Could it be that Balthasar wasn't aware of the breadth of Edwards's theology? What was the status of Jonathan Edwards in Europe from the 1930s-1960s?

The argument that "to thrive in the aesthetic arena, Protestants need to 'allow themselves to be enriched by the Catholic and Orthodox past, that is in fact, also their own.'" is misleading for several reasons.

First, and most fundamental, the Catholic and Orthodox liturgical traditions are not simply aesthetical. Rather in these traditions liturgy embodies, communicates and preserve Christian dogma. The beauty of the Orthodox liturgical tradition reflects the beauty of Gospel proclaimed in its fullness.

Second, and forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I rather thought the point of Protestantism is a rejection of the Catholic and Orthodox past. I'm glad that. for example, a Protestant community might find the Eastern Church's Vesperal hymn, "O Gladsome Light" beautiful and inspiring but what about the rest of the tradition within which that hymn exists? It seems to me that the argument being made is that Protestants are free to pick out the bits of the Catholic and Orthodox past that they like and take a pass on the rest. And this leads me to my third point.

Protestant communities cannot renew themselves through liturgical tourism. If you want the traditional worship of the Orthodox Church or Catholic Church, then join that community. Liturgy isn't conservative or even traditional; liturgy is, in both the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the matter, ecclesial.

In Christ,

+FrG

I rather thought the point of Protestantism is a rejection of the Catholic and Orthodox past.

Well, you rather thought wrong. The point of Protestantism was and is a rejection of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and soteriology. It was not and is not a rejection of "the Catholic past," as if there were such a monolithic thing (go read your Newman). And it certainly was not and is not primarily any sort of engagement with Orthodoxy's past or present. Can't we move beyond this sort of rhetoric?

On another note, relating this to the "Nonsense" post about the deterioration of the humanities, to me one of the great tragedies of the past few decades is that a department of English is the last place anyone who loves literature should want to be. One reason is that the job of a literature professor is to "interrogate" rather than appreciate literature. There is a very Puritanical suspicion of the power of art to obscure whle promoting "patriarchal, capitalist, racist, classist, sexist blada blada" ideology. The suspicion is, of course, political rather than spiritual, so it is different than the Protestant suspicion of art in that respect, but it does seem ironic how similar it is on the whole. I haven't really thought it through, so I don't insist on it, but I wonder if America's Puritan heritage is one reason the "hermeneutics of suspicion" found such a welcoming home in American Universities.

Dumb Ox,

Forgive me please if I have offended such was not my intent.

I obviously cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but as an Orthodox Christian I can say that a rejection of Orthodox ecclesiology and soteriology would place one outside the Orthodox Church.

It is years since I've read Newman, but I do understand that "the Catholic past" is not monolithic. Neither, however, is it Evangelical or Protestant as I suspect Dyrness would understand them to be. For both the Catholic and Orthodox Church ecclesiology and soteriology are intimately bound up with liturgy and to separate the latter from the former two is to preserve the form at the expense of the content.

For me at least, the problem is what Dyrness means when he asserts that the Orthodox (and Catholic) past is also the past of Evangelical Christians. Does this mean that Evangelical Christians now see the necessity of apostolic succession, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of baptism for salvation and the sacramentality of marriage to name just a few things over which historically we have disagreed? Do Evangelical Christians now believe that the Body of Christ is a visible, historical society in to which one must be received not simply by repentance but also baptism, chrismation and Holy Communion as I do as an Orthodox Christian?

Or does he mean that he is, as an Evangelical Christian, free to shop the shelves of Christian tradition taking a little from here, a little from there, to create his own personal ecclesiology style and liturgical forms? If this is what he means then he is little different from those relativists in New Age who identify themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious."

Here's what I would ask: Do Dyrness and other Evangelical Christians see obedience to the Christian tradition in matters such as polity and worship as necessary or optional? Is tradition normative for the Church or illustrative?

In Christ,

+FrG

Consider some doctrinal problems with specifically, pictures, "images."

Elsewhere, I'm fairly accepting of pictures, images. But it took some modification of my Protestant upbringing. Which is an anti-icon, anti-rich art tradition, that I wouldn't want to ENTIRELY abandon in fact. In fact often I like iconoclasm, in general.

What's wrong with too much attention to pictures, say?

Protestants always heard and saw, much more clearly than Catholics, Jesus the poor mendicant monk: Jesus warning constantly about over-valuing gold and material "possessions" and "riches," the "lust of the eyes," here on this material earth; Jesus telling his disciples that the Son of Man had no home; Jesus telling his disciples to have no more possessions than a simple cloak and so forth, while living in others' houses; Jesus also emphasizing the "spirit," and not material wealth. Jesus telling us to put aside simple sensual gratification here on earth; to first find spiritual, mental " treasures"; to get greater rewards, riches only later, in heaven.

This was the core, mental and ascetic message of Jesus, that molded Protestants. While to them, earlier Catholics often seem very self-congratulatory, and self-indulgent, and even corpulent, gluttonous. With their allegedly superior "mature" theology valorizing sumptuous gilt Art - and Greed - Catholics actually seemed to be based around a greedy, sensual, physicalistic self-indulgence. One which moreover, much of history suggests, was left behind as obsolete, with the rise of the wiser system of the Protestant Reformation. Which valued the things of the spirit or mind, as much as material possessions.

The Protestant Reformation, c. 1515 ff., at last heard Jesus' emphasis on delaying sensual, even gluttonous material gratifications and sensuality on earth. And this new emphasis on spirit, lead to the Protestants to emphasize developing the spirit - and developing the intellectual mind. While putting off material greed. This in turn made Protestants hard, educated. And capable of surviving the long, cold winters and poverty of Plymouth. And with this spirit, Protestants, not Catholics, kicked off the machine age, and Democracy itself.

For that matter, in fact, Protestants founded the United States of America; the signers of the Constitution, and all the presidents until Kennedy - basically, all the founders of the United States of America - were overwhelming, Protestants; not Catholics.

So how, why, did Protestantism work so much better than Catholicism? Max Weber was to note in 1920/30, in his spot-on book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, that Protestants had a more ascetic, disciplined side to them, than Catholics; they had especially, the ascetic's emphasis on delaying material consumption. This hard, ascetic discipline, helped them to learn to save up what money they had; while building up their spirit and mind and intellectual capital. And saving up their money. All this paid off eventually - even in this material world: saving money instead of spending it, built up the money, the "capital" needed to found more productive businesses. While the emphasis on the spirit or mind, developed science. So that finally, Protestant emphasis on putting off immediate material gratification, art, in favor of education, science, and capital, eventually made possible modern corporations ... and the massively greater wealth THEY created.

So that in fact, Protestants, precisely by going against the Catholic love of wealth and art and sensual gratification, by following Jesus' ascetic/intellectual side, were able to develop the self-denial and self-discipline, the intellectuality and spirituality necessary, ironically, to create the larger and vastly more productive machinery of modern civilization. And it was by precisely, an initial material self-denial and discipline, that Protestants were able to create the eventual pay-off: building science and education, and capital, to create the vastly greater material prosperity and productivity, of the modern state, the machine age, and the United States of America.

For that matter, the whole core of Postmodern Art, the emphasis on "performance" and installation, puts the emphasis not on material things as permanent possessions; but on things as merely transitory aids, to the development of our spiritual and mental experience.

To hear any author attempt to celebrate a resurgence of Greedy appreciation of material art, as Protestants coming to "matur"ity therefore? This almost seems like an insult to History. And to the founders of the United States.

By the way: Princeton U. was founded in 1746 by Presbyterians - Protestants. And to give him his due, our present author at times hints about problems with, after all, abandoning the Protestant foundations of America, in favor of Catholic sensuality and materialistic "indulgence." But our commentator here might make some significant errors. For example: Protestant theologian Jon Edwards did little more than allow Protestants to address the material "world," of science; not with greedy sensual self-indulgence and over-consumption, or gluttony. Not the gilt art or "idols," or even the painted statues of Jesus and Mary and the saints, of "wood" or metal (Rev. 9.20; Wis. 10.4-14.1 ff.; Deut. 4.28, 29.17; Dan. 5.4-23), found in Catholic churches and creches. Catholic churches with their many "graven" and other "images" (in violation, many said, of the Ten Commandments; also Isa. 10.11, 21.9, 40.20; Dan. 3.10; Rom. 1.20, 8.29).

What's wrong with that? Among other things, idolatry and belief in Magic. Though technically the Church tells Catholics not to worship the statues as such, still, much of the popular Catholic tradition, cannot see these statues as only symbols, but sees them as living, magically animated things; crying and bleeding and so forth. So that the population descends into (or in South America, never emerged from) belief in magic: belief in statues having some kind of animistic life in them. The worst kind of idolatry and "enchantment," and "sorcery."

Protestants therefore, were rightly always suspicious about pictures.

Like millions of other people I admire the Sistine Chapel. The various paintings there are, singly and in concord, aesthetically beautiful and full of profound meaning. A visit to the chapel is awe inspiring and even overwhelming.

Protestants, too, have championed a beautiful art — not of images — architecture. Some Protestant churches, especially the older ones, have all the simplicity and purity of the Cross on which our Savior died.

Thanks Matthew for continuing to push the conversation on this site about icons and the beauty of worship. I have found it interesting that there is a small but growing trend among pentecostals and charismatics to recover artistic expression as part of worship (dance, song, flags, banners, paintings). It strikes me as quite close to the original reason for the emergence of iconography in the first place: worship as the creative impulse of encountering the divine.

I have seen artists inspired to paint in and through a worship service in which they sensed the presence of God. This inspiration is what, it seems to me, resides behind the Edwardsian impulse toward beauty, and it suggests that beauty and revivalism go hand in hand when we return both to their pneumatological framework. Most folks who dismiss Wesleyan perfectionism fail to see the way in which Wesley drew on Clement of Alexandria and the Pseudo-Macarian homilies such that perfect love (apatheia) was the human embodiment of the beauty of the infinite (to borrow from David Hart). This is a connection to Orthodoxy, but it is not one you will find in your standard accounts of Protestantism.

Wow. The comments are rife with (a) Protestant iconoclasts (b) Catholic triumphalists pretending to be Orthodox and (c) me, a desperate moderate. Take it up a notch, guys.

In answer to Fr. Gregory: necessary, normative, but not necessarily the same as the Roman Catholic Church or the Churches of the East. Can all of tradition be reduced to THE Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy? Do Eastern Orthodox Christians see obedience to the Roman tradition in matters of polity as necessary or optional?

In other words, the absurd dichotomies you offer are not the only absurd dichotomies imaginable.

(And yes, of course, rejection of Orthodox ecclesiology and soteriology would place one outside the Orthodox church [tautology!], but that is not the same thing as rejecting wholesale the past that precedes what came to be Orthodox ecclesiology and soteriology. Pick and choose, you say? You do the same. Wasn't Nestorius a good Orthodox Theologian? How about Origen?)

Matthew - what about Hamman? I don't know much about him but I know that Balthasar included him in his Theological Aesthetics...

In response to brettongarcia.

First, I agree that the U.S. is essentially a Protestant nation, which is one reason I suppose we are known more for our material wealth than our artistic culture or intellectual life.

You seem to associate art with sensual gluttony as if creating or viewing great art is pretty much the same as stuffing one's face with chocolate cake. Yet great art's purpose, particularly religious art, is to move the viewer beyond and above earthly concerns and put him in mind of heavenly things and to facilitate one's encounter with the Divine. Thus creating great art and building beautiful churches is a tremendous service to the Kingdom of God, and a form of worship just as legitimate as singing. Which is one reason why, I suppose, God commanded the use of art and beautiful materials in building the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant.

I would also say that the lack of great art does not lead to more spirituality, but less. For when it is absent the world rushes in with its own images to fill our minds, and often those don't elevate the heart and mind towards God.

Further you speak of greed and sensuality in the Church until finally Protestantism came along and properly reoriented everything towards the ascetic and intellectual. And I want to ask, "Have you heard of the Desert Fathers? Monastic orders?" I'm sure you have and are aware they led an ascetic life, even if some of their churches were beautiful. And I'm sure you're aware that most Catholic religious orders take a vow of poverty.

I agree that Protestantism's delinking of faith and works helped lead many to make wealth accumulation one of their primary goals in life and did help lead to the U.S.'s vast wealth and to large corporations. Now why this really has little to do with greed but the creating of art does I have no idea. I must also ask, "Out of what tradition does the "Health and Wealth" gospel come from?"

God bless.

It's hard to improve upon Brennan's reply to brettongarcia's eloquent defense of iconoclasm: "I would also say that the lack of great art does not lead to more spirituality, but less. For when it is absent the world rushes in with its own images to fill our minds, and often those don't elevate the heart and mind towards God."

The "machinery of modern civilization" that brettongarcia argues is the Protestant patrimony, is strong confirmation of Brennan's point. That said, in the book being discussed, Lauren Winner explains that Protestantism is significantly more complicated than some Plymouth proto-capitalist ascetics trying to make it through the winter:

"As a wealth of fairly recent research into the visual and material culture of North American Protestantism makes clear, the caricatured plain white New England meeting house is not the end (or even the beginning) of the story. A different beginning may be found in the Anglican houses of worship of the early South. As Louis Nelson has recently argued, Anglicans in colonial South Carolina had a theology of beauty. They "understood earthly beauty to be a shadow of its divine original" and they preached sermons that "declared the beauty of holiness." In turn they built church buildings that expressed contemporary aesthetic virtues of "regularity, beauty, and stability." They filled those churches with finely crafted silver liturgical implements and paintings of angels that turned worshipers' imaginations to the supernatural."

As to Hamman, Balthasar does indeed covers him in the third volume of the aesthetics. I'm not making that case that Balthasar neglects Protestantism - I think he understands it all too well. A Balthasar scholar may be able to correct me, but I believe the reason he neglected Edwards in particular was because he wasn't entirely comfortable with English. This may be a rather trivial reason for the omission, but it does nevertheless provide a convenient loophole to Gerhard Nebel's predicament (freezing in the barns of the Reformation) that Balthasar did not consider.

I find myself genuinely disconcerted by Father Jensen's charge of "liturgical tourism," as I fear it can be literally applied to me. (Due to my chosen profession, I spent yesterday gawking at churches in Rome and am today in Thessaloniki doing the same.) But I can respond to Jensen by citing Jenson (Robert), the Lutheran theologian who recently wrote, defending his decision to not become Catholic or Orthodox (and his sympathy with those that have): "That such individual choices are inescapable is among the punishments visited upon a divided church." It is all too possible to "pick and choose" among the divided churches in the consumerist way that is rightfully deplored above. But like the Babylonian captivity that afflicted divided Israel, it is an arguably necessary predicament. The only escape from the tragedy of church division that I am aware of is death.

Matthew,

Thank you for your comment.

While I respect Jenson's work, I would disagree with his (and your?) contention that the Church is divided. It is not and never has been. The Orthodox Church is one. Yes, there are Christians who are divided from her but that is a different matter.

Individual choices are not the result of divisions between Christians. Metanoia always implies a personal decision. I am not saved against my will but neither are I saved apart from my will.

Yes there are those who "pick and choose" among the various Christian communities in a "consumerist way." And yes, some of them even choose the Orthodox Church as she were simply one more consumer good. While this is unfortunate and represents a serious pastoral failure, this is not the whole of the story.

Reconciliation with the Orthodox Church is not simply or exclusively a matter of person choice. Admission reflects the Church's discernment that the person is responding to divine grace. Put another way, it is less a matter of my choosing Christ and His Church and more of my being chosen by Him and His Body.

In any event, this is all secondary to my primary concern of liturgical tourism. I assume as a doctoral student you are studying church art and architecture rather than mining the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in order to create your own "worship experience." It is this--and not a marred decision (and which of my decisions are not marred?) in response to divine grace--that I would describe as consumerist.

In response to my charge of liturgical tourism, I can appreciate that an Evangelical Christian might say "No, I am a tourist. I am doing this because I feel lead by the Spirit to do so." Far enough. But what is the standard by which this personal feeling is judged to be true? In the Orthodox Church the decision must--at a minimum--not contradict the Tradition of the Church. If I understood your review correctly, one of the growing concerns in Evangelical Christianity is that such decisions are being driven not by obedience to tradition but by a consumer mentality. However well intentioned, I do not see how Dyrness avoids compounding the problem when he says that the past of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the shared past of Protestantism.

Let me go a bit further.

As an Orthodox Christian (and I assume this would be the case for a Catholic) the notion that the tradition of the Church is somehow "past" reflects a serious estrangement from the life of the Church and a need for repentance. The Tradition of the Church is not "past." Nor is it strictly speaking the present. It is rather the an experience, a remembrance, of the escatological future when Christ will be all in all. It seems to me that when Dyrness, or anyone else, speaks of Tradition as "past" he reveals himself as one who is estranged from the Tradition.

If I may be permitted a pastoral observation. One of the difficulties I encounter is that many of the people who encounter the Orthodox Church are so fully immersed in an theological and moral relativism that can't imagine that anything else is possible. The Creed reflects one's opinion; the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom a personal preference. But if the Creed is only my opinion, the Liturgy merely my preference, then the Gospel is void. And, least I be accused of triumphalism, I would be the first to say that, Orthodox Christians are also prone to this same relativism.

But we are not simply speaking here of personal decisions. As I suggested at the beginning of my comment, the problem here is that we are speaking from fundamentally different ecclesiologies. But this is simply to describe the problem. To speak dogmatically as an Orthodox Christian, I can't, and won't, accept a Protestant ecclesiology anymore than Protestant Christians would accept an Orthodox ecclesiology. While Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical Christians might all describe the Church as "catholic," I suspect that we have different understandings of what that means.

In Christ,

+FrG

I find it unfortunate that the discussion is so centred on the use of art in liturgy.

This linkage presupposes a prior commitment to the idea of the church "service".

For those of us who see the church's primary meeting context being a charismatic fellowship meal, rather than a "service", the issue of the arts in the meetings is less important than the role of the artist in the church's wider ministry of being salt and light in the world.

In this latter context, my own view is that the discusssion ought more to be about how the Christian artist opeates within secular society in ways that are consistent with the gospel (which will be both missional and edifying). The extent to which such work will be "conservative" or "accessible" will vary considerably between such artists, in my opinion.

Forgetting, among other things, Christ's message about the beam in one's own eye, Brettongarcia writes:

"In fact often I like iconoclasm, in general. What's wrong with too much attention to pictures, say? ....This was the core, mental and ascetic message of Jesus, that molded Protestants. While to them, earlier Catholics often seem very self-congratulatory, and self-indulgent, and even corpulent, gluttonous. With their allegedly superior "mature" theology valorizing sumptuous gilt Art - and Greed - Catholics actually seemed to be based around a greedy, sensual, physicalistic self-indulgence. One which moreover, much of history suggests, was left behind as obsolete, with the rise of the wiser system of the Protestant Reformation. Which valued the things of the spirit or mind, as much as material possessions. "

Hmmm....so Brettongarcia thinks that the Iconoclasm of Henry VIII (e.g., his rape of the Shrine of Thomas a Becket) or of Edward VI's lord protectors (see, Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars) was a function of the gospel message against Greed? Brettongarcia is either ignorant of History or he is naive and gullible. In truth, Iconoclasm as practiced by Henry, Edward's handlers and so many of the Reformers was an excuse for wholesale robbery of taken over churches for the enrichment of the iconoclasts.

Brennan:

Granted, any theology that attempts to COMPLETELY, absolutely ban images, icons, Art and Architecture, from religion and from daily life, runs into problems, contradictions in the Bible itself. On the other hand though, there are within the Bible, many, many warnings about 1) graven and other “images” of God, etc., and 2) “idols” made of “wood” and metal; warnings of 3) even physical “churches,” temples, and “shrines made by men.” Along with warnings about 4) love of material things, “riches,” “gold,” and “possessions,” and so forth. To suggest that the Bible itself indicated some real hesitations, about in effect, Art. And these are the foundation of the strain of Protestant suspicion of Art; and are among the reasons that although (some) Protestants did build physical churches, they did not ornament these churches lavishly; or put pictures of God himself in them. Indeed, historically the Protestant reformation was caused by Martin Luther's objections to the Church becoming greedy, and asking for more and more money to buy, pay for, expensive physical churches; the Church having progressed with “Indulgences,” Luther thought, to the point that it was giving the impression that donors could buy their way into heaven, by giving money, wealth, to Catholicism; to build churches.

Granted, the numerous Biblical warnings about images and so forth, were often rather vague; vague enough, that it was never entirely clear how iconoclastic God intended us to be. And indeed, this vagueness is responsible for some of the many severe, historical schisms and conflicts, in doctrine, between the three great branches of Christianity: the 1) Protestant, 2) Catholic, and 3) Orthodox branches. So that to this very day, the subject of Art, icons, idols, elicits much discussion of doctrine, and divisions within the Christian world.

Overall though, I think I would still somewhat defend, a mild iconoclasm. And the idea that most (if not all) Protestants themselves, were still mildly anti-iconic, anti-Art. As indeed the post prompt here assumed.

If Protestants allowed some art, and some pursuit of material things, then how do we square this with iconoclasm and anti-materialistic “spirituality”? I guess I would say here, that while the Protestant also pursues material things, at times, he pursues them not as an end in themselves. The Protestant does not pursue objects to be enjoyed as such; but he values only those material devices that become useful TOOLS. For our exploration of the universe (including its deity). Material objects - like microscopes and airplanes, and even warm homes - are useful, only insofar as they can be tools in the service of the further development of the spirit, and mind. We value material things not so much as an end in themselves, but as a means to the end of exploring the universe, and expanding the mind or spirit.

Protestants - like yourself, above - value even Art not primarily 1) out of Greed for material things. We value art not because Art has lots of gold leaf on it, and is pretty and valuable, or shows us nice views of bigger houses and pretty girls (or more chocolate cake). And we don't pursue Art 2) out of Idolatry; because we think it is a magical idol that can listen, and hear, and cry and bleed. But instead, as you yourself note above, 3) if we like Art, it is because it is a tool. A tool that helps us learn more about our deity, in the case of religious art.

But of course, it's a fine and tricky line, between seeing material objects, only as tools, as scientific instruments for the pursuit of higher things, versus lusting after objects just in and for themselves. But I'd say that the average Protestant did this better than the average Catholic. Indeed, our emphasis on money, was not the sensuous attachment to pretty gold jewelry; but to abstract numbers in the bank. Not on immediate sensuous pleasure, but austere savings ... for in turn, yet another working tool: the business, the corporation. (Here we de-couple faith from work; but the better to serve both).

Were Protestants the only ones to do this? Of course, the Catholic Tradition includes for example, a priesthood; a priesthood with a strong measure of asceticism in it. Still, the AVERAGE lay Catholic however, left that asceticism, just to the priests; the average Catholic was all too willing to go after constant forgiveness and "indulgence" of sin; especially the sin of sensual indulgence. In the war between Catholics and Protestants, Monarchy and Democracy, the Catholics more often than not, were with the profligate, rich monarchs; with the kings.

When I was a child, I traveled around the world, and lived with many different kinds of people; with New England Protestants, and New Mexican Catholics, and with Middle Eastern Muslims. For some reason, I could always spot the Catholic kids; they were the ones with the dreamy expressions, who were 15 pounds overweight. Their religion literally, makes food, bread, into God.

The average Protestant Calvinist to be sure, makes a compromise between the religion of spirit, and the religion of "prosperity." Protestants pursue material powers. But - aside from the very corpulent Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - the truer Protestant, was always lean, in his personal habits and consumption.

And if to be sure, that amounts to simply saving, storing up for a cold winter - or a major corporation, or a later nation - still? Still, there is that necessary, vital moment of ascetic self-denial, typical of a real priest.

Which is why after all, Presbyterians named their religion after "presbyters," or "priests"; with the idea of every person in the congregation, should take into him- or herself, some of the asceticism, and self-denial, of a priest.

And to be sure, fortunately, the TEMPORARY, disciplined denial of SOME of immediate sensual materialism, even brought us finally, by way of first spirituality, the kingdom heaven, to a sort of higher and better, more refined materialism. A sort of preface to the reunion of spirit and body, heaven and earth, that the Bible after all foretold, in the end.


Patrick:

Granted too, Henry VIII, the founder of Anglicanism, is hard to defend; but he's a worst-case scenario. Though even there, it might be argued that Henry VIII took money not just to enrich himself personally, but just as much to build up the state of England; which indeed soon enough needed money to defend itself against Catholic France. And later, against the oncoming Spanish Armada, for example; the fleet which sailed from Catholic Spain in1588, with the stated aim in part, of destroying England, destroying Protestantism, for the sake of Catholicism, and the Pope.

Hi brettongarcia,

Thanks for your response. First, I don't regard Protestantism as one of the three great branches of Christianity. There are two, Catholicism and the Orthodox, the only two who can historically trace their roots back to Christ and the apostles. And among these two there is no real "debate" about art and iconoclasm. Both have historically built beautiful churches, promoted art, and had beautiful liturgies (well, at least we Catholics did until Vatican II, but that's another issue--and the traditional Latin Mass is making a comeback, thank God).

Here is an official statement from the Council of Trent (XVI Century) regarding images:

"Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them [in other words, they're not magical], on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

Nothing here about greed or sensual indulgence.

Catholics have always been required to fast or abstain from meat on certain days of the year. It used to be that we had to abstain from meat every Friday in remembrance of the day of the crucifixion. Lent itself is a season for sacrifice and giving up certain things. So no, the idea of asceticism is not restricted to priests or monks but is woven throughout the liturgical year.

I find it a bit rich that you speak about overweight Catholic kids when it is here, in the Protestant U.S.A., that people are known for being overweight. Not France, not Italy, but here. I actually do attribute this in part to the tendency in business here to put profit first. Again, the delinking of faith and works also decoupled economics from ethics, thus enabling men to pursue profit as the primary motive in business. Thus naturally it is not surprising that it is the U.S. that has led the way in fast food restaurants and strip malls. And our style of eating which in a way has been forced upon us by companies pursuing profit as the primary aim has helped lead to an overweight population.

I would note in general that an artist needs to do the best he can. There is no "fine line" when it comes to a Gothic Cathedral. If you're not going to attempt to produce the best art then you may as well step down. Certainly Solomon knew this when he was building the Temple:

"And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of Huram my father's, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, and to find out every device which shall be put to him, with thy cunning men, and with the cunning men of my lord David thy father." (2 Chron. 2 13-14)

God bless.

Brettongarcia,
As I suggested before, you must be ignorant of History to write silliness like this:

"Granted too, Henry VIII, the founder of Anglicanism, is hard to defend; but he's a worst-case scenario. Though even there, it might be argued that Henry VIII took money not just to enrich himself personally, but just as much to build up the state of England; which indeed soon enough needed money to defend itself against Catholic France. And later, against the oncoming Spanish Armada, for example; the fleet which sailed from Catholic Spain in1588, with the stated aim in part, of destroying England, destroying Protestantism, for the sake of Catholicism, and the Pope."

Catholic France invaded poor Protestant England? When in the 16th Century did that happen? In fact, it was just the opposite: Protestant England invaded Catholic Boulogne, France under Henry VIII.

As to Catholic Spain trying to invade Protestant England in 1588, that happened only because Protestant Elizabeth had engaged in a twenty year plus campaign of sending her "privateers" to wage war on Spanish shipping in the Caribbean, the Atlantic Crossing and even in the English Channel and followed those acts of war up by sending an English Army under her lover Leicester to invade the Spanish possession of the Netherlands in 1585.

Do you know anything about the English piracy of the Spanish Payroll Fleet in 1569? Or of the English cooperation with the French Huguenot pirates in St. Augustine, FL in their war on Spanish shipping as early as 1565?

In truth, Elizabeth waged war on Catholic France and the Catholic Queen of Scotland almost from the start of her miserable reign in Nov. 1558. In 1559-60, she was supporting the Protestant Lairds of the Congregation in their war on Marie de Guise, the Catholic Regent of Scotland. When that succeeded in bringing Scotland into an advanced state of anarchy, Elizabeth tried the same thing in France, by supporting the Protestant faction in the Wars of Religion as early as 1562. There, Elizabeth's war waging was not so productive. Her invasion of France led to the capture of Le Havre (Newhaven, as the English called it), but the English were then besieged there and soon found themselves dropping like flies due to plague.

Elizabeth had to tuck her tail between her legs and back down on more direct invasions. So, she fell back on her piracy schemes (Hawkins, Drake and sundry other thieves) for the next twenty years, until she sent Leicester off to the Netherlands for another go at foreign wars. Catholic Phillip then retaliated with the Spanish Armada and Spanish support for the rebels in Ireland, but he had long been provoked by Elizabeth. As a result, Protestant Elizabeth spent the last eighteen years of her "glorious reign," mired down in War in Ireland, the Netherlands and on the High Seas. Elizabeth deservedly learned that what goes around comes around.

All-Too-Pat:

Well, of course, what do I know about Art, or History? Only one of my graduate degrees was in Art History. Therefore every ordinary lay Catholic on First Things, is eager to lecture me and call me “silly” and “ignorant” on both Art, and History. Which I think is evidence enough, that Catholics do not really follow Jesus and the Bible; that told us to be humble. And hesitant about judging/condemning others. As it turns out, it's lots more complicated than saying "pirates did it." There is a far subtler sense of history out there, than focusing on pirates.

Some suggest above, that the problems of Protestants in England, like the invasion of 1588 were caused entirely by pirates. But of COURSE History and religion are complicated enough, that to try to find just one cause for things, is simplistic. In the present case being discussed here, there are MANY various elements, in Catholicism and Protestantism, and their history, and art; and their wars. And there are many elements that contributed to the SUCCESS of Protestantism.

Among many other factors overall, I'd hold to the notion that the reason Protestantism founded America and Democracy, was based on a number of key factors; among which was the fact Protestantism was not as based on magical ideas - talking statues - as much the more ancient religion of Catholicism had been. (Being older here, not being a virtue; older here meaning that Catholicism was simply, more primitive).

