| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2020 1:17:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness, locked Posters, please review your posts to see what is not allowed in the Religion Forum. |
Posted on 08/09/2020 7:46:24 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.
One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.
There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.
The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?
Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.
* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.
Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”
This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.
Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.
Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.
I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.
Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.
Besides ADSUM, you’ve been pinged, both Catholics and Protestants who’ve been on this thread, for your judgment on this exchange between ADSUM and I. Did or would any of you read his remark on Protestants having “40,000 versions of His truth” as referring to anything other than denominations?
“To: Faith Presses On
“My comment: “Yes. Good advice, but one needs the correct understanding of God’s Truth. Jesus did not teach 40,000 versions of His Truth.”
“Your comment: “There aren’t tens of thousands of Protestant denominations”
“If you reread the original posting, there was no mention of denominations, but 40,000 versions (actually more as each protestant can make their own interpretation) of God’s Truth. You should admit that God did not make 40,000 versions of His Truth, man did with the help of Satan?...”
“184 posted on 8/11/2020, 6:12:58 AM by ADSUM”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3872796/posts?page=184#184
And I’ll note that ADSUM also used basically the same expression here too:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3872796/posts?page=32#32
If you want to see all of our exchanges about this, you can look back starting from the last reply here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3872796/posts?page=441#441
He made a number of accusations against me related to this exchange so I’d appreciate all who would offer their opinions here. Thank you in advance
I believe in Jesus that established the Catholic Church and the Sacraments and told us to go forth preach and baptize all nations with His Truth.
I don’t believe false prophets and false teachers (or those that play games with the Word of God) from the protestant heresy.
As you know, Catholics follow the Apostles in calling our priests and spiritual fathers as “Fathers”. If you read the full passage, then you would understand that Jesus used hyperbole to state a warning that no one should pridefully desire honorific titles. it was not meant literally. Jesus often used “Amen, amen”, “Truly, truly” or Verily, verily” to emphasize Truth in His Words. He didn’t use those expressions here, but did to inform us that His Body and Blood was necessary for our salvation In John 6.
You keep repeating the same old message which is an example of lack of faith and understanding of God’s Word. Heretics like to take a phrase out of context and attempt to change the meaning. Have you ever considered whether you are “in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach or defiance”?
Yes. I realize that many like the warm and fuzzies of group think and do not listen or want to understand God’s Truth.
I try to respond to the lies about God’s Truth and the Catholic faith. Each individual should want to accept God and God’s Truth and not rely on false information. Thanks for sharing my posts if you don’t edit them.
With false doctrine encouraged by Satan and rejecting God’s Truth, Will God say to you “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers”?
Your claim is ludicrous.
Catholicism has only definitively officially defined a handful of Scripture passages, which by default means that any which don’t have an official Vatican approved interpretation, are open to the personal interpretation of the individual Catholic, which means 1.2 billion (allegedly) different interpretations of Scripture.
And that doesn’t count the personal interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic “church”.
Or do you seriously expect us to believe that all 1.2 billion alleged Catholics all follow Catholic teaching lockstep with no dissent nor variation?
As we all know, Catholics disobey the clear, concise, unequivocal command of Jesus to NOT use the title of “Father” for religious leaders.
While he/she did not specify denominations, one can ask where ADSUM picked up the figure of 40,000 versions of Truth and see what this corresponds to, which is not hard to see. It is common for uninformed or deceptive Catholic to parrot (which ADSUM practices) the fallacious 33k figure, and out of which many extrapolate 40,000 Denominations:
We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations - https://m.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations
Protestantism—40,000 Denominations, 40,000 Points of Departure. Church Militant (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEVZYRn8IA4)
40,000 Denominations Worldwide- The Ben Smart Blog https://thebensmartblog.com/2014/02/12/40000-denominations-worldwide-christianity-divided/
I do not know how many of you on here have used this or believe this, but can we stop the lie that there are 40,000 protestant denominations? It is fairly well known that it is not true, but there are still some people that use it trying to disprove protestantism. I am a catholic, and using the false statistic does more harm than good. It comes from World Christian Encyclopedia, and according to this source, the Catholic church has 242 denominations. We all know this is not true. - Catholic Answers; https://forums.catholic.com/t/40-000-denominations/468661:
And from right here on FR:
I have to laugh at NYer's claim that there's 40,000 denominations again. She claimed there were 33,000 in June of 2007, with "more springing up every day" in August 2007. Yet by November 2007, she'd dropped the number down to 20,000. Now in September of 2009, she's raised the number up to "30,000 and growing". And then two months later, she claimed she was going to post [40,000] but "chose to go more conservative". Up and down, up and down we go! Wheeee! - Alex Murphy, later banned apparently due opposition from Catholics.
And given the recourse of ADSUM to parrot refuted RC propaganda, it is easy to surmise that the figure of 40k versions of Truth flowed from the 40,000 denominations error, or was his/her means of conveying the same censure.
Regardless, the fact is that since most of what Catholics believe and practice has not been infallibly defined, including what all the infallible teachings are, and on what magisterial level the rest fall under, nor infallibly explained, neither an infallible interpretation of the Bible with its over 80k words, nor all of what oral tradition teaches, then there can be 40,000 versions of Truth even among Catholics.
Moreover, even as regards essentials you not only have Catholic schisms,from the EOS to the RadTrad SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) and the RadTrad SSPV (in honor of Pope St. Pius V, and a schism from a schism, though the status of the SSPX is another issue RCs debate) to those in informal schism by refusing to recognize Francis as pope, as well as multiple TradCath sects.
However, as regards core Truths, those who testify to most strongly esteeming Scripture as alone being the sure and sufficient supreme standard as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic testify to being far more unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death.
And thus the Prot. 33k+ denomination propaganda is also fallacious in this debate since who here is defending a Protestant church as the only true one, versus certain cardinal Truths that are most all held to by Bible Christians/aka fundamentalist evangelicals?
The Catholics can attack SS as the cause of the divisions, yet the most loosely dis-unified are those who do not hold to the fundamentalist esteem of Scripture, while the divisions they see are akin in principle to those of TradCaths, with divisions being primarily due to taking doctrine more seriously, and thus such typically have the most fervent debates, yet which groups also show the most unity in basics.
And rather than the vaunted "living magisterium" resolving any conflicts or disagreements within the Church, as ADSUM asserted, then V2 has been the cause of the modern RC divisions.
Let me get this straight...you assert Jesus was using "hyperbole" and not speaking literally when He commanded His disciples to not honor each other by the title of "Father", but He was NOT using hyperbole or figurative language when He said we must "eat his body and drink his blood" to have eternal life??? You accept by faith that the wafer is mystically changed even though there is no physical evidence of a change taking place and you claim that ONLY "your" priests can do this. NOWHERE in Scripture will you find this! Your religion had to invent the dogma of "transubstantiation" at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 to try to explain it.
NOBODY denies that Christ's body and blood was necessary for our salvation. What is disagree with is that Jesus meant we literally have to eat his flesh and drink his blood rather than by FAITH we remember His sacrifice for us in regular remembrances with each other as the Body of Christ. We "eat" and "drink" Him by faith! We believe He is our Savior and that His body was broken for us and His blood was shed for our sins. THAT is the faith that matters.
You keep repeating the same old message which is an example of lack of faith and understanding of God’s Word. Heretics like to take a phrase out of context and attempt to change the meaning. Have you ever considered whether you are “in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach or defiance”?
You guys are ones to talk!!!
40,000 Placemarkers of Truth
(Wait. No, there’s just one Placemarker)
Oooppppssss.....
LOL!
Which does not make it any more true than your other assertions that are a poor excuse for a argument.
I don’t believe false prophets and false teachers (or those that play games with the Word of God) from the protestant heresy.
"The" protestant heresy?! As shown and ignored except for more parroting of refuted propaganda, it is distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
As you know, Catholics follow the Apostles in calling our priests and spiritual fathers as “Fathers”.
Wrong again, since while I do not agree that a true believer cannot refer to himself as father and be called such by them, however, it is wrong to adopt that as a title that all are to call you since you are not their spiritual father, and Catholic priests are not NT pastors, and are not spiritual fathers via baptizing souls, since contrary to Cath doctrine, that act itself (ex opere operato) does not effect regeneration. Thus the typical way Catholic priests are fathers is by making souls the child of hell like themselves (cf. Matthew 23:15)
If you read the full passage, then you would understand that Jesus used hyperbole to state a warning that no one should pridefully desire honorific titles.
I actually agree with "cal no man father" being hyperbole, as well as the censure of wearing ostentatious distinctive clothing in order to receive honor, yet both of which Rome disregards, from ostentatious garb to illustrious titles and calling her priests fathers as a formal title.
Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away. (Job 32:21-22)
Jesus often used “Amen, amen”, “Truly, truly” or Verily, verily” to emphasize Truth in His Words. He didn’t use those expressions here, but did to inform us that His Body and Blood was necessary for our salvation In John 6.
And thus you must answer the question asked before in post 45 and ignored, which is how can you take John 6:53 literally, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," (John 6:53) and yet be a V2 Catholic when Lumen Gentium and other modern teaching generally affirms of properly baptized Protestants - all of which deny the Catholic Real Presence and according to Rome lack the necessary priest to confect the Eucharist - "that those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ, and are "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church," being "joined with us in the Holy Spirit" who "is operative among them," such as the "many who take Sacred Scripture as a norm of belief and a pattern of life" and lovingly believe in the Trinity.? Sources. Answer and do not resort to obscurantism.
You keep repeating the same old message which is an example of lack of faith and understanding of God’s Word.
Rather, most all your posts are simply continually asserting beliefs that have been refuted and one can only wish were established. Including the premise that God’s Word is whatever Rome says it is. Thus let me ask you again another question you ignore, which is do you think a Catholic can obtain an indulgence by posting as you do here?
What else do you call him because just like your mother of God, THAT Jesus is not in the scriptures...
Jesus of the scriptures established the Jewish church and then had Paul establish the Roman/Samaritan churches long after Jesus died and there were no sacraments...
And the baptism you guys teach/perform is the baptism of John (or it would be if those babies could climb into a tub of water)...
You guys claim yours is the Church of the scriptures but you have absolutely nothing to back that up, except the claims of your Church...The Bible does not at all bear witness to that claim...So you can claim it all day long but it still won't mean anything...
Yes, I pointed just that out on another thread!
LOL. No brah, you’re driving people away from Catholicism because your ‘clever arguments’ are just hilariously awful.
Maybe they work on Catholics because you priests don’t allow them to read the Bible without a priest to tell them what it REALLY means, and how saved by grace REALLY means the complete opposite.
Though personally I’m more surprised that you’re acting smugly superior that people are rejecting your church. Do you hate Christians that much, or do you really not believe in eternal damnation?
It seems that Roman Catholics still miss the days where the filthy peasants had to bow down to even their stupidest doctrines or get burned at the stake.
Ain't nobody got time fo dat!
When I was a catholic, I used to go to confession almost every day, cuz I committed a mortal sin every minute or so. I just couldn’t stay in the state of Grace. 😁🤪👍
He(?) is a big waste of time!
Well; doesn't EVERYONE?
A person will either pick ONE of these; or both to 'believe'.
Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Of COURSE you do! It is quite obvious from your posts.
The problem is; there is no evidence that HE did, but we have Scripture that says He didn't.
1. the 'letter' in Acts 15
2. the fact of seven churches in Asia being IMMEDIATELY off the rails after Jesus has returned to heaven.
Does Acts chapter fifteen REALLY sound anything at ALL like Catholicism??
Does the warnings to the 7 churches sound ANYTHING like solid Catholic doctrine?
Then why take a chance and APPLY them?
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.