A response to Barb's comment found in the comments here:
https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2004/11/the-bible-interprets-itself.html
It was too long to post in the comments section of that post.
Hi Barb. No offense, either.
Let me clarify.
The foundation of the Catholic Church in the New Testament is legendary. Church doctrine, of course began BEFORE there was a NT. Over the first 300 years of the Church the Scriptures of the NT were written, passed around and finally collected together. There was NOT a NT at first. So, Christianity is not based on the NT, but on the oral teachings of the Apostles. And that has lasted about 2000 years without change except in how to interpret passages in the face of modern apostasies.
Protestantism, however, came about after 1500 years. You see, Protestantism makes the assumption that the Holy Spirit was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity. How can that be? (This also applies to the Deuterocanon books in the O.T.... If the Bible is the inspired word of God, so the argument goes, and there are 7 books in the O.T. that shouldn't be there (as Protestants claim), then how did the Holy Spirit get it wrong for so long?) The only way that Protestant argument holds water is if they assume the Bible for the first 1500 years was NOT completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. --- The priesthood is mostly celibate (some Catholic priests are married, and if you count the 20 other Catholic Rites other than the Roman Rite) there are many married Catholic priests. (Christ was male and celibate if you recall...thus the model). I don't see how that is a weakness in any way, for it requires strength and discipline of purpose. and clearly a calling by God. (see this post based on thoughts from a Protestant theologian, John Piper: Evangelical Sing and Celibate Benefits.)
I'm glad you included the word "seeming" as a qualifier to "guaranty of salvation via ritual and confession" for that is a perversion of Catholic doctrine that only the uninformed and prejudiced believe. There is no guaranty of salvation in Catholic doctrine. Ritual (if you're referring to the sacraments, is clearly a way to pass on God's grace and mercy....but only to the person who has a right disposition of heart. (That is what the Church teaches.) The PHYSICAL act is important in the same way the GOD BECAME PHYSICAL.) But if there is any guaranty of salvation, even if you're Protestant, confession and turning from sin is part of it...and that is the purpose of the Rite of Reconciliation (Confession to a Priest), ashes on Ash Wednesday, and parts of the Eucharistic liturgy including taking communion ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.)
As to forgiving the mafia I'm not sure how you know the hearts and minds of people you have never met. Do you suppose that a gangster going through the motions with no intent of changing his life is forgiven in the eyes of the Church? That's ridiculous...and the only truth to it is in the perverted and imaginary minds of anti-Catholics who want to hold onto their false understandings of Catholic doctrine for fear of becoming Catholic if they actually understood the truth of it. Fulton Sheen famous said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” God's mercy and forgiveness is available to all with a contrite heart who seek and obey him...regardless of their past life. Your concept of the Catholic rite of confession is probably grotesquely perverted if you think that going through the motions without the contrite disposition of heart (true repentance) is part of Catholic teaching. It is not, and never has been.
Now, what you refer to as "social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness" I have no idea, unless you expect Catholics in their individual lives to be without sin (which is the goal for all Christians). I know more than a few Protestants who participate in social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness. But if you're referring to church teaching, I'm be curious what that could be?
You mention Church "tradition." Let's not equivocate. There are two kinds of "tradition." Tradition (with a capital "T") refers to Sacred Tradition that is part of the church's teachings. Thus, the Bible (esp. NT) is a Tradition of the Church. Lower case "tradition" are things all Christians do that are NOT part of doctrine, but more in keeping with devotional practices. The Sacramental Liturgies of the Church are "T"raditions that have been passed down by both Biblical and Early Church practices. Ironically, Protestants have many of these Traditions that they call doctrines that cannot be found in in their history or in the Bible (e.g. Sola Scriptura)
It is true, as you say, that the Catholic Church, in terms of its communication tools, can and have learned much from their Evangelical and other fellowships. But those are not doctrines. Catholicism makes a distinction in the hierarchy of believes that does not formally exist in Evangelicalism. There is at the highest level (1) DOGMA, (2) DOCTRINE, (3) CANON LAW, (4) WORSHIP PRACTICES, and finally (5) PRIVATE DEVOTIONS. Only dogmas must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine is what can be publicly taught, Canon Law are the administrative rules that govern Dogma and Doctrine, Local Parish Worship Practices are geographically diverse based on a country's culture, and Devotions are what's allow privately but not publicly. Since Evangelicalism isn't structured like that, it only takes a single Evangelical pastor to elevate his private devotion to the level of a dogma— thus tens of thousands of different denominations...there's no central authority to interpret what is true. Not so in Catholicism. No so.
