Beatus Vir

Dan, you mention "little protestant enclaves" that follow "Calvin or Luther". What's the difference between that and RCs who have their separate religious orders?

Also, RCs have their favorite teachers: Augustine (who taught predestination--very close to the Calvinist view--cf. the Jansenists), Aquinas (who vigorously argued against the Immaculate Conception--he would be excommunicated today for disagreeing with the "Magisterium"), Chrysostom (who wrote in his commentaries that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT sinless--that she was "vainglorious"--he likewise would be excommunicated today), and Irenaeus (whose understanding of the Eucharist is closer to the Lutheran understanding than the current RC understanding--he said the Eucharist consists of "TWO realities, an EARTHLY and a HEAVENLY").

I sincerely believe God raised up an imperfect man--Luther--to reform the church. (Yes, the man whom the "Magisterium"--who supposedly follow the Sermon on the Mount--wanted to murder.) Don't think so? Have you ever "assisted" at a Latin Tridentine mass? One trip to a Tridentine mass is all it takes to realize why there was a Reformation. Here's a little description: Before the mass starts, everyone around you is babbling away robotically, fingering their beads: "Hail Mary, full of grace . . . Hail Mary, full of grace . . ." Then the mass begins. The entire time is basically spent as an observer: you kneel in your pew, silent, trying to follow in your missal the theater taking place up front in your English translation of the Latin. The bell rings to alert you that the consecration is taking place up front. You go forward for communion. ONLY THE BREAD is given to you. It's OK, though, "concomitance" gives you the Precious Blood. After the mass, people kneel in front of little statues of various saints. Now compare that with Justin Martyr's description of an early Christian liturgy in Rome: 1. The Scriptures are read at length, as long as time allows. 2. The presider stands up and exhorts the congregation to an imitation of these good things. 3. Extemporaneous prayers are offered to God by the presider. 4. Bread and wine are brought forward. The presider extemporaneously gives thanks at length to God for the bread and wine and for being able to receive these good things. So, which is more like Justin's worship service: a Protestant service or a Tridentine mass? I don't think it's hard to figure out.

Admit it: If Vatican II had not taken place, you wouldn't be RC.

Dan: Consider the following by Chrysostom on the sins Mary committed (consider also that Chrysostom was a member of the "Magisterium"):

HOMILY XLIV.

MATT. XII. 46--49.

"While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him. Then one said unto Him, Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Thee. But He answered and said unto him that told Him, Who is my mother, and(1) my brethren? And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren."

That which I was lately saying, that when virtue is wanting all things are vain, this is now also pointed out very abundantly. For I indeed was saying, that age and nature, and to dwell in the wilderness, and all such things, are alike unprofitable, where there is not a good mind; but to-day we learn in addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, IF THERE BE NOT VIRTUE.

And this is hence especially manifest. "For while He yet talked to the people," it is said, "one told Him, Thy MOTHER and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact THAT WHICH SHE ESSAYED TO DO, WAS OF SUPERFLUOUS VANITY; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also HER UNSEASONABLE APPROACH. See at all events both HER SELF-CONFIDENCE(1) and theirs.(2) Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, EVINCING A SUPERFLUOUS VANITY, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, "While He yet talked to the people;" as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?

Dan: Do you believe everything that Chrysostom taught? He was a member of the "Magisterium."

PV:

Catholics do not maintain that the Church Fathers were infallible. Cyprian was wrong on the validity of baptisms by heretics, Augustine wrong on predestination, and the list goes on. The doctrine of Infalliblity does not suggest that every word spoke by the Pope is infallible, or that what individual members of the magisterium are infallible in their private opinions.

This is Catholic 101. How arrogant of you to join or leave a church without even knowing what it teaches. And likening religious orders that operate within the Catholic Church to separate protestant denominations with different confessions of faith is ridiculous.

If you post your real name and address, maybe someone will send you a couple of bucks so you can buy a clue.

Dan:

The reason I left the Catholic Church was because I finally had to acknowledge to myself that I did know what it officially teaches, and that I didn’t like it.

Of course no one maintains that the Magisterium considers the Church Fathers infallible. If it did, it would believe:
1. Mary did commit some sins that she needed forgiveness for.
2. The Eucharist consists of “two realities,” and that bread and wine, not the Body and Blood, are offered to God (as Bishop Irenaeus teaches—you know, the guy who wrote “Against Heresies”).
3. The “Immaculate Conception” is not true (as Aquinas teaches—you know, the guy they call the “Angelic Doctor”).
4. Catholics shouldn’t use images as worship aids (as Epiphanius taught, when he violently tore down an image he happened to see hanging in a church in Palestine because it was “contrary to the authority of Holy Scripture”).

Of course, all of these opinions of bishops and doctors are “private opinions.” Ironically, though, the Pope and the Magisterium do regard their own opinions as not merely “private opinions” when speaking officially! How convenient!

If you point to a pronouncement from the Pope that states “outside the Church there is no salvation,” they’ll say that’s true. If you point to some statements in the latest Catechism stating that Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. can be saved apart from actually believing in Jesus to save them, they’ll say that’s true. Hmmm.

For 10 years I have sat listening to Catholic homilies. The homilies are basically short, schmoozy, nondescript talks about “social justice” and good works. Never anything with any theological meat on it. Never. And not a single word about faith as Paul teaches in Romans--especially when the Epistle reading is a classic “justification” text. Astounding.

