www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How to remove heresy from our society?

Dear Brother Ed,

Everything was not so rosy in the RCC at the time of the reformation. There were quite a few abuses, and if we take morality and immorality, the Germans were known to be more moral that the Romans going way back. It was part of their culture and was mentioned quite a few times in ancient Rome. As for the Protestants and morality, I want you to know that in my youth the Methodists weren't even allowed to dance.

Luther did not want to split with Rome, but merely to reform some of the practices. He looked at the Church in the East and said that if one must be under the Pope in order to be saved, then what about the Orthodox who were never under Rome, yet accepted as a Church. It was all about selling indulgences and having the money going to Rome.

That today, the highly moral Protestants, which helped form our nation have fallen, is a sign of the times. Each Church, and that includes the Orthodox and Catholic, seems to have split into two sectors. One has an everything is relative mentality, and the other is conservative. Those conservative Protestants today call themselves Evangelicals.

Zenovia

Many years ago someone told me that the future would hold two categories of the baptized: those who kept the Faith and those who did not.

But, it seems to me, that although this certainly seems to have come to pass, it is also true that this has been the constant struggle of the Church in all ages. There are those who keep the Faith and there are those who do not--whether they give it lip service, try to make it easy, try to soften the hard demands of the Gospel, or whatever. There are also those who have kept the Faith and they have suffered for it and struggled to keep it, and often given their lives to pass it along as they have received it in all its purity, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.

In Christ,

BOB

Zenovia wrote:

"The Evangelicals believe in Christ our Saviour...and that is something that is rare in our world. We have a former Christian Europe that has now discounted Christianity for secular humanism. In other words, they are now officially pagan. They do not believe in Jesus Christ as our redeemer but rather in 'themselves'."

Yes, that might be true, but even in those countries there are Apostolic Churches who in spite of their decadent state, still have priesthood and sacraments. It's true that most people has become secularized but among the Protestant sects, no matter how militant they might be, there is nothing but worship of man devoid of grace.

"As regards the Presbyterians, and other groups such as Anglicans, Methodists, etc., many of them have fallen into complete heresy and cannot even be considered Christian religions anymore."

I do know that there's nothing good in terms of religion inside these groups but at least in my country they're formed mostly by American and British inmigrants (and also some Mexicans) who do not proselitize. They don't make trouble. In fact they give a lot of money to charity organizations, unlike the Evangelical sects that create their own organizations with the real purpose of proselitizing.

"Actually the other Protestants that you refer to have now fallen into heresy. The Evangelicals in one sense are true Christians, because they sincerely believe in what they practice."

I see it in the opposite way. The other Protestants are normal people, they're not fanatics, they might be into error but speaking in "Latin terms" they can be regarded as "material heretics" who probably do not know what they believe and are more open to the truth than the Evangelicals, who are recalcitrant in their errors and teach them to others.

"I think that they favor globalization because it will bring prosperity to your nation and keep it from falling into a communist and socialist state. Right or wrong, that is their opinion."

In fact the Protestants sided with the red terror at the time of the anti-religious persecutions in Mexico. As a Mexican I believe they're now protecting the current establishment because they receive support from outside, foreign corporations and other.

There is no cold-war anymore, there are "globalizer" powers and "globalized" nations who will no longer exist as such in the future if we don't ressist. At least Chavez and Ahmadenjad and all these people are ressisting this globalist policies.

Athanasius wrote:

"Would that make it right for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be banned from seeking converts? The Protestant majority could have continued to claim that they were not going to allow Catholicism and Orthodoxy to exist because their families woul be torn apart when some chose to become either Catholic or Orthodox."

The difference is that the Orthodox in the USA for example, don't proselitize agresively and do not tell their converts they must stop celebrating thanksgiving and reject participation at Eastern celebrations unless they match with the Julian Calendar, grow long beards, cut contact with "heretical" relatives, give 10% of your income to the priests, vote for a particular candidate, and other things of this style that the sects unfortunately do (at least here).

