Refuting the bogus "missioning" of Protestantism.

[MoreCoffee]

The lack of a call to mission in the ministers of the new pretended churches leaves both them and their followers without excuse.

FIRST, then, your ministers and founders, the 'reformers', do not have the conditions required for the position which they attempt to maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook. Therefore they are inexcusable; and you, who are their followers, yourselves are also without excuse, who knew and still know or ought to know, this defect in them, have done very wrong in receiving them under such colours. The office they claimed was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord; the affair they undertook was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church His Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other. For in effect, to stand up as preacher of God’s Word and pastor of souls, - what is it but to call oneself ambassador and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the Apostle (2 Cor. 5:20): We are therefore ambassadors for Christ? And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed, that the whole Church has erred, and all truth disappeared,-what is this but - to say that Our Lord has abandoned his Church, has broken the sacred tie of marriage he had contracted with her? And to put forward a new Church, - is it not to attempt to thrust upon this sacred and holy Husband a second wife? This is what the ministers of the pretended church have undertaken; this is what they boast of having done; this has been the aim of their discourses, their designs, their writings. But what an injustice have you not committed in believing them? How did you come to take their word so simply? How did you so lightly give them credit?

To be legates and ambassadors they should have been sent, they should have had letters of credit from him whom they boasted of being sent by. The affairs were of the greatest importance, for there was question of disturbing the whole Church. The persons who undertook them were extraordinaries, of mean quality, and private persons; while the ordinary pastors were men of mark, and of most ancient and acknowledged reputation, who contradicted them and protested that these extraordinaries had no charge nor commandment of the Master. Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for having quit that ancient Church in which you were baptised, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master.

Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had, nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our Lord had sent them, it would have been either mediately or immediately. We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending, according to the order which He has appointed in His Church; and such was the mission of S. Dennis into France by Clement and of Timothy by S. Paul. Immediate mission is when God Himself commands and gives a charge, without the interposition of the ordinary authority which He has placed in the prelates and pastors of the Church: as S. Peter and the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord’s own mouth this commandment: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark xvi. 15); and as Moses received his mission to Pharaoh and to the people of Israel. But neither in the one nor in the other way have your ministers any mission. How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent?(Rom. 10:15)

 

[Lamb]

Is the above a quote from St. Francis de Sales The Catholic Controvercies?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is the above a quote from St. Francis de Sales The Catholic Controvercies?

I believe the title is Catholic Controversy, originally published in English by Burns and Oates, London 1886 AD. It is long since out of copyright. It's excellent reading. I commend it to you.

 

[atpollard]

More than a smattering of revisionist history going on there.
Luther objected to corrupt priests SELLING GOD’s forgiveness to raise money for a worldly Pope to recoup the cost of buying his election. When he attempted to speak with the CHURCH to plead for reform, the issued secret orders for his arrest and he was nearly killed by the church as it ignored the pledge of safety that it had made. The corruption was so deep and far reaching (not unlike the current molestation coverup scandal) that even the RCC eventually rejected the policies that Luther had objected to.

The OP misrepresents the facts of the case and Protestants would gladly welcome our RCC brothers back to the body if they ever choose to worship God the Father, Son and Spirit rather than offering their prayers and faith to the Co-Redemptrix (Mary) and the Bishop of Rome (a man).

 

[MoreCoffee]

More than a smattering of revisionist history going on there.
Luther objected to corrupt priests SELLING GOD’s forgiveness

That is revisionism. The text in bold and underlined. Luther alleged that indulgences were being sold but even Luther knew that an indulgence forgives no one and nothing and everyone who knows what an indulgence is knows that it deals with the temporal punishments associated with sins that are already forgiven by God. This claim made in your post is a Protestant myth. Ignorantly forumulated by people who know little of the theology involved and less of the history.

to raise money for a worldly Pope to recoup the cost of buying his election.

The money that Johann Tetzel gathered was to pay for the completion of saint Peter's basilica in Rome. It had nothing to do with elections. Less to do with papal expenses. It did have something to do with the cost of war against the Papal states.

