Generalizations of Protestants

[KP3243]

I agree. In my opinion, the Catholics have made it too complex.

No. I’m speaking about history and theology. In terms of history and theology, Evangelicalism properly understood is mainstream Protestant theology cast in a revivalistic mold and adapted to an American cultural context. Jesus doesn’t have to come back to earth and reestablish a new church just to vindicate my opinion of American religious history. That would be silly.

What is complex about Catholicism? It is the only religion that takes the form of a kingdom, did the Kingdom of God come or not?

 

[KP3243]

King - Jesus
Queen - the Catholic Church the Bride of Christ
Prime Minister - Pope
Princes - Cardinals (think David taking his weak Nephew into his family not a son of the King)
Lords and Ladies - priests and nuns
Knights - all confirmed Catholics (if you are Catholic and don’t realize you have pledged an oath to the King and the Kingdom read Thomas K Sullivan)
Queen Mother - Mary (read Isaiah)

Enemy - Satan and the world

Jesus cannot have made this any easier for humans to relate to.

 

[ltwin]

What is complex about Catholicism?

I think this is getting off of the thread topic, but, briefly, I think Catholicism has built an expansive, decorative, and entirely unnecessary edifice around around the gospel message. This includes faith&works, its beliefs about the mass and transubstantiation, purgatory, its papal doctrines, etc.

It is the only religion that takes the form of a kingdom, did the Kingdom of God come or not?

The kingdom is both present and future. It most certainly is not identified with any human institution, whether that institution be the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[KP3243]

I think this is getting off of the thread topic, but, briefly, I think Catholicism has built an expansive, decorative, and entirely unnecessary edifice around around the gospel message. This includes faith&works, its beliefs about the mass and transubstantiation, purgatory, its papal doctrines, etc.

The kingdom is both present and future. It most certainly is not identified with any human institution, whether that institution be the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church.

Faith without works are dead according to James. Catholics don’t believe in works only -we believe one is a natural result of the other and Martin Luther changed the Bible and added ALONE after faith. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, it can’t be symbolic because whenever God says I am he is clearly stating something big. John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Jesus didn’t symbolically die on the cross.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
You can’t profane a symbol
The Church explained what was happening with the bread and wine when heresies came up with Transubstantiation.

You better read John 6 and ask God to help you understand it because it is that serious!

Church is divine not man made or else we would have died out a long time ago.

 

[robwar]

Faith without works are dead according to James. Catholics don’t believe in works only -we believe one is a natural result of the other and Martin Luther changed the Bible and added ALONE after faith. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, it can’t be symbolic because whenever God says I am he is clearly stating something big. John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Jesus didn’t symbolically die on the cross.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
You can’t profane a symbol
The Church explained what was happening with the bread and wine when heresies came up with Transubstantiation.

You better read John 6 and ask God to help you understand it because it is that serious!

Church is divine not man made or else we would have died out a long time ago.

Hi,
the purpose of this thread is not to attack Protestants but to dialogue with them and the best way to dialogue with them is to understand the differeneces between them. I’m not interested in attacking them at all. I think too many times and too often on CAF, cradle Catholics do make blanket statements about Protestants like what you are implying.
I’ve seen title of threads similar to “why don’t Protestants accept Mary” or on the traditional subforum people complaining about “Protestant” imports contaminating the Mass. I’m not interested is causing arguments with them like you are doing now. Jon is a Lutheran and has a liturgical background similar to the Catholic Church. Itwin represent pentacostals which is very much a non-sacrimental worship service. To have effective outreach to the different Protestants and where they are coming from, you can’t lump them altogether and then accuse them of not accepting the truth. You can look at the large number of different Protestants and say to yourself that this is proof they are wrong but to have effective outreach, you have to as Catholics stop lumping them together and relate to them from where they are at theologically, liturgically etc and so.

 

[KP3243]

Hi,
the purpose of this thread is not to attack Protestants but to dialogue with them and the best way to dialogue with them is to understand the differeneces between them. I’m not interested in attacking them at all. I think too many times and too often on CAF, cradle Catholics do make blanket statements about Protestants like what you are implying.
I’ve seen title of threads similar to “why don’t Protestants accept Mary” or on the traditional subforum people complaining about “Protestant” imports contaminating the Mass. I’m not interested is causing arguments with them like you are doing now. Jon is a Lutheran and has a liturgical background similar to the Catholic Church. Itwin represent pentacostals which is very much a non-sacrimental worship service. To have effective outreach to the different Protestants and where they are coming from, you can’t lump them altogether and then accuse them of not accepting the truth. You can look at the large number of different Protestants and say to yourself that this is proof they are wrong but to have effective outreach, you have to as Catholics stop lumping them together and relate to them from where they are at theologically, liturgically etc and so.