Many Catholics today, amazingly, deny they ever thought statues could hear, and cry and bleed. But the newspapers are full of such reported incidents, from Catholics, even today.

1) The Council of Trent to be sure, seems to many to have spoken, above, against venerating religious images and statues, or asking things of them. But in actual practice, most older, conservative Catholics I know, are Cafeteria Catholics. In this case, they don't really obey the Council of Trent; I see them regularly praying to statues. Though some try to deny that with rationalizations, sophistries.

While Trent, by the way, refers to "miracles" performed by saints; more magical thinking.

(As an aside: the fact that Trent does not address greed in relation to icons, finally speaks poorly of the Council of Trent. And/or successive councils, that should have explicitly addressed this problem.)

2) Regarding the general question of the religions of nations, as a factor in their success, or lack of it? And your assertion that America is today Protestant? Sometimes, first of all, the religion is hard to determine. For example, a) France today is a mostly secular country. While b) America is increasingly Catholic. Due to the extremely rapid increase in overwhelmingly Catholic immigrants, from south of the border, and their extremely high birth rates. And note, the corpulence of Americans began in direct proportion to that growth.

3) Was Catholicism the only cause of conflicts between France, Spain, England and the rest of the world? Hardly. I said it was "in part" the cause.

4) What were the causes of conflicts like 1588? Did France attack Henry VIII? I didn't say he did. In fact, Henry at first was allied with France; and only eventually joined an alliance with Charles against France. But all that was not in light however of earlier, historical attacks by France on England. Among other reasons.

Conflicts between England and France, go back to at least the Norman Conquest in 1066 - when France attacked and took over England.

Your own history therefore, which traces the cause of the Spanish Invasion of 1588, "just" to buccaneers, English pirates, is therefore itself "silly"; because it doesn't take into account, the longer-term picture. And the longer-term conflicts between England and France.

Your whole idea that the conflict with Henry VIII was caused just, “only,” by problems with buccaneers – pirates – is silly. Pirates caused it all? Hardly any professional historian today will say that a major event like the 1588 invasion, was caused by just one thing. While standard accounts mention in fact, religious differences between Protestant England, and Catholic Spain, as a more interesting, contributing cause.

By the way though, in any case, I wouldn't particularly want to defend Henry VIII; preferring the albeit only slightly less problematic assistant, Oliver Cromwell.

5) In any case too, in your attacks on Protestantism, you might be accused of inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, and lack of knowledge about religion: you live in a great country founded by Protestants ... and yet don't consider Protestantism great.

6) Among other good things about Protestants, you should know that many Protestants know their Bibles well; and know that while PARTS of the Bible support Catholic ideas, support for an opulent physical church, other parts don't. For example, Solomon built a very fine temple - but then parts of the Bible suggest that a) Solomon turned against God at times, with his many pagan wives. While for that matter, b) before building the temple, Solomon questioned the need for it. Solomon asking whether a God who lives everywhere, needed a human-build home to live in.

While c)-z) dozens of other parts of the Bible, were also rather negative about temples, "shrines built by men."

Finally though I'm not arguing here and now, that there should not be any physical temples or churches; only that any physical church, should be suitably restrained in ornamentation and art.

7) This is because the Bible in fact, often warned about statues, icons, images, and riches. In part since, I now suggest here, anyone who follows the materialistic/sensual ethic, and richer, more sumptuous idea of Art, are following the world, the flesh too much; and they are lead to the wrong idea of God too, ultimately, by following materialistic art.

How ascetic after all, have Catholic laypeople really been, relative to Protestants? Given the sumptuousness/richness of much Catholic art? And the fixation on bread as God? And the allegedly ascetic side of the Catholic laity, having atrophied to merely eating fish instead of beef on Friday, and then disappearing almost totally? For some time, Catholics have been quite materially indulgent. Asceticism was left to priests; and Catholic laypersons didn't bother with it. And because of that, they have been lead, finally, to the wrong idea of God.

8) And for that matter, materialistic Catholics, have been lead to an outdated idea of Art. The most modern/postmodern idea of Art, no longer relies as much on objects of value; but rather on temporary performances, installations.

9) And they have been lead to the wrong idea of God too. The deeper vision of God, often told us to look beyond just material riches and possessions, here on this physical earth.

10) HOw can we fix this? Perhaps we each should be ecumenical, and try to borrow from the good elements of other Christian doctrines, churches, liturgies. If so then I suggest that both Catholics and Orthodox Christians now finally reconsider the huge virtues of Protestantism; including the value of a variation of its mild asceticism. And, related to Protestant asceticism, iconoclasm.

11) And on this point, I have taken up the sword again; for Oliver Cromwell, the House of Orange, Protestantism - and ENGLAND!

Even though England is not doing so well this week, in soccer's world cup.

Instead of addressing my very specific historical points, Brettongarcia (BG) flails around about a number of irrelevancies. I had pointed out that France did not invade England in the 16th Century as BG originally contended ("but just as much to build up the state of England; which indeed soon enough needed money to defend itself against Catholic France"). To the contrary, England invaded Boulogne, FR instead. Instead of addressing the 16th Century wars between England and France, BG makes the irrelevant (and inaccurate) rejoinder that "go back to at least the Norman Conquest in 1066 - when France attacked and took over England...." That , of course, does not mean that France (or even the Normans) invaded England in the 16th Century.

The rest of BG's latest post is even more irrelevant. As to his contention that Protestantism is somehow "ascetic," BG has not addressed my observation that the Protestant Iconoclasm that is proof of asceticism in BG's mind was really a big excuse for the wholesale plundering of the goods of the Church (built up over the course of a millennium) that were then wasted by Henry and his successors (the "regents" of Edward VI, Somerset and Northumberland) in the matter of a couple of decades. Contrary to BG's contention in his earlier post ("it might be argued that Henry VIII took money not just to enrich himself personally, but just as much to build up the state of England"), the plundering was not done in large measure for the good of the state's defenses, but was wasted on such frivolities as Henry's Nonsuch Palace and Edward Seymour's Somerset House.

Instead of addressing my historical showings, BG has continued to engage in silly biased generalities about Catholics being materialistic and sensual because of their alleged "fixation on bread as God...." One of the noteworthy things about the writing of so many Protestants like BG about Catholics is how much hatred they have been fed. But that is not surprising. Think of how difficult it must be to be for a Protestant minister to keep his/her congregants' attention away from that fact that there were no Protestant churches for the first 1517 years of the Christian Era. Obviously Christ did not found the Protestant churches; mere men did. So change the subject by making vicious attacks on the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, among other things!!

All-too-Pat:

Your own gross digression into Henry VII etc., is manifestly irrelevant itself, to a discussion of Protestant iconoclasm. Your accusations of "irrelevancy" are all too obviously projection of your own sins, onto an "other."

But if you insist: it is well known to REAL historians, that 1) the Norsement, Normans, Vikings who in the 10th cent AD took over the part of France known as "Normandy," and English relatives in France, were soon assimilated into local French culture. So 2) that when those from "Normandy" indeed effectively took over England, in the Norman Invasion of 1066, that marked a very, very significant change for England; one 3) that brough not just Viking, but also French culture to the British Isles. One 4) standard History refers to it as having "ended the Anglo-Saxon period." While 5) linguistic evidence dates a profound cultural change from this periord; the entry of thousands of Latin/French/Romance language words, into English.

The Norman Conquest of 1066 therefore is 6) not irrelevant: this is the historical background that proves that the conflict between England and France in the 16th century, went back hundreds of years; to at least 1066. So that in effect, it is possible to say that, even when initiating the latest conflict, England was essentially "defending" itself against France. Which had - from an historical perspective - long been a major enemy of, and aggressor against, England.

We need to look beyond immediate causes - pirates, etc. - to the deeper historical roots. Why indeed, were the English allowing pirates to attack Spain on the high seas, for example? If not because of deeper, historical, longstanding conflicts with Spain?

Alliances in this era of course, often shifted quickly. But the predominent pattern was that England was England, and France was France; and the two were often at war.

Obviously Pat, you are eager to attack Protestants; and are reading many Catholic histories. Granted, I said, Henry VIII is a poor example of the virtues of Protestantism; but I granted that. And wish to turn to better, more relevant examples.But even in the irrelevant question of Henry VIII, obviously Pat, you obviously are going for the simpler, immediate seeming causes; not the deeper trends.

As for having to explain why there was no Protestant Church for 1517 years? All we have to say is that the world was backward; even its Christianity was underinformed, believing in Magic. The world did not see the light, until the Renaissance and thereafter.

And now, back to Art?




Dr. Brettongarcia

This community of readers should be grateful for Matthew's clear and comprehensive review of a book on an important topic. I am pleased that the review has provoked conversation across the Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic traditions.

While Gregory Jensen is a priest in the Orthodox Church and I'm a layman in the Reformed tradition, we make odd bedfellows insofar as we both agree that Protestants mistakenly sign up for "liturgical tourism" (an apt metaphor) when they should either (1) join the Catholic/Orthodox Church or (2) "rediscover their barn's blazing, but neglected, fireplace" (another apt metaphor), as proposed by Michael Horton in "A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship," R. Scott Clark in "Recovering the Reformed Confession," D. G. Hart & John R. Muether's in "With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship," or D. G. Hart in "Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition."

I appreciate Fr. Jenson's emphasis that liturgy is ecclesial and doctrinal, not merely aesthetic. For that reason, I've chosen to stay in the Reformed tradition, albeit with deep sympathies for the Anglican tradition. I also concur with his astute observation that when anyone "speaks of Tradition as 'past' he reveals himself as one who is estranged from the Tradition." For that reason, Protestants should try to find renewal in their own traditions rather than picking up souvenirs in foreign traditions. I am surprised to hear that William Dyrness says Protestants need to "allow themselves to be enriched by the Catholic and Orthodox past" because he wrote a book entitled, "Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards" (2004).

For those of us who are unfamiliar with Jonathan Edwards' contributions to aesthetics, I wish Matthew would have told us more about how "Protestants can find in Edwards a theological canopy under which the arts can both flourish inside the church, and outside of it as well." Moreover, I would like to hear if Edwards' aesthetics are exportable to all Protestant traditions or just some. For example, are Pentecostals and Anabaptists likely to embrace Edwards' aesthetics or just Presbyterians and Anglicans?

