Rudd’s second argument for the Catholic Church’s “flawed, incomplete, and destructive” understanding of Marriage is titled, “Guilt”. Rudd continues:
Rather than sex being a wonderful communion between husband and wife to fulfill the sexual desire, The [sic] Roman Catholic view, if anyone actually listened to it, would make married partners feel guilty and dirty for having sex, for the sole purpose of a “good romp in the hay”. Continue reading
Like Restorationism, Fundamentalism is a relatively modern Protestant movement, and it was developed within a larger Americanized construct of what Marriage ought to be. That is, Marriage and its more-Americanized (thus, more-secularized) purposes were woven into American Fundamentalism’s newly-formed fabric.
The movement, remember, began as a reaction to liberal theology within Protestantism. However, the end synthesis of its understanding of Marriage—whether it pre-dates liberal Protestantism or not—is, in fact, a liberalized / secularized hybrid product of Christian Marriage and the pursuit of carnal satisfaction disjoined from the original procreative and unitive purposes of the Sacrament. Steve Rudd’s outline perfectly illustrates Fundamentalism’s understanding of not only its position, but also how it contrasts with Catholicism’s understanding of Marriage. Rudd begins: Continue reading
Most of this website has been specifically addressed to members of the Protestant Church of Christ. This series about Marriage (capitalized as a sacrament), however, is understood by other types of Protestants the same way. And for me to best illustrate how the Catholic understanding is more reasonable, I will compare it to Fundamentalism, which overlaps the Protestant Church of Christ’s beliefs almost perfectly. And therefore, within this series, I will refer to both groups—Restorationist and Fundamentalist—with the same overlapping (and more prominent) descriptor: Fundamentalist. Continue reading
The Real Church’s sex scandals are horrible. Honest Catholics admit it.
People suck, but Judas Iscariot never discredited the Church. Unfortunately, opportunistic Fundamentalist sects jump on the historical Church to, in some bizarre effort, somehow discredit her theology (brilliant). Some in the religion business even teach that scandal and sexual deviance is institutionalized in the Catholic Church (double brilliant).
I was going to turn this into a small book, but I’ve decided to throw it on this site and include a version of it in my next large volume. I will use popular Protestant Church of Christ propaganda website bible.ca (Steve Rudd’s project) as material to PROVE how the Catholic Church of Christ’s understanding of Marriage and sex is more biblical than the Protestant Church of Christ’s (COC). AND, because I’m really good at this stuff, explain how the COC’s foundational theological assumption regarding Marriage is what institutionalizes its hybrid Christian/worldly beliefs.
Credit to Steve Rudd’s CofC propaganda site for this gem; perfectly illustrating CofC hubris.
Ministers and laypeople of the Protestant Church of Christ,
You often profess pride in your lack of a creed, but you utilize a creed-like mantra as both a statement of belief and a disparaging commentary on Christians who do confess a creed. “No creed but the Bible”, however, does not communicate the self-affirming Restorationist wish for “biblical Christianity”; what it does is offer a proof of how, in itself, the Catholic Church is more plausible, more reasonable: Christian.
“No creed but the Bible” is a creed! It is a statement of faith that the Bible – however interpreted – contains the body of doctrine that provides the necessary knowledge for accessing the means of salvation. Your stated belief portrays a dependence on, an acknowledgement of, a subordination to, a conduit of truth – truth that is, of course, subject to the private interpretation of any person who proudly professes the creedless creed. After all, “creed” means “belief”. A person who has no creed has no belief. In other words, the mantra is a never-ending circular justification of one’s own belief. Put differently, the Protestant Church of Christ’s “creed” (its “belief”), is, “We believe what we interpret the Bible to mean”. More accurately, it means, “What we believe is what we teach.” Continue reading
Jesus did not build His Church so that it would last a single generation; He promised He would be with her until the end of time, with you always (Matthew 28:20), so that he who receives you [the Apostles] receives me (Matthew 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; John 13:20). Legitimate clergy via maintenance of the hierarchy through apostolic succession is the manner in which Jesus intended to perpetuate His Church, which you must admit to on some level, for without Catholic apostolic succession, the world would not have the Bible as you know it today. Additionally, the worldwide Church would not have doctrine, for it is not the Bible that declares doctrine but a living Church. Even the popular Protestant proof-text which is used as a catch-all argument for Protestantism’s particular premises regarding the supremacy of Scripture—All scripture is God-breathed . . . (2 Timothy 3:16 New International Version)—is included in the Bible because, and only because, of Catholic apostolic succession. Succession’s fruit is the visible body that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, determined which writings would become Christian Scripture—Scripture that, along with the books of the Old Testament, would become useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Continue reading