When he attempted to speak with the CHURCH to plead for reform, the issued secret orders

This is laughable. Martin Luther was publicly excommunicated, publicly tried before the emperor as Worms and publicly condemned as an outlaw. He had safe conduct for a number of days sufficient (in excess really) of the time he needed to return to his home but he was thereafter under sentence of death and it was all public, nothing secret, that is why he was in danger because being an outlaw he no longer had legal protection and anybody could kill him without penalty, in fact it was said to be a duty to kill him because of his crimes - heresy was considered very grave back then. His local prince abducted him and imprisoned him in a safe place so he would not be killed. Here's a drama made in 1953 about it, it is a Protestant work, not Catholic, so it is far from objective and accurate but even a biased film maker could not tells the fairy story that you've told with a straight face.

Watch a learn a little, please.

for his arrest and he was nearly killed by the church as it ignored the pledge of safety that it had made. The corruption was so deep and far reaching (not unlike the current molestation coverup scandal) that even the RCC eventually rejected the policies that Luther had objected to.

The OP misrepresents the facts of the case and Protestants would gladly welcome our RCC brothers back to the body if they ever choose to worship God the Father, Son and Spirit rather than offering their prayers and faith to the Co-Redemptrix (Mary) and the Bishop of Rome (a man).

The original post was written by a man living in the times of the Catholic reformation that followed the Protestant revolt.

 

[Albion]

More than a smattering of revisionist history going on there.
Luther objected to corrupt priests SELLING GOD’s forgiveness to raise money for a worldly Pope to recoup the cost of buying his election. When he attempted to speak with the CHURCH to plead for reform, the issued secret orders for his arrest and he was nearly killed by the church as it ignored the pledge of safety that it had made. The corruption was so deep and far reaching (not unlike the current molestation coverup scandal) that even the RCC eventually rejected the policies that Luther had objected to.

That's largely true. The reason for Tetzel to be selling indulgences (and permitting the purchasers to believe that they forgave sin) was two-fold. Some of the money was to build St. Peters basilica in Rome but part was a payoff to the princes in the German states for allowing him to peddle the indulgences.

You are also correct to note that the Roman Church has since adopted many of the reforms wanted by Luther that were condemned by the RCC in Luthers time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some of the money was to build St. Peters basilica in Rome but part was a payoff to the princes in the German states for allowing ...

The film suggests a 50/50 split of the funds. Luther, instead of seeking money gave revolution and war and the deaths of many people. A revolt, its suppression, and later a war that raged in German territories for a few decades. No one was left unscathed and few were left unsullied by the shocking consequences. Luther's patrimony is a double edged sword, on the one had he left a new religion in parts of Germany, in Sweden, and Denmark, and on the other hand war and killing between worldly princes in the name of religion.

But this thread is about what is taught in the holy scriptures compared to what the new religions teach from their pulpits.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That the pretended reformers had no mediate mission either from the people or from the Bishops.

AND first, as to the ordinary and mediate mission, they .have none whatever. For what they can put forward is either that they are sent by the people and secular princes, or else that they are sent by the imposition of the hands of the bishops who made them priests, a dignity to which at last they must have recourse, although they despise it altogether and everywhere.

Now, if they say that the secular magistrates and people have sent them, they will have two proofs to give which they never can give, the one that the seculars have done it, the other that they could do it, for we deny both the fact and the right (factum et jus faciendi).

And that they could not do it the reason is absolute. For (1.) they will never find that the people and secular magistrates had the Power to establish and Institute bishops in the Church. They will indeed perhaps find that the people have given testimony and assisted at ordinations; yea, perhaps, that the choice has been given to them, like that of the deacons, as Luke tells us (Acts vi.), which the whole body of the faithful made; but they will never show that the people or secular princes have authority to give mission or to appoint pastors. How then do they allege a mission by people or princes, which has no foundation in the Scripture?

(2.) On the contrary, we bring forward the express practice of the whole Church, which from all time has been to ordain the Pastors by the imposition of the hands of the other Pastors and bishops. Thus was Timothy ordained and the seven deacons themselves, though proposed by the Christian people, were ordained by the imposition of the Apostles’ hands. Thus have the Apostles appointed in their Constitutions; and the great Council of Nice (which methinks one will not despise) and that of Carthage- the second, and then immediately the third, and the fourth, at which St. Augustine assisted. If then they have been sent by the laity, they are not sent in Apostolic fashion, nor legitimately, and their mission is null.