Brettongarcia (BG) makes this remarkably silly statement:

"As for having to explain why there was no Protestant Church for 1517 years? All we have to say is that the world was backward; even its Christianity was underinformed, believing in Magic. The world did not see the light, until the Renaissance and thereafter."

IOW, whoever tried to found a Church before the Renaissance was too backward to found an aceptable church? Luther and the other Magisterial Reformers were better church founders than whatever backward type founded the Earlier Christian Church? And when that person (hint: the Lord and Savior of the Universe) formed his Church in the First Century AD, He was "underinformed"? Or even worse, to put it another way, BG would seriously claim that Christ with His foreknowledge blithely condemned fifteen hundred years of people who wanted to believe in Him to belief in Magic instead?

At best, BG's God is so unloving and unconcerned with His Creation that He left it twisting slowly in the wind for a millennium and a half, until Martin came along and did what Christ had not been able to do. Fortunately, that is not the God that the Scriptures and the Traditions of Christ's Holy Church reveal. BG is showing how bizarre individual interpretation can get.

Matt. M.:

You should probably get in touch with Kyle, on the Theology Forum blog.

Kyle just finished his PhD dissertation, on Jon Edwards. In fact, Kyle has a current post, open to comments, on the "Beatific Vision"; relating to vision, and art. If you leave a response on his current post (6/24/2010), I think probably he can answer many questions about Edwards, and what Edwards might say about Art.

As far as ecumenism, and picking churches? I in part pick them all, and none of them; along with many professional theologians. THere are things beyond all these particular, discrete manifestations and concretizations; the sum of them, if nothing else.

The Bible often told those of us who read it, that God allowed Satan to deceive many; even the whole world; for long periods of time; even in their religion. Many after him, Jesus warned - indeed the whole world (Rev. 13, etc.) - would follow a false idea of Christ. So as usual, our good Catholic Pat, in suggesting God could not have allowed a false church to exist for some time, does not know his Bible. Nor does Pat know History either. Nor God, in fact. Nor Art either.

What might be wrong, with a religion, that valued gold, ostentatious Art, riches? Obviously, the Bible itself condemned many 1) graven "images," 2) "idols," and at times, 3) "riches." But genericly, we might focus on part of the sin, as being in effect, the sin of visual 4) "gluttony." (And later, say, overconsumption. Ostentation or - 5 - Pride and Vanity.)

Here, for now, I'm concentrating on the possiblity that the chief biblical sin, of a Catholic/Orthodox Church that concentrated inordinately on building physical, material, ornate churches, was in effect, a kind of Gluttony.

How is it the that overconsumption of Art, might be called "Gluttony"? That might be related to eating too much chocolate cake? It's from Freud.

One of the most primitive aspects of Catholicism, is what Freud might call it's "Orality"; its fixation on taking things in and out of the mouth. A general Orality came upon the Church, in part I suggest here, from literally, "making bread their god"; from early, mislead literalists, insisting that the bread host, in communion/the Eucharist, was literally God. God was bread - and bread was God. Even though the Bible itself had warned about this very thing.

Literally, bread was declared to literally be God. And this was a fatal mis-step. In part since, once you have declared a piece of bread to be God, this gives the consumption of Food, and Orality, a sort of holy approval. While it is only a short step from that, to the near-deification of ... Gluttony.

So in short, the Freudian Orality implicit in the literal understanding of the Eucharistic host, lead Catholicism, for thousands of years, into the "pit" of following a false idea of God. And related to that, to an Art based on conspicuous consumption.

Or in a word, to the Art of Gluttony.

As you tour the grand, gilt Cathedrals of Europe, keep in mind that Jesus himself, or the Son of Man was effectively, a pauper; with no home of his own. Perhaps after all, Jesus, God, do not live in these giant, ornate, manmade temples, at all.

Most of BG's latest post (6-25 6:42 AM) is so far around the bend that it can be simply dismissed as a failed attempt at "an art historian's psychoanalysis of a 2000 year old 1.2 Billion + person religion." BG may think his concept of "the Freudian Orality implicit in the literal understanding of the Eucharistic host" sensible but I find it so absurd I must just dismiss it out of hand. I will therefore restrict my response to BG's first paragraph where he did glancingly address my historical point that Christ founded a Church 1500 years before the Protestants came along and hardly left his believers twisting slowly in the wind for 1500 years.

BG's response effectively says that that (Christ as a Trickster God (Christ as Loki, perhaps) ) is precisely what Christ did. BG wrote:

"The Bible often told those of us who read it, that God allowed Satan to deceive many; even the whole world; for long periods of time; even in their religion. Many after him, Jesus warned - indeed the whole world (Rev. 13, etc.) - would follow a false idea of Christ. So as usual, our good Catholic Pat, in suggesting God could not have allowed a false church to exist for some time, does not know his Bible. Nor does Pat know History either. Nor God, in fact. Nor Art either."

Scripture shows, though, that Christ did more than "allow" a church (true or false) to exist from the First to the Sixteenth Century. To the contrary, Christ founded a Church, the very church BG would dismiss as false. The Scripture that proves that fact is plain and does not require any psychoanalysis: Christ built a church (Matt. 16:18, et seq.), commissioned it to teach all nations (Matt. 28:18-20), told us to listen to the church (Matt. 18:17), told Peter (the rock on which He built the Church) to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15 et seq.) and required the local churches built in His name to listen to the central authority of the Church on doctrinal issues and thus to build up the believers' faith (Acts 15:1-16:5).

BG would ignore all of that proof of the truth of Christ's Church based on a very loose reading of isolated passages from the bible, mainly his eisegesis of the book of Revelation. At most, the scriptural references to which BG alludes without citation establish only that Christ recognized that people would ignore Christ and His teachings and substitute their own false gospels. Sure there are such passages, such as the "ravening wolves" passage (Matt 7:15) to which BG likely was alluding. No doubt Christ was warning us about false prophets who would come like ravening wolves, but that same warning equally supports a pov that protestants who seek to deny the truth of Christ's Church are ravening wolves.

That is the problem with the whole indiscipline of private interpretation. Anyone can do it and so many have; indeed, the Book of Revelation has been used to predict all kinds of stuff, like the End of the World. Per private interpreters, the End of the World should have happened many times already and will allegedly happen very soon! Remember the Adventists who predicted the End of the World in 1843. When New Years 1844 came to pass, they had to revise their prediction, and they had the chutzpah to do so!

Be all that as it may, BG's only biblical citation in support of his view of Christ as a Trickster God Who would create a Church to trick 1500 years of Christians is to that ultimate refuge of all private interpreting scoundrels: Revelation 13. Yeah, that passage which ends with the dreaded number of numbers: 666! BG contends it means that the Whole World would follow a false idea of Christ. What specifically in that chapter allegedly supports that reading, BG never says. What does Revelation 13 actually mean? I don't know; I think it might have been a veiled reference to Nero, who is ancient history to me. If, on the other hand, it has something to do with the End of the World, I would read it in conjunction with Christ's sage advice that we know not the day nor the hour and get on to issues that are clearer, such as the Truth of the Only Church Jesus ever founded. If Christ commissioned any church to teach, it was the very visible church He founded in the First Century AD, not a rival church created by men 1500 years later.

Though you probably never heard this in church, the fact is, the Bible is FULL of HUNDREDS of warnings about bad and "false" things throughout religion; even in the Judeo-Christian CHURCHES. God even warned our preachers and holy men – even the apostles and saints and angels in heaven itself - are not reliable. Even Peter, the founder of the Catholic Church, or first Pope, often sinned. Even Peter's most "inspired" pronouncements are not reliable.

Here's a useful summary of sins, errors even in "all" Christian churches and even "inspired" pronoucements, from another author:

"Our preachers have always read to us just parts of the Bible; especially the parts that seem to tell us that our preachers and holy men, are all but absolutely reliable and good.  But our preachers left out, or “twisted” or “whitewashed,” seventy or a hundred parts of the Bible ... that warned that there would always be bad and “false” things in all holy things, even in Christianity,  even after Jesus and so forth.  Bad things to the End of Time ... and/or until the Apocalyptic coming of God....

For scriptural references to false and bad things in religion, even in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition:  the Bible itself says, there are sins, errors, in effectively "all" religion.  "All have sinned" (Rom. 3.23);  “if we say we have no sins, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1.8); “if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar” (1 John 1.10).  Indeed, as we will see here, even "all" our religions - including Christianity - are full of bad, "false” things; “false prophets" (Jer. 23.23 ff, etc).  Even the angels and saints in our “present” Christian heaven itself are bad (Job 4.18; 13.4; 15.15; Rev. 12.7, etc.). "All" have sinned....

Note specific criticisms ... first, of bad things in angels:  “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting agains the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev. 12.7-8 Revised Standard Version); "Even his angels he charges with error" (Job 4.18); "all the host of heaven will rot away" (Isa. 34.4).  and “God did not spare the angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4); “To what angel has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand’?” (Heb. 2.5).  “It was not to angels that God subjected the world” (Heb. 2.5). “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corin. 11.14). “Neither death, nor life, nor angels” (Rom. 8.38).

Specifically, regarding his Church? “To the angel of the church ... I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (Rev. 3.2, also 2.4, 2.13-14-16, 2.18-20; 3.14-19).

When someone bows down to an angel, this happens:  “Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that!  I am a fellow servant with you and your comrades.... Worship God!” (Rev. 19.10 NRSV). This is indeed the great sin in churchgoers:   they are following, worshiping the words of priests, who are angels, “messengers” from God ... but they forget that most messengers, angels, are unreliable:  worship God himself, as he exists apart from all merely human characterizations of him.
See also warnings about false “apostles," plural; more than a) Judas (John 21.20-24).  Shockingly, shatteringly, b) St. Peter once told Jesus that Jesus was wrong in something, “rebuking” Jesus (Mat. 16.22) ... and c) then Jesus called St. Peter “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23:  “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan!  You are a hindrance [“stumbling block”] to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.’”  Then d) St. James then admitting of himself and other apostles no doubt:  “we all make many mistakes” (James 2.2).  Then e) St. Paul admitting he himself, at the time when he wrote his part of the Bible, was “not ... perfect” (Php. 3.12). .  Regarding  “James the son of Zebedee, and f) John his brother” (Mat. 10.2), “the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him and asked ... ‘Command that these who dons of mine may sit, one at your right hands and one at your left, in your kingdom.’  But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking .... to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant.’” (Mat. 20.20).   Confirming Jesus - who called Peter “Satan,” and noted he would “deny” him many times -  Paul too noted problems with St. Peter or “Cephas” as well:  “‘Cephas’ (which means Peter)” (John 1.42); “But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he ... acted insincerely” (Gal. 2.11, 13).   While indeed, all the disciples fled and abandoned Jesus, when the Romans came to arrest him (Mark 14.50).  At times, preachers will try to say that churches and others “test”ed apostles, and found out all that were false, and left them or books attributed to them, out of our Bibles:  as when Revelations congratulated those who “tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false” (Rev. 2.2).  But even those churches who did such “test”ing were themselves, Revelations itself notes, not perfect in every way; Ephesus which did the testing is supported in some ways.  But then opposed in part:  “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love that you had at first” (Rev. 2.4); while other elements of other early Christian churches were also not “perfect” in every way (Rev. 3.2).   While indeed, even those of the Twelve Apostles who were accepted, who were canonically accepted into our Bibles as authors of the gospels ... are often found false by Jesus, God, above.

And if the Twelve Apostles themselves were unreliable, then ...?  Which preacher today is better than them? God also warned of scribes and Pharisees, and those who honor the “letter of the law.”

Then too in effect, believers and congregations, who are “hypocrits.” And even those who are sincere, but mistaken. Those who cry, acknowledge “Lord, Lord,” but who are following a false idea of Christ. Warning them to look for false things in themselves; criticizing others for the "speck" in their eye ... while ignoring the "beam" in their own eye (q.v.).   Though many think they are good, many who think they are "first" in the eye of God, are "last" in the End; and though many "judge" others to be bad, they themselves will be judged.  And ultimately, only God himself knows who is good and who is bad; only God judges in the Last Judgment.

And congregations (Titus 1.12-13; Gal. 1.2-8; Revelations 1-3).   “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13.22).  “If some one comes and preachers another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corin. 11.4).
  
Priests often claim that they themselves, or congregations, if they quote Jesus, his ”name,” are protected from sin or error (after 1 John 4? Acts. 2.21);  but ... Jesus said many would call “Lord, Lord,” and yet still be wrong (Luke 7.21).  And (Luke 6.46, 13.25), it is not just because they say the name, but don’t do the deeds; it is also ... because most who thought they were following God, will be found to actually have been following a “false christ.” 

While indeed there are many bad, false boasts and claims in religion (Isa.15.6).  
See warnings about false or "anti" Christs too (1 John 2.18-4.3).  “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13.22).  “If some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you recieve a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corin. 11.4).  There are warnings about false christs, and surprisingly, warnings even of Jesus himself (Gal. 3.13; “Christ redeemed us from the cure of the law, having become a curse for us - or it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hands on a tree’”).  By Jesus himself in (Mat. 19.17:  "Why callest me good" KJE? ; etc.).  Indeed, many false or “anti-Christ”s has already come, even in the time of Christ or John:  “many antichrists have come.... They went out from us” (1 John 2.18,19).  And if John thought they were “not of us,” with John and true followers, it is presently impossible to know which are the true followers of John; indeed, Christ himself would not promise any particular status to John, when his mother asked for that.  Regarding  “James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother” (Mat. 10.2), “the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him and asked ... ‘Command that these who dons of mine may sit, one at your right hands and one at your left, in your kingdom.’  But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking .... to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant.’” (Mat. 20.20). 
 
Most priests and churches will insist that they, or their church, have weeded out any false things.  But related to the above and below, there are things even in the first, holy Christian churches overseen even by apostles in person (Rev. 2.4, 2.20, 3.2; all of Galatians, etc.   “To the angel of the church ... I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (Rev. 3.2, also 2.4, 2.13-14-16, 2.18-20; 3.14-19).  “Do not trust in these deceptive words, ‘This is the temple of the LORD’” (Jer. 7.4). Will God live in a house built with human hands, also, asks Solomon; Jesus had to clean out the temple.  “Do you now know that you are God’s temple” (1 Corin. 3.16). 

As for councilors? There are bad "councilor"s (Sirach 37.8). 
 And false gods (Isa. 41.23-4 etc.).

....Bad things in the holiest religious kings, like Saul; even David; bad things in leaders (Isa. 3.12).

False religious "law" (Gal. 3.13; 2 Corin. 3.6-7), and outdated “old covenant”s or contracts between God and men?  “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.  For truly, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Mat. 5.17-18); but ... “heaven will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.6).  See “sinful passions aroused by the law” (Rom. 7.5, 3.20); Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4); “a man is not justified by works of the law” (Ga. 2.16, Gal. 3.2-5; “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Gal. 3.10; “self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal. 5.23); “the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7.19); “the law has but a shdow of the good things” (Heb. 10.1).  The “perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1.25).  “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).“Jesus the surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 7.22).  “A new covenant” (Heb. 8.8, 12.24); “even the first covnenatn was not ratified” (Heb. 9.18).  (See God saying he made bad ordinances and laws earlier:

"I the LORD am your God...  But the children rebelled against me.... I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD”  Ezk. 20.20-21, 26).

Bad things in promises of miracles:  “There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD hearkened to the voice of a man” (Josh. 10.14).  “Do all work miracles? ... But earnestly desire the higher gifts.  And I will show you a still more excellent way“ (1 Corin. 12.29-31).  Look in the Bible regarding false "promises," false "prophe"sies ... which are often false promises of miracles after all.  So that finally, we are to ask those who promise them, to actually produce them ... or be called an “abomination,” a hopeless bad and evil and false religious leader.   (See Science, below).

Bad things in patriarches (criticism of Moses by Paul; Rom. 10.5; see also "dispensation of death" 2 Corin. 3.6-15;  Rom. 7). “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).  “The dispensation of death” (q.v.).

Bad things even in the “perfect”:   “O Tyre, you have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty....  The east wind has wrecked you (Ezk. 27.3, 26).   If “the law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” (Ps. 19.7), “I have seen a limit to all perfection” (Ps. 119.96); “if perfection had been attainable ... what further need would there have been for another priest” (Heb. 7.11).  “For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man .. .But no one can tame the tongue - a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3.2, 8). To the Christian churches:  “I have not found your works perfect” (Rev. 3.2).  “The law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7.19).  The perfect does not come till the end of time:  “when the perfect comes” (1 Corin. 13.10).  The only perfect law is the law of liberty:  “The perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1.25).

Even prayers have problems (Josh. 10.14; see Jesus or Paul on public prayers with "vain repetitions").  “There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD hearkened to the voice of a man” (Josh. 10.14).

Then look at specific references to:  bad things in priests. Including – but not limited to - priests without "knowledge," (Isa 5.13, 28.7, 45.20; Jer. 8.10; Lam. 4.13; Mal. 2.1-8; Heb. 7.11; Hos. 4.1-6; Jer. 14.18, see also 23.25; Ecc. 7.12).  These were warnings not just about priests in other religions either; but those in Judaeo Christianity too:  “The high priest then questioned Jesus” (John 18.10); “And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him [Jesus] by stealth, and kill him” (Mark. 14.1). “He would not be a priest at all” (Heb. 8.4).  See the priest vs. the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.31).  “With you is my contention, O priest” (Hos. 4.4).  “I reject your from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.6). And these things are to persist though the era of our own Christian priests; till the end: “An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land:  the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.31). 

“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).  “Both prophet and priest are ungodly” (Jer. 23.11). “If perfection had been attainable ... what further need would there have been for another priest” (Heb. 7.11).  “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests .. They wandered, blind, through the streets” (Lam. 4.13-14). While even the "household of God" itself is bad (1 Peter 4.12-17).  Though priests say others are worse, God himself did not say that; it was only speculated, as a question. A good “Samaritan” can be better than a rabbi or a priest.

Bad things in prophets, even the prophets of Israel, the Judeo-Christian tradition?  (Jer. 23.15-40 & 27.16;  Isa 28.7; Lam. 4.13; Ezek. 13; Zech. 13; Deut. 18.20; Mat. 7.15 & 24.11-24; Mr 13.22; Lk 6.26; 2 Peter 2.1; 1 John 4.1).   “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity” (Lam. 2.14). “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests .. They wandered, blind, through the streets” (Lam. 4.13-14).
 
False religious rabbis/ “teachers” (James 3.1 etc; John 1.28-49).  False churches (Mat. 12.6; 1 Corin. 4 14 ff; Gal. 1.6-3.1; Eph. 4-5);  false apostles (including St. Paul himself - Phil. 3.12; 2 Corin. 11.16 - Peter in Mat. 16.23;  Mat. 26.34).

It is often asserted that to be sure, even St. Peter might have been bad at times; but he and later Popes, was pretected at times by the "inspiration of" the Holy Spirit, when pronouncing seriously, on matters of faith and morals. But the Bible is full of warnings about false spirits; so that when Popes thought the Holy Spirit was protecting them, it could often have been a false spirit, posing as the Holy Spirit.

Especially, watch out for false “spirits” (1 John 4.1):  “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”  “A spirit of jealousy comes upon him” (Num. 5.14).  “An evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul” (1 Sam. 19.9).  “How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me” (1 Kings. 22.24).  “The spirit of God is in my nostrils” (Job 27.3) ... but “The breath of our nostrils, the LORD’S anointed, was taken in their pits” (Lam. 4.20); so even good spirit, the Holy Spirit, can be taken from us. And thus the Holy Spirit fails to protect the holiest priests and popes. See too bad spirits:  “the unclean spirit” (Mat. 12.43, Mark 1.23, 6.7; Luke 8.2-29, 9.42, 11.24).  You are not good “unless one is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5); “ gave them a Spirit of stupor” (Rom. 11.8). 

