Refuting the bogus "missioning" of Protestantism.

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
US_Navy_070104-N-4515N-035_Family_and_friends_of_Sailors_aboard_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Bataan_%28LHD_5%29_gather_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_to_say_goodbye_as_they_start_their_deployment.jpg
:(
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Fear not. I am here. Still.

And for those who do not know what "missioning" means I can offer this

Missioning is to send someone or some group on a mission on behalf of the one who sends them. Thus the missioning of the Catholic Church is to preach the gospel to all people in all the earth knowing that when that work is done then the end of this age will come and the Lord, Jesus Christ, will return to judge the living and the dead and to give each person his/her reward according to what he/she has done in this age in this world.

The missing and/or perverted elements in Protestant missioning are
  • Christ did not send them by means of any direct revelation
  • They presume to send themselves on their own authority - as if they had any authority given to them by anyone
  • They preach a new and different gospel which borrows much from the gospel preached by God's commissioned ministers yet introduces many heresies and errors into the message of the gospel delivered once for all time by the apostles and prophets.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The missing and/or perverted elements in Protestant missioning are
  • Christ did not send them by means of any direct revelation
  • They presume to send themselves on their own authority - as if they had any authority given to them by anyone
  • They preach a new and different gospel which borrows much from the gospel preached by God's commissioned ministers yet introduces many heresies and errors into the message of the gospel delivered once for all time by the apostles and prophets.

The familiar gimmick in that approach is to lump every Protestant church together as though they all are peas in a pod, identical in every important way...and then proceeding to vilify every church that is so classified by going after some characteristic of one or a few of them. It is as bogus a technique as if I were to do the same thing in reverse and condemn all Catholic churches for having women priests and believing in Reincarnation.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The familiar gimmick in that approach is to lump every Protestant church together as though they all are peas in a pod, identical in every important way...and then proceeding to vilify every church that is so classified by going after some characteristic of one or a few of them. It is as bogus a technique as if I were to do the same thing in reverse and condemn all Catholic churches for having women priests and believing in Reincarnation.

I do not think of Protestantism as a single movement nor as a group of compatible churches or belief systems but the word "Protestant" is useful as a catch-all for the multitude of denominations that claim descent in some form or other from the Protestant revolt of the 1520s and onwards.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I do not think of Protestantism as a single movement nor as a group of compatible churches or belief systems but the word "Protestant" is useful as a catch-all for the multitude of denominations that claim descent in some form or other from the Protestant revolt of the 1520s and onwards.


Of course, but when you or anyone begins to attack "Protestantism" generally (as was the case here) on the basis of what only some church or churches that are classified as "Protestant" do or believe, that is usually intentional and is misleading to say the least.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The first post in this thread, [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION], is taken from saint Francis De Sales collection of tracts written for French Calvinists in the 16th/17th Century. It is mainly about Calvinism but also about Lutheranism and Anabaptists.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,515
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The first post in this thread, [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION], is taken from saint Francis De Sales collection of tracts written for French Calvinists in the 16th/17th Century. It is mainly about Calvinism but also about Lutheranism and Anabaptists.

Unless St. Francis de Sales wrote post #23 under your name, nothing is changed.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Unless St. Francis de Sales wrote post #23 under your name, nothing is changed.

He did in fact write a good proportion of it.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

CHAPTER XIII.
THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

I AM not now concerned to show how your ministers have degraded the holiness and majesty of the Spouse of Jesus Christ. They cry out loud and clear that she has remained eight hundred years adulterous and antichristian, from S. Gregory to Wicliffe – whom Beza considers the first restorer of Christianity. Calvin indeed would shield himself under a distinction, saying that the Church can err in things unnecessary for salvation, not in others. But Beza openly confesses that she has so far erred that she is no longer the Church. And is this not to err in things necessary for salvation, although he avows that outside the Church there is no salvation? It follows then from what he says-let him turn and turn about as he likes – that the Church has erred in things necessary for salvation. For if outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church has so gravely erred that she is no more the Church, certainly in her there is no salvation. Now she can only lose salvation by giving up the things necessary for salvation; she has therefore erred in things necessary for salvation; otherwise, having what is necessary for salvation, she would be the true Church, or else men can be saved outside the true Church, which is impossible. And Beza says that he learnt this way of speaking from those who instructed him in his pretended religion, that is, from Calvin.

Indeed if Calvin thought that the Church of Rome had not erred in things necessary for salvation he would have done wrong to separate himself from it, for bring able to secure his salvation in it, and true Christianity residing in it, he would have been obliged to stay therein for his salvation, which could not be in two different places.

Perhaps I may be told that Beza says indeed that the Roman Church, as it is now, errs in things necessary for salvation, and that therefore he left it; but that he does not say the true Church has ever erred. He cannot, however, escape in that direction; for what Church was there in the world two, there, four, five hundred years ago, save the Church Catholic and Roman, just exactly as it is at present? There was certainly no other, therefore it was the true Church and yet it erred; or there was no Church in the world – and in that case again he is constrained to confess that this disappearance of the Church arose from intolerable error, and error in things necessary for salvation. For as to that dispersion of the faithful, and that secret Church that he fancies he can bring forward, I have already sufficiently exposed the vainness of it. Besides the fact that when they confess the visible Church can err, they dishonour the Church to which Our Lord directs us in our difficulties, and which S. Paul calls the pillar and ground of truth. For it is only of the visible Church that these testimonies are understood, unless we would say that Our Lord had sent us to speak to an invisible and unperceivable thing, a thing utterly unknown, or that S. Paul instructed his Timothy to converse in a society of which he had no knowledge.

But is it not to violate all the respect and reverence due to this Queen, this spouse of the heavenly King, to have brought back into the realm almost all the rout which with such cost of blood, of sweat, and of travails, she had by solemn penal sentence banished and driven from these her confines, as rebels and as sworn enemies of her crown? I mean this setting up so many heresies and false opinions which the Church had condemned, infringing thereby the sovereignty of the Church, absolving those she had condemned, condemning those whom she has absolved. Examples follow.

Simon Magus said that God was the cause of sin, says Vincent of Lerins (Com. Ium c. 34). But Calvin and Beza say no less; the former in the treatise an eternal predestination, the latter in his answer to Sebastian Castalio (See Claude de Sainetes an Atheism; Francis Feuardent in his Dialogues; Bellarmine Controv. Tom. iv. Lib. ii. c. 6 [where find quotations from Calvin and Beza. Tr.]; Hay in his Questions and Answers.): though they deny the word, they follow the things and substance of this heresy – if heresy it is to be called, and not atheism. But of this so many learned men couvict them by their own words that I will not stay upon it.

Judas, says S. Jerome (in Matt. xxvi. 48), thought that the miracles he saw worked by the hand of Our Lord were diabolical operations and illusions (Porphyry and Eunomius did the same. (See Jerome adv. Vig. (10).) I know not whether your ministers think of what they are saying, but when we bring forward miracles, what do they say but that they are sorceries? The glorious miracles which Our Lord does, O men of this world, instead of opening your eyes, how do you speak of them? (See Calvin in Pref. to Instit. ; the Centuriators ; Peter Martyr (a viii. Ind. de Harr. c. 27).)

The Pepusians, says S. Augustine (De Haer. 27.) (or Montanists and Phrygians, as the Code calls them), admitted women to the dignity of the priesthood. Who is ignorant that the English brethren hold their Queen Elizabeth to be head of their Church?

The Manicheans, says S. Jerome (Praef. in Dial. c. Pelag.), denied freewill: Luther has composed a book against free-will, which he calls de servo arbitrio: for Calvin I appeal to yourselves. (The Saint adds in marginal note : Amb. Ep. 83 (Migne Ep. xxiii. ) ” We rightly condemn the Manicheans an account of their Sunday fasts.”)

The Donatists believed that the Church was destroyed throughout the world and remained only with them (Aug. de Haer. 69): your ministers say the same. Again, they believe that a bad man cannot baptize (lb. contra Pet. i. 7); Wicliff said just as much, whom I bring forward in mockery, because Beza holds him for a glorious reformer. As to their lives, their virtues were such as these: they gave the most precious Sacrament to the dogs, they cast the holy Chrism upon the ground, they overthrew the altars, broke the chalices and sold them, they shaved the heads of the priests to take the sacred unction from them, they took and tore away the veil from nuns to reform them (See Optatus de sch. Don. ii. 17, vi. 1.)

Jovinian, as S. Augustine testifies (De Haer. 82 : and see Jerome cont. Jov.), he would have any kind of meat eaten at any time and against every prohibition ; he said that fasting was not meritorious before God, that the saved were equal in glory, that virginity was no better than marriage, and that all sins were equal. Your masters teach the same.

Vigilantius, as S. Jerome says, (Cont. Vig.; and Ep. ii. adv. eundem.) denied that the relics of the Saints are to be honoured, that the prayers of the Saints are profitable, that priests should live in celibacy; [he rejected] voluntary poverty. And what of all those things do you not deny? (here and in the predceding paragraph the Saint refers to Luther (De Nat. B.M.; in I Pet. Ep.; and Epithal.); and Calvin (in Antid. S. vi.))

About the year 324, Eustathius despised the ordinary fasts of the Church, ecclesiastical traditions, the shrines of the holy Martyrs, and places dedicated to their honour. The account is given by the Council of Gangra (in proef.) in which for those reasons he was anathematized and condemned. See how long your reformers have been condemned.

Eunomius would not yield to plurality, dignity, antiquity, as S. Basil testifies (Contre Eun. I) He said that faith alone was suffieient for salvation, and justified (Aug. haer. 54). As to the first point, see Beza in his treatise an the marks of the Church; as to the second, does it not agree with that celebrated sentence of Luther’s, (de Cap. Bab. i) whom Beza holds to be a most glorious reformer: “You see how rich is the Christian, that is, the baptized man, who even if he wishes is not able to lose his salvation by any sins whatever, unless he refuses to believe”?

Aerius, according to S. Augustine (H. 53), denied prayer for the dead, ordinary fasts, and the superiority of a bishop over a simple priest. Your masters deny all this.

Lucifer called his Church alone the true Church and said that the ancient Church had become, instead of a Church, a house of ill-fame (Jer. contra Lucif.) and what do your ministers cry out all the day?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Continued ...

The Pelagians considered themselves assured and certain of their justice, promised salvation to the children of the faithful who died without Baptism, held that all sins were mortal. (Jerome adv. Pet. ii. and iii.; S. Aug. contra Jul. vi.) As to the first, this is your ordinary language, and that of Calvin (in Antidoto, p. vi).The second and third points are too ordinary with you to have anything said about them. The Manicheaus rejected the sacrifices of the Church, and images, ( S. Aug. contra Faustum xx) as your people also do.

The Messalians despised Sacred Orders, Churches, Altars, as says S. Damascene (Haeres. 8o); and S. Ignatius says (Apud Tneodoret. Dial. 3, called Impatibilis.): They do not admit the Eucharist and the oblations, because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father mercifully raised up.Against whom S. Martial has written (II Epist. ad Burdigalenses (apocryphal Tr.).).

Berengarius taught the Same, Jong afterwards, and was condemned by three Councils, in the two last of which he abjured his heresy.

Julian the Apostate despised the sign of the Cross. Xenaias did the same (Niceph. xvi. 27), the Mahometans treat it no worse (Damas. 100.). But he who would see this at full length, let him look at Sanders (viii. 57) and Bellarmine in his Notes of the Church. Do you see the mould an which your ministers lay and form their reformation?

Now, ought not this agreement of opinions, or, to speak more rightly, this close parentage and consanguinity which your first masters had with the most cruel, inveterate, and sworn enemies of the Church, ought not this alone to dissuade you from following them, and to bring you under the right banner? I have not cited one heresy which was not held as such by that Church which Calvin and Beza confess to have been the true Church – that is, in the first five hundred years of Christianity. Ah! I pray you, is it not to trample the majesty of the Church under foot thus to produce as reformations, and necessary and holy reparations, what she has so greatly abominated when she was in her purest years, and which she had crushed down as impiety, as the ruin and corruption of true doctrine? The delicate stomach of this heavenly Spouse had scarcely been able to bear the violence of these poisons, and had rejected them with such energy that many veins of her martyrs had burst with the effort, and now you offer them to her again as a precious medicine! The Fathers whom I have quoted would never have placed them an the list of heretics if they had not seen the Body of the Church hold them as such. These Fathers being in the highest rank of orthodoxy, and closely united with all the other Catholic bishops and doctors of their time, we see that what they held to be heretical was so in reality.

Picture to yourselves this venerable antiquity in heaven round about the Master, who regards your reformers and their works. Those have gained their crown combatting the opinions which the ministers adore; they have held as heretics those whose steps you follow. Do you think that what they have judged to be error, heresy, blasphemy, in the Arians, the Manichaeans, Judas, they now judge to be sanctity, reformation, restormation? Who sees not that this is the greatest contempt for the majesty of the Church that can be shown? If you would be in the succession of the true and holy Church of those first centuries, do not then oppose what it has so solemnly established and instituted. Nobody can be partly heir and partly not. Accept the inheritance courageously; the charges are not so great but that a little humility will give a good account of them – to say good-bye to your passions, and to give up the differente which you have with the Church: the honours are infinite – the being heirs of God, co-heirs of Jesus Christ in the happy society of all the Blessed!
 
Top Bottom