William Lind has gotten all giddy over Pope Benedict’s invitation, issued last October 20th to the Anglican church, to “come home to Rome” (in the latest edition of The American Conservative). Lind says, “[The Pope] invited [Anglicans] to move in—individuals, parishes, whole dioceses—while retaining their Anglican identity. They could keep their Book of Common Prayer, their liturgies, their priests—even married ones.”
Right . . . with one small proviso, “The Apostolic Constitution stipulates that Anglicans would have to accept ‘The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church as the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the ordinariate.’” Ok, so that means that you can remain Anglican except you now have to believe in papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception, assumption, and perpetual virginity, praying to departed saints, etc., etc. — in other words, you are free to be Anglican so long as you give up the primary historic distinctives that have been at issue since the Reformation (and before). If you reject what Anglicans have always believed contrary to Rome, you can still be one. Got it?
Oh, and the Pope also reminded Anglican ministers that the Roman Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican Holy Orders. So, though this agreement will allow married Anglican clergy to come into the Roman Church, if they want to continue to minister to their congregations, they will have to be ordained again by the Roman Church after their “conversion” in order to do that. And in addition, they cannot be ordained as bishops.
Well, as Uncle Boudreaux says, “Dat’s a fine kettle of catfish.” When it’s all said and done, the Pope’s invitation amounts to nothing more than another call to become a member of the Roman Church. Nothing new here. There is no mention of a willingness to study the differences that have historically existed between the two communions. No willingness to submit the peculiar views of Rome to a fresh scriptural examination. No acknowledgment that Rome could possibly be “wrong” (shudder) in some of its dogma. Nothing that would open Rome up to any “reformation” at all. At bottom it’s merely an invitation to become a Romanist while pretending in your head (if you’re capable of that sort of trick) that you’re still an Anglican.
This is what Church unity looks like from the perspective of the Vatican. Church unity is easy, just become one of us! If the Baptists did this, it would be received with outrage and an uncontrollable case of the giggles. But Rome does it with a straight face and expects all the rest of us to take it seriously. And then, if we don’t, we’re portrayed as intractable, unyielding, and stubborn. Pretty neat trick, that.
The only appropriate response to the Pope’s “Apostolic Constitution” of last October (after making sure it is not a joke) is, “Please. Repent of your divisive sectarianism and come back to the Catholic Church. Really. You’ll be welcome — oh, and we promise not to make fun of your funny hat.”
Steve,
At the end of your post you say [to the Pope], “come back to the Catholic Church”. Do you mean that the CREC is the Catholic Church? If I go to CREC headquarters, will I find “Catholic Church” written on the building or on a sign in front or on the letterhead? If I call the CREC phone number [(907) 746-2123], and get the answering machine, does it say, “Thanks for calling the Catholic Church”? If not, why not? Are you ashamed to call yourselves Catholic?
The problem with claiming that the CREC is the Catholic Church that Christ founded, is that my fifteen-year old daughter is older than the CREC, which was founded in 1998. The Catholic Church, by contrast, goes all the way back in an unbroken succession, to St. Peter himself; St. Peter’s Basilica is literally built right on top of the bones of St. Peter. Which Apostle’s bones lie under the CREC’s headquarters?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
I think I’ve heard this temptation before somewhere.
Bryan,
Of all the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever read in a blog post, I think yours just made the top of the list.
Pastor Wilkins was not saying that the CREC is the Catholic Church–that is just flat ludicrous. It is *almost* as ludicrous as Rome’s claim to have an unbroken line of popes back to Peter (and your link to an outdated encyclopedia to defend such a dumb assertion) or that the idea that St. Peter’s bones under the Basilica you mention somehow qualifies your “church” to be THE church. I mean, maybe you’d have an argument if you included all the chicken bones that have been passed off as fingers and other body parts of the Apostles.
