I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[SteveVH]

And how does the layman know which Church to take it to?

Well, Christ founded only one Church and intended only one Church. It is not all that difficult to determine who has the best claim to that original Church through apostolic succession and consistency of doctrine and practice. If it comes down to either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, who each fit this criteria, then I would suggest joining one or the other. Either of these would be closer than the faith communities born out of the “Reformation”.

 

[JonNC]

The PNNC and the Old Catholics are definitely against the will of Christ. They fell into schism by deliberately cutting themselves off from the See of Peter the same way Martin Luther did.

In the case of the PNCC, and some of the Utrect communions, they are recognized as “churches”, as opposed to “ecclesial communities” by the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop or Rome

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well, Christ founded only one Church and intended only one Church. It is not all that difficult to determine who has the best claim to that original Church through apostolic succession and consistency of doctrine and practice. If it comes down to either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, who each fit this criteria, then I would suggest joining one or the other. Either of these would be closer than the faith communities born out of the “Reformation”.

The issue itself, though, doesn’t involve anything with the Reformation. Pretend, for the sake of discussion (and your wildest dreams ) that the Reformation never happened. How would the layman know whether to take it to the Latin Catholic Church or the Orthodox Catholic Church? (or the Oriental’s or the Assyrian’s)

 

[guanophore]

I agree with everything here, Steve. May I ask how you are defining Sacred Tradition and what you believe it contains (not everything it contains, just a general description of what it is)?

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Th. 2:15).

Sacred Tradition is what was taught to the disciples in word and action. It comprises a world view (a way of reading scripture as well as understanding ourselves, God, and the world in which we live). It was called in the NT “the Way” - a way of living centered around Christ. It is transmitted through the paradosis.

 

[guanophore]

It may be the truth. But it still isn’t an argument.

LOL! This has GOT to be one of the best lines in the whole thread!

 

[guanophore]

The only problem with this, at least from my perspective, is how the average layman, investigating church history, determines who possesses the truth of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it give an objective criterion to determine what is apostolic and what is innovation.

ISTM, it isn’t much different than the Protestant who relies on how he sees Scripture to determine which of the Protestant denominations to choose from based on his reading of Scripture.

I was a cradle Catholic, but had very poor catechesis. In High School I was impressed by my fellow students were were Southern Baptists, seemed full of joy, and were brave enough to carry bibles to school and pray there. I began attending their teen fellowship, and encountered Christ in a way I never did during CCD classes. I stayed away from the CC through college, visiting a variety of ecclesial communities. I ended up in a delightful United Methodist congregation where the Pastor encouraged me to attend seminary and become an assistant Pastor.

I was unsure of what to do, but was sure that I wanted to study Scripture so I went. I took a year of Greek, and learned how to translate the NT myself. During the time I was there (three years) I thought I was trying to figure out what denomination I should join. But the more I studied, the more Catholic I became. I finally understood all the teachings of my church that I didn’t “get”. What finally pushed me over the edge was Historical Theology class that finally pursuaeded me that the Church founded by Christ was Catholic. The more of the fathers I read, the more I realized that everything since the Reformation was a departure from it.

I would say that Scripture did have a part, but learning the Sacred Tradition was the necessary piece for me.

 

[Per_Crucem]

LOL! This has GOT to be one of the best lines in the whole thread!

 

[Per_Crucem]

I was a cradle Catholic, but had very poor catechesis. In High School I was impressed by my fellow students were were Southern Baptists, seemed full of joy, and were brave enough to carry bibles to school and pray there. I began attending their teen fellowship, and encountered Christ in a way I never did during CCD classes. I stayed away from the CC through college, visiting a variety of ecclesial communities. I ended up in a delightful United Methodist congregation where the Pastor encouraged me to attend seminary and become an assistant Pastor.

I was unsure of what to do, but was sure that I wanted to study Scripture so I went. I took a year of Greek, and learned how to translate the NT myself. During the time I was there (three years) I thought I was trying to figure out what denomination I should join. But the more I studied, the more Catholic I became. I finally understood all the teachings of my church that I didn’t “get”. What finally pushed me over the edge was Historical Theology class that finally pursuaeded me that the Church founded by Christ was Catholic. The more of the fathers I read, the more I realized that everything since the Reformation was a departure from it.

I would say that Scripture did have a part, but learning the Sacred Tradition was the necessary piece for me.

Understandable, brother. I can’t say I am all that far away from that myself. Ultimately, though, the point I am trying to make is that no matter what the ecclesiastical situation may be, everyone decides based on the available data just which church is the best representative of the church founded by Christ through His apostles. I think every Christian either consciously or subconsciously is aiming for this. There is always going to be a subjective, fallible opinion or view entering into the equation. For the Protestant it’s his interpretation of Scripture. For the Catholic or Orthodox it is Tradition and history.

