Skip to comments.Chapter 5: What Was The Reformation? [The Great Heresies]
Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
click here to read article
“Our salvation rests on Christ alone”
Well said. Again.
Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned (2 Peter 1:20). Iindividual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. That is why we have more than 30,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Good post. Thanks!
As an Evangelical Christian, with a particular interest in the history of the Reformation, I enjoyed reading the post, fully recognizing that it was written from a Roman Catholic perspective. Obviously, Belloc saw things through the “prism of his own ideology”, namely Catholicism. I do come to the conclusion that he must have been an intellectual heavyweight. I note that he died in 1953,
I noted his reference to the English attempt to destroy Catholicism in Ireland and the French attempt to do the same to Protestantism in France. What he didn’t state was the absolute failure of the English and the success of the French through the revocation of The Edict of Nantes in 1685.
It’s a shame that he isn’t alive today. I’d love to get his take on things like Vatican II, the collapse of at least “cultural” Christianity in Western Europe, the growth of Islam in so called “Christian” countries and the rapid growth of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America.
Thank you for the posting and God Bless.
And the Catholic Church wasn’t anti-semitic?
I believe in basically post millenialism. But if you are a dispensationalist, you are still a Christian.
Our salvation does not depend upon our perfect doctrine on each and every point. Thank God, or who would be saved?
Our salvation rests on Christ alone, who covers our sins and makes us able to walk faithfully with him.
“Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned (2 Peter 1:20).”
I think the Bereans were commended for it. We are commanded to search the Scriptures. So I think when we are told that no Scriptures are of private interpretation, I think that means we are to submit to the lawful church authorities (the elders we are explicitly told to elect and submit to).
Were the verse you cited the only one on the matter, I’d agree with you. But since there are other verses that say we are indeed to search and read and study and make our calling and election sure, I think this verse refers to our need to submit to legitimate church authority.
“individual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35).”
In the verse cited, the Ethiopian eunuch asks how he can understand without a man to teach him. I don’t see that as equivalent as saying he can’t understand without a Pope on the throne.
The apostles, as well as Apollos and Priscilla and Aquila and many others mentioned in the Bible were definitely witnessing, teaching and preaching without a Pope.
The Pope you believe was first, Peter, was actually disciplined by Paul for his insistence on circumcising converts. And Paul was not taught by Peter.
So I think you are incorrect on this point.
Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
“If one were to put two persons of the “same” non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their “interpretation” of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn’t they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be “Yes.””
You are right, and in heaven it will be so for all of us.
But you neglect the obvious problem of the sinfulness of man.
Even when we are trying hard to be really honest, we are frankly stupid.
The Holy Spirit certainly enables us to know enough to be saved. But no, obviously, he does not make us to agree on every point. That is our fault, not His.
You’re welcome! Glad you like it!
He is definitely an intellectual heavyweight, although I'm not sure I agree with everything he says. For example, in the article, he seems to think that capitalism was not all that great and was dying. That view is a bit more understandable though, because this was written in the 1930's, when communism and fascism were all the rage. However, at least he felt socialism to be inferior to capitalism, with his economic system of choice actually being distributism. Overall, though, he and G.K. Chesterton together produced some of the finest work, Christian or secular, from around the earlier part of the century.
Its a shame that he isnt alive today. Id love to get his take on things like Vatican II, the collapse of at least cultural Christianity in Western Europe, the growth of Islam in so called Christian countries and the rapid growth of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America.
I'm not so sure if he foresaw VII or the rise of Latin American Evangelicals at all, but he did foresee the return of a strong Islam. In his chapter on Islam in The Great Heresies, he pretty much expects the return of a strong Islam and chillingly says Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history September 11, 1683. I highly recommend reading that chapter. It's the reason I decided to post his whole book. Also, I believe he foresaw the collapse of Christianity in Europe, if he wasn't already decrying it in his day. I haven't yet read the next chapter on "The Modern Attack" (I am actually reading each chapter the day I post it, save for the chapter on Islam, which I read a while ago), but it seems to be about the collapse of Christianity and what we see now, especially in Western Europe.
Thank you for the posting and God Bless.
You're welcome, I'm glad you liked it, and God bless you too!
My reaction to his comment on capitalism was much the same as yours.
“How can one know what part is infallible, if it is so often misinterpreted?”
Do you believe that I am able to understand your question adequately, or is it ultimately impossible to decipher? Can I have a working understanding of your question sufficient to attempt to answer?
And btw, “infallible” is indeed a head-scratcher.
