Was talking with a former Catholic friend about his thoughts on the Roman Church with the appointment of their new political leader for life. What he said is so insightful I thought. Here we go-
The more I’ve read into Reformed theology compared to Roman Church theology the more I see the difference is that Reformed Theology properly puts the emphasis on faith alone and as scripture as the ultimate authority. We are transformed by faith in Christ and we access that via the scriptures which are the inspired word of God–perfect, complete, and never changing. But it’s not like we can understand scripture by ourselves, so that is why a church and a pastor is needed to guide faithful Christians to a correct understanding of scripture. But the emphasis is always on the believer to be transformed by scripture (guided by the Holy Spirit) through faith in Christ alone as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the only path to salvation. It’s all pretty simple really.
Then we have the Roman Church, which looks Christian, and kind of sounds Christian, but their teachings and the things they say are suspiciously complicated. The just can’t put things simply and succinctly like I wrote of Reformed theology above. They can never actually articulate what it is they believe. But they do seem awfully keen on tithes going back to Rome. That much is clear. The Pope is some kind of first among equals on Earth and has a special line to God “ex cathedra”. Even to the extent he can just declare arbitrary doctrine like the veneration of saints or worship of Mary without any scriptural basis. In fact, scripture is sort of suspiciously kept quite guarded in the Roman Church and the laity really aren’t supposed to get into it.
Then there is the whole magical woo woo of the sacraments and sacramentals. This is another subtle but telling difference. My understanding of Reformed theology is that an individual needs to have faith in order for the gifts of the spirit to manifest. But in the Roman Church the priest has magical powers to sprinkle holy water here and there and make evil spirits disappear, or else forgive sins, or whatever, and it seems faith is never really a requirement for either party.
Frankly I think that the Roman Church is actually a Pagan institution. The laity are essentially hoping for secrets and spells to make their lives go well. Hence the focus on idols such as statues of saints, holy water, priestly vestments etc. it’s all about superstition and magic and spells and hocus pocus to make the night terrors go away. There is no emphasis on the change of the heart and rebirth through accepting Christ as Lord and savior.
Ultimately, the Roman Church is a worldly institution with political and economic clout which makes all its doctrines obedient to getting and keeping more of those two. The splendor of the Vatican and the Sistine Chapel and the Pope’s private jet and the Cardinals’ opulent living must be funded whether by the sale of indulgences, or by any other such means. The doctrine is then anything that supports that. So climate change has a lot of grift money in it and so we see the pope focusses on that. The LGBT lobby has money and power and so we see the pope saying same sex marriage must be blessed. And people want to feel reassured in a scary world, so the Roman Church sells them trinkets and statues and “holy” water and magic wafers and never so much as demands anybody even read the bible never mind believe anything that’s written in it. So Luther, I’m my opinion, was 100% correct with his criticisms and those criticisms are pretty much all still valid today.
I don’t know why my family remained in that church for so long. I found a research paper on the subject of recusancy (people refusing to convert to Protestantism) in the county in which I was born and raised. It was very high, and there were many factors behind it. People in my family tend to be quite disagreeable and don’t like being told what to do (especially not by London) so that may have had something to do with it. Maybe the priests were better pre Vatican II. But the more I read of the 17th century, the more strongly I relate to the “non conformists” (puritans), and I don’t understand why my ancestors did not go down that path. If they had been in the capital or at least in a city perhaps they would have. And maybe I’ve benefited from an age where I could read about all this history and theology from the comfort of my phone screen or computer so I could see things more clearly than they did.
It’s quite amazing to me that 400 years later the Reformation is essentially still playing out.
What do you think?