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

[ralliann]

Of course. A Body of Bible-believing Spirit-filled Christians who respect Jesus' Word, and endeavor to do the will of the Father and obey the commands of the Son - the *only* Head of His invisible Church.

Can you elaborate just a tad?

I am asking you how you view yourself as a member of a church, as church whole.?

 

[The Liturgist]

Personal Relationship:

The words of Jesus Christ recorded ~ 90-100 AD - by His beloved Apostle John through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit:

John 14:16-20
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever — the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you."

This Personal Relationship intended for us:

John 17:20
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word..."

His purpose for a Personal Relationship with us:

John 15:7-10
"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples."

“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."

Proof of a Personal Relationship with Him:

John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:"

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand."

The end for those who persist in mocking Jesus and His words:

Luke 9:26 (Written by the beloved physician referred to by the Apostle Paul ~ 60 AD):
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."

Believing in Jesus is not enough. Believing Jesus and walking in His Truth through His Spirit is everything.

Do you hear His voice and follow Him?

Jesus Christ said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we reverse the roles - if people falsely accused you of, for example, denying the Trinity, how would that make you feel?

For that matter, suppose someone suggested someone you cared about, who had recently died, should have been “run out of town on a rail”, wouldn’t you be greatly upset by that?

Now to be clear, I’m not Roman Catholic and I disagreed with much of what Pope Francis had to say, but many Roman Catholics found much of his preaching to be comforting even as they objected to problematic statements he was known to make.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You know, I should have mentioned in the OP that another area of harm comes from false allegations against the Roman Catholic Church and other traditional liturgical churches.

For example, in another thread a user made the … highly dubious suggestion.- to put it mildly, that the Roman Catholic Church historically prohibited members from owning a copy of the Bible in the vernacular, until Vatican II, which my copy of the Challoner Douai Rheims from 1955, and also the existence of the RSV Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Knox Bible and countless other translations demonstrates to be completely false, but this untruth is repeated.

My grandfather would have been shocked to know that he was not allowed to own a Bible before Vatican II. Like the one he owned. And a modern reader of that very same Bible might be shocked to find that there was printed just inside the front cover an indulgence for reading the Bible for even 15 minutes. And a plenary indulgence for reading the Bible for an hour.

But of course those people who say Catholics were not allowed to own a Bible got their facts from somewhere. Somewhere. English Catholic translations of the Bible go back all the way to Venerable Bede, back when English was pretty much a foreign language. The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible in English had to be printed in France and smuggled in because it was illegal in England. It was published before the KJV. Of course most copies of that original publishing were burned by Protestants. They wanted you reading THEIR Bible. And they fined you if you didn't show up in THEIR churches. That is when they didn't kill you for not being their kind of Protestant. Tyburn Tree in case you all are interested.

 

[Joseph G]

Jesus Christ said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we reverse the roles - if people falsely accused you of, for example, denying the Trinity, how would that make you feel?

For that matter, suppose someone suggested someone you cared about, who had recently died, should have been “run out of town on a rail”, wouldn’t you be greatly upset by that?

Now to be clear, I’m not Roman Catholic and I disagreed with much of what Pope Francis had to say, but many Roman Catholics found much of his preaching to be comforting even as they objected to problematic statements he was known to make.

And you still avoid discussing your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Nuff said.

Praying the Lord waters the seeds planted. God bless ya'll and have a stupendous day!

biblegateway.com

 

[ralliann]

Jesus Christ said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we reverse the roles - if people falsely accused you of, for example, denying the Trinity, how would that make you feel?

For that matter, suppose someone suggested someone you cared about, who had recently died, should have been “run out of town on a rail”, wouldn’t you be greatly upset by that?

Now to be clear, I’m not Roman Catholic and I disagreed with much of what Pope Francis had to say, but many Roman Catholics found much of his preaching to be comforting even as they objected to problematic statements he was known to make.