I admit I have been going to daily mass at a local Catholic parish. I go there to receive the Body and Blood and to hear the Scripture readings, but not for anything else. And it’s only because the Lutheran Church doesn’t offer daily services. Lately, I’ve thought of not even going to mass anymore. For the last couple of months, the parish has not been able to celebrate daily mass because there’s no priest available. So all we get is communion in one kind from a deacon. Communion in one kind is unacceptable. It’s totally against the Scriptures. How dare they!

Dan, what if the Pope tomorrow changed the liturgy to the traditional Tridentine mass? He has the power to do that, you know. Would you remain Catholic? Have you been to a Tridentine mass? Have you read any of the pre-Vatican II books put out by the Church (like “My Catholic Faith”—especially the parts on indulgences)? Do you really believe all this stuff? The present Vatican II church is half-Protestant and an aberration that probably won’t last very long.

“And likening religious orders that operate within the Catholic Church to separate protestant denominations with different confessions of faith is ridiculous.”


I don’t believe it’s so ridiculous as you think. True, protestant denominations have different confessions of faith. But when you actually compare the confessions, protestants agree with each other probably 95 percent of the time. That’s why when I was studying at a Bible translation school, all of us protestants could work together so harmoniously—Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. We basically believe pretty much the same things. And that’s why when the Marburg Colloquy took place, the Reformers could agree on pretty much everything except how exactly to define the Eucharist. Even the Catholic Church has entertained various views of the Eucharist during its history. I don’t think one’s definition of the Eucharist is going to be a deal-breaker at the Judgment. How you lived your life (Romans 2:6-11) is what’s important. (And it’s a straw man for the Catholic Church to falsely caricature protestants as not thinking they will give an account of their lives to God at the Judgment, just because they stand on sola fide. The Judgment and sola fide are complementary, not opposed to each other.) The reason protestants can find agreement with each other so often is that we go to the most ancient tradition—the OT writings and the gospels and letters penned by the apostles—as our primary source for doctrine, not the later traditions of popes and councils. Thank God for Gutenberg! With the invention of the printing press, the Scriptures were made widely available for all to read and compare with the teachings of the Catholic Church. When they actually read the Scriptures and then compared them with what the Catholic Church taught—the blessed Reformation occurred.

PV:

I wonder in what sense you consider yourself "Valiant"? To recieve the Eucharist in a Catholic church when you are a member of the LCMS is cowardly and deceitful. Every time you present yourself at mass to recieve the Eucharist, you are lying to the priest that you are Catholic. And everytime you present yourself for the Eucharist at the LCMS Church, you are lying to that pastor.

You say that you have left the Catholic Church, and yet you join yourself to them in the very thing that makes you a member of their fellowship.

An unrepentant hypocrite such as yourself should not receive the Eucharist anywhere. You are not receiving it to your benefit, anyway, but to your judgment. I know that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. I say it not to be mean, but out of Christian concern.

As for the traditional Latin Mass, I wish my parish offered it. I guess you didn't notice my link to the traditional Latin Mass society in my area. And for the record, I have attended this mass. Even though I am content with the Novus Ordo, if the Latin mass brought back, I would rejoice rather than mourn.

In my parish, we hear good sermons. Plenty of meat. Granted that I've only heard sermons from about 20 Catholic Priests (including one deacon and one seminarian), they have all been fine sermons. As good or better than what I heard from most LCMS pastors. And as far as substance goes, Benedict 16 beats Gerald Kieschnick any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

I sure you thought you understood Catholicism when you first became Catholic. It took you ten years to realize that you didn't. How many years will it take before you realize that you still didn't understand it when you left, and still don't?

Dan:

In what sense do I consider myself “valiant”? The truth. “Buy the truth and sell it not.” I’m valiant for the truth.

Hypocritical? How is worshipping in two churches as a Christian who believes the Creed worse than the Pope having fellowship in Assisi with witch doctors, snake worshippers, and voodoo priests, who worship the Devil? But I guess it’s all right if he has this kind of fellowship.

Regarding Gerald Kieschnick: I’m no fan of his. I wish all of his plans would be set “Ablaze!™” Regarding Benedict, in terms of substance I would have to agree with you. For instance, as cardinal, he called for the Augsburg Confession to be recognized by the Catholic Church. I think that a Catholic who wants the Augsburg Confession to be recognized is a man of substance.

On the down side, Ratzinger was also Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a euphemism for what used to be called the “Holy” Office of the Inquisition). What kind of “church” of Jesus Christ conducts “inquisitions”? Why would a “church” murder thousands of innocent Calvinists (Waldensians and Huguenots)?

Oh, regarding Catholic homilies. Catholic priests are well educated. They spend years studying “philosophy.” If you ever hear a homily explaining justification the way St. Paul explains it, do let me know. (By the way, I think that the Lutheran church completely misses Paul’s point on the need for sanctification in order to inherit eternal life.)

Sorry, I didn’t see the link regarding Latin masses. There are admittedly some nice things about the Latin mass: People come dressed modestly, women are veiled, there is reverence. But what about Christ’s command: “Drink from this, ALL of you”?

Dan, I can understand the emotional tug of the Catholic church. It’s great to feel as if you’re “coming home”—coming home to tradition, reverence, continuity. As I said before, I can understand why you became Catholic. But I just don’t get how you can “buy into” the whole package that present-day Catholicism presents. I think both Catholicism and Lutheranism are lacking: Catholics need to learn about justification, and Lutherans need to learn about the necessity of sanctification and reverence.

If you were truly interested in truth, then you wouldn't commune under the pretense and lie that you are something that you are not. That is what is hypocritical. Ask your LCMS pastor whether you may commune at both altars. Ask the Catholic Bishop whether you may partake of the Eucharist in one of his parishes.

It's that simple. When you step forward to commune at a Catholic parish, you are saying to that priest, and to all the people that you are Catholic. Since you are not, you are a lying hypocrite.

Furthermore, since the Holy Eucharist is THE bond of fellowship, it is hypocritical to say that you cannot be a member of the Church officially, and when it comes to being united with them in the most important, spiritual way, you are willing to do so.

Dan:

When I was received into the Catholic Church, I asked whether I had to believe in purgatory and indulgences. The priest said no. (In fact, he said he didn’t believe in them either.) When I was received, the priest simply took me to the sacristy and went through the Creed, line by line, asking if I believed in these things. I said yes. Any Lutheran could say yes to all of these questions. That was all that was required of me to become Catholic. I didn’t have to agree with some of the weird things that the Catholic Church officially teaches.

So why does my communing at two altars bother you? I seriously doubt that the Lord is bothered by it. He did pray that the church would be one. My guess is that he’s not happy with all of these divisions, especially in regard to his Supper, which should be the sacrament of Christian unity. And our unity is in his Blood and in his Spirit—not in ascription to manmade formulations (such as the Catholic Catechism—which is FULL of errors—or the Formula of Concord—which is better, but not perfect because it was penned by men). If both churches started communing at each other’s altars, we’d receive the benefit of the good points of each other’s theologies. Maybe at some point both would become what they should be: strong on sola fide, strong on the necessity of holiness, strong on parishioners knowing their faith and the Scriptures. Luther was kicked out of the church for trying to reform it—the Catholic Church was so corrupt that God mercifully sent Reformers to it (many of whom the Catholic Church murdered). Do you remember the dream Elector Frederick the Wise received on the eve of the posting of the 95 Theses?

I’ve seen Catholic priests give the sacrament to an openly practicing homosexual. I doubt a bishop would be too upset by me communing.

Speaking of bishops: A Catholic priest in our city knew of his fellow priest’s pedophilic activities but defended him and covered up for him. Guess what? Even after that pedophilic priest went to prison, the bishop kept the other priest (the one who was covering up for his fellow priest) in the parish. Boy, those Catholic bishops sure know how to protect the flock!

In RCIA I heard Catholics stand up and state how “glad” they were to have received an “annulment” of their marriage from the Church because their marriage was so “unhappy.” Isn’t the Church such a great defender of marriage! And then they went on to say that those evil protestants weren’t defenders of marriage because they didn’t believe it was a “sacrament” (which isn’t true—many protestant churches do believe it’s a sacrament). As you might guess, that was the last time I showed up at RCIA. For some reason, I can’t stomach “divorces in disguise.”

I guess by your silence you must agree that the Catholic Church has had the right to conduct inquisitions, torture people, and commit murder. All in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, right?

And if you were truly interested in the truth, you would be telling me that it is WRONG for a pope to have spiritual fellowship with snake worshippers, witch doctors, and voodoo priests. C’mon, Dan, I know the Catholic Church can do no wrong, but can you at least admit that this kind of “fellowship” is wrong and out of place for a “holy bishop” of the church??

—Prince Valiant

Dan:

Question: Did you ever attend Catholic mass while you were still an LCMS pastor?

Prince Valiant

Dan:

Today at Catholic mass a mixed marriage was blessed in the church (woman Catholic, man Lutheran). The priest quipped regarding the man being Lutheran: “We can fix that.” (smiles, full acceptance of the man being Lutheran). The priest changed the words in the blessing regarding raising the children in the Catholic faith to something like “in the Christian faith and Christ’s teaching.”

St. Monica was honored today, and the priest talked about Augustine. He said, “In the time of Augustine, there was no Catholic Church but simply Christianity.”

The Gospel was Mt. 23. The priest said, “This passage about the Pharisees being white-washed sepulchers on the outside but full of dead men’s bones on the inside applies to us as well. In fact, in my own life, my heart is full of anger, laziness, sloth, lust, evil thoughts . . . and that’s before I even get up in the morning!”

Sounds pretty “Lutheran,” don’t you think?

Hi Dan,

I'm a convert to the Catholic Church of ten years.

Oh my, where to start with "Prince" Valiant.

First, if PV doesn't understand the difference between the many Protestant bodies and Catholic religious orders he really needs reeducation.

The "many" Protestants who recognize marriage as a sacrament? Please name them.

Images? I was raised Lutheran. I've seen plenty of crucifixes and statuary in Lutheran churches so your criticism of Catholics on that score is completely hypocritical.

PV's understanding of the Tridentine Mass is truly sorry.

In fact, his understanding of Catholicism per se is truly sorry.

I agree with you Dan, that PV is a lying hypocrite. For the year that I was involved in RCIA I never came forward to receive Communion in the Catholic Church until I was in full communion with her.

It's a matter of integrity.

Hi christ1242,

What are your views on the pope having fellowship at Assisi with witch doctors, snake worshippers, voodoo priests, etc.? Why is it, do you think, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church did not remove Pope John Paul II when he committed such idolatrous (or as we would say as Lutherans, “unionistic”) acts? Do you approve of these acts, or do you not approve, but think that since the pope is pope, he can do these things with impunity? Why no discipline in this regard in the Catholic Church?

