Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[mark_a]

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

One should worship with the church that believes what they do. One can usually return when they find the grass wasn’t greener.

 

[waxwing]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

A big part of me wants to say yes to this question. Unless the denomination has strayed for far that you can’t in good conscience remain there, I think of some of the Mainlines, Anglicans and Presbyterian’s splits/fights/takeovers etc. Rather than 4 or 5 Presbyterian denominations, settle on two, one liberal, one conservative - set your pride aside and pick the a few non negotiable issues the rest just be charitable. Of course this is much easier said than done. But the key is remain/be engaged, vocal, and informed so when the tides begins to shift your getting to these problems early and not waking up X amount of years later wondering what happened.

 

[dzheremi]

The only reason to ever even consider leaving the church you are in is irresolvable disagreement with core doctrine it espouses. I can certainly understand seeing room for improvement in many different areas (as I would assume everyone can see this in their own churches), and this is something that you can affect, using appropriate channels and with the support of your bishops and priests. What you can never do, however, is individually decide within yourself which of the dogmas of your church you will regard as worthy of your fidelity and which are not. What was passed down to you was not for your approval in the modern, individualistic sense of the word, but for your edification and the awakening of your soul and renewing of your mind. So, please, by all means decide which category your various objections fall into, and then you can see how to proceed from there. Perhaps the answer could be as simple as undertaking a study of Marian views in your church (either together with others, or with your priest or spiritual father, etc.) so as to get a proper view of what is historically appropriate within your tradition. Perhaps there are deeper issues that require more reflection and prayer. At any rate, rash decisions are to be avoided.

 

[gabjus]

The only reason to ever even consider leaving the church you are in is irresolvable disagreement with core doctrine it espouses. I can certainly understand seeing room for improvement in many different areas (as I would assume everyone can see this in their own churches), and this is something that you can affect, using appropriate channels and with the support of your bishops and priests. What you can never do, however, is individually decide within yourself which of the dogmas of your church you will regard as worthy of your fidelity and which are not. What was passed down to you was not for your approval in the modern, individualistic sense of the word, but for your edification and the awakening of your soul and renewing of your mind. So, please, by all means decide which category your various objections fall into, and then you can see how to proceed from there. Perhaps the answer could be as simple as undertaking a study of Marian views in your church (either together with others, or with your priest or spiritual father, etc.) so as to get a proper view of what is historically appropriate within your tradition. Perhaps there are deeper issues that require more reflection and prayer. At any rate, rash decisions are to be avoided.

Thank you, you have given wise advice. I tend to agree with you and have no intention of leaving my denomination. I just wanted to know the different responses. I think that much more can be achieved if more openness and dialogue happens between Christians without having to resort to mutual-accusations (there is already plenty of that, and I don’t see the need to introduce new platforms for people to do that).

Wow. I see you have identified yourself as an Anglican. Do you live in the USA? Most Anglicans in America identify themselves as Episcopals. Since the Episcopal church is in its last death rattle, it’s highly unlikely it can be salvaged. They have embraced sin wholeheartedly by ordaining active homosexuals/lesbians as Bishops. What is left of the Episcopal church is years of lawsuits regarding real property instead of the ‘real presence’. I have a wonderful friend who lives in Pennsylvania and he never knows from Sunday to Sunday if his church will be open for worship.

It looks as if those who have broken away from the Episcopal church do identify as Anglicans and are aligning themselves with other breakaway believers. I personally lost any hope that Anglicanism as it is known throughout the world would survive with the departure of J.I. Packer.

Realistically, it’s very unlikely that the Episcopal church will survive. What do you do with the likes of John Shelby Spong who denies the virgin birth and even the resurrection of Jesus on the third day? In effect, that’s the same as denying the Deity of Christ. Or the fact that Spong has declared the the Apostle Paul was gay? Once sin is embraced as acceptable conduct, I don’t personally believe that the Risen Savior will bless it. But of course, Jesus may have other plans, yes?

I do admire loyalty. I will pray for you. Everyone needs a church home.

