Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[JonNC]

=steve b;12386951]they ARE the Catholic Church.

True. So are we.

Being somehow connected to the Church doesn’t make one Catholic or in the Catholic Church.

That can apply to Catholics, as well, who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Exactly. That’s all I was saying here as well. I do that because others who might just read this thread or any other thread, and don’t participate, don’t know to look on old threads for this connection.

And I do the same thing when phrases like “protestants believe this” are used.

It’s pretty hard to validate that unless there is evidence, that can be properly referenced?

I think one only need look on their websites. They make their choices for their communions. Let’s remember regarding Anglicans that King Henry had no particular love for Luther.

Did any of them change the canon? No.

What canon do you use, Steve? Did he change it?
What canon(s) do the EO use? Did he change it?
Luther’s canon opinion isn’t even expressed in the Lutheran Confessions.

People didn’t fight the canon like luther did. AND, scripture wasn’t taken as the sole source of faith for them.

Oh, goodness, Steve. People most certainly did dispute the canon like Luther did.
And using scripture as the final norm is an entirely different issue.

Luther was still alive at this point. lutherbibel.net/ . Click on that bibel you immediately see top of the page. It will take you to the page showing Luther’s bible and how the books were classified by him.

The point I’ve made many times previously, once you identify certain books aren’t scripture, why even have them in the book one calls the bible? And natural consequences took place. Bibles were then printed without these books.

lutherbibel.net/
This page shows the inclusion of the DC’s.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vorrede auff das Alte Testament
Bücher des Alten Testaments

Das erste Buch Mose Das erste Buch der Könige Der Prediger Salomonis Der Prophet Obadja
Das ander Buch Mose Das ander Buch der Könige Das Hohelied Salomonis Der Prophet Jona
Das dritte Buch Mose Das erste Buch Chronica Der Prophet Jesaja Der Prophet Micha
Das vierde Buch Mose Das ander Buch Chronica Der Prophet Jeremia Der Prophet Nahum
Das fünffte Buch Mose Das Buch Esra Die Klagelieder Jeremia Der Prophet Habakuk
Das Buch Josua Das Buch Nehemia Der Prophet Hesekiel Der Prophet Zephanja
Das Buch der Richter Das Buch Esther Der Prophet Daniel Der Prophet Haggai
Das Buch Ruth Das Buch Hiob Der Prophet Hosea Der Prophet Sacharja
Das erste Buch Samuel Der Psalter Der Prophet Joel Der Prophet Maleachi
Das ander Buch Samuel Die Sprüche Salomonis Der Prophet Amos
Vorrede auff das Newe Testament
Bücher des Newen Testaments

Euangelion Sanct Matthes Die ander Epistel zu den Corinthern Die erste Epistel an Timotheon Die ander Epistel Sanct Johannis
Euangelion Sanct Marcus Epistel zu den Galatern Die ander Epistel an Timotheon Die dritte Epistel Sanct Johannis
Euangelion Sanct Lucas Epistel zu den Ephesern Epistel an Titon Die Epistel zu den Ebreern
Euangelion Sanct Johannis Epistel zu den Philippern Epistel an Philemon Die Epistel Jacobus
Der Aposteln Geschichte Epistel zu den Colossern Die erste Epistel Sanct Peters Die Epistel Judas
Epistel zu den Römern Die erste Epistel zu den Thessalonichern Die ander Epistel Sanct Peters Die Offenbarung Johannis
Die erste Epistel zu den Corinthern Die ander Epistel zu den Thessalonichern Die erste Epistel Sanct Johannis
Apocrypha

Das Buch Judith Das Buch Jesus Syrach Das ander Buch Maccabeorum
Die Weisheit Salomonis Der Prophet Baruch Stücke in Esther
Das Buch Tobie Das erste Buch Maccabeorum Stücke in Daniel

continued:

 

[JonNC]

Then Card Ratzinger was making a cogent point about the next life being Outside of time and what that means. Our concept of time is gone in eternity. Which means long or short is meaningless in eternity. However, for perspective, because we think in time and space, it means some people in eternity could be in purgatory till the end of the world whenever that comes. But at least on the bright side, they escaped hell. If the end of the world, isn’t for a billion years from now, or billions of years from now, then it’s possible some people could be there till then. While others it might be like running through the shower.

