Skip to comments.[ECUMENICAL] For My Non-Catholic Readers
Posted on 12/29/2010 11:41:03 AM PST by markomalley
This is a re-post of a previous blog but it warrants repeating. From time to time I get non-Catholics who read the blog and invite me to read their blogs in the hopes I will decide to convert. They believe they are being obedient to "preach the gospel in season and out." The presupposition with some of these individuals is that Catholicism is a false religion or a "false gospel" . The fact that a person would believe Catholicism is false clearly indicates that they have never studied what Catholicism is all about from a Catholic perspective. It is easy to draw a caricature of what Catholicism is based on myths, lies, distortions. After all, this has been going on for the past 500 years and the purveyors of falsehood have had an abundant amount of time to perfect their attacks.
What I can tell you is that when a person begins to read what the Church actually says about itself and its doctrines, the scales often fall from their eyes and the Holy Spirit brings them Home. I was one of those.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): "Constantine must have been the real source of the Catholic Church's teachings because after his reign the Church grew tremendously, and before his reign it wasn't as well-known" (Ignores the simple fact that Constantine merely stopped the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan and allowed Christianity to spread. It also ignores the writings of the Church Fathers who lived before Constantine -- and who were Catholic.)
Straw man: "You guys worship statues, and that's evil. Therefore, your religion is Satanic." (Ignores that fact that we don't worship statues)
(comes From FISHEATERS WEBSITE)
Here’s a fact that you might want to add to your list. What was the Christian church before Martin Luther and Henry VIII? Were they not all Catholic? Does this or does it not mean the Catholic Church was the original Christian church?
Oh, I know I will get flak for this. But I have my armor on.
Thanks, that’s a big help. I need all the help I can get in gently arguing with my friends, kin, and neighbors who are horrified that I joined the Church at Easter.
Holy Mary mother of God.
Hail Mary mother of grace the Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amoung all women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Lord Jesus
Were those not the words of the angel Gabriel when he announce that she was to be the mother of God?
As a Catholic, and once an agnostic, the more I study Catholic Theology, the more obvious it becomes how “perfect” the philosophy of the Church is—being universal and giving dignity and worth to everyone. No other faith is equivalent or as well-reasoned—only some Christian ones came close, but without a centralized head and the magisterium, they became whatever pop culture wanted them to be and many became meaningless, and the Bible became just an “evolving” changeable standard—a joke, which becomes useless as a guide for morality.
I defer to Mr. O’Malley to answer your question.
I would be interested to hear his response myself.
BTW, I’m a Navy guy too. lol
> What was the Christian church before Martin Luther and Henry VIII?
Please read “The Pilgrim Church” by E.H. Broadbent.
There were many, many other sects before and concurrent with the emergence of Roman Catholicism; the Paulicians, the Albigenses, the Waldensians, and many others. These were usually horribly persecuted by the emerging Catholic majority.
Then there were the Medici and Lucrecia Borgia. Oy.
All that aside, there were many abuses by all kinds of people who called themselves Christians but behaved like genocidal savages.
Erasmus, when reading a Greek Bible for the first time, wrote, “Either this is not the Bible, or we are not Christians.”
Let us focus on the words of Jesus in John 14, where He said three times, “That ye love one another.”
I don’t care what your tradition is. If you love Jesus, and He is your Lord and Savior, then you are my brother or sister.
I think you are in error that (the average) Protestant hates the Catholic Church.
Be fair - For well-schooled Protestants, the Catholic Church is VERY difficult to understand.
Protestants believe (sola fide aside) that their relationship with the Lord is UP TO THEM. That's how we are taught. That's what we believe.
When I was growing up, the RCC was a curiosity - not an object of hatred.
Now, I've met my share of Catholic haters - I've also met my share of Catholic Prot-haters.
But I don't think that's the barrier for most. I think it's lack of understanding.
“Erasmus, when reading a Greek Bible for the first time, wrote, Either this is not the Bible, or we are not Christians.”
Erasmus never said any such thing. You’re thinking of Thomas Linacre and that comment is probably taken out of context: “Either this is not the Gospel or we are not Christians.” I would not rely on anti-Catholic websites for your info on the history of Christianity.
You also wrote:
“There were many, many other sects before and concurrent with the emergence of Roman Catholicism;”
Catholicism is Christianity. You apparently ascribe to a version of history that is ahistorical.
“the Paulicians, the Albigenses, the Waldensians, and many others.”
The Albigensians were not even Christians.
“These were usually horribly persecuted by the emerging Catholic majority.”
The majority were always Catholic.
“Then there were the Medici and Lucrecia Borgia. Oy.”
No, the Oy vey belongs in a conversation about the myths you’re unwittingly imbibed. Lucretia Borgia did nothing - if you look at the actual evidence - that ‘s because there is not actual evidence that Lucretia ever poisoned anyone or committed incest or any of the usual outrageous claims made against her. One of the problems for modern morons is that renaissance writers who hated someone made up all sorts of impossible, implausible and unfactual things about their enemies and people today assume they are true. All modern investigations have shown that there is no credible evidence Lucretia committed any of the crimes she has been accused of for centuries.
“All that aside, there were many abuses by all kinds of people who called themselves Christians but behaved like genocidal savages.”
Genocidal savages? How many of those were there really? I mean, seriously, come on.
“Let us focus on the words of Jesus in John 14, where He said three times, That ye love one another.”
It’s hard to focus on that when you have nitwits spreading falsehoods and gullibly believing every bad rumor they’ve ever heard.
“I dont care what your tradition is. If you love Jesus, and He is your Lord and Savior, then you are my brother or sister.”
Then don’t spread lies and half-truths about your brothers and sisters. Actually study history and know what you’re talking about. Is that too much to ask?
I hate to tell you this but if you can actually agree with the theology of any of those groups then the vast majority of Christians would call you a heretic. Do you actually KNOW what these people believed or have you just sopped up some dimwits feeble attempt to "prove" there was always a parallel church?
Sorry, but even though I'm not a Catholic, I don't want to be accused of having grown out of the many cults that were far from being Christian even if the popular myth says they were the "real Church". The more I see people thinking this way and making up their own versions of history, the more I realize that Luther was little more than a horney guy with a guilt complex. At least he didn't add his own book to the Bible the way Calvin did, he just tossed out seven books that had been part of the recognized Bible for almost 1200 years.
You and folks like you are a good recruitment effort for the Catholic Church, that's for sure. If most of the RCIA programs weren't being run by fools who are more liberal leftist than Catholic there'd be a huge increase in the number of Catholics in this country.
Luke 1:41-43 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
(Not my words, but the author's)
In using the expression, "hate the Catholic Church," I think the author was referring to those people who were within the following criteria:
From time to time I get non-Catholics who read the blog and invite me to read their blogs in the hopes I will decide to convert. They believe they are being obedient to "preach the gospel in season and out." The presupposition with some of these individuals is that Catholicism is a false religion or a "false gospel" .
I don't think the brush was so wide as to include all non-Catholics. At least that's the way I took it.
> modern morons
Hope you never have any authority.
> Sorry, but even though I’m not a Catholic
> You and folks like you are a good recruitment effort for
> the Catholic Church
Glad to be of assistance.
Read the Martyr’s Mirror or the Bloody Theatre of the Defenseless Christians and get back to me.
Maybe you don’t think they were Christians, either, so their horrible torture and deaths were justified.
That would make you no better than the Mohammadan savages.
My point is that if it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, and smells like a duck then it’s probably a duck.
It’s been my experience that the only times I ever hear unprovoked defenses of someone’s particular faith is when that particular faith is not self-evident. Typically, I see that kind of thing from cults.
So if it sounds like a cult, acts like a cult, is paranoid like a cult, and has followers who behave like they’re in a cult, then it’s probably not a duck.
> you worship the God you make up for yourself
I’ve seen that very accusation, in so many words, in the Martyr’s Mirror. More than once.
“Say what you will, the Roman Catholic Church has been historically repressive and corrupt.”
What is that even supposed to mean? Can you name a serious world religion that is not “historically repressive”? Did not the Jews under Moses go through the camp and slaughter those who had betrayed the Law? The simple fact is that just about everyone on the planet - ever - has been corrupt to one degree or another. That doesn’t make the Church corrupt.
“On the matter of doctrine thats up to the individual to decide (a choice your church historically denied to others) but on the matter of simple behavior the church has been repressive and corrupt.”
Again, what does that even mean? Did Jesus think everyone should just think up there own doctrines? Is the Trinity essential? Who decides that? Why? How?
“The RCC murdered people who translated the Bible to make it more accessible to more people,”
That is utter rubbish. Name the person who was ever once tried or murdered by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible. Can you do it? No, you will fail. I already know you will fail because I studied this FOR YEARS and went through every case known to man on this matter and the end result was ZERO. No one was ever tried for translating the Bible. No such “crime” existed in the Church’s canon law. Also, since the Church had real authority - as recognized by everyone - no one was ever murdered by the church no matter what the outcome of any heresy trial.
Again, give me the name of one person ever tried by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible. Also, explain to me how and why Catholics translated the Bible and - INCREDIBLY - never got into trouble for it when you’re saying they had to have been murdered for it. The kind of ignorance you are wallowing in is stunning.
“the RCC burned Bibles it didnt approve of,”
And? Would you hand out New World Translations to people? That’s the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. Protestants have burned copies of it in the past. Is that wrong - to burn a copy of a Bible that denies the Trinity and divinity of Christ? Look at this Protestant’s page. He says he would happily burn at least five versions of the Bible: http://www.born-again-christian.info/questions.answers.htm
I think you’re being a triffle naive.
“the RCC and the matter of indulgences is well documented,”
Oh, here we go. Let me just embarrass you out of the gate. Can you post for me any evidence - anything concrete at all - that shows the Catholic Church taught that SELLING indulgences was okay, permissible, good, etc.? I ask, because I know the Church never condoned such a thing - I’ve done the research - and so, when I hear someone say, “and the matter of indulgences is well documented” I know I am about to see someone show that he or she knows absolutely nothing about the subject. When you fail - and you will - to produce the evidence that you allude to being “well documented” everyone else will know it too.
“the RCC and its abuse of unmarried mothers in Ireland is near legendary,”
Because it is a legend. The Church never once abused unmarried mothers in Ireland. First of all, you’re talking about the Magdalene asylums - which were invented by PROTESTANTS!!! Anyone who has ever researched this topic - and I am willing to bet you never have - knows the first was founded by the PROTESTANT noble woman named Lady Arabella Denny in Dublin in the late 18th century when the Protestants ran England and were oppressing the Irish.
Some of the asylums were Protestant and some Catholic. None were run by the Catholic Church, however. Some were run by religious orders, but none were funded or regulated by Catholic bishops. Most of the women referred to the Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were sent there by THE IRISH GOVERNMENT.
“and the RCC and its systematic denial and coverup of homosexual pederasty has been so bad that even Pope Benedict has denounced it!”
That’s false. Pope Benedict never once said there was a Church coverup. He has said that bishops didn’t do their jobs and he might have said there were coverups by bishops. He never once said there was an “RCC ...systematic denial and coverup of homosexual pederasty”. You’re simply making that up out of thin air.
“Again, I will not discuss matters of doctrine as thats between you and your maker. But the facts of RCC corruption and abuses speak for themselves.”
Apparently you don’t know the facts - as demonstrated by the fact that you didn’t present any.
That’s one of the most baseless arguments I’ve seen in awhile. You sure you’re not a liberal? Typically, I find libs are the one who name call & point fingers to avoid a truly intellectually honest discussion.
I choose not to have a battle with someone so unarmed. Perhaps you should reread the article above.
“I see. Clearly.”
“Hope you never have any authority.”
I’ve got some. I also have former Protestants working for me - one a former Protestant minister - and he would never make the mistakes you made in your post. Read some real history and you won’t make those mistakes either.
>> “That would make you no better than the Mohammadan savages.”
> You make plenty of Ass umptions so I guess everyone can
> tell what you worship
Why don’t you quote me in context? After all, you’re all for accuracy, right?
I said ...
That would make you no better than the Mohammadan savages.
Do you think their horrible torture and deaths were justified? If so, then where is *YOUR* Christian charity, which you so sarcastically deny of me?
So, you are trying to swim away from Rome, huh?
(Note: if you look at a map of ancient Rome, you will see what I mean)
Note that to swim the Tiber to Vatican Hill, you'd have to swim away from (pagan) Rome...
Totally true! And I'll go even further, the corruption and abuse by Christians in general speaks volumes about Christians in general. Know what it says? It says we need a Saviour! The people who make up the Catholic Church are sinners and particularly rotten sinners at that! Our hierarchy is culled, it seems at times, from the Crème de la Crème of those sinners. If you judge the Catholic Church harshly because we're a bunch of lousy sinners how can you not judge all of Christendom thusly?
Don't fall for the perfect people trap, it's exactly what the enemy wants.
Again, I will not discuss matters of doctrine as thats between you and your maker
Please rethink this, an understanding of doctrine and the theology that underlies those doctrines and dogmas are the only legitimate reason to accept reject a religion, not the misbehavior of it's admittedly imperfect members.
Danke Schön very nice :o)
Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of death
Just to finish up.
Hey Navy, did you get all that?
Waldensians - dualists who asserted that there was no need to be approved by the Church in order to preach. The Church, in fact, said they could continue teaching but could not preach in the Church. The Waldensians, however, refused that and asserted that since the Church accepted the Old Testament and since the Old Testament was of, by, and about, the evil God, the Church was evil and dared the Church to silence them. The Chruch is accused of “slaughtering” them but somehow, they only rounded up a few leaders and the Waldensians existed until the Turks purged Armenia just prior to WWI. I suppose some people think the Turks were part of the Catholic Church? Whatever.
Bogomilism - duelists who also somehow managed to survive until the 1980s when the Muslims wiped out the last few Churches and those who attended them. I guess all this Catholic slaughter wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
Oh, dualist means they thought God and Satan were equal and fighting over who would be in control. Now people like to say they knew God would defeat Satan, but their own writings left that in doubt and even encouraged many people to turn to Satan rather than God. Pretty much like a lot of New Age BS these days, really, that says all spiritual matters are about the same with no real, objective, good and evil.)
Cathars - didn't believe in the incarnation or the ressurection (since Christ was never human, he didn't need to rise from the dead). Believed the entire physical world including man himself was created by Satan and that freeing oneself from the physical (by starvation if you could) was the ideal. The majority of them were slaughtered by a French king who just happened to murder more Catholics at the same time since his idea was to just shut down the argument between the Cathars and the Dominicans in order to pacify the province the primary strength of the Cathars was from.
Albigenses - more duelists. How about that? Christ had no physical body he just made people think he did. He didn't come as our Savior but rather to let us know that the whole world was of Satan. They, too, were wiped out but during the whole French attack on them the Pope was trying to get the French to stop rather than continue slaughtering them. People like to overlook that part of the matter even though it's well documented. I've even seen people claim the Pope was just doing that to look good on paper (even though less than 3% of the population could read).
So, there were always dualists, those who are not Catholic these days are the real Christians, and are duelists as well. Right?
No, and claiming that there is a long thread of an alternate Church is just silly. It's some sort of history envy or something. If the Catholic Church went awry and Luther was right, then there doesn't need to be any prior history outside of the Church. There only needs to be a point at which the Church ceased to follow the truth. The problem is, of course, that little tidbit about “the gates of hell shall not prevail”. Without making up a history it gets difficult to claim that part of the Word for you own little group. Protestants really are each and every one their own Pope, something you realize when you've lived long enough and studied enough to recognize the fact that there's got to be something wrong with dozens upon dozens of denominations in every town and all of them claiming to be the only correct interpreter of the Word.
have a nice whatever I don't, by the by, advocate torture and death of those who are not Christian, I leave that sort of thinking to folks like you who ascribe their own inclinations to others.
“Hail Mary mother of grace...”, should be: “Hail Mary full of grace...”
Oh Yeah! And I’ve been getting it for about seventy years now.
Yea I know
For some reason I was thinking of
Mother of grace,
Mother of mercy,
Shield me from the enemy
And receive me at the hour of my death.
Not really sure why? Thanks
(hope the mistake is not trying to tell me something) :oO
> I don’t, by the by, advocate torture and death of those
> who are not Christian,
Nice to hear that.
I was raised Catholic. Attended a Catholic High school. Still have one of my Catholic History texts expounding their point of view.
If you’re at all interested in giving ear to another perspective, read “The Pilgrim Church” by E.H. Broadbent.
There is some evidence in there that you are either overlooking or unaware of.
> I leave that sort of thinking to folks like you
Really? Can you please point out to me in any of my posts in this thread where I gave any indication of such an inclination?
Read the Martyr’s Mirror.
The Roman Church has blood on its hands.
So does the Lutheran Church, as you well know.
Zwingli was known to dispatch a few “heretics” in his day, as well.
As was Henry VIII.
And the Russian Orthodox ruthlessly oppressed Anabaptists and Jews.
Burning, beheading, drowning, molten lead, dismemberment, iron maidens. Ever hear of the tongue-screw? Look it up to see what it was used for.
Where is the Christ in *ANY* of this?
Where is the Christ in the “My Denomination Is Best” spitting contest?
We don’t have a denomination, but rather try to find COMMON ground with all our Christian brethren.
At least with all who will receive it.
Brother, I think you “get it”.
Thank you for the refreshing post.
My pleasure. Your tag line is a perfect explanation and example of how Christ’s love gives us the capacity to love infinitely, not finitely, mind if I use it on occasion?
Please feel free to use the tagline. No need to give me credit, as it belongs to God.
You can freely use any of my ramblings that you deem worthy of repeating.
How many countless times have we told people this. ...... ..... check it out! At least I have!
You are always a Catholic once you are baptized a Catholic!
**But I don’t think that’s the barrier for most. I think it’s lack of understanding.**
Wise words, my FRiend. You have our prayers as your journey across the Tiber.
I had no idea this was on Fisheaters. Good job!
“Selling indulgences was the cause of the Reformation and it most certainly is well documented.”
That’s false on both counts.
1) The Protestant Revolution was not caused by the selling of indulgences nor could it be. There’s no cause and effect there at all.
2) There is no documentation WHATSOEVER that shows the Catholci Church ever approved of the sale of indulgences. Thus, if anyone was doing it, it was against the law. Those are the facts.
“The following is just a small sample from a Lutheran website, but a quick google will show the Catholic church was fully aware and compliant in this:
John Tetzel, a friar of the Dominican order, was getting souls out of purgatory in a different fashion.”
Notice, it says TETZEL. What he did was on his head. If he exceeded his authority and preached novel doctrines, which he apparently did, he, and he alone, is guilty. The Catholic Church is innocent.
“The indulgences he sold bore the coat of arms of his holiness, the pope himself.”
That TETZEL sold. Exactly my point. Also, if you look closer into the actual sources and not some Lutheran website - which could be based on exactly nothing as far as you know or show - you’ll see there is reason to believe he did not even sell indulgences to begin with.
“The coin paid to Tetzel bought a plenary indulgencefull forgiveness and release from all penalties for sin.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“As a salesman, Tetzel excelled.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons to people for sins they had committed.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons for sins they were going to commit.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He offered his indulgences as payment for penalties to the living and the dead: As soon as the coin in the coffer clinks, the soul from purgatory springs!”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
Are you beginning to see the pattern of your error here yet?
“So powerful were his indulgences, Tetzel thundered, that they could even remove the stain of sin from one who had violated the virgin Mary.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel boasted that he had saved more people with his indulgences than the apostle Peter did with his preaching.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel was brash and crudeand he hauled in money for his indulgences hand over fist.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
You have shown that I was absolutely 100% correct from the very start. Even your hapless Lutheran webpage shows that Tetzel was at fault. TETZEL, not the Church.
***Does this or does it not mean the Catholic Church was the original Christian church?***
Certainly doesn’t mean it didn’t wander off into heresy, nor does it?
Is God sovereign?
Did He found a church?
Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church?
Did He promise the Holy Ghost to guide His church in all things?
Would He allow His sheep to be without a shepherd for 1500 years? If He would, why not 1800 until He sent Joseph Smith?
Were His sovereign powers sufficient to prevent His entire church from "wandering off into heresy"?
***Is God sovereign?***
Yup, though Catholics and reformed folk differ on what that means.
***Did He found a church?***
Of Course He did, and it ain’t in Rome. It is Jesus Christ.
***Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church?**
Yup. And in spite of the heresy found in Rome His church is thriving among Baptists, PCA, URCNA, LCMS and countless other Bible preaching churches.
***Did He promise the Holy Ghost to guide His church in all things?***
Yup. And a certain church HQ’ed in Rome has derailed.
***Would He allow His sheep to be without a shepherd for 1500 years? If He would, why not 1800 until He sent Joseph Smith?***
He didn’t, he gave us the Holy Spirit.
***Were His sovereign powers sufficient to prevent His entire church from “wandering off into heresy”?***
Yes, but we also see in Revelation that he has/will remove the golden lampstand from churches that stray. So evidently he allows churches (ie Rome) to leave the fold for reasons we are not privy too.
The Truth about Mary and Scripture
Holy is His Name by John Michael Talbot. He has a beautiful voice, this is based on Mary in Luke.
But worse than indulgences was the following official statement of the RCC (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 12)
"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in God's mercy, which remits sin for Christ's sake, or that it is this trust alone which justifies us, let him be damned."