Bad things in shepherds (Zech. 1.4-13.7; Ezek. 34).
 
False “Day” and other “stars”  (Isa. 14.12-21).  “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (Rev. 22.16 - but “How you are fallen from heaven, O day Star, son of Dawn! ... You are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit.  Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you:  ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble’” (Isa. 14.12, 15-16).  “The stars will fall from heaven” (Mat. 24.29).  See false leaders from the house of David; "pegs" that give way (Isa. 22.22ff).  False, blind "servants" of God (Job. 4.18, Isa. 42.19 etc; even the saints, apostles, “all” in heaven are bad (Job 15.15 KJE; "holy ones" RSV).
Reputed wise men are really "fools"; "honorable" men are really bad "knaves" (Isa. 32.5). 

Written laws, code, are wrong and fatal:  “Not with ink but with the Spirit” (2 Corin. 3.3); “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).  See Scripture, below.

Additional gifts?  It seems that whenever, churchgoers discover shortcomings in the major elements of religion, every preacher or church picks up some other, almost random thing from the Bible, and tries to make it into a special gimmick; some allegedly special gift or grace, that will always help when all else fails.  But if you look each of these up in a concordance, you will find that each of them have something wrong with it, or is not enough, or often fail or are taken away, by God, at some time or another. 

So for example:  1) even the "anointed" priest can "sin"; 2) even those who take the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, communion, with Jesus himself, even with their hand on his table, can sin later, and betray him; 3) likewise the "blood" therefore fails us, and indeed the Jewish God told us never to consume blood; 4) even the "elect" can be "deceived" it seems; 5) even "righteousness" can become unrighteousness, or we can be "righteous overmuch"; 6) "Grace" can be lost, and the "staff" called "Grace" "broken"; 7) "sanctification" has problems and can be spoiled or forgotten (Num. 20.12; 2 Ch. 30.3); 8) "offerings" and 9) "sacrifices" ("The sacrifices of the wicked is an abomination"; Prov. 21.27, Jer. 6.20; etc.; "offerings" Mal. 2.3), on the 10) "altar" can be refused by God.  Likewise, there are problem with 11) "church"es; 12) "tradition"; 13) "pillar"s; 14) "rock"s; 15) the word "sacraments" come from "oaths," which Jesus tells us not to make;  16) while "mysteries" are after all things uncertain and vague and therefore unreliable; of various 17) spiritual "gifts," or charisms, there is almost always one higher;     (q.v)..  And there are problems with 18) relics, good luck charms, sacred objects like "cross"es, etc.; which can become "idols"; thought of like the forbidden "pieces of wood" and bone thought to have powers; as if a piece of wood could speak.  (See church on "superstition").  Then too, 19) God they sometimes say answers all prayers; but God can refuse to hear many "prayers."  20) Likewise, there are many kinds of "baptism" ... and even the best is not enough by itself; since you have to be born of "water" and the "spirit."  21) Even "discernment" is not enough; since people with this can be "taken," deceived, even in the "discernment"s and "wisdom" (Prov. 19.12? Isa. 44.18).  Likewise, 22) "doctrine"s; 23) "dogmas" "infallible" or otherwise; and 24) special things communicated "orally," or by the "tongue" or related to that, 25) "tongues."  Even 26) "the cross" in itself, as an object, or when duplicated, becomes a mere piece of "wood" or "idol"; while the sentiment associated with it - self-sacrifice - can at times be bad or unnecessary too (when we seek "prosperity" and fruitfulness).  Then too 26) liturgies are full of prayers and words, that can go astray.  Likewise 27) even the "perfect" we will see.  Then 28) "covenant"s come and go.  Then too various types of 28) "body."   

All these things are spoken of at times as good in the Bible; but then later the Bible mentions limitations in them.

While 29) in addition to all the parts of the Bible itself that note problems, failures in these and all other allegedly special saving graces, practical experience teaches us that many who have had one or more of these, do in real life, still often seem to fall, sin, and do or experience, bad things.  You can take Holy Communion, and yet still have bad,  impure thoughts, and even sin mightily, right after, in the parking lot.

Today the Church recognizes that most of these are not good, unless you have 30) the simple will to be good. But in that case, why not just acquire the will or work on your will ... rather than playing around with such placebos, false idol intermediaries?
All these can fail or be falsified or spoiled . . .

Then, outside those in religion proper ... check the Bible on the various elements of Magic that, we were warned, would infect religion, including Christianity.  From related persons, magician-priests, like ...  astrologers (Dan. 2.27); augers (Deut. 18.10), enchanterers (Ps. 58.5; Isa. 47.9-12; Dan. 1.20), fortune-tellers, magicians (Dan. 2.27; cf. Magi?), necromancers, soothsayers (Deut. 18.10), sorcerers (Deut. 18.10), witches, wizards.  Or related “wise men” (Dan. 2.27). 
These - and others like “false prophets” - cause:  false promises, empty words, illusions, delusions (2 Thess. 2.11; Isa. 41.29, 19.13, 44.20; Jer. 10.15, 51.18; Ezek. 13.8), lies, enchantments, false dreams, false images (Isa. 40.20; Jer. 50.38; Dan. 3.10; Rev. 13.14ff),  empty consolations.

The Bible warned HUNDREDS of times, of "false" and bad things, in every aspect of religion, including the Judeo-Christian religion, and even the Church, and the first Pope, Peter. Furthermore, because even "spirits" often were false, there was no guarantee that they would be protected from error by the "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, not even for a moment.

An amazing exercise in revisionism to suggest that "Protestants always heard and saw, much more clearly than Catholics, Jesus the poor mendicant monk".

True, there has been a Protestant distrust of the exuberant Baroque, perhaps spilling over to a distrust of feasts, large families and other Catholic celebrations of the material world. But this has been balanced by a distrust of Holy Poverty, of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, and of the evangelical counsels in general. Where are those who have followed Jesus the poor mendicant monk save in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions?

The Catholic position (I can't speak for the Orthodox) is that the counsels are there to be followed in their plenary application for those who can bear it, but that their core message is for all, whether emperor, merchant prince, or simple bourgeois.

Felix:

Well, you're CLOSE. You DID notice after all, the Catholic taste for gilt Baroque art; feasts; large families; and "other Catholic celebrations of the material world." Among which I would include, giving physical, material religious statues and bread for example, far, far more status then they deserve; indeed, giving them a fetishistic, magical status. Encouraged, ironically, by your ascetic priests.

To be sure, as you rightly note, there HAS been a very (even over-?) ascetic priesthood in Catholicism. And it might seem hard to find a Protestant equivalent. Except ... the very poor Protestant a) social worker? Or b)the poor church pastor or c) missionary? The spare d) Puritan, or e) Shaker? Like f) Grant Wood's "American Gothic"? Or even the average Protestant that, for at least a moment, saves his money; rather than spending it, or acquiring credit for unnecessary luxuries. LIke Art and lavish churches. Consider indeed, the sparceness of the Quaker meeting house, vs. the Catholic cathedral.

To be sure I have admitted here earlier, that possibly many Catholic monks and priests, outdo the average Protestant in asceticism. But I am asserting that on the whole, man-for-man, on average, the average Protestant - including especially LAY Protestants, the bulk of them - has had a SLIGHTLY higher degree of ascetic self-denial, than the average lay Catholic. Protestants are slightly less "oral," in Freudian terms; in part, thanks to a less-literal understanding of the bread or host, in the EUCHARIST or communion. And therefore they are SLIGHTLY but significantly less enamoured of conspicuous consuption or art. (Even Leo Castelli seems Catholic?). Especially in comparison to say, the Medici Popes.

To be sure the message of, the special "call to," asceticism, or "poverty, chastity, and obedience," is always there in fact, for both branches of Christianity. But if you compare include all Catholics, vs. all Protestants, I suggest that the average Protestant, heard it a little better; is just a bit more ascetic, disciplined. And that has made all the difference.

Remember in fact the origin of Protestantism: Luther was a little offended, after all, by the Catholic assertion that you could buy God's tolerance - with gold you contributed, to build a new Catholic church. You could buy an Indulgence; that would get you or your friends time off Purgatory; that would almost buy your way into heaven, with cash in fact.

Still, thanks for your observations. I think we might meet halfway, here?

Rather than addressing my 6-26 2:05 PM post's point that Jesus did not leave His believers to twist slowly in the wind for 1500 years until the Reformers came along, but instead founded His church that He commissioned to teach the World in the First Century AD, BG cut and pasted a largely irrelevant 35 paragraph segment from another "author" that instead addressed the fact that there have been bad angels, and apostles who sinned, as well as false prophets and the like. None of that, though, undermines my showing that Jesus founded a Church which He commissioned to teach.

That teaching commission was conferred on the apostles in the First Century AD (Matt. 28:18-20) and passed on by them through the laying on of hands (2 Tim. 1:6, 13-14, 2 Tim 2: 1-2). IOW, that mandate is something no Protestant minister has ever been given. (If anyone claims that Protestant ministers have been given such a commission themselves, please provide c&v?) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people can break away from Christ's visible church and teach in opposition to the Church Jesus commissioned and be teaching consistently with the Commission Christ conferred on His Church.

Instead, one of the very passages quoted in the 35 paragraph cut and paste job BG submitted shows that if something is taught contrary to the apostolic teaching taught everywhere, it is wrong teaching and that the local churches should therefore listen to the bishop sent by the apostle who would provide right teaching: 1 Cor. 4:1, 14 ff ("So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.....I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, whom I love, who is faithful in the LORD. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. ")

This passage has long been recognized as the standard for orthodoxy in the Christian Religion. That is: a local church's needs to be teaching consistent with the universal teaching (i.e., Vincent of Lerins famous formulation) passed on from the apostles by their successors. In truth, the Church of the First four centuries was more concerned with the succession of the local bishops from the Apostles than it was worried about the formulation of a canon of the New Testament. If one reads Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (written in 337 AD), for example, one learns that even after the Council of Nicea, there was no universally accepted Canon of the New Testament. BG's favorite book--John's Revelation, which BG repeatedly misidentifies as "Revelations"--for example, was not accepted by all christians as part of the Canon at that point. Yet, Eusebius was a lot less concerned with nailing down the Canon of the NT than he was with setting forth the lines of succession of the various major dioceses of the Church throughout the World, particularly the succession in Rome.

All-Too-Pat:

My quotes above, are all exquisitely relevant. In order to show that God indeed, WOULD allow a false church to exist in his name, even for 1,500 - or even for 2,000 - years ... I listed about a hundred warnings from the Bible. Where God warns there WILL be false things, in essentially every aspect of Chrisitanity, and its churches. So that the Catholic Church's claims to be entirely or even mostly good, from God, does not stand up to an exam of the Bible itself.

1) So: I have just listed about a hundred GENERAL warnings in the Bible from God, about essentially all things in religion, in Christianity; including priests and churches. These warnings suggest we should not trust, for example, the Roman Catholic church or priests too much. Nor what they say in defence of their Church.

2) Then specifically, consider the Church's claims its authority comes especially, by "apostolic succession" from the Apostles. But note that among the many passages where God warns of "false" things and "deceits" in our holiest men and angels - including priest. Should we trust priests' arguments therefore?

3) Or indeed, note warnings from God about, specifically, the apostles. So that if the Church traces its authority back to the Apostles ... then it has merely traced its authority back to flawed persons, the Bible often warned about.

4) In fact, still more specifically, the Church claims its authority especially from the Apostle/St. Peter, the first pope. Who it is claimed, earned Jesus' full confidence, as the "rock" on which his church was to be founded. But the Church's priests, only quote a misleading PART of what the Bible said: right after calling Peter a "rock," the foundation of a church that would never disappear etc., Peter turned and disagreed with Jesus, on a major doctrine: the necessity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. So that Jesus in effect, RETRACTED his endorsement of Peter and his Church, by calling Peter, "Satan" (Mat. 16.23).

5) Today Catholics just ignore this part of the Bible; just as Pat ignores 35 paragraphs on it, above. And, blissfully ignorant, Catholics like Pat continue to confidently follow the Church based, by Apostolic Succession, on the Apostle Jesus called "Satan."

Even though careful examination of the Bible, tells us that is a very, very foolish and even evil thing to do; following a Church based on the man Jesus called "Satan."

6) Noting too, that God warned about the earliest - presumably Catholic - CHURCHES often, too. Rev. 2.1-4: "To the ... church in Ephesus ... I have this against you"; also Rev. 2.12-14; 2.18-20; 3.1-2 "To the ... Church ... I have not found your works perfect." Etc.

The Bible warned HUNDREDS of times, of huge sins in essentially every pillar of the foundation of the Catholic Church. Including Apostles. Including the very earliest Catholic/Orthodox churches.

7) For that matter, as Pat shifts from Peter to Paul in 1 Corin., note that Paul admitted he himself was not yet "perfect" even as he was writing his half of the New Testament ( Php. 3.12).

8) While worse, practical experience shows that Catholic priests have been sinning all along; sexually molesting little boys, while all the Bishops covered this up or whitewashed it.

THIS, Patrick, is the Church you, Patrick, insist is very good, that does not err, and must be followed religiously.

9) Read your Bible a little more closely Patrick; you and other Catholics, have been deceived. You have been deceived by the precisely, the foretold false priests, false prophets, and their false, misrepresentative misquotes from the Bible.

The fact is, the Bible itself warned over and over, there are sins and errors in every aspect of religion, including institutional Christianity; including the Catholic Church. From the very first days of its foundation, in Saints Peter and Paul.

If the Church CAN trace its authority back to St. Peter, for instance, it merely succeeds in tracing itself back to the man that Jesus himself called, "Satan" (Mat. 16.23).

You and a billion like you have been deceived Patrick; wake up. As foretold, the whole world has long been deceived by a false "worship" (Rev. 13.8, specifically; among others, on a "false Christ," "false apostles," false churches, etc.).

Wake up Catholics. Your priests are sexually molesting little boys; all your bishops lied to cover it up. And yet you are telling us you have a wonderful, even perfect Church; that we should follow with total faith.

Wake up!

I pointed out in my 6-28 post that:

"Rather than addressing my 6-26 2:05 PM post's point that Jesus did not leave His believers to twist slowly in the wind for 1500 years until the Reformers came along, but instead founded His church that He commissioned to teach the World in the First Century AD, BG cut and pasted a largely irrelevant 35 paragraph segment from another "author" that instead addressed the fact that there have been bad angels, and apostles who sinned, as well as false prophets and the like. None of that, though, undermines my showing that Jesus founded a Church which He commissioned to teach."

BG's 6-29 response to that begins:

"My quotes above, are all exquisitely relevant. In order to show that God indeed, WOULD allow a false church to exist in his name, even for 1,500 - or even for 2,000 - years ... I listed about a hundred warnings from the Bible. Where God warns there WILL be false things, in essentially every aspect of Chrisitanity, and its churches. So that the Catholic Church's claims to be entirely or even mostly good, from God, does not stand up to an exam of the Bible itself."

BG's 6-29 response goes on for another 16 paragraphs arguing that because the Bible notes that some or all members of the Church have or will sin that he need not pay attention even to the Church that can show apostolic succession (I had argued that Scripture showed that the Church with Apostolic Succession was the Church commissioned by Christ to teach all the World). Even though Peter was clearly commissioned by Christ, BG deems himself the judge of Peter. Not surprisingly, BG finds Peter wanting: "If the Church CAN trace its authority back to St. Peter, for instance, it merely succeeds in tracing itself back to the man that Jesus himself called, "Satan" (Mat. 16.23)." Yet, Christ told Peter to tend His lambs and sheep after the Resurrection (iow, long after the incident at Caesarea Phillipi in which Christ called Peter Satan for urging Him not to undergo His sacrifice).

In so arguing BG puts himself in opposition to Christ Who commissioned His Church to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age...." Matt. 28:19-20 BG has pointed to no passage in the Bible that revokes that teaching commission. "Disciples" are pupils. Because Christ commissioned the apostles whom BG would spurn to make disciples of all nations, He commissioned them to make a disciple of BG. Pupil BG therefore is supposed to listen to the apostles' successors and not spurn them as he clearly does. The duty of the Christian disciple is not to sit in judgment of the Church of Christ but to listen to it and learn from it.

Jesus was with the disciples and his commission - "surely"; and until "the very end of the age." But "surely" is a funny word. On the one hand, 1) it seems to some, to mean assuredly; absolutely. On the other hand, 2) in actual practice, it is used to mean "probably," or "shouldn't it be"? (To the criminal: "Surely you don't mean to rob me!?").

The Great Commission and Accompaniment therefore, is less "sure" than some might have thought.

Then too, the Great Commission was issued after Jesus' death; when his words were firmly in the hands of disciples like Peter.

Then too, note, Jesus gave the Great Commission to essentially ALL his disciples; not just Peter. So perhaps we should not follow specifically, the Church of St. Peter; Catholicism. And sit in other churches; which might be the better, truer heirs of Jesus.

Those who continue to sit in Catholic Churches, sit at the feet of priests who are following the man Jesus called "Satan" (Mat. 16.23). A church where the priests were sexually molesting little boys; and all the bishops lied to cover it up.

SHOULD I have sat at the feet of THOSE priests and bishops? And learned their ways and thoughts, religiously? Is that what you REALLY wish that I had done?

To those of you who continue to insist on following a Church founded by the man that Jesus called "Satan"? And who will listen only to arguments, from the priests of that church? And no other? That, i suggest, WAS not a good idea.

Instead of dealing with Christ's Teaching Commission to the Church (Matt. 28:18-20) that I had focused on in my 6-30 post in a straightforward fashion, BG's 7-1 3:03 AM response plays games with the passage's language by focusing on an allegedly ambiguous word used in a different translation of the passage. I had used the NRSV language in my post (the last sentence of which reads: "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."), but BG found a text (I guess the New International Version?) that uses the term "surely" in the last sentence of the passage: "And ."

Even though fair readings of the translations would be very much in agreement with one another, BG argues for a variant reading of the NIV text. According to BG's variant reading, Jesus, the Living Lord of the Universe, Who is All Powerful, Ever Living and Omniscient, used the term "surely" to mean that He would "probably" be with the Church until the End of the Age. BG's precise words were: "The Great Commission and Accompaniment therefore, is less "sure" than some might have thought."

As though Jesus didn't know the future and couldn't tell for sure whether He would be with His Church to the End of the Age? Clearly, BG is clutching at straws. In truth, of course, if Jesus promised that "surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" He meant it. We can be confident that His Church will teach us Christ's Truth because He remains with it. Even if the church is composed of sinful men. All churches are, of course, but only Christ's Church is the Church that received the Commission.

There are many churches and they teach what they will. They don't all teach the Bible Truth. To know the Church to which one should listen as a disciple, one needs to determine which is Christ's Church. That is a simple matter of History. Christ's Church has been with us since the First Century AD. Churches that have not been with us since the First Century clearly do not fit the Biblical definition of Christ's Church, for all the reasons previously stated.

Pat:

You aren't worth arguing with. You can take horse to water, but you can't make him drink. God ahead and follow the church of "Satan," as long as you want!

Surely Jesus is with us to the end of the age; but being with us, does not mean he will save every one of us.

You are a very foolish person, Pat.

In response to Brett and Patrick, a quote from Christopher Hitchens seems apt: "See how the Christians treat each other?"

(As an aside: the fact that Trent does not address greed in relation to icons, finally speaks poorly of the Council of Trent. And/or successive councils, that should have explicitly addressed this problem.) I appreciate Fr. Jenson's emphasis that liturgy is ecclesial and doctrinal, not merely aesthetic. For that reason, I've chosen to stay in the Reformed tradition, albeit with deep sympathies for the Anglican tradition. I also concur with his astute observation that when anyone "speaks of Tradition as 'past' he reveals himself as one who is estranged from the Tradition." For that reason, Protestants should try to find renewal in their own traditions rather than picking up souvenirs in foreign traditions. I am surprised to hear that William Dyrness says Protestants need to "allow themselves to be enriched by the Catholic and Orthodox past" because he wrote a book entitled, "Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards" (2004).