Replies

I understand. The problem with that is that it is both 1) unBiblical, and 2) leaves us with every man his own pope. We can choose the Bible written by the English Monarchy, a different one written by modern American liberals, we can embrace "Bishop" Vicki Gene Robinson the homosexual adulterer that now represents the American remnant of the English heresiarchs, or one we (re)write the Bible ourselves as Thomas Jefferson did.

God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, chose Apostles to run His Church. God, in the Person of the Holy Ghost, helped thos God chosen Apostles replace the ArchTraitor Judas and then has helped guide and govern His Church ever since then.

I understand. The problem with that is that it is both 1) unBiblical, and 2) leaves us with every man his own pope.

To the first point, most Protestants would disagree. To the second point, that can be a problem, but only if one over-stresses the individual.

Also, I have a really hard time getting over the idea of one man being able to speak the Word infallibly. I've heard the Catholic explanations over and over again, and I just can't come to terms with it.

Just in case I give the wrong impression, I am not anti-Catholic. I've been Catholic, I've been Baptist, and now I'm non-denominational. Historically, that means "Protestant," but I prefer to think of myself as "Christian," as I am not fully Protestant in my theological convictions. There are parts of Catholic-specific tradition that I don't reject to quite the degree that most of the members of my church would (like the doctrine of the Eucharist). And then there are some parts of Catholicism that I cannot (and probably will never) come to terms with enough to pursue Confirmation. I've tried.

I understand. The problem with that is that it is both 1) unBiblical, and 2) leaves us with every man his own pope. We can choose the Bible written by the English Monarchy, a different one written by modern American liberals, we can embrace "Bishop" Vicki Gene Robinson the homosexual adulterer that now represents the American remnant of the English heresiarchs, or one we (re)write the Bible ourselves as Thomas Jefferson did.

Something I should add. What you're saying, if I'm not mistaken (and if I am, please feel free to correct me), is that liberal theology is a consequence of the Protestant Reformation. I don't think this is the case.

Now, to be sure, liberal theology within the Protestant church can go unchecked or even be sanctioned, whereas the Pope has never sanctioned liberal theology within the Catholic Church. However, this has not stopped liberal theology from creeping in by way of some parishioners and even some priests (particularly in the Americas).

One might claim that the theologically liberal strains of Catholicism are a result of parisioners adopting some tendencies of liberal theology from Protestants. However, liberal theology as we know it today does not come from Protestantism. It comes from Fascism. The attempt to "purge" Judaism from Christianity left a permanent scar in the Western Church, and very few--if any--denominations can say that they have escaped the sickness of liberal theology completely. (And Papal loyalty or disloyalty didn't have much to do with the influence of the Fascists; the "German Christian" movement contained both Catholics and Protestants.)

You can agree or disagree with the Reformation, and we can argue about whether it has been good or bad for Christendom as a whole. But the Reformation is not responsible for Gene Robinson and the other joys of liberal theology. Did it extradite the process? Possibly. But the real culprit is Fascism.