Failure of Protestinism

Let me propose an outrageous suggestion. The 16th century Reformers of the church had good cause to protest against a church that was drunk on power and greed and which had largely reduced the faith to economics and political manipulation. While they did not mean to create a parallel church called Protestant this was how history panned out for reasons too numerous to mention here. The church in the West has since been fragmented into many denominations which has weakened its voice in the world and which is a falling away from Jesus’ promise “that you may be one”.

After 480 years or so the Protestant experiment has run out of steam and its reason for being has largely evaporated due to the reform of the Roman church. There is now a large consensus among professional theologians both Protestant and Catholic about the centre of the faith and this consensus is growing.

The question is: why do Protestants remain separated after most of the reasons for their separation have disappeared?

I was stimulated to write this article after reading a sermon by Stanley Hauerwas (yes, him again!) on Reformation Sunday. He admits that he does not like this fixture on the Protestant calendar because it tends to celebrate a dark event in the history of the Church, the schism in which we stand today.

While Protestants celebrate the things gained in the Reformation, often things that the Roman Church has also now caught up with, there is little mention of the things we have lost. The first is obvious, it is the unity promised by the Lord. Hauerwas expands:

I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.

Once the break with Rome had occurred the Protestant church found itself prey to the philosophical movements of modernity initiated by the philosophies of Descartes, Hobbes and Locke that undermined all received authority and produced the man who was his own orthodoxy.

This was the final blow to the unity of the Church because it gave philosophical warrant to the individual who was now expected to “make up his own mind”. While the Roman Church can be seen to hold out against this aspect of modernity, Protestants embraced it. Being Church no longer meant belonging to an alternative community but believing in the right things, as long as they were rational, in private.

John Henry Newman recognised that the problem with Anglicanism was rationalism. That is, faith was tried at the court of a particular kind of rationalism associated with natural science. Theology had always been rational on its own terms otherwise it could not have been any sort of discourse. Rationality has as many different forms as there are human activities, the danger is that one kind of rationality is prioritised over all others, the positivist rationality of empiricism.

From the point of view of positivist rationality the Roman church looks irrational, superstitious and backward. The fact that the Roman church holds together a vast range of Christians from South American peasants to sophisticated European and American believers, from the Irish to the Italian, from Franciscan to Dominican makes it difficult for us to image what it is like to be a Catholic. The Protestant imagination has an investment in imagining the worst if only to justify being apart.

If we believe that the Reformation, or rather the schism that it produced, was a tragedy for the church that continues in our time, then we must have very good reasons to remain Protestant. We are now far from Elizabethan England in which the Roman Church was a threat to political order and the smell of the burnings initiated by Queen Mary was still in our nostrils.

Both Protestant and Roman Churches have come a long way, particularly after Vatican II for the Roman. Many of the Protestant prejudices against Rome are no longer valid. One of the greatest fears Protestants have of the Roman Church is that it insists on interfering with our private lives, particularly in what happens in our beds. We Protestants have long since decided that what we do in private is our own business and no business of the Church. This is the attitude that left these Churches speechless in the face of the sexual revolution whose bitter fruits we now taste.

We believe that there is a limit to faith that leaves most aspects of our lives as they are. There is certainly no dying to the self to be raised in Christ.

One of the weaknesses of the Protestant Churches is that they are devoid of a teaching office whose role is to guide the people in the ways of faith. While we may protest that Rome has a tendency to micromanage the lives of its people, particularly with the use of tenuous arguments from natural theology, it is apparent that any church should have a strong teaching office that instructs the people in what it means to be Christian.

Readers may correct me but it seems that this absence in Protestant churches was produced by a reaction to the unfaithful way the Roman Church used its power in the 16th century and the reformers emphasis on grace over the law. The severely reduced teaching office of Protestant Churches means that clergy cannot be leaders but only cheerleaders. Liberalism, that slippery product of modernity, ensures that no definite stand may be taken about anything. This means that Rome often looks legalistic and often it is, unreasonably so. If the sin of Protestantism is that it cannot say anything, the sin of Rome is that it says too much.

The fragmentation of Protestant denominations has produced a spiritual marketplace in which churches compete for believers and in which believers may choose which suits them best. The balance has thus swung from God addressing us to ourselves choosing which denomination best satisfies our needs. Because self assertion is the essence of Enlightenment thinking we experience no anomaly in this.

Not only does this situation throw the emphasis onto the believer it also distorts the life of the church that now looks to its own survival. The Holy Spirit is replaced by the techniques of the church growth movement and those nauseating signs that we find in the front of Protestant churches. The capitulation to modernism has become the capitulation to market forces and the biblical notion that the church is a charismatic body is obscured.

One of the barriers to Protestants going over to Rome is the idea that Rome requires unthinking obedience. But the Church is not fused with Christ, although the Roman Church has often behaved as if it were. The individual believer also stands before his Lord. This is a relationship that cannot be completely taken over by the Church.

In other words the Church may be the body of Christ in the world, but its faithlessness will always mean that it is incomplete, as its history demonstrates. This is not to say that the relationship between the believer and his Lord is in any way complete but that the believer must listen to the voice of the Church in the council of his own conscience.

It is interesting that recent Papal encyclicals now argue their case. This means that blind obedience is not the model for belief but that we are expected to understand what we believe and why.

While the sin of Protestants is to reduce the status of the church in favour of the individual, the sin of Rome has been to ignore its incompleteness in being the body of Christ and tend towards totalitarianism. Both of these movements are disastrous for the church, the one producing faith only on our terms and the other suffocating the individual spiritual journey.

But what should determine our allegiance now that the cat of schism is out of the bag? Is the unity that Rome represents a determining factor? Is it time for Protestants to return to the arms of mother Church? What exactly is it that is holding us back and are the reasons we hold back still valid?

Whatever we decide, it is obvious that long after Protestantism has been swept from the face of the earth, the Roman church will stand. Although faithfulness is not necessarily linked with success (witness the mega churches) it is significant that with all of the concessions to modernism Protestant churches continue to decline. One is tempted to draw the conclusion that the concessions are the problem and they have produced a church that is indistinguishable from the rest of society and thus irrelevant.

It is clear that the ecumenical movement has largely failed and that the unification of the Church from the top down will not happen in the foreseeable future. But that does not mean that unification cannot happen from below as believers seek a more complete expression of the faith. Why should believers wait for the hierarchy to make a move?

It is significant how well the leaders of the churches have settled down to the present arrangement. If a Catholic Archbishop were to launch a program inviting Protestants to explore the Roman church, or the other way around, there would be accusations of sheep stealing. Apparently, peaceful separation is preferable to any attempt at unification that may cause hurt. This is of course in the spirit of the age that values toleration over honest debate. But one would wish that meetings of the heads of Churches were a more robust affair instead of supporting the pretence that everything is well in our separated state.

Both the Anglican and the Uniting Church in Australia declare that they are part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” and that they cling to the early creeds of the Church. In other words they are not separated from Rome by heresy, they are separated by the continuing influence of historical events and by church culture. To be so determined is an abnegation of the freedom of the gospel which orders culture aright under the Lordship of Christ.

Protestants are caught between the sins of Rome and (in the Anglican case) Canterbury. Perhaps it is time now to consider the unity of the Church from below and for Protestants to push away years of misunderstanding and take a closer look. It may be that they discover a different church than that which they imagined and that consequently the path to union does not seem impossible.

not i write wan : http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6720&page=0

When will they ever learn

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6720&page=0

http://www.catholicscomehome.org/

http://www.facebook.com/notes/catholic-church/catholic-apologetics-question-of-the-day-part-2/163219347024954

http://www.facebook.com/notes/catholic-church/catholic-apologetics-question-of-the-day/163206620359560

Clap

Reciprocate
when one offers a hand offer yours
it takes 2 hands to clap
it takes 2 to tango
ask and it wud be given
seek and it wud be found
knock and it wud open
- silence is an answer but at times it makes
more n more speculation and confusion -
anyway in a relationship one should communicate.
they should reciprocate and silence is not always the answer.
a silent answer to 3rd party people is more warranted compared
to the 1st n 2nd party. So talk in a relationship with no bared hold.

Catholic Education

I have an idealah something for the CSS to use as a guide especially in conducting their activities. Its to set up some modules or database well structured and documented which would be updated time to time and at the same time shared for all CSS to refer to to conduct their activities. Currently what i see that is strongly present in the church is faith formation through the bible which is the foremost important but it lacks the other elements to support and reinforce this formation.
Therefore is suggest to create these modules :
faith - bible
faith - education (history, catechism)
faith - social-science (social justice, politics)
faith - anthropology (religion, culture)
Catholic moral teachings
in each module would include topics, support material, activities.
having these modules perhaps the css would be well guided and its students well formed. Sadly to say there are CSS leaders themselves who do not know the faith and the knowledge of it, if so how can they lead the members effectively in faith? To come up with activities also thy would pecah kepala and worst still dunno what to do.
Perhaps this would be a great project for KLCC to undertake and in future maintain and function as what and how should a council do.

When i say i am a Christian

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean living.'"
I'm whispering "I was lost,
Now I'm found and forgiven."

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need Christ to be my guide.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I'm weak
And need His strength to carry on.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
And need God to clean my mess.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
But, God believes I am worth it.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou,
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow!

Christians - By Maya Angelou

Fitting shoes

I promoted Matin Jallel's session to a protestants friend cos i am trying to be a bit optimistic about the result and it ended up with him asking me why do we confess our sins to the priest and why not direct to God. And also God as died for all our sins and freed us from it so why have it?
Well i m no smart ass to be able to answer intelligently so i answered accocding to what i know.
Well i said it is in the bible that this sacrement is instituted from of which he denied obviously then i said we read the same bible then how come u have not seen it?
Anyway going to a priest and confessing, the priest is the medium of which God has given power to execute his function here after Jesus left and Jesus forgave sins and he has told his Apostles to do so as well. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
Not being so good with the bible tried to put some psycology in it where when u go to someone to confess ur sins esp to a man of God u come clean, naked, all the gravest sins u r saying direclty to a human being not robot or air who as just as u feelings and a mind and a perception which can deduce. Therefore going 'naked' in front of a human u are ought to be off brave, humbled, humuliated of the sins you have done thus it has shown u have forgiven yourself and thus asking pardon from God of which a priest is carrying out that duty here on earth. The priest on behalf of God in word for a human can hear says u r forgiven. What feeling would u have?
Compare it to sitting queitly at a corner and talking to God saying i am sorry. Like or not we being humans, sinners thus not perfect is like going to a tree and telling ur sins to it and pleasing urself telling urself the tree has forgiven me. well of cos i am not saying God is a treelah. What feeling would you experienced here? compare?
well again i was bombarded with the same question and we ended up in circles but good thing is he told me to provided evidence and i hapily did with the website link given above. after reading a few line in which he himself said he did he quickly said these references are from other books ( u check yourself ya wat are those books in that link). I just told him continue to read.
Anyway i have noticed one thing here. Perception and understanding. He was trying to understand this sacrement from the perpective on a protestant. It cant work for protestant dont believe in it in the first place and only has teaching against it on which lies his basis on arguments. He is like talking great about road A to destination C without even using road B to C and talks against road B. is it fair for an argument?
Now comes the intention of this argument. there is no listening. dahlah i dunno how to express in beutiful words like how that link descibes confession what not to even try to make into simpler terms to explain to him...i muntah darah kena tmebak till dunno how to explain d(my bad). So since i cant explain fully i sort of lost lor and he happy thinking that well the church is wrong and stupid to potong jalan btw God and ME.
C ar.... in dialogues the intention is to understand one another and come to exceptance of why the other believes so. In the end its either u except or not and also u want to follow it or not. simple.
therfore if he would want to understand why we have this confession thing he has to see it from the catholic perspetive and understand it. He has to use the B road himself and then make the choice btw A n B.
Id this does not occur then till world ends the arguments would continue to go in circles and we become fools.
In addition dialogues are not to determine who is right and and who is wrong. When the choice is made is just based upon how one can except the others understanding and follow it. If according to the persons upbringing, mentality, his own maturity find the catholic church does not fit into his perception of God then of cos that understanding would be rejected but not wrong.
The breakdwn which is causes problem is that people dunnow how to understand, dunno how to make a choice and how a choice is made (factors involved). They want a right or wrong answers and of cos they want to always be the right one (how can they not be right, right?)and it ends up with fighting..... so ends the dialogues, ecumenism etc etc. (me n my fren din fight)
Also not to forget when u come to a dialogue with a question u cant have a preset answer sheeth in the head. mind should be open. Too many cross questioning takes both parties no where but making fools out of each other. And too many of it just makes u more of a person who does not want to listen to you but wants to make u loose.
A third party guy (taouist)understood what i was explaining but he could not comment cos he was smart he said i do not know the basis of the argument as in how ot argue whatever.
An example. Doctor patient. Patient ask doctor what happen and what have you done and why the treatment in such doctor explains as he dutied too. then patient questions how come cos this is not what i read in the papers (in this case the doctor is correct in his treatment and management), so the doctor again explains a lil bit deeper in science why. but the patient is adamant due to the difference in approach (the paper and doctor) and continues to question the doctor. Now the doctor can explain but the dept has become to deep and wide as so for the patient to understand fully the patient has to go to medical school to understand. Now the patient can question and should question but have some understandment. the understanding that there are many approaches to manage a patient and according to patient the best is suited and what best suits the patient the doctor knows and of cos the paper cant tell everything if not that would become a medical book.
Such a patient gives an impression that he is just not satisfied with what the doctor did since he has come with a fixed mind based on a paper what should be done and he believes so much in the paper despite all the poor doctors efforts he is not satisfied. Then he goes out to give wrong impression about this doctor and to other patients about treatment and management so much so some patients come in saying if they operate my shoulder i can go paralysed! Some even said after u go surgery you wont live long. And on the other side this is also why doctors get angry being humans tells the patient of 'saya doctor ka u doctor?'.
Even when want to complain think 1st. Dont just let your mouth loose. Fit into the other persons shoes and ask why and is it reasonable or not to go and complain and are my questions i put out in arguments and dialogues fair or not, logic or reasonable or not.

Crisis

As the world gets more 'civilized', more modern, so do our way of thinking as well. It has developed from shut up and listen to independent thinking. This has brought us both good and bad to mankind. We know the good but lets look at the bad. This new ways of thinking has also developed new schools of thought@ modern life philosophies and it has in a bad way brought up a crisis among us. the crisis that that is in effect is the crisis of truth and relativism where truth is what u think is right, constructivism where new logic is thought over what u think is right. Compartmentalization where u life is divided and not connected - sort of physical split personality. culture of death as in abortion, euthanasia etc which is alright and finally the crisis of family life - gays, lesbians and divorcees. \\
As Christian or better said as Catholics because for protestants we r all saved d just wait to die and got to heaven provided we become their member. As Catholics being part of the bigger church is being challenged to live a life full of these crisis. The church is firm and strong as rock on its stand and doctrines and modern thinking condemns it as not being realistic. Modern thinking has shallow depth of knowledge and intelligence of people and has made them forget and more selfish cos they have become blinded to what would happen of their actions in the future of which the church has clearly seen and trying to stop it but could not hold it back all effectively.
As God has always reminded his people over the centuries through prophets and Jesus Himself the church is still doing so but people are just not listening.
The protestants on the other hand (some of them) are succumbing to the whims on humans and selling out the diving truth abandoning it tough some of them are following behind the catholic church.
I grew up knowing right and wrong and then i came out and believed there were lots of gray but soon i cam back to tell myself i cant live in grey matter! There is right and wrong! The divine truth if pure truth and its is not something which can be turned grey! the gray line is thin! not as broad as the sea. Lots of people dont see this and cant except this cos when they do they ego (pride with no substance) collapses like a wall of cards! There has no foundation built in people nowadays due to the modernization of mind so much so everyone fears to loose or loose out, fall. Malu! Unfortunately too many of them so they gang up make their own constructed relativism and life their truth and challenge the divine truth.
Protestants on the other hand run away from these challenges live in cocoons not going out there just as Jesus and His apostles did, keeps God to themselves and gives pittance in the form of their charity works to the community. But the catholic boldly and directly faces these challenges even with its own human weaknesses in it stand up tall and tells the world God's message. Wat beauty. Many would call it stupidity or foolishness.
Ask yourselves what would the world would become off in future? Who would stand beside us if not God and his church? How should we live in this world. Simple. Put God in life 1st.

the content proper is from a talk and the speaker quotes from Pope JP11