Perhaps this isn't worth commenting on, but it's such a popular Catholic trope that I'll bite:
The heresy of ProtestantismProtestantism has no history here…because it has no legitimacy.It wasn't Protestant blood spilled here during the Crusades fighting back the evil of Muslims attacking Christian sites a thousand years ago.It wasn't Protestantism that was driven out of Jerusalem by fanatical rabbis in the 1C of the church.It wasn't Protestants who stood and fought the heresies attacking the divinity of ChristIt wasn't Protestants who were commissioned by Christ to go and make disciples of all nations.And it wasn't Protestant who built all the churches and shrines over every single holy spot in this land. Every one of those acts was done by Catholics.We ran into a small tour group of Protestants from the Foursquare church in Alabama. I politely said to one of the ladies it must be strange for you all to be here since you have no history here.
A lot to sort through:
1. He's a RadTrad Catholic. His network runs exposés on the chicanery of the Catholic hierarchy. So Voris has a split personality. There's Michael the-sky-is-falling Voris. Run for your life to escape the blast zone. Then there's his alter ego, who beckons evangelicals unite with the One True Church®. You never know which personality will surface. If they ever came into contact, it would be like matter meeting anti-matter. Instant mutual annihilation. The two Michaels can only coexist in airtight compartments.
2. He operates with an identity politics paradigm, transposed to an ecclesiastical key. For instance, it's true that Protestants didn't fight in the Crusades. Guess what–Voris didn't fight in the Crusades. No 21C Catholics fought in the Crusades. Or 20C Catholics. Or 19C Catholics. Or 18C Catholics. Or…
Voris identifies with the deeds of past Catholics as if he vicariously lived through that period, but the sense of solidarity is purely psychological and imaginary. Like celebrity stalkers who think they have a personal connection with the star.
3. Although I think the First Crusade was warranted, the Crusades quickly went off the rails. They were conducted from mixed motives, with a healthy dose of false theology, and the tactics routinely violated just-war criteria. Voris does his cause no favors by wrapping himself in the mantle of the Crusades generally.
4. Post-Vatican II theology doesn't classify Protestants as heretics. Like RadTrads generally, Voris is a lay magisterium, out of step with his religious superiors.
5. There's nothing holy about physical sites in Palestine. Holy space is an artifact of the defunct Mosaic covenant.
6. In addition, these churches are located at sites traditionally associated with the life of Christ, but that can't be verified.
7. Getting to the nub of the issue, if we're going to cast the issue in anachronistic Catholic/Protestant terminology, the first Christians were Protestants, not Catholics. The apostles and NT authors taught sola gratia, which Catholicism rejects. Paul taught sola fide, which Catholicism rejects. Catholicism teaches seven sacraments, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the veneration and intercession of the saints, Transubstantiation, relics, indulgences, papal infallibility, adoration of the Host, the Rosary, monastic orders, &c. The apostles and NT authors taught none of that. Protestant theology is the original theology of the NT church. We were first. The Protestant Reformation is a restoration movement, returning the church to the status quo ante. Catholics are squatters and usurpers.
👍👍
ReplyDeleteSome people speculate that in Revelation when John sees mystery Babylon and he is shocked, he is seeing the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteThe extravagant riches. The idol worship. The blasphemies. All in the name of the cross.
A first century Jewish Christian would be shocked at seeing the Frankenstein monster of the Catholic church.
Sometimes we have to choose between two good things in life. We can't have both. God instituted the family, but Jesus often tells us in the gospels that we need to love him more than our family and may have to forsake our family in the process of following him. Biological descent from Abraham is good. But what we believe about Jesus is more important (Matthew 3:9, John 8:24). Being part of an apostolic church, like the Galatian church, is good, but it's insufficient without a right understanding of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). You can think that there's some value in being able to trace an organization back to the apostles, yet also think that such a pedigree is outweighed by the doctrinal and moral problems with the organization that has the pedigree.
ReplyDeleteThe church is defined in different ways in different contexts (all believers collectively, a local congregation, a denomination, all congregations and denominations collectively, etc.). Evangelicals can believe that the church has existed since the time of the apostles under one or more definitions of the church, yet reject the notion that the church has always existed as Roman Catholicism defines it. I think the church defined as all believers collectively has always existed since the time of the apostles. I doubt there was any period of time when there weren't any believers on earth. And those believers manifested their Christian identity physically in various ways. So, the church can be called visible in that sense. I can believe that there's always been a church, and I can have some degree of affiliation with historical individuals, groups, movements, events, etc. like the ones referred to in the first post in this thread, while rejecting certain aspects of a Roman Catholic definition of the church. I don't have to think that Irenaeus was an Evangelical or a member of any modern denomination or other such organization in order to have some affiliation with Irenaeus, appreciate his work in opposing Gnosticism, etc. And even if I thought Irenaeus was part of some modern organization, I could think that the organization has changed so much over the years that some people outside that organization are closer to Irenaeus than the organization is. These issues are larger and more complicated than Catholics often suggest.
For those who are interested in more material about subjects like these, see our collection or resources here. It's a collection of links to articles on apostolic succession, whether particular church fathers should be considered Roman Catholic, a Protestant view of the church, etc.
Why was there nobody protesting the corruptions of Medieval Rome in 1st century Jerusalem?
ReplyDeleteWhy when Christ commissioned the apostles to make disciples of all nations, did none of them clearly articulate in response that the not-yet-existing Papacy had committed many theological errors?
Why, when Christians some centuries after Christ mistakenly decided that there were still "holy places" that needed memorialising, were none of those Christians doing so people who understood that this theology was incorrect?
These questions aren't really very puzzling, are they?
--6. In addition, these churches are located at sites traditionally associated with the life of Christ, but that can't be verified.--
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, have you watched that mini-documentary with footage of Mt Sinai in Arabia and various Exodus sites?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjrxHqNy5CQ
Seems Dr Michael Brown is getting sold on the evidence too, after his interview with Joel Richardson about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrtu9hcqC8Y