I’m from an Anglican Church in Singapore (South-East Asia), though I don’t think it would matter even if I was from the US. We all have dirt, and I have no wish to resort to highlighting the dirt of others. My own church is open every Sunday, involved in mission work, believes in the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and that Paul is/was not gay. That does not mean we do not have any doctrinal differences from the Roman Catholic Church, but even within the Anglican Churches (even more so if we consider individuals), we permit for such differences. One can either scoff at how God can possibly exist in such a variety of views or believe that God paradoxically can.

I believe we do claim Apostolic succession, although the Roman Catholic Church does not agree with us. The Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 wrote "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders. (I used wiki’s paraphrase and summarised version , here is another link philorthodox.blogspot.sg/2008/07/orthodox-church-of-cyprus-reaffirms.html ) " Although, admittedly, it is probably the minority view.
We see Apostolic succession not so much as through an unbroken chain of laying-on of hands (even though we still do that), but as an unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting the with the first apostles.

While many would mention King Henry VIII as ‘starting’ Anglicanism (I put the inverted commas because I believe like most other denominations, Anglicans are founded on Christ and sustained by the Holy Spirit), note that he hardly changed any doctrine or practices. While it is true that he did it so that he could marry another, I believe it is also true that the Pope rejected him not because of theological, but rather political reasons.

Our doctrines and practices was formed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (or perhaps slightly earlier), of which is what is it today (many call us the middleway) because she wanted to stop the killings of Protestants and Catholics against each other: she saw the importances of mutual love, the people’s lives, and unity more important than doctrinal misunderstandings and differences. It was pointless, In the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen to “win an argument and lose a soul.” or for her case, many many souls. I personally put it this way, “I don’t know who is wrong and who is right, but I know that killing one another is wrong, so let’s stop that 1st.”

The Anglicans were the fore-runners in doing this (setting aside doctrinal differences and stop killing one another), while the other countries were settling for the Peace of Augsburg, which did not last and led to the 30 years’ war, and I do think this unprecedented move of Queen Elizabeth I was an inspiration of God.

 

[Porknpie]

Would you be so kind as to prove this statement? Please give the source, its date and any other information you have so you can substantiate the truth of it.

Thanks.

God Bless

I apologize for not clarifying the quotation. It’s from St Paul’s letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:15. Beliefs of Solo and Sola scriptura have done a good job in creating the 33000 churches / denominations, 99.9% of them since 1509. See philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm. The reference book isn’t even of Catholic origin. Would God who is Truth leave us with 33000 interpretations of truth and growing in number? I’ve had some wonderful Baptist friends but when it comes to faith and morals, each one of them has different teachings from their Pastor. I trust the Catholic church and its infallible teachings on faith and morals, protected by Christ’s words of guiding the Church until the end of time.

God Bless too. Its a beautiful Saturday by me. Hopefully by you too.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Porknpie View Post
I agree. Leaving is what protestants do by definition. 33,000 have started their own churches because they don’t like what the preacher said or taught. They all have their own personal interpretation of the bible. The fullness in truth is in the Catholic church even if the Priest isn’t a great homilist. “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”. Singular

ForeverGrace,
I’m kinda with you here…I really do not like that 33,000 number for the very reason that, as you already know, the way in which the number is arrived at is flawed and as a consequence it can become a diversion from the core issue that people who use it are generally trying to address.

Regardless of whether the number of doctrinally separate “bible believing” communions is 33,000 or 3,300 or 330…There is simply no biblical support for the basic model upon which they are based.
Christ founded a single community and gave that community - as a community - authority to bind and loose. As the Church grew, there developed, quite naturally, the system of hierarchy where learned men within the Church would address the more complex doctrinal matters for the benefit of the universal church. The model of this is seen in Acts 15. In addition we see numerous references in the NT where Christ, and the Apostles in their letters admonish and exhort the faithful to be of one mind and to avoid dissension and to agree with each other etc…This councilior model - seeking agreement - is the model we see within the two ancient churches the EO and RC.
The Protestant reformation gave birth to a new model…one that rejects the bible based, “councilior authoritative Church model” in favor of something much more loose, non-authoritative and frankly - uncontrollable.
If the fruit of the Reformation had been a single “Reformed” Church group…based on the principles of the Reformers and their disciples - who - meeting in council worked out their differences so that they could say as the council in acts said - “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” If this had been the fruit of the reformation - then the movement would have a solid foundation and credibility.
Unfortunately - this has not been the fruit of the Reformation. No councils to work out differences. No successful attempts to formulate a single, common understanding of what Scripture is saying. An inability to remain true to the Gospel and to prevent the teaching of false gospels due to the inability of the protestant model to fully implement Christ’s instruction in Mt 18:15-18 which is so clearly shown in action in Acts 15.

