Skip to comments.Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism
Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII
click here to read article
why label christianity at all?
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.
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.
If you haven’t seen bigotry, then what do we have to discuss? Nothing.
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.
It is an irrational non-sequitur to say that Catholics are idol worshippers if protestants are heretics.
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.
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.
>>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.