Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by 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

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholicism; christianity; protestantbash; protestantism; radiorepliesvoltwo; religion; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-375 next last
To: Gaffer

“Do either of you think God cares about this? Does Jesus?”

Without question!

The “practice of religion” has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ. - Christ is not religion; he is the Way, the only way, to eternal life in the presence of the Lord.

221 posted on 05/09/2010 2:40:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law;

I believe what Natural Law (ironic name for someone on a religion thread) is trying to say is the Catholic Church has decided additional doctrines are Gods Words.

Kinda like they say the Pope sits next to Jesus.

222 posted on 05/09/2010 2:47:30 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Again I’m a simpleton, John 3:16

223 posted on 05/09/2010 2:52:20 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; Natural Law

sorry should of pinged you to my above post

224 posted on 05/09/2010 2:54:28 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

"Where does it say that?"

The cut came from the article. The Catholic hierarchy(pneumatics and psychics) claims an exclusive channel on the hidden knowledge(gnosis) contained in the Gospels. Mere humans(Somatics) are incapable of understanding what's written.

225 posted on 05/09/2010 2:57:35 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"I believe what Natural Law (ironic name for someone on a religion thread) is trying to say is the Catholic Church has decided additional doctrines are Gods Words."

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved on the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

1955 The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error." The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

226 posted on 05/09/2010 2:59:19 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: spunkets


227 posted on 05/09/2010 3:00:47 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You can quote from the Catechism all you want. Thats like saying you owe me a million dollars because I saw you owe me a million dollars.

228 posted on 05/09/2010 3:11:33 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“Before the Protestant reformation, the Protestant and Catholic church were one and the same.”

Exactly right.

So when was this soi-disant “reformation”? What year? What event?

229 posted on 05/09/2010 3:21:39 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; vladimir998; Judith Anne; Natural Law; Arthur McGowan; roamer_1; c-b 1; ...

“I posted my proof twice, and each time the moderator deleted my comment.”

LOL, twice.

“So my evidence is not accepted.”

Spam from hate sites isn’t evidence.

“Not my fault ask the moderator why he deleted my proof.”

No need, when my neighbor cleans his yard, I don’t need to ask “why”, I just applaud.

230 posted on 05/09/2010 3:23:27 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


“I’m not a Catholic so I don’t know if adultry disqualifies one from receiving communion.”

Serious sin does, and “adultry” (sic) is certainly that.

231 posted on 05/09/2010 3:24:44 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: narses; driftdiver

Well apparently it doesn’t apply for Mel Gibson. As I linked an article that plainly stated he was still able to receive communion.

232 posted on 05/09/2010 3:27:14 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

Well apparently it doesn’t apply for Mel Gibson."

How do you know what is Mel Gibson's heart with more authority than God and Gibson's priest and confessor?

233 posted on 05/09/2010 3:30:16 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Just posting what was linked

234 posted on 05/09/2010 3:31:40 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]


And the media is always fully true and correct?

If Mel is no longer living in sin, has confessed and been shriven then, like you or me or any other sinner forgiven by Our Lord, he is then again in a State of Grace.

What is the point you are so feebly trying to make?

235 posted on 05/09/2010 3:35:22 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; GonzoII

“And the very message that started this whole thread was not built upon hate and lies targeting Protestants?”

Point out the lies. The hate. Go ahead.

236 posted on 05/09/2010 3:38:24 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

I don’t want to be pinged regarding “Radio Replies.”

237 posted on 05/09/2010 3:39:01 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: narses

Maybe I just remember back to the day when my own Grandmother was alive.

I visited her one summer and attended Catholic mass with her. The priest asked all to come forward and receive communion. I got up and got ready to go. My grandmother said we couldn’t. I asked her why. She stated both she and I couldn’t. I asked her why. She stated she married a non catholic as a widower and because of that her local priest denied her the right to receive communion. I asked why I couldn’t. My grandmother stated I couldn’t because I was just recently confirmed Lutheran.

That isn’t what scripture taught me and justifiably angered me.

238 posted on 05/09/2010 3:39:25 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


“That isn’t what scripture taught me and justifiably angered me.”

Wow. What did scripture teach you that was wrong with a Lutheran being denied Catholic Sacraments?

(Luther was an heretic, you know that, right? And lived LONG after the Gospel was Spoken, you knew that too, right?)

239 posted on 05/09/2010 3:42:06 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: narses

240 posted on 05/09/2010 3:44:47 PM PDT by (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-375 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson