Another question for Protestants

[tossolul]

In trying to see why Lutherans can’t accept the Catholic faith I have come up with these questions in my mind…

1. Lutherans believe in sola-scriptura…It is agreed that the bible was written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. If they can accept the fact that the Holy Spirit guided these men to write God’s word to be handed down for centuries- why can they not accept the fact that the Holy Spirit would guide a man appointed as head of His church (the pope)- to lead His Church through the centuries.
   a. I believe most Lutherans believe that Luther himself was guided by the Holy Spirit to start a new church. I myself don’t agree with that statement. What I see is much different…He left the church because there were many wrongs being done by humans in the church. But how can people accept the fact that in leaving He changed things about the faith that had nothing to do with any corruptness…ex. the meaning of the real presence in the Eucharist, the idea of Sacrifice being inherently a good thing. The impression I get-maybe I’m wrong- is that many believe that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins you have nothing to worry about. To me Luther went beyond trying to correct any corruptness… He led his people into what I see as more of a free thinking, self interperating, non God fearing faith. If what he did was such a Good thing, than why are there so many different sects of the Lutheran faith? If what he did was truly led by the Holy Spirit, why do so many disagree on the correct teachings. How can you see self interpretation as better than following the leadership of the man who is the successor of Peter- which is clearly stated in the bible is the rock which God will build His church upon.

I welcome any feed back, as it may help my struggles I’m facing right now with my husband.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

Where does Protestantism really started? Isn’t it they started when the King wanted a divorce and the Catholic Church didn’t grant him, so they protested and a great schism occured.

 

[Atreyu]

Not quite Victor… Martin Luther was really the person who set things off…

 

[DianJo]

viktor aleksndr:

Where does Protestantism really started? Isn’t it they started when the King wanted a divorce and the Catholic Church didn’t grant him, so they protested and a great schism occured.

You’re thinking of The Church of England begun by King Henry the VIII. He broke away from the Church because the Chruch could not allow his divorce.

Martin Luther came in in the early 1500’s and initially had a problem with indulgences and few other things. He posted his objections on the front of a church. His objections to corruptions in the Church at the time may have been (and probably were) well founded but he totally went about in the wrong way - it escalated from there and he eventually caused a split that still exists to this day.

What a shame things couldn’t have been worked out between he and Church - both sides were at fault as to how things were handled.

 

[briand]

DianJo:

You’re thinking of The Church of England begun by King Henry the VIII. He broke away from the Church because the Chruch could not allow his divorce.

Martin Luther came in in the early 1500’s and initially had a problem with indulgences and few other things. He posted his objections on the front of a church. His objections to corruptions in the Church at the time may have been (and probably were) well founded but he totally went about in the wrong way - it escalated from there and he eventually caused a split that still exists to this day.

What a shame things couldn’t have been worked out between he and Church - both sides were at fault as to how things were handled.

*this is based on just my own experience I have rarely seen disagreements in churches “handled”. Usually, it ends with one party leaving, getting the boot, shunned, or threatened (though this I have not seen as much). When I have seen disagreements handled like scripture says and two parties are reconciled it is a very beautiful thing to see.

Most of the time it is handled the other way and it has meant families being ripped to shreds, two people in christ, loathing each other for decades, people praying for the death of the other person or praying down curses from God etc, or the worse, the one acts like the other person does not exist.

I have never understood why this type of activity, which is extreemly common, is allowed to continue.

 

[Shlemele]

briand:

I have never understood why this type of activity, which is extreemly common, is allowed to continue.

Pretty much every church, Catholic or protestant has issues with people not getting allong with each other. My father stepped down as Senior pastor at the church I grew up in because a small group in the congragation were making personal attacks on him based on his preaching style. My wifes parish had a great priest who made the other ones look bad so needless to say he didn’t last long. I’m sure there are thousands of exsamples among all denominations, the problem isn’t the church you are in but rather how you treat those around you.

I have seen first hand what a handfull of jerks can do to a pastor. In my church acording to a survey those who didn’t like my fathers teaching were less than 4% but they made my fathers job about 50 times more difficult because of gossip and back biteing. Rather than go to the church with this (mind you not a one of these attacks was to my fathers face, they prefered to leave unsigned letters, then have the gaul to call my dad unbiblical ). The point is that only a few people can make a difference for good or evil. A few of that group have since asked my father for forgiveness.