For example

Fr Alessio Parente a Franciscan priest, took care of Padre Pio for the last 7 years of Pio’s life. Padre Pio, now a Saint, told of an experience he had while saying mass. A Sacristan who died 70 years prior, had come to Pio during mass. He said while in this life he didn’t take care of the altar and sanctuary the way he should have. Neither physically or in his intentions. The Lord obviously allowed this sacristan to make an appeal to Padre Pio to offer his mass that day for him. And the sacristan said if Pio offered this mass that day for him, he would be allowed to advance to heaven. Now, the sacristan had no idea of time in eternity, but in actual years in this life, he was in purgatory for 70 of them.

In 99 when I visited San Giovanni Rotondo, Padre Pio’s residence, Fr Allesio told us of this and many other stories of Pio.

Thanks, Steve. Is it required dogmatically to believe as Padre Pio did?
Ratzinger:

“Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly
concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion.
Rather is it the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.”

Pope Benedict in spe salvi says:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgment we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy

And:

“It is clear that we cannot calculate the ‘duration’ of
this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The
transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of ‘passage’ to communion with God in the Body of Christ.”

Again, talk of momentary. It seems belief in Purgatory (or not) does not impact the value of prayer for the dead.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

True. So are we.

No
J:

That can apply to Catholics, as well, who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

As to that point about Catholics

the CCC says,

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

Part of charity is to avoid division, in any of those issues described in that paragraph
J:

And I do the same thing when phrases like “protestants believe this” are used.

just for clarification, are you denying you are protestant?.
J:

I think one only need look on their websites. They make their choices for their communions. Let’s remember regarding Anglicans that King Henry had no particular love for Luther.

Whether one likes Luther or not doesn’t effect Protestnatism or who is Protestant. Luther started the protestant ball rolling
J:

What canon do you use, Steve? Did he change it?
What canon(s) do the EO use? Did he change it?
Luther’s canon opinion isn’t even expressed in the Lutheran Confessions.

Jon,

Don’t pretend Luther didn’t do violence to scripture.

How many times does it have to be said, Apocrypha to a Protestant ≠ scripture in Protestant speak nor does apocrypha = deutero canonical. To a protestant they are un equal terms. A contradiction of terms.

Protestants and Catholics speak different languages here.
J:

lutherbibel.net/
This page shows the inclusion of the DC’s.

I don’t see deutero canon listed there… I don’t see those books included in the OT scripture. They are in the apocrypha.

Does apocrypha mean scripture to a protestant?. Nope. We already know what it means to Luther.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks, Steve. Is it required dogmatically to believe as Padre Pio did?

It’s a private revelation. So technically one doesn’t have to believe it. However, It doesn’t go against anything the Church teaches.
J:

Pope Benedict in spe salvi says:

And:

Again, talk of momentary. It seems belief in Purgatory (or not) does not impact the value of prayer for the dead.

Jon

Think of how scripture talks about eternity. A day is like a thousand years and 1000 years is like a day [2 Peter 3:8](2 - - Bible Gateway Peter+3:8&version=RSVCE). Now, the sacristan was in purgatory for 70 years in our time. In terms of Jesus and eternity, that’s momentary.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12388726]No

Yes.

just for clarification, are you denying you are protestant?

.
Depends on how one uses the term. If one is using the term to generally describe those members of the western Church that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, yes. If one is using the term to (falsely) describe a monolith, no. Steve, I believe the Lutheran tradition to be far closer to “Roman” Catholicism than to most communions that are termed protestant.
Its part of the fallacy of the original thread title.

