I have a series of articles, well researched and very thorough, demonstrating the need for the Church from the moment it was established by Jesus. Those who disagree or doubt the Catholic Church will hardly find this as a reason to look to Rome. However, with prayer and research these articles help point to the Catholic Church as the 1st Christian Church and the only possible hope for Christian unity:
1. The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church:
Jesus Christ instructed His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world, therefore they had an "immediate" mission from God. St. Paul sent Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Crete as Bishops to help him on his first mission, therefore they had a "mediate" mission from someone given the power by God to send them.
On the other hand, never have we seen any of the Protestant reformers show any mission from God or from anyone else to reform the church. Rather it is readily apparent they wrongfully took it upon themselves to make reforms. "How shall they preach unless they be sent"? Romans 10:15.
No individual has the right to associate himself with the Apostles or attempt to act under their authority; the individual must be sent or commissioned with divine authority. "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" John 10:1. Here we see Martin Luther openly agreeing with this.
Consider verses such as "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" John 20:21 and "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me" John 13:20.
How can people without any authority attempt to make such drastic decisions affecting a divinely founded, global Church? Laity or princes do not have authority or power to start such a mission, rather someone must be sent legitimately, in Apostolic fashion, such as from a Bishop, or their mission is null. "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." Hebrews 5:4
If you say the reformers were given appropriate mission to reform the Catholic Church, then we ask who is the authority that sent them? We know it was not the Catholic Church for the ideas of the Reformation are against Catholic teaching, and it was not the Lutheran and other Protestant churches for they were not yet formed when the reformation was being organized. So on who's authority was the mission of the Reformation?
If the church from which the Protestant reformers came were true, they can only be labeled heretics for having left it. And if the church from which the reformers came were NOT true, then that church could not have given the reformers true mission to reform the Catholic Church.
2. To those who say the Protestant reformers had an immediate mission from God to reform the Catholic Church:
To claim that the Protestant reformers were given direct mission by God to reform the church requires undeniable proof, otherwise people all over the world could easily claim direct mission from God on all sorts of beliefs, then where would we be? Then each time we thought we were following the truth we would be forever interrupted by men claiming an extraordinary vocation. Is that how Jesus intended His Church to be?
Consider the miracles sent by God through Moses so that others would believe his mission. Also consider the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles so that the people would believe their word. Yet the Protestant reformers, despite making the most drastic changes to the Catholic Church since its founding, have never shown a miracle or any other sign to prove their mission, as would have occurred elsewhere in Scripture with such a drastic change to the faith. Jesus did not hesitate to show signs when reforming the Church, so what audacity do the Protestant reformers have to propose changes as drastic as Jesus made without showing any signs? "Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do." John 14:11,12
Why should we take the Protestant reformers mere word without a sign? He who boasts an extraordinary mission from God without immediately producing undeniable signs cannot be believed.
If there was a true immediate mission from God to reform the church, then we ask which one had the true mission; Luther, Calvin, or another reformer? Each of these men had opposing beliefs from the start which resulted in different denominations so it is quite obvious these men did not have an immediate mission from God.
For those who would like to claim the Protestant reformers were true prophets, why did they act contrary to all other prophets before them by not showing any undeniable signs to prove their words, and by opposing the one true Church which no other true prophet has ever done?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" Galatians 1:8.
Consider the repeated vulgarities in the writings of the reformers. Did Our Lord or the Apostles or Saints speak in this manner? Are we really to believe that someone sent from God to reform the Church was to speak in this manner?
Furthermore, why would Luther claim he was not someone holy if he truly had an immediate mission from God to reform the Church?
And lastly, the Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin each have openly claimed the Catholic Church to have been the True Church during the early centuries of Christianity. Then later when these men fell into disagreement with the Church, they suddenly claimed it was a false Church. Do you think someone who had an immediate mission from God would teach that something is true, then later recant and teach the exact opposite? Have we ever seen Our Lord or His Apostles teach us something and then later have a change of heart and teach us the exact opposite? It is plainly obvious that hypocritical teaching is not from God.
3. To those who say the true Church is invisible:
Nowhere in Scripture will it ever be found that the Church is invisible. Rather references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. How are the following verses to be understood of an invisible Church?
"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" Matt 18:17.
"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15
"And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church" Acts 20:17
"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them" Acts 15:4
"And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed" Acts 14:22
"And when they were come, and had assembled the church, they related what great things God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles" Acts 14:26
"And going down to Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem, and saluted the church, and so came down to Antioch" Acts 18:22
It is illogical to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it?
When the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides!
The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told him, "feed my sheep", and so were the Apostles, and they are all visible.
It is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of God, the Sacraments etc. How could this be called invisible?
How do Christians begin their course as people of God? By Baptism, a visible sign. And by whom are they governed? By bishops, which are visible men. And how has the Church been persecuted over the centuries? By visible people. Need we say more?
To put it simply, the body is composed of body and soul, and so is the Church. The Church consists of Her interior soul, which is faith, hope, charity, grace etc (all invisible), and Her exterior, which is her members, preaching, Sacraments, sacrifices etc (all visible).
Some Protestants, in defense of the invisible Church theory, have claimed that there are two Churches; one visible and imperfect Church made of its members (which can err and are called "reprobate"), and one invisible and perfect Church made of the "elect" that only God knows (which cannot err). Not only is this belief not found in Scripture but it is also illogical as we will now explain:
It is well known that all members of the Church must have their sins loosed and retained as Scripture says. Those whose sins are retained are considered reprobate (this includes priests and bishops), though they remain members of the Church until their sins are loosed. It is not until a person is cast from the Church that they are no longer considered members. Judas was reprobate, yet he was Apostle and bishop.
To say only the elect (which Calvin and other reformers say are unknown to us) are members of the true Church is to say we cannot know for sure who our prelates are and who to pay obedience to. This goes to show that not only the elect, but also the reprobate are in the Church. The Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but the army as a whole still remains victorious over the gates of hell despite downfalls of its members.
In summary, the New Testament frequently refers to the Church as an external, visible society. How then could Our Lord require us to believe under penalty of damnation (Mark 16:18) and to consider the Christian disobedient to the Church's commands "a heathen and a publican" (Matt 18:17) if we could not easily and unmistakably recognize the Church as a visible society?
>>>I will endeavor to post more throughout the week ahead!
No comments:
Post a Comment