My most recent article for Catholic Answers‘ online magazine, A Helpful Question for Our Protestant Friends, begins as follows:
If you’ve spent any serious time in dialogue with Protestants, you’ve probably found yourself running into a wall. The arguments that you find so persuasive, the Bible passages that seem so clearly Catholic, don’t strike your Protestant friends or family as particularly compelling. Their personal interpretation isn’t the same as yours (or the Church’s), and they’re not sold on the importance of deferring to the Church’s interpretation rather than their own.
When this happens, sometimes it helps to approach the question from a radically different direction.
Hint: the critical question is, “Were any of the groups that broke off from the visible Church in the first millennium correct to do so?” Here’s why.
I just wanted to let you know that I was a bit dismayed yesterday when your site didn’t load. I’m very glad that you’re up & running today. ShamelessPopery is incredibly valuable to me; please, don’t stop.
I’m just waiting for Joe to publish some sort of omnibus of Catholic apologetics. There are so many excellent, edifying, intriguing, analytical and inspiring posts on this site that putting them down in a volume (or two) would be a great Catholic resource to have on hand.
Needless to say, I second your request that he keeps up the great Catholic content on this site. Without it, I would probably only know about 1/4 of the Catholic(and Protestant) faith that I do. Four years of following these blog posts (and the podcasts too!) has done me inestimable spiritual good. So, keep up the great job, Joe!
Would be good to see something like this. Maybe even with some questions and answers after each subject based on comments that appear under the articles (they’re often as interesting as the text itself).
Interesting idea! Can you flesh it out a little more?
Hi Joe,
My idea would be for something like an omnibus, or compendium, of combined Church history and apologetics (which is pretty much what this blog actually is already.. in many ways). I think that if the topics were introduced and organized with the idea of explaining both the claims and errors of Protestantism from it’s historic beginnings until the present, it would make for a great handbook for evangelization purposes.
So many people are highly confused about Protestantism (even Protestants themselves) and the great diversity of Christian denominations generated from it, and so would like some down to earth explanations on it. That is: 1.) How it came into existence historically(i.e.. what really inspired Martin Luther to do what he did as a young Catholic monk, etc..) 2.) What doctrines emerged from it and what were these doctrines trying to accomplish. 3.) How the Catholic Church developed from it’s earliest beginnings, via ordinations, sacraments, early catechisms, synods, councils, canon law, liturgy, etc… 4.) How the two systems of belief, Catholic and Protestant, teach very different doctrines/Christian points of view. Etc…
If you used your natural, ‘free flow’ style that you also do with the podcasts, and can organize it well from the beginning, I think it would be very beneficial to many people in book form. It might also make for a good internet type video documentary, if developed as a Youtube series. It could be a combination of both Church history and apologetics. Basically, the goal would be to explain exactly how both the Church developed over 2000 years and how Protestantism developed over 500 years.
Anyway, that’s my general idea.
Thanks, Glennonite, and I’m grateful that the technical issues seem to be sorted out… sorry for the scare!
Your website has been very helpful to me. Thank you very much. I really don’t like commenting much but I like reading them. I hope you keep your comments the way they are and not move to discus which does not load on Opera browser which uses less data.
I wish to make a request. Can you please post the videos on SoundCloud on your website as free mp3 for download. Internet is quite expensive here in Ghana and we don’t have free WiFi services. We cannot stream at our convenience. I normally download video and audio files so I can listen to later. Downloading at night when internet bundles are cheaper.
As an aside it seems that most spiritual resources are meant for only those who can afford. I wish I could read many books by recommended on websites like those of Benedict and Cardinal Sarah. However I cannot afford. I know they have to recover the cost of publication, but wouldn’t it be nice if the books can be made available as free PDFs after sometime. Infact some of them are not even in circulation.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Donatus,
I’m republishing selected chapters from Abp. Alban Goodier, S.J.’s 1200+ pg. trilogy on “The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, which is a Catholic Christian Classic that almost nobody knows about. They are suitable for printing in short story form via 1 page front and back readings. Most chapters are only 2-3 pages, and teach Jesus and all the people He associated with in considerable depth. I give out hundreds of pages each week in public places here in the SF Bay Area, and people say they like them. I can e-mail you pdf’s of these as they are finished, for your own reading and also for free distribution to your friends in Ghana, if you like. You can also print them on a small desk top printer (i.e. what I now use is a few Epson eco-tank 2550’s with cheap 3rd party ink via Amazon) if you have them available there. Contact me at [email protected]., if interested in the pdf’s.
Best to you in the Lord.
– Al
I can’t help you with the books, but I think Huffduff could solve your problems with (I presume Youtube) videos. You can paste there links from YouTube (and some other services) and it’ll strip them off the video part leaving the sound. It also creates a podcast RSS feed, so you can use an app like Pocket Casts or Overcast to download and play audio files. I use it every day and it’s pretty awesome, you should try it.
I think the article really can be summed up in the end:
“This raises two obvious questions. Was it just a lucky coincidence that the visible Church got it right every single time on subtle, nuanced questions like christological and trinitarian doctrine? And why should we think that this same Church (which is either incredibly lucky or guided by the Holy Spirit) suddenly got it wrong in the sixteenth century?”
Let me discuss this in a few different ways.
For one, we can treat them as simple rhetorical questions, which is Joe’s point. “No” and “we shouldn’t” answer his questions.
However, we can get more critical, as Irked can and I think (at least philosophically) can make a good argument against it. As Irked pointed out in our (sadly only*) debate, the rhetorical questions require the presupposition of only the people we agree with are the “Church.” In short, if the Church is only defined by those who are not “heretics” by 21st century RC or EO standards, then of course the Church has always had consensus on our doctrines–because we presuppositionally restricted the Church to only those voices.
To make an allowance to Irked, I think he is knowledgeable and is seeing something that I myself recognized as a Protestant, as still recognized today as an Orthodox Catholic–the early Church did have more diversity. The brother of the Pope who wrote the Shepherd of Hermas was a christological heretic (unless the manuscript is corrupted in the section where He speaks of the Fathers, Son’s, and Spirit’s eternal relationship). Gregroy Nanzianzius was an Origneist and Origen essentially had heretical Christology (though I would like to think he, like St Dionysus of Alexandria, simply made the error of trying to explain something he did not understand too much than actually being a true heretic–but being that he is anathematized today I will make no more comment.) Sts Cyprian and Firmilian had a completely different ecclesiology and sacramentology than St Stephen of Rome–yet remained in communion.
There is a point where we have to admit the obvious, which is, that the Church had more diversity before there existed a centralized apparatus to enforce consistency. The Roman Empire proved to be this force. To be fair to the Papacy, since the second century (St Victor of Rome) they (without force, as they did not have this at their disposal) saw themselves as the centralizing influence behind Christian doctrine and practice. However, from early on the vast majority of the Church in North Africa and the eastern part of the Roman Empire and in Parthia honestly did not recognize this (and naming a few fathers and the flowery quotations before Chalcedon is not exactly convincing to the contrary if we recognize the context of what they were talking about.
So, in short, one can remain Protestant simply by presuming that the “Church” was not guided by the Spirit to be categorically free from all error in every single respect, otherwise the adoptionist, monarchist, and other heretical Christologically suspect teachings that had some traction would have not had some level of implicit acceptance.
To be fair, I don’t want to oversstate the preceding. St Dionysus of Alexandria, in countering Paul of Samosata’s christological heresy, was himself corrected by his own country’s bishops and the Pope of Rome. So, I personally doubt that some Origen’s and other writers’ extreme statements were really that accepted at all, due to no one being able to Google every little thing that they said and only a select few people really having access to their writings.
In short, the truth is in the middle. The early Church was certainly not a free for all like Protestantism, nor was it Orthodoxy in its Byzantine hay day nor the medieval Roman Catholic Church.
I think the one thing, which ultimately convinced myself, is the issue of schism. Something that Joe refers to earlier in his article, but I think did not drive the point home enough. He cites Gal 5:20-21, and I am not sure what translation he is using, but the Greek literally says that “sects” are “works of the flesh” and those who do things “such as these WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.”
Unlike post 19th century RCism and EOy, the entire Church has always taught that schismatics are damned. Period. What is even more convincing is that the schismatics THEMSELVES believed the same thing. Oriental Orthodox viewed themselves as the only, true Church all others damned. Same with the Novationists. Same with the Donatists (and they excommunicated Tychonius for believing otherwise.) The RCs and EO also thought the same, though to be fair to EOy for some time they had a higher view of most western Christians outside of Italy, as they refused to evangelize RCs whom they though might “any year now” rejoin the Church.
So, while Irked might have his doubts of exactly whom makes up the consensus of the Church by a cherrypicked choice about who is the Church, he does not have this benefit about schism. Everyone agreed that schism=damnation. The schismatics were the same, and viewed themselves as not being in schism for this reason!
Hence, the consensus by any definition would reject Protestantism on these grounds alone…plus, it is in the Bible!
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
Very well said, and I think I take a somewhat similar approach in this essay.
That said, I’d like to point out two things:
1) that the Catholic Church still teaches that “The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites” (that’s from Vatican II), and
2) that we recognize that the sin of schism, like any other sin, may have mitigating factors like lack of knowledge. Theft is a sin, but if you don’t realize what you’re taking isn’t yours, it isn’t. That doesn’t make the theft okay, in that it was still wrong (at least in the sense of mistaken) to have taken it, but it does mean you’re not going to Hell for an innocent error. I think that the Church increasingly suspects that many Protestants and Orthodox are in a similar situation where they’re not consciously and deliberately breaking from the Church, but are innocently and ignorantly in a state of some confusion.
So the teaching hasn’t changed: just our guess about how malicious vs. ignorant the action was.
Hey Joe, I like how you set it up as malicious vs. ignorant. My faith tradition embraces a “both/and” theology, so can we claim malicious AND ignorant? You know I could not help myself. Grace and Peace to you all!
Hi Craig,
Your statement, “The truth is in the middle,” seems to hit the soft sweet spot. It’s so true.
Jimmy Akin speaks of Origen (4 minutes only) here: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Akin+on+Origen&form=WNSGPH&qs=SW&cvid=eb799ea63545413f9f666714139c2627&pq=Akin+on+Origen&cc=US&setlang=en-US&nclid=8AD09FABFFE837238B9F5A3C272B65F8&ts=1524583586799
Of interest to me was his point that Origen has had a bit of recent popularity as Pope Benedict called him a “master of faith” in his devotions–idea of novenas and prayer.
One other point I’d make is that the Church today still has within its body those who advocate ideas which are seen now (and probably later in time too) as controversial by some if not most authorities as well as lay authority. There is Teilhard de Chardin, Richard McBrien, Richard Rohr, Remi de Roo, and others like them, although the Church may issue warning, more often such persons are anathematized neither in their own nor in later times. There are today many questionable mystics who claim personal private revelations, and these too the Church will study interminably rather than rush and risk making a ‘mistake.’ The Spirit blows where He will, and sometimes He lets us stew, pray, and think it out for a VERY LONG time.
God bless.
You might ask yourself Craig, if it was possible that the people of Israel whom God chose out of all humanity and to whom He revealed Himself both directly and through His Prophets, could so err, so fall away and so sin, that God would punish them with repeated defeats by their enemies, with enslavement, with the removal of the Ark of the Covenant and Tablets of the Law, and with final and utter dissolution? You might wonder that they would in the midst of miraculous signs and revelations, set up a golden calf and worship it, or fall back into the worship of baal, and yet they did.
And so you suggest that the Holy Spirit kept the Western Church from doctrinal errors for a millenia or so and therefore how can it be that the Church could later err and sin such that schisms could occur? Well Craig, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Suppose your popes and their indulgence-selling “den of thieves” had received the 95 Theses of Luther as Ninevah received Jonah? Would there have been a Reformation?
Pride is a sin, is it not in fact the sin of satan? And yet, I just happened to see on this very site a reference to a “right and proper triumphalism”! What pride is a Christian entitled to? I see none; the eyes of Christian have been opened to the fall of man, to his inherently sinful nature. What triumph may we glory in? The triumph of Christ over the world, the flesh and the devil.
You would like to glory in the the delusion that Roman Catholics are the only true Christians and that everyone else is “going to hell”? This is your “triumphalism”? Is that really the depth of your understanding of the goodness of God, of His mercy?
“We have Abraham for our father” they said in Christ’s time. You know what the answer was don’t you?
Look around Craig, and your ilk, we live in the age of communication; you may hear the testimony of thousands who have experienced the Grace of God, even the personal visitations of our Lord. And all this without getting up from your chair. So if Christ appears to those who are not Roman Catholics, does he do so in order to convert them to Roman Catholicism? It appears he does not Craig. What conclusion might we draw from that? A poor simple soul like me, unversed in doctrinal abstractions such as are loved in your colleges, concludes that Almighty God and his Son are not confined to your temples and are not a commodity which you may parcel out to humanity for a price of money and subjection.
Which of these two models seems more likely to you to represent the nature of the True and Living God and His Will?
I ask again, as I received no answer before: do the Syriac and Armenian churches worship in vain? Are they “heretics” who are damned by virtue of not being Roman Catholics? They predate the Roman Church. What do you say Craig?
Your latest pope declares that it is “dangerous” for men to think that they may have a “direct relationship” with God? So if an unbeliever, such as millions have been, cries out to God for understanding, for knowledge of the Truth of Christ, he will be ignored until he can find a Roman Catholic to bestow the ‘proper sacraments’ on him?!
I am not sorry to tell you that the testimony of many more than three says you are wrong. And therefore God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, the grace of forgiveness and salvation are not the property of any man or any assemblage of men.
“Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The punishment will be similar no doubt.
“He seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth”. It doesn’t say “…Roman Catholics who will worship…” does it?
Here’s a simple formula to bear in mind next time little worldly vanities and the arrogance of “election” spring up in the mind: if you feel pride rising in your breast, you are making yourself the tool of evil, for there is no man born of woman who is not a sinner and the more understanding we are given, the more that is required of us.
And if you wish for Christian unity, stop calling the Bishop of Rome, “Holy Father”; he is no man’s father, nor is he holy. You know very well that Christ specifically commanded us not to use that appellation of God for any man, and you know also that Christ rebuked the man who called Him “good”, saying that “there is none good, not one, for all have failed and come short of the Glory of God.”
Christ rebuked one who called Him “good” and you call the pope “Holy”?
Blasphemy is not strong enough a word for that abomination. Why do you cling to it?
The same reason you have never repented of a dozen other sins and errors: to do so would be to admit that your “infallibility” is nothing but a lie?
Well, if you prefer a cult of papal personality to Truth, so be it. If you prefer to maintain your corporate “image”, you will suffer the consequences. It will preferable in that day to have been a headhunter from Borneo or a Zoroastrian; they at least will have the defence of ignorance.
Salvation is the gift of God, no man has the power to forgive sins. Your grafters and pederasts may mumble whatever incantations they wish over each other, they will not pre-empt the judgements God.
All judgement is reserved to the Son of God; at least that is what Scripture says.
Or do your scribes think they know better?
Hi Craig, you wrote:
“In short, if the Church is only defined by those who are not “heretics” by 21st century RC or EO standards, then of course the Church has always had consensus on our doctrines–because we presuppositionally restricted the Church to only those voices.”
It seems to me that Jesus intended a great deal of controversy to exist in the Church, and also that these many conflicts and controversies would be resolved by the authority given by God to that same Church, His own Mystical Body. This is demonstrated in the fact that Jesus never instructed the apostles regarding what to do, and how to operate, when “going out to preach the Gospel to the whole world”.For instance, He never told them whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcized, even as He Himself was. He also never told the apostles what to do about the loss of one of the 12 apostles…Judas, or what to do regarding the creating new essential institutions such as the ‘diaconate’, during the time of St. Steven. So, it appears that Jesus intended from the very beginning that the Church would have controversies which they must debate, consult and resolve through the means aid of the Holy Spirit; and that these controversies would exist throughout every century, even until the end of the world.
So, if we look back to these very beginnings, we see how it was the Church herself who began the ecclesiastical customs and practices of sacred ordinations; how and when to celebrate the Eucharist/agape; how to distribute charity to Christian widows and orphans; where, when and to whom to preach the Gospel message first,..etc.. All of of which were very important decisions for the Apostolic Church to make and resolve, amongst themselves. And It might be noted that Jesus said in the Gospel that it was He Himself that would build His Church upon Peter. And the Church is still under ongoing construction ever since.
All this being said, we will note that although perfect and absolute Church unity would be impossible at such an early date (especially since each apostle still had his own particular charism and personality; yet the fundamental gospel message would still be preached throughout the Roman Empire, and the frequent contact between various Churches via letters and other correspondence, would keep the early Church in a state of general unity…and to be refined further as the ability to unite and communicate became easier or more accessible. (Even as you noted in the past regarding ‘barbarian converts’) And many of these items is what we encounter when we read early Church history, as Joe recommends in his article, and Eusebius being one such excellent source. So, I think, that if this was the model of Church development practiced in the apostolic times, why would it not be also a suitable model also for ‘post-apostolic’ times? And then again continue as a model for the 3rd, 4th,5th… centuries…as the Church grew from a seedling, to a sapling, and eventually to a full sized vine or tree…even as Jesus taught that it would?
The important thing, I think, is that Jesus established a means for unity and organization with the institution and election of the ‘college of apostles’ themselves. And, if He wanted to, He could have easily started His Church from the beginning patterned on another hermeneutic completely, one which much might provide much more individuality and freedom, and much less organization (i.e. Archbishops, etc..), such as we might encounter amongst modern Pentecostal congregations. But, He didn’t choose this model. Rather, we see that the Church was established in a manner more like a highly organized franchise, kingdom, or corporation,as compared to merely a conglomeration of independent/ freelance/small business type congregations of Christian believers.
Regarding authority, it seems very natural how the ‘Franchise type’ structure that Jesus instituted would always have a means of providing Church authority into the future. We see this demonstrated from the beginning via episcopal ordinations, and have some good history regarding such institutions codefied in such ancient writings as the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ and the ‘Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus’. And then we have even more details provided in the various early Synods such as that at Alvira; and which provides an insight into the development of ‘canon law’ which seems to be the primary tool used to institutionalize all of these ancient Church customs for world wide use. Last of all, we have the great Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, and the other Councils that came after it….as other valuable tools used for the maintenance of the ‘franchise type’ organizational structure that that Jesus established…and which is also demonstrated in the work you cite above: “The Shepherd of Hermas”, which details in a considerable way, via allegory, the essential nature of the universal Church.
In all of this we can have faith that the early Church expanded according to the design provided by Jesus Himself, and then also, guided by the wisdom and grace given to it by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Best to you,
-Al
God bless you too Al,
Craig
>”Were any of the groups that broke off from the visible Church in the first millennium correct to do so?”
Yes. Athanasius of Alexandria, don’t you agree?
There are plenty of quotes from Athanasius that proves he was totally Catholic. Here is only a few on the topic of ‘apostolic succession’ :
“. . . inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power.” (Festal Letter 2:6)
“. . . but concerning matters of faith, they [The Fathers at Nicea] did not write: ‘It was decided,’ but ‘Thus the Catholic Church believes.’ And thereupon they confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact Apostolic times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is simply that which was taught by the apostles.” (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 5; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
“For, as we have found after long deliberation, it appeared desirable to adhere to and maintain to the end, that faith which, enduring from antiquity, we have received as preached by the prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles through our Lord Jesus Christ, . . .” (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 10; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
[H]old fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps’ clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. . . . the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud. (Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
Citation:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/10/st-athanasius-catholic-not-proto-protestant.html
Awlms: yes obviously athanasius was deemed catholic LATER. But the point is that he broke off for the sake of what he deemed correct doctrine at the time.
From the Protestant perspective, they are like athanasius. Catholics are catching up, but they still haven’t yet come around to correct doctrine as they did with Athanasius.
What “correct doctrine” are you referring to amongst the thousands of Protestant denominations? Sola Fide, and the other ‘solae’ doctrines were never written about in the ancient Church. Maybe in isolation there might be a few off-hand comments or references by a very few Church Fathers, but taken in context, those Fathers were highly Catholic and practiced apostolic succession,liturgy, sophisticated catechetical instruction, sacrificial Eucharist, etc…. But, I’m still waiting for some Protestants to produce some ‘TULIP’ type apologetics from the first 5 centuries. As we all know the Church was full of debate and controversy during that age, but nothing I’ve ever read from the CCEL Church Father’s writings has revealed anything in detail of a TULIP-like doctrine. If you have any, please post them and I’ll take a look.
Best to you in the Lord.
I’ve had lots of conversations with Protestants about Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I’ve researched and been involved with both, eventually choosing the former). I can tell you with assurance that Protestants will never listen to any intellectual arguments about these matters unless their hearts are open and they refuse to be stubborn. In my opinion, rejecting Church history, rejecting reason, believing this notion that Catholicism is intrinsically evil and from Satan etc. is a heart issue, it is a problem of spiritual blindness and thinking your own form of Protestantism is the true faith and not up for questioning. I have been staggered – truly staggered – in my discussions with friends, some of whom have degrees and Masters degrees IN THEOLOGY! They won’t listen to reason. I’ve given up. I’m not interested in debating them anymore. Their arguments are wafer-thin, and what it comes down to is that their faith is in the Spirit, or what they think is the Spirit having revealed to them that Catholicism is from the devil, and Evangelicalism is from God. That’s all it comes down to. Offer the finest intellectual argument or method you can think of; even the gentlest approach. Nothing works if their heart is closed like this.
So in short, nothing will ever convince them; no intellectual approach anyway, unless they’re open. And if they’re open the best approach might just be to get them to join you to Mass. That has an amazing effect, as happened to me. And if they’re open, they’ll do the research themselves and it won’t take long before the worldview they had held will come crashing down.
Matthew,
I’ve had the same experience as you over the last 8 yrs or so. It’s a flat-out refusal to engage in a reasoned discussion. You rarely hear: “You know, I didn’t realize the Catholic Church taught that.” Many are afraid to even consider that their denomination (the one that matches their own idea of Christianity) might be in error.
As you said, you have to be willing to admit that you might be wrong. And that is something few will do. It’s a pride thing and a fear thing. That’s why the intellectual arguments for the Catholic Church – even though they are rock solid – usually go nowhere.
Very frustrating.
Peace,
Joe
Stubbornness is indeed a problem isn’t it Matthew? I’m not sure who your friends are, but what proportion of Protestants do you think believe that the Roman Church is “of the devil” etc. etc.? Certainly it must be comforting to believe that most or all do, but I suspect it is a very small minority, even in the USA where a wonderful sincerity of faith is often combined with a saddening degree of gullibility and general ignorance.
The only “True Faith” is the faith of Christ. Your problem is that despite all the evidence to the contrary, your church persists in the ridiculous claim that it “owns” Christ and the Gospels.
You may muster all the “intellectual arguments” you can dream up; they are not worth a pin if the Holy Spirit and Christ deny them by their acts, as they do. Leaving aside the numerous historical and interpretational problems of simple logic.
Having made ridiculous claims and done foolish and evil things in past centuries, your church now clings to them afraid that admitting errors would expose the doctrines of infallibility and exclusivity, as the frauds they are.
So desperate to control the Body of Christ, but so utterly unfit to do so; not that God has ever permitted any body of men to do so since the days of the Apostles.
The spirit of pride is the one behind Roman Catholic preening and self-congratulation, as it is behind any such thinking. The same spirit and a legion of others were behind the lies, the murders and oppressions of the past.
The supreme irony is that if the Church of Rome would give up all such pretensions and doctrinal blasphemies, and repent of past crimes, the western Church would quite likely be reunited. Such a true repentance from the top down, and an appeal to unity, but not authority, would be very, very hard for the other catholic communions to obstruct. Indeed, only cults such as the JW’s, Mormons etc. would probably be able to resist the call to unity.
But, short of divine intervention, that will never happen, because of the blindness and the arrogance. Your pope may wash feet and kiss them – is he trying exceed Christ? But that will not substitute for true humility.
Enfin, the time has come to move on; I am not going to convince you anymore than anyone else is. Most of you are it seems not willing to consider honestly, to do so would require giving up the self-love, the pride, the presumption of superiority, the arrogance of exclusivity, and worst of all, the presumption of the possession of God’s power to forgive or withhold forgiveness. St. Peter has gone to the Father, and he took his mandate with him.
Of course St. Peter also established the Syriac Church, along with St. Paul, and if he established them before you, well, Rome is the younger brother. It seems St. Peter also blessed the Chaldean Church before he arrived in Rome. Oh dear, now you are third!
The Apostles argued among themselves over who was the greatest and Christ rebuked them. And now your church argues it is the greatest…one can only shake one’s head at the folly of man.
We each must seek God and His Will to the best of our ability and do His Will as best we can through Christ. If you want to follow the commandments of men, you are at liberty to do so. In the end, He knows who his people are and he will call them out of every nation, and church.
You might also consider whether in these times, the day for squabbling with other Christians is perhaps over, however enjoyable it seems to be?
A Dios my friends. Though I cannot promise I will not return. 😉
Well Matthew and Joe, Craig doesn’t want to answer my questions it seems. Perhaps you do as here on your doorstep is a Protestant who is willing to debate.
Those poor deluded Protestants who believe the Church of Rome is “of the devil” are no different from the poor, deluded Roman Catholics who imagine that believers who call themselves Protestants are also.
Now tell me, who is the “Holy Father” again?
Silence speaks volumes.