How divided are Protestants?

[kalt]

I think you give too much weight to the issue here. I would suggest that the vast, vast majority of protestants really couldn’t care less about the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or even other protestant churches. They are what they were raised in, and believe what they were taught, and the others are irrelevent. Why would they fear the Catholic Church two blocks down on the opposite side of the street that the next door neighbor goes to? They don’t, because they’ve never considered it an issue.

Jon

I think you’re 1/2 right. They’re what they are because that is how they were raised, but if given the opportunity, they do express fear and hatred of the Catholic Church–only they don’t think it’s fear. They actually worry that the Catholic Church has so much power that it will take over the U.S.

They won’t vote for a Catholic candidate for this reason.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Josie,
The Orthodox, and I think history, would deny this. Papal authority as we know it, or even as Luther knew it, **would have been unrecognizable **to the writers of the Creed. If it had been, the schism might have happened much sooner.
I would say they were writing for all of Christendom.
Jon

Wishful thinking from a protestant perspective.

The papacy was firmly established and defined long before the creed was written.

Cyprian of Carthage:

Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).*

 

[JonNC]

=kalt;5046939]…they do express fear and hatred of the Catholic Church–only they don’t think it’s fear.

What do they think it is?

They actually worry that the Catholic Church has so much power that it will take over the U.S.

I don’t doubt that there are a few, but I think JFK took care of that years ago. Understanding this is anecdotal, but I just haven’t experienced that.
But I’d consider it, compared to what’s going on since January 20.

They won’t vote for a Catholic candidate for this reason.

I’d vote for Bobby Jindol right now, if given the chance. Once again, I think this is no longer the case for most

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If there are Protestants who fear the Catholic Church, it is not the Catholic Church that they fear, but some other entity that either a misinformed preacher told them about or what they read on some equally misinformed web-site (Jesus-is-Lord). Either way it is not Catholic Church that I know and history has known that they fear. With a little bit of free time, a large imagination and specious reasoning you can make anything at any time seem evil and worth fearing.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Wishful thinking from a protestant perspective.

The papacy was firmly established and defined long before the creed was written.
QUOTE]

Not from a protestant perspective. Hesychios posted this not long ago.
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Wishful thinking from a protestant perspective.

Based on other writings from Gregory, I think we can assume he is referring to Bishops other than the pope:

EPISTLE XLI.
TO CASTORIUS,
BISHOP.
Gregory to Castorius, Bishop of Ariminum (Rimini).
We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.

Epistle XLIII.
To Eulogius and Anastasius,
Bishops.
Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch.
Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew,** he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod**; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

EPISTLE VII.
TO ANASTASIUS,
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.
Further, I apprize you that I have requested our most serene lords with all possible urgency** to allow you to come to the threshold of Peter, the prince of the apostles, with your dignity restored to you,** and to live here with me so long as it may please God; to the end that, as long as I am accounted worthy of seeing you, we may relieve the weariness of our pilgrimage by speaking to each other of the heavenly country.

EPISTLE XXXVI.
TO PETER THE SUBDEACON.
Further, since it has been customary for bishops to assemble here for the anniversary of the pontiff, forbid their coming for the day of my ordination, since foolish and vain superfluity delights me not. But if they must needs assemble, let them come for the anniversary of Peter, the prince of the apostles, to render thanks to him by whose bounty they are pastors.

EPISTLE VI.
To JOHN,
BISHOP.
Gregory to John, bishop of Prima Justiniana.
If, then, these things which have been brought before us have the rampart of truth, inasmuch as we consider that, taking advantage of your vicariate jurisdiction under us, you are presuming unjustly, we will, with the help of Christ, decree further concerning these things, according to the result of our deliberations. But as regards the present, by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we decree that, the decrees of thy judgment being first annulled and made of none effect, thou be deprived of holy communion for the space of thirty days, so as to implore pardon of our God for so great transgression with the utmost penitence and tears.