I'm not sure how you can classify music (per se) as "Catholic" or "Protestant" unless the hymn was written by a Protestant. But the Church does not make such distinctions. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (by Martin Luther) is in all Catholic hymnals...but then Luther wrote that while he was still Catholic (but that's just an aside and not a issue for inclusion).
This need to better study the Bible is finally taking root in the Catholic Church in America. You have to remember, however, that the Catholic Church has a very large presence in countries that are illiterate and such is history. It has not been but for the last several hundred years that "reading" and "literacy" has even been widely available in the Western World. You don't have to be literate to be Catholic, but most Protestants and Evangelicals believe you can't be a Christian unless you can quote Bible verses and study the Bible (clearly a l.c. tradition of Sola Scriptura Evangelicals). That is why older Catholic Churches were filled with statues and stained glass and mosaics of Biblical and famous Christians, and of course, paintings....almost all that exist in famous galleries around the world are by Catholic painters.
Yes, there are Wesley hymns in Catholic hymnals. Catholic. But then most Protestants don't realize that when John and Charles Wesley were writing hymns they both believed in the real sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Hymns-John-Charles-Wesley/dp/1878009559) as the Church of England still believes, along with Orthodox and Lutherans (although Lutherans have a minor difference in understanding about it). This is all very Biblical based in the Gospels (esp. John 6) and throughout Paul's writings. It has been that way since the first century and the last Supper. It's only been in the last 200 years that Protestants changed that doctrine, essentially ripping it out of the Bible because it was too Catholic. It was studying John 6 that finally removed the scales from my eyes and thrust me into Catholicism. Here's the story: https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2016/08/corpus-christi-commentary-on-john-6.html
https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2004/11/the-bible-interprets-itself.html
It was too long to post in the comments section of that post.
Hi Barb. No offense, either.
Let me clarify.
The foundation of the Catholic Church in the New Testament is legendary. Church doctrine, of course began BEFORE there was a NT. Over the first 300 years of the Church the Scriptures of the NT were written, passed around and finally collected together. There was NOT a NT at first. So, Christianity is not based on the NT, but on the oral teachings of the Apostles. And that has lasted about 2000 years without change except in how to interpret passages in the face of modern apostasies.
Protestantism, however, came about after 1500 years. You see, Protestantism makes the assumption that the Holy Spirit was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity. How can that be? (This also applies to the Deuterocanon books in the O.T.... If the Bible is the inspired word of God, so the argument goes, and there are 7 books in the O.T. that shouldn't be there (as Protestants claim), then how did the Holy Spirit get it wrong for so long?) The only way that Protestant argument holds water is if they assume the Bible for the first 1500 years was NOT completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. --- The priesthood is mostly celibate (some Catholic priests are married, and if you count the 20 other Catholic Rites other than the Roman Rite) there are many married Catholic priests. (Christ was male and celibate if you recall...thus the model). I don't see how that is a weakness in any way, for it requires strength and discipline of purpose. and clearly a calling by God. (see this post based on thoughts from a Protestant theologian, John Piper: Evangelical Sing and Celibate Benefits.)
I'm glad you included the word "seeming" as a qualifier to "guaranty of salvation via ritual and confession" for that is a perversion of Catholic doctrine that only the uninformed and prejudiced believe. There is no guaranty of salvation in Catholic doctrine. Ritual (if you're referring to the sacraments, is clearly a way to pass on God's grace and mercy....but only to the person who has a right disposition of heart. (That is what the Church teaches.) The PHYSICAL act is important in the same way the GOD BECAME PHYSICAL.) But if there is any guaranty of salvation, even if you're Protestant, confession and turning from sin is part of it...and that is the purpose of the Rite of Reconciliation (Confession to a Priest), ashes on Ash Wednesday, and parts of the Eucharistic liturgy including taking communion ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.)
As to forgiving the mafia I'm not sure how you know the hearts and minds of people you have never met. Do you suppose that a gangster going through the motions with no intent of changing his life is forgiven in the eyes of the Church? That's ridiculous...and the only truth to it is in the perverted and imaginary minds of anti-Catholics who want to hold onto their false understandings of Catholic doctrine for fear of becoming Catholic if they actually understood the truth of it. Fulton Sheen famous said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” God's mercy and forgiveness is available to all with a contrite heart who seek and obey him...regardless of their past life. Your concept of the Catholic rite of confession is probably grotesquely perverted if you think that going through the motions without the contrite disposition of heart (true repentance) is part of Catholic teaching. It is not, and never has been.
Now, what you refer to as "social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness" I have no idea, unless you expect Catholics in their individual lives to be without sin (which is the goal for all Christians). I know more than a few Protestants who participate in social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness. But if you're referring to church teaching, I'm be curious what that could be?
You mention Church "tradition." Let's not equivocate. There are two kinds of "tradition." Tradition (with a capital "T") refers to Sacred Tradition that is part of the church's teachings. Thus, the Bible (esp. NT) is a Tradition of the Church. Lower case "tradition" are things all Christians do that are NOT part of doctrine, but more in keeping with devotional practices. The Sacramental Liturgies of the Church are "T"raditions that have been passed down by both Biblical and Early Church practices. Ironically, Protestants have many of these Traditions that they call doctrines that cannot be found in in their history or in the Bible (e.g. Sola Scriptura)
It is true, as you say, that the Catholic Church, in terms of its communication tools, can and have learned much from their Evangelical and other fellowships. But those are not doctrines. Catholicism makes a distinction in the hierarchy of believes that does not formally exist in Evangelicalism. There is at the highest level (1) DOGMA, (2) DOCTRINE, (3) CANON LAW, (4) WORSHIP PRACTICES, and finally (5) PRIVATE DEVOTIONS. Only dogmas must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine is what can be publicly taught, Canon Law are the administrative rules that govern Dogma and Doctrine, Local Parish Worship Practices are geographically diverse based on a country's culture, and Devotions are what's allow privately but not publicly. Since Evangelicalism isn't structured like that, it only takes a single Evangelical pastor to elevate his private devotion to the level of a dogma— thus tens of thousands of different denominations...there's no central authority to interpret what is true. Not so in Catholicism. No so.
I'm not sure how you can classify music (per se) as "Catholic" or "Protestant" unless the hymn was written by a Protestant. But the Church does not make such distinctions. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (by Martin Luther) is in all Catholic hymnals...but then Luther wrote that while he was still Catholic (but that's just an aside and not a issue for inclusion).
This need to better study the Bible is finally taking root in the Catholic Church in America. You have to remember, however, that the Catholic Church has a very large presence in countries that are illiterate and such is history. It has not been but for the last several hundred years that "reading" and "literacy" has even been widely available in the Western World. You don't have to be literate to be Catholic, but most Protestants and Evangelicals believe you can't be a Christian unless you can quote Bible verses and study the Bible (clearly a l.c. tradition of Sola Scriptura Evangelicals). That is why older Catholic Churches were filled with statues and stained glass and mosaics of Biblical and famous Christians, and of course, paintings....almost all that exist in famous galleries around the world are by Catholic painters.
Yes, there are Wesley hymns in Catholic hymnals. Catholic. But then most Protestants don't realize that when John and Charles Wesley were writing hymns they both believed in the real sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Hymns-John-Charles-Wesley/dp/1878009559) as the Church of England still believes, along with Orthodox and Lutherans (although Lutherans have a minor difference in understanding about it). This is all very Biblical based in the Gospels (esp. John 6) and throughout Paul's writings. It has been that way since the first century and the last Supper. It's only been in the last 200 years that Protestants changed that doctrine, essentially ripping it out of the Bible because it was too Catholic. It was studying John 6 that finally removed the scales from my eyes and thrust me into Catholicism. Here's the story: https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2016/08/corpus-christi-commentary-on-john-6.html
