When addressing the many sticky subjects in our ungodly divided world, I try to stick to policy or in the parlance of religion, doctrine.
Protestants adhere to a doctrine full of errors. You could review each one from the Catholic perspective and be constructively critical in the Truth. Because as you said, the Catholic Church was the one established by Christ Himself.
I really enjoyed reading this, Stewart! May you and yours be wrapped in love and light, and be granted good health in order to continue your good work!
I would like to start by appreciating what is good and true in your writing. Your recognition of the brotherhood of all believers first and foremost. As the apostle puts it, '9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” Romans 10'
We are all in error. You and I are in different errors, though they may come from the same root, but the Church Militant is a dying person in need of resurrection. For John speaks in the plural present saying, '8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' that is he speaks for both the apostolic college and the whole of the corporate body. I appreciate your sincerity and your humbleness. But some of your claims I either cannot agree with or cannot understand.
1. You charge Protestants with not believing in the Real Presence, or as you express it later of disbelieving in the Eucharist. While this may be true of Baptists and much of modern Western Christianity which is not in communion with Rome, it is not true of either the Reformers or historic Protestantism. The Lutheran teaching is that both bread and wine as well as the body and blood are present in the Eucharist, that the body and blood are present 'in, with, and under the elements', while Calvinistic teaching is less explicit teaching that the bread and wine is present physically while the body and blood are present spiritually, a teaching that is simply and faithfully copied whole cloth from Augustine.(Sermon 98)
2. You claim that the Church of Rome does not teach, rather require the veneration of statues, yet consider the letter which Pope Adrian sent to the Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea(quoted in parts):
'And as I ever entreat the good offices of our immaculate Lady the holy Mother of God, and of the holy and heavenly powers, and of all Saints, so I receive, embrace, and give honorary worship to their holy and precious relics, in the confidence that I shall obtain sanctification from them; and in like manner I embrace, salute, and ascribe the worship of honour to venerable images'
'it follows that all things which, according to man's imagination, are conducive to the glory of God, are undoubtedly pleasing to God. '
I will also quote briefly the [forced] confession which that holy and ecumenical council received from Theodosius Bishop of Ammorium and which the same pope quotes approvingly:
“1. Anathema to those who worship not holy and venerable images. “
2. Anathema to those who blaspheme holy and venerable images.
“3. Anathema to those who dare to blaspheme or slander venerable images, or to call them idols.
“4. Anathema to the Christianity-slanderers — that is, the Iconoclasts.
“5. Anathema to those who teach not diligently all Christian people to worship and salute the holy, precious, and venerable images of all saints who, from the beginning of the world, have pleased God.
“6. Anathema to those who hesitate, and do not, from the heart, confess that we ought to worship holy images.”
May the transactions between a sitting pope and an Ecumenical Council be considered the teachings of the Church of Rome? They speak very differently from you, and very differently from the Prophets and Apostles.
I will also quote again the same letter(from the Vatican Archives dated to the 8th century as I recall) to demonstrate that the teaching that only the Word of God is reliable and normative for the Church has been known from the earliest days, though the image venerating bishop of Rome slanderously, and without citation, attributes it to various heretics:
'8. Anathema to those who reject the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the Traditions of the Catholic Church, taking up the pretext and the language of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus; and affirming that, further than we are taught from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, we are bound to follow neither the doctrine of the holy Fathers, nor Ecumenical Councils, nor the Traditions of the Catholic Church.'
Since you say that you are ready to learn from a brother, even one who is not in communion with Rome, I write in the hope that we can have a productive conversation on these points. Please let me know what you think. Love and peace, jc
Hey Jon! Thanks so much for taking the time to read this, and for your reply. I'd love to have a productive conversation with you. Let me reply to your points.
1. Yes, you rightly point out that Lutheran's and Catholics are much closer together on the doctrine of the True Presence than, say, most non-denominational Christians. I wanted to address Protestants in general, as opposed to one sect, and so I had to paint with a rather broad brush. As a result, some of the things I discuss (like the point you mentioned) are not as precise as they could be. That being said, Catholics would still hold that the Lutheran doctrine is incorrect, albeit much closer than most.
2. I assume here you're referring to the quote from Fulton Sheen saying that Catholics do not "adore statues." This is just a misunderstanding in terms. Catholics absolutely DO, and should, venerate statues. Not because the statues themselves are "gods" or any such nonsense, but because we venerate the Saints that have gone before us into Heaven. The important distinction in terms here is veneration vs. "adore." For Catholics, Adoration is a technical word for the ultimate worship that is due to God alone, whereas veneration is more akin to honor. Like how we are commanded to honor our mother and father, for example.
3. Can you please clarify your last point about the Word of God? I'm not quite following the point you're trying to make, but of course would like to understand what you're saying.
I have to say I started off Protestant as it was the Church of England. I didn’t particularly choose it plus my Mom was a member. I am much happier being catholic than I ever was being Protestant. This is only because King Henry VIII decided he didn’t like catholics any more and he made us all Protestant while he remained catholic.
Surely, it is not for us to judge any person, rather just encounter her or him as a soul before God with due humility, respect and true charity? If we continue to meet each person as an individual courteously we may progress the path of life to eternity in peace rather than carry out these tiny warfares that only destroy the harmony we are supposed to promote.
The church of christ is beyond these earthly institutions of catholic, orthodox, or protestant denominations. It's merely thr squabbling amd squaking of the pharisees and the sadducees adding to the burdens of the faithful.
The lambs of christ will know his voice and follow him.
Thanks for commenting, James. I agree with you that the Church of Christ is beyond earthly institutions. However, I disagree that the Catholic Church is an earthly institution—it was created by the Shepherd.
the catholic church devoted an entire ecumenical council to defining the heresies of protestantism. the council of trent did not miss the mark with protestantism. both heresy and schism is a mortal sin, so why proclaim something against what the church teaches. no confession, no eucharist, no hope (becuase most believe they are assured of salvation), these are serious and consequential errors. st john vianney refused to pray with a protestant who came to visit him, the protestant asked him why, he said if we cannot worship together on this earth we wont be worhsiping together in heaven, the man was convicted and converted. what you say here contradicts church teaching, and if someone reads it and thinks they are safe as a protestant, then you are party to their damnation. just a warning.
Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I don't dispute anything that the Council of Trent, or any other Catholic Council, has decreed, so we are agreed on that.
I also agree with you that Protestantism has many heresies, and heresy is a grave sin.
That being said, I disagree with your application of Trent's decrees in this case. The Church's definition of the sin of Heresy in the Code of Canon Law requires obstinacy. Do you believe that we can assume obstinacy of devout Protestants today? What do you think of Ratzinger's quote that I included in this post?
b16 gave communion to an obstinate protestant. frere roger from taize. so he´s not really orthodox, nor was he orthodox about a few other relevant theological matters. but the suggestion from his quote here is rediculous. the church has never said that 2nd generation cathars were more likely to be saved than 1st generation cathars because they were more ignorant, or that second generation arians were less heretics than first generation arians. The progeny participate in the heresy and the heresy is like a poison and leads to hell, whether one chooses or inherits it, all the canons of trent say anathema sit! let him be condemned. the church has distinguished between the objective case, where salvation for heretics is impossible, and the subjective case where we simply must say we do not know. a theologian is required to speak only of what is objectively true, not what is subjectively possible concerning God´s final judgment. you should do the same, its more charitable to protestants.
The suggestion from Ratzinger's writing that I quote above (which was pre-Vatican II and was not censured) was not that the distance itself makes a difference, but that the distance in time impacts the degree to which a new generation is obstinate. You may take issue with him personally, but you should refute the argument, not the person via an Ad Hominem.
What is most charitable is to Protestants and Catholics alike is to "not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God." (cf. Acts 20:27). I appreciate your zeal to refute the errors of Protestantism, but I think you go to far in the other direction. An error in either direction is still an error. I know it's tempting to try to pull hard in the opposite direction of an error, but we have to be careful lest we end up like Fr. Feeney: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1467
It would be an error to say that obstinacy is not required to be guilty of formal heresy. Do you disagree that devout Protestants today are generally lacking the obstinacy required in the Church's definition of heresy?
an ad hom is relevant if he clearly did not follow church teaching regarding protestants in practice, its reasonable to think he was off in principle as well. the argument is relevant. I gave a second argument as to why the idea second gen are not damned has never been apart of the catholic tradition. simply that something wasnt censured doesnt mean its catholic. prots are obstinate because I have talked to thousands of them and they, when being shown from scripture the catholic doctrines have no interest in conversion, no interest in confession, honoring Jesuss mom, eucharist. even the quote by fulton sheen is off, prots have a duty to seek the truth of the matter and not rest satisfied in lies.
When addressing the many sticky subjects in our ungodly divided world, I try to stick to policy or in the parlance of religion, doctrine.
Protestants adhere to a doctrine full of errors. You could review each one from the Catholic perspective and be constructively critical in the Truth. Because as you said, the Catholic Church was the one established by Christ Himself.
Nice article.
I really enjoyed reading this, Stewart! May you and yours be wrapped in love and light, and be granted good health in order to continue your good work!
I would like to start by appreciating what is good and true in your writing. Your recognition of the brotherhood of all believers first and foremost. As the apostle puts it, '9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” Romans 10'
We are all in error. You and I are in different errors, though they may come from the same root, but the Church Militant is a dying person in need of resurrection. For John speaks in the plural present saying, '8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' that is he speaks for both the apostolic college and the whole of the corporate body. I appreciate your sincerity and your humbleness. But some of your claims I either cannot agree with or cannot understand.
1. You charge Protestants with not believing in the Real Presence, or as you express it later of disbelieving in the Eucharist. While this may be true of Baptists and much of modern Western Christianity which is not in communion with Rome, it is not true of either the Reformers or historic Protestantism. The Lutheran teaching is that both bread and wine as well as the body and blood are present in the Eucharist, that the body and blood are present 'in, with, and under the elements', while Calvinistic teaching is less explicit teaching that the bread and wine is present physically while the body and blood are present spiritually, a teaching that is simply and faithfully copied whole cloth from Augustine.(Sermon 98)
2. You claim that the Church of Rome does not teach, rather require the veneration of statues, yet consider the letter which Pope Adrian sent to the Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea(quoted in parts):
'And as I ever entreat the good offices of our immaculate Lady the holy Mother of God, and of the holy and heavenly powers, and of all Saints, so I receive, embrace, and give honorary worship to their holy and precious relics, in the confidence that I shall obtain sanctification from them; and in like manner I embrace, salute, and ascribe the worship of honour to venerable images'
'it follows that all things which, according to man's imagination, are conducive to the glory of God, are undoubtedly pleasing to God. '
I will also quote briefly the [forced] confession which that holy and ecumenical council received from Theodosius Bishop of Ammorium and which the same pope quotes approvingly:
“1. Anathema to those who worship not holy and venerable images. “
2. Anathema to those who blaspheme holy and venerable images.
“3. Anathema to those who dare to blaspheme or slander venerable images, or to call them idols.
“4. Anathema to the Christianity-slanderers — that is, the Iconoclasts.
“5. Anathema to those who teach not diligently all Christian people to worship and salute the holy, precious, and venerable images of all saints who, from the beginning of the world, have pleased God.
“6. Anathema to those who hesitate, and do not, from the heart, confess that we ought to worship holy images.”
May the transactions between a sitting pope and an Ecumenical Council be considered the teachings of the Church of Rome? They speak very differently from you, and very differently from the Prophets and Apostles.
I will also quote again the same letter(from the Vatican Archives dated to the 8th century as I recall) to demonstrate that the teaching that only the Word of God is reliable and normative for the Church has been known from the earliest days, though the image venerating bishop of Rome slanderously, and without citation, attributes it to various heretics:
'8. Anathema to those who reject the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the Traditions of the Catholic Church, taking up the pretext and the language of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus; and affirming that, further than we are taught from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, we are bound to follow neither the doctrine of the holy Fathers, nor Ecumenical Councils, nor the Traditions of the Catholic Church.'
Since you say that you are ready to learn from a brother, even one who is not in communion with Rome, I write in the hope that we can have a productive conversation on these points. Please let me know what you think. Love and peace, jc
Hey Jon! Thanks so much for taking the time to read this, and for your reply. I'd love to have a productive conversation with you. Let me reply to your points.
1. Yes, you rightly point out that Lutheran's and Catholics are much closer together on the doctrine of the True Presence than, say, most non-denominational Christians. I wanted to address Protestants in general, as opposed to one sect, and so I had to paint with a rather broad brush. As a result, some of the things I discuss (like the point you mentioned) are not as precise as they could be. That being said, Catholics would still hold that the Lutheran doctrine is incorrect, albeit much closer than most.
2. I assume here you're referring to the quote from Fulton Sheen saying that Catholics do not "adore statues." This is just a misunderstanding in terms. Catholics absolutely DO, and should, venerate statues. Not because the statues themselves are "gods" or any such nonsense, but because we venerate the Saints that have gone before us into Heaven. The important distinction in terms here is veneration vs. "adore." For Catholics, Adoration is a technical word for the ultimate worship that is due to God alone, whereas veneration is more akin to honor. Like how we are commanded to honor our mother and father, for example.
3. Can you please clarify your last point about the Word of God? I'm not quite following the point you're trying to make, but of course would like to understand what you're saying.
I have to say I started off Protestant as it was the Church of England. I didn’t particularly choose it plus my Mom was a member. I am much happier being catholic than I ever was being Protestant. This is only because King Henry VIII decided he didn’t like catholics any more and he made us all Protestant while he remained catholic.
Surely, it is not for us to judge any person, rather just encounter her or him as a soul before God with due humility, respect and true charity? If we continue to meet each person as an individual courteously we may progress the path of life to eternity in peace rather than carry out these tiny warfares that only destroy the harmony we are supposed to promote.
Amen!
Stuart, Did your family covert from Talmudic Judaism at some point?
It’s possible that much earlier down the line on my father’s side we did. But my grandparents were Methodist and that is as far as I know.
The church of christ is beyond these earthly institutions of catholic, orthodox, or protestant denominations. It's merely thr squabbling amd squaking of the pharisees and the sadducees adding to the burdens of the faithful.
The lambs of christ will know his voice and follow him.
Thanks for commenting, James. I agree with you that the Church of Christ is beyond earthly institutions. However, I disagree that the Catholic Church is an earthly institution—it was created by the Shepherd.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the words of truth.
Thanks, James, I will. Pray for me!
the council of trent said otherwise. this is irresponsible.
Hey Stephen, thanks for sharing. Can you be more specific about what you think is irresponsible?
the catholic church devoted an entire ecumenical council to defining the heresies of protestantism. the council of trent did not miss the mark with protestantism. both heresy and schism is a mortal sin, so why proclaim something against what the church teaches. no confession, no eucharist, no hope (becuase most believe they are assured of salvation), these are serious and consequential errors. st john vianney refused to pray with a protestant who came to visit him, the protestant asked him why, he said if we cannot worship together on this earth we wont be worhsiping together in heaven, the man was convicted and converted. what you say here contradicts church teaching, and if someone reads it and thinks they are safe as a protestant, then you are party to their damnation. just a warning.
Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I don't dispute anything that the Council of Trent, or any other Catholic Council, has decreed, so we are agreed on that.
I also agree with you that Protestantism has many heresies, and heresy is a grave sin.
That being said, I disagree with your application of Trent's decrees in this case. The Church's definition of the sin of Heresy in the Code of Canon Law requires obstinacy. Do you believe that we can assume obstinacy of devout Protestants today? What do you think of Ratzinger's quote that I included in this post?
b16 gave communion to an obstinate protestant. frere roger from taize. so he´s not really orthodox, nor was he orthodox about a few other relevant theological matters. but the suggestion from his quote here is rediculous. the church has never said that 2nd generation cathars were more likely to be saved than 1st generation cathars because they were more ignorant, or that second generation arians were less heretics than first generation arians. The progeny participate in the heresy and the heresy is like a poison and leads to hell, whether one chooses or inherits it, all the canons of trent say anathema sit! let him be condemned. the church has distinguished between the objective case, where salvation for heretics is impossible, and the subjective case where we simply must say we do not know. a theologian is required to speak only of what is objectively true, not what is subjectively possible concerning God´s final judgment. you should do the same, its more charitable to protestants.
The suggestion from Ratzinger's writing that I quote above (which was pre-Vatican II and was not censured) was not that the distance itself makes a difference, but that the distance in time impacts the degree to which a new generation is obstinate. You may take issue with him personally, but you should refute the argument, not the person via an Ad Hominem.
What is most charitable is to Protestants and Catholics alike is to "not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God." (cf. Acts 20:27). I appreciate your zeal to refute the errors of Protestantism, but I think you go to far in the other direction. An error in either direction is still an error. I know it's tempting to try to pull hard in the opposite direction of an error, but we have to be careful lest we end up like Fr. Feeney: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1467
It would be an error to say that obstinacy is not required to be guilty of formal heresy. Do you disagree that devout Protestants today are generally lacking the obstinacy required in the Church's definition of heresy?
an ad hom is relevant if he clearly did not follow church teaching regarding protestants in practice, its reasonable to think he was off in principle as well. the argument is relevant. I gave a second argument as to why the idea second gen are not damned has never been apart of the catholic tradition. simply that something wasnt censured doesnt mean its catholic. prots are obstinate because I have talked to thousands of them and they, when being shown from scripture the catholic doctrines have no interest in conversion, no interest in confession, honoring Jesuss mom, eucharist. even the quote by fulton sheen is off, prots have a duty to seek the truth of the matter and not rest satisfied in lies.