The Harm Caused by Excessive Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and Other Denominations

RileyG · Jul 5, 2025

Ivan Hlavanda said:
Of course we are all sinners, and we must be always loving. But there is also Church discipline, and there are also those who do not want to repent of their sin.

Look at what our Lord says to the sinful churches in revelation. 'Repent or else I will be against you'. If the Lord is against you, you are in enormous trouble.

It is not wise to be quiet when there is sin in Church. I know of a church that allowed a preacher who lived in an adultary without repentance. Guess what happened. The chuch fell.

Even the apostles were not quiet.

Look at all these worldly churches today who live in rebellion to Lord. Gay marriages, Christians supporting abortions, false gospel, female pastors. The church became soft in the western world. Because we are scared to offend. But the word of God is a sharp sword.

Cheap grace is preached today. Pray this and this and God will forgive you and then you can live however you want.

Christians living is sin, because 'we are under grace, we are not under law' so we can do whatever we want. You think God is going to be with such rebellious people?

I agree. Repentance and amendment is absolutely necessary. Very well said.

boughtwithaprice · Jul 5, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
Well the whole premise of this particular thread is refraining from excessive criticism of other denominations. So in this particular thread I would refrain from such criticism whereas in other threads I would feel more inclined to engage more freely in discussions without refraining. Anybody who knows me here in CF knows I have absolutely no problems speaking my mind.

Then I say well met BNR32FAN, well met

ralliann · Jul 5, 2025

Ivan Hlavanda said:
Of course we are all sinners, and we must be always loving. But there is also Church discipline, and there are also those who do not want to repent of their sin.

Look at what our Lord says to the sinful churches in revelation. 'Repent or else I will be against you'. If the Lord is against you, you are in enormous trouble.

It is not wise to be quiet when there is sin in Church. I know of a church that allowed a preacher who lived in an adultary without repentance. Guess what happened. The chuch fell.

Even the apostles were not quiet.

Look at all these worldly churches today who live in rebellion to Lord. Gay marriages, Christians supporting abortions, false gospel, female pastors. The church became soft in the western world. Because we are scared to offend. But the word of God is a sharp sword.

Cheap grace is preached today. Pray this and this and God will forgive you and then you can live however you want.

Christians living is sin, because 'we are under grace, we are not under law' so we can do whatever we want. You think God is going to be with such rebellious people?

Don't some just lose their light in the world, rather than destruction?
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Ivan Hlavanda · Jul 5, 2025

ralliann said:
Don't some just lose their light in the world, rather than destruction?
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Read what Lord said to the church in Sardis

Fervent · Jul 5, 2025

RileyG said:
Especially since many of us do have a deep relationship with Christ within the RCC

It's been my experience that a lot of Catholic practices and liturgical elements facillitate a personal relationship in ways often absent from Protestantism, to the point that what many Protestants define as a personal relationship is far more anemic or wantonly irresponsible. Either the soberness of pursuing stale academic doctines, or the chaos of Pentecostal displays of abandon. Little of the depth to be found in the more traditional approaches that allow for the whole person to be engaged, not just the ecstatic or the academic. Not that such expressions aren't sincere, but to me they appear to be lacking.

chevyontheriver · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
I appreciate your acknowledging as much.

There is a practical element, and just about every functional denomination adopts some sort of eldership ...

Elders, AKA presbyters, AKA priests are Biblical. As are overseers, AKA bishops.

Fervent said:
... so as far as I'm concerned the ecclesial issue isn't exclusively about governmental structure, ...

It is about authority.

Fervent said:
... but special claims like the claim of an unbroken apostolic succession of Roman bishops

Eusebius the historian listed succession of bishops for multiple patriarchates. It's not just the Roman diocese.

Fervent said:
... and other ecclesial positions that provide the appearance that clergy are more sanctified than lay believers rather than simply serving an adminsterial function.

More sanctified they are definitely not. We should know better to put them on pedestals, but then a really good one comes along and disrupts us into thinking that the next ones will be just as good. We do this with clergy, but also relatives. Recently deceased Fred or Lucile may have been far from Christ but get proclaimed as looking down on us from heaven during their funerals.

It's not just an administerial function. In fact many parishes hire an administrator. It is community leadership, but probably even more just serving as a community guarantor to be sure the community stays on mission and stays true to the Lord.

Fervent said:
I find myself far more amenable to the Orthodox commitment to "first among equals", but for historical reasons I'm not persuaded about claims about monarchical episcopal governance as an exclusive expression of ecclesial governance.

One way around this is to consider a bishop with his curia. A bishop with priests whose job is to work on different functions or to advise within the diocese. Or the pope with his cardinals, who advise and administer and even vote on his successor. It's somewhat like the Orthodox idea of synodality. (Note I am not speaking of whatever 'synodality' meant to pope Francis. He made that up all on his own.)

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
Elders, AKA presbyters, AKA priests are Biblical. As are overseers, AKA bishops.

Church polity in the Bible appears more varied than strictly monarchical bishopric. Those offices are certainly found in the Bible, but overall polity appears to have been left to the local church. An example is careful attention to clues about Corinth's polity seems to reveal a more or less congregationalist approach.

chevyontheriver said:
It is about authority.

Yeah, of course.

chevyontheriver said:
Eusebius the historian listed succession of bishops for multiple patriarchates. It's not just the Roman diocese.

I'm aware, but Eusebius was writing after polity had shifted to more centralized leadership in the monarchical episcopal system.

chevyontheriver said:
More sanctified they are definitely not. We should know better to put them on pedestals, but then a really good one comes along and disrupts us into thinking that the next ones will be just as good. We do this with clergy, but also relatives. Recently deceased Fred or Lucile may have been far from Christ but get proclaimed as looking down on us from heaven during their funerals.

Fair enough

chevyontheriver said:
It's not just an administerial function. In fact many parishes hire an administrator. It is community leadership, but probably even more just serving as a community guarantor to be sure the community stays on mission and stays true to the Lord.

Ok

chevyontheriver said:
One way around this is to consider a bishop with his curia. A bishop with priests whose job is to work on different functions or to advise within the diocese. Or the pope with his cardinals, who advise and administer and even vote on his successor. It's somewhat like the Orthodox idea of synodality. (Note I am not speaking of whatever 'synodality' meant to pope Francis. He made that up all on his own.)

Sure, but there's still a distinct stratification of believers that I find objectionable. It's not as rigid as it was pre-Vatican II but it still puts me off. Though the bigger issue for me are the historic ones, with the various anti-popes and the Avignon captivity. Unbroken Apostolic succession just isn't a belief I can adopt in good conscience, though I do not mean my personal inability as an attempt to dissuade others who are convinced of it.

chevyontheriver · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
Sure, but there's still a distinct stratification of believers that I find objectionable.

There IS a stratification as to function. After all, we are not all eyes or noses, but together we constitute a whole body. The stratification you should be objecting to is a stratification of holiness. We are all called to holiness, even perfection. Not many of us get very far on that.

Fervent said:
It's not as rigid as it was pre-Vatican II but it still puts me off.

There are examples of holiness from all sorts of people. There were before Vatican II, but more now.

Fervent said:
Though the bigger issue for me are the historic ones, with the various anti-popes and the Avignon captivity.

The Avignon thing was mere stupidity. And a saint, St. Catherine of Siena, called the pope home. The multiple claimants to be pope was mere politics. We have even a few people today, right now, claiming to be popes.

Fervent said:
Unbroken Apostolic succession just isn't a belief I can adopt in good conscience, though I do not mean my personal inability as an attempt to dissuade others who are convinced of it.

Maybe if you look at it as the community with her appointed leader in continuity. I knew a guy who thought apostolic succession meant that the dying pope had to appoint his successor to keep succession going. Nope. There is a period of time where the see is vacant. And then it gets filled. Now it's by cardinals voting, those cardinals being pastors of the various parishes of the Roman diocese. Before, sometimes it was by acclamation. Always it was by the diocese picking it's next pope because the diocese held the faith of the deceased bishop.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
There IS a stratification as to function. After all, we are not all eyes or noses, but together we constitute a whole body. The stratification you should be objecting to is a stratification of holiness. We are all called to holiness, even perfection. Not many of us get very far on that.

There is a stratification in function, but that stratification doesn't require a specific polity.

chevyontheriver said:
There are examples of holiness from all sorts of people. There were before Vatican II, but more now.

I agree, and Lumen Gentium was a dramatic shift in ecclesial understanding that addressed a lot of my more serious issues, but there still remains a separation that I find myself uncomfortable with.

chevyontheriver said:
The Avignon thing was mere stupidity. And a saint, St. Catherine of Siena, called the pope home. The multiple claimants to be pope was mere politics. We have even a few people today, right now, claiming to be popes.

Sure, but the fact that the papacy has been subject to ordinary political controversies puts a damper on notions of unbroken Apostolic succession.

chevyontheriver said:
Maybe if you look at it as the community with her appointed leader in continuity. I knew a guy who thought apostolic succession meant that the dying pope had to appoint his successor to keep succession going. Nope. There is a period of time where the see is vacant. And then it gets filled. Now it's by cardinals voting, those cardinals being pastors of the various parishes of the Roman diocese. Before, sometimes it was by acclamation. Always it was by the diocese picking it's next pope because the diocese held the faith of the deceased bishop.

That raises an additional issue in the historic approaches to the appointment of bishops, but I'd rather not get into it. Suffice it to say, Apostolic succession is an article of faith and its not one that I am able to subscribe to because to me it appears to involve counterfactual beliefs or saving hyptheses.

caffeinated.hermit · Jul 6, 2025

I read an experience / dream from a user on here in which his deceased Presbyterian pastor appeared to him in a dream and let him know that the Catholic Church is the *closest to* the truth. That's kind of how I would see it, too. Things are not quite as perfect as many Catholic apologists claim, perhaps. But they are pretty darn close, they do go back 2,000 years, and (for me, this is the biggest evidence, imho) they arguably have the best Saints.

They've got saints who are hermits, ascetics, recluses, social workers, married people, kids who enjoyed video games, little children, and misunderstood holy men on the autism spectrum who could fly. That's... pretty inclusive.

Having said that... claims of "extra Ecclesium nulla salus" from both the East and the West also seem to have changed a bit over the centuries. Leaving me to think that, maybe, who Christ can and will save might be a bit more expansive than many of us realize.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

caffeinated.hermit said:
I read an experience / dream from a user on here in which his deceased Presbyterian pastor appeared to him in a dream and let him know that the Catholic Church is the *closest to* the truth. That's kind of how I would see it, too. Things are not quite as perfect as many Catholic apologists claim, perhaps. But they are pretty darn close, they do go back 2,000 years, and (for me, this is the biggest evidence, imho) they arguably have the best Saints.

Maybe, though close really only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. My view is that any church that does not exhaust the Body of Christ is not the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Though I do appreciate the Orthodox view of catholicity, which involves the local bishop and congregation in mystical unity with all believer's through the presence of Christ among them.

caffeinated.hermit said:
They've got saints who are hermits, ascetics, recluses, social workers, married people, kids who enjoyed video games, little children, and misunderstood holy men on the autism spectrum who could fly. That's... pretty inclusive.

Certainly, it's hard to honestly diminish the fact that there is true godliness among Catholics.

caffeinated.hermit said:
Have said that... claims of "extra Ecclesium nulla salus" from both the East and the West also seem to have changed a bit over the centuries. Leaving me to think that, maybe, who Christ can and will save might be a bit more expansive than many of us realize.

Amen.

caffeinated.hermit · Jul 6, 2025

For example... quotes like this really bother me :

"Christ is here, in our Orthodox Church, and He is not in any other church. Do not search for Him elsewhere, for you will not find Him. Therefore, if someone from a non-Orthodox assemblage comes to you and begins to suggest that they have Christ—do not believe it." : Saint Theophan the Recluse

I'm sure there are a ton of similar (probably older, pre-Vatican II) Catholic quotes out there that say the same, and we can all readily see the lovely things many Protestants say about Catholics on here. The Gospel's not that insanely complex, though. Trust in Christ and follow Him. Is everyone and every denomination doing that perfectly? No, and I do think that much of Protestantism is missing something that they threw out when they rejected Rome.

Still... Is a decent, God-fearing Baptist pastor who does his best with 90% of the Bible, believer's baptism, and prayer really in a worse position spiritually than a Catholic or Orthodox priest who's abusing children, parishioners, or pilgrims? I hope not. If he is, the Christian God is mad and can not be trusted. Another reason I incline more and more towards a hope in UR these days. Not that I'm perfect or have anything figured out, I'm pretty screwed up, too.

