Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for remembering my previous post, dear sister in Christ!

I miscounted though. He actually quoted Scripture 37 times - and on the day of the sermon 9/25/13, the Daily Mass Reading was 11 verses.

But as the conversion continued it became obvious that LS'98 wanted to count every phrase in a Catholic Mass that has roots in Scripture - though the Scripture references are not given as part of the liturgy.

Truly, I thought the contest was between actual Scripture quotes during Mass versus during a Protestant Service.

I did not count the number of times the pastor used a familiar Scriptural phrase without citing the passage, nor did I count the "amens" or similar references in the prayers, hymns and such that were involved in that service. And it is not on-line.

Such services can go for hours, and the number of "amens" alone would be huge - but LS'98 would not relent. And so to meet the challenge to make some dough for Free Republic, one would have to record an entire Service, transcribe it, parse it and then tally it up.

Surely, a Gateway-like service would have a very, very high count but I have neither the time nor resources to do it.

[LurkingSince'98]

“Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism”

Tailor made for Game the critic....

Gotta go

AMDG

[Gamecock]

“Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.”

[Alamo-Girl]

Yep, I hear the meat and milk issue is popular in that religion.

[metmom]

It is, indeed Jesus Christ Who may save the invincibly ignorant, the Muslim, and also the Protestants, because the Salvation is in the One Catholic Church where He will meet you all.

Salvation is not through the Catholic church. It's not through a organization but a person. The Catholic church did not die for me.

Peter, the guy you call your first pope, says this....

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Jesus meets us where we are, not in a building where we go to meet Him.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

[LurkingSince'98]

Evidentially you again making YOPI of the Fair Use Exemption which does not require permission.

Be back tonight .....hopefully some ports will ante up

AMDG

[Alex Murphy]

Truly, I thought the contest was between actual Scripture quotes during Mass versus during a Protestant Service....to meet the challenge to make some dough for Free Republic, one would have to record an entire Service, transcribe it, parse it and then tally it up....

Exactly. As the contest went on, additional requirements kept being piled on. We learned that the Protestant challenger must be a member of the Protestant church holding the worship service, and said member must be present and must record the "entire proceeding". Following that, all Protestant challengers were supposed to submit their respective transcripts to Jim Robinson as "the single most qualified and best one to judge who wins the contest", who would review all transcripts and then make a pronouncement on "the veracity of the competing claims based on the evidence he is presented". Only if/after Jim Robinson declared the Protestant challenger's worship service the winner, would Free Republic get an additional $750.

I have neither the time nor resources to do it.

I can't imagine that Jim Robinson does, either. He's already said everything that needs to be said, anyway:

You keep hounding our RM and I’ll ban you myself. We just happen to be blessed with the very best RM on God’s creation and I’m very thankful for that. If you have a problem with RM or with our religion forum, I’d advise you to steer clear of both. Now you can either behave yourself or leave. The choice is yours.
-- Jim Robinson, Post #174

[Gamecock]

Take up with your cult.

[Gamecock]

Probably will want a notarized letter from the pastor stating you are a member of good standing, followed by a letter from a higher body stating that the pastor is who he says he is.

It dawns on me that by demanding we are a member of a church Lurking is making this a thread about us, which is against the rules of the RF.

[daniel1212]

Examination of claims of Scripture use in the RC Mass, pt. 1.

This is your typical run of the mill Catholic Mass - the whole thing, with all the Scripture chapter and verse:

This is incredible. The fact is that unlike your “Catholic Mass Scripture” special work that you provided as an example of scripture is a Catholic mass, the missal does not provide all these Scripture references. And hardly any of them are direct quotes, less alone actually supporting what they are referenced for! Thus based on your "rules" and example it would be even easier to present a Prot service that has more scripture than a Catholic mass based upon all that a Scripture reference can be given for — even “Amen” as in your Mass!

So this is what you mean by "Catholic masses do have more scripture than protestant services?!" I presumed this meant actual quotes or actual reading of Scripture, not everything you can throw a reference at! But that measure we could give Scripture references for far more in a Prot. sermon then what is actually quoted. As said as the close of this, Did you really think that any Protestant claim that the Mass had less Scripture was referring to how many things one can give references for, valid or not! Absurd!!! Any such claim refers to how much of Scripture is read and exposited in a comprehensive manner. In evangelical churches, which you never even attended, the preacher preaches from Scripture with the congregates having their Bible open to read what he reads and examine it thereby. Now you know what “contrived is a fitting word to describe your contest. At the least, this further evidences your lack of consideration of what your challenge entails.