1. The term protestant has nothing to do with a protest against the Catholic Church. It was a protest against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.
2. Most protestants aren’t protesting against anything. Even the Catholic Catechism recognizes that: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ…”. There’s no intentional separation or protest. Most are born into and brought up in a communion. For the most part, they see the Catholic church down the street as another church they don’t happen to attend.

Whether one likes Luther or not doesn’t effect Protestnatism or who is Protestant. Luther started the protestant ball rolling

I’m used to describing this as the “lemming theory”. Calvin, for instance, wasn’t a lemming who blindly followed Luther (but didn’t). Calvin was a very smart man, though I would be Catholic long before I would be a member of a communion coming out of the Calvinist/Reformed tradition. And the Anabaptists were not liked by the Lutherans any more than they were the Catholics.

Jon,

Don’t pretend Luther didn’t do violence to scripture.

How many times does it have to be said, Apocrypha to a Protestant ≠ scripture in Protestant speak nor does apocrypha = deutero canonical. To a protestant they are un equal terms. A contradiction of terms.

I’m not pretending. I don’t think he did violence to Scripture. Those who hold the opinion you present here are practicing the same liberty that Saint Athanasius did, as evidenced in the link that Jose offered, or that Cajetan, or St, Jerome, or any of the Fathers who held to a different view of the DC’s.

I don’t see deutero canon listed there… I don’t see those books included in the OT scripture. They are in the apocrypha.

So you now state here that Luther included them in his translation.

Does apocrypha mean scripture to a protestant?. Nope. We already know what it means to Luther.

Which kind of protestant do you want to ask? The Lutherans here - Steido1, Per Crucem, and others including myself have answered from our perspective. Hopefully, a Calvinist, or a Baptist, or a Methodist, will provide their viewpoint.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Which kind of protestant do you want to ask? The Lutherans here - Steido1, Per Crucem, and others including myself have answered from our perspective.

Hopefully, a Calvinist, or a Baptist, or a Methodist, will provide their viewpoint.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Yes.

no
J:

.
Depends on how one uses the term.

Jon, it’s really a simple Y or N answer.
J:

I believe the Lutheran tradition to be far closer to “Roman” Catholicism than to most communions that are termed protestant.

Don’t Lutherans ordain women priests?
J:

Its part of the fallacy of the original thread title.

1. The term protestant has nothing to do with a protest against the Catholic Church. It was a protest against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.

It IS protest against the Catholic Church, and it’s structure, it’s authority, it’s sacraments, its scriptures, and on and on… otherwise why call it “reform”? Reform what? Just look at those who are the original founders of all the different protestant sects and their beefs. Beefs against what / who? Even today, those arguments are still in play. All one has to do is show Protestants where their arguments began
J:

1. Most protestants aren’t protesting against anything. Even the Catholic Catechism recognizes that:

To test that, I would ask a protestant given the right moment,
what do you think of the Catholic Church? Then wait for the answer. Maybe a followup question or 2 I’m sure one could find out quickly what they know about the subject.
J:

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ…”. There’s no intentional separation or protest. Most are born into and brought up in a communion. For the most part, they see the Catholic church down the street as another church they don’t happen to attend.

That’s been answered. As long as one is innocently ignorant of the facts, they may have a safety blanket to protect them. Providing one is innocently ignorant and remains that way. Once they know the truth however, then they are no longer ignorant. The same is true if one takes little effort to know the truth. Maybe they avoid wanting to know the truth. That’s not innocent ignorance.

I’ve given links previously to the CCC for everything I’ve said here
J:

I’m used to describing this as the “lemming theory”. Calvin, for instance, wasn’t a lemming who blindly followed Luther (but didn’t). Calvin was a very smart man, though I would be Catholic long before I would be a member of a communion coming out of the Calvinist/Reformed tradition. And the Anabaptists were not liked by the Lutherans any more than they were the Catholics.