EPISTLE XXXIII.
TO DYNAMIUS,
PATRICIAN.
Gregory to Dynamius, Patrician of Gaul.
He who administers faithfully what is other’s shows how well he dispenses what is his own. And this your Glory makes manifest to us in that, intent on your annual offering, you have rendered the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, the fruits of his revenues. In paying him what is his faithfully, you have made these gifts to him your own.

EPISTLE LVII.
From John,
Bishop of Ravenna
to Pope Gregory.
And how should I be so daring as to presume to oppose that most holy see, which transmits its laws to the universal Church, for maintaining whose authority, as God knows, I have seriously excited the ill-will of many enemies against myself?

EPISTLE LXVIII.
TO EUSEBIUS OF THESSALONICA.
Gregory to Eusebius of Thessalonica, Urbicus of Dyrrachium, Andrew of Nicopolis, John of Corinth, John of Prima Justiniana, John of Crete, John of Larissa and Scodra, and many other bishops.
Wherefore we once more admonish you before God and His Saints, that you observe all these things with the utmost attention, and with the entire bent of your minds. For if any one, as we do not believe will be the case, should disregard in any part this present writing, let him know that he is segregated from the peace of the blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. Let, then, your Fraternity so act that when the Shepherd of shepherds comes in judgment, you may not be found guilty with respect to the place of government which you have received.

EPISTLE L
To Eulogius,
Patriarch of Alexandria.
Gregory to Eulogius, etc.
The bearers of these presents, coming to Sicily, were converted from the error of the Monophysites, and united themselves to the holy universal Church. Having proceeded to the church of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, they requested of me that I should commend them by letter to your Blessedness, to the end that they may not now be allowed to suffer any wrong from the heretics that are near them.

More here:

globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm

 

[ojohn]

Josie & Rom. Cath:

The reason I say it’s better for Christianity to have multiple denominations is because under one banner there would be no checks & balances system & no competition for hearts and minds. Moreover, protestantism (and its multiple denominations) is a testament to the greatness of western civilization. They rebelled against what was once an oppressive church, and to spite remaining mired in its ancient folklore and mythology our civilization has moved forward at lightening speed at least partly as a result of that rebellion.

Obviously any good Catholic would argue against the idea that the protestant reformation formed part of the impetus for the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. etc. However, almost every great period in human history was preceded by a revolution of some sort.

words of true ptotestant

 

[JonNC]

words of true ptotestant

To the question of his religious faith, he answers “nothing”. So, he’s not a protestant.
Incidently, some of us seek unity. Blanket comments usually don’t work here, but welsome to CAF.

Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you give too much weight to the issue here. I would suggest that the vast, vast majority of protestants really couldn’t care less about the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or even other protestant churches. They are what they were raised in, and believe what they were taught, and the others are irrelevent. Why would they fear the Catholic Church two blocks down on the opposite side of the street that the next door neighbor goes to? They don’t, because they’ve never considered it an issue.

Jon

I think that is substantially true. When I converted to the RCC, no one batted an eye, I never felt attacked or discriminated against as one, and I have no anomosity toward it in any way now. Mostly because I left. If I had stayed, I would have, since I think it wrong on a number of things. I am in awe of those who stay and fight for change within her, but I shall remain always an admirer of much that she stands for and has done. Those who try to claim that the world would not exist but for Her, probably do more harm than good.

The average Protestant, those that I know have always been so, have no particular thoughts about the RCC at all, certainly nothing anybody who is Catholic should feel any need to “defend” against. That’s why this site is somewhat ironic to me. It would be more likely to be seen in the world of fundamentalist Protestantism, yet here we are finding them in union in a sense over defending their faith.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’d vote for Bobby Jindol right now, if given the chance. Once again, I think this is no longer the case for most

Jon

Wow that does surprise me. Jindal is a fundamentalist who believes in Creationism and is working hard to destroy the integrity of the Louisiana school system. Other than that I would agree with you. The only thing that would prevent me from voting for a Catholic is if he espoused the sort of stuff that is advocated on this forum. If it means they can’t set aside their faith to represent all their constituents, then they can’t be elected. JFK worked so hard to dispel that notion that he would have to follow Rome. Those here and the ultra orthodox in general now claim that any Catholic politician is obligated to follow the Vatican. That makes them unfit for office period in my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

