that a saint is someone who has died and gone to Heaven. The only difference is Protestants hold that all the justified go *straight* to Heaven. Catholics observe the obvious fact that there are many Christians who have not become perfectly submissive to Christ while on Earth. We hold that the process of sanctification continues after death, and there are several passages of the bible which affirm this. (Again, we differ on interpretation.) For this reason, there are deceased Christians who will enter Heaven eventually, but who are not saints yet.

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.