(3.) In fact, the laity have no mission, and how then shall they give it? How shall they communicate the authority which they have not? And therefore Saint Paul, speaking of the priesthood and pastoral order, says: Neither doth any man take the honour to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was (Heb. v. 4). Now Aaron was consecrated and ordained by the hands of Moses, who was a priest himself, according to the holy word of David (Ps. xcviii. 7), Moses and Aaron among his priests and Samuel among those who call upon his name; and, as is indicated in Exodus (xxviii. 1) in this word, take unto thee also Aaron thy brother, with his sons…that they may minister to me in the priest’s office; with which agree a great army of our Ancients. Whoever then would assert his mission must not assert it as being from the people nor from secular princes. For Aaron was not called in that way, and we cannot be called otherwise than he was.

(4.) Finally, that which is less is blessed by the better, as Saint Paul says (Heb. vii. 7). The people then cannot send the pastors; for the pastors are greater than the people, and mission is not given without blessing (John xiii. 16). For after this magnificent mission the people remain sheep, and the shepherd remains shepherd. (5.) I do not insist here, as I will prove it hereafter, that the Church is monarchical, and that therefore the right of sending belongs to the chief pastor, not to the people. I omit the disorder which would arise if the people sent; for they Gould not send to one another, one people having no authority over the other; and what free play would this give to all sorts of heresies and fancies? It is necessary then that the sheep should receive the shepherd from elsewbere, and should not give him to themselves.(Acts xv. 24) The people therefore were not able to give legitimate mission or commission to these new ambassadors. But I say further that even if they could they did not. For this people was of the true Church or not: if it was of the true Church why did Luther take it therefrom? Would it really have called him in order to be taken out of its place and of the Church? And if it were not of the true Church, how could it have the right of mission and of vocation? -outside the true Church there cannot be such authority. If they say this people was not Catholic, what was it then? it was not Lutheran ; for we all know that when Luther began to preach in Germany there were no Lutherans, and it was he who was their origin. Since then such a people did not belong to the true Church, how could it give mission for true preaching? They have then no vocation from that source, unless they have recourse to the invisible mission received from the principalities and powers of the world of this darkness, and the spiritual wickednesss against which good Catholics have always waged war. Many therefore of our age, seeing the road cut off on that side, have betaken themselves to the other, and say that the first masters and reformers – Luther, Bucer, Oecolampadius- were sent by the bishops who made them priests; then they sent their followers, and so they would go on to blend their rights with those of the Apostles.

In good sooth it is to speak frankly and plainly indeed, thus to confess that mission can only have passed to their ministers from the Apostles by the succession of our bishops and the imposition of their hands. Of course the case is really so: one cannot give this mission so high a fall that from the Apostles it should leap into the hands of the preachers of nowadays without having touched any of our ancients and foregoers: it would have required a very long speaking-tube in the mouth of the first founders of the Church to call Luther and the rest without being overheard by any of those who were between: or else, as Calvin says on another occasion, not much to the point, these must have had very long ears. It must have been kept sound indeed, if these were to find it. We agree then that mission was possessed by our bishops, and particularly by their head, the Roman Bishop. But we formally deny that your ministers have had any communication of it, to preach what they have preached. Because (1.) they preach things contrary to the Church in which they have been ordained priests; therefore either they err or the Church which has sent them errs; - and consequently either their church is false or the one from which they have taken mission.

If it be that from which they have taken mission, their mission is false, for from a false Church there cannot spring a true mission. Whichever way it be, they had no mission to preach what they preached, because, if the Church in which they have been ordained were true, they are heretics for having left it, and for having preached against its belief, and if it were not true it could not give them mission.

(2.) Besides, though they had had mission in the Roman Church, they had none to leave it, and withdraw her children from her obedience. Truly the commissioner must not exceed the limits of his commission, or his act is null. (3.) Luther, Oecolampadius, and Calvin were not bishops: how then could they communicate any mission to their successors on the part of the Roman Church. which protests always and everywhere that it is only the bishops who can send, and that this belongs in no way to simple priests? In which even Saint Jerome has placed the difference between the simple priest and the bishop, in the Epistle to Evagrius, and Saint Augustine (De Haer. 53) and Epiphanius (Haeres. 75) reckon Aerius with heretics because he held the contrary.

 

[atpollard]

Do the Bishops hiding the molestations of children from the police until the statute of limitations have expired have a mandate from the people or from the Archbishops?

I am not just slinging mud for the sake of slinging mud, but rather I am raising the honest question “What does a member of the Body of Christ do when Church Leadership chooses to do evil and refuses to repent?” Where is the scripture that calls Christians to support Wolves in sheep’s clothing and support them in their evil endeavors. That was the struggle faced by the reformers and history is repeating itself.

(As an aside, most of these arguments raised against the Protestant Reformation could call into question the issue of the Great Schism of 5 centuries earlier. How can you really call the Protestants back to Rome when Rome still has not reconciled with the other Apostolic established bishops of the east?)

First remove the log from your own eye and then assist us in removing the speck from our eye.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do the Bishops hiding the molestations of children from the police until the statute of limitations have expired have a mandate from the people or from the Archbishops?

I guess that's your best shot eh? :scared:

You could give consideration to how many people in positions of authority do bad things without being imprisoned. It doesn't make the bad people good nor does it make the institution bad. The body of Christ isn't polluted by a bad member nor by a bad faith pretender no matter how far they may rise.

I am not just slinging mud for the sake of slinging mud,

You are slinging mud for purposes best known to you but you are definitely slinging mud. No point pretending otherwise.

but rather I am raising the honest question “What does a member of the Body of Christ do when Church Leadership chooses to do evil and refuses to repent?”

If that is your question then why not ask it without the mud? No doubt scoring a cheap point mattered more than the question. Nevertheless the answer to the question is that bad people deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned if that is the penalty for their crimes. It doesn't matter if they are high officials, rich, poor, or lowly. But in the world wealth and power protect the guilty much too often.

Where is the scripture that calls Christians to support Wolves in sheep’s clothing and support them in their evil endeavors. That was the struggle faced by the reformers and history is repeating itself.

(As an aside, most of these arguments raised against the Protestant Reformation could call into question the issue of the Great Schism of 5 centuries earlier. How can you really call the Protestants back to Rome when Rome still has not reconciled with the other Apostolic established bishops of the east?)

Let the Orthodox deal with their matters and Catholics with theirs. You can deal with your issues, or if you feel up to it then maybe with the issues that you perceive in your denomination. It is not your duty, nor mine, to solve problems beyond our ability. It is fine to opine about this or that matter, opinions are inexpensive and sometimes interesting but they do not end age long disputes. So consider your own position and be content with that. The rest of humanity will have to consider their own positions each individually or in family groups and sometimes, but rarely, as a community.

First remove the log from your own eye and then assist us in removing the speck from our eye.

Another cheap shot. The mud is in your hands and flung around by your hands. It isn't in my eye, nor is there a log that you can see in my eye but take Jesus' words to heart. "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42

 

[MoreCoffee]

 

[MennoSota]

I guess that's your best shot eh? :scared:

You could give consideration to how many people in positions of authority do bad things without being imprisoned. It doesn't make the bad people good nor does it make the institution bad. The body of Christ isn't polluted by a bad member nor by a bad faith pretender no matter how far they may rise.

You are slinging mud for purposes best known to you but you are definitely slinging mud. No point pretending otherwise.

If that is your question then why not ask it without the mud? No doubt scoring a cheap point mattered more than the question. Nevertheless the answer to the question is that bad people deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned if that is the penalty for their crimes. It doesn't matter if they are high officials, rich, poor, or lowly. But in the world wealth and power protect the guilty much too often.

Let the Orthodox deal with their matters and Catholics with theirs. You can deal with your issues, or if you feel up to it then maybe with the issues that you perceive in your denomination. It is not your duty, nor mine, to solve problems beyond our ability. It is fine to opine about this or that matter, opinions are inexpensive and sometimes interesting but they do not end age long disputes. So consider your own position and be content with that. The rest of humanity will have to consider their own positions each individually or in family groups and sometimes, but rarely, as a community.


Another cheap shot. The mud is in your hands and flung around by your hands. It isn't in my eye, nor is there a log that you can see in my eye but take Jesus' words to heart. "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42

Sadly, you think the body of Christ is a church in Rome. That's simply pathetic thinking on your part, which leads to a stream of wrong thinking that leads to nowhere.

 

[RichWh1]

What does any of this have to do with missions or missionaries?

Sent from my Z557BL using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

What does any of this have to do with missions or missionaries?

Well, the reason this thread was created was to even the score for there being a few threads currently running which are unflattering towards Roman Catholicism. The part about missions was merely a pretext, so of course it was soon forgotten.

 

[RichWh1]

Thanks for the explanation.

Sent from my Z557BL using Tapatalk

 

[psalms 91]

Yeah better to just ignore both

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

What's the point of this?

 

[Andrew]

What's the point of this?

Same here...

 

[MennoSota]

I take it MC is going away.
I'd rather have him recognize the errors in the church at Rome than go away.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What's the point of this?

It's an interesting picture