Saturday, July 31, 2010
Historical Literature on the Earliest Papacy: John Bugay
Here's an article on John Bugay's blog about recent scholarship that has shed light on teachings about the early papacy. I cited this in a comment to Leo, who thinks the papacy has existed since the Apostle Peter, when it clearly is a much later development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
What I always find ironic about such things ...
"This admission of development is highly significant; as recently as 100 years ago, there was no admission that there was anything but ..."
is the non-Catholic's insistence that Rome not change and then the cynical surprise that she does, she can, she has.
How about this possibility: Roman teaching reflects reality and non-Catholics are reactionaries?
BTW, "the Catholic writer Raymond Brown says," Leo may disagree but a good Catholic may agree with Fr. Brown; what Fr. Brown says is not devastating to the Catholic position on the papacy by any means.
But keep trying, please.
Hi Jennie, thank you for the link. For the last few months, I've been posting at James Swan's blog, here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/
I'm continuing to explore the early papacy, among other things. It's a huge and ranging subject, and my hope is to try to create awareness among Protestants, both for how the early papacy "developed," and how the RCC in the last 20+ years has continued to qualify (and backtrack from Vatican I) its understanding of the papacy.
Moonshadow: I would agree, Brown is the least of your problems.
I likewise encourage you, John. Prov. 12:23. Peace.
Hi John,
thanks for stopping by. I read over at Beggars All sometimes and have seen some of your posts too. I don't comment too often, since I'm not a scholar and can't add too much; I'm just learning.
Jennie -- I'm still learning too. But there's a rich world of understanding "out there," and I'm just reporting things I'm finding.
John,
I just went back and read the 'about' page on your Reformation 500 blog, and was encouraged by your testimony, that you have been twice Catholic and yet were led out of it by the Spirit and the Truth that was in you by faith. I needed to read that part about how Catholics say conservatives of all denominations are close together. I have actually felt this when comparing liberal denominations such as the Episcopals that accept homosexuality, etc.; and my brother has reverted to Catholicism and is very conservative. That is part of why I am here studying this. But I always come back to the same thing, that Rome has veiled the truth with a veil of flesh: Mary, the priesthood, the Catholic Eucharist, etc.
Thanks so much for sharing your story and your studies.
Here's the 'about' page on Reformation 500 with John Bugay's testimony: http://reformation500.wordpress.com/about/
Thanks again Jennie. You mentioned that your brother "reverted." Have you or your family been Roman Catholic at one point?
Oh, duh, I just read your "about."
Haha! Yes, my mother came from Roman Catholics and my father was agnostic. They accepted Christ and we left the Catholic Church when I was 10. My brother reverted about 6 years ago and his wife converted, and their 4 kids too. They had been Episcopal before that. I was upset, and so were my parents, but they seem to have become accustomed to it now, while I haven't.
I also think the comments under both of John's posts that I've mentioned here are very informative.
Sorry, but we are not saved by Faith alone. By God's grace, yes, but not by Faith alone... and we must respond to that grace.
Protestants do not hold "salvation by faith alone" but rather "justification by faith alone."
But that's not the subject of this posting, Leo. Does your change of topic mean that you are conceding everything that I've said about the early papacy?
Uh oh. Are we going to need another post on justification and salvation and faith to clarify this?
John, would you briefly explain your view on the difference between justification and salvation, and how faith fits in to both?
And Leo, would you briefly explain what contributes to our salvation besides faith in Christ?
My husband Eddie has done several studies that answer different aspects of this subject, so I'll find them and link them here.
I just put up a new post on the subject of salvation and justification, etc., which has some links to studies on the subject. Please continue the conversation there if you would like.
I am also interested, Leo, in your reaction to the information in John Bugay's post on the papacy.
John,
Clever, but no, it does not change my view on the papacy. Several observations here:
1. You claim to have been Catholic twice and left. Well, you certainly never came to believe in the Eucharist or you never would have left.