I don’t say this as an attack, but simply as a fact based upon my observation of the fruits of the protestant model after 500 years. It was an interesting experiment, but unfortunately it was and is, fatally flawed.

Peace
James

 

[ForeverGrace]

James,

I think you know full well, how this 33,000 number was arrived at. The same source says that there are 242 Catholic denominations. Any honest look at the actual page shows that the authors arrived at two basic Christian denominations. Yours and mine.

The longer Catholics use this untruth, the longer we’ll refute it. And seriously, I know that you don’t want me to name names, here at Catholic Answers.

I choose to challenge people to research such statements for themselves before they repeat a blatant falsehood. I do not question of malign their motives, I can even understand it, but it’s best for us all if we admit, that we are all guilty of believing things that later embarass us.

I do not have any contempt for the Catholic Church. I’d sincerely like to see us more united. But, I doubt that will happen until Jesus comes.

The reason we stand on sola scriptura has been stated many times. I have nothing to add that would make it any more true. We choose it because we have witnessed throughout the first 1500 years of the church, that lot’s of faithful folk disagreed. Your Popes are every bit as humanly sinful as any of our leaders. You have officially not addressed most of the issues in the scriptures that protestants argue over. But… you do have a lot of teaching that isn’t in scripture at all and on that body of evidence (someone said so) we are supposed to believe it. You can point to aspostolic succession,but there again, is a huge disagreement over the intent of the words of Jesus. Let’s assume just for a minute you are wrong regarding those words. What foundation would be left for you? None! From my perspective, I do belong to the church established by Jesus. It is the church in the hearts and minds of those who love Jesus and seek to follow him.

Even within Catholicism, I know full well there are deep divisions. Sadly, you have as many nutcases running around as we do. **You have my deepest apology for inflicting Gerry Matatics upon you. ** Still, I look out upon the landscape of Catholicism here in the US and see that Catholicism is in serious trouble. I say this next sentence as kindly as possible. You folks should probably worry more about solving your own problems and leave us to our own difficulties until your own house is cleaned up. As a protestant I financially support Catholicvote.org. They appear to be a straight-up honest organization and it appears they stand solidly on church teachings. But how much can this fine group of people do, when Catholics invite Kathleen Sebilius to speak at Georgetown, or BHO at NotreDame, or spur on Obamacare that has now led to a serious Constitutional problem. Protestants haven’t caused this problem. This isn’t just a few Catholic dissidents. This is a whole lotta Catholics who defy the churches teaching on artificial birth control. You need many more Bill Thierfelder’s. What a class act he is. He is a credit to your faith and I admit that I wish he was on our side.

I respect Catholicsm. Even where we disagree, we can find enough love within us to be much more generous than we are. But as long as we keep saying things that aren’t true, it will likely never happen.

The Apostle Paul tells us one huge, great truth. “Nothing can separate us from the Love of God” Romans 8:28-39

 

[JRKH]

James,

I think you know full well, how this 33,000 number was arrived at. The same source says that there are 242 Catholic denominations. Any honest look at the actual page shows that the authors arrived at two basic Christian denominations. Yours and mine.

Well actually I do NOT “know full well” how the number was arrived at. When the controversy first came to my attention, I did read a quick article on it and saw that the methodology use was flawed in so far as it does not really determine how many differing “churches” (faith traditions, doctrinal variants or whatever) exist. Ever since then I have refused to use that number even though I continue to see it tossed around.

The longer Catholics use this untruth, the longer we’ll refute it. And seriously, I know that you don’t want me to name names, here at Catholic Answers.