You asked about protestant churches that hold marriage to be a sacrament. Well, let’s see…Anglo-Catholic churches certainly do, many Anglican churches do, most (if not all) of the Porvoo churches do, and even some high-church Methodists do (who are very close to Anglicans). Granted, Baptistic and non-denom churches don’t hold marriage to be a sacrament. But not all protestants are Baptistic or non-denom. I would say, though, from my experience that conservative protestant churches hold marriage in the highest regard, even though many would not classify it as a sacrament. I think that, while the Catholic Church, in theory, holds a high view of marriage, since Vatican II, on account of the tremendous numbers of “annulments” (disguised divorces, for the most part—there are, though, legitimate exceptions), marriage is not held in as high a regard.

You’re right—I’m sure I have a lot to learn about the Catholic Church. But I’m sure you might have a lot to learn about the churches that God reformed at the blessed Reformation. So many of the things I hear Catholics say are such caricatures of Protestant belief and practice!

I love crucifixes. My point was that the Catholic Church “picks and chooses” among the church fathers for their peculiar system of doctrine. For instance, why can I not believe, as Bishop Irenaeus, that the Eucharist consists of two realities? Why can I not believe, as Bishop Chrysostom, that the Blessed Virgin Mary committed some sins? Regarding images, Bishop Epiphanius would have destroyed them. I believe (as Luther did) that the arts should be employed in the service of God. I do think, though, that praying to saints (via images) like the Orthodox do is a bit over the top.

After I left RCIA (the director could tell I wasn’t taking too kindly to what I was hearing about annulments), she talked to me and invited me to participate in Mass anyway (that is, she gave me permission to partake of the sacrament).

I still don’t see why you don’t hold Jesus’ words regarding communion in both kinds in as much esteem as you seem to hold the Tridentine liturgy. I love the reverence and modesty at the Tridentine mass and wish that every Catholic Church possessed this same sense of modesty and decorum. The Church has lost a lot since Vatican II. But I just wish that the church would obey Jesus’ commandment and give the cup to the laity. Is that asking too much, to ask that the Church be obedient to Jesus in this regard? (When I lived in Dallas several years ago, I had to phone the archdiocese and find out which parishes offered communion in both kinds. They gave me a list of three parishes in Dallas. How sad when Vatican II promotes the offering of the cup to the laity.) Also, I think that for the building up of the church, the Tridentine mass should be conducted in a language that most of the parishioners understand—not Latin.

Yours valiant for the faith,

Prince Valiant

Man, what a screed, PV. Chill out.

You talk about Dan's "silence" on some of your coments. Gee, if a man was to try to address all the ill-informed comments you make here about Catholicism, he'd either go mad or have to write an encyclopedia so thick that no one would read it. And then I'm sure you would just respond with more of the same invective. It's fair enough for you to point out what you think is a problem or two in his argument, but you're expecting him to make a life-long project here of responding to you on his blog.

You reckon that Protestants can agree with each other 95% of the time. Yet you come to Catholic Mass to receive "the Body and Blood" - not to commit idolatry, you believe marriage is a sacrament, you think the Lutherans miss the point on "the need for sanctification in order to inherit eternal life" and you love the same crucifixes that other Protestants would destroy.
Can't recall if you mention Baptism - but it's a classic for massivly differing Protestant teachings, all based on the same Scriptures.

And you think that adds up to just 5%???

The Eucharist not a deal-breaker? Okay, so we can quibble about where the bread goes during the consecration, the differences between physical and corporeal, and many other things. But is it really the Body of Christ or not? It's that simple, and you can't tell me that's not essential to Christianity. If you don't get that basically right - if you can't recognise Christ when you see Him, then your christianity is not Christianity.

If you don't even know what the heck Baptism IS, then your christianity is not Christianity.

So clearly you're out of sync with a lot of traditional Sola Scriptura churches on these issues, and at least one of you is more than 5% wrong.

Dan,

Love reading your blog. Please write more!

I think that, while the Catholic Church, in theory, holds a high view of marriage, since Vatican II, on account of the tremendous numbers of “annulments” (disguised divorces, for the most part—there are, though, legitimate exceptions), marriage is not held in as high a regard.

Have you ever had direct experience with the annulment process? My husband's first marriage was examined by the Church when I chose to become Catholic. It took almost a year before his annulment was granted. The process was very thorough and the details of his first marriage were completely investigated. We saw first hand how the Chancery deals with this and I can assure you the process is carried out with full integrity. The fact that a few Anglo-Catholics hold a more "sacramental" view of marriage doesn't quite cover the numerous Protestant communities that don't.

You’re right—I’m sure I have a lot to learn about the Catholic Church. But I’m sure you might have a lot to learn about the churches that God reformed at the blessed Reformation. So many of the things I hear Catholics say are such caricatures of Protestant belief and practice!

And vice versa, PV. As I stated my family is made up of Lutherans, Catholics and Mennonites. I have have a pretty good idea of what Reformed Christianity is about. Protestants have some pretty strange ideas about what Catholicism actually is, too.

I love crucifixes. My point was that the Catholic Church “picks and chooses” among the church fathers for their peculiar system of doctrine.

No, your point was that Catholics have statues in their churches which constitutes "idolatry" and I pointed out that Lutherans have them too. Your references to the Church Fathers completely ignores that the Magisterium of the Church, the Holy Father in union with the college of bishiops, constitutes the ordinary teaching office of the Church. The writings of the Fathers are by no means infallible and do sometimes contradict each other although numerous patristic references are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that uphold orthodox Catholic teaching. Jumping into the Fathers without some solid Catholicism 101 can be very confusing.

After I left RCIA (the director could tell I wasn’t taking too kindly to what I was hearing about annulments), she talked to me and invited me to participate in Mass anyway (that is, she gave me permission to partake of the sacrament).

Then you had the misfortune of attending a heterodox parish, of which I understand there are more than a few in Dallas. For the year in which I attended RCIA (a formality in my case as I was very familiar with Catholic teaching and practice already) it was never once suggested that I should receive Holy Communion until I was formally received into the Church, nor would it ever have occurred to me to do so. It would be dishonest, and by the way, since you feel free to continue receiving Commuion at Mass you are making a public witness to others who see you that you agree with and hold to Catholic teaching. Unless they know you personally they have no reason to assume otherwise.

I still don’t see why you don’t hold Jesus’ words regarding communion in both kinds in as much esteem as you seem to hold the Tridentine liturgy.

I don't ordinarily attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I receive both the Body and Blood at every Mass at my parish. For a little historical relevance, the emphasis on the Host came about as a result of a heresy that stated the Host alone did not offer the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is also a tremendous comfort for those with alcohol problems to know that in receiving the Host alone they still receive the entire Christ.

I have absolutely no problem with the Form of the Tridentine Mass, but at all parishes I've attended that celebrate the Ordinary Form I have yet to see the Precious Blood withheld from the laity.

As far as John Paul II and the Assisi thing, Assisi has always been a symbol of peace because of its Franciscan roots and is visited by many non-Christians every year. Anyone who has read the encyclicals and other writings of Pope John Paul would have no doubts about his loyalty to Jesus Christ.

Pax et Bonum to you, PV

PV:

What you call silence, I call focus and discipline. Your argument is that it is wrong to be a member of the Catholic Church because her theology is unbiblical. In other words:

Major premise: It is wrong to belong to a Church whose theology is unbiblical.
Minor premise: Catholic theology is unbiblical.
Conclusion: It is wrong to belong to the Catholic Church.

You have provided numberous examples in order to prove your minor premise. I have, for the most part, chosen not to respond to them. Not that I grant the minor premise, but because I am focusing on the major premise, which, ironicly I hold to be true, which is why I am not a Lutheran or protestant.

My response is that if you truly hold the major premise to be true, you may not commune at a Catholic Altar because participation in the Eucharist is, as St. Augustine puts it, the sign of unity and the bond of charity. Eucharistic fellowship is the reality to which church membership attests.

Your problem is that you are a gnostic. (in addition to being a hypocrite and a liar.)

It's nice to have a couple of more voices in this conversation. One picked up on PV's remark that protestants were 95% in agreement. That one caught my attention too. Besides being a totally bogus and made up number (as if anyone has (or could) ever statistically analyzed this, my immediate thought was that a monkey is, genetically speaking, "95%" (more actually) identical to a human being. That Arius and Athanasius agreed "95%" percent of the time. And to use an old one, Poison is "98%" the same as corn meal.

Great observations, Dan.

Keep up the blogging!

Mike,

OK, I’ve chilled out (went and got a “Lutheran” bottle of beer). Feel better now. (By the way, speaking of alcohol, in Catholic mass one time, the priest made a funny comment: “Whenever you get four priests together, you’ll always find a fifth.” You see, Lutherans and Catholics do indeed have a lot in common!)

Mike, perhaps you’d like to take a shot at my question: Do you think it’s right for a church to have a “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (“Holy” Office of the Inquisition)? What sort of church has a history of systematically conducting inquisitions, where “heretics” are tortured and turned over to the state for execution? Why doesn’t the Catholic Church rather suffer wrong? Why not simply debate heretics and leave it at that, like Bishop Irenaeus did? (You can say that some protestant churches have been guilty of persecuting Catholics—which is very true—but none of them, as far as I know, have an official office that conducts inquisitions.)

As a case in point: Concerning the Waldensians, who were hunted down like dogs for centuries by the Catholic Church: Whose side are you on? Aren’t you on the side of the Waldensians? (not in terms of doctrine, but in the fact that they were unjustly persecuted by the Catholic Church)

Dan,

Whether one shares in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church and then also goes to, say, an Anglican church and shares in the Eucharist there is no big deal. Christ blesses both Eucharists. Have you read “The Garden of the Little Flower and Other Mystical Experiences” by Helen Fiske Evans (an Episcopalian)? In her short book, she relates the many times Jesus appeared to her and talked with her and how St. Therese of Lisieux appeared to her and often sent her wonderful perfumes from heaven. In one part of the book, Ms. Evans tells how Jesus spoke to her from the crucifix she was holding, and he appeared to be in agony on the cross. The Lord said, “It is one of My priests.” After beseeching Him to tell her what was the matter, the Lord said, “One of My priests is going to shame and humiliate Me beyond all bounds, tomorrow.” Next morning, she found out that a Dr. Delaney had resigned his rectorship to become a Roman Catholic. Dr. Delaney was an Episcopalian priest.


christ1242,

True, in many parishes the Precious Blood is not withheld from the laity. But in the far too many cases where it is, I think it’s a travesty. In fact, I think it was on the Catholic Answers site that I read of a recent miracle in a Catholic church where the Precious Blood was running out, even though there was still a long line of people still coming up for the Sacrament. The Eucharistic Minister said a silent prayer, and all of a sudden the cruse was filled to the top with the Precious Blood! If Jesus, by this miracle, took such pains to make sure his people—whom he died for—received His Precious Blood, what should our attitude be? But I suppose at the Last Supper Jesus should have just drunk from the cup himself, and not shared it with his disciples! (Yeah, I’ve heard the argument that the disciples were priests, not laity. How about St. Paul’s discourse regarding the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 10 and 11?)

Valiant for the truth,

Prince Valiant

HI PV,

Okay, that's a much more manageable question! I would join you in the beer but it's a little early in the morning for it here (and if "Lutheran" beer means "German" beer then I'm all for it).

Yes, I think it's a good idea for the Vatican to have a "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". You may be surprised to learn that its main charter is not to go around torturing people, but "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world". That's an important role for any church, I would think, whether you have a "Congregation" or a council or any other method. Protestant churches have systems for determining orthodoxy, and if necessary they discipline or even depose ministers who start teaching heresy - or at least, the better Protestant churches do. So yes, they do have thier own "inquisitions" and they're not nearly as scary as you make them sound.
Now, what you *do* with heretical people - or ideas - when you find them is another matter altogether, and I think we can all join in unision to condemn torture and coercion in religious matters. But as you say yourself, Protestants have done a lot of this, too.

So when you ask:
"What sort of church has a history of systematically conducting inquisitions, where "heretics" are tortured and turned over to the state for execution?"

I answer:
Most churches! The Anglican Church for a start. Have you heard of the method of hanging, drawing and quartering? Lutheran towns were not exempt from their bit of religious persecution either. Yes, it was often official, systematic, and involved torture.

I expect these comments about the Inquisition from secular papers, but I'm always surprised when Protestants use them. Persecution went both ways. It was bloody, it was unreasonable, it was sinful. But at least Catholics are aware of their past and decry it. Some Protestants seem to be totally ignorant that it often went the other way.

By the way, don't confuse the notorious "Spanish Inquisition" with the "Roman Inquisition". They were two separate things. It's the latter that became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I'm not trying to aquit the Roman one of all wrongdoing, but the Spanish one is the one more known for executions and torture.


By the way, do you actually have a problem (other than doctrinal) with anything the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has done for the past 100 years or so?

Mike

PV,

True, in many parishes the Precious Blood is not withheld from the laity.

Since I became Catholic ten years ago I have not been in one, one mind you, parish that celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass where people didn't have access to the Chalice. And I've been to a lot of parishes in the last ten years besides the one where I am registered.

You also need to go back and read about the English Reformation and its persecution of Catholics who were literally drawn and quartered or, like Margaret Clitherow, were crushed to death for sheltering Catholic priests.

There is plenty enough blame to go around on both sides.

As far as the Episcopal Church goes, I attended an Episcopal parish for a year before I became Catholic. It is impossible anymore to find a definitive answer to how the Episcopal church views the Eucharist anymore. The lack of a confessional theology has eroded the once firm sacramental view of what the Eucharist is -- and isn't -- and it varies from diocese to diocese, parish to parish.

To naively assume that Christ blesses "both" Eucharists could be very spiritually dangerous.

The Eucharist either is -- or isn't -- the Body and Blood of the Lord. Also, the ordination of women to the episcopate presents a serious problem for Catholics and Orthodox. The Episcopal church in the U.S. for the most part (with some few exceptions) simply doesn't represent historic Christianity anymore.

Quite frankly, it sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone here.

Mike,

No, I don’t have any problem with what’s been done recently by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As I said, I’m well aware that there has been persecution by both Catholics and non-Catholics. (There are, of course, churches that have not engaged in inquisitions: the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Methodists, to name a few.) What would you do, though, if the Catholic Church in the future decided to go back to its old ways? I’m certain you would decry any torture and executions, but would you actually leave the Roman communion itself? I know that if a church I was in did these things, I would leave. Pronto.

In my possession, I have an English version of the Psalter that the Huguenots used in the 1500s. The Catholic Church threatened with punishment and death anyone caught singing these Psalms! The Psalter is really pretty innocuous—just versifications of the 150 Psalms. I find it incredible that the Catholic Church would have persecuted people for singing psalms to God! I consider it an honor to sing these, and I remind myself of all the poor Huguenots (my brothers and sisters in Christ) who suffered at the hands of the Catholic dragonnades and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, when the pope ordered that the Te Deum be sung to celebrate the massacre of these thousands of “heretics.”

—“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.”—


christ1242,

I’ve had a lot of experience with Episcopal and Anglican churches. I’m only aware of one church that holds a “symbolic” view of the Eucharist. At the last Anglican church I visited, I asked the priest what his view was of the Eucharist. He said (and this is true, and the church wasn’t even an “Anglo-Catholic” parish), “Transubstantiation.” My experience, though, is that most Anglican churches hold to a view very close to the Lutheran view: that after the consecration, the bread and wine remain bread and wine but are also (at the same time) the very Body and Blood of the Lord, and that this takes place in a way that is, to us men, a mystery, not to be attempted to be explained with Aristotelian philosophy. I don’t see why people can’t hold varying views of the Eucharist. The important thing is what the Eucharist is pointing to: the precious death of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation.