Add the Anglicans in there too. Each one had their own issues with the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter that Protestants didn’t / don’t all like each other. But they ALL in extension protested against the Catholic Church in the beginning, then going forward, protested against each other. It was division on steroids. And I would suggest, the real problem with all this unbridled division we call Protestantism, is how it affects the world’s view of Jesus and His one and only Church He established on Peter… Jesus was the one telling the story about the builder and estimating the needs to build a tower… fast forward to the end, To the world, assessing all this division, it looks like Jesus couldn’t finish what He started.
J:

I’m not pretending. I don’t think he did violence to Scripture. Those who hold the opinion you present here are practicing the same liberty that Saint Athanasius did, as evidenced in the link that Jose offered, or that Cajetan, or St, Jerome, or any of the Fathers who held to a different view of the DC’s.

The points I made and would make

• the council of Rome, established a canon that endured till today. No changes, no corrections.
• Jerome didn’t change that canon. And btw, he did agree with the canon we have today.
• As for Athanasius and what he proposed, it wasn’t the canon that Rome in 382 established, nor councils of Hippo, or Carthage or Constance. One can’t argue that the canon which was stable for over 1000 years, was somehow in flux when Luther put his bibel together…

J:

So you now state here that Luther included them in his translation.

Quoting Luther

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures

Apocrypha
Das Buch JudithDas Buch Jesus SyrachDas ander Buch MaccabeorumDie Weisheit SalomonisDer Prophet BaruchStücke in EstherDas Buch TobieDas erste Buch MaccabeorumStücke in Daniel

lutherbibel.net/

 

[MaryT777]

no

Jon, it’s really a simple Y or N answer.

Don’t Lutherans ordain women priests?

It IS protest against the Catholic Church, and it’s structure, it’s authority, it’s sacraments, its scriptures, and on and on… otherwise why call it “reform”? Reform what? Just look at those who are the original founders of all the different protestant sects and their beefs. Beefs against what / who? Even today, those arguments are still in play. All one has to do is show Protestants where their arguments began

To test that, I would ask a protestant given the right moment,
what do you think of the Catholic Church? Then wait for the answer. Maybe a followup question or 2 I’m sure one could find out quickly what they know about the subject.

That’s been answered. As long as one is innocently ignorant of the facts, they may have a safety blanket to protect them. Providing one is innocently ignorant and remains that way. Once they know the truth however, then they are no longer ignorant. The same is true if one takes little effort to know the truth. Maybe they avoid wanting to know the truth. That’s not innocent ignorance.

I’ve given links previously to the CCC for everything I’ve said here

Add the Anglicans in there too. Each one had their own issues with the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter that Protestants didn’t / don’t all like each other. But they ALL in extension protested against the Catholic Church in the beginning, then going forward, protested against each other. It was division on steroids. And I would suggest, the real problem with all this unbridled division we call Protestantism, is how it affects the world’s view of Jesus and His one and only Church He established on Peter… Jesus was the one telling the story about the builder and estimating the needs to build a tower… fast forward to the end, To the world, assessing all this division, it looks like Jesus couldn’t finish what He started.

The points I made and would make

• the council of Rome, established a canon that endured till today. No changes, no corrections.
• Jerome didn’t change that canon. And btw, he did agree with the canon we have today.
• As for Athanasius and what he proposed, it wasn’t the canon that Rome in 382 established, nor councils of Hippo, or Carthage or Constance. One can’t argue that the canon which was stable for over 1000 years, was somehow in flux when Luther put his bibel together…

Quoting Luther

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures

Apocrypha
Das Buch JudithDas Buch Jesus SyrachDas ander Buch MaccabeorumDie Weisheit SalomonisDer Prophet BaruchStücke in EstherDas Buch TobieDas erste Buch MaccabeorumStücke in Daniel

lutherbibel.net/

Well said.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12391731]no

You get the feeling we aren’t going to agree on this?

Jon, it’s really a simple Y or N answer.