There is something about this, but I don't know how to phrase it, or give it a name. Catholics deal with their history. Even changes in views, for the good, are collective. An example, the admission that their position concerning Jew's was wrong. An ability as a collective body to repent. Protestantism today lacks this....They just walk away from the body, to form a new one, no need to repent. An attitude of no collective repentance, just a collective of the righteous. At least that is an aspect I think this phenomenon is. Maybe I am wrong to look at it this way?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Now to be clear, I’m not Roman Catholic and I disagreed with much of what Pope Francis had to say, but many Roman Catholics found much of his preaching to be comforting even as they objected to problematic statements he was known to make.

I survived him. Barely. Not by agreeing with him but by respecting his wrong-headed authority Much like Democrats once respected Republican presidents and Republicans respected Democratic presidents. Now, of course it's 'Off with their heads'. That's the mentality I see in this thread. Off with their heads, and off with the heads of anybody that doesn't shout "Off with their heads".

Pope Francis was right slightly more than a stopped clock, I do give him that. Perhaps some nugget from him will be found to endure. Not sure yet what that might even be. I'm just decompressing.

 

[The Liturgist]

And you still avoid discussing your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I tried to in another thread but you brushed me off.

By the way, are you the owner or co-owner of BibleGateway.com? i’m just curious why you include their URL in your signature.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And you still avoid discussing your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

From what I now know of your opinions, I'd suspect you would be laying some kind of trap. You have confirmed that your opinion of Catholics is that the only good Catholic is a former Catholic. So no matter my personal relationship with Jesus you would find it defective.

 

[The Liturgist]

Protestantism today lacks this

I wouldn’t say that about Protestantism as a whole. For example, Anglicans are deeply apologetic about their role in the mistreatment of various indigenous people in the British Empire. The Dutch church is apologetic for its role in the slave trade. The SBC, which is not a liturgical Protestant church but which is a respectable mainstream denomination, has apologized for its connection to slavery, for indeed the reason for the schism between it and the Northern Baptist Convention, which later became the American Baptist Convention, one of the “Seven Sisters” of the liberal mainline churches, involved the issue of slavery and whether or not it was morally acceptable, with the Northern Baptists like the Congregationalists taking an abolitionist stance.

(Actually one reason for my prior involvement in Congregationalism, my attempt to save the UCC from its self-destructive agenda, was driven by admiration of Congregationalist abolitionists in the 19th century, but this was a fool’s erand; in a church with a congregational polity the traditional congregations like Park Street Church had already left long ago, in the case of Park Street Church before the merger that created the UCC even happened, and joined the CCCC or other denominations). And I do love Park Street Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

You have confirmed that your opinion of Catholics is that the only good Catholic is a former Catholic.

Did someone in this thread actually say that, word for word?

 

[The Liturgist]

So no matter my personal relationship with Jesus you would find it defective.

In my case my remarks were dismissed because I cited the importance of the liturgy and the Eucharist, and my response showing the scripture supporting that view was brushed off, so I don’t see why I’m being asked to discuss the issue again, since clearly my perspective as an Orthodox Christian is being dismissed as effectively Roman Catholic by someone who hasn’t demonstrated an awareness of what Orthodox Christianity is, what the liturgy is, or why it matters.

What is particularly distressing about this is this comes at a time when the martyrdom of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians in the Middle East is intensifying, with the recent mass-murder of Antiochian Christians in Damascus. But they now have the most personal relationship with Christ our True God possible, for they have received the crown of martyrdom, like so many other Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Assyrian martyrs and confessors in the Middle East.

For Christ our True God promises that those who confess Him before men He will confess before the Father.

 

[ralliann]

I wouldn’t say that about Protestantism as a whole. For example, Anglicans are deeply apologetic about their role in the mistreatment of various indigenous people in the British Empire. The Dutch church is apologetic for its role in the slave trade. The SBC, which is not a liturgical Protestant church but which is a respectable mainstream denomination, has apologized for its connection to slavery, for indeed the reason for the schism between it and the Northern Baptist Convention, which later became the American Baptist Convention, one of the “Seven Sisters” of the liberal mainline churches, involved the issue of slavery and whether or not it was morally acceptable, with the Northern Baptists like the Congregationalists taking an abolitionist stance.