Be kind to your clergy, no matter what church you go to they deal with the best and the worst of your congregation, and often catch a lot of flack when their teaching doesn’t match up with what some think it should be. (and yes this is a problem in EVERY church…)

 

[Maccabees]

Shlemele:

Pretty much every church, Catholic or protestant has issues with people not getting allong with each other. My father stepped down as Senior pastor at the church I grew up in because a small group in the congragation were making personal attacks on him based on his preaching style. My wifes parish had a great priest who made the other ones look bad so needless to say he didn’t last long. I’m sure there are thousands of exsamples among all denominations, the problem isn’t the church you are in but rather how you treat those around you.

I have seen first hand what a handfull of jerks can do to a pastor. In my church acording to a survey those who didn’t like my fathers teaching were less than 4% but they made my fathers job about 50 times more difficult because of gossip and back biteing. Rather than go to the church with this (mind you not a one of these attacks was to my fathers face, they prefered to leave unsigned letters, then have the gaul to call my dad unbiblical ). The point is that only a few people can make a difference for good or evil. A few of that group have since asked my father for forgiveness.

Be kind to your clergy, no matter what church you go to they deal with the best and the worst of your congregation, and often catch a lot of flack when their teaching doesn’t match up with what some think it should be. (and yes this is a problem in EVERY church…)

I have attended many protestant churchs and since the doctrine of sola scritpura has led them beleive that they don’t need clergy but only the BIble there is a great deal of disprespect that went on from lay protestants directed at the pastor as if they could do a better job because hey they understand the Bible differently and were superior in knowledge to their pastor. Since catholics seen their priest as having a gift they don’t have. The conferring of sacraments. No matter how bad they mess up a homily their is a respect for clergy that they can do something you can’t. Its just an observation from an ex=protestant and present catholic of how these communites see clergy differently. Sadly protestantism has built into it an anti-clerical bent that extends even to the local pastor who should be no threat but a shepherd.

 

[jimmy]

viktor aleksndr:

Where does Protestantism really started? Isn’t it they started when the King wanted a divorce and the Catholic Church didn’t grant him, so they protested and a great schism occured.

That is how the Anglicans started in Britain. The protestant reformation started with Luther in Germany.

 

[briand]

Shlemele:

snipped
Be kind to your clergy, no matter what church you go to they deal with the best and the worst of your congregation, and often catch a lot of flack when their teaching doesn’t match up with what some think it should be. (and yes this is a problem in EVERY church…)

I totally agree, My posts on this point may seem like IM looking for the perfect church, I am not. I would be happy with a church I dont have to be scared of, but thats another post. My one point is that if a pastor was gay, or caught in an immoral affair he would get the heave ho real quick. If he ticked off the power brokers he would get the heave ho even faster. I know people in fellowship who loath each other with a deep almost eternal passion. That is winked at, water off a ducks back etc.

Like that good Priest who will be damaged by the “true believers” ™. This is the rule not the exception, I believe it is this that is the basis of much of the church problems.

I long to hear the words “your forgiven”, never have heard them, no matter how much I have begged.

 

[tossolul]

Are there any Lutherans who could give their (name removed by moderator)ut on my questions? They are things that I truelly don’t understand, but would find it very beneficial in my situation right now to try to get some feed back on. Thank you.

My husband is Lutheran and I am Catholic. This is causing some problems in raising our children. I know his response to these questions, but I would much appreciate the response of others.

 

[Egg4christ]

tossolul:

In trying to see why Lutherans can’t accept the Catholic faith I have come up with these questions in my mind…

1. Lutherans believe in sola-scriptura…It is agreed that the bible was written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. If they can accept the fact that the Holy Spirit guided these men to write God’s word to be handed down for centuries- why can they not accept the fact that the Holy Spirit would guide a man appointed as head of His church (the pope)- to lead His Church through the centuries.
   a. I believe most Lutherans believe that Luther himself was guided by the Holy Spirit to start a new church. I myself don’t agree with that statement. What I see is much different…He left the church because there were many wrongs being done by humans in the church. But how can people accept the fact that in leaving He changed things about the faith that had nothing to do with any corruptness…ex. the meaning of the real presence in the Eucharist, the idea of Sacrifice being inherently a good thing. The impression I get-maybe I’m wrong- is that many believe that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins you have nothing to worry about. To me Luther went beyond trying to correct any corruptness… He led his people into what I see as more of a free thinking, self interperating, non God fearing faith. If what he did was such a Good thing, than why are there so many different sects of the Lutheran faith? If what he did was truly led by the Holy Spirit, why do so many disagree on the correct teachings. How can you see self interpretation as better than following the leadership of the man who is the successor of Peter- which is clearly stated in the bible is the rock which God will build His church upon.