Wow that does surprise me. Jindal is a fundamentalist who believes in Creationism and is working hard to destroy the integrity of the Louisiana school system. Other than that I would agree with you. The only thing that would prevent me from voting for a Catholic is if he espoused the sort of stuff that is advocated on this forum. If it means they can’t set aside their faith to represent all their constituents, then they can’t be elected. JFK worked so hard to dispel that notion that he would have to follow Rome. Those here and the ultra orthodox in general now claim that any Catholic politician is obligated to follow the Vatican. That makes them unfit for office period in my opinion.

Actually, I was speaking of his politics, which is really my point. If I agree with someone politically, their faith communion is irrelevent.

Jon

 

[adolfo123]

One of the criticisms made by Catholics about the Protestant movement is that it is continually dividing into more and more “denominations.” The number of denominations cited can be anything from 33,000 and upward. The reason invariably given to explain this state of affairs is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I’m not so sure that this argument is quite as overwhelming as Catholics might like to think. The logic seems unsound. If it were sound then when we Protestants see division in the ranks of the Catholic Church we would by using the same logic suggest that the Catholic Magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint. Presumably, most Catholics would see such an assertion as wayward? Well, then, if a Protestant believes that the Bible rather than the Magesterium is a sufficient rule of faith how is it that Catholics conclude that a difference of opinion abut our sufficient source is a valid argument against its sufficiency?

Whatever. That’s merely an en passant observation since my focus here is not upon the method of argumentation used against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but upon the actual division within the Protestant movement since that division is undoubtedly a reality. The suffix that Catholics usually add to their argument against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the denominations “all disagree with each other.”

Does that assertion adequately describe the reality? Do we Protestants all disagree with each other? The 33,000 figure (apparently lifted from the World Christian Encyclopedia – check it out, it’s only $300+) implies that there are 33,000 different viewpoints or opinions i.e. total cacophony. But I respectfully submit that an objective analyst would probably not draw that conclusion. We Protestants do not disagree about everything. For example, it’s reasonable to assume that most Protestants have no trouble reciting the Nicene Creed – including the filioque, incidentally – as a public profession of faith.

So, how “divided” are Protestants? Not as much as some might suggest, perhaps?

Cordially,
Mick

ok protestant agree on the doctrine of sola scriptura… what about it … the most important doctrine like the nature of god is what divines also the protestants…

 

[josie_L]

Josie,
The Orthodox, and I think history, would deny this. Papal authority as we know it, or even as Luther knew it, would have been unrecognizable to the writers of the Creed. If it had been, the schism might have happened much sooner.
I would say they were writing for all of Christendom.
Jon

We know through the letters of certain ECFs that the Bishop of Rome was given singular authority, we know that the Church was called Catholic, we know that the Church was still one, we know that when they wrote the creed they had no knowledge that there would be other forseeable christian groups to which they were writing the creed for. In other words the Church and all members were Catholic and had meant these writings to be for Catholics (that was all of Christendom at the time).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

5041968]There are some within Protestantism who prefix the term Sola Scriptura with the word classic. I’m coming at this with an Evangelical mindset, which is doubtless more correctly described as SOLO Scriptura. It is the perception that the Bible (of 66 books) is one’s authority and basic guide for living. I’ve been an Evangelical for some nine years. It has been very challenging because I’ve had to work my way through all the “issues,” both major and minor. Such an exercise can never be fruitless, of course, provided that consistent prayer accompanies it. But although I’ve gained knowledge and insight and moved closer to God than when I was an agnostic I simply can’t be sure of my conclusions. That’s why I’m considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Gabriel of 12;
Interesting “Solo Scriptura”? The total number of books of the bible to ever be Canonized in Christendom totaled 73 not 66. This number alone sets a presidence of Christian theology. For the 7 missing books or 7 rejected books as canon from the Protestant faith already expresses who maintains authority to accept the canon orginally set by the Early Church from the third century or 16th century Protestantism. These 7 rejected books alone quoted by Jesus and the apostles confirm the Catholic faith and Apostolic teachings in the Catholic faith. I belive you when you state studying from an Evangelical view of scripture how beautifully God’s Word can edify oneself. It has been my experience that something is always lacking thereof; In other words the desire to get closer to God is not met with just ink on a page or Sola Scriptura, this is where the Catholicism comes in. Many Saints and great biblical theologians were able to satisfy their appetite at such crossroads as you have when they encountered the True Apostolic Faith in the One Holy Catholic Church.

SS Teacher;
One of the reasons I put up the question in the Non–Catholic Religions forum was that I hoped to draw out differing perceptions from the various camps of the divisions we see in Christendom and perhaps even hear some analysis as to why they exist. The divisons are not always caused by differences in doctrine (many Protestants agree upon what they describe as “fundamentals”). It seems to me that the Catholic perception is usually rather different from the non–Catholic one. I think you’ve used a phrase in the above paragraph that reflects the perspective most Catholics find natural. You declared:

Gabriel of 12;
I find truth in your statement above regarding the difference between a Catholic and non catholic percpective of Sola Scriptura. The only thing I can deduce is that a Catholic is set world wide in his theology and cannot change and when confronted by a Sola Scripturalist, the Catholic may be one sided due to the fact by the many different perspectives taken by the many Protestants and non catholics alike. Simply put; a Catholic would have to learn first from which school of Sola Scriptura the Catholic is communicating with.

SS Teacher;
I think herein one sees a difference in mindset between the Catholic and the non–Catholic (I’m speculating in general terms). Catholics perceive themselves as being under a visible authority and engaging in a very structured manner of Christian living. For them, that is the way it ought to be. Therefore they see Protestants/western non–Catholic Christians as participating in an ill–advised exercise of using their personal freedom to “believe whatever they want.” That is doubtless what it looks like from the outside but I would respectfully suggest that describing the process as ***believing whatever one wants ***demonstrates that the difficulty of living the kind of Christian life which Biblical Christianity calls for has been overlooked.

Gabriel of 12;
True the Catholic cannot change his theology, the Catholic faith is built upon “Rock”. The authority a Catholic places himself is the biblical Jesus who placed his authority upon Peter on earth. Their is no getting around Jesus direct statement from scripture.The Catholic does not make himself authoritative, only to follow Jesus and his apostels. I have learned something from you here, maybe it is ill to state “believe whatever they want” maybe the accepted verse should state Protestants and non catholics believe their own interpretation of (Sola) Scripture, as taken to believe that God speaks to them through his divine word personally on what to believe as interpreted by them from God himself? To do so may conflict with all of Scripture? and could lead some to dangerous interpretations.

I wish to inform you that the Catholic Church gives the believer freedom to reach this personal interpretation of biblical study and the freedom to Listen and obey Gods voice when contemplating scripture. But my personal interpretation does not give me the authority to go out and start up a new Christian body of believers who adhere to my personal interpretation of scripture. If my personal interpretation of scripture to be taught to the body of Jesus Christ his Catholic church, it must meet a stringent requirement. 1. It cannot conflict with any biblical teaching especially from Jesus or the Apostles. 2. It must not conflict with the Apostolic Sacred Traditional teachings from Jesus and his Apostles. 3. It cannot be any new form of Christianity belief other than what Jesus himeself already revealed to humanity.

enojoyed your comments; very insightful peace be with you Mick

 

[JJHIII]

I think you give too much weight to the issue here. I would suggest that the vast, vast majority of protestants really couldn’t care less about the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or even other protestant churches. They are what they were raised in, and believe what they were taught, and the others are irrelevent. Why would they fear the Catholic Church two blocks down on the opposite side of the street that the next door neighbor goes to? They don’t, because they’ve never considered it an issue.

Jon

The aren’t afraid of the people. They are afraid of “losing their salvation” by being attracted to it. The misconceptions about the catholic, orthodox, any of the “old” religions come about from being afraid of the loss of salvation. That is why America was started; to get away from the Anglican and Catholic religions.

 

[JonNC]

The aren’t afraid of the people. They are afraid of “losing their salvation” by being attracted to it. The misconceptions about the catholic, orthodox, any of the “old” religions come about from being afraid of the loss of salvation. That is why America was started; to get away from the Anglican and Catholic religions.

I’m not sure the vast majority think that far, but I might be wrong.

Jon

 

[JJHIII]

I’m not sure the vast majority think that far, but I might be wrong.

Jon

I’m sorry to say but I do think, at least to many of the fundamentalist churches Ive been to, they are afraid of going to hell. I think it’s wrong and that is why i don’t plan on being one of them very long.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry to say but I do think, at least to many of the fundamentalist churches Ive been to, they are afraid of going to hell. I think it’s wrong and that is why i don’t plan on being one of them very long.

Well, you might have more experience with fundamentalists, so I’ll assume you are right.
Jon

 

[jargon631]

One of the criticisms made by Catholics about the Protestant movement is that it is continually dividing into more and more “denominations.” The number of denominations cited can be anything from 33,000 and upward. The reason invariably given to explain this state of affairs is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I’m not so sure that this argument is quite as overwhelming as Catholics might like to think. The logic seems unsound. If it were sound then when we Protestants see division in the ranks of the Catholic Church we would by using the same logic suggest that the Catholic Magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint. Presumably, most Catholics would see such an assertion as wayward? Well, then, if a Protestant believes that the Bible rather than the Magesterium is a sufficient rule of faith how is it that Catholics conclude that a difference of opinion abut our sufficient source is a valid argument against its sufficiency?

Whatever. That’s merely an en passant observation since my focus here is not upon the method of argumentation used against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but upon the actual division within the Protestant movement since that division is undoubtedly a reality. The suffix that Catholics usually add to their argument against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the denominations “all disagree with each other.”

Does that assertion adequately describe the reality? Do we Protestants all disagree with each other? The 33,000 figure (apparently lifted from the World Christian Encyclopedia – check it out, it’s only $300+) implies that there are 33,000 different viewpoints or opinions i.e. total cacophony. But I respectfully submit that an objective analyst would probably not draw that conclusion. We Protestants do not disagree about everything. For example, it’s reasonable to assume that most Protestants have no trouble reciting the Nicene Creed – including the filioque, incidentally – as a public profession of faith.

So, how “divided” are Protestants? Not as much as some might suggest, perhaps?

Cordially,
Mick

i think that protestant religions are very divided…most individual sects have managed to convince themselves that they, and they alone, hold the key to eternal life…the years(seemed endless…lol)that i spent with the adventists convinced me that nobody has special knowledge…if i believed in salvation, then the only honest answer would be " the bible never spoke of a specific religion and only by accepting christ can a person be saved"…thats it…no sat/sun controversy…no “if u eat bacon youre going to the hot country”…if the bible is the word of god, and if he wants humanity to be saved, then he wouldnt make his word so dense that only a specific group could understand…he would make it simple…like windows for dummies…lol…fd…:tiphat:

 

[4Squarebaby]

i think that protestant religions are very divided…most individual sects have managed to convince themselves that they, and they alone, hold the key to eternal life…the years(seemed endless…lol)that i spent with the adventists convinced me that nobody has special knowledge…if i believed in salvation, then the only honest answer would be " the bible never spoke of a specific religion and only by accepting christ can a person be saved"…thats it…no sat/sun controversy…no “if u eat bacon youre going to the hot country”…if the bible is the word of god, and if he wants humanity to be saved, then he wouldnt make his word so dense that only a specific group could understand…he would make it simple…like windows for dummies…lol…fd…:tiphat:

Most claim that they alone hold the key? Most don’t even hold that they alone have fullness of God’s faith?attention?or whatever? It is a vocal minority which makes such a claim. It is why many Protestants vcan freely switch churches and be welcomed to join in any ritual. It is like one state in the US recognizing contracts and marriages done in another state