I have no reason to defend the CREC except that they remain our Christian brothers. There are still godly men there who profess faith in Christ and unlike a multitude of your priests and bishops they haven’t cosa nostra molested children while doing so.
I mean. If we are talking about scale here in terms of differences between your communion and theirs let’s at least be honest about the real differences. But truth is hard to come by for men who abandon the Reformed faith for Roman Catholicism.
You know what Kevin, the facts are that sexual misconduct, including against children, is five times more prevalent amongst the Protestant clergy than it is in the priesthood, and that information, if you really want to find it, is available to you.
For starters you might want to check out “Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis” by Dr. Philip Jenkins, who is now a Catholic, but he wasn’t one when he researched and wrote this book.
So while I am not making light of such wickedness by ANYBODY, how about dropping that argument as a distinction between Catholic priests and Protestant ministers, because while nobody “wins” in such a comparison, the numbers are not in favor of the Protestants.
Geez.
Kevin Branson
Steve,
Your incredulity and ridicule and occasional public calls for the Pope to repent, rests on the premise that Catholicism is not true, of course, and also the premise that the various schisms, or more particularly the 16th century Reformation, was a God honoring “necessity” and not a revolution against, a tossing aside of the Church, a tossing aside which would mean the reformation brought about a “new thing” rather than a reformation of another former thing.
On the other hand, if Catholicism is true, and the Catholic Church is still that very same Church that Christ established and built on Peter and the Apostles, still living after all as Christ had promised it would…well, then ecumenism from a Catholic standpoint must necessarily communicate the message of unity in Christ in such a way that ultimately beckons Christians to “come home” to the Catholic Church that they left, or that their forefathers left.
I don’t believe most Protestants give much consideration to the idea of one visible Church, because it is almost beyond the reach of their imagination. The “invisible” Church, well ironically, one can actually get their mind around that. The visible Church, in all it’s tangible reality, how exactly do Protestants fathom that, much less point to it exactly? Catholics have no difficulty with that whatsoever. It is a glorious reality to us, and always has been.
The Catholic Church (and by that I mean the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, since there seems to be some confusion about what exactly is the Catholic Church on this blog) has been the Catholic Church from the day of Pentecost (although I am pretty certain you would deny that). When did your church start (not necessarily AAPC), and how do you define your church in order to identify it’s beginning?
These are all relevant questions if you want to denegrate the Catholic Church, or talk about ecumenism, by the way.
Back before there were any “others”, beginning on Pentecost, the Catholic Church was identified and authenticated, known to be real, and safe, by its adherence to apostolic teaching in it’s fullest form, what the apostles spoke AND wrote (that awful thing called Tradition with a capital “T” 2nd Thessalonians 2:15) and by communion with the Apostles themselves, and those elders (bishops) ordained by the Apostles to carry on their work. The occasional heretic who would break off with his followers, they showed up now and then, but whatever those renegades established off on their own wasn’t the Church, was it?
What authenticates, makes real, and safe the various ecclesial bodies within Protestantism. More importantly, who authenticates them? Is any of them wholly true? Or are each of them necessarily only partially true? Who gets to decide what is true and what is not true. In other words, who gets to decide what is heresy, and who gets to be the heretic. And by what authority does the truth detector detect truth. Is it apostolic authority? How is that authenticated exactly? If you answer: “Based on faithfulness to Scripture” then I ask, “Based on whose interpretation”, because even in Presbyterianism you all cannot agree on anything, including “the essentials”, nevermind bringing the Baptists, Pentecostals, and all the rest into the fracus.
By what authority does a man (or woman) legitimately lay hold of apostolic gifts and callings as an elder, to bind and loose in Christ’s name, for instance. Ah, by calling and legitimate ordination. As I asked a fellow recently in an online conversation:”What if two or three of me and my buddies did get together and start us up a nice little “church”. Could we be confident that Jesus is in the midst of us then? (Matthew 18:19-20) Could we start binding and loosing? If no, then why not?”