Not at all, Steve. The meaning has changed, and its usage, in many ways. As an analogy, think of the word “pray”, and how Catholics use it to refer to invoking the saints for intercession. I know that Catholics don’t mean it in the same way as praying to God, but some protestants claim you do. Why? Because the use of the term “pray” meaning to ask or beseech someone other than God isn’t common anymore. They are wrong because they do not understand the older usage. Sometimes, “yes or no” needs clarification.

Don’t Lutherans ordain women priests?

Not the LCMS. Not confessional Lutherans. Some Old Catholics ordain women, but that doesn’t mean all Catholics do.

It IS protest against the Catholic Church, and it’s structure, it’s authority, it’s sacraments, its scriptures, and on and on… otherwise why call it “reform”? Reform what? Just look at those who are the original founders of all the different protestant sects and their beefs. Beefs against what / who? Even today, those arguments are still in play. All one has to do is show Protestants where their arguments began

They may be arguments regarding our disagreements, but they are not the source of the moniker “protestant”.

To test that, I would ask a protestant given the right moment,
what do you think of the Catholic Church? Then wait for the answer. Maybe a followup question or 2 I’m sure one could find out quickly what they know about the subject.

Depending on their communion (“protestant” is not a communion, denomination, religious community), whatever disagreements they have with Rome - sacraments, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, confession to a pastor/priest, liturgical worship, use of creeds - they obviously will have with Lutherans, too. Hence, the problem with the term “protestant”. Other than a broad, general umbrella term for western non-Catholic Christians, it really means nothing.

That’s been answered. As long as one is innocently ignorant of the facts, they may have a safety blanket to protect them. Providing one is innocently ignorant and remains that way. Once they know the truth however, then they are no longer ignorant. The same is true if one takes little effort to know the truth. Maybe they avoid wanting to know the truth. That’s not innocent ignorance.

As determined by whom, Steve?

Add the Anglicans in there too. Each one had their own issues with the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter that Protestants didn’t / don’t all like each other. But they ALL in extension protested against the Catholic Church in the beginning, then going forward, protested against each other. It was division on steroids. And I would suggest, the real problem with all this unbridled division we call Protestantism, is how** it affects the world’s view of Jesus and His one and only Church He established on Peter**… Jesus was the one telling the story about the builder and estimating the needs to build a tower… fast forward to the end, To the world, assessing all this division, it looks like Jesus couldn’t finish what He started.

An indictment of all of us, all of us in the Church Catholic, east and west, one we should all ask forgiveness for, and act by seeking reconciliation.

The points I made and would make

• the council of Rome, established a canon that endured till today. No changes, no corrections.

And not dogmatically declared, leaving Christians the privilege to dispute books.

• Jerome didn’t change that canon. And btw, he did agree with the canon we have today.

Not exactly. He had questions about some of the very books Luther and Cajetan had.

• As for Athanasius and what he proposed, it wasn’t the canon that Rome in 382 established, nor councils of Hippo, or Carthage or Constance. One can’t argue that the canon which was stable for over 1000 years, was somehow in flux when Luther put his bibel together…

It absolutely was in flux, at least in terms of the privilege of individuals to dispute and question certain books. It was in flux enough that the EO and OO have even bigger canons than the 73 book western canon.

Quoting Luther

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures

Quoting **Cardinal **Cajetan:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus.

Cajetan, following St. Jerome’s lead, places the DC in the Apocrypha! He uses the term Apocrypha! The Protogus Galeatus was written in approximately 391 AD, after the local Synod at Rome in 382.
Cajetan writes this in the 1500’s.

Jon

Jon

 

[clem456]

…
And not dogmatically declared, leaving Christians the privilege to dispute books.
Jon

The heart of “the protest” right there ^.

“Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilege eek to dispute.”

