Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism

Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

The Idealization of Protestantism

246. Protestants claim to belong to the Apostolic Church.

The claim cannot be sustained. That Church alone can be truly Apostolic which reaches back to the Apostles by the historical, spiritual, and social bond of uninterrupted succession. Jesus chose and commissioned the Apostles, and they formed the authoritative body in the Church. And in the same Church today there must still be an authoritative body derived from them. This derivation must be historically and socially evident in a visible Church. The whole chain depends on the first link, for that links the Church to Christ.

247. The Reformation was to restore the Apostolic Church.

So it is said. But Protestants do not claim an Apostolic character for their Churches in the right sense of the word. As a rule, they seek to attach themselves to Christ directly, without any intermediary society possessing historical continuity. They rather claim to have a religion "like" that of the Apostles, than one given them "by" the Apostles and their lawful successors. The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the Eternal Son of God became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social incarnation. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and tradition.

248. We cling to the traditions of the Apostles.

You mean that you have the same doctrines as the Apostles. That is not really true. But even were it true, it would not be enough. To profess someone's doctrine on the grounds of one's own approval of them does not mean social continuity with him. The Church is a society, and its life is collective and organized under one authority. Protestantism has no central authority, and no priesthood properly so-called. It has not an apostolicity such as the true Christian Church requires.

249. The Reformed Church has always acknowledged the Roman Catholic Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic; but that Christian judgment is not reciprocated.

Do all the Protestant Churches constitute the one "Reformed Church"? If so, would Methodists or Presbyterians admit that they are one with Judge Rutherford's Witnesses of Jehovah? After all, Judge Rutherford has as much, or as little right to set up his new Protestant sect as John Knox had to set up Presbyterianism. And it is not true, of course, that the Protestant Churches have always acknowledged the Roman Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic. The first Reformers rejected the Catholic Church as antichrist, and spoke of it with the utmost horror. Preaching in Edinburgh, in 1565, John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, declared that the Church is limited to those who profess the Lord Jesus, and have rejected papistry." The Catholic Church must be forgiven for refusing to admit relationship with Protestant Churches which originated with men who denounced her, and left her, and never returned to her. Is it reasonable to suppose that the new Churches set up by the Reformers are really in union with the Church they left? History and logic leave no room for the modern claim of Protestants to belong also to the Catholic Church.

250. Whom do members of Protestant Churches acknowledge as head of their Church on earth?

They have various systems of government. In some, as the Congregationalists, the members of each congregation are a law to themselves. In others, as the Presbyterians, authority is vested by the members in elected office-bearers, different assemblies prevailing in various localities. In these cases there is no universal bond of unity in the strict sense of the word. In Churches which have bishops, as the Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Episcopal or Anglican, power is vested in those bishops. In the Greek Church the power is ultimately traced back to one or other of almost a dozen different Patriarchs. There is no such thing as one united Greek Church. In the Anglican Church the final authority is traced back to the Crown of England. In the Catholic Church all authority on earth centers in one supreme bishop independent of any national rulers — the Bishop of Rome. Thus we have a genuine ecclesiastical unity side by side with the required universality of one and the same Church throughout the world.

251. Do the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches exist in such foreign countries as Germany, Russia, France, Spain, Norway, etc.?

They may have what may be termed "agencies" in some of those countries to cater for English-speaking tourists of the different denominations. But, insofar as any nationals of these countries profess Protestantism, they usually profess a type of Protestantism peculiar to themselves. Where the Catholic Church unites men of different nationalities in one and the same Christian doctrine, Protestantism permits variations in doctrine to suit the national differences of outlook amongst men.

252. You habitually speak of your own Church as the Catholic Church. What right have you to drop the prefix "Roman"?

Either ours is the Catholic Church, or there is no Catholic Church. The expression "Roman Catholic," though frequently used, is really meaningless. Grammatically it involves a contradiction in terms. For the word Catholic means universal or "not limited." To use the word "Roman" as a qualifying adjective of limitation or restriction is like speaking of the "limited unlimited." Again, geographically, the Catholic Church is that Church which exists in all the different countries of the world for members of those different countries. And our Church is alone truly Catholic in that sense of the word. The Church subject to the Bishop of Rome exists in every country precisely for the people of each different country. No other Church is universal in this sense of the word.

253. I cannot accept your verdict of Protestantism. You seem quite blind to all the positive good it has accomplished.

I am not blind to the good to be found in Protestantism side by side with its errors. But I am concerned with the Reformation movement as such; and I say that it was not justified.

254. When the Romish Church rose to power she abandoned the teachings of the Gospel until the people were fed up with the deal given by Rome.

The Catholic Church never abandoned the teachings of the Gospel. The laxity of many of her members in practice was made one of the excuses for the Protestant Reformation. But the Protestant defection from the Church was a great mistake.

255. The people gladly accepted the teaching in which the Apostles gloried.

You would find it very difficult to set out clearly the teachings of the Protestant Reformers which you believe to harmonize with those of the Apostles. For the Reformers themselves were anything but agreed as to what should be believed. They fought against each other's teachings bitterly, indulging in violent mutual recriminations.

256. Protestantism is a witness to the great truths that have stood the test of time.

It used to witness to some of them. But unfortunately it is allowing most of them nowadays to be denied without protest, and even by its official teachers and ministers.

257. Protestants believe the Bible to be the standard of Christian truth, and the very Word of God.

Many of their leading exponents dispute that today. But even amongst those who still accept the Bible, there is little agreement as to what the Bible means. The Catholic Church defends the Bible as the very Word of God, and is alone capable of giving the authentic interpretation of the sense intended by God.

258. The Bible gives spiritual freedom such as all Protestants enjoy.

The Bible nowhere gives freedom to believe as one pleases, or to worship as one pleases. It demands our submission to the truth that we may be free from error, and obedience to the Church that we may be free from false forms of religion.

259. The Reformation limited the power of priests, and liberated the people from an autocratic hierarchy.

It abolished the priestly office, limiting the ministry to the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of some of the Sacraments.

260. It meant a purifying of the ministerial office to an extent that makes it difficult to realise now the evils to which it was subject.

It is true that there were many evils amongst the clergy at the time of the Reformation. I will go so far as to say that, had the Catholic clergy of the time been all they should have been, the disaster would not have occurred. At the same time, if many were not true to their obligations, many also were strictly faithful, and some were saints fit for canonization. Nor did any really holy priest dream of leaving the Church. I deny, of course, that the ministry was purified by abandoning the priesthood, abolishing its obligations, and adopting definitely lower standards. However, as I have admitted, if the Reformation did not itself purify the ministry, it did occasion a vast movement of reform strictly so-called within the Catholic Church; and the Council of Trent made the most stringent legislation for the better formation of future candidates for the priesthood, and the elimination of abuses. While the Reformation, then, did not purify the ministerial office, it did challenge the Catholic Church to do so.

261. Protestant Churches are founded on personal trust, and freedom as to how and where we shall meet our Lord in prayer.

The Catholic Church does not exclude personal trust in our Lord. She insists upon it. And Catholics are perfectly free to seek union with Him in prayer whenever they wish. But the Catholic Church rightly forbids Catholics to seek union with the assemblies of others who profess doctrines other than hers. Whatever charity we have for the persons of others, we cannot extend approval to their erroneous teachings and forms of religious worship. You may be my friend; but your religion is not my religion; and you should not expect me to behave as if it were.

262. Protestantism at least has meant liberty.

It liberated people from the Catholic Church. But that was a liberation from the restraints of the truth revealed by Christ, and from His moral laws. In his excellent book on "Luther and His Work," Mr. Joseph Clayton, F.R.H.S. writes, "Whither has Luther led his followers? Into what promised land, after the years of wandering outside the Catholic unity, are now brought the Protestants who date their emancipation from Martin Luther? Four centuries of journeying since Luther started the exodus, and yet the promised land of the Lutheran evangel, so often emergent, fades from sight even as the mirage vanishes in the desert. It is the wasteland of doubt that Protestants have reached — a wasteland littered with abandoned hopes and discarded creeds."

263. The Reformation meant the restoration of public prayer to its right place as the duty and privilege of every servant of God, and not the monopoly of a select class of monks and nuns called ironically the Religious.

Such a sneer at those who consecrated their lives to God in the Religious Orders is unworthy of a Christian. Meantime, while the suppression of the monasteries meant the suppression of the worship offered to God within them in the name of the whole Church, what have people made of the duty and privilege of public prayer? Protestant clergymen complain regularly of lost congregations, empty Churches, and the neglect of public worship. That scarcely sounds like the restoration of public prayer to its proper place as the right and duty of all the faithful. On the other hand, Catholic Churches are filled to overflowing.

264. The Reformation meant a purifying of family life.

In what way? The Catholic Church certainly cannot be blamed for the growth of loose ideas of marriage, easy divorce, the widespread plague of contraceptive birth control, and other acknowledged evils tending to break down family life.

265. How can you escape the evident success of Protestantism?

I deny that its success is evident, at least from the genuinely Christian point of view. Genuine Christianity leads to supernatural rather than to merely natural ideals. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world, and definitely bade us "love not the world." A spiritual and unworldly outlook is therefore the outstanding characteristic of the Catholic religion. I do not say that it is the outlook of all individual Catholics. But insofar as he has not a spiritual and unworldly outlook, a Catholic has drifted from Catholic ideals. On the other hand, Protestantism does not, of its very nature, lead to a spiritual and unworldly outlook. If some good Protestants are truly spiritual, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it. The contrast is evident in the fact that Catholicism will propose as one of her heroes a St. Francis of Assisi who utterly rejected worldly goods, sought poverty and holiness of life, and ended up as a canonized Saint. But the heroes of the Protestant tradition grow from penniless boys into millionaires, or travel from log cabin to White House.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Oh, poor baby! No one will hold your hand? Then maybe stay off the open threads. Thin-skinned posters are disrupters on open threads.

