Funny but sad – the impossibility of ecumenism with protestant sects

I have made no attempt to disguise the fact that, as a convert to the Faith from a protestant background, I hold the efforts, by certain highly placed progressive types in the Church, to engage in ecumenism with protestant sects in contempt.  I do so because I know from close experience that the umpteen-thousand protestant sects out there all beleive rather different things, often radically different things, and that any effort to draw some accord with one, will only wind up alienating another.  And all such efforts will wind up alienating the Eastern Orthodox, who are still of the Church but in schism.  The only way such “important” accords between the Church and protestant sects can be arrived at, is by redefining language, violating the principle of non-contradiction, muddying theological definitions, and in general engaging in one huge exercise in indifferentism.

Last Friday, I posted an excerpt from Fr. Arnold Damen’s little treatise on the Church and the Bible, focusing on What it means to be Catholic.  Today, a furhter exerpt from this very handy little booklet, regarding just a few aspects of the numerous and contradictory beliefs held by a small number of the more well known protestant sects:

There are now throughout the world three hundred and fifty different   denominations  [this was written 150 years ago. Today, with the explosion of 20th century “evangelical” protestantism, there are tens of thousands of denominations, all based on the same error – private interpretation] …..and all of them say the Bible is their guide and   teacher. And I suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This   is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no   contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be   true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all   true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has   truth, and they all say that they read it right. 

Let us suppose that here is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere, an   honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful   spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be   bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no   Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and   well-meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no   bishops, but only presbyters. “Here is the Bible,” says the Episcopalian; and   “here is the Bible to give you the lie,” says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them   are prayerful and well-meaning men.  [Certainly. And we should always remember that when dealing with individuals. But when speaking of protestantism in general, heaping scorn on their constant, multiplying divisions and internecine doctrinal divisions is, I think, appropriate, even necessary.]

Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful   also. “Well,” says the Baptist, “have you ever been baptized?” “I was,” says the   Episcopalian, “when I was a baby.” 

“And so was I,” says the Presbyterian, “when I was a baby.” “But,” says the   Baptist, “you are going to Hell as sure as you live.” 

Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. “Well,” says the   Unitarian, “allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolators. You worship a   man for a God who is no God at all.” And he gives several texts from the Bible   to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the   blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true   meaning of the Bible.  [Unitarianism was an early attempt to amalgamate liberal political/cultural views with Christianity.  The result?  The chucking of Christ.  Unitarianism was simply an early version of modernism, which is a more recent attempt to “reconcile” Christianity and leftist socio-political views.  The end result has always been the same, as it must: the leftism crushes the Christianity, and all that remains is a shrunken, dead husk of religiosity masking the leftism.  Thus, so many Katholycs.]

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, “My friends, have you got any religion   at all?” “Of course we have,” they say. “Did you ever feel religion,” says the   Methodist, “the spirit of God moving within you?” “Nonsense,” says the   Presbyterian, “we are guided by our reason and judgment.” “Well,” says the   Methodist, “if you never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell   for eternity.”  [That’s just so great. Nails it]

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with   eternal hellfire. “Why,” says he, “you are a strange set of people. Do you not   understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to   scare old women and children,” and he proves it from the Bible. 

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they   do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his   faith. 

Another comes in and says: “Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the   Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot   enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” “So,“ says he, “the women are all right, but   baptize the men.”  [This is actually really key……..see below]

Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: “You are a presumptuous people. Do you   not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear   and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My brethren, if you want to go to   Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!” 

—————End Quote—————-

I promised myself I would do shorter posts this week, so I’ll try to be brief.  As one can see above, what protestantism has always done is to elevate certain bits of Scripture – whatever happened to exercise their founder, for instance – at the expense of others, the result being the great disfigurement of the whole.  This is inevitable when men are set loose on the Bible without some Authority to guide them and determine the relative meaning and import of all the tens of thousands of verses of Scripture each on their own, and over and against each other.  That is the great Grace of Tradition, which has served as that guide.

I find it more than slightly important that all the ancient Churches, whether in union with the Holy See or not, understand that a Church must have a central source of Authority to determine matters of Doctrine and judge what constitutes true practice of their faith.  The Catholics and Orthodox of course believe such, but so do the Nestorians, Copts, and all the other ancient churches that sadly split off from the Catholic Church in the first millenium.

It was not until the 16th Century of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the Bible as “sole rule of faith,” interpreted privately by each believer, was even put forth as an idea, let alone accepted by many.  Christendom has never recovered from this shattering, utterly novel blow.