And I think that you should do so - in truth and in charity. As for naming names - that doesn’t matter to me… but then - what good purpose would it serve…

I choose to challenge people to research such statements for themselves before they repeat a blatant falsehood. I do not question of malign their motives, I can even understand it, but it’s best for us all if we admit, that we are all guilty of believing things that later embarrass us.

I agree. Perhaps you could begin a thread for the purpose of discussing this number and the flawed methodology.
I had started a thread several years ago (now closed) that attempted to reframe the question, away from “denomination” and more toward “doctrinal variation” It is here if you’d like to take a look…Some good stuff there.

I do not have any contempt for the Catholic Church. I’d sincerely like to see us more united. But, I doubt that will happen until Jesus comes.

This is a good prayer…That we be one as Jesus and the Father are one.
It is good that you sincerely wish to see us closer together and I understand your doubt.
If I may - and I know this might sound provocative - but in a very real sense, the protestant model itself, in it’s origin and development, is a huge stumbling block to such unity - or even to being a real force for protecting the Gospel. Please don’t be offended by this. I say it as dispassionately as possible and I am not speaking of people but of underlying systems.
The protestant model is based on the fundamental rejection of authoritative Church and this is it’s fatal flaw. The early Reformers, besides rejecting the authority of Rome, rejected the views of each other. They failed to come together in a common cause to establish a unified reformed Church. This set the movement on the path that has led to the many divisions within protestantism (regardless of "number’) that exist today. It remains an unbiblical, flawed model. I know that you disagree with this, but Scripture bears me out on it.

The reason we stand on sola scriptura has been stated many times. I have nothing to add that would make it any more true. We choose it because we have witnessed throughout the first 1500 years of the church, that lot’s of faithful folk disagreed. Your Popes are every bit as humanly sinful as any of our leaders. You have officially not addressed most of the issues in the scriptures that protestants argue over. But… you do have a lot of teaching that isn’t in scripture at all and on that body of evidence (someone said so) we are supposed to believe it. You can point to apostolic succession,but there again, is a huge disagreement over the intent of the words of Jesus. Let’s assume just for a minute you are wrong regarding those words. What foundation would be left for you? None! From my perspective, I do belong to the church established by Jesus. It is the church in the hearts and minds of those who love Jesus and seek to follow him.

Yes - I can understand the frustration, and I boldly accept that we have many sinful leaders and yet - Mt 23:1-3 seems to convey the sense that personal sinfulness has no bearing on teaching authority.
You ask, if we are wrong about apostolic succession then what foundation would be left…Well - I’ll tell you. If I denied apostolic succession and went strictly by Scripture…It would lead me right back to apostolic succession - though perhaps not to full communion with the Pope. I can honestly say this because in large measure this is exactly what happened. (except I did come home to the Latin Rite Church that I was raised in).

Reading Scripture alone leads one to an Authoritative, Councilior, Universal model of church structure. In short, the model found in the Catholic and Orthodox Church groups. Nothing in Scripture That I have ever found points to the “reformed” model of locally independent, non-councilior, private interpretation model…
And I have repeatedly asked my SS brethren to show me fi and where such a model exists in NT Scripture. So far - Nada…

Even within Catholicism, I know full well there are deep divisions. Sadly, you have as many nutcases running around as we do. **You have my deepest apology for inflicting Gerry Matatics upon you. ** Still, I look out upon the landscape of Catholicism here in the US and see that Catholicism is in serious trouble. I say this next sentence as kindly as possible. You folks should probably worry more about solving your own problems and leave us to our own difficulties until your own house is cleaned up. As a protestant I financially support Catholicvote.org. They appear to be a straight-up honest organization and it appears they stand solidly on church teachings. But how much can this fine group of people do, when Catholics invite Kathleen Sebilius to speak at Georgetown, or BHO at NotreDame, or spur on Obamacare that has now led to a serious Constitutional problem. Protestants haven’t caused this problem. This isn’t just a few Catholic dissidents. This is a whole lotta Catholics who defy the churches teaching on artificial birth control. You need many more Bill Thierfelder’s. What a class act he is. He is a credit to your faith and I admit that I wish he was on our side.

Yep - we are a pesky bunch aren’t we…
Of course the thing is that we need to separate the sinful individuals from the actual teachings of the Church. Even though I can agree that there are many dissident Catholics in the U.S.and that this does not bode well for issues that the Church chooses to promote, I cannot agree that the Catholic church in the U.S. is “in trouble”. The Catholic Church continues to teach Truth no matter how many sinful “Catholics” are around or how much noise they make.
That said, I do agree that it would be good if the Church could be a bit more firm and forward in, as you say “solving our own problems”. But as you well know, God teaches us by trials…and every generation is going to have theirs.

I respect Catholicsm. Even where we disagree, we can find enough love within us to be much more generous than we are. But as long as we keep saying things that aren’t true, it will likely never happen.

The Apostle Paul tells us one huge, great truth. “Nothing can separate us from the Love of God” Romans 8:28-39

Agree - and I applaud your efforts to expose that faulty number for what it is so that we can focus on the real problems…
Let us all continue to pray for Unity.

 

[ella03]

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

I think it depends on what changes you want/need. If they are relatively unimportant external changes than by all means stay.

But if they are deep doctrinal changes, then I feel that you need to find a church that teaches what you truly believe, for a couple of reasons.

First is that I think it is much better to use your time to worship and pray rather then beating your head against a wall trying to bend a large group of people to your will.

Second, if the rest of the congregation still believes in the church’s teaching I think it is rather uncharitable for any individual to destroy it for them so they can have the church of their dreams.

Lastly, it almost never works. It just causes a lot of tension and internal problems for everybody.

 

[josephback]

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

To me it’s not a matter of perfection but truth. The Catholic Church isn’t perfect, but she teaches the truth on how to get to heaven and also has Peter the Rock. That’s all that matters. For the sake of truth and salvation, everyone should join the Catholic Church

 

[JonNC]

To me it’s not a matter of perfection but truth. The Catholic Church isn’t perfect, but she teaches the truth on how to get to heaven and also has Peter the Rock. That’s all that matters. For the sake of truth and salvation, everyone should join the Catholic Church

Congratulations on your recent confirmation, and may you be blessed in word and sacrament. Based on your statement here, it seems you have been well catechized.

There is no doubt in my mind that the CC teaches mostly truth, and the Holy Spirit works through her to bring people to saving faith and salvation. I will say, however, that we do not cede St. Peter to any one communion, including those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

I have always had great respect for Billy but have never been in more disagreement with him then in those words.

The Catholic Church is perfect, because it is made perfect by Christ.

Christ said he and the Church are one.

Why would Christ promise us the gift of the Advocate the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all things, but then be (name removed by moderator)erfect? Makes no sense.

Jn 15:13 The Spirit the Counsellor who would guide them into all truth.

 

[rinnie]

To me it’s not a matter of perfection but truth. The Catholic Church isn’t perfect, but she teaches the truth on how to get to heaven and also has Peter the Rock. That’s all that matters. For the sake of truth and salvation, everyone should join the Catholic Church

I disagree. The CC is perfect and perfect in all truth.

Although our teachers are not perfect in all ways, and never were, Their Teacher the Holy Spirit is.

Although we have been blessed with Many good Popes, and unfortunately even at times a few bad ones, God has always kept his promise.

The gates of hades would not prevail.

The word of God is living and active Heb. 4:12 and is able to build you and give you the inheritance among all thouse who are sanctified. Acts 20:32 1 Th 2:13

The RCC is taught by the Holy Spirit the spouse of the incarnate Word is the Church.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The main question is not whether a church is perfect, good, or good enough. The question that is crucial is whether the church is true. Protestantism can never be improved since it is a lie. So my answer is that protestants should leave their communities asap and join the church that Christ established. Then we can work on perfection all together.

 

[gabjus]

The main question is not whether a church is perfect, good, or good enough. The question that is crucial is whether the church is true. Protestantism can never be improved since it is a lie. So my answer is that protestants should leave their communities asap and join the church that Christ established. Then we can work on perfection all together.

How is Protestantism a lie? From my very limited personal experience, I would say that Protestantism has improved (as well as the Catholic’s Church official view of it, especially from Vatican II).

Does it mean from the Catholic’s opinion the presence of God is not within the Protestant ‘fake’ churches?

Just wondering, no offence meant or taken.