Which, I guess, kind of brings it back to the OP's point. Excessive criticism of Catholics and other Christians is stupid.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

caffeinated.hermit said:
For example... quotes like this really bother me :

"Christ is here, in our Orthodox Church, and He is not in any other church. Do not search for Him elsewhere, for you will not find Him. Therefore, if someone from a non-Orthodox assemblage comes to you and begins to suggest that they have Christ—do not believe it." : Saint Theophan the Recluse

Yes, I much prefer sentiments such as those expressed by the venerable Kalistos Ware, "We know where the church is but cannot be sure where it isn't." Still maintains the assurance of Orthodoxy without discrediting that there are genune believers who are only mystically connected.

caffeinated.hermit said:
I'm sure there are a ton of similar Catholic quotes out there that say the same, and we can all readily see the lovely things many Protestants say about Catholics on here. The Gospel's not that insanely complex, though. Trust in Christ and follow Him. Is everyone and every denomination doing that perfectly? No, and I do think that much of Protestantism is missing something that they threw out when the rejected Rome.

Vatican II was a dramatic leap towards ecumenicalism for the RCC, though there are certainly absolutist sentiments that were dominant prior and still persist.

caffeinated.hermit said:
Still... Is a decent, God-fearing Baptist pastor who does his best with 90% of the Bible, believer's baptism, and prayer really in a worse position spiritually than a Catholic or Orthodox priest who's abusing children, parishioners, or pilgrims? I hope not. If he is, the Christian God is mad and can not be trusted. Another reason I incline more and more towards a hope in UR these days. Not that I'm perfect or have anything figured out, I'm pretty screwed up, too.

Which, I guess, kind of brings it back to the OP's point. Excessive criticism of Catholics and other Christians is stupid.

Agreed. We must all give our own account, and so must follow our own conscience and how the Spirit leads us. We can advise, we can debate, we can edify. But to often such things turn into bickering and gamesmanship rather than being born of genuine concern for the individual.

caffeinated.hermit · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
Yes, I much prefer sentiments such as those expressed by the venerable Kalistos Ware, "We know where the church is but cannot be sure where it isn't."

Kalistos Ware is cool. David Bentley Hart is good, too. The EO have some really good folks. Honestly, I think it's men like them that'll do the most work toward getting everyone back together.

Fervent said:
Vatican II was a dramatic leap towards ecumenicalism for the RCC, though there are certainly absolutist sentiments that were dominant prior and still persist.

I get this impression from my Mom, too. I've shown her modern lectures from Ascension Presents, and she's flabbergasted. In a good way, but the messaging is nothing like what she grew up with in the 50s.

Fervent said:
Agreed. We must all give our own account, and so must follow our own conscience and how the Spirit leads us. We can advise, we can debate, we can edify. But to often such things turn into bickering and gamesmanship rather than being born of genuine concern for the individual.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

caffeinated.hermit said:
Kalistos Ware is cool. David Bentley Hart is good, too. The EO have some really good folks. Honestly, I think it's men like them that'll do the most work toward getting everyone back together.

In some ways, they are perhaps too generous in tolerating deviations from Orthodox theology. Though that is at least in part due to their approach to theology being largely apophatic.

caffeinated.hermit said:
I get this impression from my Mom, too. I've shown her modern lectures from Ascension Presents, and she's flabbergasted. In a good way, but the messaging is nothing like what she grew up with in the 50s.

Yes, there is a reason that Vatican II is still somewhat controversial. Sadly, a lot of Protestants have used it as anti-Catholic ammo rather than appreciating it as a genuine move towards re-unification.

caffeinated.hermit said:

chevyontheriver · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
Sure, but the fact that the papacy has been subject to ordinary political controversies puts a damper on notions of unbroken Apostolic succession.

Not liking that humans do human things in the course of their lives, I get it. But like it or not humans are political creatures. Drat! Almost everything has a political element. But then we should have expected Christianity and particularly the diocese of Rome to have crashed and burned way over a thousand years ago. It survived maybe ten bad popes, rotten individuals who may currently be roasting in hell.

Fervent said:
That raises an additional issue in the historic approaches to the appointment of bishops, but I'd rather not get into it. Suffice it to say, Apostolic succession is an article of faith and its not one that I am able to subscribe to because to me it appears to involve counterfactual beliefs or saving hyptheses.

It took me a long time to chew on my issues. Take your time. Revisit issues and see if there are new perspectives that you discover. I did have an issue with the bad popes. How can they lead the Church when they are rotten to the core? But then which distant corner of Christianity is immune to rotten clergy? The solution to that, for me, was the Catholic position on the Donatists.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
Not liking that humans do human things in the course of their lives, I get it. But like it or not humans are political creatures. Drat! Almost everything has a political element. But then we should have expected Christianity and particularly the diocese of Rome to have crashed and burned way over a thousand years ago. It survived maybe ten bad popes, rotten individuals who may currently be roasting in hell.

Look, I'm not interested in arguing you about your articles of faith. But that you can't seem to accept that I cannot, in good conscience, accept such an article of faith leads me to question how interested in ecumenicalism you truly are.

chevyontheriver said:
It took me a long time to chew on my issues. Take your time. Revisit issues and see if there are new perspectives that you discover. I did have an issue with the bad popes. How can they lead the Church when they are rotten to the core? But then which distant corner of Christianity is immune to rotten clergy? The solution to that, for me, was the Catholic position on the Donatists.

I've revisted issues many times, and I don't stand opposed to the Catholic Church I simply do not believe that the Body of Christ, and therefore the full measure of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church is exhausted within her boundaries. In many ways, my theology aligns more closely with the RCC and EO than Protestantism, but I remain a Protestant simply because I cannot in good conscience make a formal commitment to the ecclesiology involved. Had I been raised in one of them, perhaps I would have ended up fully committed as my concerns are trifling in the long run. But as things stand, my convictions do not allow me to embrace the full measure of such theologies.

chevyontheriver · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
Look, I'm not interested in arguing you about your articles of faith. But that you can't seem to accept that I cannot, in good conscience, accept such an article of faith leads me to question how interested in ecumenicalism you truly are.

I didn't see that nerve before I stepped on it. I didn't even think we were arguing.

Fervent · Jul 6, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
I didn't see that nerve before I stepped on it. I didn't even think we were arguing.

It's not a nerve, so much as a desire for restraint. I have my reasons for not believing in Apostolic succession as the EO and RCC understand it, and I don't think any good can come from our exploring those issues deeper than we already have. Let us each be convinced in our own minds, and embrace each other as brothers. If you must, pray my eyes be opened as at this point it would take a Divine message to convince me otherwise.

boughtwithaprice · Jul 6, 2025

Fervent said:
Look, I'm not interested in arguing you about your articles of faith. But that you can't seem to accept that I cannot, in good conscience, accept such an article of faith leads me to question how interested in ecumenicalism you truly are.

I've revisted issues many times, and I don't stand opposed to the Catholic Church I simply do not believe that the Body of Christ, and therefore the full measure of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church is exhausted within her boundaries. In many ways, my theology aligns more closely with the RCC and EO than Protestantism, but I remain a Protestant simply because I cannot in good conscience make a formal commitment to the ecclesiology involved. Had I been raised in one of them, perhaps I would have ended up fully committed as my concerns are trifling in the long run. But as things stand, my convictions do not allow me to embrace the full measure of such theologies.

Then you need to contemplate what your convictions allow you to embrace.

Do you think Jesus is able to build His own Church?

If He said it is the light of the world and the salt of the Earth, would it not be a visible Church?
If not, why not?

If it is not a visible Church, then how could we be sure that God had built it, and that it was not brought forth by the will of men? Where is it if we cannot see it?

If we only recognize it by our own conditions then how do we know we worship God, and not ourselves?

God calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him, not stand fast to ourselves and demand God follow us, with our convictions being the arbiter of divine grace.

When we pray the Our Father, we pray Thy will be done. This holds ourselves to be transformed in God’s image, not God to be transformed into ours or what we wish Him to be.

The clearest test of humility is obedience. Scripture says He gave some Apostles. We are to obey apostolic authority, else we make God a liar, and God is not a man that He should lie

The Harm Caused by Excessive Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and Other Denominations

Veteran

Legend

christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads