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.

[LurkingSince'98]

Alex

back again for a few.

it must be a worship service that any member of the protestant caucus or Calvanist light brigade actually attends.

I am going to just stick with our little Catholic parish in the middle of nowhere in comparison with any protestant church so long as they are a member.

This is because the protestant folks who told me are “church going protestants” which may not be the case on the forum. so it could be a family member is a member there like christian life or some other congregation, but they must attend.

Plus there must be a recording documenting the scripture verses, transcription would be nice including chapter and verse references.

Plus if i win and Jimbo doesn’t get my $750 is the Calvinist brigade going to ante up? or will Jim be the loser?

I don’t think this is difficult at all. Catholics are known entities, every Mass is virtually identical - your link was correct so you know exactly what you are up against.

Alex, I hope you keep your head in the race...

For the Greater Glory of god

[Dutchboy88]

"I would be careful what you say about God's mercy."

I'm happy to hear you're going to be careful about what you say about God's mercy. We ought to be careful about what we say concerning all of God's actions. But, this also means that we should be careful when the Scriptures claim that God does "deny choice". For example, Rom. 9. May want to check that out...evidently God reserves choice for Himself.

[BlueDragon]

Clearly not the King Henry Version.

Do you have Prince Albert in the can?

and no, I'm not Elsie. Just veneratin' emulatin'

[daniel1212]

I honestly do not know what post of yours i am not sppsd to quote, but will repost what i had without any quotes of what you said, and add a bit more to my own.

What there is more of on Tuesday is more contrived Catholic polemics. You should make at least a 750 donation for RCs using FR as RC promotional and apologetics service, and for engaging in such specious contrivances as here. For consider the absurdity of your challenge. Not only do RCs define “Protestant” so broadly that you can drive a Unitarian/Mormon/Watchtower 747 thru its gate, but you carefully said “a” protestant service on any Sunday. Which means you simply have to find one Unitarian church or whatever in the whole world that has less Scripture than in a Catholic Mass!

Moreover, what you also leave out is that much of the Scripture you do hear in a Mass is repetition. Besides the standard readings one hears weekly as part of the liturgy, the readings for SUN TWENTIETH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (picked at random) were listed as : Is 56:1, 67/ Rom 11:13-15, 29-32/Mt 15:21-28. A total of 17 verses if i counted correctly, out of approx. 31,000 total verses in just the Prot. canon. And when i was a RC lector (late 70's) some of the readings were in brackets and could be omitted.

Meanwhile the stats i have state:

Only going to Mass will not give one a functional knowledge of Scripture. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)<

: It has been established that historically Rome did not overall encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and can be said to have even hindered it. And until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much.

“At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951 - http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)< /p>

Furthermore, evangelicals not only read the Bible more themselves, Catholics coming in about last, but they also are far more likely to attend a Bible study.

Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% - http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54

Moreover, what also matters is not simply how much Scripture is read, but the basis for determining Truth, and how much Truth is heard that is based upon the Scriptures as the assured word of God.

One can "preach the word" without directly quoting much Scripture, though they normally should, while in cults as in Rome, the "laity" look to the org. as the assuredly faithful interpreters of Scripture, and implicit assent called for, and thus objectively searching the Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of what is preached, after the manner and means of the noble Bereans, (Acts 17:11) is discouraged.

Now I can make a challenge. You chose someone you think you can trust to go to the local SBC church down the street from here, in which a minister usually reads about an entire chapter of Scripture before the sermon begins, and then preaches for approx. 45 min (the approx. length or an entire Mass) from another book of the Bible, plus about 10 minutes of prayer, plus a midweek Bible study, and then go to the local RC mass, and we will see who gets the most Scripture as well as preaching from it on Sunday. And Wednesday.

And since you said “a Protestant service” then that should qualify. At least FR would get 750.00 (which i certainly do not have, as part of a non-profit work, by God’s grace).

[LurkingSince'98]

It was the “contrived Catholic polemics” that I think pushed it over the edge- didn’t bother me but I am not the boss.

We can talk post more later cause I’m on a jobsite and don’t want to get hurt or hurt someone plus posting on an iPhone is not good.

AMDG

[daniel1212]

We can talk post more later cause I’m on a jobsite and don’t want to get hurt or hurt someone plus posting on an iPhone is not good.

No problem.

[daniel1212]

“Protestant” service is an awful broad category.