It’s simple: some seed fell on shallow soil and sprouted, but withered away when the growing conditions got tough— and some seeds were carried away by evil birds. The winnowing out continues to this day.
The faithful have stayed and flourished and will be running this race to the very end, secure in the promises of Christ for His Church.
“It questioned the authenticity of the four Gospels, particularly the two written by eyewitnesses to the life of Our Lord and more especially that of St. John, the prime witness to the Incarnation. It came to deny the historical value of nearly everything in the Old Testament prior to the Babylonian exile; it denied as a matter of course every miracle from cover to cover and every prophecy. That a document should contain prophecy was taken to prove that it must have been written after the event. Every inconvenient text was labelled as an interpolation.”
This seems very misleading to me. First of all, this type of analysis began long before the 19th century; one could probably ascribe the beginnings of it to Erasmus, who was a Catholic, even if they later practically disowned him. Then you have Spinoza, who was a Jew, though they seem to similarly have disowned him. As for the so-called Protestant critics of later centuries, there are plenty of Protestants who would question if they should even be considered Christians, and many of these “scholars” were committed Marxists. I think it’s pretty clear that all of them put their philosophy of rationalism above whatever religious beliefs they held, and that was the true source of this error, not something particular to the “spirit of Protestantism” as the writer suggests.
“Anti-semitism in Germany started with HIM, not Schicklgruber.”
1096 Spring, CRUSADERS (France-Germany)
Over one quarter of the Jewish population of Germany and northern France were killed during the First Crusade (1095-1099), mostly during the months of April-June. It was estimated that in Germany, prior to the First Crusade, there were approximately 20,000 Jews. The period of time between Pessach and Shavuot (Passover and Pentecost) is also known as Sefirat Haomer which commemorates the death of Rabbi Akiva’s pupils (2nd Century) and was considered a period of mourning. Since most of the massacres took place between these dates, new regulations of national mourning were added. This was also the period of time when the Unetaneh Tokef prayer for Yom Kippur was written by Amnon of Mayence.
1096 April 10, TRIER (Germany)
After being attacked by a mob and threatened with death, Bishop Egelbert offered to save all Jews who were willing to be baptized. Most Jews chose to drown themselves instead.
1096 May 3, EMICHO (Emico), COUNT OF LEININGEN (Germany)
On his way to join the Crusade led by Peter the Hermit, he attacked the synagogue at Speyer. The Jews defended themselves but were systematically slain. Until this time atrocities in Europe were sporadic. From here on in they became organized and frequent, and Jewish martyrdom began in earnest. (It should be remembered that the atrocities committed by the rampaging crusaders were not always supported by the local burghers and bishops. Furthermore, in many countries - especially the Slavic states - the local Christian community suffered from pillages as well. John, bishop of Speyer even called out his army after 11 Jews were killed in a riot, but he was an exception rather than the rule. Approximately 5,000 Jews were murdered in Germany in 1096.)
1096 May 18, WORMS MASSACRE (Germany)
The survivors hid in the Bishop’s palace for one week, after which they were either murdered or forcibly baptized.
1096 May 25, WORMS (Germany)
Simcha bar Isaac Hakohen pretended to submit to baptism. As he entered the church he attacked the priest. He was “torn to bits” by the crowd.
1096 May 27, MAYENCE (Germany)
Count Emicho entered Mayence. Approximately 1200 Jews took refuge in the Episcopal Palace and, seeing no other escape from forced conversion, chose suicide using ritual slaughter knives. Each family head killed his wife and children, with the leaders killing themselves last. The idea of suicide, normally abhorrent, was considered acceptable or even preferable under these circumstances. One Jew by the name of Isaac, his two daughters and a friend called Uriah allowed themselves to be baptized. Within a few weeks Isaac, who was remorseful of his act, killed his daughters and burned his own house. He and Uriah went to the local synagogue, locked themselves in and burned it down. A large part of the city was destroyed.
1096 May 30, COLOGNE (Germany)
In one instance of individual courage, the local bishop and some of the local burghers offered the Jews protection in their own houses. The Bishop later escorted them to towns under his protection.
1096 June 27, XANTEN AND ELLER (Germany)
Massacre of the Jewish population. This was the second massacre at Xanten in a month. Fifty Jews died. At Eller, five Jewish community leaders were assigned the task (by the community) of killing all the members and then themselves rather than suffer at the hands of the Crusaders. Out of a community of three hundred, only four remained.
I guess Luther invented a time machine and went back to the 11th century to kickstart German anti-semetism, eh?
Doesn't that verse refer solely to prophecy? Also, isn't there a bit of controversy concerning the translation of the verse, and whether the “private interpretation” is referring to the origin of the prophecy, referenced in the following verse, or the interpretation thereof by other individuals?
“Iindividual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35).”
This is a single story of one man, who did not understand a prophecy of Christ. Are we to assume, that if this is indicative of the standard practice of Jews, that all he needed to do was ask a Jewish priest or rabbi and they would tell him the correct interpretation? Wouldn't it more accurate to admit that even this man's religious authorities did not have the proper interpretation themselves, and this was the source of his confusion? It's also enlightening to note that the New Testament wasn't available to the Ethiopian. If it had been, wouldn't the interpretation of this prophecy have been quite obvious without the necessity to appeal to an authority?
Doesn't Eph 1:2-5 demonstrate that the New Testament writings were written so they could be read and understood, specifically for understanding the mystery of Christ, which, not being previously revealed, was exactly what the Ethiopian was lacking?
Doesn't Acts 17:11 praise the Bereans for verifying the message of the Apostles by searching the Scriptures? If the Bereans had instead decided that they could not interpret the Scriptures privately, would they not have had to resort to appealing to their religious authorities to find if the Apostles’ message was the truth? If so, do you really think the Jewish authorities would have approved it?
I think that is really the heart of the matter. If we are forbidden to question religious authority, then there probably would not be a Christian church today, since most of the original disciples were Jews, and the religious authorities of the Jews rejected Christ and interpretations of the Scripture which would confirm Christ. Thank God that those Jews did not take that as the final word on the matter!
The Reformation, unlike all the other great heresies, led to no conclusion, or at least has led to none which we can as yet register, although the first upheaval is now four hundred years behind us. The Arian business slowly died away; but the Protestant business, though its doctrine has disappeared, has borne permanent fruit. It has divided the white civilization into two opposing cultures, Catholic and anti-Catholic.
I dropped out of the essay here.
The Arian Heresy has killed the protestant church in Europe and sapped the Catholic church of congregants in europe and latin america. The arian heresy is behind the slow steady decline of american liberal protestant churches.
My understanding is the protestants just checked in on the Jews to see what they considered to be in the Old Testament. I don’t think Maccabees made the cut among the Jews.
But neither did the book of Enoch, or the book of jubilee that the rabbis threw out in the 2nd or 3rd century.(the books remain in the Ethiopian Jewish bible. and fragments of them were found among the dead sea scrolls.)
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that no one needs a pope.
God gave us his Word. Man gives us a pope.
As for me, I’ll go with God.
It seems to me that people have been misinterpreting the bible since it’s beginning, yet everyone believes it is infallible in it’s truth. How is that infallability determined, if more than one interpretation is believed to be the truth?
You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll rephrase it.
Do you believe that any piece of written text can be understood at a level sufficient to capture the intended meaning and act on it properly?
There is no use in talking about “infallibility” until we can come to a consensus on that question.
Interestingly, without the Church, there would not be the Bible.
I don’t really know, but I don’t believe so. I’m sure there is some stuff that has been written that no one can understand, but I suppose at a minimum, the originator should be capable of that.
“I dont really know, but I dont believe so. “
So you don’t know, but don’t believe that anything has ever been written that can be understood.
And yet you responded in a perfectly rational way to my question. You truly were able to enter my head, in some limited way, and “understand” my question.
And then you added peripheral information about “some stuff” that had nothing to do with my question. That was at your own initiative. Perhaps you were trying to interpret what I am thinking, things that I didn’t choose to share with you.
However, the point remains that you were able to develop an adequate working response that satisfied both of us that communication was going on.
Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
The Great Heresies
John Calvins Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]
Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE
The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)
Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
The So-Called Gospel of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies
What a disgusting waste of time. I would love to join the Mother Church but in good conscience cannot as long as it promulgates lies like this. Until the Catholic church repents of its lies about the Lutheran reformation it stands convicted by its own corruption and deceptiveness.
History is clear. Luther did not "Uprise." He sought to "speak truth to power," within the bonds of the church; was excommunicated by a corrupt and apostate papacy as a result; and had a price placed on his head for his faithfulness to the Gospel.
Luther was to the church as the Tea Party is to the GOP. The parallel is so close as to be downright scarey.
That is exactly the lie by which the RC Church has destroyed the potential for Christian unity for 500 years.
Right. That's why the Lutheran reformers said "Sola Scriptura", Scripture alone, as the source of knowledge about the will of God. Someone has totally lied here. And it isn't the reformers.
Prior to the reformation, the overt, unabashed, uncontested position of the Church was, "the faith means what we Bishops say it means and nothing more." Anyone who seeks to dispute this is lying to you. It is a historical and empirical fact beyond dispute.
Indeed, much of the power behind Luther was that the church had cynically and corruptly abandoned the scripture in favor of what today would be called chicago politics.
The content of the Bible was written in common language to common people, just like my communication with you.
I suggest to you that the message that God wished to communicate is as understandable as yours and my communication. The gist of God’s commands is clear and unambiguous.
We make two grave errors in reading. First, we feel that the message must be made more mystical (that’s why I suggested you were trying to read my mind in your response to my question - that’s what we do when we insist on over-analyzing doctrines like the Trinity).
Second, we read the Bible with lenses of Greek philosophy, instead of reading it as a Hebrew would understand it. That is, the Hebrew had zero interest in speculative philosophy. The notion of infallibility would be a total mystery to him. The idea of a super-analytical approach to the “steps” of salvation would be abhorrent - it’s a holistic concept. The idea of an “omnipotent” God would be true, but irrelevant, since God chose to limit his own power by forming covenant in history with human beings. Covenant is by definition a limitation of power of both partners by imposing obligations in writing (which can be understood).
Note that when Paul condensed the message down to what the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, he made a series of historical statements, not dogmatic statements. That was very Hebrew of him. Either it happened as he said or it didn’t. It’s not hard to understand and doesn’t require much interpretation. If it didn’t happen, the rest of the words in the Bible are worse than useless. If it did, then that’s where I’m called to make my stand - the historical truth (or falsehood) of the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus.
The heresies, the “misinterpretations”, of the past and present simply deny these historical events in some form.
I know you are more accustomed to short very concise questions and answers, but I hope what I’m saying makes some sense to you.
I agree with your suggestion, but I believe God’s message to each of us is different, more individual. Some receive it through the bible and others, differently.
But you see, you are now dealing with another topic, not the one related to this conversation. You asked originally about “infallibility,” not personal messages from God.
What is the nature of the God who, as you suggested, is giving guidance individually to you and/or others?
I do not know the nature of God.
How do you judge the quality of the counsel of this unknown entity?
To me it’s self-evedential as the way God makes us. I don’t judge it.
Which was every bit as much the product of human interpretation as any contemporary or subsequent "heresy".
The "apostolic tradition" simply happens to be the one which was adopted by the Roman state and therefore backed with the force of law.
One can be an Arian or a Nestorian or a Socinian, each of whom could make their own Biblical case, and be no less a Christian.
I disagree. You would be a heterodox Christian at best, although Arianism was in theological terms, the more serious heretical doctrine of the 3 you mentioned. And the Apostolic Tradition preceded the Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome by almost 300 years as it wasn’t until the Emperor Theodosius in 380 that he decalred Catholic Christianity and the Nicene Creed as the legitimate Church and expression of the Faith for the Roman Empire.
And this is what passes for "conservatism" in the Catholic world? Blech.
Belloc's fulminations against Biblical criticism ring hollow in that 1)he doesn't seem to disagree with it to any appreciable degree, and 2)the Catholic Church has embraced Protestant higher criticism wholeheartedly precisely because it discredits Protestantism's religious authority. Plus, if one is going to criticize Protestants for "worshiping the text of scripture" then obviously one's attitude was higher critical to begin with.
Belloc ping (though you probably already noticed).
I notice that whenever Fundamentalist Protestants believe something the Church fathers believed about the "old testament," the first eleven chapters of Genesis, or the Creation, the belief of the fathers is dismissed as "they were men of their time." But when the Church fathers believed something that Fundamentalist Protestants simply cannot stretch their minds around or believe in good conscience that Catholic apologists suddenly treat those opinions as infallible and non-negotiable.
Hence real presence is "absolutely essential," and six day young earth creationism is almost banned.
It's also interesting how different Chesterton and Belloc were in so many ways, yet the term "Chesterbelloc" has such currency.
Did you take my computer advice, such as it was?
I think you are mistating your case. One can believe in literal 6 day of creation or one can choose not too, as Caatholic as that ultimately is a scientific question not a theological one. The theological issue Whether the Eucharist is truly the sacrament of Christ’s body of Blood and thus partaking of the Eucharist is nothing short of communion with God, that is a theological position that the Fathers were consistent on.
So . . . is this why the stories it contains allegedly aren't true?
