Posted on 05/10/2011 9:04:37 AM PDT by marshmallow
I intended to give the poor Protestants a break, but now I read that the Lutherans are imploding or exploding, depending on your point of view. It seems that the two largest Lutheran “churches” in America have broken up, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).
The first split occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s after a long battle between resurgent conservatives and liberals, the latter including especially the faculty of Concordia Seminary. The liberal losers in the LCMS moved on to help shape the ELCA in the late 1980’s, but they crafted a self-destructive mode of governance. Insisting on disproportionate minority representation in all governing bodies and committees, the ELCA ultimately shifted power to special interest groups, hastening an inevitable disintegration in the last few years. Meanwhile, the more conservative LCMS seems doomed to be locked in constant theological squabbling, encompassing spiritual, social and political concerns.
A brief survey of what has gone on is available from First Things in Robert Benne’s The Trials of American Lutheranism. One of the key problems in all this is unwittingly raised by Benne when he notes that “the refugees from the first conflict were instrumental in shaping the flawed foundation for the second.” After all, when it comes to shaping the structure and governance of a “church”, one must surely wonder how—as a purely human enterprise—the foundation could be anything but flawed. What would constitute an unflawed foundation?
Wouldn’t it have to come from God?
The incredible confusion in Protestant circles on this subject is captured nicely in Benne’s final paragraph, as he closes his commentary on the shattered fragments that remain:
These Lutheran perspectives retain crucial importance as distinctive insights into the Great Tradition. They of course are not the whole and should not be taken for the whole. But they do provide flashes of illumination and insight for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That is justification enough for their preservation.
Really?
Here we go again with the Great Tradition, which nobody can adequately define. What is part of it and what is not? And once again we meet a sort of ideal but non-existent “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, which apparently the Lutherans have been attempting to approximate with flawed foundations by forming or reforming their own “churches”. So how do we know that anything these groups provide qualifies as an “insight”? Which “insights” are to be retained, and which rejected?
Please. My friends, none of this works, and the sad thing is that it should be obvious to anyone capable of basic reflection that none of this works. Protestantism is capable of offering some goods conducive to salvation only to the degree that it continues to cherish what it has inherited from a real and identifiable “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Insofar as it progressively abandons this inheritance, Protestantism has less and less help to offer, less and less “insight” into the relationships between God and man, less and less similarity to what it means to be a church.
The whole matter depends on the basic principles of what we might call Religion 101. Any Revelation which God discloses to us must necessarily include details of the ongoing authority by which that Revelation is to be transmitted and implemented over time. Without this, God has no means of making His Revelation effective; His Word would return to Him void (Is 55:11). The ultimate structure and authority of a Church, if it is to be taken seriously as something which can achieve God’s purpose despite human weaknesses, cannot be drawn from human imagination or fashioned through human debate and compromise. In other words, to avoid being irremediably flawed and inherently self-destructive, the mechanism of authority in a true Church must come from God Himself.
Logically, it would have to, wouldn’t it? Well, wouldn’t it?
In this section of the rant it asserts "I think the problem is just the eagerness some have to just toss out an arbitrary number". Perhaps the arbitrary and capriciousness lies in another area one where "I think" types again need to exercise greater reflection before making apparent inane comments.
Again there is mention of this Barrett source as not being of empirical quality but my sources are not of this cite so your point is moot.
You state the "Some see it as a badge of honor that they separated from the hierarchy that perverted the true Christian faith" too many generalization lacking in dis-positive evidence so that statement is rendered worthless although on a witness stand during cross examination I would make it the longest day of in the life of one who uttered such a simplistic thought.
Your anecdotal statements supporting seemingly nonexistent differences between christian denominations is without any merit for a multitude of reasons. Just look at the rants on this forum who take exception to that claim on a daily basis. Your chums would not support this assertion.
By defining a denomination as, an ecclesial body that retains an autonomous jurisdiction, one comes close to a reasoned response and I agree with the definition. It is a logical approach and one that my source uses. But then you make an absurd statement of asking the question of the basic tenants of the Christian faith. To Catholics it would be the Nicene creed but what of the non Catholic ones who claim to Christians. That is where the problem arises. Judging from the ones who inhabit this forum you're likely to end up believing in space cadets or some other outrageous doctrine as being the foundation of their alleged christian beliefs.
The creation of these new ecclesial entities is the 'Curse of Protestantism" and it appears to be a never ending curse . This is supported by empirical evidence and it was well over 30,000 cults the last time I looked over three years ago. Just this weekend the Presbyterians have allowed Gay ordination and thus more fissures will appear. Who knows how that number has accreted.
Your simplistic statement that the Church of Jesus Christ is across denominational lines is the food for many hotly contested debates on this forum.You have supporters on this forum who are ashamed to divulge their alleged christian affiliation. How does one account for them?
Finally, the next time I assert this 30,000 plus number as the Curse of Protestantism, please offer proper refutation not assuming to know the genesis of my evidence.
It really IS an apples and oranges problem.
yet you leave out those who ARE considered Catholic (i.e.;Eastern Orthodox) but do not submit to the Pope of Rome.
I do not consider the Orthodox "Catholic." I consider them "catholic." To go further and to get more precise, we acknowledge the validity of their orders and sacraments. But their ecclesiology is not so good.
I did read an article by some Catholic apologist who recommended dropping the 20k or 30k (or whatever) thing because it seemed dubious. It is also unnecessary. 1k or 500 would do for our point, if we have one.
Personally, I think the term [Protestant] is not even needed anymore and I know of no denomination that goes by the name of "Protestant" something or other.
I have been told here, firmly and more than once, that "Protestant" applies to only a small subset of all the non-Catholic denominations. FWIW. I was brought up to use it as you suggested.
My own empirical evidence shows me that, doctrinally, a Southern Baptist church is not any different than an Evangelical nondenominational church. I've been to a Lutheran church, too, and the faith is identical. I could attend a Methodist or Presbyterian or Anglican church and feel at home because the faith is the same.
First, I think you would be surprised at some of the Anglican Churches.
But more importantly, some people seem to think that Baptism should be reserved for people who have reached the age of reason, should be done by immersion, and that being baptized more than once is no problem. Others think that infant baptism (by pouring or sprinkling as well as immersion) is okay but that it is NOT okay to baptize more than once. Among the groups you mention, some believe in baptismal regeneration ex opere operato, while others think it is an act of obedience and that there is no hard and fast relationship between it and any regenerative grace.
These differences were enough to cause jail, martyrdom, and at the mildest, putting up a new building, designing a new polity, separating out the handling of assets and income. As an Anglican I refused to baptize the child of a couple who attended a Baptist church because of the difference in teaching on Baptism. (I would have done it, of course, if there was an emergency.) But here was a couple attending a church that said what they wanted for their child was impossible! This is not an "identical" faith.
So I don't get this:
I don't think that it is a correct observation that because there are divisions, it automatically means brand new religions get created. Like I said, the tenets are the same. If they weren't they wouldn't be called Christian anymore.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "tenets" is. But WHY is the prayer for unity less important that a preference which is, you say, is not of the essence?
And these divisions do not come easily. There are lawsuits, fights over property, sometimes over pensions. People are willing to go through all that for something that is not important?
Finally, your concern about different "Authorities" only shows a preference for a unified single front that dispels all disputes.
"only"?
In the Episcopal Church it used to be clear that abortion was wrong. When I was in the ministry it was declared okay in some circumstances. The Episcopal Church took a "pro-choice" position. I that "identical"? Is that unimportant?
Is the question of the killing of innocents of little importance? But if you can go to pastor and be told it is wrong but across the street and a mile down pastor B will tell you it's up to you -- and neither is breaking the denomination's discipline, then I think the denomination which does not take a stand on abortion, one which will not guide its people. I think to speak with a united voice about faith and morals is the JOB of the Church.
I'm coming to think the whole conversation is "apples and oranges", in a way. We have one view of the Church, once which includes a teaching charism.
We seem to be pretty inert (or supernaturally patient. But when the former Bishop of Richmond was spending too much time off the rails, a number of people wrote to the Vatican, and he was "given" an assistant bishop who, everybody knew, was not only to help with episcopal cats, but to keep the Diocesan in line.
Fr Phleger in Chicago has been suspended because he did not stick to Catholic social dogma.
Even though it's only 7:20 PM EDT, I"m falling asleep and my confuser, so I'll stop here.
Thank you for your generous words.
It appears what has left your court is a credible response bereft of any dispositive evidence to support seemingly flawed allegations.
I understand your inability to refute my position. The best you can trust is to accept this Curse of Protestantism with its 30,000 plus divisions and attempt to heal the fractions which are becoming as wide as the grand Canyon. It is difficult to defend these Houses of Heresy and one must be brave in their defense.
Well, counselor, by all means post your irrefutable source for this “empirical evidence”. I have yet to see it. I have no burden of proof at all since I was not the one to state in the beginning that there were 30,000 Protestant factions. I posted a probable source for such a statement and also a very well stated refutation to it. It WAS read, right?
This thread is not the first time I have researched and examined the issue. The actual number, whether 3,000 or 33,000 is not important. What is important is that we just stop the nonsense and admit the facade that is painted by Protestantism that it is unified by anything more than a common opposition to the Church. With no central teaching authority each denomination, congregation and individual Protestant is free to differ from all others to the degree that their own personal or accepted interpretation of Scripture leads them.
The book is in the Public Domain as it was written before copyright laws .
I have scans of it.
If you want to find it online you can find a copy of it here
http://www.exclassics.com/
The Spanish Inquisition investigated Catholics only. It left followers of other faiths alone. But if you a Jew who converted to Catholic Christianity because of the difficulties (or, finally, impossibility) of being a Jew in Spain, but then kept kosher or gave signs of not really believing the Catholic faith, then you came to the Inquisition. You weren't tried for not believing, you were tried for pretending to believe.
Compared to the other jurisprudence of the times, the Inquisition provided far more due process. The number of victims of the Inquisition, though even one is too many, is dwarfed by the tens of thousands killed for witchcraft, which was often tried by ordeal rather than the taking of evidence.
I got my first dose of this data from a talk by a UVA history professor who began his studies of the Spanish Inquisition as a non-Catholic. When he found how thick and many the lies were against the Catholics, it enticed him to look further into the Catholic CHurch, and he became a Catholic a few years ago.
My other source is a Ph. D. Candidate who gave a talk when he was on a short trip to Charlottesville from Spain where he is researching. He is a 'cradle Catholic'.
The Albigensians of 800 years ago pre-existed the modern nation state and were considered a political threat as well as a threat to the Church. One of the stories of Dominic's early ministry is of his spending all night talking the Albigensian innkeeper where he was staying into returning to orthodoxy.
One thing we can conclude from this is that Albigensians and Catholics coexisted in Southern France and Northern Italy for quite some time. The Albigensians had enough freedom of movement to kill Peter of Verona, one of the first Dominican martyrs -- one of whose killers repented and joined the order as a lay brother.
Yes there was a massacre. But how much that was a matter merely of religion and how much a matter of a threat to the uneasy and changing feudal order is not clear.
Ok, after this I'm done talking about it. Say what you want, have the last word.
I find it amusing that you call my "unsubstantiated self serving testimony" as not meeting your definition of "proof", but then refer to your "empirical evidence" as unrefutable. Just in case you wonder why I find humor in that, it is because the very term "empirical evidence" means:
From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means:
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence
This document is continuously updated and is the treasure trove for statisticians and for internal analysts who dissect the responses from these discrete ecclesial entities and who then draw informed conclusions.
Unfortunately this evidence meets the criteria for the term "Empirical" listed in your response so the debate can be terminated.
What is of concern to me was the insouciant manner in which you assumed to know the source of my information. Presumption is not a defensible and is not the mark of a christian. Yet, judging from the unchristian replies I see on these threads it is no wonder Jesus suffered so terribly for our sins.
As far as I know, the Albigensians were scarcely Christian, much less Protestant.
I don't know what I said which would lead you to make this remark.
The first thing you need to know is that the European Religious Wars had very little to do with Religion, other than as a motivator to the masses to become involved in struggles that only benefited the aristocracies.
The Reformation was bought and paid for with assets seized from the Church. Qui Bono!
At the time of the Reformation the Church was a major land holder. In Henry VIII's England the Church owned nearly 1/3 of all land. Henry used the division with the Church as the excuse to seize the property to finance his excesses. In the process he executed over 78,000.
Looking back on the action of any party to those episodes through the lens of 21st century sensibilities is completely disingenuous.
You're responding to what is essentially a boilerplate statement. I've heard speakers recommend almost that identical sentence (it may be identical in fact) as a way to shut up people who chime in to defend the Catholic Church when one of the "faithful" is "witnessing" to a Catholic and seems to be making headway. IOW, it's supposed to put the discussion back on an emotional level when if it somehow gets too factual.
Ah. Well, that’s no fun.
Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
Well, some honesty finally. Indeed the numbers mean little especially when one considers their meaning. Like the article pointed out there is division even in the places where it is denied. The question then must be why is there division among Christians - and even your own Popes have come to terms with the concept that it is faith and not organizational loyalty which determines membership into the family of God - the body of Christ.
The basic tenets of the Christian faith can be summed up in the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed - as long as we know that when we say "catholic" it means universal just like it was used when it was first mentioned.
It is also obvious that central authority does no more to govern the thoughts and intents of man than laws of the land. It is what is in the heart of the man that determines his actions, for good or ill. When a person comes to personal faith in Jesus Christ and commits his life to Christ, he IS changed internally. The Holy Spirit indwells him and he is freed from the bondage of sin and death. No membership in any church can fabricate such a complete change of heart - there is real rebirth followed by a walk in newness of life with God Almighty as Father. As such, he promises chastening and discipline so that we mature in our faith. It is a life-long process that at the end we have assurance of eternal life in Heaven with him and all others that name the name of Christ. Our nametags won't have a space for denomination because it won't matter.
Catholic can mean anything you want it to mean.....to you, but to Catholics it means something else. We get it, Protestants choose to be different, they value differentness above Communion. That need to be different from Catholics is the essence of Protestantism.
In my dealings with Protestants, including close relatives, I find that they most often choose the team they are on and then let that mold their belief system. It leads them to accept lies about the Church and about the Reformers without the burden of unbiased research or reason.
I found this old thread on Free Republic discussing that very thing: How Many Catholics Were Killed During Cromwell and Henry VIII In England?
It seems the learned consensus was nowhere near 78,000 Catholics were killed. Remember Henry was a Catholic until the Anne Boleyn hussy came into the picture. He was also very much against Luther and killed his share of Protestants in his day. I think the estimated 78,000 number just may be all the people that were executed regardless of religion. Many were clobbered due to crimes such as treason rather than religion. It was said that Bloody Mary (his Catholic daughter) killed more Protestants than all the Catholics killed by daddy or sister, Elizabeth.
I suppose these kinds of tit-for-tat arguments may never stop, but I think we can all agree that murder based upon religious choices should never be allowed again. Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they left towns inhospitable to the Gospel. I know he was appalled that so much violence was done by anyone naming Him.
And what excuse would you give for the slaughter of the Huguenots ?
What did the Pope do about it ?
He celebrated just like the Palestinians did after 911
(there is a pattern here)
Can’t even hide the fact that he certainly did as he even commemorated their slaughter in a painting and a coin
points -——> at the dead Protestant Frenchmen commemorated on the back of the coin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gregory_XIII_medal.jpg
so tell me again about how it’s just about getting back seized property ... yea some ones property was taken alright along with their lives and there is a coin to prove it.
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.