"...what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able..." (Luke 14:31) Your contest evidences such a lack of consideration as to make it meaningless.

Now lets go thru your list of the use of Scripture, eand also look at the validity of their use,, ven though RCs do not even see these references in their missal (Scriptural substantiation e not being the basis for assurance.)

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)

An actual text, though no NT pastors was ever titled "priest" (hiereus) nor does presbuteros (elder) mean that, but which is a case of imposed functional equivalence, while "priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests.." - Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions , a popular guide”

People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)

"Amen" counts as use of Scripture! As you allow that most Protestant ` services are not liturgical, then what occurs during a service should be allowed as constituting containing Scripture, included "Amen." Amen, or do more rules follow?

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)

An actual text, but which is heard every week, and does not constitute usage that promotes Biblical literacy, and which the the charge against the Mass as not having much Scripture refers to. But you are acting according the letter of such.

• All: I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, (Jas 5:16) in my thoughts and in my words (Jas 3:6)

Nether of these are Scripture quotes, but the references simply are given in support, with the latter (James 3:6: “the tongue is a fire....”) not even referring to thoughts. Thus your criteria not only allows for what may be given a Scripture reference for, but even if the latter does not refer to it.

• in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, (Rom. 12:16)

Not an actual text, and which also further examples the loose nature of what a Scripture reference can refer to. Romans 12:16 states: Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Fitting references would have been 2Cor. 5:10 and James. 4:17

• through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1Thess 5:25)

1Thess 5:25 simply says “Brethren, pray for us,” and is not directed to Heaven but those on earth, and despite over 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture, not one examples or teaches prayer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. Extrapolating an equivalence of ability between earthly relationships and earth to heaven relationships is invalid, as it requires created beings to posses attributes of Deity which only God is shown as having (hearing from Heaven incessant mental prayers from earth addressed to them beseeching favor, and responding.)

• May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)

Not an actual text, and support forgiveness without a clerical priest.

• People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)

More substantial evidence of the great use of Scripture in Mass!

• All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.

The former says “pray that God would have pity on us” but is from a book (Tobit) that is a spurious fantastic tale about a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and ‘the worst of demons’, abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!

And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt, enabling him and Sarah to consummate his marriage!

The latter (1 Tim 1:2) is not an actual quote, but says, “Grace, mercy, and peace, from God, and our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.”

• All: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. (Luke 2:14)

An actual quote, but as with the others, it is an added reference for a weekly redundant liturgy which fosters perfunctory professions.

• We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, (Rev 7:12)

Not an actual quote, but is of correspondent angelic praise.

• Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father (Rev 19:6)

Not an actual quote, but correspondent as “Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”

• Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, (2 John 3)Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; (John 1:29)

Not actual quotes, but correspondent.

• you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. (Rom 8:34)

Not an actual quote, and was not an actual request (who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.)

• For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)

Partly an actual quote, if said by demons. Out of 40 places “the Holy One” occurs, they pick this! But as often with the catechism, it appears Scripture texts are carelessly added for support after the doctrine is written, not as actually based upon it.

• you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, (Luke 1:32)

Not an actual quote, and the texts states “Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”

• with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father, Amen (John 14:26)

Far from an actual quote, and simply supports that there is a Father, Son and Spirit.

• A Sermon on the readings follows. (2 Tim 4:1-2)

Two actual verses.

• I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19) of all things visible and invisible. (Col 1:16)

Not actual quotes, and the former says “possessor of heaven and earth” and the latter refers to Christ as being how all was created. It would have been easy to find texts that say God is the creator of all (Gn. 2:1; Rv. 4:11) but again, poor or careless invocations of Scripture abound in Rome.

• I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God, (Luke 1:35)

Not an actual quote: “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Jn. 3:16 or Heb. 1:5 would provide more direct support.

• born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; (Heb 1:3)

Not an actual quote, but the text is supportive as would Jn. 8:42.

• through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3)

Close enough.

• For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13)

Not an actual quote, but supportive, if again, heard every week.

• and by the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18)

Not an actual quote, but repetitively supportive.

• and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16)

Likewise not an actual quote, and does not mention Pilate. Mk. 15:15 would be more fitting.

• he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)

Not an actual quote, but supportive.

• He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51)

Likewise.

• and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1)

Likewise.

• He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1)

Likewise, but does not mention coming again in glory, as Mt. 16:27 does.

• and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33)

Close enough.

• I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17)

Again not an actual quote, and far from it. Does not mention Lord, or directly as giving life. 2Cor. 3:17 says “the Lord is that Spirit and Job. 33:4 says “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” The Holy Spirit and Jesus are God in nature but positionally Christ is made Lord till all His enemies are under His feet. (1Cor. 15:24-28)

• who proceeds from the Father and the Son, (John 14:16)

Along with Jn. 15:26, from the Father through the Son, but Rome seems afraid of giving more than one book reference and placing too much prominent weight on Scripture. This from the Father versus from both was an issue that served as a reason for the EOs split.

• who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

Again not an actual quote, and does not mention corporately being an object of worship, though assumed.

• I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5)

Again not an actual quote, and only directly supports the church being a mystical body of believers.

• I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

Not an actual quote, and in Rome “for” is interpretive as the act rendering one washed and regenerate, and made good enough inside for Heaven, even if the soul is morally incognizant and baptism is possible performed by an atheist (“intending to do as the church does”), while Scripture shows and states that it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses that is salvific and appropriates justification by faith. (Acts 10;43-47; 15:7-9; Rm. 4:1-7ff) Thus begins the false gospel of Rome, which process usually ends with souls becomes good enough to enter Heaven through suffering in mythical Roman purgatory commencing at death.

• and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

Again not an actual quote, and only directly supportive of the resurrection. 1Thes. 4:17 and Rv. 20:6 better supports the latter for the regenerate, which few RCs are. .

• Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)

Again not an actual quote, while it begins the false Christianized paganism of Catholicism called the Eucharist.

• People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)

At least “blessed be God” is a direct quote, V. 35 in the KJV.

• Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)

Again not an actual quote, but refers to the Lord, in the midst of a communal meal, which unlike in Catholicism or even most churches, the Lord's Supper was, telling the apostles to drink the cup. (Mt. 26:27; 1Cor. 11:25-27) Obviously the cup represents the wine, but Catholics, while boasting of who literally they take this account, refuse to take drinking the cup literally, as they do when David called water the blood of men and would not drink it, but poured it out like as an offering, as blood was not to be drunken. Though the representative meaning of such should be obvious, Catholics insist on turning the commemorative Supper — in which the members are to “show” the Lord's sacrificial death and resurrection by showing caring unity in the communal meal, effectual recognizing each other as members for whom Christ died, as 1Cor. 11:17-34 teaches — into a Christianized version of endo-cannibalism.

In the Catholic imagination, NT pastors were consecrating bread and distributing it to the people as their primary function, but they cannot find one

• People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)

More repetition.

• Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28)

Desperate. Far from an actual quote, all this refers to is “grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” in the light of the coming judgment.

• People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his holy Church. (Ps 50:23)

Also far from an actual quote, and it is not about sacrifice per se or the church, but praise and obedience to God and His salvation.

• People: We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41)

Which is not about an offering of elements, but “Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens.”

• Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. (Col 3:17)

Again not an actual quote.

• People: It is right and just. (Col 1:3)

Also far from an actual quote: We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” Did they ever hear of a concordance and Ps. 33:1?

• All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3)

Only the first sentence is an actual quote, and does not mention Heaven and earth being full of His glory, though “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork”. (Psalms 19:1; cf. 1Chron. 29:11)

• Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)

An actual quote in the middle sentence.

• Priest: You are Holy indeed, O Lord the fount of all holiness. (2 Macc. 14:36)

Not quite an actual quote and from an apocryphal book that supports prayer for souls which died due to moral sin, which Rome disallows prayer as being effectual for.

• Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion (John 10:17-18)

Far from an actual quote, and there is nothing here about transubstantiation. At all.

• he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this all of you, and eat of it: For this is my body which will be given up for you. In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave the it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: For this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant. Which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this is memory of me. (Mark 14:22-25)

Actual quotes, while the devil also quotes Scripture (Mt. 4) and thus the meaning is what matters.

• All: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again. (1Cor 11:26)

Not an actual quote, and it is not when Catholics presume to consume physical flesh that the Lord's death is shown. but by how communal meal shows Christ's death for the church as the body of Christ. That is the body of Christ in the chapter referenced.

• Priest: Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, (John 6:51)

Also far from an actual quote but an imposed meaning. If John 6:51 was literal, then Catholics gain spiritual and eternal life (Jn. 6:53,54) by consuming human body parts and will never die, but NOWHERE is spiritual and eternal life obtained by physically eating anything, but by believing the gospel message. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) out of a broken heart and contrite spirit. (Ps. 34:18) Thanks be to God.

• Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor.10:17)

Also far from an actual quote. It is not by partaking of the Lord Supper that the members become gathered into one by the Holy Spirit, but they practically show it. And if this is referring to the literal body and blood of Christ, then pagans also partake of the literal body and blood of their deities in partaking of their religious feats. (1 Cor.10:20-21)

• Remember, Lord, your Church spread throughout the world; bring her to the fullness of charity, together with our Pope and our bishop, and all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. (2 Macc 12:45-46)

Again not an actual quote and refers to praying for souls that died because of mortal sin, with no evidence to presume repentance. “Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. “(2Ma 12:40)

• Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the apostles and with all the saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, may we merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ. (2 Thes 1:4-5)

Again not even close to an actual quote or a text that supports PTDS. Not even close. Contrived support for a contrive doctrine.

• All: Amen. (Rom 11:36)

A direct quote. Amazing how much Scripture is actually used! /Sar

There is not much left, but at this Amen I am going to stop here due to fatigue and time considerations, while more examination would only show more that this proffered proof of Scripture in Mass is absurd. The attendants are not even being directed to Scripture as the source, very few are even actual quotes, and most of what they hear they is referenced in your particular document is the same week after week, thus how are they becoming taught much Scripture? Much less correctly? Again, did you really think that any Protestant claim that the Mass had less Scripture was referring to how many things one can give references for, valid or not! Absurd!!! any such claim refers to how much of Scripture is read and exposited in a comprehensive manner. Now you know why “contrived is a fitting word to describe your contest.

[MamaB]

That is not what the Bible teaches. John 3:16 does not say belong to the Catholic church and you will be saved. I have never seen more arrogant people than some of the Catholics on this site.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The Catechism is infallible also in these two canons. It is, indeed Jesus Christ Who may save the invincibly ignorant, the Muslim, and also the Protestants, because the Salvation is in the One Catholic Church where He will meet you all.

I am more disturbed that this Papist is including Muslims in any way with salvation, thus placing the power of salvation outside of the Church, which includes all those who confess and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ only.

It is a palpable contradiction of Christ's own words, that there is salvation through Him only, and the Apostle Paul in many places, who specifically describes infidels as being "without hope" and "without God" in the world, so long as they remain outside of the body of Christ.

Unless one is born again from above, they cannot, and will never, see the Kingdom of Heaven, and these Papists who teach otherwise place themselves as the absolute enemies of God and evangelism.

[metmom]

It is also demanding to reveal personal information which could compromise someone’s screen name.

[metmom]

God bless you, dan, for all your hard work in providing references like that.

[BlueDragon]

You are still misusing Philippians chapter 2, as I have explained, with yourself having quoted a portion of that explanation, but seemingly only grasping one portion of what was said even there, neglecting the rest.

When speaking of this "venerating" of those perceived to be saints, you said

A prayer venerates a saint (for example, seeks his support, advice or intercession, or simply praises him) and it worships God because St,. Paul once said to a group of saints: "it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil. 2:13).[underlining for emphasis added]

Being there is not any sense of recommendation to pray to "saints" found in that chapter (or any other chapter, for that matter) your own use of the word because while referring to that particular passage, must obviously import from elsewhere the assumption that veneration and/or prayer to saints is equal to (or much as?) worshiping God, while also likening to this "veneration" spoken of to God himself working within, in persons (those whom Paul was addressing) "... both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will".

Again, pick some other source or chapter of Paul's writings, or from the Gospels, if you wish to establish that praying to saints is as God working within a person.

But I suggest the impossible, for though there was some amount of "veneration of saints" from quite early on in the history of the church, to go from simpler veneration which was more as form of remembrance of those persons, as can be found from fairly early on in church tradition, to then go far beyond that to a "seek[ing]... support, advice or intercession" directly from them, rather than from God more directly --- as I wrote to you -- confuses the issue as it confuses identities.

