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/

[marajade]

why label christianity at all?

[Natural Law]

"Nope I’ve seen and heard people worshiping Mary. I’ve seen the idols. I’ve been told the Pope is at the same level as Jesus. I’ve seen the examples of people buying forgiveness, divorces."

And because these misunderstood, false, or phantom statements reinforce your bigoted beliefs you took no additional steps or efforts to actually discover the truth. Heck, I've even been told that Calvin and Luther carried on a homosexual relationship.....but I actually investigated it and found it to be just a rumor.

[SnakeDoctor]

You still have not answered my question, however, so I do not know to what extent your objection is to specific statements, or to universally-held Protestant beliefs. If you believe that Protestantism is inherently bigoted, as NL apparently does, then there is simply nothing a Protestant can do, aside from agreeing with you, to avoid being chastized as a “bigot”.

However, having read some comments in this thread which you apparently regard as bigoted ... I have seen vehement disagreement, but not bigotry. I simply do not regard the belief that Catholics are wrong as bigotry any more than I believe that Catholic disagreement with Baptists is bigotry. The conflation of bigotry and simple disagreement is but one of many consequences of liberal over-sensitivity in America.

I did notice a few claims of Protestant heresy thrown about without any chastizement from you regarding “bigotry”. If one side can regard the other as heretical without being labeled a bigot ... then I would figure the contrary would be true as well.

SnakeDoc

[Judith Anne]

If you haven’t seen bigotry, then what do we have to discuss? Nothing.

[SnakeDoctor]

I would acknowledge the “cult” stuff you linked to as bigoted. However, disagreement over whether Catholic doctrines are biblically acceptable is not bigotry ... it is a disagreement.

If an accusation of heresy against Protestants is not bigoted, then neither is an accusation of idolatry against Catholics.

SnakeDoc

[Judith Anne]

It is an irrational non-sequitur to say that Catholics are idol worshippers if protestants are heretics.

[Natural Law]

"If you believe that Protestantism is inherently bigoted, as NL apparently does, then there is simply nothing a Protestant can do, aside from agreeing with you, to avoid being chastized as a “bigot”."

An honest attempt to learn the Catechism and history from unbiased sources before forming an opinion would move Protestants away from the bigoted column. Adhering to the 'four legs good, two legs bad' orthodoxy only reinforces my contention.

[SnakeDoctor]

I’ve read a bit of the catechism. I wouldn’t say I’ve studied it heavily. Fundamentally I always come back to my objections to infallibility ... therefore rendering the catechism as the writings of men, not the inspired word of God.

I spend time studying that which my faith values, not that which other faiths (or other denominations) value. This is not bigotry, it is logical.

SnakeDoc

[SnakeDoctor]

>>> If an accusation of heresy against Protestants is not bigoted, then neither is an accusation of idolatry against Catholics.

>> It is an irrational non-sequitur to say that Catholics are idol worshippers if protestants are heretics.

Reread the original statement. Terrible paraphrase — that isn’t what I said AT ALL. I said ... if the statement “Protestants are heretics” does not constitute bigotry, then the statement “Catholics are idol worshipers” also does not constitute bigotry.

One cannot object to only the latter of the two.

SnakeDoc

[Natural Law]

"I’ve read a bit of the catechism. I wouldn’t say I’ve studied it heavily. Fundamentally I always come back to my objections to infallibility ... therefore rendering the catechism as the writings of men, not the inspired word of God."

This is a good start. In honesty many Catholics struggle with the concept of infallibility. Apostolic Succession aside (we can have another debate / argument about that later), I see it as a matter of trust. I trust the collective wisdom and judgment of the extremely learned and intelligent men who have collectively analyzed and determined the meaning of scripture far more than I trust my judgment. One need only look to how our own interpretations have evolved as we have become older, more experienced, more educated, and hopefully wiser. When this resonates with my own "gut instincts" I have to conclude the hand of the Holy Spirit is active and I do believe the Holy Spirit to be infallible.

[Judith Anne]

You made an “if...then” argument, in which the second does not follow the first. It is a non-sequitur. It is illogical.

ie: If A does not equal B, then C does not equal D.

Makes no sense. If you cannot understand that, perhaps remedial logic would help.

[SnakeDoctor]

To my mind, trust can only take you so far. I believe every man is inherently fallible, and thus cannot discount the possibility that even the most learned theologian is just wrong about something.

I regard this pope, previous popes, the vatican and some other Catholic writers (Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc.) as well-educated Christian theologians. I hold them in no greater regard than John Calvin, Martin Luther, Mark Driscoll, Billy Graham, or my pastor (Ed Young). All are well-read, and all are worth a read with regard to ethical and theological questions. However, all are VERY capable of error, so their edicts and proclamations simply cannot be taken as gospel. As such, I typically find citations to Cannon Law, catechisms, etc. unpersuasive when placed up against Protestant theology (there is, after all, a reason that I am Protestant).

Some of the catechisms are worthwhile reading for ethical and theological education. Some Canon law is, in my opinion, extra-Biblical and fabricated out of wholecloth. Some, I believe, are done in the interest of the power of the church rather than with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is not a uniquely Catholic problem, to be sure. Greed for power is a sin that have befallen many Christian leaders, and there are Protestant preachers for whom power often outweighs enlightenment. But, the doctrine of infallibility seems to make these proclamations stick with the Catholic church — when a loudmouthed preacher dies, his words and deeds die with him. When a pope dies, his proclamations last forever ... such is the nature of infallibility.

These are just my opinions, however. I’ve been wrong before — and, thank God for grace to make up for those doctrinal errors I’ve undoubtedly made.

SnakeDoc

[SnakeDoctor]

It makes perfect sense. I’m not sure if you’re reading it wrong, or being obtuse ... but I shall assume the former. I’ll just ignore the “remedial logic” pot-shot. Good grief.

I personally do not believe either statement (”Protestants are heretics”, “Catholics are idolators”) is bigoted. I believe both statements are simply vehement doctrinal disagreements.

Is it your position that one of those statements is bigoted and unacceptable, and the other is neither bigoted nor unacceptable? On what basis?

SnakeDoc

[Natural Law]

Doc - We aren't as far apart as you might think but the big wrinkle between Protestants and Catholics has to do with Apostolic Tradition versus Sola Scriptura.

For Catholics Christ did not leave a book or books, He left an Apostolic Tradition and Church that preceded and produced the written Scripture. This mirrored the evolution of the ancient Hebrew oral traditions into the Talmud.

Christ's message was pure and simple and was perfectly summarized in the Two Greatest Commandments and the Beatitudes. All that is necessary for Salvation is contained within that new decalog. Christ certainly would not look favorably on the infighting between His church, nor does he require that we adhere to the opinions of one set of worldly scholars and theistic lawyers over another. Christ came to give the Scripture directly to all.

To this end the Catholic Church has imperfectly served to educate, nurture and facilitate Salvation. It does not judge on behalf of God and cannot interfere with ones personal relationship with God.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

[SnakeDoctor]

Protestants and Catholics are rarely as far apart as it seems here on FR.

>> Christ certainly would not look favorably on the infighting between His church, nor does he require that we adhere to the opinions of one set of worldly scholars and theistic lawyers over another. Christ came to give the Scripture directly to all.

Completely agree. Godspeed.

SnakeDoc