What I wish Catholic apologetics would get away from, is pretending that it is not present in the decision to become Catholic. “All you Protestants do is decide which church fits your ibterpretation of Scripture.” Well, replace Protestant with Catholic and Scripture with Tradition/history and you have the same case with a Catholic or Orthodox convert. Eventually, the talking points and the prepackaged epistemological scripts all break down. Sonewhere, Jesus and His gospel gets buried beneath.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You speak of 29 other Lutheran churches. Do you really expect us to believe that Christ founded 29 other Lutheran churches when His express will is “that all may be one”

You say that you belong to a tiny Lutheran denomination. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

You really should get into the writings of St. Paul.

An excellent reference work for you would be to purchase “The Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ” by Abbe Anger translated from the French by John J. Burke. It will help to see how way off base you are.

You speak of 29 other Lutheran churches. Do you really expect us to believe that Christ founded 29 other Lutheran churches when His express will is “that all may be one”

IDK how many churches are in union to make up the Catholic Church? Approximately 22 IIRC. Are these churches against the will of Christ as well?

You really should get into the writings of St. Paul.

Lol. St. Paul doesn’t mention the Roman Catholic Church at all, or any denomination for that matter.

An excellent reference work for you would be to purchase “The Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ” by Abbe Anger translated from the French by John J. Burke. It will help to see how way off base you are.

If that’s the only reason then thanks but no thanks.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What you might be confused about was that the filioque issue was complicated in the 9th century when some Greek Orthodox leaders were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. It was therefore understandable why Rome favored the Latin formula, which left no doubt about the perfect equality in divine nature of the three Persons of the Trinity.

What you might be confused about was that the filioque issue was complicated in the 9th century when some Greek Orthodox leaders were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

The EOs are still saying that. I wonder if I should be following their sacred tradition or the RC sacred tradition?

It was therefore understandable why Rome favored the Latin formula, which left no doubt about the perfect equality in divine nature of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Those Roman popes who vehemently rejected it, such as the pope who had it engraved sans Filioque whose name escapes me, were they being led by the Holy Spirit? Were they following the correct sacred tradition?

 

[Starrsmother]

You see this in Scripture because you believe it before reading it. Those who do not accept this see something else when they read it. 80% of the Bishops in the second century read the Scriptures, yet they still fell into the Arian heresy. Today, we have Mormons and JW’s who reject the Trinity.

One can. It is true that Christians used the canon that was handed down to them by the Apostles. What is different, though is that no Christians took any books OUT of the canon until the Reformation. The canon is not formed/approved by individuals, but by the Megesterium - the successors of the Apostles to whom authority was given. All Bible scholars, including Jerome, submitted themselves to the authority of the Church - until Luther.

The sad truth is that we should all pray for JW’s and Mormons. Most of them learned their religion from their parents and that’s hard to overcome. Imagine if your parents had raised you in one of these cults? Yes, some do convert–but it takes a lot. 7th Day Adventists belong in this group too.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder if I should be following their sacred tradition or the RC sacred tradition?

This presents a very real problem for Protestants. Even if one rejects those areas where RC and EO are not in agreement, the Sacred Tradition that has been preserved infallibly by the HS in the Church for 2000 years remains.

 

[adf417]

The EOs are still saying that. I wonder if I should be following their sacred tradition or the RC sacred tradition?

Either one would strengthen your argument.

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

This presents a very real problem for Protestants. Even if one rejects those areas where RC and EO are not in agreement, the Sacred Tradition that has been preserved infallibly by the HS in the Church for 2000 years remains.

How would I know which church the sacred tradition has been preserved in without, in part! relying on my own personal interpretation?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Either one would strengthen your argument.

Peace!!!

I disagree. For ages the popes actively went back and forth about the Filioque. They must have been massively confused about whether or not this addition was really part of Sacred Tradition. If popes could even discern whether or not this was part of Sacred Tradition, what hope do I, a non theologically educated layperson, have of discerning who actually has the correct sacred tradition?

 

[Sunflake9]

How would I know which church the sacred tradition has been preserved in without, in part! relying on my own personal interpretation?

Research and faith. Not that difficult. You don’t think the past Popes have it figured out. You make it quite clear that man can’t seem to figure it out. You don’t know judging by your statement above. In your opinion who the heck knows. You seem to be looking for a argument rather than answering a question . Only God knows,and you don’t seem to believe he revealed the whole truth to anyone but Jesus. I can tell you this, if the RCC, EO, GO, OO ( who all split from the CC) haven’t gotten it right then there is no way on earth Martin Luther got it right 500 years ago.