You seem awfully angry (and perpetually offended) for someone who is constantly chastizing others for “thin skin”.

Again ... a self-defeating post.

SnakeDoc

[GonzoII]

"Because the Catholic church lost its way (doctrinally and otherwise). In my opinion, and that of many Protestants, it started as Christ’s church and became a church of men ... thus requiring renewal and reform."

Then ipso facto you have to admit that Christ could not keep his Church from error in spite of human weekness.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

Ah, I see. It appears civility is dead on FR then. Ironically, on the Religion Forum, no less.

[Ken4TA]

Because although they are alive in Christ, they are dead, and the Bible says so, and we are expressly forbidden to contact the dead.

EXACTLY !!!

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Then ipso facto you have to admit that Christ could not keep his Church from error in spite of human weekness.

Christ forgives sins, He hasn’t (yet) eliminated them completely. Until He returns, doctrinal errors are inherent in a human world. I do not believe any man, or any church, is infallible — doctrinally or otherwise.

SnakeDoc

[OneVike]

Mine was from reputable sources,

OH, so now the only reputable sources are from Catholic sites?

I beg to differ. Deny history all you wish, the facts are facts and when you begin a thread who's premise is to attach lies and innuendos to those of the Protestant faith, then you better be man enough to accept proof from sources you find objectionable.

Otherwise I would advise you to cease and desist from publicly attacking Protestant Freepers in an article posted on Sunday morning. .

[SnakeDoctor]

Civility is overrated in spreading His word. I am a practicioner of the Jack Bauer School of Pragmatic Evangelism ...

SnakeDoc

[OneVike]

OK, you posted it Saturday evening, but you still meant to agitate Protestant Freepers.

So why get upset for getting what you asked for?

[marajade]

God has given us instruction as to correction. Matthew 18

[GonzoII]

"OH, so now the only reputable sources are from Catholic sites?"

They may have been from a Catholic site but the quotes are from secular sources like Brittanica etc..

[Judith Anne]

I thought it was interesting, the way you left out most of my statement earlier, when you first stated my post was self-defeating.

That was a very convenient omission for you, LOL!

And thank you, but I don’t care if you think I’m angry. You seem very *sensitive* yourself.

[marajade]

When you attend Church what do carry? A Bible; a rosary? Just curious.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

Thank you, SnakeDoc! lol I needed a smile as a break from all the testiness of this thread. :~)

[SnakeDoctor]

>> And thank you, but I don’t care if you think I’m angry. You seem very *sensitive* yourself.

Sensitive? Honestly, I couldn’t care less. I find it notable that you repeatedly blast people for whining and over-sensitivity in your whining/over-sensitive posts ... but I find myself amused, not angry.

You haven’t hurt my feelings in the least. Carry on.

SnakeDoc

[GonzoII]

"doctrinal errors are inherent in a human world."

Indeed they are; enter Christ to prevent his Church from error.

He told his disciples to teach the world all things that he had commanded them and promised to be with them all days even to the end of the world, how could they go wrong?

[vladimir998]

One Vike, you need to calm down. He’ll post whatever the heck he wants and the RM allows. So will you. It’s called FREE Republic for a reason.

You wrote:

“Deny history all you wish, the facts are facts and when you begin a thread who’s premise is to attach lies and innuendos to those of the Protestant faith, then you better be man enough to accept proof from sources you find objectionable. “

You posted at least three untruths in number 44. I asked for evidence of your false claims. Where is it?

[Judith Anne]

The portion of my post that Snake_Doc left out, earlier:

_______________________________________________________

We have answered them [the VILE comments] in all sincerity until our limit of patience for the very same daily calumnies has been reached.

Like it or lump it, many of us are no longer backing down or making nice. Anti-Catholic bigots have used the Religion Forum rules against us until we have learned to use them ourselves.

______________________________________________________

Your problem with civility is your problem. When someone is civil to me, they generally get it back in return. Attacking someone’s civility, however, does not constitute a religious argument, it is an ad hominem fallacy, and will be pointed out as such.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

Talk about “thin skinned”! Now you must copy and repost Judith Anne’s entire post lest you be accused of “convenient omission”! To copy and repost what you consider to be the relevant passage as is the usual and normal practice is unacceptable. Reference post 131. lol

[GonzoII]

"Maybe there wasn’t any central authority figure between the day of penecost and Constantine."

History shows that there was a central authority..read Clement.

[marajade]

Why would I rely on some source other than the Bible?