How exactly would Protestantism go about calling a “church” council, or are such things not feasible, or necessary in the Protestant model? Well, for reasons practical and theological, there are apparently no more authoritative, doctrine declaring “church” councils in the Protestant experiment.
Good thing, then, that the Catholic Church got so many of the important, central things worked out early on: Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Canon of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, and any number of things Catholic that you are personally willing to lay hold of because they happen to correspond to your Reformed tradition (with a small “t”) and your personal interpretation of Scripture.
But as I stated, your rejection of that Catholic Church presumes that at some point in time the Catholic Church ceased to be true, that the Holy Spirit for whatever reason no longer was leading her into all truth as He did for some time (as Christ promised He would forever, actually), that the Holy Spirit said “I’m out of here”, checked out, the Church jumped the rails, and the Reformation was the unhappy but required prescription to fix what ailed the Church.
Except that now this “new thing” that came out of the Reformation looked unlike anything that had ever existed for the first 1500 years of the Church’s existence. How novel, and fresh, and liberating, and how invigorating to be cut free from that grotesque corpse once called the Church.
The Catholic Church says: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
Meanwhile the Catholic Church continues to call Christians back to herself, in love, while Protestantism spins off into smaller and smaller denominations, and while you men continue to ridicule her and hold conferences on the Catholic Church that (based on what you yourselves have said and written) you do not understand sufficiently to critique.
Blessings and Peace
Kevin Branson
Pastor Wilkins,
When would you welcome the Pope and the Catholic Church back into the fold and allow the Pope and his bishops and priests to minister to congregations under your authority?
Would they have to, say, give up their beliefs about Mary, the Eucharist, Papal infallibility, praying for the intercession of departed saints, etc?
If so, how is Rome playing a game any different than you? You want Catholics to give up all that silly Catholicism and come home to protestantism. The Pope wants Anglicans (and all people) to come home to the Church.
The Pope is, at least, up front about his demands.
Mr. Branson,
Regarding my comments and yours in return, a few things:
1) The original comparison made by Mr. Cross was between the CREC and the Roman Catholic Church, not all Protestants. So, the scale and size of the problem is still a much bigger problem than you seemingly want to admit. In any case, it speaks to the fact that the CREC is nowhere near such abuse in its ranks and to claim that we must view this issue outside of the original context presented by Mr. Cross and this discussion is just not playing fair in any sense.
2) The fact is that child molestation and really further homosexual adolescent abuse is so prevalent in Roman Catholic ministerial circles that it really is glossing over the problem to proclaim that we consider it with other sexual issues regarding consenting adults among Protestants or Catholics. While there is victimization and advantage taken in any sexual sin with a minister involved, there is an issue doubly so with children and the matter should be examined separately. And, this is certainly true legally speaking. So, to ignore these distinctions in these cases does nothing helpful in presenting the truth of the matter.
3) The problem with the Catholic hierarchy is not merely the abuse itself but also the systemic issues which have served to cover up scandal and extreme abuse from law enforcement, victim families, and others involved. Furthermore, this same cover up not only encourages sexual predators to continue to abuse but also avoids warning the very sheep involved in being ripped apart by such evil. Everything from recruiting homosexual priests in seminaries to clerical celibacy and a bishopric which does its best to protect interests other than those presented by victims and law enforcement is part and parcel of the Roman Catholic child abuse problem.
4) The cosa nostra behavior of the Catholic hierarchy regarding abuse cases also makes any published statistics something other than reliable in any scientific sense so there really is little merit to claims like the one you have made here. There is no similar systemic issue in Protestantism simply because the hierarchy required to protect priests like that is noticeably absent from our ranks.
5) What exactly is a Protestant to the author cited? Baptists, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, and many other groups that make up the majority of the evangelical witness in America are not Protestant in any historic sense and can’t be lumped in with other more classically Protestant groups without some amount of stated differentiation. For one thing, each group carries its own sort of polity and structure both locally and denominationally and it really is difficult to believe that any common cosa nostra pattern could be detected among them all like it most certainly is the case with the unified Roman Catholic hierarchy.