I am not attacking them at all is it or is it not serious that people think the Eucharist is just a symbol? If you read the Bible passages I posted and still conclude its a symbol it’s something only God can show you at this point. If you are offended by this I don’t know what to say or are you asking me to leave your thread I can’t tell? I also can’t believe you are suggesting any Christian is too thin skinned to handle criticism.

 

[robwar]

I am not attacking them at all is it or is it not serious that people think the Eucharist is just a symbol? If you read the Bible passages I posted and still conclude its a symbol it’s something only God can show you at this point. If you are offended by this I don’t know what to say or are you asking me to leave your thread I can’t tell? I also can’t believe you are suggesting any Christian is too thin skinned to handle criticism.

KP,
not all Protestants believe it is a symbol and a number of them starting with Lutherans have some sort of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist. I’m not asking you to leave the thread but the topic isn’t about the reals presence in the Eucharist. If you want to discuss that, then that should be it’s own thread. I’m a Catholic and an adult convert with a varied Protestant background. I’m concerned about your tone on this thread.

 

[KP3243]

KP,
not all Protestants believe it is a symbol and a number of them starting with Lutherans have some sort of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist. I’m not asking you to leave the thread but the topic isn’t about the reals presence in the Eucharist. If you want to discuss that, then that should be it’s own thread. I’m a Catholic and an adult convert with a varied Protestant background. I’m concerned about your tone on this thread.

I get that you made that clear last week when I think you or someone else stated our discussion about Mary was nauseating you but what is the bigger issue, a few people feeling slighted on the CA forums or trying to correct serious doctrinal issues?
Also, I was responding to a Pentecostal not a Lutheran. Unfortunately, there are no valid Eucharists in Protestant churches except for those performed by priests who were ordained as priests by a bishop in the apostolic succession or ordained by bishops who were ordained as bishops by another bishop in the apostolic succession. There are some of these in Protestant circles, and so some Protestant Eucharists are valid, but, regrettably, there is no Protestant denomination of which this is true as a whole.

This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can and often do receive Jesus spiritually in communion, they just do not receive him in the fully, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience.

Thus upon entering the life of Catholic fullness one does not need to look back upon one’s former communions as empty shams, but as genuine spiritual encounters with the Risen Christ, encounters which gave one the grace to approach Christ even more closely and finally come to the fullness of his Eucharistic embrace, allowing him to fill one with the mighty Reality of his corporal, sanguine, pneumatic, and divine Presence, cleansing and transforming one from within as one humbly submits to and receives one’s Creator in the Blessed, the Glorious, the Most Holy Communion.

 

[robwar]

I get that you made that clear last week when I think you or someone else stated our discussion about Mary was nauseating you but what is the bigger issue, a few people feeling slighted on the CA forums or trying to correct serious doctrinal issues?
Also, I was responding to a Pentecostal not a Lutheran. Unfortunately, there are no valid Eucharists in Protestant churches except for those performed by priests who were ordained as priests by a bishop in the apostolic succession or ordained by bishops who were ordained as bishops by another bishop in the apostolic succession. There are some of these in Protestant circles, and so some Protestant Eucharists are valid, but, regrettably, there is no Protestant denomination of which this is true as a whole.

This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can and often do receive Jesus spiritually in communion, they just do not receive him in the fully, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience.

Thus upon entering the life of Catholic fullness one does not need to look back upon one’s former communions as empty shams, but as genuine spiritual encounters with the Risen Christ, encounters which gave one the grace to approach Christ even more closely and finally come to the fullness of his Eucharistic embrace, allowing him to fill one with the mighty Reality of his corporal, sanguine, pneumatic, and divine Presence, cleansing and transforming one from within as one humbly submits to and receives one’s Creator in the Blessed, the Glorious, the Most Holy Communion.

Sigh, Kp, I never said the early discussion on the thread concerning Mary was nausiating at all. It was off topic. This thread is not about attacking Protestants for beliefs on Mary or the Eucharist etc but about the tendency by professional Catholic apologist to answer usually to the evangelical side or by Catholics lumping and generalizing Protestants together. Please stop making it up. Again, you are demonstrating what I am trying to talk about. You lumped the Protestant view of Christ’s presence as merely symbolic. That isn’t true. I already know as well as most adult converts that a Protestant communion is not the same as the Catholic or equal to it. But for the sake of dialogue here, different Protestant groups do have different views ranging from purely symbolic to something that is closer to the Catholic understanding.

 

[KP3243]

Sigh, Kp, I never said the early discussion on the thread concerning Mary was nausiating at all. It was off topic. This thread is not about attacking Protestants for beliefs on Mary or the Eucharist etc but about the tendency by porfessional Catholic apologist to anwer usually to the evangelical side or by Catholics lumping and generalizing Protestants together. Please stop making it up. Again, you are demonstrating what I am trying to talk about. You lumped the Protestant view of Christ’s presence as merely symbolic. That isn’t true. I already know as well as most adult converts that a Protestant communion is not the same as the Catholic or equal to it. But for the sake of dialogue here, different Protestant groups do have different views ranging from purely symbolic to something that is closer to the Catholic understanding.

What am I making up? You are accusing me of lying right now so you have to show me where I purposely made something up.

 

[robwar]

What am I making up? You are accusing me of lying right now so you have to show me where I purposely made something up.

reread your post #246, you accused me of things i didn’t say at all. you have been reported.

 

[KP3243]

reread your post #246, you accused me of things i didn’t say at all. you have been reported.

It said you or someone else

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stop the drama and return to the topic of the OP

 

[robwar]

Stop the drama and return to the topic of the OP

thank-you Eric. I would like to reinterate, this thread isn’t about arguing or disagreeing with Protestants but do Catholic apologists in their work or lay Catholics in general too often lump all Protestants together in beliefs and practice and worship. If you have a bone to pick, please start your own thread on that issue and argue there. This is thread is meant to be dialogue and self-reflection in order to reach out better to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Faithdancer]

Robwar, I am convinced that your intentions in starting this thread are positive and as a former Roman Catholic I, like some of the RC posters here, once believed that Protestants needed “fixing.” However, I now hold to Matthew 18:20 when it comes to doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants and between various Protestant groups. If Matthew 18:20 is true- and I believe it is- than all these differences are relatively minor. Unfortunately legalism- which Christ repeatedly condemned- continues to divide Christians today as much as ever.

 

[KP3243]

I don’t have a bone to pick with anyone but your issue is Catholics especially apologists on this blog lumping all Protestants together so I ask a lot of questions to Protestants so I can understand, I also have an obligation as all confirmed Catholics do to defend the faith when I can clearly see it isn’t being understood correctly.

 

[KP3243]

Robwar, I am convinced that your intentions in starting this thread are positive and as a former Roman Catholic I, like some of the RC posters here, once believed that Protestants needed “fixing.” However, I now hold to Matthew 18:20 when it comes to doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants and between various Protestant groups. If Matthew 18:20 is true- and I believe it is- than all these differences are relatively minor. Unfortunately legalism- which Christ repeatedly condemned- continues to divide Christians today as much as ever.

I am not trying to fix anyone that can only come from an individual’s will and the grace of God, I do however have an obligation out of charity if I see an error in your belief about my faith to correct you or anyone else. You say Matthew 18:20 I say 1 Tim 15-16 I don’t think this is relatively minor difference.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;11882069]
Just a couple of comments.

From a Lutheran perspective, there is probably as much Lutheran writings “protesting” the Reformed and other non-Lutheran protestants as there is protests against Catholics. ** That said, I think it is self-defeating to base one’s beliefs on what they oppose, instead of what they believe. **

Hello Jon, I agree with your last statement. Many a Evangelical’s gained much popularity that grew into mega community church’s based on what you stated. Somehow it proved to be a success, that many self proclaimed Evangelicals followed the program, that did not grow the unity of an Evangelical Church body, but divided them into independent communities.

I wonder how many generations of families have experienced the conversion of so many including ignorant Catholics, were told by non-Catholics what Catholics believe and were hooked line and sinker, without any defense of the Catholic faith. Catholic apologists have a lot of ground to make up in this atmosphere.

From the pulpit, I have rarely heard anything anti-anyone else. Yes, anecdotal for sure, but I’ve been around for a while. From a personal experience, I can’t recall my dad, a Lutheran pastor, ever say anything anti-Catholic, but I sure can remember hearing him rail against the “sacramentarians”!

We are all guilty when it comes to personal experiences in this particular subject. What I detest is when any one religion or religious voices his/her(now a days) opinion by bashing another faith from the pulpit when Jesus is the whole subject matter.

I have no problem with a debate exchange in such forums as here, or how one perceives another faith here, so long as the other side is listening and given the opportunity to respond.

It should be unacceptable to have to hear ones personal attacks against another faith while speaking from a Church platform, when Jesus is the subject matter.

Maybe, it is due to such non-Catholic Christians who are without a Liturgy, were or are able to include time for such bashing from the pulpit?

Ok, but what does change is the hearer. For example, I regularly receive Tee Coming Home Network newsletter. If the article is a testimony of a Baptist, Calvinist/Reformed, or American evangelical, the testimony means little, because the beliefs they present are completely foreign to me. If it is a Lutheran, OTOH, or even a rather high church Anglican, I’m tuned in because they present a belief structure I adhere to, and how Catholic teaching spoke to that.

One would be very surprised to find that many do not attend the Catholic church because so and so said this, or Pastor so and so said this about the Catholic faith. So “yes” in retrospect, I agree with you that “what does change is the hearer”.

As a general rule, a speaking or writing needs to focus his/her message to the expected audience. Gabriel, if you write an apology in favor of infant baptism, you’ll get an amen from the Lutheran corner. If you criticize adult only baptism as **the **protestant teaching, the Lutheran responds with, , “not in these here parts”.

Agreed, but I sense a little innocent stereotyping of me criticizing, from you, because a True Catholic would never discount or reject adult baptism. Those holding to adult baptism “only” oppose the Catholic Church’s practice for infant baptism. The Catholic Church has never rejected “adult baptism”, this example points to the direction of my whole discourse here.

When Catholic apologists are disproving false teachings about Catholicism and false presumptions about Catholicism to any and all who are willing to hear Truth.

What is sad, in my own experience, I have been told by Christians that they would never set foot in a Catholic Church, when they never been in a Catholic Church to have such reservations or draw such a personal conclusion.

I think the use of the term “protest” is overstated. Most protestant laity in the pews couldn’t care less what you guys teach. You’re just another church down the street that mom and dad weren’t members of, so neither are they.

That may be so, in some scenarios, yet those in the pews who really love seeking God and His Truth, generally have their thirst quenched forever in the Catholic Church.

Good to hear from you

Praise be Jesus Christ

 

[marywarfield]

thank-you Eric. I would like to reinterate, this thread isn’t about arguing or disagreeing with Protestants but do Catholic apologists in their work or lay Catholics in general too often lump all Protestants together in beliefs and practice and worship. If you have a bone to pick, please start your own thread on that issue and argue there. This is thread is meant to be dialogue and self-reflection in order to reach out better to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

Oh for heavens sakes. Catholic Apologists have the
job, as all Catholics do, of explaining the faith. Period.
Which is what they do. Which is what KP is attempting
to do.
If the explanation isn’t needed by Protestant A then
Protestant A doesn’t have to listen to it but viewing
it as a “generalization” of Protestants or some sort
of blanket discrimination is absurd and gamey.

You know, the apologist announces the truths of
the Church, period. That is their job. It is not their
job to decide who understands it or welcomes it. That
is God’s job.

But even if the apologist responds to each seperate
Protestant individually, as is happening with KP
on this thread or me earlier, you object and run off and complain
to the moderator.

So it would seem your preference Robwar is that
Catholic apologetics not be discussed period, either
generally or individually. So I have to question
the motive in beginning this thread?

 

[Faithdancer]

I am not trying to fix anyone that can only come from an individual’s will and the grace of God, I do however have an obligation out of charity if I see an error in your belief about my faith to correct you or anyone else. You say Matthew 18:20 I say 1 Tim 15-16 I don’t think this is relatively minor difference.

Well, one rather major difference is that Matthew is Gospel, and 1 Timothy is not. By this I mean, of course, that the words of Matthew 18:20 are Christ’s very words recorded by an eyewitness, and in this case they are in the form of a declarative statement with no need for laborious exegesis.

By the way, 1 Timothy has six chapters.