I welcome any feed back, as it may help my struggles I’m facing right now with my husband.

It’s unfortunate that most of us on this board have neglected to answer your question entirely, and engaged in the typical Protestant/Catholic bickering. Although i am not a lutheren, I am a protestant, i hope that maybe my answers can help you understand your husband’s point of view.

1. If we trust the writers of the bible to be infallible in it’s writing, why can’t we trust an infallible pope?
   – there are a few differences from my point of view towards the Pope. First, noone in the bible ever claimed to be the ONLY one to interpret God’s will. They were constantly a community, one would recieve wisdom, or another would, but never a single individual. Yes, Peter ran the show following the tongues of fire, and the giving of the holy spirit, but yet Paul ended up writing the majority of the New Testament. The bible never shows that everything had to be run through Peter. Certainly, his wisdom from spending so much time so very close to christ was sought, but he wasn’t the only, end all, be all.
   Remember also that Protestants are very Sola scriptura… If you can’t find it in the bible, you’ve got a problem. The idea that Peter would and should have a successor is not directly displayed in scripture. You say it’s logic that he would, but that’s if you assume Christ meant Peter to be the first Pope. If you’re able to seperate yourself from everything you’ve been taught, and review the same passage as personal encouragement to Peter, instructions not only to him, but to the other leaders of the church, The idea that one man should take over and run everything is preposterous. Never in scripture is one man alone responsible for everything, except for Christ.
2. As for changing things like the Eucharist and other such practices, i really don’t know that much about them. I think, however, that it is safe to assume that many of them were changed under Sola scriptura. Read straight through the Gospel of John, and then tell me it isn’t possible that Christ was speaking metaphorically about the Body and Blood. Notice, i didn’t say you had to agree, I’m just trying to help you see how this kind of thinking is Possible.

I think it is incorrect to point at a single issue, like the split between protestant churches, and say automatically that it is not of God. Look at Israel, which fell in and out of God’s favor numerous times. It would have been unfait at their low points to claim that they had never know God at all. They simply had difficulty following his word at this calling.
On a side note, i think we have been disrespectful to the original post-er on this thread. certainly many of you will have a rebuttle to my response, but unless she calls for them, could you simply PM me any comments about my post?

 

[tossolul]

Egg4Christ-

Thankyou so much for your time in responding and giving me your thoughts on my questions.

I have some questions about things you wrote, but this one is weighing on my mind a bit heavier right now…

I’ve been reading about the lives of the saints lately- which I know is another big issue Protestants may have with the Catholic faith. So just as a side I’ll try to explain how I use their life experiences…I use them as role models. People who devoted their entire being to pleasing God, and lived their life in union with Him- through sacrifice, suffering, and prayer. I have found these people to be so inspiring along my walk of faith. One thing that I have noticed with any and all of these people is Obedience. The one thing that all of them knew to do was not disobey, their superiors. Disobedience is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not working through you, Obedience is a true sign that He is…Therefor how can you as Protestants justify the disobedience-however well explained- of Luther. If you get right down to the bottom of it, it comes down to- being disobedient is never a fruit of the Spirit. However much these Saints disliked what they were told by their superiors, or parents (many times leading them away from their true path from God) they listened and suffered. Luther did not do this.

 

[tossolul]

Egg4christ:

– there are a few differences from my point of view towards the Pope. First, noone in the bible ever claimed to be the ONLY one to interpret God’s will. They were constantly a community, one would recieve wisdom, or another would, but never a single individual.

As far as I know Catholics also believe that people can have personal revelations about God’s will for them. We are not however to go around and teach these personal revealings that the Holy Spirit graced us with because they are just that ‘personal’. Where you get into trouble (as far as I believe) is when you take personal revelations and start preaching them as if everyone should be believing/doing what God has shown you/told you. That is why I believe it is important to have the Pope, and the Magesterium behind him to help lead/quide us in these things. I believe that if Jesus appointed Peter head of His Church, that Jesus will always be right there guiding it, keeping it from error. Think of the little wonderful miracles you hear happening to every day people. How much more involved do you believe He would be when it comes to guiding/leading His Church (which is His body). I believe Jesus is very involved in guiding the Pope.

The idea that one man should take over and run everything is preposterous. Never in scripture is one man alone responsible for everything, except for Christ.

As I learned it in Cathechism Class. Christ is the one running His Church- through His Vicar (the Pope)

 

[Egg4christ]

tossolul:

Egg4Christ-
I’ve been reading about the lives of the saints lately- which I know is another big issue Protestants may have with the Catholic faith. So just as a side I’ll try to explain how I use their life experiences…I use them as role models. People who devoted their entire being to pleasing God, and lived their life in union with Him- through sacrifice, suffering, and prayer. I have found these people to be so inspiring along my walk of faith. One thing that I have noticed with any and all of these people is Obedience. The one thing that all of them knew to do was not disobey, their superiors. Disobedience is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not working through you, Obedience is a true sign that He is…Therefor how can you as Protestants justify the disobedience-however well explained- of Luther. If you get right down to the bottom of it, it comes down to- being disobedient is never a fruit of the Spirit. However much these Saints disliked what they were told by their superiors, or parents (many times leading them away from their true path from God) they listened and suffered. Luther did not do this.

There is something in that which almost sounds as if we are supposed to just take what is handed to us. Scriptures tell us differently. They warn us that there will be false prophets and false teachers, and that we need to test everything. The logical extension of this test is that, if the prophet or teacher does not align with what the bible says, we are supposed to seperate ourselves from that teaching.

tossolul:

As far as I know Catholics also believe that people can have personal revelations about God’s will for them. We are not however to go around and teach these personal revealings that the Holy Spirit graced us with because they are just that ‘personal’. Where you get into trouble (as far as I believe) is when you take personal revelations and start preaching them as if everyone should be believing/doing what God has shown you/told you. That is why I believe it is important to have the Pope, and the Magesterium behind him to help lead/quide us in these things. I believe that if Jesus appointed Peter head of His Church, that Jesus will always be right there guiding it, keeping it from error. Think of the little wonderful miracles you hear happening to every day people. How much more involved do you believe He would be when it comes to guiding/leading His Church (which is His body). I believe Jesus is very involved in guiding the Pope.

Are you saying then that God does not use anybody but the Pope to address a larger group of people? Didn’t God impart wisdom on Peter and Paul when they were talking to the churches? If revelations given to anybody but the Pope are not meant for anybody but themselves, then what is most of the New Testament?

tossolul:

Egg4christ:

The idea that one man should take over and run everything is preposterous. Never in scripture is one man alone responsible for everything, except for Christ.

As I learned it in Cathechism Class. Christ is the one running His Church- through His Vicar (the Pope)

This is a great and nicely packaged theological answer, but why didn’t we see this in the New Testament? Frankly, this just didn’t happen to Peter.

 

[Mystophilus]

In trying to see why Lutherans can’t accept the Catholic faith I have come up with these questions in my mind…

You are starting from the assumption that Lutherans should accept the Catholicism. If they thought the same, they would already have converted, wouldn’t they? In order to understand them, you’re going to have to suspend many of your own assumptions.

Lutherans believe in sola-scriptura… If they can accept the fact that the Holy Spirit guided these men to write God’s word to be handed down for centuries- why can they not accept the fact that the Holy Spirit would guide a man appointed as head of His church (the pope)- to lead His Church through the centuries?

The point of sola scriptura is that humans are subjective; it’s one of our design features. David was “a man after God’s own heart”, and he was still a murderer and an adulterer. Some past popes have done thoroughly immoral things.

The idea of following the text alone is meant to free the believer from the natural biases of other people, on the assumption that the text is an objective source of truth.

To me Luther went beyond trying to correct any corruptness… He led his people into what I see as more of a free thinking, self interperating, non God fearing faith.

As for the free-thinking and self-interpreting, that was the intention: see the point above. As for non-God-fearing, well, the wholly-personal responsibility aspect of Protestantism does a lot to reduce the incidence of indolence and apathy: you need to work harder when you have nobody else to rely upon.

If what he did was such a Good thing, than why are there so many different sects of the Lutheran faith? If what he did was truly led by the Holy Spirit, why do so many disagree on the correct teachings?

First, I suspect that you may be conflating Lutheranism with the whole of Protestantism. The Lutherans make up a very small minority of all Protestants.

Second, why do so many within the Catholic Church disagree with each other? Dissent is normal within any group: God made us all different, and so we all have different ideas. As long as it is conducted in a reasonable manner, dissent is useful: it leads to progress in understanding.

How can you see self interpretation as better than following the leadership of the man who is the successor of Peter- which is clearly stated in the bible is the rock which God will build His church upon.

Oddly enough, two different words are used in the Greek text. The word for Peter is a pebble: a small, separate piece of stone. The word used for the foundation of the Church is bedrock: the source of all of the pebbles.

I welcome any feed back, as it may help my struggles I’m facing right now with my husband.

More important than any of the above, listen to this: do not struggle. Share. Share your ideas with each other. Accept that, being human, you are both imperfect; being imperfect, you are both wrong in some way. Be aware that people have an unfortunate tendency to cathect their ideas, to build their ideas into their self-identity, and that this often leads to the misconception that any rejection of their arguments is a rejection of themselves. You love each other, and God loves both of you, whatever either of you thinks.

 

[tossolul]

Egg4christ:

There is something in that which almost sounds as if we are supposed to just take what is handed to us. Scriptures tell us differently. They warn us that there will be false prophets and false teachers, and that we need to test everything. The logical extension of this test is that, if the prophet or teacher does not align with what the bible says, we are supposed to seperate ourselves from that teaching.

I think it is better to say with what God says- simply because it is so easy to come up with many different interpretations of what different people think the bible is saying. Personally that is one of the reasons why I appreciate the Catholic Church so much-because it is Led by One who is truely close to God and Led by the Holy Spirit. One (the pope) who in being so close can lead others and explain what the Bible means to the Catholic church, instead of having so many different personal interpretations of it. We have one, there is no personal inference to confuse the true meaning behind the words.

Are you saying then that God does not use anybody but the Pope to address a larger group of people? Didn’t God impart wisdom on Peter and Paul when they were talking to the churches? If revelations given to anybody but the Pope are not meant for anybody but themselves, then what is most of the New Testament?

No that isn’t what I meant exactly. Of course he uses people to touch other people. I was referring to infallible teachings, and deciding upon what should be taught and not taught…That is what I believe is somehting that should not be instructed through a single persons personal revelation.

This is a great and nicely packaged theological answer, but why didn’t we see this in the New Testament? Frankly, this just didn’t happen to Peter.

Pehaps then this is when faith comes in…Just because it is not in the bible or in better words just because you can not see it with your own eyes, does not mean it does not exist. Ask Thomas. God makes known to His people what they need to know to help His Church which is His Body. It is written in the bible the Peter will be the rock on which His Church shall be built. To me that says that he is the first pope.

Thank you for your viewpoints on this egg4christ. You make good points, it is helpful for me to see what other people are thinking about this.

 

[Egg4christ]

Alright, so i could reargue the points you have countered with until the cows come home(and considering i live in suburbia and don’t own any cows, we could be waiting quite some time), i want to ask if there is anything else you have questions on. I realize that you started this not to debate, and not to change either your or my opinions, but instead to better understand where i’m coming from.
So, anything else while we’re here?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m not Lutheran, but my husband was and I attended his church for years. It might be helpful to you if you obtained a copy of Luther’s Small Catechism to know what Lutherans believe. The different synods came in part by the different countries of origin, since Lutheranism in Europe was tied to state religions. Now they frequently differ with each other on social teachings. But in theory they should all agree with what’s in Luther’s small catechism.

tossolul:

…But how can people accept the fact that in leaving He changed things about the faith that had nothing to do with any corruptness…ex. the meaning of the real presence in the Eucharist,…

As a point of clarification, Lutherans teach belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in Communion. They use different theological words than Catholics, and their belief is slightly different. (they say consubstantiation; we say transsubtantion.) But at the point of recieving they teach that Jesus is really present. That being said, just like Catholics, not every Lutheran understands what their faith teaches so individual Lutherans may not believe in the real presence, but the Real Presence is an official teaching of every Lutheran synod I’ve encountered.

As I understand your husband is Lutheran and you are Catholic, if he believes in the Real Presence and desires to recieve Communion in a Catholic Church, you can ask your pastor to obtain a dispensation from the bishop and if the bishop agrees, maybe he can recieve Communion with you. (See CCC 1401.) If so, that might help some of the struggles in your interdenominational marriage. Many Lutherans are very offended that the Catholic Church won’t allow them Communion, and dislike Catholics telling them they don’t believe Jesus is present in Communion when they do.

 

[Mystophilus]

Obviously, that ended up in completely the wrong place. Ohwellnevermind.

 

[Faustina]

jimmy:

That is how the Anglicans started in Britain. The protestant reformation started with Luther in Germany.

What is really ironic, King Henry VII was actually given the title of Defender of the Faith, because he refuted all of Luthers concerns and disagreements of the Church.