Posted on 02/24/2010 10:47:36 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
"I understand the attraction of Rome: the sheer mass of the organization (if you'll pardon the pun); the overwhelming aesthetics; the desirability of belonging to such an august and ancient institution which knows what it is, where it comes from, and where it is going; and the cornucopia of brilliant intellects that have debated, refined, and articulated its confession over the centuries...all that I find superior to what evangelical Protestantism has to offer, particularly in its crassest megachurch and emergent varieties..."
"...But, having said all this, I find it hard to connect the mind - the Catholic mind - to the tongue. No, this is not some claim that Catholicism is just a bit too mystical for me, that it is so ineffable that it cannot be articulated in words; nor is it to suggest that Catholics gossip more than others, or speak before they think. Not at all. Let me explain. St Peter's was not the only basilica I visited whilst in Italy. I also went to Padua and visited the famous Basilica of Saint Antony. Again, the architecture, internal and external, was impressive; but most striking of all were the remains of St. Anthony of Padua himself. Most of him is actually contained in a large and mercifully opaque sarcophagus; but three particular bits are on display in clear glass jars in one of the side chapels. To be precise, there you will find his lower jaw (with definite signs of the saint having endured British dentistry), his vocal chords (most pleasant), and his tongue (some things are best left unsaid). They are easy to spot, being right next to a piece of the true cross, also on display.
What can I say about the shows of devotion and veneration which I witnessed around these cadaverous morsels?"
(Excerpt) Read more at reformation21.org ...
“crassest megachurch and emergent varieties”
The author needs to get out more. You can easily (can’t avoid?) find all this and worse in today’s Catholic church. Thanks, Vatican II.
“What can I say about the shows of devotion and veneration which I witnessed around these cadaverous morsels?”
Yet more ignorance on display.
Folk religion is an attempt to bring a distant God into the lives of people. But God is not distant, if one approaches Him by faith through The Atonement, as a little child.
People of the middle ages lived in Faith. Those who were holy were recognized as having great Grace, and were venerated for that.
We may know a slight bit more about science and “reason” than they did (although what we know amounts to almost nothing in the grand sum of things) but even worse, that makes us PROUD. As such, we have also lost our faith.
I apologize for not commenting directly to the topic, but from my experience from comments made about the Reformation, I would like to note the distinctions between these various and divergent theological movements. There is this view that Martin Luther is to blame for everything that is wrong with Protestantism. Luther was not the first Protestant reformer, and there were many reformers before, during, and after Luther that had no connection with Luther’s reformation. In fact, the Lutheran Confessions denounce the beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists and Calvinists. Do not confuse Lutheranism with Calvinism or Arminianism. They are profoundly different.
Hi Nosterrex. All you say is true, but I don’t see how this relates to the point of this article?
It doesn’t. My concern is that someone not familiar with the term Reformed would think that this was something started by Luther. Not everyone understands that the Reformed body is distinct from Lutheranism. What the author of Reflections of Rome writes about how the Reformed view Rome, it does not necessarily mean that this goes for all those with the Protestant family.
His conclusion:
I close with three thoughts. First, my trip to Rome reminded me once again of how inadequate evangelical Protestant literature on contemporary Catholicism is. It tends to be either of the `Vatican II changed nothing and the Pope is still Antichrist' variety, or the equally unhelpful and inaccurate 'Vatican II changed everything and, frankly, I cannot remember why I am still a Protestant' kind. We need some good Protestant writing on this subject which will help future pastors, elders, and church members engage thoughtfully, respectfully, and in an informed manner, with Catholicism and Catholic friends.
Second, I was challenged by a Catholic friend, when I raised the issues of Padre Pio and St Anthony's tongue, to consider whether my own reaction was conditioned in part by my being more a son of David Hume and the Enlightenment than I care to admit. Easy to dismiss this point, but it perhaps deserves more reflection than I have given it. There is a fine line between credulity and skepticism; and I am mindful of that statement by Newman in his work on the Arian controversy: `[H]e who believes a little, but encompasses that little with the inventions of men, is undeniably in a better condition than he who blots out from his mind both the human inventions, and that portion of truth which was concealed in them.' A biblical balance is needed; and I am not sure that I have necessarily found it myself.
Finally, it seems that it is very easy for American Catholic intellectuals, and those evangelicals who are attracted by Rome, to ignore the tongues, the jaws, the bits of the real cross, the stigmatics, the folk religion. But American pick-n-mix consumerism applied to Catholicism is just one more manifestation of, dare I say it?, the modern Western aesthetic of choice; it is emphatically not the same as Catholicism as it works itself out in the very backyard of the Roman See; and it will not do simply to say that the practices of such are not significant; they are significant, at least for anyone who takes seriously their Catholicism. The picture in Rome, in Padua, in San Giovanni Rotondo, is more complicated than ECT, and those evangelicals and would-be-converts who would put down the Codex Sinaiticus and step outside the precincts of the Vatican to observe what goes on in Italy in the name of the Church might find their excitement at meeting with a cardinal or two somewhat tempered by silent tongues that have long since ceased wagging but which continue to speak eloquently about certain priorities in Catholicism.
Valid — Lutherans do not fall into the dark pits of Calvinism’s predestination God with his idea of an “elect upper caste”.
You mean like Popes and saints?
That's a really profound thought.
Now maybe you can explain why Catholics get so furious when faced by a Protestant whose "folk religion" is that the universe was created in six days less than six thousand years ago and why they feel the need to hit such people over the head with Darwin and Einstein.
The fact of the matter is that before God created any of us he knew whether or not we would ever be numbered among the "elect". So whether God chose us for his own purposes and then gave us the ability and desire to follow him or whether God stood by helplessly while we made some free will decision to choose him and become numbered among the "elect", the effect is the same. God chooses the elect for his reasons and for his purposes. There is an elect and you should pray to God that you are numbered among that "elite upper caste" because everyone who isn't numbered among them is numbered among those who are going to heck.
You don't have to be a Calvinist to know that ultimately it is God and God alone who gets to choose who will spend eternity with Him. If at some point in our lives we make a "free will" decision to follow Christ and secure our place among the "elect" it will not be because of what we did independently of God's will, but because God gave us the ability and desire to make that Free Will choice. Can we say the same for those who ultimately reject him? Are those who choose Christ and make the free will decision to follow him born with a different nature than those who reject him?
Calvinism recognizes that Man is wholly incapable of making a free will choice to follow God independently of the irresistible calling of the Holy Spirit. Now you may say that the Holy Spirit's calling is resistible, but to those who follow Christ and persevere to the end, the calling was clearly irresistible.
I an neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I believe that both approaches are valid in what they assert, but both are flawed in what they deny. Calvinism stresses the Soverignty of God and Arminianism stresses the responsibility of man.
God is sovereign and man is responsible. That's it. Do you disagree with either of those assertions?
Calmly stick to the facts. They may consider your POV later when they settle down.
?
It's true. Catholics subject the Creation account to modern science but become "simple little children" when it comes to post-Biblical and extra-Biblical supernaturalism.
That's simply a fact. I didn't create it; I merely report it.
I guess a skeptical attitude towards the Bible is necessary to prove one isn't a Protestant. Ironically, the skepticism they embrace was invented by liberal Protestants but they don't seem to mind that one bit.
I don’t know why you still harp on this, ZC, as you’re no longer a Protestant.
1)I accept the inerrancy of the Word of G-d.
2)The hypocrisy of Catholic intellectuals--their celebration of the beliefs of their own simpletons, no matter how outrageous, while holding an absolutely caustic attitude towards simple belief in the Bible--is absolutely maddening. It's no different than liberals who celebrate the superstitions of Blacks/Hispanics/"indigenous pipples" while demanding that poor white Heartland Protestants become clones of Voltaire. I am furious at both and will continue to harp at both of them. And I make no apologies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.