Jesus' Christianity is either Catholicism OR Progressive Protestantism

[RealisticCatholic]

And I think the data suggests the former.

By Progressive Protestantism, I’m not talking about liberal views of Christ per se (like no Resurrection, etc.). Instead, I mean a Christianity that is only focused on social activism.

Of course, issues of social justice are part of Catholicism and have always been there. My point is not that they are separate. Rather, my point is this:

Jesus Christ, if truly God’s own self-revelation to the world, either came to reveal the truth, and therefore provided a means to maintain both this truth and means of sanctification (salvation), OR Jesus – still God’s revelation – came primarily to start a social movement, primarily focused on doing good, helping the poor, etc.

And, by saying this, I think either Catholicism OR liberal Protestantism are the only consistent alternatives. Traditional Protestantism of any type is NOT consistent, because it professes a Christ who is God’s revelation, and yet do not profess that God has an ensured a way for the church to be confident, across all times and ages, of what the truth is, and, additionally, what the means of salvation are. Many traditional Protestants say the church became corrupt, even quickly. And most surely do not believe in an infallible church.

Meanwhile, Catholicism does maintain Christ is God’s revelation, and that God set up a way for this revelation to be pure and authentic in every age and place.

Thoughts?

*Also, by Catholicism, I’m also including all ancient apostolic traditions like Orthodoxy.

 

[HopkinsReb]

You need to dedicate about three more paragraphs to defining “Progressive Protestantism” and “Traditional Protestantism,” because traditional Lutheranism is a very, very different thing than traditional Anabaptistism (is that the right ism for Anabaptists? Seems to me that “anabaptism” would refer to the specific act of rebaptism. Anyhoo…). Progressive Protestantism is less tough to hammer down because they’re basically all a big soup of relativism.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Sorry, if there was any confusion.

I didn’t mean to simplify. Also, I highly respect Protestant traditions, of whatever stripe. This post is meant to be a thoughtful exercise as to a consistent understanding of Christ’s mission, and even his intent on what it means for Christ reveal God and found his church.

So first things first, I didn’t mean for this post to sound hostile in any way. There are many things Catholics and various Protestants groups have in common, and we should celebrate that.

My point with talking about “Progressive Protestants” is not to say those who take Jesus’ Resurrection to be merely symbolic, or even those who are liberal with regards to views on abortion and gay marriage. Instead, what I meant to get across was that, if Jesus did not found a church like the Catholic Church, then it seems the only consistent alternative was that Jesus came to found a social movement meant to better people in this world. In other words, a social program or movement of charity and love. And this aligns with what many in the progressive Christianity movement would align themselves with. But don’t get hung up on the terminology.

Of course, in many ways, Jesus did do just that (the latter). However, I think this fits with the former, the Catholic Church, as well. You can’t have the latter without the former.

In other words, here’s my main point: Protestant traditions are just bits and pieces of the one Catholic Church. And it seems odd for Christ to intend to reveal all truth, and then just leave the church an orphan without assurance of divine protection to faithfully convey the truth in every age and place.

So Protestantism isn’t a consistent alternative. Either Christ meant to reveal the truth and means to salvation, and so would provide a way for people in every age to adequately access this revelation; or, Jesus was primarily concerned with a social movement. And so doctrine, sacraments, institutions, etc. weren’t that important to him at all.

 

[ReadTheBible]

“In other words, here’s my main point: Protestant traditions are just bits and pieces of the one Catholic Church. And it seems odd for Christ to intend to reveal all truth, and then just leave the church an orphan without assurance of divine protection to faithfully convey the truth in every age and place.”

Can you expound on these or what you think they are?

A major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is tradition vs scripture and the weight thereof. Catholicism puts their traditions on equal footing with scripture (even though they’ve added traditions along the way). Protestantism (for the most part) is ok with the acknowledgment of traditions so long as they are not contrary to scripture.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Whoops!

“Protestant traditions” as in Protestant denominations, Protestant churches, etc. Not specific practices.

Also, clarification re: Catholic belief in Tradition:

It’s more accurate to say Catholicism accepts the Apostolic Tradition, which is the teaching of the Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit. Part of this indeed got written down as Scripture. But Apostolic Tradition includes more than the written documents.

Now, “Tradition” is not equal footing in every single aspect, because while Scripture is inspired and inerrant, Tradition is not necessarily expressed in the same form. Indeed, Tradition can be expressed in writing, even if it is not Scripture.

However, Apostolic Tradition can be expressed in “traditions,” but “traditions” that you are probably thinking of do not quite get the gist of “Apostolic Tradition,” especially since traditions can be added over time, while the Apostolic Tradition come straight from the Apostles.

Examples:
small t tradition = celibate priesthood, college of cardinals, Friday fasting
capital T Tradition = canon of Scripture, how to do the Liturgy, the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.

 

[ATraveller]

And I think the data suggests the former.

This is unclear. I’m not sure how you quantify things that aren’t quantifiable.

Instead, what I meant to get across was that, if Jesus did not found a church like the Catholic Church, then it seems the only consistent alternative was that Jesus came to found a social movement meant to better people in this world.

Well, no. Another alternative would have been to do nothing. He could have just been a spectator.

But don’t get hung up on the terminology.

It’s a bit hard when you’re using terms in ways that the vast majority of people don’t.

And it seems odd for Christ to intend to reveal all truth, and then just leave the church an orphan without assurance of divine protection to faithfully convey the truth in every age and place.

There is. Scripture. All things necessary for salvation are found in it to paraphrase Luther. Further interpretation can be derived from the teachings recorded in writings by the Early Church Fathers and so on as opposed to a blank slate whatever-I-feel-like-it-is approach.

 

[HopkinsReb]

To be clear, I didn’t think you were being hostile or anything like that. Just vague!