IMHO all Christian denominations have some truth in them. I happen to believe quite comfortably that the fullness of the truth lies with Jesus, His vicar Pope Francis and the Catholic Church. If I don’t believe ALL the teachings of the church whether past Popes have agreed or had some disagreement and then came to pronounce something like the Filioque to be a Dogma of the church. Then I wouldn’t be a faithful Catholic. Man is a imperfect creature and sometimes not quite agree on everything God revealed, thanks to original sin from the fall of Adam and Eve.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Research and faith. Not that difficult. You don’t think the past Popes have it figured out. You make it quite clear that man can’t seem to figure it out. You don’t know judging by your statement above. In your opinion who the heck knows. You seem to be looking for a argument rather than answering a question . Only God knows,and you don’t seem to believe he revealed the whole truth to anyone but Jesus. I can tell you this, if the RCC, EO, GO, OO ( who all split from the CC) haven’t gotten it right then there is no way on earth Martin Luther got it right 500 years ago.

Research, in part, depends on my own personal interpretation. Since many research and become EO, or RC, or Lutheran, or something else. In part, it’s just going to boil down to my own personal opinion.

Luther got many things wrong. That’s why no Lutheran follows Luther.

 

[Memaw]

Surely the evils that were going on in the Church at the time of the reformation were against the will of God also were they not?

All evil goes against the Will of God. Including rebellion against HIS Truths. The Catholic Church is made up of Saints AND sinners, weeds growing with wheat. The weeds are weeds because of their own choosing, not the fault of the Church. One of the 12 Apostles was a ‘weed’. God will separate them in His own time. In the meantime we pray for their sincere conversion. The Catholic Church is One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic in her origin and will be until the end of time. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. It hasn’t and it won’t. After 2,000 years of “Keeping the Faith,” It’s difficult for me to understand why we can’t always see and trust the Holy Spirit in guiding Christ’s Holy Church. Look around and see what Church stands firm on the Sanctity of Life, Marriage, Strong on all Moral teachings, Justice, Truth and all Seven Sacraments and TRUE Apostolic Succession and much more. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This presents a very real problem for Protestants. Even if one rejects those areas where RC and EO are not in agreement,

the Sacred Tradition that has been preserved infallibly by the HS in the Church for 2000 years remains

That is the crux of Protestantism it has no sacred Tradition from apostolic succession that supports it’s new faith ideologies such as sola fide and sola scriptura.

I hear the non-Catholic posters argue about the different apostolic Traditions practiced from the Catholics in the East including the Orthodox as if there is a division? when there is no division in the Sacred Apostolic Traditions.

Protestants falsely place their diverse protestant traditions which stems from sola fide, sola scriptura on a par with the one sacred Tradition in all of Catholicism. These are never the same.

The non-catholic posters here do not understand, that the Orthodox and the Latin Church are all one Catholic Church practicing the same apostolic Sacred Traditions from different languages and different cultures.

The Sacred Traditions handed down from Jesus and the original apostles are found in all of these both West and Eastern Catholic church. There is no division among proven apostolic successors in Catholicism.

Simply put there is a huge difference between the whole Catholic church world wide and Protestantism.

**The One holy Catholic and apostolic Church from both the East and West have proven apostolic succession from the original apostles, to include a valid priesthood from Jesus with divine commission to administer baptism and forgiveness of sins (sacraments).

Protestantism has left all of the above and it becomes a false comparison from the posters here to declare them as the same Church from Jesus Christ by introducing the Eastern Catholic Church as a separated Church from the Western Catholics from distinct practiced apostolic Traditions, when it never is…**

Some Orthodox are in schism with the authority from the Chair of Peter, yet they maintain the same Apostolic sacred Traditions as the Western Catholics. While Protestantism is separated from the Catholic Church in both apostolic succession and practice from the Valid sacramental economy.

The protestant argument has a false pretense when it tries to compare and justify itself as a Church from Jesus Christ that has no Sacred Traditions (apostolic succession) practiced in both the East and the Western Catholic Church. The protestant tradition is foreign and new to both the East and Western Catholic Church.

Jesus never commissioned Martin Luther or the protestant reformers to proclaim His gospel. The protestant reformers infallibly claimed themselves as proclaimers of a new and different tradition of faith apart from the apostolic successors (Traditions) in the West and Eastern Catholic Church.

I hope in time these posters will take the time to learn that they argue from a false pretense in trying to create a division in the East and Western sacred Traditions in order to justify Protestantism new faith traditions from men instead of Sacred Traditions revealed by God to His Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Sunflake9]

Very well said!