I don't say that Protestants should be banned from gaining converts, but that the activities of potentialy disturbing groups (the Bahai, the Hare Krishnas and some Neo-Protestant sects) must be restricted.

I certainly understand that in multi-cultural societies like the USA it's probably not possible to restrict this, but in countries where Apostolic Christians make up a vast majority the State must protects this identity. One thing is to allow minorities to publish material and preach to their followers, and a different one is to give them unrestricted use of mass-communication medias and permit door-to-door proselitism.

While I am sorry that my generalization regarding Protestants was found by some to be offensive, I stand by my initial statement. The idea that any person is entitled to his "private interpretation" of the Holy Scriptures must inevitably lead to people, who are broken by sin, to be led by their broken nature to respond to sin not with resistance, repentance, and restoration in the Sacraments, but instead by making excuses for sin because they find novel ways to defend their broken desires and disordered passions.

This is why we have in America and the Western countries in which Protestantism resides, people who can unashamedly call themselves "Christain" while they engage in the most vile perversions. And they actually, through their self deception, believe that they are, even in their state of sin, pleasing to God and expectant of Heaven.

I do not deny that there are Protestant folks who are moral, who try to please God to the best of their ability despite having limited knowledge of the True Faith, and who are "good" in some sense. I qualify that statement because one must ask if it is "good" that they denigrate the Sacraments for which Christ died. One must wonder how culpable they are in a time of ever increasing quality apologetics.

Brother Ed

[i][i]Dear Mexican you said:


I say:[/i][/i]

How can we generalize and say others are devoid of Grace? That those with a rebellious heart that first started those denominations might have been devoid of Grace is understandable. But to say that those who have been raised in a Christian denomination and practice their faith to the best of their knowledge is devoid of Grace is limiting God's love, which he gives freely to whoever asks.

[i] You said:

I say:

Actually they are supported by their TV listeners and churches in the U.S. They have nothing to do with corporations. To believe so is purely paranoia. You have no idea the amount of money that is given for the purpose of preaching the gospel and helping other nations economically.

[i]You said:

I say:

Chavez and Ahmadenjad are insane. We had insane dictators in the last century, and we saw the destruction it caused. Do we want that again? Better if Mexico were to join with the globalist powers and raise it's standard of living than to follow the path to destruction by two crack pots.

Actually, Pres. Roosevelt once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Stop being frightened of Christian groups that come and proslytize. With that proslytizing they are also edifying. Their churches might be growing for the time being, and some preachers may be cult like, but you'll find that your churches will also grow and continue to grow. Thank them for it!

As for the others, the Hari Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Scientologists, bear with them. Except for the Jehovah's Witnesses which is a Hebraic religion, the are all cults.

Zenovia [/i]

Ed:
You wrote, "This is why we have in America and the Western countries in which Protestantism resides, people who can unashamedly call themselves 'Christian' while they engage in the most vile perversions. And they actually, through their self deception, believe that they are, even in their state of sin, pleasing to God and expectant of Heaven." The same thing can be said of people anywhere in the world you go-even of those who are Catholic and Orthodox and even in places where Protestantism does not exist. I would also add that Catholicism bears some responsibility for the very existence of Protestantism and all the problems it brings. If it were not for the abuse of power, immorality, and the distortion of teachings of the Church (the word perversions might come to mind here) by certain individuals who held episcopal and priestly offices within the Catholic Church, I doubt the Reformers would have ever gained much of a following and I think it not unreasonable to question whether there ever would have been any Reformation at all. I think anyone who is intellectually honest and takes history can't seriously deny that there are Catholic leaders in the history who must bear a great deal of responsibility for the fracturing of the Church and all of its ugly consequences.
Ryan

Ryan,

Very well said. I, myself, find that the more I do find out about the facts of history, the more I realize that there is no simplistic picture of how things were during the byzantine era, the middle ages, the reformation, etc. It seems to me that there are no "good old days." It also seems to me that insofar as we are more tolerant of other people's views (even erroneous views) we have progressed as a species and we have become more Christian, in spirit at least. I would much rather live in a liberal society where I was reasonably confident that I wouldn't be drug out of my house in the middle of the night because the authorities dislike my religious views, than live in a Catholic or Orthodox monarchy (such as those in the middle ages) where Jews were stigmatized and ghettoized and where those who couldn't accept, in conscience, the Church's teachings were murdered.

It is true that secular regimes have been just as totalitarian and evil, if not worse. But two wrongs don't make a right and so the notion that all human beings have intrinsic rights no matter they beliefs, race, social status, etc. is an important protection against all kinds of tyranny, both religious and secular. Certainly, Hitler and Stalin were secularist monsters. But they couldn't have done what they did to the Jews and Slavs and others if the churches hadn't been building up the terror climate for centuries. I get in big trouble here (in the deep south) because I point out that the totalitarian and brutal measures that some muslims take against non-muslims or public "sinners" were also the kinds of measures that were used by the ancient Hebrews and then later, by Christians. It is the historical fact that all religions have been implicated in violence and injustice that paved the way for the enlightenment and the existence of liberal, secular society. Liberal, secular society has its problems, but one thing it does recognize is the dignity of human freedom. As much as I admire Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant prelates who talk about rechristianizing society, I feel that a return to Christendom is not the answer. Sometimes, I think that we traditional Christians forget that things were very bad under Christian rulers, if not worse actually. And if we really look hard at the details of history, we will find that prostitution, abortion, drug use, murder, theft, infidelity, hypocrisy, and so forth were just as much a reality in the ancient world and in the middle ages as they are today. Though the Church opposed abortion vigorously in the byzantine empire, it was still legal for much of the empire's history. Also, prostitution was tolerated, even in the middle ages. Not condoned, but tolerated. We can tolerate evils if what is required to stamp out the evils potentially brings greater evils. Such reasoning can even be found in St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe. God bless.

Joe

So you are saying that enabling men's disordered passions by telling them that they have a "right" to their own theological ideas has the same effect as merely being a human being broken by sin?

Perhaps you could show me some statistics from Orthodox countries where such rebellion never took hold, compare that to the statistics in Westernized countries, and prove that there is no difference in the outcome of giving men such license?

I fail to see such an upheaval of immorality in the East, even in Russia during her revolution, but what do I know? I'm just an ignorant, bumpkin, X Prottie with a serious attitude problem

Brother Ed

Ryan,
Please dont be naive! There are many of the laity that are the cause of great scandal also, not just the clergy, believe me I know all to well. Also remember the Church is at onetime the Immaculate bride of Chirst while consisting of sinful individuals. Ultimately whether scandal or no scandal it is the individual who is responsible before God for their lack of or rejection of the faith.
Stephanos I
One who was once blind but now sees.
Thank God I found the true faith, received the Heavenly Spirit,worshiping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the undivided Trinity who has saved us.

I don't believe there is the least bit of na�vet� in anything I've said. My intent was not to absolve the laity of their part. However, if you believe that greater fault does not lie with the clergy, then perhaps you are being naive. Holy Scripture states, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness," (James 3:1). Since the Church entrusts the teaching office to bishops, an in turn, to priests, then it is perfectly in keeping with Holy Scripture to place greater blame on the clergy, particularly in the case of the defection that occurred at the time of the Protestant Reformation when there was such corruption in the Church and I really don't see how anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the history of the medieval Church can deny that. To acknowledge this does not amount to denying that the Church herself is the Immaculate Bride of Christ; however, I believe that denying it amounts either to ignorance of the history, or intellectual dishonesty. My reason for raising this is that I'm quite sick of the Protestant-bashing that is occurring here. I personally think it's quite ridiculous to single out Protestantism for responsibility for the present state of sinfulness for a variety of reasons (all generations of humanity are quite blameworthy of sin, there are a great many Protestants who are among the most morally upright persons one could ever hope to know, together with those Protestants who are very morally deficient there are a great number of Catholics and Orthodox who are equally morally deficient, etc., etc.)