Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
**Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism.**
I think it slowly is happening. Anyone else?
Absolutely, usually these types of Baptists hold the majority of Baptists as being flawed, at least from what I have observed. But I don’t know that they have/use/order so many tracts specifically about them, or take time to visit their parking lots to put them under windshields.
Freegards
I also think for me it poses questions of history as it relates to foundation which is barely touched on in this article.
The first being the true origins of each 'faction'--origins or Catholicism, origins or the Church or England, origins or Evangelicalism, origins of Reformed Catholicism (which is a new concept proposed in this article--to me. However it was not clearly differentiated in the article from Catholicism itself only in relationship to Protestants and Evangelicals.)
Secondarily this article for me also begs the question or history of text (i.e bible and its origins and varied interpretations.) Since Evangelicals place such heavy emphasis on biblical interpretation this latter question is a defining question. After all didn't the bible ultimately originate (besides the blatant response of God himself) but text selected, gathered and organized by the Catholic church--the origin of the text to begin with. The answer to that question in my opinion has a profound influence on both religions as they related to one another.
In my opinion and experience that many new things and ideas build upon and also more importantly form out of REACTION to the old. The chaotic and rebellious 1960's springing from more venerable 1950's is an example. The first baby boomers REACTING to the greatest generation (their parents). In my opinion one need look at the first of each new generation to truly discover its origin. For instance the latter baby boomers were mainly copying the initial rebels of the baby boomer. The initial ones were really where the theoretical philosophy can be discovered. THe latter group imitating came from trend established by the first.
Thus it is my thought that in the same way one can look at Christian 'factions' and their history. Of course this is just one perspective and way of looking at the topic. Yet I do believe this is way REACTION is brought up in the article because the truth is many things are formed initially in reaction whether the latter group understands this practical reality or not.
In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
The Four Pillars of the Christian Life
Fragments of Catholic Truth: Yes to Christ, No to the Church?
The Uniqueness of Christianity: 12 Objections Answered
The Church – The Bride of Christ
Catholic Identity Once Again
Essays for Lent: The Church
Woe to the Solitary Man – A Brief Meditation on our Need for the Church
Jesus and His Church Are One
How Old Is Your Church?
nice conclusion :).
and in the end THIS is what is most important and must be remember and acted upon by all. IMHO
I think it’s slowly happening too, and it’s a good thing.
Progress is rarely, if not never made by telling people what they “lack”, rather the first step to true progress is by listening first and then responding with “I like that too”. And then building from there.
This is, I believe, what our Holy Father is proposing now. To go to people where they are, speak and listen to them first on their “terms”. Then, after finding something which is shared in common, working together to create something new for them; not actively seeking to destroy something in their lives (even if that something is against them).
Love doesn’t destroy for its own sake, for the sake of destruction only. Love always seeks to create something new, something better because it is an overflowing gift from God, who is Love, and thus the Creator. None of us would even be here if it weren’t for this true Love.
If anyone truly wants to be an instrument of His Love we must remember that.
Simply put, it never reached the nationalist levels it did in say, Germany (or Spain for the Catholics).
So at that point, it is a moot point. It isn't a “protest” anymore.
I went into a huge Christian bookstore the other day looking for a decal of a fish to put on the truck. I found it. As a matter of fact I found everything imaginable that dealed with Christianity. I also found books on every religion in the world. They sold the Koran and had many books on the history of Islam. They had books on Buddism. They had books on Mormans. They had books on every protestant faith you could think. What they didn’t have was the first Catholic bible or anything else to do with Catholicism. Nothing, not the first thing. No New American Bible, no RSV Bible, no Douay Rheims Bible, no Ignatius Bible. About the only Bible they had was the NKJV protestant bible. Also the Book of Morman and the Koran and every other type of faith you could think of, except Catholicism. As I was paying for the fish decal I asked the young lady behind the counter did they sell crucifixes; that I had seen plenty of crosses but no crucifixes. She looked at me and said “Christ came down from the cross”. I paid for my decal and left the store.
To say that the vast majority of protestants don’t consider Catholics as christians is an understatement. If the items sold in that huge Christian store are an indication protestants consider Muslims closer to Christianity that Catholics.
The vast majority of Protestants don’t even think about the Catholic Church.
And a ‘christian bookstore’ that sells the Book of Mormon is NOT a christian bookstore.
“To say someone who never thinks about Catholicism defines themselves as “Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can” is just stupid.”
So you say, but that is a rather accurate summation of what happened in the 16th century and beyond. Even in the 19th century a Russian Orthodox theologian said Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin. Now, he was saying that both Catholics and Protestants were wrong, of course, but he also was strongly implying that Protestants and Catholics were the opposites of one another.
“Someone who never thinks about A cannot be striving to be the opposite of A.”
That’s not necessarily true. It isn’t that modern Protestants might be doing that, but that it happened historically and that Protestants even today judge certain things to be off base – not necessarily because of it smacks of Catholicism in itself, but because it smacks of what they have always been taught was wrong.
“Baptists try to follow the Bible.”
Try? Why don’t they just do it? What you’re really saying is they follow their interpretations of the Bible.
“We never discuss what Catholicism is, nor does anyone I’ve met in 40 years CARE.”
Okay, then at your next discussion mention any of the following:
1) “Guys, I’ve been studying John 6 and I’ve come to the conclusion that the “flesh” Jesus is talking about people eating really is His flesh. What do you think about that?”
2) “I’ve been studying the phrase “obedience of faith” in Paul and I’ve come to the conclusion that Paul means we receive grace for not only our faith but also the works which God starts in us and which we co-operate. What say you on that?”
3) “You know I’ve really been thinking and praying about Luke’s description of the interaction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the angel Gabriel, and I’ve come to the conclusion that her response to him – since she was not punished with muteness – must mean that she had never intended to have a conjugal relationship with Joseph. What do you think about that?”
How many minutes will go by before the word “Catholic” comes up?
“The ONLY standard I’ve ever heard discussed in Baptist discussions on what we should believe is “What does the Bible say”.”
R-I-G-H-T. Like I said, mention any of the things I numbered above and see what happens.
“Sorry, but our theological world doesn’t revolve around you.”
Maybe not, but that was not the case in the 16th century. Again, mention any of the things I numbered above and see what happens.
“In terms of defining what we should accept or reject, you don’t even exist.”
If we didn’t exist, you wouldn’t exist – and neither would the New Testament.
“You might as well suggest we are trying to be different from Hinduism.”
So you’re claiming to be a pagan group ultimately descended from pagan Hindus? Do tell.
“How many minutes will go by before the word “Catholic” comes up?”
Probably quite a few. I had spent nearly 40 years as a Baptist before I saw ANYONE try to impose the Lord’s Supper on John 6. All the Baptists I know believe believing faith requires the result of a changed life. And since the New Testament regularly mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the idea that she never had sex with Joseph would be laughed at, without any discussion of Catholics.
You see, when the Bible is your standard, you don’t define what you believe by what others believe, be they Mormon or Catholic. When challenged, you simply reach for the Bible and see what it has to say.
“If we didn’t exist, you wouldn’t exist – and neither would the New Testament.”
Sorry, but we would. The Pope didn’t write the scriptures. The Old Testament was accepted in its Protestant form by Jesus & the Apostles & the Jews. The New Testament was largely settled by 150 AD, although each congregation had the option of deciding which books it accepted. Since the Roman Catholic Church did not come up with a binding list until the Council of Trent, and since the Council of Trent refused to determine if the Apocrypha was good for doctrine, even the Roman Catholic Church has never authoritatively settled the doctrinal status of all the books it would put in the Bible.
“So you’re claiming to be a pagan group ultimately descended from pagan Hindus? Do tell.”
You are not a child, so please do not act like one. The point, as any adult would see, is that we look to NEITHER group to give us ideas on doctrine. We reject you ideas of infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, etc - but we do so, not because of Luther, but because of Scripture. That is why the Catholic Church had a hissy fit over vernacular translations getting into the hands of common folks - reading scripture and taking it at its obvious meaning drives a person away from many Roman Catholic practices.
When scripture is your guide, you don’t worry about the doctrines of Catholics, Hindus or some sect of baptists. You worry about what the Word of God says. It is a positive approach, not a negative one.
Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.” To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. “They” had a pedophilia scandal, and “they” have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family.
As an Evangelical who was raised and educated Roman Catholic (Jesuit no less), I would never call members of a church who declare with their lips Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as non-Christian. It is not brick and mortar and linage that makes up the Body of Christ, He is the Head and those who confess Him cry Abba, Father. This is what I believe, what St Paul delivered to the Romans in chapter 8:
Romans 8:
Romans 8 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
8 Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua. 2 Why? Because the Torah of the Spirit, which produces this life in union with Messiah Yeshua, has set me free from the “Torah” of sin and death. 3 For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.
9 But you, you do not identify with your old nature but with the Spirit — provided the Spirit of God is living inside you, for anyone who doesn’t have the Spirit of the Messiah doesn’t belong to him. 10 However, if the Messiah is in you, then, on the one hand, the body is dead because of sin; but, on the other hand, the Spirit is giving life because God considers you righteous. 11 And if the Spirit of the One who raised Yeshua from the dead is living in you, then the One who raised the Messiah Yeshua from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit living in you.
12 So then, brothers, we don’t owe a thing to our old nature that would require us to live according to our old nature. 13 For if you live according to your old nature, you will certainly die; but if, by the Spirit, you keep putting to death the practices of the body, you will live.
14 All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to bring you back again into fear; on the contrary, you received the Spirit, who makes us sons and by whose power we cry out, “Abba!” (that is, “Dear Father!”). 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our own spirits that we are children of God; 17 and if we are children, then we are also heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with the Messiah — provided we are suffering with him in order also to be glorified with him.
18 I don’t think the sufferings we are going through now are even worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us in the future. 19 The creation waits eagerly for the sons of God to be revealed; 20 for the creation was made subject to frustration — not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it. But it was given a reliable hope 21 that it too would be set free from its bondage to decay and would enjoy the freedom accompanying the glory that God’s children will have. 22 We know that until now, the whole creation has been groaning as with the pains of childbirth; 23 and not only it, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we continue waiting eagerly to be made sons — that is, to have our whole bodies redeemed and set free. 24 It was in this hope that we were saved. But if we see what we hope for, it isn’t hope — after all, who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we continue hoping for something we don’t see, then we still wait eagerly for it, with perseverance.
26 Similarly, the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we don’t know how to pray the way we should. But the Spirit himself pleads on our behalf with groanings too deep for words; 27 and the one who searches hearts knows exactly what the Spirit is thinking, because his pleadings for God’s people accord with God’s will. 28 Furthermore, we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called in accordance with his purpose; 29 because those whom he knew in advance, he also determined in advance would be conformed to the pattern of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers; 30 and those whom he thus determined in advance, he also called; and those whom he called, he also caused to be considered righteous; and those whom he caused to be considered righteous he also glorified!
31 What, then, are we to say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare even his own Son, but gave him up on behalf of us all — is it possible that, having given us his Son, he would not give us everything else too? 33 So who will bring a charge against God’s chosen people? Certainly not God — he is the one who causes them to be considered righteous! 34 Who punishes them? Certainly not the Messiah Yeshua, who died and — more than that — has been raised, is at the right hand of God and is actually pleading on our behalf! 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Trouble? Hardship? Persecution? Hunger? Poverty? Danger? War? 36 As the Tanakh puts it,
“For your sake we are being put to death all day long, we are considered sheep to be slaughtered.”[a]
37 No, in all these things we are superconquerors, through the one who has loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers, neither what exists nor what is coming, 39 neither powers above nor powers below, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which comes to us through the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord.
I used the Complete Jewish Bible version for a reason. This article talks about Prots and Roman Catholics. Permit us not to forget we have Messianic Jewish Christian brothers and sisters as well. We should be putting this all in perspective using the NT as our lens. As the Body of Christ, His Church expanded, do you think it was the intent of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the apostles to have one bishop as head of all others to the four corners of the earth. I know we all have opinions on it and fight tooth and nail on such issues, but let's give it a critical look.
Obamacare is 2,000 pages long. Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it just to see what was in it.
The Roman Catholic catechism is 3,000 pages long. One would have to spend a few life times to see what was in it fully.
“do you think it was the intent of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the apostles to have one bishop as head of all others to the four corners”.
Yes. The successor to Peter, otherwise known as the Bishop Rome. Some people refer to him as the Pope.
“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” ~ Mt 16:19
The Keys of the kingdom, Christ’s authority, were given to Peter. Christ’s authority has been passed down to each successive pope. (This is the same concept as confession. Only God forgives sin, but He gave the authority to do so in His name to His apostles ~ Jn 20:23)
Christ is the head of the body, the church. Christ gave that authority to Peter to be a visible head acting for Him when He would be gone from this earth. Peter has passed on this authority to each pope. So the current pope is “head of the church” because of the authority from Christ to act as His representative.
Are you a charasmatic Roman Catholic? My aunt, uncle and cousins were in a charasmatic Catholic chapel (was a separate chapel on the same grounds as the parish church). I went often, when visiting them, to their services and Bible studies. It was exactly like going to a Pentecostal service and Bible Study.
Those awful Prots who penned the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
The Roman Catholic catechism is 3,000 pages long. One would have to spend a few life times to see what was in it fully.
Since your an expert, maybe I should inform you
that the longest page version of the Catechism came about in the 90’s under Pope JPII. They are 750-800 pages depending on how many cross referencing indexes are in the back.
Prior to the 1990’s there was not a contemporary comprehensive Catechism except those that were addressed to children where 50-100 pages would be about it...The Baltimore Catechism.
More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism
The first Catechism of the Catholic Church would be an early first century document known as the Didache/”The Teachings of the 12 Apostles”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
Sorry, but our theological world doesn’t revolve around you.
Yes, I am Evangelical and all dealings with Baptists are good because we both use the "What does the Bible say" approach. So Amen brother.
As a former Roman Catholic, born, raised, properly cathechized, practicing and educated (by Jesuits), you are right, if you are not focused on Roman theology and comparing your "obvious" "heresy" to the 3,000 page Roman Catholic catechism (there are a few in circulation. Some really like the Baltimore variant), then shame on you! (/sarcasm-which is inbred to those educated by Jesuits).
I mean, what were you thinking trying to interpret the Bible on your own! It is a well KNOWN FACT that Peter himself KNEW that Rome in her glory would be the center of all Christian worship, honor and glory! One BISHOP! One Ring to Rule them ALL!!!(of course giant embellishment, theater and sarcasm on my point).
Mr. Rogers, you and the Baptists have been warned! Row well and live! Row to the beat of the Roman drum!
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.