(Actually one reason for my prior involvement in Congregationalism, my attempt to save the UCC from its self-destructive agenda, was driven by admiration of Congregationalist abolitionists in the 19th century, but this was a fool’s erand; in a church with a congregational polity the traditional congregations like Park Street Church had already left long ago, in the case of Park Street Church before the merger that created the UCC even happened, and joined the CCCC or other denominations). And I do love Park Street Church.

What I mean is Today, not historically. But that was not made clear. I am talking of those who walk away. Start a new movement, Denomination etc. I am thinking this leaves less opportunity for being humbled. Walking away from one body, as "coming out if her" as an individual, and forming or becoming a part of another body, that is where the lord leads them in their personal walk with the Lord. Would it be wrong to see it that way.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It really is strange, but some people just seem to need an enemy to rail against and old polemics die hard.

This IS it!

Old Polemics die hard. And some people do need those enemies.

Though the principal issue is neither sola scriptura or sola fide, but the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture. In that teaching is the grounds for arrogant dismissal of other people's views because suddenly how one understands the Bible becomes not a matter of personal interpretation, but what God's word absolutely says.

What God's word absolutely says IN THEIR OWN MINDS.

The real crux of the Protestant Reformation(Revolt) was the rejection of the need for authorities to guide the teaching and interpretation of Scripture and the belief that all that is needed is achieving a basic reading level.

And yet these same people often slavishly follow their own human guides who tell them what Scripture means. That's how they come up with these low level polemics that don't really work but have been repeated for generations anyhow. Things often contrary to the Bible unless it is understood at a very basic reading level.

Most of these anti-Catholics don't identify themselves beyond saying they are 'Christian'. So we don't know, except for a few brave SDA folks who list their denomination, whose spell they are under. I remember one guy who was listing himself as just 'Christian' that when I found out it turns out he was pretty far into fringe cult land. I'm probably not critical enough to go after such people, but they sure do come after Catholics. If they had a clue about the Orthodox they would go after them even worse.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yep...that's a pretty good summary of how it works. It's one of the main reasons that Protestantism is so fracturous...perspicuity of the Scriptures doesn't allow for honest disagreement or differing perspectives. It doesn't allow us to discuss the Scripture and agree to disagree. It's either lock-step agreement, or you are opposed not to their opinion but the Bible itself. It's not simply a doctrinal dispute, it's rebellion against the Word of God.

Because every man is his own pope, more infallible than the pope of Rome would ever dream of being.

 

[The Liturgist]

Let's not forget the RCC found Jan Hus guilty of heresy for his efforts to preach in the vulgar tongue and his declaration of sola scriptura.

No, the reason why St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague were burned at the stake was their attempt to restore what had been lost in Czechia (but still existed in parts of Slovakia among the Rusyn people in the Tatras) after the Austrians conquered it - the Orthodox model of liturgical worship, which included preaching in a language the people could understand (which for some people in the 14th century, such as Italians, Latin would fit into that category, but for Slavs, Latin was incomprehensible; they were accustomed to worshipping in Church Slavonic, a pan-Slavic langauge designed for maximum mutual intelligibility, written primarily in an alphabet designed by St. Cyril based on the Greek alphabet (although in Croatia, some spoke Galgolithic, which difffered from Church Slavonic only in that it was written in a modified Gothic alphabet), and communion in both kinds (indeed, all of the Czech Protestant groups, from the most extreme Taborites, whose views were like those of future low church Protestants, to the most conservative Utraquists, agreed on the importance of the faithful receiving both the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist, rather than receiving only the Body). This is understandable, for a people who had 250 years previously been receiving in both kinds according to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; whereas in subsequent political events that resulted in Eastern Orthodox people becoming part of the Roman church, the Roman church ensured that Byzantine Rite worship was retained, for example, in the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the case of the conquest of Prague, that didn’t happen.

It is for this reason that the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague as martyrs.