2. The catechesis you received must have been awful.
3. It is clear that Jesus gave Peter an authority which he did not give to the other 11. When He said to Peter, " I give you alone the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
4. He prayed for Peter alone for His faith to be restored and then commanded him to pray the others back.
5. It is getting beyond tiresome the way you are all misrepresenting scripture to suit your own aims. To not at least acknowledge how the two examples I showed indicate the primacy of Peter, is beyond me.
6. I am tired of heretics telling me what my Catholic faith is all about. You obviously have no clue.
7. Jennie, why is your defense always carpet bombing with literature from anti-Catholics? I can easily get scads of early writings denying the divinity of Jesus, denying the humanity of Jesus, proclaiming gnosticism, denying the worth of women(Thomas Aquinas) etc. The problem is that even Church fathers were not preserved from ever writing error. Only the popes and bishops in union with the popes are. Your problem is you take what YOU like and discard what YOU don't like.
Leo,
I wouldn't call my posts 'carpet-bombing'. I didn't post all these things with you in mind. I linked to John's post because it was linked on 'Beggar's All' which I get notifications on when new posts come up. I linked to Webster because we were having a discussion about the canon on Elena's blog, and I remembered he had an article on it. Since I'm not an expert on church history it helps me to read other people who have studied it in more detail. I know you don't consider them reliable, but then I don't consider modern Catholic Apologists reliable.
We're not heretics, and neither were the reformers. They were against the papacy and the errors it entailed, not against Christ and the church. I think it would be accurate to say that they believed the church was hijacked (to use a modern term) by the papacy.
Leo,
There is no doubt that Peter had a special role among the Apostles. He is singled out and tested in a special way. The question is, how does this translate into a continued office, and how especially does this translate into the bishop of Rome inheriting this office? There is no direct connection in either case. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence and the historical evidence is that the papacy gradually developed.
Leo, here is a link to two posts I did on Peter and the Rock:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter
Leo -- Don't go into business as a mind-reader. There was nothing wrong with my catechesis. No, I didn't study directly under the sixteenth century Jesuits, but neither was it "awful". And yes, I had a very clear understanding of the "Eucharist".
It is actually the Roman church that "misrepresented Scripture to suit [its] own aims," and it was these misrepresentations that galled me.
I've written briefly about the Catholic method for understanding things. Tell me if you don't agree with what I've said here:
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-catholic-historical-method/
You may also want to take a look here:
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/romes-institutionally-sanctioned-lying/
I just want to speak briefly to your comments about Peter.
There is no question that Peter was very close to the Lord and a leader in the early church. I'm willing even to concede that
But the whole concept of "succession" was a later accretion -- useful in some apologetic sense -- but the notions of "priesthood," and then "orders" and then "apostolic succession" (of bishops) and finally "petrine succession" are all later developments that ultimately have harmed the church in a profound way.
Your own point number 3 is a misrepresentation of Scripture. What he gave to Peter "alone" was the keys -- which does not confer any authority -- you use keys to open doors, and that is precisely the role that Peter fulfilled in Acts 2 and Acts 10. Opening the doors to the kingdom. They are the keys of a steward, and even in that event, there is no hint of "succession." (Peter "alone" -- get it?) For some later cleric in Rome to say "hey, these belong to me" is the most arrogant kind of usurpation that one can image.
Much of what you think you know about the early papacy is myth and fiction. Eamon Duffy, a Catholic historian and Cambridge scholar, said as much:
"These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/see-of-peter.html
Nobody who has studied this issue in the slightest even really denies this any more. Not even those closest to Rome.
Jennie,
You said, "We're not heretics,"
Well, sorry, but let's look at the definition from Webster's:
heretic: A dissenter from established Roman Catholic Church dogma
I think that describes a number of you quite well, actually...
Jennie,
You said, "how does this translate into a continued office, and how especially does this translate into the bishop of Rome inheriting this office? There is no direct connection in either case. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence..."
See, this is where I have a major issue with your approach. You consistently speak in absolutes, pun intended. I could be like you and say that you always speak in absolutes, but then I would be absolutely wrong.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Okay, so when we find something in the New Testament, we should look for a foreshadowing in the Old Testament. We coincidentally find keys in Isaiah 22, so we then try to understand the historical context of these keys.
They were given to the prime minister by the king when he left the kingdom and he would be placed in charge during the king's absence. Of course, if the prime minister died, the keys were passed on to the new prime minister.
Okay, so for you to say "there is absolutely no scriptural evidence..." is patently absurd. You so want it to not be so that you are willing to sacrifice reason. Like a liberal, you simply don't want to be confused with facts.
What you could say is that you can see that there is indeed scriptural evidence but you choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your understanding of the Church Christ founded.
John,
You said, "There was nothing wrong with my catechesis..."
What I said, was "The catechesis you received must have been awful."
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since there are two viable options:
1. You left because you did not really and truly understand what the Catholic Church really is, believing it to be something of your own misunderstanding.
2. You know darn well and believe that the Church was founded by Christ Himself and has been protected from teaching error on Faith and Morals yet you decided to leave anyway. That would be apostasy.
You also said, "And yes, I had a very clear understanding of the "Eucharist"."
Well, that's nice, but it does not negate what I said. My comment was, "Well, you certainly never came to believe in the Eucharist or you never would have left."
Notice that my observation was that you would never have left if you had come to believe in the Euchrarist. You may have had a clear understanding of the Eucharist, but your actions display a complete lack of faith in the Eucharist.
Mind you, I am not condemning you in the slightest, since you cannot come to believe unless it is given to you by our Father in heaven.
There are many who know a lot about Jesus Christ, but they do not really know Him. Jesus said, " many will say to me 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...and I will say to them, 'get thee away from me...I never knew you..."
Isaiah 22:22 The key of the house of David
I will lay on his shoulder;
So he shall open, and no one shall shut;
And he shall shut, and no one shall open.
23 I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place,
And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.
Revelation 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”
Those passages are referring to Jesus, that's why I don't accept your scriptural analysis of the steward.
Leo, you are trying to be so very Christ-like, telling me everything I have ever done and believed (John 4:28)
Except you are consistently wrong about it.
There is a third viable option. I really and truly knew and understood everything the Roman Catholic Church said about itself; after a careful reading of Scripture, I decided to reject it as false. I was devout; I considered becoming a priest, and I attended Opus Dei "evenings of recollection" for two years. And I assure you, "the catechesis I received" through Opus Dei was only in the sense that it was purely Roman Catholic.
Nevertheless, I confess Jesus Christ as Lord -- I am saved by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone, and Soli Deo Gloria.
Now, what else would you like to tell us about my history.
I said: And I assure you, "the catechesis I received" through Opus Dei was only in the sense that it was purely Roman Catholic.
Should have been: And I assure you, "the catechesis I received" through Opus Dei was awful only in the sense that it was purely Roman Catholic.
John,
You said, "Nobody who has studied this issue in the slightest even really denies this any more."
Wow, you and Jennie must have gone to the same school of absolutism...
I find it amazing that you can so flippantly take a stance that says, in essence, "you are an idiot if you don't believe as I do."
Let me remind you that you have not even read one-tenth of one percent of the writings contained in the Vatican archives.
I am challenging you by saying you do not really know the Catholic Church.
I also have a question for you. Is there any teaching on Faith and Morals that you have a problem with? Please answer that for me, as it will better help me to understand where you are coming from.
John,
You said, "Leo, you are trying to be so very Christ-like, telling me everything I have ever done and believed (John 4:28)
Except you are consistently wrong about it."
Really? Then tell me where I am wrong. Did you ever truly believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?
You also said, "There is a third viable option. I really and truly knew and understood everything the Roman Catholic Church said about itself; after a careful reading of Scripture, I decided to reject it as false."
Sorry, John, but that is apostasy.
Let's go back to Webster's:
apostasy: 1. renunciation of a religious faith.
2. abandonment of a previous loyalty.
Once again, please explain where I have misspoken.
Let me make one thing clear, by the way. I am not questioning your faith in Jesus Christ or the state of your soul. I just claim to understand the Catholic Faith a whole lot better than you do, by the grace of God. The Church has been filled with heretics and those who wish to destroy it from within. Catechesis in the Church has been awful overall for the last several decades. My only point is to challenge you to look again.
You can ask Jennie about my often 'tongue-in-cheek', 'in your face' approach to get the juices flowing. I regard you as a fellow child of God, albeit somewhat misinformed... ;-)
Leo, would you agree that a person may say all kinds of good things about faith and morals and yet be a murderer, a thief, and a liar?
The Roman Catholic Church isn't a person, but it's hierarchy over the centuries has been all these things, and I don't trust it. I was reminded earlier today of a quote by Catholic historian Lord Acton about the papacy: "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Leo said: Then tell me where I am wrong.
Ok then. These personal statements about me from you are all incorrrect:
Well, you certainly never came to believe in the Eucharist or you never would have left.
The catechesis you received must have been awful.
You also further qualified the first of those statements:
Notice that my observation was that you would never have left if you had come to believe in the Euchrarist. You may have had a clear understanding of the Eucharist, but your actions display a complete lack of faith in the Eucharist.
I find it fascinating that we have been interacting on a blog for about one day, never having met in person, and you are willing to make all sorts of fairly dogmatic (if not outright dogmatic) statements about what I would have believed or must have believed.
But in truth, everything you have said is simply a figment of your imagination. You have no idea about the devotion I had, you had no idea about what I believed or understood. You have just simply made assumptions.
This is how the whole Roman Catholic religion seems to operate.
Also, you are fairly emphatic about this:
Well, sorry, but let's look at the definition from Webster's:
heretic: A dissenter from established Roman Catholic Church dogma
But the truth is, the dictionary lists definitions according to their earliest usage. But it's not as if Webster is giving its sanction to "established Roman Catholic Church dogma" as if it were true. It's just stating the one definition in terms of the other.
And so, from my perspective, "established Roman Catholic Church dogma" is not binding on a biblical Christian, and so, being called a heretic in that respect is quite meaningless as well.
John, it is interesting that you quote Eamon Duffy. I am curious if you have in fact read the book from which take the quote. I think you should.
Yikes. From which you take the quote.
Jennie,
You said, "Leo, would you agree that a person may say all kinds of good things about faith and morals and yet be a murderer, a thief, and a liar?"
Of course, and now I think that you are getting to the heart of the matter. If a doctor tells you that smoking is bad for you, that you should lose weight and you should exercise, yet himself is seriously overweight, a smoker and a couch potato, does that negate the correctness of his advice? Of course it does not.
The Church is directly protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error regarding Faith and Morals, in the same way that the Gospel writers were protected from writing error.
Any priest or bishop, including the pope, is merely human and possesses a sinful nature. This does not prevent them from administering the Sacraments validly.
In addition, the Holy Father is the only person on earth who is protected from ever teaching error when it comes to Faith and Morals.
Pope Benedict goes to Confession at least once per week, since he cannot forgive his own sins. He must humble himself before a priest in order to receive the graces of the Sacrament.
John,
You said, "But the truth is, the dictionary lists definitions according to their earliest usage."
No, actually, the dictionary lists definitions according to the most common usage.
Let's start with the word heretic.
By your own admission, you have left the Church that has clearly defined dogmas and beliefs. You now belong to some undefined group as a Christian according to your own blog, as far as I can see.
You cannot be a heretic unless you have a clear set of dogmas to begin with.
John,
You said, "I find it fascinating that we have been interacting on a blog for about one day, never having met in person, and you are willing to make all sorts of fairly dogmatic (if not outright dogmatic) statements about what I would have believed or must have believed.
But in truth, everything you have said is simply a figment of your imagination. You have no idea about the devotion I had, you had no idea about what I believed or understood. You have just simply made assumptions."
John, you happen to have a blog that says an awful lot about you and what you believe, assuming that you are being honest, which I believe to be the case.