6) This abuse on the part of Catholic clerics is not at all new nor is it limited to the American Catholic scene. One of the chief criticisms of the Reformation was most assuredly corruption in and among the clergy and to pretend that such a charge was baseless throughout the last five hundred years is simply not dealing in the truth of the matter. The Reformation happened in large part because it needed to happen and part of that need was a result of the wickedness present in and among the ranks of Catholic clergy prior to and during its advent.
The Pope’s “invitation” to the Anglicans sounds almost like Abraham Lincoln’s comments to the Southern states as they were getting ready to secede from what had become a corrupt federal union. Lincoln was perfectly alright with the Southern states seceding and forming their own country–as long as they continued to pay taxes to the United States in the process.
To preserve their integrity they could not and would not do such. Neither should the Anglicans (I used to be one) give in and accept this “offer” from Rome.
The Christians in Rome would have been free to practice their faith also–as long as they gave Caesar first place. They couldn’t do that either. Often the offer of “peace and safety” just isn’t enough that you would forfeit your liberty to take it. Nor should you.
Al Benson Jr.
The Pope’s invitation to the Anglican Communion is nothing new at all for anyone who has paid attention to history. It is being touted as some great offer but Pastor Wilkins is exactly right. Benedict’s offer is deceitful and inappropriate.
Al (and Pastor Wilkins) — it should be noted that the Pope’s invitation to the Anglicans is largely based on the requests of many conservative Anglican bishops and faithful to be received into the Catholic Church because of the utter moral breakdown of their own communion.
Many of them feared the loss of their Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. The Pope has only made a move to reassure these Anglicans already desirous of union with the Catholic Church that their heritage will be respected.
The Pope isn’t out cruising for extra sheep. He’s responding to an outcry from a large group of disaffected Protestants who have seen the need for union with the Catholic Church.
As one who listened to the lectures of this recent conference and found the most worthwhile lectures to be those of David Cassidy, this post is quite disappointingly a digression of ‘thoughtlessness’ in the extreme. A number of things are quite obviously misunderstood: infallibility, Anglicanorum Coetibus, Anglicanism, and the nature of Catholic conversion. G.K. Chesterton is very wise to point out that
“The Catholic convert has for the first time a starting-point for straight and strenuous thinking. He has for the first time a way of testing the truth in any question that he raises. As the world goes, especially at present, it is the other people, the heathen and the heretics, who seem to have every virtue except the power of connected thought. There was indeed a brief period when a small
minority did some hard thinking on the heathen or heretical side. It barely lasted from the time of Voltaire to the time of Huxley. It has now entirely disappeared. What is now called free thought is valued, not because it is free thought, but because it is freedom from thought; because it is free thoughtlessness.”
And further more posts like this also result in this response from Chesterton.
“Nothing is more amusing to the convert, when his conversion has been complete for some time, than to hear the speculations about when or whether he will repent of the conversion; when he will be sick of it, how long he will stand it, at what stage of his external exasperation he will start up and say he can bear it no more. For all this is founded on that optical illusion about the outside and the inside which I have tried to sketch in this chapter. The outsiders, stand by and see, or think they see, the convert entering with bowed head a sort of small temple which they are convinced is fitted up inside like a prison, if not a torture-chamber. But all they really know about it is that he has passed through a door. They do not know that he has not gone into the inner darkness, but out into
the broad daylight. It is he who is, in the beautiful and beatific sense of the word, an outsider. He does not want to go into a larger room, because he does not know of any larger room to go into. He knows of a large number of much smaller rooms, each of which is labelled as being very large; but he is quite sure he would be cramped in any of them. Each of them professes to be a complete cosmos or scheme of all things; but then so does the cosmos of the Clapham Sect or the Clapton Agapemone. Each of them is supposed to be domed with the sky or painted inside with all the stars. But each of these cosmic systems or machines seems to him much smaller and even much simpler than the broad and balanced universe in which he lives.”
[...] The Pope will be disappointed to learn that he is not a member of the Catholic Church. Share: [...]
The comments of the Catholic posters here only serve to show why it is so desperately needed for Protestants to seriously study the history of the Church. And by “seriously studying the history of the Church” I don’t mean seriously studying Wycliffe, Huss, and the Reformers while glossing over everything that came before them as “the Dark Ages” when the “clear” Scriptures were buried by “traditions of men” until the glorious day when God raised up brave heroes of “the Gospel” to
The reason that we in the Reformed world have to deal with people like Bryan Cross and all these other inanity-spewing converts is precisely because we do not know the history of the Church in any serious way beyond the caricatures put forth in our standard Protestant polemical texts. By our policy of willful ignorance of most of what came before the Reformation, we are just begging to be deceived by the half-truths and propaganda these men put forth with straight faces.
For all our supposed “sound doctrine” in the Reformed world, we are intellectually inbred, theologically obtuse, and historically idiotic. I don’t direct this remark at Pastor Wilkins, by any means, who has made some fine material on various key figures and movements before the Reformation. But we need more, a lot more.
I don’t put this forth as self-promotion, but as promotion of desperately needed historical substance: if any Protestants here are interested in seriously looking at Church history before the Reformation, you will find a wealth of material on my old blog, Societas Christiana. You will particularly want to read the posts under the category “Conciliar Theory and Practice.”
There’s a lot there, and it will take a lot of time to go through and get a handle on. But I will tell you this: in 6 years of discussing these materials with Catholics, I have NEVER found a single one who is capable of engaging these matters with sober-mindedness and self-critical honesty. They can’t handle REAL historical truth, because their “historical Church” is simply a Platonic fable built on half-truths, whole lies, and unbelievably childish credulity masquerading as “faith.”
I forgot the link to the blog: Societas Christiana.
OK, that didn’t work. One more time: http://www.tgenloe.wordpress.com.
OK just keeping tabs here:
Public call for Pope to repent – Check
Obligatory priest/pedophile blurb – Check
Catholics are insane – Check
We are still needing volunteers to take care of “Benedict is a Nazi” and “Catholic Church and Frank Sinatra in bed with the Mafia”.
Mr. Branson,
I will stop the obligatory mention of pedophile priests and the bishops that excuse, hide, and perpetuate their wickedness when the same godless men quit lifting their cassocks and screwing children.
I would like to use less explicit language but this is the reality of your communion. Don’t blame this on outsiders but on the very men and hierarchy that perpetuate and continually commit these evils.
The Church of Rome is in need of repentance. That is all there is to it and to pretend otherwise is denying reality.
Kevin,
Please feel free to call me Kevin too. Or whatever other salutary title that pops into your mind. Based on your most recent comment, you seem to have a flare for words.
Sexual abuse of children is rampant, now more than ever, across the entire spectrum of society, secular as well as religious, and this is directly connected to the scourge of pornography that has enveloped us, making an already terrible problem (child sexual abuse) much, much worse.
Repentance is needed everywhere. You claim there is none to be found in the Catholic Church. However, if anybody is making headway in dealing with the problem institutionally, the Catholic Church is, and granted, there is lots of work to be done still.
Are you aware of any of Benedict XVI’s ongoing (as we speak) initiatives as regards this particular sin, in terms of acknowledging (and properly dealing with) both the perpetrator and the victim? Even Time Magazine, that bastion of fair reporting on all things religious, had this to say when Benedict XVI visited the U.S. in 2008:
Olan Horne, the victim quoted, has a better vantage point than do you or I in judging how this tragedy is being handled in a real, rather than symbolic way. I don’t know of all that is going on behind the scenes, but I do know that the news even today makes us aware of action the Catholic Church is taking to “make things right”, and that is fundamental to repentance, isn’t it?
You really should pick up the book I mentioned earlier if you want to understand how prevalent the pornography and pedophilia problem is in all of society, not just the priesthood. Once again it is “Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis” by Dr. Philip Jenkins. What Dr. Jenkins discovered was that the problem in the Catholic Church was a reflection of the bigger problem. As I said, he did not convert to Catholicism until after he completed his study and wrote his book.
For what it is worth, and again not to minimize the sin of men in the Catholic Church but to offer perspective, the incidence of perpetrators of child sexual abuse from greatest to least falls like this:
1. Family member
2. School teacher or official
3. Protestant minister or church employee
4. Catholic priest or employee
Of course if it is a Catholic priest who is accused, headlines are guaranteed.
Blessings and Peace
KB
Mr. Branson,
I freely grant that repentance is needed everywhere. If you knew me better, you’d know that I am an equal opportunity critic in regards to issues of abuse in the ministry and have not even spared pastors in the CREC in providing said criticism.
But not every denomination on the planet makes ultimate claims about being the Church of Christ as Rome does. If anything, if the claims of Rome are true in regards to her status as the Church of Christ then she is held to much higher standards than any group that even dares to call itself a part of the Body of Christ. This is true even if numbers really do indicate there are bigger issues elsewhere or in other camps (and such is still doubtful, my original objections to your statistics having gone completely unanswered).
It is either the arrogance of these false claims–or if true, the reality of the Church as Rome–coupled with covering up and or doing not all that much constructive regarding issues like sexual abuse of children by priests that makes this all the more something more serious than what may occur in other camps. It is a responsibility of the highest order to rightly handle these things if we are to believe you at all that Rome truly IS the Church. It entails much more responsibility than a one-time meeting with the current Pope in handling these issues. In April of 2008, I offered my own suggestions as to what could be done by the current Pope but we have seen none of it save one visit above and other actions which have been taken largely because the authorities have forced the Church’s hand in America. Here is what I wrote in 2008:
You see, real repentance is accompanied by deeds that extend well beyond the original offense (Luke 19:8) to the best of our ability. That has yet to be demonstrated by Rome and your contention that Rome is progressive in that regard is frankly a line of crap extending from your keyboard all the way to Vatican City and back.
Kevin,
I am familiar with you. But, if I were to get to know you better it would have to be in a setting minus my wife and children, or really anyone out of respect for their ears. Is this blog rated?
I’m sorry that I failed to respond as you expected: my original objections to your statistics having gone completely unanswered
The ranking of incidence of sexual crimes against children that I gave in my previous post is exclusive of sexual improprieties between “consenting adults” and is specific to sexual abuse of children. As I said there is plenty of data available online as well as the book I referred you to. Now, as to the validity of the data that has been considered in the various studies…
The studies that have been done do not rely on what the Catholic Church has been willing to admit, or what schools or families or protestant bodies that the other alleged offenders belong to have been willing to admit. The various studies are based on what has been reported and documented and is considered to be reliable by the researchers.
If you don’t want to address the data directly, but rather debunk what has been determined to be reliable and worthy of consideration, and dismiss it wholesale based on the Catholic Church’s ability to “keep a lid on it”, well, I don’t know how to respond to you. I am not a researcher. I am just relaying their general findings to you.
You have no arguments from me as to the responsibility of the Catholic Church to seek to be blameless in all things. Of course the Catholic Church is comprised of human beings, sinners, and at the risk of sounding trite…sin happens. You could probably spice that up some for me were you my editor.
The Catholic Church has on numerous occasions openly acknowledged the sins committed by her leaders throughout history, up to and including asking forgiveness publicly, for instance for the sins of men in the Church that occurred in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation. As regards this particular sadness, they are working on it. Perhaps as this process works itself out, at some point in time, her response will be sufficient to satisfy your demands, albeit too late to meet your timetable.
Blessings and Peace.
KB
Oh, Kevin, I forgot to say that I won’t be talking to you anymore. I have friends and family members that read this blog and I really don’t care to encourage anymore of your “earthy” prose on a blog that is read by them, and that is associated with Pastor Wilkins or the fine folks of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. You should take off your “muddy boots” before stomping around in their parlor.
Blessings and Peace
KB
Mr. Branson,
I’m sorry that the harsh words offend your sensibilities and I mean no disrespect to others present who are reading these things. But, in this case the language is called for as this is first a discussion largely between men and second about something very grave in the life and work of the Church.
We are not here at afternoon tea discussing the pleasantries of men and their various faults like a henhouse of chatty women with nothing better to do but instead having a sober and frank discussion about (among other things) the wickedness of men who sexually abuse children and a church which consistently covers that sin the way a prostitute puts her clothes back on to go back out on the street to find another victim.
No doubt the language ought to be offensive to describe such things. The acts themselves are even more heinous and offensive and the fact that you can go on glibly to argue as if this problem is quite nearly resolved in the main or somehow irrelevant to the truth claims of Rome just shows your blind dedication to something other than the Church of the Living God.
To speak otherwise as you would like would be to place these matters in some other genteel context where hiked-up cassocks, ravenous murderous adulterous priests, and children scared for their lives do not belong. It is hell on earth and I do not mean that lightly.
This is not anti-Catholic wrangling as I have in the past (if you are indeed familiar with me) been quite ready to count Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ and even see the dominical sacramental acts of the Church as a whole as legitimate.
It is merely calling a spade a spade. Let us deal with reality and do so in such a way that nothing escapes our notice in terms of just how horrible these problems really are.
As Tim Enloe wrote, the history is all on the side of those who Took A Stand (Pro-Tested) against wickedness and idolatry of the schismatic Papacy. That sect is still in schism from the church catholic. The sect is not one (divided internally and from all other parts of the church), certainly not holy (characterized for centuries by lascivious popes and a complete lack of moral discipline on mafiosos, etc.), not catholic at all (refusing the sacrament to other Christians), and not apostolic since it has invented false gods galore.
For all interested, the place to start reading is with Philip Schaff’s *The Principles of Protestantism.*
Someday, though, these schismatics will return to the church that is led in mystical union with Jesus by the Holy Spirit, who is ungraspable and unpredictable — the church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. We all look forward to that day.
Mafia – Check (that didn’t take long)
Any takers on “Benedict XVI is a Nazi” so we can wrap this up?
Ever hear of any mafiosos or costra nostra members being excommunicated from the Roman church? Huh? Really? How about some names, please. How about Teddy Kennedy, huh? Are Revelation 2-3 even in your Bible? Or has “tradition” superseded all that? I guess we’re just too busy “excommunicating” earnest Biblical Christians to be bothered dealing with murderers and fornicators!
I’m REALLY impressed!!
Gloss over this godlessness if you want. It’s only you who start to look like a fool.
Oh, and in case you don’t know it, Ben 16 was not a Nazi. And Pius worked hard to save Jews. Learn some history.
I’m glad for many fine Christians who are in Papal churches. But I feel no compulsion to leave the center of catholic Christendom to join a sect replete with fringe elements.
A bunch of sexually promiscuous teenage girls who are in trouble with their priests and who start “hearing from the goddess BMEV” over in Croatia — that does not interest me. I know exactly what this is, and so does anyone else with half a brain. But hey! if THAT’s what you regard as true religion, I can’t stop you. The Papal See is not going to condemn it either, sad to say.
Happily, this syncretistic religion will someday be transformed into once again a center of true catholic faith.
I give the victory in this polemical battle to Tim Enloe, who managed to criticize both Catholics and his fellow Protestants in his comment.
“Can’t we all just get along?”