 

[gabjus]

I disagree. The CC is perfect and perfect in all truth.

Although our teachers are not perfect in all ways, and never were, Their Teacher the Holy Spirit is.

Although we have been blessed with Many good Popes, and unfortunately even at times a few bad ones, God has always kept his promise.

The gates of hades would not prevail.

The word of God is living and active Heb. 4:12 and is able to build you and give you the inheritance among all thouse who are sanctified. Acts 20:32 1 Th 2:13

The RCC is taught by the Holy Spirit the spouse of the incarnate Word is the Church.

How is such perfection defined?
In my understanding a church is perfect in terms of fulfilling the will of God, and not so much in its practices or being an all-encompassing sole channel of God. I can well be wrong though.

 

[JRKH]

How is such perfection defined?
In my understanding a church is perfect in terms of fulfilling the will of God, and not so much in its practices or being an all-encompassing sole channel of God. I can well be wrong though.

Many Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura will declare with full conviction that the Bible is the infallible teachings of God and contains everything needed for a person to come to Christ and to salvation.
It is generally understood though that a person can misunderstand the Scripture, can misinterpret, ignore inconvenient parts, and can even teach wrong from the pulpit, but that does not change or undermine the infallibility of Scripture.

The Church is thought of in this same way. She is infallible in what she teaches - and by that I refer to the official and documented dogmatic and doctrinal teachings. This does not prevent people in the church from making the same mistakes as our SS brothers and sisters.

I hope that makes sense…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

How is Protestantism a lie? From my very limited personal experience, I would say that Protestantism has improved (as well as the Catholic’s Church official view of it, especially from Vatican II).

Does it mean from the Catholic’s opinion the presence of God is not within the Protestant ‘fake’ churches?

Just wondering, no offense meant or taken.

If I may jump in…it seems a bit harsh, and imprecise to simply call protestantism “a lie” for there are many sincere protestant Christians within the protestant faith communities.
It wasn’t a lie of Luther or Calvin or another reformer but rather it was a lie from satan that misled

That said…I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Protestantism is founded on a false and deeply flawed premise. It is founded upon the rejection of the authority of the ekklesia - the group - “The Church”. That which Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose. That to which we are to “Tell it to” and Listen to" (Mt 18:15-18).
I do not believe that rejecting this authority was Luther’s intent…He originally sought to “reform” the Church…But all too soon things got out of hand. If Rome did not need to be listened to, why does Luther need to be listened to, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Henry VIII or Tinsdale, or…From here the dominoes began to tumble - split upon split upon split. Instead of having a “Romish” church and a “Reformed” church you had Catholics, Lutherans, Cavinists, Anabaptists, Anglicans and…then these began splitting - the Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and I don’t know how many other groups formed over the decades and centuries…All taking their cue from the single most damaging protestant foundational principle…the defiance of Scriptural Church Authority.

We mostly talk (argue) about doctrinal error - things like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, Spirit guided private interpretation etc…But these are mere theological trifles compared to the underlying root difficulty of protestantism - which is the rejection of “Church Authority” as clearly given and demonstrated in Scripture.

It is this reason that protestantism cannot really “improve”. It cannot come together. It is continually suspicious of too much authority. Could you imagine even the major branches of Protestantism coming together in conference for the purpose of resolving their theological differences and forming a single “reformed” communion? Each would have to be willing to come together, humbly and prayerfully and willing to submit their doctrinal position to open debate and consideration…
Forget about the idea of trying to bring everyone together with the Catholic Church…It cannot be done even among the mainline protestant churches themselves…

Not sure if I have explained this as well as I would like…but it boils down to this. At it’s core, Protestantism rejects authority - the authority granted to the “Church” - “ekklesia” - “community” for the protection and the spreading of the Gospel.
This rejection of authority defeated the ability of the protestants to either reform the Church or ultimately to protect the Gospel itself.

Peace
James

 

[gabjus]

If I may jump in…it seems a bit harsh, and imprecise to simply call protestantism “a lie” for there are many sincere protestant Christians within the protestant faith communities.
It wasn’t a lie of Luther or Calvin or another reformer but rather it was a lie from satan that misled

That said…I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Protestantism is founded on a false and deeply flawed premise. It is founded upon the rejection of the authority of the ekklesia - the group - “The Church”. That which Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose. That to which we are to “Tell it to” and Listen to" (Mt 18:15-18).
I do not believe that rejecting this authority was Luther’s intent…He originally sought to “reform” the Church…But all too soon things got out of hand. If Rome did not need to be listened to, why does Luther need to be listened to, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Henry VIII or Tinsdale, or…From here the dominoes began to tumble - split upon split upon split. Instead of having a “Romish” church and a “Reformed” church you had Catholics, Lutherans, Cavinists, Anabaptists, Anglicans and…then these began splitting - the Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and I don’t know how many other groups formed over the decades and centuries…All taking their cue from the single most damaging protestant foundational principle…the defiance of Scriptural Church Authority.

We mostly talk (argue) about doctrinal error - things like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, Spirit guided private interpretation etc…But these are mere theological trifles compared to the underlying root difficulty of protestantism - which is the rejection of “Church Authority” as clearly given and demonstrated in Scripture.

It is this reason that protestantism cannot really “improve”. It cannot come together. It is continually suspicious of too much authority. Could you imagine even the major branches of Protestantism coming together in conference for the purpose of resolving their theological differences and forming a single “reformed” communion? Each would have to be willing to come together, humbly and prayerfully and willing to submit their doctrinal position to open debate and consideration…
Forget about the idea of trying to bring everyone together with the Catholic Church…It cannot be done even among the mainline protestant churches themselves…

Not sure if I have explained this as well as I would like…but it boils down to this. At it’s core, Protestantism rejects authority - the authority granted to the “Church” - “ekklesia” - “community” for the protection and the spreading of the Gospel.
This rejection of authority defeated the ability of the protestants to either reform the Church or ultimately to protect the Gospel itself.

Peace
James

i think there is a move towards a mutual understanding within the various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

i joined this forum because i believe (perhaps due to many years on building up doctrine n practices in different directions) that now is the time to try to hear one another out 1st before firing accusations (which r many a times misunderstanding).

I have on several accounts tried to defend Roman Catholic doctrine as non-heretical and not anti-Scripture (esp on issues on the Pope and Mary) to Protestant friends, not because i think that Catholics cannot defend themselves, but simply because they r more open to a fellow Protestant.

careful examination has revealed much misunderstanding during the time of the reformers.

Vatican II n Catholic theologians like Yves Congar have opened up much room for Protestant-Catholic dialog.

i really hope that Catholics would see that Protestants have more to offer to the body of Christ (whether you think we r in it or nt) than mere heresies.

 

[rinnie]

How is such perfection defined?
In my understanding a church is perfect in terms of fulfilling the will of God, and not so much in its practices or being an all-encompassing sole channel of God. I can well be wrong though.

It depends how you define the Church. To me I see the Church as Christ describes it in his word. The bride and the bridegroom. Christ uses marriage to describe how a man and wife become one as Christ and his Church become one.

That is my understanding of the Church. I see the RCC as the perfect union here on earth. A small piece of heaven on earth.

A place that no matter how mean or hateful a person or the world can choose to be, that when I walk into the RCC its my own piece of heaven left here for me on earth.

It is a place I was baptised, had my first supper with Christ in the Eucharist, confessed my sins, etc.

It was where I was married and shared great joy, Had my children baptised. When I look back I never saw it then, but I do now as my most precious and greatest moments of my life.

It is also where I shared my most saddest moments. I buried my brother, the same Church we got all of our sacraments together, went to the school acrossed the street from. It is where not long ago also buried my Dad. Can remember him singing his heart out. (he used to sing SO LOUD).

It is where I go when I am sad, or in trouble, but where I also go when I am happy and can praise the Lord. Its home.

And what is great about it is this, It is not just a building. I can go to any state, any country and still have the same teaching, Eucharist. Home feeling.

IT is where Christ lives. Its his house. And its perfect.

I do not look at the sins of the Priests, Women or Men or Children of the Church. I look at what it is. It is the house of the Lord. The truth revealed more and more as Christ sees fit for me to learn.

Its perfection. Heaven on Earth.