There will never be satisfaction to this line of thinking, ever, because dogmatic proof is not the end point of faith. Faith can never be fully proved, it requires trust, obedience to the authority of Christ through his Church, assent to things we don’t want to accept and can’t understand. This is a hugely challenging task for anyone, Catholic or otherwise.

Proof and privilege fade to nothing.

 

[MaryT777]

The heart of “the protest” right there ^.

“Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilege eek to dispute.”

There will never be satisfaction to this line of thinking, ever, because dogmatic proof is not the end point of faith. Faith can never be fully proved, it requires trust, obedience to the authority of Christ through his Church, assent to things we don’t want to accept and can’t understand. This is a hugely challenging task for anyone, Catholic or otherwise.

Proof and privilege fade to nothing.

Well said and Amen.

 

[guanophore]

Jon, it’s really a simple Y or N answer.

It would be so much simplier if this were true. But J is right, it really depends upon how the term is defined/how the concept is applied.

Don't Lutherans ordain women priests?

There are persons who call themselves Lutheran that do, just as there are those who call themselves “Catholics” that do. But in both cases, it is persons who have left the confessions of faith they claim to espouse.

Just as Catholics do not want to be blamed and held accountable for those who depart from the faith, neither do faithful Lutherans want to be blamed or held accountable for those actions of persons who have left the faith.

It IS protest against the Catholic Church, and it’s structure, it’s authority, it’s sacraments, its scriptures, and on and on… otherwise why call it “reform”? Reform what? Just look at those who are the original founders of all the different protestant sects and their beefs. Beefs against what / who? Even today, those arguments are still in play. All one has to do is show Protestants where their arguments began

While I will agree with you that the Teachings of Christ have never been in need of reform, people are constantly in need of reform. The reformers were looking at centuries of corruption, licentiousness, greed, political, and economic oppression. The CC is not without fault in creating the conditions that fomented the reformation. And the Church was well aware that reform was needed, which is why Trent was convened.

The problem here is that you are charging mondern Protestants with the sin of separation, which is expressly against the teaching of your own Church.

To test that, I would ask a protestant given the right moment, what do you think of the Catholic Church? Then wait for the answer. Maybe a followup question or 2 I’m sure one could find out quickly what they know about the subject.

Yes, and you will find many of the same answers among “Catholics” who dissent from their own faith.

That’s been answered. As long as one is innocently ignorant of the facts, they may have a safety blanket to protect them. Providing one is innocently ignorant and remains that way. Once they know the truth however, then they are no longer ignorant. The same is true if one takes little effort to know the truth. Maybe they avoid wanting to know the truth. That’s not innocent ignorance.

So is your goal to make sure everyone is guilty?

Add the Anglicans in there too. Each one had their own issues with the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter that Protestants didn’t / don’t all like each other. But they ALL in extension protested against the Catholic Church in the beginning, then going forward,

Do you realize that the vast majority of Protestants have no idea about the history of their faith, and never think or care about Catholicism?

. And I would suggest, the real problem with all this unbridled division we call Protestantism, is how it affects the world’s view of Jesus and His one and only Church He established on Peter.To the world, assessing all this division, it looks like Jesus couldn’t finish what He started. .

Yes. And the main reason we are all obligated to work toward unity.

Quoting Luther

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures

It is not realistic to hold people accountable for Luther’s opinions. That is the same as charging Catholics with not agreeing with Jerome’s opinion of the canon.

Both of them, along with many other Biblical Scholars, thought The DC was not in the original Hebrew. Proof of this was not discovered until the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[guanophore]

The heart of “the protest” right there ^.

“Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilege eek to dispute.”

There will never be satisfaction to this line of thinking, ever, because dogmatic proof is not the end point of faith. Faith can never be fully proved, it requires trust, obedience to the authority of Christ through his Church, assent to things we don’t want to accept and can’t understand. This is a hugely challenging task for anyone, Catholic or otherwise.

Proof and privilege fade to nothing.

Yes, it is true. But I think we find more of this within the community of baptized Catholics than we will among Protestants.