Regarding the present state of the things in the Episcopal church: I cannot stomach what’s happening there: women’s ordination, birth control, acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, and on and on. You’re right—the Episcopal church does not represent historic Christianity.

Getting back to communion in both kinds: I guess what really bugs me in the Catholic Church is that when no priest is present (and a deacon or layperson is presiding at communion), only the bread is given to the laity. In the Anglican church, this never, ever happens. The priest consecrates both the bread and the wine ahead of time, and both the bread and the wine are given. Why can’t the Catholic Church revise its rules in this matter and consecrate the wine? I don’t get it!

I’m pretty close to just finding a good, solid, conservative, traditional Anglican church and just make that the church I attend. I think it’s the closest to the truth—I can have the best of Catholic practice without losing the good things of the Reformation—such as the Pauline doctrine of justification. And I know from Helen Fiske Evans’ experience (in the 1920s to 1940s), that the Lord considers it one of his true churches as well. (And so must St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Paul, who once told Ms. Evans: “Well done!” after she had brought a backsliding Christian into the Episcopal Church—mind you, the Episcopal Church of the 1930s, not the present-day heretical body.)

PV,

You will also be in communion with every heterodox Anglican parish on the planet. No, you can't be "Catholic" and Anglican at the same time. No matter how "high-Church" any particular Anglican parish is, it is not in communion with the Catholic or Orthodox Church. That's why Cardinal Newman left the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican Church (which is a very small minority in Anglicanism -- the evangelical wing is much stronger at the moment).

If you felt confident of your position you wouldn't be here trying to persuade Catholics about why you are no longer Catholic.

You'd just go and do it.

Also, Confessional Lutherans would never take the position on Anglicanism that you do. There's simply too much variance in the Episcopal/Anglican position on the Eucharist (and like it or not, at the moment the American Episcopal Church IS still part of the Anglican Communion).

Dan, A very interesting discussion to say the least. I wonder what your opinions would be on three seperate posts on my site "Lutheran Theology". All deal with the interpretation of Scripture, one most definitely with the clarity of Scripture. The three posts are as follows:

http://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/luther-the-clarity-of-scriptures/

http://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/luther-at-the-diet-of-wormsi/

http://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/luther-at-the-diet-of-wormsii/

Thanks, Bryce

PV:

If it isn't a big deal whether one receieves the Eucharist in a Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. Church, why is a big deal whether I have joined the Catholic Church? You are the one who has come to my blog, and arguing that what I have done is wrong. You are the one who has "left" the Catholic Church (although you were in truth never really Catholic). Why is happen your name recorded on a piece of paper, a parish roster, a big deal, but something like the Eucharist is not nearly as important. Again, the reason why one is a big deal to you, and the other is not, is because you are a gnostic.

Regarding the inquisition, first, I suggest you learn something about this subject before you further reveal your ignorance. There are many good books that have been written recently to show the problems with the popular myth which protestants so tenaciously believe.

This is not to defend much of what took place during the inquisition, but the Catholic Church is not nearly as culpable as you seem to think.

It must be pointed out that, in fact, the inquisition saved many lives, and also rescued many from eternal damnation. In those days heresy was a crime against the political state which often warranted capital punishments. Political rulers, usually believing their power to be a matter of divine right, most often carried out without due process by those who had little understanding of theology. The Church intervened so that judgment would be made by qualified theologians and the matters would be thoroughly investigated (which is why they called it "inquisition", as in "inquiry." Historical records show that many criminals blasphemed in secular court because they knew that if they were handed over to the Church, they would receive a fair hearing.

When a person was found guilty by the Church, they were handed back to the civil authorities, which then often carried out severe and inhumane punishments, including the death penalty. This often, as the historical record shows, against ecclesiatical pleas for leniency.

I am not suggesting, as I said before, that many horrible things were done by Church leaders as well. But I think that had the Church simply left matters up to the state, things may have been much worse.

My point is that if you wish to make this charge against the Catholic Church, you ought to at least know the facts against the popular fundamentalist myths that have been spread as anti-Catholic propaganda.

Still, granting that the criticism is not wholly unwarranted, the question has to be asked, "In what way do the inquisitions prove that the Catholic Church is illegitimate?" Must an American renounce his citizenship because it once allowed slavery, violated civil rights to woman and negros, it was born out of rebellion against legitimate sovereign rule, or it's current legalization of abortion? What if the United States decided to allow slavery again? What would you do?

The only thing that the inquisition argument proves is that:

1) Catholic Christians are sinners.
2) Catholic Leaders have many times abused their power and authority.

I hold neither of these statements to be false.

The inquisition is, from a rational point of view, extremely weak. I am not surprised to hear it from you. It's weight is as an appeal to the emotions of modern Christians who cringe even at God's Old Testament demands of sacrificing animals, circumcision, and the genicide of heathen peoples.

Lastly, you have mentioned the Paul doctrine of Justification. What you fail to understanding Paul's teaching is the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is a discussion that is worth having, but I would suggest that you first read Robert Koon's essay (linked on this blog) and St. Augustine's anti-pelagian works. Until you do so, I will not waste any more of my time on you.

Sadly, I was as once as ignorant as you are on the Doctrine of Justification, now that I am Catholic I can agree not only various statements of St. Paul (the usual protestant proof texts, but I fully understand the full internal argument which he makes in Romans and Galatians, (and Ephesians and Colossians), when when taken as a whole, could only be made by a Roman Catholic. As a Lutheran, I found myself confronted by many statements by St. Paul that were perplexing to me. "Baptizing the dead," "Christians being puried as through fire." I could explain these, and other things, but my explanations never really fit the argument. I could never figure out why Paul said this there, or that somewhere else. In order to understand Paul in context, you have to agree with Augustine, the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.

PV:

You said, "I’m pretty close to just finding a good, solid, conservative, traditional Anglican church and just make that the church I attend. I think it’s the closest to the truth—I can have the best of Catholic practice without losing the good things of the Reformation—such as the Pauline doctrine of justification. And I know from Helen Fiske Evans’ experience (in the 1920s to 1940s), that the Lord considers it one of his true churches as well. (And so must St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Paul, who once told Ms. Evans: “Well done!” after she had brought a backsliding Christian into the Episcopal Church—mind you, the Episcopal Church of the 1930s, not the present-day heretical body.) "

You determine that a Church is "true" based on Helen Fiske Evan's claim that the Apostle Paul spoke to her? You've got to be kidding me?

By the way, St. Paul just told me that Ms. Evans is full of shit, and so are you.

Hi PV,

Would I leave the Church? No. I like Dan's response to that, comparing it to leaving the USA, but there is more. I think a slightly better analogy would be to say the same thing about the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. During the reigns of sinful monarchs, the Israelite was not called to go off and join the Gentiles, but to stay true to the Law of God - within the fold.

As you know, we really do have the concept that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ. It's a bit like asking you if you would leave the "Christian church" for the same reasons. You see, the whole idea of having a smorgasboard of "denominations" to choose from is an idea quite alien to the whole Catholic viewpoint - and I think one alien to the New Testament. Back then, you wouldn't go off and follow someone who wasn't acting in communion with Peter and Paul, and you wouldn't defy them based on your interpretation of Scripture.

To be sure, I would (or hope I would have the grace to) resist and oppose such policies strongly. For the better edification of me and my family, I would try to find a Mass where the priest didn't support such measures. And I would pray for change, of course. But there IS nowhere else to go, other than the Catholic Church.

I'm also mindful that the Church is much larger than the heirarchy. It's Christ's mystical Body, and it's all the members of the Church as well.

I hear your comments on receiving the Precious Blood of Christ, but I just don't share your problem with it. Pace christ1242, in my area it's quite common for only the Host to be offered, but I do believe that Christ is whole and undivided, and that I'm not missing out on anything. Both are always consecrated, of course - and the priest must receive both to show forth the separation of the Body and Blood that occurred on Calvary, and the pouring out of that Precious Blood for our sins.

The Vatican has said more recently, that having all people receive communion under both kinds does show the sign of the Sacrament more clearly, but does not mean you actually receive anything more. However, the reasons generally given against it - risk of spillage and hygiene are probably the most common - still exist, though to what degree they are truly important is certainly worth a debate or two.

But I don't think it's even nearly as important as the belief in the Real Presence - I would much rather receive what I know is the Body of Christ, than a piece of bread with some wine, and I don't care how many arrows are on it pointing at Christ. And that's why the idea of valid orders is also important.

Anyway, as I alluded to earlier, you seem much more Catholic than most protestants - with your views on the Eucharist and so on. Certainly enough to be branded heretical and superstitious by some Evangelicals I know. So I'll hold up some hope that you might see your way back one day - look past the sins of our Fathers and some misconceptions, and find your way carefully through the doctrinal differences.

—“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.”—

Yes, including those unjustly persecuted by anyone "in the name of God".

Amen.

Mike: "Would I leave the Church? No." Amazing. St. Paul says, "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people . . . I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. 'Purge the evil person from your midst.'"

So you wouldn't leave the Catholic Church if it started to commit murders again?

St. Paul said not to associate with idolaters. Why did the Catholic Church continue to associate with Pope John Paul II after his shenanigans at Assisi? Why didn't it "purge the evil person from its midst"?

Dan: Four-letter words are the usual fare from those who can't communicate with longer ones (or who are unable to make their case). Regarding justification, read http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC04.html.

Valiant for the true faith,

PRINCE VALIANT

christ1242,

If I end up becoming a member of a Continuing Anglican church that's not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then no, I won't "be in communion with every heterodox Anglican parish on the planet." But you would be right if I joined a parish in communion with the AoC.

Why is it that Catholics think they're the only true church? You do realize that many of the Orthodox don't consider you guys to be a true church, don't you? At least I think the Catholic Church is a true church, though in grave error regarding many matters, especially justification (like the Galatian church was in error but nevertheless a church of Jesus Christ). I also think the Orthodox church is a true church, and I also believe the Continuing Anglican churches are true churches. And I also believe that many other churches are true churches. If I die tomorrow, and God graciously (not through my merits, but the merits of Jesus Christ, whom I'm trusting in) gives me eternal life, I'm going to be in the company of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Waldensians, Baptists, etc., etc. Heck, I may even be in the company of such men as Martin Luther and John Calvin, whom the Catholic Church anathematized centuries ago. I'll likely be honored to meet Bishop Irenaeus, who said the Eucharist consists of two realities, an earthly and a heavenly (a doctrine, by the way, that he said he received from Polycarp, who received it from the Apostle John). I'm sure there will be many surprises in heaven. Dan may even meet Helen Fiske Evans, whose little book he hasn't even read!

PRINCE VALIANT