Let me restate what I said. If you really believed that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, then leaving the Eucharist would be the same as leaving Jesus Christ and I do not believe that you would do that. That is actually a compliment to you and your integrity.
You see, when I say 'Amen' before receiving the Eucharist, I am assenting with every fiber of my being that it is Jesus incarnated in the flesh and I am praying for the strength to be able to give my very life to defend that Truth if necessary.
Incidentally, there are many who go through the motions and have a devotion without the underlying faith. It is not the same thing.
You left because you do not believe that this is so. You are not alone either, because many of Jesus' disciples left Him over that very teaching. I am not condemning you for that; I am just stating that you clearly do not believe that the Consecrated host is Jesus Christ. Tell me that this is not true.
Also, I asked a simple question. Is there any Church teaching on Faith and Morals that you disagree with? I ask this question for a reason. When people leave the Catholic Faith after truly believing, it is virtually always because they have some core issue with her teaching on morality.
Most often it relates to Church teaching on divorce or artificial contraception.
John -- I have not read the entire book; I've read portions of it, and I have it here in my hand. Is there something to which you'd like to direct my attention?
John,
You also said, "And so, from my perspective, "established Roman Catholic Church dogma" is not binding on a biblical Christian,"
That is correct. Notice that when the Holy Father teaches the faithful, there are certain requirements for Catholic Christians and others for non-Catholic Christians.
More is expected of Catholics precisely because of the grace of the Sacraments. There is nothing that we do of ourselves. It is all grace working through us in Christ Jesus.
John, I am just sad that you left the Church and I can only pray for your return someday.
Leo said: No, actually, the dictionary lists definitions according to the most common usage.
Let me quote from the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary that I have handy. It says, under the heading "Order of Senses" (pg 19). This is a 1989 edition but I don't imagine they have changed this:
The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first. This is not to be taken to mean, however, that each sense of a multisense word developed from the immediately preceding sense. It is altogether possible that sense 1 of a word has given rise to sense 2 and sense 2 to sense 3, but frequently sense 2 and sense 3 may have arisen independently of one another from sense 1.
It's silly that I have to do this, but I am not interesting in quibbling over words with you.
The Church is directly protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error regarding Faith and Morals, in the same way that the Gospel writers were protected from writing error.
And who came up with that teaching, Leo? the same hierarchy of which I said many were murderers, liars, and thieves? The bible doesn't say that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error regarding faith and morals. The Bible does, however, constantly warn the church against false teaching, so it must be possible for the church to fall into this.
And I wasn't just referring to individual popes,bishops or priests being sinners, but the system of the papacy that developed the web of lies that upholds it and that systematically murdered thousands of faithful Christians who accepted the authority of God's word over the pope's. Doesn't this bother you Leo? You seem to be shaking it off very easily and excusing it. Jesus says in Revelation 18:4 to His people about the Harlot of Bablyon that persecuted the people of God:
And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.
This shows that some of God's people are within the false church that has been unfaithful to her Husband, and are being called out so they don't share in her judgment for killing the people of God that held to the testimony of Jesus.
Leo -- I will take it too, that you are being honest when you say:
John, I am just sad that you left the Church and I can only pray for your return someday.
But I have not left Christ. Nor have I left "the one true church." I have a high priest who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Therefore, I may "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Yes, I reject Rome's characterization of what the one true church is -- both the pre-Vatican II characterization of this, as well as the post -- that "This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
As you may have seen from the links I have provided, I think the whole concept of "successor" is part historical anachronism, and part fiction.
I am a member of a PCA church, which subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
http://www.puritanboard.com/confessions/wcf.htm
Steven Wedgeworth, whose blog I follow, wrote a good paragraph about the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail over the church:
When Jesus says that His Church is invincible, He really means it. It is, in fact, not possible to defeat His Church. You can at least imagine a reality (though I do not believe it is consistent with God’s revealed Will in regards to mission and evangelism) wherein all true living Christians were physically killed. You cannot imagine a reality where all true Christians (living or dead) are spiritually killed.
Jesus’ Church is one, no matter how many denominations are in use. The sectarian solution is to say that other groups are simply not the Church. That’s tidy enough, but no one believes it. The catholic solution is to say that wherever the Holy Spirit is (and He goes where He pleases) there is the Body of Christ on earth, and wherever the Body of Christ is, there is the Church.
http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/apostolic-succession-and-civic-freedom-part-one/#comment-2945
He's one of those guys who uses the word "catholic" in its original sense. Leo, you should note the way it's listed in the dictionary.
Leo said: Also, I asked a simple question. Is there any Church teaching on Faith and Morals that you disagree with? I ask this question for a reason. When people leave the Catholic Faith after truly believing, it is virtually always because they have some core issue with her teaching on morality. Most often it relates to Church teaching on divorce or artificial contraception.
This is none of your business, but I have been married to one woman for more than 23 years, we were married in the Roman Catholic Church, we have six children, and we never practiced artificial contraception.
I reject the Roman Catholic Church because of what it teaches.
I've put up a new post this evening: a prophetic reading of Luke 22:35-53 which I believe refers both to the sufficiency of Scripture and to the papacy as the 'successors of Peter'.
John, had you read the Eamon Duffy work you would see that his views do not coincide with yours. In fact what Mr. Duffy was saying in the quote you give is that the early history is somewhat cloudy. His views of the papacy are in fact in no real sense in agreement with yours. In his preface he gives his opinion of the papacy most clearly, "For Roman Catholics (of whom I am one), the story of the popes is a crucial dimension of the story of the providential care of God for humankind in history, the neccessary and (on the whole) proper development of powers and responsibilities implicit in the nature of the Church itself."
Further reading shows that Duffy does not doubt the papacy while making it clear that others may doubt. He is very clear that the papacy as the office heading the Church makes sense in reality and in history. Before you quote further from his works, you owe it to us and yourself to read them in their entirety.
John,
You are a rarity indeed because of how you left the Church. As I said earlier, the vast majority only leave because of issues with some teaching on Faith and Morals. You are thus an exception.
By the way, congratulations on the 23 years and 6 children. My wife and I have been married 32 years and we also have 6 children and 2 grandchildren so far. Our oldest son just got engaged Saturday and he will work on catching his older sister.
What puzzles me about your comments is your view of the Catholic Church and what she really teaches. Everyone who is baptized according to the Trinitarian formula is a member of the Church. We become restored to the family of God by virtue of the Sacrament and God's grace working through it.
The Church is here to protect the deposit of Faith and thus you will never find a change in any teaching on Faith and Morals. Every Christian denomination outside of the core Church has changed teachings in those areas. The Church is also here to teach the Faithful regarding new technologies when they affect morality. No other body does that.
The Church is the only organization that stands against injustices of the state thoughout the world. This is why the Communists tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II.
Look, we can all go to contradictory historical sources with reckless abandon. Show me one thing in your lifetime that any of the popes have done that is contrary to holiness and the truest sense of what it means to be a Christian. Granted, it is only a sample of perhaps 2% of the Christian era, but it is unadulterated by anyone else's rewrite of history because you yourself have lived through it.
John,
By the way, regarding the order of definitions in the dictionary, I am glad you brought that up.
Here is the most commonly accepted understanding:
"Further, each word may have multiple meanings. A dictionary typically includes each separate meaning in the order of most common usage."
However, as you pointed out, the Webster's Edition you used did it a different way. The author of the book has the authority to determine everything about the book and what the meanings are.
So too, the Bible is a book of the Church and the Holy Spirit guides both the same way for the sake of the faithful.
Here is an accurate picture of the earliest church in Rome: A clear picture of Christian house worship in Rome during the first two centuries.
Leo: You are a rarity indeed because of how you left the Church. As I said earlier, the vast majority only leave because of issues with some teaching on Faith and Morals. You are thus an exception.
I don't know. Lots and lots of people leave the Roman Catholic church. I've written about that here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-flux-away-from-rome-toward.html
There is in truth a great flux away from the Roman catholic church to Protestantism in the United states. 30 million people now in the US define themselves as ex roman catholics; half are unafililiated with no church and 15 million like me are now Protestants.
So there are at least 15 million Catholics-turned-Protestant (in the US alone -- that's not counting the mass exodus in Latin America, for example) who might be leaving the RCC for religious reasons.
What puzzles me about your comments is your view of the Catholic Church and what she really teaches.
The "Catholic Church" experienced doctrinal confusion as early as 1 Clement (i.e., T.F. Torrance traces his misunderstanding of the Pauline concept of Grace -- he was practically a Pelagian before Pelagius -- and he also flatly contradicted the writer of Hebrews on the topic of "sacrifice.") But things really started going off the rails in the Christological disputes, and the embrace of "Mother of God" language. I think this can be demonstrated. The papacy itself was a usurpation that, to paraphrase Calvin, "through which Satan has polluted every good thing that God has given us for salvation." And there was massive error in the adoption of images at Nicea II (787). And of course, it anathematized "Paul's Gospel" at Trent.
The Church is here to protect the deposit of Faith and thus you will never find a change in any teaching on Faith and Morals.
The Church rather seems more focused on rationalizing its own errors (as I've mentioned above).
The Church is the only organization that stands against injustices of the state thoughout the world.
Some of its stances are admirable. But it's by far not "the only" organization that stands against the injustices of the state. But what's worse is that the willingness of the bishops merely to shuffle around the sexual predatory priests is just an abdication of any moral authority that they may have had.
The Church rather seems more focused on rationalizing its own errors (as I've mentioned above).
I've noticed that Catholic Apologists spend most of their time trying to find scriptural or historical support for the errors of Rome, rather than defending the faith passed down by the Apostles.
Funny how we see things different. Put protestant in place of Catholic in your last comment and you know how I see things. I can at least agree that we can disagree in peace.
I can say one thing with absolute certainty. At the moment of death every knee shall bend and every tongue profess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that's not all. All will recognize that the Catholic Church(warts and all) is the Church that Jesus Christ founded and all will answer to how they have treated both her and the Blessed Mother as well.
Culpability will be based on knowledge and sincerity of heart, but rest assured that our Lord will not simply wink at attaks on His human mother or His bride, the Church.
John,
Most Catholics lose their faith because they practice artificial contraception while receiving the Eucharist, or they divorce and remarry. Receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord while refusing to obey Church teaching is a sacrilege and loss of Faith is a distinct possibility.
I still hold that you have NOT been properly catechized no matter what you believe. I can assure you that I would have left the Church a long time ago if I believed what you believe about it.
There is no way a sincere person seeking God can ever leave if they believe in their heart of hearts that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ in the flesh. Impossible...
By the way, there are many Catholics who wish the Church were perfect. I tell them that we should thank God that it is not, for if it were, none of us would be allowed to join...
You can go through the centuries of the Church and find heresies and error abundantly in its hierarchy. One saint many centuries ago, wrote to the pope that he could not find a single priest or bishop in all of Germany who was not living openly in sin and sexual immorality.
What you are all missing is that you don't leave Jesus and Peter because of Judas.
Leo,
leaving the RCC is not leaving Jesus and Peter. Again, Jesus in Revelation 18 calls His people out of the unfaithful woman of Babylon (which Peter himself called Rome, remember, in code) so they don't share in her sins and her judgment at the end. That's been one of the main burdens on me here.
In the chapter before, Rev. 17, John describes the Woman of Babylon, the false unfaithful wife, who is drunk with the blood of the saints and who is dressed in purple and scarlet, who unites with the governments of the world instead of depending upon her Husband. The main church that has done this is Rome, though chapter 17 says she is a mother and has daughters as well. Everyone who hears had better take heed and come out, since the signs are that the end is not far now.
Okay, Jennie,
You speak so matter of factly how the Church unites itself to world governments, so...give me one example of a nation that supports either what the Catholic Church teaches or the Church itself. The world hates the Church precisely because she is aligned with Jesus Christ.
Again, let's just work in our lifetime and the things that you yourself have witnessed. The fact is that all of the nations, like you, would just like the Catholic Church to go away. I'll tell you, it would sure frighten me to think that I was on the same side as Iraq, Russia, China, Obama, Clinton, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada,...oh, you get the point...I hope...
It sad that there are Christians that are caught up in all this endtimes nonsense. They have figured out Revelation and Daniel and the rest of the biblical literature, convinced themselves the end is coming soon, named the antichrist, and see every news story as proof of their belief. On this blog you even once cited a website to support your understanding written by someone that has played the tired numbers/letters game and figured out that Obama may in fact be the antichrist. The end may be soon or it may be centuries in the future. God knows.
John,
You are correct. No one knows the day or the hour...What we should all be worried about is the fact that the end will come soon enough for each of us and that is what we are to be preparing for.
John B.,
You claim to have been a Catholic in every sense of the word and came to believe later that basically the Eucharist is not really Jesus and Mary no longer is of any importance and so you can ignore her.
Another point for you to ponder...if you truly came to see yourself as part of the family of God with Mary appointed as our spiritual Mother, you would not just simply walk away.
Let me give you an analogy. Let's say that someone told you after many years that you were really adopted and that your mother was never really your birth mother and your brothers and sisters are not related to you by blood.
You would not simply abandon your family, because they were really your family in every sense of the word. You would also go to them to find out if it was true. Oh yes, John, we can speak directly to our brothers and sisters and Blessed Mother in heaven just as we can to our Lord and Savior. They would still remain your family, even though you might be angry for feeling lied to.
Once you develop an actual relationship with Mary and the angels and Saints, you cannot just simply abandon them...that is, of course, if they were ever real to you in the first place.
Let me give you another example. We lost a daughter through miscarriage, several years ago, so we really have 7 children, one of whom we have not seen. However, I am certain that she is in heaven and she is quite really for me and prays for us constantly.
quite real for me...sorry...
John B.,
I doubt if you will read this since it is so long after your post, but I have finally read some of your links. It is interesting that you accuse the Church of specious arguments when that is exactly what you are using yourself. Just read the actual documents about Ireland and you will see that the documents said that the teaching of the Church was quite clear, whether the bishops followed it or not.
Jennie, you should read some of it for yourself and you will see. By the way, another interesting point is this. There is a great way to determine if a priest or bishop is a holy man of God. If he is, he will never speak badly of our Blessed Mother or of the Holy Father. If he honors both, that is a good sign.
One thing in common with the bad bishops is that they have the same dislike of the Holy Father that you have. That should certainly give you pause...
Leo,
It doesn't surprise me that 'bad bishops' would dislike the pope, since he is their authority and they are in rebellion. It doesn't follow that protestants are in the same category as 'bad bishops' since the pope is not our authority, nor are we doing the same things as they are. If we are living holy lives according to scripture and repenting of our sins, then you can't compare us to
sinful priests.
Greetings,
Please forgive me as I have not had the time to read through all the comments. I hope I'm not repeating someone else's point.
Early on Leo said...
3. It is clear that Jesus gave Peter an authority which he did not give to the other 11. When He said to Peter, " I give you alone the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
It's important to note that even my old The Holy Bible Catholic Action Edition - Confraternity Text (1953) does not say that Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone as Leo has stated it:
19 And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The word alone is read into the passage eisegetically, thereby ensuring that the other apostles would not take part in the authority that Christ had granted to them all.
In addition, the Greek reads this way:
Matthew 16:19 (Young's Literal Translation)
19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'
The Protestant take on the original is that the activity of binding and loosing has already taken place in heaven by God's decree from all eternity in His master plan. Notice how the phrases are tensed:
shall be having been bound / shall having been loosed
In their spiritual activity under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the apostles would be confirming in power and space-time the eternal decrees of the sovereign God of the universe which had already been established from eternity.
Post a Comment