Friday, 29 June 2012

And yet still some wish to quibble blindly...

Here are a few of the same, old, tired objections that one always gets from ill-educated Protestants.

"While I mostly agree with the attempted focus on the Good News as the common denominator of all Christian denominations, I find it rather difficult to reconcile the original teachings of the Scriptures with the traditions of the Roman Catholic church. Foremost in my disagreement is their way of exalting humans for whatever reason. I don't see why Mary should be able to hear anyone's prayers, given that she's dead and not a god. Neither do I quite get why every other person who did something is a saint- and in so doing greater than any other Spirit-Inspired human. While I don't doubt that the earliest beginnings of this Catholic church was let by Inspired men, I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit can work in this church today given their idolatry (see the above exultation of humans/objects) and the existence of copious amounts of pride in their ranks. Neither do I doubt that, as the above post illustrates, do they really live out a New Life in Christ."

For sheer pomposity and self-righteous arrogance, this one is a real peach, eh?

What makes this chap think that Protestant churches don't have "copious amounts of pride in their ranks".

As a matter of fact, they have Pride to over-flowing!

Idolatry means worshipping the created as if it were equal to the Creator. Giving honour to another human being is not idolatry. It is love, respect and affirmation.

Not everyone is of equal virtue - that is obvious. Some people are better than others. That's a fact. And the saints are the best of all.

This guy doesn't like the idea that there might be someone better than him. There's a word for that: it's called "Pride".

Why shouldn't Mary - or anyone in heaven - be able to hear our prayers?

And the simple reality is that the Bible is a Catholic book and the Catholic religion is the only truly Biblical religion.

The writer of the above is a Protestant who thinks he is better than Mother Teresa, St Francis of Assisi, St Damien of Molokai, St Bernadette, St Therese of Lisieux, St Thomas More, St Edmund Campion and all the saints whom he thinks do not "really live out a New Life in Christ".

Who, then, has the problem with Pride?

Here's another:

"WE ARE NOT SAVED BY GOOD WORKS.However good works are necessary to prove our faith. If we do not do good works , we do not demonstrate our faith and do what Jesus told us to. It's like a boy who joins the scouts but then refuses to wear the uniform.Using good works as our ticket to paradise is extreme selfishness."

Says who?

Errrrrr.....uuummm... he doesn't say. Why? Because he doesn't know. And because he will nowhere find his version of Christianity in the Bible.

In fact, quite the opposite. He will find that the Bible says that faith without works is DEAD. Fact.

Here is what it says:

"Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone? ...For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."
James 2:24,26 

See? The Bible says that faith without works is dead and man is NOT justified by faith alone.

This verse alone demolishes the whole of classic Protestantism. And yet it come straight from the Bible.

Martin Luther so hated this verse that he took the Epistle of St James out of the Bible altogether and called it "Epistola straminea" - "an epistle of straw"!!

The fact is that the Bible is a Catholic book, chosen by Catholics and it teaches the Catholic faith.

Here's more:

"Dear Sir, You seem to idolize the Catholic Church and Catholics too much. Perhaps the 'anti-Catholic' comment made by yeomanrycavalry was out of order; but there might be some truth to it. If you believe, or have even read, what the Bible says, then you will agree that the one who is to be worshipped is not the Church, popes, images on walls, or people. All of us people, including popes, are subject to a strong sense of pride, self-righteousness and even stubbornness. It is not surprising that in ancient times people took the 'spiritual warfare' quite literally and crafted it into deadly crusades. We cannot justify that, as it was obviously a mistake and not something mentioned as a task in the Holy Scripture. In addition, your judgment towards yeomanrycavalry stating 'the usual, 'sex, money or power' is misplaced and contradictory. As it suggests that you are all-righteous in your daily living, something the Bible says there is 'not one righteous man' as Romans 3:10 says."

This comment is particularly self-righteous, proud and stubborn. But, then, we have come to expect that from certain types of Protestants.

What about "if you believe, or have even read, what the Bible says"?

Who's he kidding?

I quote the verses. He quotes none. And yet he claims to know it all. But that is all too typical of some.

In fact, as we have seen, the Bible is a Catholic document, selected by Catholics, teaching Catholic doctrine.

He fails to understand the meaning of Romans 3:10. When it says that "there is not any man just" this means that there is no man just by virtue either of the law of nature, or of the law of Moses, but only by faith and grace coming from Christ. THAT is what it means - but our Protestant friend thinks he knows better.

And therein lies another Protestant error: private judgement of Scripture. From this there has resulted over 90,000 different Protestant sects all claiming to teach the truth.

Whereas there is only ONE Catholic Church and it really DOES teach the true meaning of Scripture since that same Catholic Church CHOSE THE VERY BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE!

As to the Crusades, there are a wide variety of examples in Scripture of the people of God fighting battles to defend their culture, religion and way of life. Moses sanctioned this frequently and the Israelites did not scruple from war to defend themselves and their religion.

The inescapable fact is that the Crusades were a response to the invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire and the sacking of sacred Christian sites in the Holy Land by Muslims.

Thereafter Islam set itself to invade and capture the whole of Europe.

Was it wrong, or any surprise, that Christendom decided to defend itself from these marauders?

When Islamic Barbary pirates raided the coasts of Europe to kill all the men, rape the women and enslave them and all the children, was it wrong to fight them and defend Europe from such brutal and savage raiders? And yet that is what a "Crusade" was.

But Protestants simply do not know their history. As Blessed John Henry Newman wrote: "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant".

One might also say "to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be a Protestant".

...

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You might also have mentioned the reconquest of Spain. I wonder how many of them know about that.

PJMULVEY said...

How many protestants were fighting to save the remnants Christendom alongside Catholics to repel the Islamic invasions at the battles of Malta, Lepanto or Vienna?

Answer: None perhaps but if were a minimal amount of protestants fighting in these battles, it is unrecorded.

BTW, Queen Elizabeth would have had a lot more to worry about than the Spanish Armada once the Sultan was at the beaches of France with thousands of enslaved Christians in his army.

If any of these battles had gone the other direction, Europe would have been 100% Muslim today and St. Peter's would be the world's largest mosque.

You are 100% correct about the protestant view of history.....

Mike Cliffson said...

PJMulvey: I believe on this very blog either mine host or a commentor mentioned protestant volunteers at lepanto, first I'd heard.
Otherwise , very much with you- did you know that Mary aside, the Tudors were arming , and not that the turks etc didn't have gunpowder, but the English under henry had made significant practical advances in navel gunnery, were as I say arming the barbary pirates - this could have rebounded against britain in the armarda , as one of the many reasons for the whole of spain, otherwise as unwilling as anyone ever is to be taxed,to fling themselves into its construction and fitting out, and certainly did with barbary slavers hitting british coasts as they had always hit the med, for the vilest of slaveries.
As for the despites of history -
I had years of being forcefed the idea that the magnificent scientific agricltural and industrial revolutions that made our present world and got going in England were the RESULT of protestantism- what , say I, if they were DESPITE?
Catholics can be and are weak sinners- children might have worked down the mines just the same - but I think there'd have been more dos casas,more consciousness of sin , fewer prideful gadgrinds and more Dickenses. Convince me it it would not have all been more human.
They say, for example.AAh, yes, the spaniards and portugese bred more with the natives, but look at their mess. And I say what if Catholic brits had bred more withe indians, how much mor of a beacon to the nations would not USA be and have been ?
All off the point? yes and no. Into such byways have many protestants been led and remain.

Supertradmum said...

Isn't ignorant Protestant redundant?

Good post and keep up the good work here.

Tom G said...

This is off the topic, but may I ask about your comments on the three sacred languages?

You comment that "Hebrew, Greek and Latin, used over the Cross, and in the Scriptures and liturgies of the Christian Church ..." I'm not aware that Latin is used in Scripture - am I mistaken (or are you thinking of the Vulgate)?

As to liturgies, I note that many languages (eg Coptic, Old Church Slavonic) are used as standard liturgical languages.

You also comment that "Latin remains the primary language of the Church". Surely this is true of the Latin church, not of "the Church"?

Best wishes for the blog.

Tribunus said...

Good questions, Tom.

Let me try and answer.

Originally the only lagnuages used in the liturgy were Latin, Greek and Hebrew. These were also the 3 languages that appeared over the Cross.

Latin was the later language of the approved Bible - the Vulgate as you rightly say.

Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament, Greek of the New and Latin was the language of the Church - each corresponding to Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively.

Latin, as the language of the Church, was used for doctrine, law and the definitive version of Scripture.

The Coptic, Salvonic, Glagolitic and other liturgical languages came much later and were permitted for pastoral reasons.

They are not at all on the same par as the 3 sacred languages, although they do partake of sacredness by reason of being used in the sacred liturgy.

For similar reasons English could be used in the liturgy but, like the other languages used for pastoral reasons, English is not a sacred language and cannot supplant the 3 sacred languages.

The sacred languages are the languages of Revelation - Old and New Testaments and the unfolding or interpreting of Revelation by the Church.

Nothing can, or should, replace them.

Latin remains the primary lagnuage of "the Church" since the Church is primarily Roman.

The Greek Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church and they have the same veneration toward Rome as we do.

Indeed, Constantinople was called "New Rome" just as Moscow is "Third Rome" for the Russian Orthodox.

So, no, it is not just the Latin Church for whom Latin is the primary language of the Church.

The definitive text of universal Roman decrees is Latin, even for decrees of the Greek Catholics.

Latin is the primary lamguage of the whole Church, based, as it is, upon the City of Rome whose language Latin was.

I hasten to add that Italian is NOT, repeat NOT, the language of the Church although, these days, you could be forgiven for thinking so since idle clerics use it because they have forogtten, or never learned, their Latin.

Italian is the language of the Pope's gaolers, the revolutionary Italian Irredentists of the 19th century.

Mike Cliffson said...

Tribunus:
Just in case: my adolescence was to some degree plagued by Protestants , so in case anyone else is: you have to take "Hebrew" widely, else you get given a justification of Luther. Our Lord's words verbatim in the gospels, few tho they are, Eli, Eli , etc are Aramaic.I understand that the language of the Hebrews in Our Lord'ss time, probably since the exile, was Aramaic,the semitic lingua franca over a wide area. Now , we say English for all the varieties worldwide, for shakespeare, and for chaucer.Danish, Icelandic, Norweigan and Swedish are all called separate languages, tho they watch each other's TV. Parts etc, you find this in critical editions of the bible, of say daniel as wehave them are in aramaic, a long story.
But we are not talking about objectively separable languages as we might with say, finnish and chinese.
Now I believe that it is probably true that before or around our Lord's time the idea was afoot that holy writ was limited to what had been written in the purest old hebrew, in the promised land itself, up to the exile.Rather like our having a cut-off point at Chaucer.
However the idea only got traction at Jamnia, 2nd century ad, that is after christ! amonst the exiled and took two more centuries to spread around that part of Jewry under Rome that had not become christian.For a while St Jerome was inclined to accept this OT limitation, but not for long enough to stop us getting the vulgate. 1,000 years before Luther! There is more to the deuterocanonicals that this of course, but these are the points Ive had thrown at me falsified.
This is turned into : the Catholics church put unhloy rubbish , half of it in a completely different language,into the Bible that the Chosen people never accepted, Luther had to take it out.
Quite why we should take the second century!criteria of the Jews who had not accepted christ, as opposed to the early church, including the jews who had, one is never told.Except that "well, they were catholics" (A reply I have heard.)

Tribunus said...

Thanks, Mike. Very helpful.

Luther, of course, removed the Epistle of St James from his Canon calling it Epistola Straminea - an epistle of straw! - because it demolishes his claim that faith without works will save us.

His later followers wisely put it back in, knowing it was ridiculous to claim to exclude it.