Which is one reason i said it was a contrived Catholic polemic=showing effects of planning or manipulation. All that is needed is one Prot service that hardly reads from the Bible, of which there are plenty, or those who preach for 45 minutes or more on just a few texts, which is quite common, though they may sing also many over the 45 minutes of worship, plus what they read in midweek Bible studies.

The real issue is who reads and hears more of the Bible, those for whom Scripture is supreme or those for whom a church is supreme.

• 25% of Evangelical Christians and 20% of other Protestants and 7% of Catholics said the read the Bible on a daily basis. 44% of Catholics said they rarely or never read the Bible, along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/december_2008/catholics_protestants_practice_faith_in_different_ways

• 68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. ^

  Another study found that a growing number of people are attending small Christian groups, with 24.5% of Americans now saying their primary form of spiritual nourishment is meeting with a small group of 20 or less people every week. http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

  A Catholic study reported that the percentage of U.S. adult Catholics who say they attended Mass once a week or more (i.e., those attending every week) was 24% in 2012. http://cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/requestedchurchstats.html

• Church attendance [2002-2005]: Evangelicals at approx. 60 percent showed the highest percentage of those who reported they attended services weekly or almost weekly, with 30% going more than once a week. Catholics were at 45 percent (9% more than once a week), and Jews 15 percent. Gallup poll. between 2002 and 2005. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060418/weekly-attendance-highest-among-Evangelical-churches.htm

  Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism.

• 55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.

• 81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so. ^

[daniel1212]

We could engage in testimony number wars:

From Catholic Answers: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578988My 13 year old son's friend (a baptist and Great kid) attends a church with incredible youth involvement and activities designed to keep the young people "ALIVE WITH THE FAITH" and IT WORKS!!!! Tons of pressure on my son because our parish is "flatlined" when it comes to youth. As a side note to this, I allowed him to attend one evening program at his friends church and when he came home, he was excited about what he read in the bible and what it meant in his life (he NEVER once had to bring a bible with him to religious ed. nor did they ever read from scripture)

We have 3 Excellent Bible Studies , by Converts from Protestant bible Churches who have 3 types

[daniel1212]

If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:

Having an unbroken line of popes (some being good at using the sword of men to gain their seat, or ecclesiastical ends, and dual tasking in being both celibate in profession and adulterous in practice, or competing with other claimants to the seat of Peter with mutual excommunications, and sanctioning use of torture to deal with suspected heretics, and outlawing religious freedom, and then calling the former intrinsically evil, and the latter as wrong, etc. etc.) to justify elitist claims.

Paul had nothing on Rome.

[Alex Murphy]

It was the “contrived Catholic polemics” that I think pushed it over the edge- didn’t bother me but I am not the boss. We can talk post more later cause I’m on a jobsite and don’t want to get hurt or hurt someone plus posting on an iPhone is not good.

Does that mean more than one person is using the handle "LurkingSince'98" to post? Or that the post offended someone in your home other than you?

[daniel1212]

Does that mean more than one person is using the handle "LurkingSince'98" to post? Or that the post offended someone in your home other than you?

He is referring to the mod , who has had his work cut out for him in this thread (earning the money that LurkingSince'98 donated!)

[daniel1212]

Kind of hard to pull off a comparison without surveying all 13 worship services conducted across all 41,000 denominations, doncha think? :)

Indeed. And what would it prove by itself? Most likely the "church" that reads the most Scripture would be the Watchtower disciples (AKA "Jehovah"s Witnesses -" really Judge Rutherford's). The devil knows what the Bible says better than Bible scholars.

What really is pertinent is how much the assured word of Christ - the Scriptures - dwells within them as a result of love for the Truth that it is, as exhorted and exampled in Scripture, in contrast to trusting a magisterium to provide that Truth as being assuredly infallible, which is cultic and Roman Catholic.

[BlueDragon]

Not the Rome I know, -- and you just stated the opposite yourself.

The phrase

Rome as the police station

were initially your own words -- not his.

But way to go, put words in his mouth... as the above exemplifies.

What he did say in reply to your own initial use of that phrase was more complete -- and on point, too

It is RCs who present Rome as the police station and judge that solves the problem of interpretation, according as they interpret Scripture and Rome.

for it is you who has said here on this thread;

This is why reading the scripture while denying the authority of the Church in the interpretation of the scripture is waste of time, and may end up wasting souls.

It does appear to me that you consistently keep wanting to have things both ways, while also tossing off little holy hand grenade dismissive insult towards "Protestants" in general, all along the way.

Is this the "mind of the church" you keep speaking of? If so, what a mess of a mind.

But the above technique of yours I've flagged here for attention, is demonstrative your own practice of selectively clipping sentences into fragments, extracted from that which others write, which quotation by way of truncation can include implying others said those words as expressed by sentence fragment (rather than their more complete thoughts expressed) forming reply of your own to those fragments, as if those snippets be representative of their "mind", all done while affecting some pretense yourself that you yourself express the "mind of the church".

[Alex Murphy]

We could engage in testimony number wars

We could talk about the effect that our respective churches have had on our nation. As evidenced by the current state and direction of our country's politics and morality, the Catholic and Protestant churches have failed to stem the tide of immorality here in America. IMO we can argue all day regarding whose numbers are increasing or decreasing, but none of it matters if cultural rot is still the result. Whoever claims to be the "real" church must accept responsibility for having failed to be salt and light to this nation.

Statistically, I believe that this "real" Christian church has lost ground, and has become too small a minority to sway elections. Those of us who vote according to our faith have become strangers in a foreign land (Exodus 2:22, cf Jeremiah 5:19). IMO until we persuade a significant portion of the hearts and minds of the unbelievers around us to share our ethics and to vote like us, we'll never influence the ballot box again. We'll remain a statistical oddity, "strangers in a foreign land". Our numbers must increase. I don't mean just seats in the pews, but rather by obeying the Great Commission via conversion and discipleship on a large scale.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
-- John 12:32

[BlueDragon]

As you quoted annalex

We venerate the relics of saints, absolutely, for these are bodies that will rise up.

WHOA!!

I thought 'saints' are in Heaven already??

But making images of these entities prayed to, such as "saints" and/or "Mary", since they are as one with Christ (I do hope they are or will be, that would be wonderful) still is not praying to anyone but God (or so the best of the 'story' for the practices go) because they are at one with Him in communion (again, as best modern-day 'explanation' goes) leaving things to be, that when facing towards images or icon depicting particular persons believed to now be in heaven, naming those particular entities while addressing prayer towards them even by name, is still not making an image of anything that is in heaven (even while it is hoped or believed that those are in heaven) and bowing down to worship those earthly images while prayers are said to them (for they are only being asked to "pray for us", sometimes...when not beseeched for more direct assitance) while they yet be otherwise also said to be one with God --- so regardless, our God is bigger than yours and we can by our own "faith" contradict in practice, admonitions given the Hebrews by God *quite directly* against similar in appearance practices common enough among pagan and 'ancestor' worship cults all over the world, found in the most primitive of cultures, because "our" (or should I say The?) Church ecclesiastical body which we bow obeisance towards as central component to our "faith" (we even recite creed that we "believe in" it along with believing in God) not only tell us that it OK to do as we do, but often enough highly recommend that we do so.

Or in other words; "We ain't breakin' no commandments -- we just be 'veneratin' "

[metmom]

With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away."

Quite different than Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.

[daniel1212]

Statistically, I believe that this "real" Christian church has lost ground, and has become too small a minority to sway elections. Those of us who vote according to our faith have become strangers in a foreign land (Exodus 2:22, cf Jeremiah 5:19).

Demographics are indeed determining elections, but remember, according to some RCs here, it was the fault of white evangelicals that Romney lost, as only 79% voted for him, and some stayed home, so it was not enough to cover the deficient left by the 59% of white Catholics and 57% of Protestants who voted for Romney. They have to find a way.

[daniel1212]

Quite different than Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.

Or the present pope, who is not surprisingly opposed by many TRCs.

[metmom]

I don’t see any worship or praying going on.

Well, the word *worship* is so open to debate that some of us prefer to get back to the basics.

Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Now, you can get into a spitting contest all day long about whether they worship Mary or not. They claim they don't even when they do all the actions involved in actual worship. So it really does cut into their credibility when they deny it, but no man knows their heart so you have to take them at their word, even when their own actions belie those very words.

OTOH, the Ten Commandments don't tell us to not worship other gods but do NOT make and image and do NOT BOW DOWN to them.

So semantics aside, the words are up for grabs about whether they are breaking any commandments but their actions aren't.

Those can be clearly and objectively evaluated.

God says not to bow down to images. In the picture Elsie and others have posted, the pope is CLEARLY BOWING DOWN BEFORE an image.

[Gamecock]

Nothing like the perspective of a former Papist (can I call you that?) to bring the true issue into focus.

What are your thoughts about him bowing down to Muslim women?