The saints are not God, nor is there recommendation (in scripture) for any to pray to any such persons similar to how one is instructed to pray to God.

From Philippians chapter 4

6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

We see near the end of the above quoted from chapter, recommendation that the saints (those then living) be "saluted", but not to be considered later to be as God, or like unto being God in having some continuing roles of having direct intercourse (conversation) with us from the heavenlies.

Teachings or direction for doing so ---this blending of veneration of saints likened or made equal to worshiping God, even to degree of asking directly for advice (and/or guidance) from them cannot be found in scripture, particularly Philippians chapter 2.

In Paul's epistles to the Philippians, it is not ourselves --- by our own veneration prayers to saints (which Paul wrote not of) which he [Paul] was speaking of when he wrote of God working within them [those whom he was writing to]..

Your use of the word because in your own explanation of justification for citing Philippians 2:13 finds no foundation there, and dangerously confuses the issues.

Look elsewhere for support for your own confusions.

[Gamecock]

Ditto.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” But as often with the catechism, it appears Scripture texts are carelessly added for support after the doctrine is written, not as actually based upon it.”

You said it all right here... And unfortunately, not being conversant with God’s Word, they don’t understand.

[xone]

Lutheran Divine Service settings are similar, without the Marian and Apochryphal references. The sermon is based on a Biblical text. I could have submitted the Matins order of worship especially since it didn’t have to be ‘word for word’ out of the Scripture. I really enjoyed the different ‘Amen’ citations that incurred credit for another passage. LOL. Really nice work on that post.

[daniel1212]

The Catechism is infallible also in these two canons. It is, indeed Jesus Christ Who may save the invincibly ignorant, the Muslim, and also the Protestants, because the Salvation is in the One Catholic Church where He will meet you all.

I've read posts in the past where Catholics claim Protestants are "hell-bound for being separated brethren". Your statement above seems to contradict that, by saying that "Jesus Christ...may save...also the Protestants". Which Catholic am I supposed to believe?

Do not expect uniformity or clarity when treading in this area. As TRCs charge, modern Rome is adept at nuanced language that supports more than one interpretation, and while some RCs see faithful Trinitarian baptized Prots as saved, even though they know of Rome's claims but do not know them to be true, others see them as souls who must repent from such things as sola fide, that faith appropriates justification, but must effect works to be salvific.

Looking for interpretation of historical and even infallible RC statements that all those not in the bosom of God and subject to the post are lost, even the Greeks, later, having lost her unholy sword, we see V2 calling evangelical-types (many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal) born again, and JP2 calling some Prots Saints, while also providing the "invincible ignorance" clause.

As few Prots are ignorant of Rome's claims then the affirmation of Prots being born again infers ignorance as really knowing her claims are truth but refusing to enter Rome, versus knowing what she says and finding her unique elitist claims unwarranted and unconvincing. By God's grace I "know" and have shown the latter to be the case,refuting RCAs.

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...

men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

In contrast to the language of LUMEN GENTIUM and UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO the more traditional types virtually exclude any Prots from salvation. Annalex is one of these as i recalled from past exchanges.

CB: your freind, according to the RCC, will not be saved unless he becomes a member of the Catholic Church. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3362#3362

annalex : Not entirely correct. He may not have an opportunity to accomplish a formal conversion, but Christ will give him an opportunity to convert in his heart as he dies. That is the meaning of impossibility of salvation outside the Church. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3373#3373

Me: “And thus those Prots, who do not convert to the Catholic church at the end, while having the Holy Spirit and being part of the body of Christ, are lost. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3382#3382

annalex They don't [the Holy Spirit], aren't, and yes they are lost if they reject Christ and His Church all the way to their death. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3462#3462

Me: Then all those statements about Prots now being born again and part of the body of Christ, are misleading

annalex: Yes they are. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=4083#4083

[LurkingSince'98]

“Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13”

Elise, Dan’l and Cynic

...Who was the whore of Babylon in the period between Josiah and Zerubbabel, since Rome DID NOT EXIST during that period.

Also when Jeconiah was carried off to Babylon - where was Babylon?? again since ROME DID NOT EXIST.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam