- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,730
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
My view...... As a former Catholic, now Lutheran (LCMS)....
Positive....
1. I am very appreciative for how early Christianity formed the orthodoxy we all embrace today. While I completely reject the claims of the RCC itself for itself as to its founding, I DO accepting that the RCC and EOC's together have "roots" to the beginning - the the Roman Church (the first denomination created by the Roman Empire for itself) and to the Christian movement before that, going back to Jesus and the Apostles. AND this means that herein we find the establishment of what we embrace as Christian orthodoxy today. A LOT of things we all embrace today go back to this - the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and SO MUCH more (indeed, even our New Testament) were developed by this RCC/EOC's and before. Sometimes by the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-800 AD) but also by simple consensus - gathered at times around the teachings of important Early Church Fathers and sometimes simply by Christianity teaching one view rather than another. False ideas got identified and eventually abandoned .... true ideas got identified and promoted. In truth, we are all FAR more indebted to the RCC/EOC than we perhaps realize and admit. I once told my Catholic pastor that I agreed with probably 95% of the Catholic Catechism... and in truth, MANY Protestants do.
2. I LOVE the very pro-life, pro-family emphasis..... I admire the boldness of the RCC in standing up for morality.... And I admire how it stands up - boldly - for what it holds as true doctrine. In contrast to FAR too much of Protestantism, it is not "wishy-washy" and relativistic. It is bold and clear in both doctrine and morality. You know EXACTLY where the denomination stands (even if perhaps not most Catholics or even priests). And I admire that greatly.
BTW, I also really appreciate the liturgical worship... worship forms that are very biblical, very well thought out. Often with music that is very well done. This seems in contract IMO to much of modern Protestantism that just seems to echo the secular world, a lot seemlying just "winging it", in an auditorium with a worship leader in an Aloha shirt and jeans. When I am worshiping with Catholics, I feel like I'm worshiping. Not attending a concert or lecture. But that's me. Different strokes for different folks.
It must be noted too that I agree with probably 95% of Catholicism. There are a FEW things I'm not totally on board with, but in most cases, these disagreements are not "deal breakers" (the Marian dogmas, for example) but there ARE a handful that are: things that mandated I leave that denomination. The Dogma of the Church, the Docilic Submission of members, the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.... less so, Purgatory (I'm okay with the idea, just all the dogma around it) and Transubstantiation (a classic case of saying WAY too much actually ).
Negative...
1. The Dogma of the Church.
While the RCC retains a faint sense of the Church of Christ - the one, holy, catholic community of all believers - in truth, this is ENTIRELY buried by the dogmatic insistence of it itself that it itself IS the Church (at least in fullness). There is an OBSESSION with it itself by it itself - as a geopolitical, economic, earthly, institutional/denominational entity with the HQ in Rome. This whole dogma gets very radical. The RCC even speaks of itself as JESUS on earth. When IT speaks, Jesus Himself is speaking. I regard this really very, very extreme focus on self and the claims of self for self to be quite unbiblical, unhistorical and frankly troubling... but all of Catholicism hinges on this: in a real sense, Catholicism stands or falls on this series of claims of it itself for it itself - and it is often central to its message. At times, it seems as if the RCC talks about itself more than God ("Catholic" this, "Catholic" that) and promoted itself more than Christ. While I have nothing against denominations per se... and regard the RCC as one of the best denominations.... I find its claims not only unacceptable but divisive, unbiblical, unhistorical and troubling. With SO much good in Catholicism, it seemed at times to get lost in the obsession of itself with itself.
2. Epistemology.
The Catholic Catechism #87 says this, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." Understand, this is the cornerstone of Catholicism. This is the reason for the Doctrine of the Church that it has... the reason for all the claims that when IT (alone) speaks ergo Jesus is, the reason for the INFALLIBILITY of their Pope, and the reason for their enormous repudiation of Sola Scriptura. There is a radical rejection of accountability of itself and a bold demand that all just swallow whatever is said, "with docility." This is DRILLED into Catholics from birth. See CCC 85, 95... this is the cornerstone of the denomination. In part, I think this is simply a mindset of the middle ages but it is SO stressed. Yes, one my ask QUESTIONS but not hold the RCC accountable. And the issue is never "because it's TRUE but because the RCC teaches it." I find this troubling.... And odd. The RCC is clearly correct about SO much.... and all its teachings are VERY well thought out (even where I disagree), I have a LOT of respect for Catholic scholarship. So WHY this extreme need to evade all accountability? I KNOW why the cults need it, but why the RCC ? BTW, many think Luther was excommunicated NOT because he said Jesus is the Savior (as the RCC claimed) but because he said the individual RC Denomination could err, thus undermining this point. This very revealing quote is from the "Handbook of the Catholic Church" page 137, "When someone asks where the Catholic finds the substance of his belief, the answer is this: From the living teaching Authority. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops under him at the time." Nothing about Jesus or God or Scripture or even Tradition.... and lest one confuse this with the Church, nope - this is a denomination.
