The Inventions of Rome

Modern Reformation ^ | W. Robert Godfrey

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"The Roman Catholic Church today is at least the fourth or fifth iteration of that organization, each in basic ways different from the others. There is the ancient form, the medieval form, the Tridentine form (formed at the time of the Council of Trent, 1545–1563), and then at least two post-Tridentine forms shaped by two very different councils: Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). In its ancient form, Rome was in fellowship with the other Christian churches and held to Nicene orthodoxy. In its medieval form, it separated from other Christian churches insisting on absolute Roman supremacy, defining certain doctrines such as transubstantiation, but leaving many other doctrines (such as justification and the authority of tradition) open to discussion. In its Tridentine form, it defined many more doctrines, cutting itself off from its medieval form by condemning views it had then tolerated. In its post-Tridentine forms, it theoretically upholds the decisions of Trent, but in practice moves beyond and contrary to Trent. As the Tridentine church claimed to supplement the Bible with tradition, but in fact used its traditions to contradict the Bible, so the post-Tridentine church has claimed to supplement Trent with other teachings, but in fact has used those other teachings to contradict Trent."

PLEASE! Do NOT lift up the corners! It is cleaner and easier for followers to grasp a simple story! -Rome

[allendale]

Simply more Catholic bashing from a pseudo sophisticated heretic. Take a good honest look at the decadence and agnostic nihilism that the Reformation has spawned. Most Protestant sects have devolved into anything goes neo pagan earth worshipers.

[Gamecock]

Rome made the Bible into a wax nose that would be reshaped to mean whatever Rome wanted it to mean.

[Alex Murphy]

Rome often claims that it represents two thousand years of unbroken apostolic succession and practice. The implication is that no fundamental changes have taken place in the church, but only a legitimate development of principles found at the beginning. I believe that this historical claim is profoundly false, and that in the interests of truth and biblical religion it must be challenged.

Ping for later

[Gamecock]

Care to actually discuss any part of the above article or is poisioning the well your best rebuttal?

[Arthur McGowan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDumU0TSrY

[Gamecock]

Proving what? A Pentecostal, who certainly doesn't fall under the umbrella of Reformation Era Protestant Faith is disillusioned by his theological error and trades it for another?

[goodwithagun]

The Republican party is back to being conservative, an American is in the White House, unemployment is below 5%, foreign aid has been slashed, the Fair Tax has been instated, our troops are home, islam has been defeated, the border is closed, and all unconstitutional laws have been repealed; therefore, they have plenty of time to play “my brand of Christianity is better than yours.”

[lastchance]

Though I don’t agree with the writer, I want to let you know I appreciate you posting a Reformed view of the RCC that keeps the tone scholarly and subdued.

I think Catholics and Reformed should be blunt about where our beliefs differ and do so without sacrificing the Christian charity we owe one another.

My prayer for you and all Reformed, is that Christ will always be with you in this world and that you enjoy eternal joy with Him in the next.

[Claud]

John Calvin, in one of the most trenchant early criticisms of Trent, remarkably turned the table on Rome saying, in effect, that he would accept the authority of apostolic tradition as defined by Trent if the Romanists could offer historical proof for their claims of tradition. Calvin recognized already in the sixteenth century that such proof could not be presented. (3) Historical studies since then have made Trent's claims even more impossible to demonstrate.

Really now!

There has been a great deal of Patristic literature that has come to light since Calvin's time. I'd like this author to point out exactly *which* of Trent's claims he finds impossible to demonstrate.

And it's beyond obvious to me anyway that the go-to Patristic texts that Calvinists use (on free will) for instance, are a close set of pre-selected quotations that back up their position--and they summarily ignore everything else with a dismissive wave of the hand.

Take Augustine--the sine qua non of Calvinist theology. It is beyond dispute that Augustine taught the doctrine of free will. Yet you bring up his letters to Valentinus where he taught it and what's the response? Foot shuffling, mumbling "well, he didn't MEAN that" or "well he was wrong about that."

And if that wasn't bad enough, the almost monomaniacal reliance on St. Augustine completely ignores the teaching of the Greek Fathers--which no Christian has any right to do. Augustine himself--like any Father--cannot be judged on his own but in relation to the totality of the tradition. If St. Augustine can't be squared with the Greek, Syrian and Egyptian Fathers then we darn well ought to be suspicious of why.

Finally. This business about "iterations" of Roman Catholicism. Yes, there is development of doctrine. Yes, there are theological diferences between East and West, as there are between the Catholic/Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. But add up all those differences and you still don't have even one *tenth* of the differences any of those Apostolic branches have from Calvin--where the True Presence and the sacrifice of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is most impiously denied for who the hell knows what reason except pure rationalism.

Calvin invented a new religion. The supposed pure Christianity that he was going back to never existed except in his head. Oh sure, you may find bits, scraps, and pieces of Patristic theology that can be cut apart and glued back together in some sort of freakish heretical collage to back up Calvinist claims. But you know what you won't find in the Patristic sources?

A Calvinist whole, entire, and complete.

They just plain didn't exist. And if you dispute me, then find me one.

[Gamecock]

But you know what you won't find in the Patristic sources?

Nor will you find a 21st Centuray Roman Catholic. Which is the author's point.

[Gamecock]

Christianity is much more important than any of that. If people in America became truely Christian, many of the issues you cite would be resolved.

[GeronL]

Isn’t Rome the place that ruled when Jesus was nailed to the cross?

Anyway, I bow to God/Jesus not to Rome. I don’t need any bureaucracy between me and my God.

[D-fendr]

Inventions of Protestantism:

Welch’s Grape Juice
“Symbolic” Eucharist
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Roll Your Own Theology...

[Arthur McGowan]

So he made up all that stuff about Ignatius of Antioch, etc.?

[D-fendr]

In Calvin’s defense, they didn’t have lawyers way back then...

:)

[Boogieman]

You’ve got it backwards. God and faith are supposed to be at the top of the list of priorities, and petty human politics near the bottom.

[Claud]

Those that do know them in the end follow the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, who wrote: "If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines." (20) Such a position is not worthy of a Christian or of biblical religion. (21)

Also, since I count myself as a spiritual son of the great St. Ignatius I cannot let this damnable error continue to be promulgated.

Read what St. Ignatius actually said:

"What seems to me white, I will believe black, if the hierarchical Church so defines".

What seems to me white. SEEMS. To ME

In other words, it isn't really white, it just looks that way because of my own personal perception--but the Church, with the benefit of the Holy Ghost, has decided otherwise. It is therefore incumbent on me--whatever I think--to abandon what I think as erroneous and accept what the Church teaches.

It is, in fact, the contrary position which has so infected the Western Church that is not worthy of the Christian religion--that if such and such a doctrine seems to me white, then I have the right via the principle of Sola Scriptura to interpret it my way and then repudiate the Church at large. That is damnable heresy, and it's why the unity of the Church has been shattered into not just two branches or three or four--but innumerable miniscule shards of mutually anathematizing communities.

[Claud]

Nor will you find a 21st Centuray Roman Catholic. Which is the author's point.

The author is wrong.

What position would I be anathematized for, were I to stand before any of the Councils on taint of heresy?

I could cite plenty for you.