I will go even further to say that baptized Catholics continue the “privilege to dispute” even beyond dogmatic teaching.

We have much more conversion and evangelism to accomplish within our walls than we do without. How can we focus on modern “protestants protesting” when there are so many modern Catholics who are protestant in faith, but don’t realize that they are?

They will even define themselves here on CAF as “questioning” Catholics or “dissenting” Catholics.

 

[clem456]

Yes, it is true. But I think we find more of this within the community of baptized Catholics than we will among Protestants.

I will go even further to say that baptized Catholics continue the “privilege to dispute” even beyond dogmatic teaching.

We have much more conversion and evangelism to accomplish within our walls than we do without. How can we focus on modern “protestants protesting” when there are so many modern Catholics who are protestant in faith, but don’t realize that they are?

They will even define themselves here on CAF as “questioning” Catholics or “dissenting” Catholics.

The bolded is so true and is something for my parish to consider as we go about finding ways to 'change", so that we might witness the Gospel more effectively.

 

[pablope]

Quote:
=steve b;12386951]they ARE the Catholic Church.

It is yes and no.

No because Steve used the capital c-Catholic Church, and yes, if you use the small c-catholic church…

 

[JonNC]

It is yes and no.

No because Steve used the capital c-Catholic Church, and yes, if you use the small c-catholic church…

If one uses the capitalized Catholic Church to mean those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are correct. If one uses it to mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then I am indeed of it, as are you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The heart of “the protest” right there ^.

“Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilege eek to dispute.”

There will never be satisfaction to this line of thinking, ever, because dogmatic proof is not the end point of faith. Faith can never be fully proved, it requires trust, obedience to the authority of Christ through his Church, assent to things we don’t want to accept and can’t understand. This is a hugely challenging task for anyone, Catholic or otherwise.

Proof and privilege fade to nothing.

The “heart of the protest” was this:

In response to the actions of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 of the Holy Roman Empire, where the religious tolerance set out at the 1st Diet in 1526 were being reversed:

The Diet of Speyer was convened in March 1529, for action against the Turks, whose armies were pressing forward in Hungary, and would besiege Vienna later in the year, and against the further progress of Protestantism.

The Lutheran members of the Diet, under the well-founded impression that the prohibition of any future reformation meant death to the whole movement, entered, in the legal form of an appeal on behalf of themselves, their subjects and all Christians, the famous protest of 25 April 1529. They protested against all those measures of the Diet which they saw as contrary to the Word of God, to their conscience, and to the decision of the Diet of 1526, and appealed from the decision of the majority to the Emperor, to a general or German council, and impartial Christian judges. **Their action created the term “Protestantism” - still used today as a name for this religious movement. **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_%281529%29

The protest was against the actions of civil authorities, much like the current protest against the HHS Mandate which your communion and mine both are protesting against.
In that way, your line, “Show me the letter of the law, or I retain my privilege eek to dispute.” applies to the Catholic Church as well.

And BTW, the LCMS is proud to stand beside the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in this protest.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

If one uses the capitalized Catholic Church to mean those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are correct. If one uses it to mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then I am indeed of it, as are you.

Jon

Friend, it is ridiculous to claim that there are Catholics, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and then another group of Catholics who need not give their submission to the Bishop of Rome.

There is only one group of Catholics: those who are under the authority of the BoR.

 

[JonNC]

Friend, it is ridiculous to claim that there are Catholics, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and then another group of Catholics who need not give their submission to the Bishop of Rome.

There is only one group of Catholics: those who are under the authority of the BoR.

Certainly, Orthodoxy doesn’t share this view, anymore than I do. While there is an institutional Catholic Church, of which I am not currently a part, the broader understanding of the Church Catholic, the OHCAC includes far more than those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly, Orthodoxy doesn’t share this view,

They view themselves as Catholics who do not have to submit to the authority of the pope?

As a Lutheran, who is the human head of your church?