3. Justification:
Both Luther and the RCC insisted THIS was the "deal breaker" of the Reformation, the issue that caused the RCC to split itself. [Frankly, I question that - but that was the mutual belief at the time] A case can be made that TECHNICALLY, OFFICIALLY the RCC and Luther were very close if not identical on this point... but IN REALITY, IN PRACTICE, they were nearly opposites. Luther was a monergist - Jesus is the Savior, Jesus does the saving, justification (in the narrow sense of our changed relationship with God, the dawning of spiritual life) is SOLELY the work of God (albeit in a mysterious way, usually involving means), Jesus is the Savior, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of spiritual Life (as we confess in the Creed). AFTER this life-giving, AFTER this justification... then we grow, we have a synergistic/cooperative growth in love and morality as we become more Christ-like BUT the justification, the life-giving, the dawning is purely the act of God. But in Catholicism, this was very messy, very muddy... and very synergistic - even Pelagian (a heresy condemned by Catholicism but sadly often perpetuated by Catholicism). "Grace" got redefined as the "power God supplies so we can save ourselves." Jesus became not the Savior but the one who makes salvation possible, the one who opened the door to heaven (so we can walk through it), the possibiliy-maker, the helper. But He saves no one.
IMO, part of the "problem" is that we're addressing different issues: For Protestants, this is all about initial justification (justification in the narrow sense), we insist on keeping justification and sanctification very separate (in part to avoid pelagianism and to protect that Jesus is the Savior) whereas in Catholicism, all of soteriology is grouped together - as one big issue. IMO, officially anyway, we likely are not as far apart as historically seen (and some modern Catholics and Protestants - including some Lutherans hold to this). BUT in practice, we're very different - on THE most important issue there is . I heard Catholic teachers state, "God helps those who help themselves." "Jesus saves no one but makes it possible for everyone to be saved." "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you got to get yourself through it." So the Savior is self.
To me, either way.... the RCC simply being muddy about all this OR the RCC is critically wrong on THE most important issue in all Christianity... either way, it's a strong negative.
.
Positive....
1. I am very appreciative for how early Christianity formed the orthodoxy we all embrace today. While I completely reject the claims of the RCC itself for itself as to its founding, I DO accepting that the RCC and EOC's together have "roots" to the beginning - the the Roman Church (the first denomination created by the Roman Empire for itself) and to the Christian movement before that, going back to Jesus and the Apostles. AND this means that herein we find the establishment of what we embrace as Christian orthodoxy today. A LOT of things we all embrace today go back to this - the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and SO MUCH more (indeed, even our New Testament) were developed by this RCC/EOC's and before. Sometimes by the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-800 AD) but also by simple consensus - gathered at times around the teachings of important Early Church Fathers and sometimes simply by Christianity teaching one view rather than another. False ideas got identified and eventually abandoned .... true ideas got identified and promoted. In truth, we are all FAR more indebted to the RCC/EOC than we perhaps realize and admit. I once told my Catholic pastor that I agreed with probably 95% of the Catholic Catechism... and in truth, MANY Protestants do.
2. I LOVE the very pro-life, pro-family emphasis..... I admire the boldness of the RCC in standing up for morality.... And I admire how it stands up - boldly - for what it holds as true doctrine. In contrast to FAR too much of Protestantism, it is not "wishy-washy" and relativistic. It is bold and clear in both doctrine and morality. You know EXACTLY where the denomination stands (even if perhaps not most Catholics or even priests). And I admire that greatly.
BTW, I also really appreciate the liturgical worship... worship forms that are very biblical, very well thought out. Often with music that is very well done. This seems in contract IMO to much of modern Protestantism that just seems to echo the secular world, a lot seemlying just "winging it", in an auditorium with a worship leader in an Aloha shirt and jeans. When I am worshiping with Catholics, I feel like I'm worshiping. Not attending a concert or lecture. But that's me. Different strokes for different folks.
It must be noted too that I agree with probably 95% of Catholicism. There are a FEW things I'm not totally on board with, but in most cases, these disagreements are not "deal breakers" (the Marian dogmas, for example) but there ARE a handful that are: things that mandated I leave that denomination. The Dogma of the Church, the Docilic Submission of members, the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.... less so, Purgatory (I'm okay with the idea, just all the dogma around it) and Transubstantiation (a classic case of saying WAY too much actually ).
Negative...
1. The Dogma of the Church.
While the RCC retains a faint sense of the Church of Christ - the one, holy, catholic community of all believers - in truth, this is ENTIRELY buried by the dogmatic insistence of it itself that it itself IS the Church (at least in fullness). There is an OBSESSION with it itself by it itself - as a geopolitical, economic, earthly, institutional/denominational entity with the HQ in Rome. This whole dogma gets very radical. The RCC even speaks of itself as JESUS on earth. When IT speaks, Jesus Himself is speaking. I regard this really very, very extreme focus on self and the claims of self for self to be quite unbiblical, unhistorical and frankly troubling... but all of Catholicism hinges on this: in a real sense, Catholicism stands or falls on this series of claims of it itself for it itself - and it is often central to its message. At times, it seems as if the RCC talks about itself more than God ("Catholic" this, "Catholic" that) and promoted itself more than Christ. While I have nothing against denominations per se... and regard the RCC as one of the best denominations.... I find its claims not only unacceptable but divisive, unbiblical, unhistorical and troubling. With SO much good in Catholicism, it seemed at times to get lost in the obsession of itself with itself.
2. Epistemology.
The Catholic Catechism #87 says this, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." Understand, this is the cornerstone of Catholicism. This is the reason for the Doctrine of the Church that it has... the reason for all the claims that when IT (alone) speaks ergo Jesus is, the reason for the INFALLIBILITY of their Pope, and the reason for their enormous repudiation of Sola Scriptura. There is a radical rejection of accountability of itself and a bold demand that all just swallow whatever is said, "with docility." This is DRILLED into Catholics from birth. See CCC 85, 95... this is the cornerstone of the denomination. In part, I think this is simply a mindset of the middle ages but it is SO stressed. Yes, one my ask QUESTIONS but not hold the RCC accountable. And the issue is never "because it's TRUE but because the RCC teaches it." I find this troubling.... And odd. The RCC is clearly correct about SO much.... and all its teachings are VERY well thought out (even where I disagree), I have a LOT of respect for Catholic scholarship. So WHY this extreme need to evade all accountability? I KNOW why the cults need it, but why the RCC ? BTW, many think Luther was excommunicated NOT because he said Jesus is the Savior (as the RCC claimed) but because he said the individual RC Denomination could err, thus undermining this point. This very revealing quote is from the "Handbook of the Catholic Church" page 137, "When someone asks where the Catholic finds the substance of his belief, the answer is this: From the living teaching Authority. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops under him at the time." Nothing about Jesus or God or Scripture or even Tradition.... and lest one confuse this with the Church, nope - this is a denomination.
3. Justification:
Both Luther and the RCC insisted THIS was the "deal breaker" of the Reformation, the issue that caused the RCC to split itself. [Frankly, I question that - but that was the mutual belief at the time] A case can be made that TECHNICALLY, OFFICIALLY the RCC and Luther were very close if not identical on this point... but IN REALITY, IN PRACTICE, they were nearly opposites. Luther was a monergist - Jesus is the Savior, Jesus does the saving, justification (in the narrow sense of our changed relationship with God, the dawning of spiritual life) is SOLELY the work of God (albeit in a mysterious way, usually involving means), Jesus is the Savior, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of spiritual Life (as we confess in the Creed). AFTER this life-giving, AFTER this justification... then we grow, we have a synergistic/cooperative growth in love and morality as we become more Christ-like BUT the justification, the life-giving, the dawning is purely the act of God. But in Catholicism, this was very messy, very muddy... and very synergistic - even Pelagian (a heresy condemned by Catholicism but sadly often perpetuated by Catholicism). "Grace" got redefined as the "power God supplies so we can save ourselves." Jesus became not the Savior but the one who makes salvation possible, the one who opened the door to heaven (so we can walk through it), the possibiliy-maker, the helper. But He saves no one.
IMO, part of the "problem" is that we're addressing different issues: For Protestants, this is all about initial justification (justification in the narrow sense), we insist on keeping justification and sanctification very separate (in part to avoid pelagianism and to protect that Jesus is the Savior) whereas in Catholicism, all of soteriology is grouped together - as one big issue. IMO, officially anyway, we likely are not as far apart as historically seen (and some modern Catholics and Protestants - including some Lutherans hold to this). BUT in practice, we're very different - on THE most important issue there is . I heard Catholic teachers state, "God helps those who help themselves." "Jesus saves no one but makes it possible for everyone to be saved." "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you got to get yourself through it." So the Savior is self.
To me, either way.... the RCC simply being muddy about all this OR the RCC is critically wrong on THE most important issue in all Christianity... either way, it's a strong negative.
.
Last edited: