M
Madaglan
Guest
Which of the following do you think is the biggest error of the Protestant Reformers? In other words, which error do you think is least acceptable in its rejection of certain well-demonstrated Catholic truths?
- Status
J
jako
Guest
You didn’t “follow” with any choices.?
M
Madaglan
Guest
That’s because I was still creating them when you posted
C
carol_marie
Guest
I’m going with belief of the visable Church - everything else they believe in error would be corrected if they recognized the authority of God’s Church.
J
jimbob
Guest
Why can’t i choose all of them?!!!??
I
icequeen
Guest
I believe the biggest errors are the Solas. If it wasn’t for the Solas, then there would not be 36,000 different Protestant denominations. The lack of belief in the Real Presence is a very close second.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
I think their biggest error is basing a church on something a human thought up, rather than the chuch Jesus founded. If it starts out on an erroneous proclamation, it won’t get any better. Once church teachings become subject to someone’s whims or opinions you end up with tens of thousands of splinter groups
Lisa N
Lisa N
W
Wcoyote
Guest
I voted for the Eucharist, but looking back at the list, I think it is probably the Sola’s and by that thought process they loose the Eucharist.
We must continue to pray for all our non Catholic brothers and sisters.
Wcoyote
We must continue to pray for all our non Catholic brothers and sisters.
Wcoyote
G
Genesis315
Guest
I picked rejection of the priesthood. I think there biggest error was anti-clericalism. They had to create the solas because you needed clerics for the sacraments (works) and Tradition/teaching authority. Their system couldn’t work without them. From there, we can see that destructive effects of sola scriptura.
E
EA_Man
Guest
I voted “Other”.
I don’t have a problem with any of those positions.
I don’t have a problem with any of those positions.
S
STIOFAN
Guest
Referring to Sundays Gospel about the sheep that hear the voice of the shepherd.
Well one problem is there are too many shepherds to follow.
Well one problem is there are too many shepherds to follow.
L
LoneRanger
Guest
leaving instead of working within to right what they felt was wrong…
thinking that they would find or start a church without sin…
not believing in God’s words, that the gates of Hell would not prevail…
still not being able to see the writing on the wall… even now, still blinded from the truth… IMHO
thinking that they would find or start a church without sin…
not believing in God’s words, that the gates of Hell would not prevail…
still not being able to see the writing on the wall… even now, still blinded from the truth… IMHO
J
jjwilkman
Guest
i would have to say: rebellion for the sake of rebellion.
every new church that splits off is farther and farther out. witness: jehovah’s witnesses seventh day adventists. these are not even remotely Christian.
one time i showed an adventist in his own king james bible the places where Jesus explicitly say he is God. he got super angry.
i don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but i am seeing the same things in the american Catholic Church. they want to tell jrome how to run the church. it doesn’t jwork that way. actually the Pope has said the church is not a democracy.
those who want change so badly should schism off and form their own church (denomination?) and let the rest of us be obedient to the church. that would be interesting to say the least.
sorry to speak so strongly, but as the saying the goes, the church is not a smorgasbord. it’s not pick and choose. it’s hook, line, and sinker.
lock stock and barrel.
every new church that splits off is farther and farther out. witness: jehovah’s witnesses seventh day adventists. these are not even remotely Christian.
one time i showed an adventist in his own king james bible the places where Jesus explicitly say he is God. he got super angry.
i don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but i am seeing the same things in the american Catholic Church. they want to tell jrome how to run the church. it doesn’t jwork that way. actually the Pope has said the church is not a democracy.
those who want change so badly should schism off and form their own church (denomination?) and let the rest of us be obedient to the church. that would be interesting to say the least.
sorry to speak so strongly, but as the saying the goes, the church is not a smorgasbord. it’s not pick and choose. it’s hook, line, and sinker.
lock stock and barrel.
A
Angainor
Guest
Before I vote, could you clear up what you mean by a couple of them?
Rejection of priesthood inside Priesthood
Rejectino of grace as working inside the individual
Thanks
Rejection of priesthood inside Priesthood
Rejectino of grace as working inside the individual
Thanks
S
serendipity
Guest
I think the biggest error was editing the Bible. Then the next biggest error would be the sola scriptura attitude - based on an abridged Bible none the less!
M
Madaglan
Guest
Both evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe that every person baptized into Christ becomes a “prophet, priest and king.” It is understood, therefore, that every baptized Christian partakes in the spiritual priesthood of Christ. However, unlike evangelicals, Catholics understand that there are some individuals in the Church who are called to act in a special capacity as priests–and to act as Christ in the sacrafice of the Mass.
Beginning with Luther, evangelicals declared and still declare today that there is no special priesthood to which certain Christians are called.
The traditional Catholic understanding of grace is that it is a gift of God that works inside of man which, during and after baptism, plays an integral part in justification and sanctification. In positively responding to that grace, one through this grace is made righteous and is sanctified. Grace, in the Catholic understanding, is directly related to an inner transformation of the soul. In responding to grace, this God-given grace transforms man from unrighteous to righteous. God through his grace makes man to become rigtheous and declares him to be rigtheous.
Most Protestants, on the other hand, reject the notion that grace works inside an individual, at least in terms of justification (they believe differently in sanctification). According to most Protestants, God’s grace in justification does not lead to an inner transformation. Instead, this grace can only lead one to accept the righteous Christ, upon which choice one is imputed with the righteousness of Christ, even though one’s soul still remains in an unrighteous state. Grace, in the Protestant model, is not infused into the individual for the purpose of transformation. Instead, the grace results only in man’s being declared righteous, even though he remains in essence unrighteous.
I’m still studying the different ideas on grace, so please don’t take what I write as 100% correct, since I realize that I’m not a theologian (yet).
D
Darrel
Guest
I said ‘other’,
I think the real problem here is the simple assumption that it is ever ok to be divided as a Church after what Jesus said to Peter. It seems like simple rebellion and disobediance. The will of God was never subject to opinion. He told us who was in charge and now it is rejected. Gods will is now subject to interpretation in many thousands of ways. Pride comes to mind.
-D
I think the real problem here is the simple assumption that it is ever ok to be divided as a Church after what Jesus said to Peter. It seems like simple rebellion and disobediance. The will of God was never subject to opinion. He told us who was in charge and now it is rejected. Gods will is now subject to interpretation in many thousands of ways. Pride comes to mind.
-D
F
FrRobSST
Guest
A few points.
The Lutheran Church did not reject a clerical state, but it did make the nature of the clerical state a bit more loose, especially in the Germanic lands. While the Scandanavian Lutherans kept bishops, priests, and deacons in apostolic succession (and do to this day, save their error in women’s ordination), the Germanic Lutherans took a temporary out that Luther gave and made it an ecclesiastical norm. He himself said he did not wish to abolish the episcopate, and yet those Lutheran bodies that are Germanic in origin never did restore the Episcopate. Lutherans definately believe in a real and substantial presence (well, orthodox Lutherans do, anyway) in the Eucharist, but they believe that, following the example of the Incarnation, that the Christ is consubstantially present. The phrase a Lutheran seminarian I know is most fond of using is that Christ is truly and substantially present in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine. Essentially, orthodox Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and the wine occupy the same space at the same time, but do not accept the concept of the annhilation of the physical composition of the bread and wine.
The Anglican Church’s chief error that resulted in more grief than it could imagine later on was the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and, more specifically, the Black Rubric. What is ironic is that as late as 1570, Rome was still making reunion overtures to the Anglican Church - including an offer to allow them to use the BCP as long as the Black Rubric was struck. While the BR was softened in 1662 and by 1850 was generally ignored by Tractarians, it did not stop the condemnation of Anglican Orders in 1896. That beign said, the justification for said condemnation is pretty weak, citing a fable concerning early Anglican ordinations and essentially invalidating ordinations conducted in the Iberian Peninsula (which used a form almost identical to Cranmner’s Ordinal). Either way, since Apostolicae Curae, the Anglican Church has kept slipping and slipping - first contraception, then women’s ordination to the priesthood, and now, well… we all know where things are headed now.
Both the Lutherans and Anglicans, with some nudging and some cleaning of house, could be reunited with the Catholic Church without too much difficulty.
It’s the Reformed folks that really botched up things beyond any illusion of simplicity in restoration. With views on the Eucharist that are downright nuts, double predestination, and (at one point) the constant preaching of law, law, law, law as opposed to law and gospel… to utter abandonment of anything resembling a clerical structure that could be called apostolic, and the outright rejection of all tradition (save that invented after 1530).
Just some random thoughts.
Rob+
The Lutheran Church did not reject a clerical state, but it did make the nature of the clerical state a bit more loose, especially in the Germanic lands. While the Scandanavian Lutherans kept bishops, priests, and deacons in apostolic succession (and do to this day, save their error in women’s ordination), the Germanic Lutherans took a temporary out that Luther gave and made it an ecclesiastical norm. He himself said he did not wish to abolish the episcopate, and yet those Lutheran bodies that are Germanic in origin never did restore the Episcopate. Lutherans definately believe in a real and substantial presence (well, orthodox Lutherans do, anyway) in the Eucharist, but they believe that, following the example of the Incarnation, that the Christ is consubstantially present. The phrase a Lutheran seminarian I know is most fond of using is that Christ is truly and substantially present in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine. Essentially, orthodox Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and the wine occupy the same space at the same time, but do not accept the concept of the annhilation of the physical composition of the bread and wine.
The Anglican Church’s chief error that resulted in more grief than it could imagine later on was the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and, more specifically, the Black Rubric. What is ironic is that as late as 1570, Rome was still making reunion overtures to the Anglican Church - including an offer to allow them to use the BCP as long as the Black Rubric was struck. While the BR was softened in 1662 and by 1850 was generally ignored by Tractarians, it did not stop the condemnation of Anglican Orders in 1896. That beign said, the justification for said condemnation is pretty weak, citing a fable concerning early Anglican ordinations and essentially invalidating ordinations conducted in the Iberian Peninsula (which used a form almost identical to Cranmner’s Ordinal). Either way, since Apostolicae Curae, the Anglican Church has kept slipping and slipping - first contraception, then women’s ordination to the priesthood, and now, well… we all know where things are headed now.
Both the Lutherans and Anglicans, with some nudging and some cleaning of house, could be reunited with the Catholic Church without too much difficulty.
It’s the Reformed folks that really botched up things beyond any illusion of simplicity in restoration. With views on the Eucharist that are downright nuts, double predestination, and (at one point) the constant preaching of law, law, law, law as opposed to law and gospel… to utter abandonment of anything resembling a clerical structure that could be called apostolic, and the outright rejection of all tradition (save that invented after 1530).
Just some random thoughts.
Rob+
C
Contarini
Guest
I voted for the visible/invisible Church distinction, though I think it’s more complex than that. The basic error, I believe, was the willingness to split the Church, putting their own sense of true doctrine above the unity of the Body.
Edwin
Edwin
R
Roger_G
Guest
- Status