That being said, the Roman church repented of that after Vatican II, although conversely I would argue that the reforms of Annibale Bugnini were poorly conceived and poorly implemented, and the 1965 missal and the 1967 Dominican breviary represent the intent of Sacrosanctum concilium (which I don’t agree with entirely, for example, the suppression of the ancient office of Prime, which was historically so important that people would learn to read and also learn the Latin language using the example of that office, with books called Primers; also Prime is particularly beautiful among the “Minor Hours” and the only ancient liturgical rites that lack it are the East Syriac Rite (which may have had it in the form of a lost monastic rite, but in the surviving rite, which is a cathedral rite, interestingly the Church of the East is the only church where the Islamic persecution resulted in the loss of the monastic rite rather than the cathedral rite, there are only the three ancient offices of Vespers, Compline and Matins, and then, oddly enough, and as far as I can tell, coincidentally, the West Syriac Rite, which has the Third, Sixth and Ninth hours but no First Hour. Although I am still researching to try to find out if that was always the case or the result of some abbreviation.

By the way nothing in this thread is intended as anti-Catholic polemic, for I love the Roman Catholic Church as should be evident; indeed I love all traditional liturgical churches, and even some non-liturgical churches.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Did someone in this thread actually say that, word for word?

In post 119 "I encourage all genuine brothers and sisters with a personal relationship with Jesus to flee from her."

So not word for word,

 

[Fervent]

This IS it!

Old Polemics die hard. And some people do need those enemies.

I grew up hearing some pretty nasty stuff about Catholics and how off their theology is, but upon my own inspection I found that nearly everything I was told was at best misrepresentations, at worst outright fabrications. I still hold disagreements, but I find myself holding a far more charitable view today.

What God's word absolutely says IN THEIR OWN MINDS.

Exactly the issue with perspicuity, it can't just be in their minds. It has to be the plain teaching of Scripture. Which is why my Protestant fellows are often willing to split at the drop of a hat. Don't like the music? We need a new church! Disagree with the Pastor on x,y, or z? We need a new church! The Scriptures are plain, anyone who disagrees with what we think it means must be an enemy of God and His word.

And yet these same people often slavishly follow their own human guides who tell them what Scripture means. That's how they come up with these low level polemics that don't really work but have been repeated for generations anyhow. Things often contrary to the Bible unless it is understood at a very basic reading level.

Oh yeah..but none of them will admit as much. Protestantism owes more of its theology from an over-reliance on Augustine's polemical works than it does to broad historical understanding of Scripture.

Most of these anti-Catholics don't identify themselves beyond saying they are 'Christian'. So we don't know, except for a few brave SDA folks who list their denomination, whose spell they are under. I remember one guy who was listing himself as just 'Christian' that when I found out it turns out he was pretty far into fringe cult land. I'm probably not critical enough to go after such people, but they sure do come after Catholics. If they had a clue about the Orthodox they would go after them even worse.

Yeah, there are a few groups that are especcially prone to it and Catholics are only the most apparent target, the more vehemently one adopts the idea of perspicuity the less room there is for engaging in doctrinal triage. Personally, the types of disagreements I have with traditional theology I place as second-order issues, important enough that I'm not going to join one of the traditional churches but not so important that I can't understand how someone could believe such things.

 

[ralliann]

I survived him. Barely. Not by agreeing with him but by respecting his wrong-headed authority

This is I think is what I have been trying to put my finger on. Authority. For Catholics it is beyond what each individual thinks!!!! Thank you chevy!

Much like Democrats once respected Republican presidents and Republicans respected Democratic presidents.

A respect for the office of the presidency YES? I truly mean no offence to anyone here.

Now, of course it's 'Off with their heads'. That's the mentality I see in this thread. Off with their heads, and off with the heads of anybody that doesn't shout "Off with their heads".

Pope Francis was right slightly more than a stopped clock, I do give him that. Perhaps some nugget from him will be found to endure. Not sure yet what that might even be. I'm just decompressing.

Im just rollin around struggling with my thoughts. LOL

 

[The Liturgist]

What I mean is Today, not historically. But that was not made clear. I am talking of those who walk away. Start a new movement, Denomination etc. I am thinking this leaves less opportunity for being humbled. Walking away from one body, as "coming out if her" as an individual, and forming or becoming a part of another body, that is where the lord leads them in their personal walk with the Lord. Would it be wrong to see it that way.

