“The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies”?

Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.

How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?

Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”

A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.

No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!

This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.” Christ is our High Priest; our hearts have been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience just as our bodies have been washed with pure water (v.22).

Christ has once-for-all become the sacrifice for our sins, and has been raised and vindicated in the power of an indestructible life as our representative priest. By faith in Him, we are as righteous before the throne of God as He is righteous. For we are justified in His righteousness, His justification alone is ours! And we can no more lose this justification than He can fall from heaven. Thus our justification does not need to be completed any more than does Christ’s!

With this in view, the author says, “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who come to God by him” (Heb. 10:14). The reason we can stand before God in full assurance is because we now experience our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and … bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).

“Ah,” retorted Cardinal Bellarmine’s Rome, “teach this and those who believe it will live in license and antinomianism.” But listen instead to the logic of Hebrews. Enjoying this assurance leads to four things: First, an unwavering faithfulness to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ alone as our hope (v.23); second, a careful consideration of how we can encourage each other to “love and good works” (v.24); third, an ongoing communion with other Christians in worship and every aspect of our fellowship (v.25a); fourth, a life in which we exhort one another to keep looking to Christ and to be faithful to him, as the time of his return draws ever nearer (25b).

It is the good tree that produces good fruit, not the other way round. We are not saved by works; we are saved for works. In fact we are God’s workmanship at work (Eph. 2:9–10)! Thus, rather than lead to a life of moral and spiritual indifference, the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ and the full-assurance faith it produces, provides believers with the most powerful impetus to live for God’s glory and pleasure. Furthermore, this full assurance is rooted in the fact that God Himself has done all this for us. He has revealed His heart to us in Christ. The Father does not require the death of Christ to persuade Him to love us. Christ died because the Father loves us (John 3:16). He does not lurk behind His Son with sinister intent wishing He could do us ill — were it not for the sacrifice his Son had made! No, a thousand times no! — the Father Himself loves us in the love of the Son and the love of the Spirit.

Those who enjoy such assurance do not go to the saints or to Mary. Those who look only to Jesus need look nowhere else. In Him we enjoy full assurance of salvation. The greatest of all heresies? If heresy, let me enjoy this most blessed of “heresies”! For it is God’s own truth and grace!

WONDERFUL PRODS...

A little glance at the history shows that it was the Roman Catholic church that subjected Ireland in the first place to the English crown WAY before. From http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm:

In this way the popes would achieve several goals simultaneously: they would re-impose their authority on Ireland, strengthen their power over the English kingdom, and thus also reinforce their hold upon France and indirectly upon the whole of Europe.

It so happened that the English kings had entertained similar designs, and also that at the time there was sitting in the papal chair a man by the name of Nicholas Breakspeare, known as Hadrian IV, an Englishman (1154-9), who made possible the English subjugation of Ireland by his “Anglicana affectione,” as an Irish chieftain declared in 1316 in a letter to Pope John XXII. King and pope began to negotiate.

The pope was ready to confer the dominion of Ireland on the English king, upon the condition that the king accepted the doctrine of papal sovereignty, which implied that, as King of England, he was a vassal of the pope. The king, on the other hand, was ready to accept this upon the condition that the papacy would support him in his military and political conquest of he Irish by using the powerful machinery of the Church.

Fortune seemed to favor the project, for Diarmait, an Irish potentate years before Henry became King of England, had brought him a long-desired opportunity by proposing the conquest of Ireland. Once the pope and the king were in agreement, Hadrian IV granted to the England king the hereditary lordship of Ireland, sending a letter with a ring as a symbol of investiture, thus conferring on him dominion over the island of Ireland, which “like all Christian islands, undoubtedly belonged of right to St. Peter and the Roman Church”.

The papal grant, made in 1155, was kept a secret until after Henry landed in Ireland in 1172. Thus the English received dominion over Ireland on the grounds that the pontiffs were feudal lords of all islands of the ocean, thanks to the Donation of Constantine.

The Irish conquest, ordered by Pope Hadrian IV, is authenticated by a document popularly called the “Bull Laudabiliter,” found only in the Roman Bullarium (1739) and in the Annals of Baronius, but its authenticity has been accepted by Roman Catholic and Protestant historians alike. The “Bull Laudabiliter” is inserted in the Expugnatio Hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis, published in or about 188, (1) wherein he asserts it to be the document brought from Rome by John of Salisbury in 155.

He also gives with it a confirmation by Alexander II, obtained, he states, by Henry II after his visit to Ireland. John of Salisbury, the intimate friend and confidant of Pope Hadrian, quotes also the Donation of Constantine, on the grounds of this right of St. Peter over all islands. In addition to these two documents, there are three letters from Alexander III, which are similarly known to us only at second hand, being transcribed in what is known as the Black Book of the Exchequer. (2)

In them, the pope expresses his warm approval of Henry’s conquest of Ireland, calling his expedition as missionary enterprise, praising him as a champion of the Church and particularly of St. Peter and of his rights, which rights St. Peter passed on to the popes. Especially significant is the fact that the rights claimed by the popes under the Donation of Constantine, over all islands, are here asserted, not so much as justifying the grant of Ireland to Henry, but as entitling the papal see to claim those rights for itself.

Such rights were still claimed by the Vatican in an official document as recently as 1645. When in that year Pope Innocent X dispatched Rinuccini as Papal Nuncio to Ireland, he gave him formal instructions in which were included a brief outline of past events. In it we find this definite and most striking passage: For a long period the true faith maintained itself, till the country, invaded by Danes, and idolatrous people, fell for the most part into impious superstition. This state of darkness lasted till the reigns of Adrian IV and of Henry II, King of England.

Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire and to secure the provinces which he possessed belong the era in France, wished to subdue the island of Ireland; and to compass this design had to recourse to Adrian, who. himself an Englishman, with a liberal hand granted all he coveted. The Zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith moved the soul of Pope Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of that island.

Three important conditions were annexed to the gift:

That each of his subjects should pay an annual tribute of one penny to the Holy See, commonly called Peter’s Pence.

That all the privileges and immunities of the Church be held inviolate. (3)

These “conditions” were obtained through papal authority and the king’s sword. When the King Henry seemed to have firmly established himself on Irish soil, the pope strengthened him by mobilizing the Irish Church in his support. Christian O’Conarchy, Bishop of Lismore and Papal Legate, president at the Synod, attended by the Archbishops of Dublin, Cashel and Tuam, their suffragan abbots and other dignitaries. Henry’s sovereignty was acknowledged and constitutions made which drew Ireland closer to Rome than ever.

Thus it was one of the ironies of history that Catholic Ireland was sold by the popes themselves to a country destined to become the champion of Protestantism. But the grant of Ireland had another great repercussion. It provided a precedent to the popes, not only to claim and give away islands and people, but also to give away a new world. For the language of the grant of Hadrian IV and some of his successors developed principles as yet unheard of in Christendom, since Hadrian had declared that Ireland and all the islands belonged to the special jurisdiction of St. Peter. (4)

Catholics identify as Catholic because that's what true Christians are....Catholic. That was the case for 1,600 years and still is. If you come along 16 centuries after Catholicism was instituted by Christ and decide to change the definition of the word Christian...good luck getting that through....If you are not a Catholic, you are either incomplete as a Christian or in serious error....there are both in the protestant world....but there are NO protestants who are complete or errorless Christians...NONE.

The kind of things one expects bigots to say.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT speaking the truth here. The word "catholic" (note lower case "c") was an adjective first used by an early second century church leader (Ignatius of Antioch). The word, (from Greek καθολικισμός, katholikismos, "universal doctrine"), was used as a broad term for describing specific traditions in the Christian churches in theology, doctrine, liturgy, ethics, and spirituality. Did the Apostles EVER use the term "Catholic"? No, they did not. Over time, the term came to be used by those churches that adhered to the orthodox faith as taught by the Apostles and handed down through teaching and sacred Scripture. It was many centuries later when Rome asserted her authority over all Christendom, that the term became a proper noun depicting a singular ecclesial tradition and distinguished those churches in communion with Rome and the Pope. There are MANY churches that retain the orthodox faith who do not identify with nor submit to the Pope of Rome. Like I said, you can have your opinion about who is a Christian but that is really up to Almighty God, who alone sees the heart.

For Roman catholics today to smugly and boastfully claim they alone hold the "true" Christian faith and all others are "lesser" or "in error" is to forget that their church teaches novel doctrines unheard of in the early Christian churches, NEVER taught by the Apostles and completely absent from the divinely-inspired Scriptures.

So, who are the TRUE Christians who hold to the orthodox/catholic/universal faith? It's NOT the ones who claim to BE Catholic, though, no doubt, there ARE some genuine Christians among them. What the Reformation accomplished was to redirect the faith, once delivered unto the saints, BACK to the true roots of what Christianity really is about. Those who believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught are the TRUE Christians - no matter what they may call their ecclesial community. Get use to that, TC, eternity is an awful long time to be hateful towards ones brothers and sisters in Christ!

Catholics do the same crap Here that so called Protestants do

This denigration I want no part of

It would suit me if Fresno booted all the religious forum preening from the whole damn forum

It’s a big joke....nothing to do with saving anyone’s soul but just more infighting mostly between angry ex Catholics and angry still Catholics

While those of us non Catholic born get caught by the same fire the former Catholics do from their former faith brethren

If it ain’t all that then it’s open season on Mormons....

But we cannot afford to stop this crap cause if you look at recent posts scrolls

These religious wars on this forum are at least 10% of the traffic and on slow news days a whole lot more

Now that’s a pity.

I don’t pretend to know what Jesus thinks but i can’t imagine this pleases him

It’s easy to understand how not long ago they killed each other in vulgar numbers over this.....civilized white folks

And look how the women act

As they are prone to do to me...about pot and nudity......tsk tsk

Why can’t Yall focus on Islam and libtards instead....

Interesting. According to usccb.org. The CCC seems to hold more importance than you realize. A few entries:

"Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?

By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings. p> Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

Just as the Catechism contains the most solemnly defined dogmas of the Church, it also contains the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The worldwide consultation of the bishops that preceded the promulgation of the Catechism gives it a collegial character. It is, as Pope John Paul II said, "the result of a collaboration of the whole episcopate." It would seem, however, that the Catechism did not have the benefit of the complete exercise of effective collegiality that accompanies the writing, disputation, revision, consensus, agreement and eventual promulgation of documents of an ecumenical council. But it must be noted that the form of a catechism is distinct from the form of conciliar documents. They are complimentary, but they are not identical.

Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded?

No. The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." He asked "the Church's pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life."

Bold/italics mine

It appears you may not be properly carechized as it appears you are in major disagreement with Rome!! Not only Rome, but a Pope's apostolic authority!!

Now...the question again: do you agree with the CCC and profess to worship the same "God" as the Muslims or are you denouncing the CCC's just proven authority and rebelling against Rome by disagreeing?

Hoss

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.

I don't live in central Indiana...