Sir (or Madam), you are wrong--dead wrong. And the position which you are taking, though you have probably never thought very deeply about it, is hypocritical.
Transubstantiation is every bit as scientifically impossible as a creation from nothing in six days some 5770 or so years ago. One is no more possible than the other. And science has just as much right to pontificate (pardon the expression) on transubstantiation as it does on cosmogony.
Similarly, I put it to you that the resurrection of a dead person back to life, the conception and birth of a human child without a father (including the miraculous preservation of the mother's hymen), the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the transformation of water into wine, are all also scientifically impossible. Given the allegedly eternal, immutable, absolutely uniform mechanistic laws of the physical universe none of these things could have possibly happened, and science has the same right to say so as it does to deny the "miraculous" creation of everything from nothing in a short period a few millenia ago. They are all equally scientifically impossible. Your tortured logic in excusing "simple child-like faith" on these other issues while defending the right of science to overrule revelation as to the facts of cosmogony is simply illogical, irrational, and constitutes a breath-taking example of a double-standard. You have absolutely no legitimate logical grounds on which to defer to science with regard to the latter while screaming "miracle!" with regard to the former. None whatsoever.
What then is the cause of this bizarre inconsistency? I will tell you exactly what it is: it's sociology. It's the simple fact that transubstantiation is "our miracle" and six day young earth creationism is for "those stupid inbred morons in the trailer parks." Six Day Young Earth Creationism is marked forever as "the belief of the enemy" and suspect for that very reason. Just as Fundamentalist Protestants interpret everything in the bible literally except for the words of consecration (precisely because of its association with hated "priestcraft") Catholics have acquired an absolute allergy to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the Book of Jonah, and other such parts of the Bible. It is a test of ethno-cultural loyalty to attack creationism (or at least defend the possibility of evolutionism and the claims of higher criticism) to prove one isn't "one of them." Do you honestly think that it's that difficult to figure out?
Let me tell you a little story. I joined the Catholic Church during the catechumenate of '83-'84 and I tried my best to stay loyal for six years. I spent hours at the library reading the Catholic Encyclopedia trying to understand the faith to which I had committed myself because there was a whole bunch of stuff that isn't taught to catechumens any more. I felt like was being "disloyal" because my conscience wouldn't allow me to accept evolution, higher criticism, or even the allowance of them, yet I had become convinced that the Catholic Church was the "one true religion" to which it was my duty to be loyal. Do you have any idea what kind of mental anguish that caused? Of course you don't!
I was basically forced out of the Catholic Church twenty-one years ago because there was an unbridgeable gulf between not only my conscience but my entire identity and the Catholic religion. What kind of religion baptizes totem poles and teaches its children that Mary made the sun dance but which promotes evolution and higher criticism and contempt for those who will not surrender to those abominable concepts???
It makes no difference to me how much Catholic FReepers thunder with righteous indignation about a "one true church" that is so liberal that it condemns Fundamentalism as "fanaticism." I don't care about threats of "hell" (assuming Catholics even believe in "hell" any more; that could be another part of the ancient faith that got thrown out because of its association with "white trash culture").
My experience is that the Catholic Church and Catholic culture despises me and everyone like me simply because we grew up with Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark instead of some medieval pagan superstition that later got "baptized."
To conclude as I began, your rejection of young earth creationism and total Biblical inerrancy in the face of their acceptance by most of the Church fathers (because they were "men of their time") constitutes a double-standard so hideous and obvious that only sociological reasons could be the cause of it. Otherwise you would recognize the hypocrisy of the position you propound.
Ok, whatever. I have no desire to respond to your rant.
Have a nice day
My "rant" was based on simple logic, which Catholics claim to revere. But I guess everything goes out the window when the Church's Genesisphobia pops up.
I'm just beginning to read Belloc and Chesterton, so I am curious about how they were different in so many ways. Can you explain how?
The modernist/progressivist controlled “New Church” teaches that Fatima was not important, a private revelation which one can accept or reject. It is the “New Church” that promotes evolution and liberal criticism of scripture.
As you know, Robert Sungenis, the Catholic, has written extensively on the subjects of which you complain. However, even you have fallen for the progressivist tactic of discrediting him by labeling him an anti-semite.
You left a modernist/Progressivist/liberal “New Church” for Fundamentalism. I feel sorry for you, that you never saw the real Church. I was out of the church for like 30 years, but I came back directly to tradition(except for like 3 weeks), having never attended the Novus ordo during all those years, except for funerals and weddings. Deo Gratia.