I think we have to differentiate between the traditional mainstream Protestant churches that are involved in ecumenical dialogue, that are in some cases very conservative, like the LCMS, the SBC and the ACNA, in other cases unfortunately liberal, but nonetheless, these traditional Protestant churches, which are mostly liturgical with some exceptions like the SBC, although increasingly in many historically liturgical Protestant denominations the traditional organ music and chorales have been replaced by praise and worship music, which resulted in my alienation from the Methodist parish in which I was baptized, because I can’t pray to rock music - this problem also exists in the Roman Catholic Church and even more so among the Maronite Catholics, where finding a parish with traditional music is incredibly hard, but at any rate, we have to differentiate between mainstream churches that do apologize for historical errors, and those churches which do not, and engage in more and more schisms.

In Orthodoxy we have an equivalent group of factions, the Old Calendarists, who engaged in an absurd number of schisms and consist of a number of small groups, although ironically what they’re fighting for is the opposite of what Restorationists are fighting for, but both groups share an opposition to any attempt at ecumenical dialogue or reconciliation, even where that process involves no change to doctrine or no affirmation of religious pluralism.

 

[Fervent]

No, the reason why St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague were burned at the stake was their attempt to restore what had been lost in Czechia (but still existed in parts of Slovakia among the Rusyn people in the Tatras) after the Austrians conquered it - the Orthodox model of liturgical worship, which included preaching in a language the people could understand (which for some people in the 14th century, such as Italians, Latin would fit into that category, but for Slavs, Latin was incomprehensible; they were accustomed to worshipping in Church Slavonic, a pan-Slavic langauge designed for maximum mutual intelligibility, written primarily in an alphabet designed by St. Cyril based on the Greek alphabet (although in Croatia, some spoke Galgolithic, which difffered from Church Slavonic only in that it was written in a modified Gothic alphabet), and communion in both kinds (indeed, all of the Czech Protestant groups, from the most extreme Taborites, whose views were like those of future low church Protestants, to the most conservative Utraquists, agreed on the importance of the faithful receiving both the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist, rather than receiving only the Body). This is understandable, for a people who had 250 years previously been receiving in both kinds according to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; whereas in subsequent political events that resulted in Eastern Orthodox people becoming part of the Roman church, the Roman church ensured that Byzantine Rite worship was retained, for example, in the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the case of the conquest of Prague, that didn’t happen.

To an extent, this doesn't sound like its in complete disagreement with what I stated. I am curious what sources you're relying on for the more distinct diffferences, though?

It is for this reason that the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague as martyrs.

I am aware

That being said, the Roman church repented of that after Vatican II, although conversely I would argue that the reforms of Annibale Bugnini were poorly conceived and poorly implemented, and the 1965 missal and the 1967 Dominican breviary represent the intent of Sacrosanctum concilium (which I don’t agree with entirely, for example, the suppression of the ancient office of Prime, which was historically so important that people would learn to read and also learn the Latin language using the example of that office, with books called Primers; also Prime is particularly beautiful among the “Minor Hours” and the only ancient liturgical rites that lack it are the East Syriac Rite (which may have had it in the form of a lost monastic rite, but in the surviving rite, which is a cathedral rite, interestingly the Church of the East is the only church where the Islamic persecution resulted in the loss of the monastic rite rather than the cathedral rite, there are only the three ancient offices of Vespers, Compline and Matins, and then, oddly enough, and as far as I can tell, coincidentally, the West Syriac Rite, which has the Third, Sixth and Ninth hours but no First Hour. Although I am still researching to try to find out if that was always the case or the result of some abbreviation.

This doesn't detract from my point, which was not intended to denigrate the RCC in any way. Simply to point out that while the individual was factually wrong, it may have been one of those cases where true things become distorted as people report on them. From certain perspectives, the RCC did actively oppose open access to the Scriptures without Church authorization. There were legitimate concerns in that, but such actions can easily be painted as entirely villainous by uncharitable individuals.

By the way nothing in this thread is intended as anti-Catholic polemic, for I love the Roman Catholic Church as should be evident; indeed I love all traditional liturgical churches, and even some non-liturgical churches.