Origins of Protestant Disintegration

  • Thread starter Thread starter hgb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hgb

Guest
My question arises from a conversation with a protestant friend. During this conversation she stated that her church takes the contents of the bible literally, and that we, Catholics, do not.

After the conversation, it occurred to me the following proposition:

Which is the doctrinal or theological error in Protestantism that has caused it to fracture into 40,000 protestant denominations worldwide and counting since Martin Luther, and all of them claim to have a literal interpretation of the bible, with equal number of different interpretations regarding Salvation, the Divinity of Christ, abortion, high church, low church, Communion, etc? It seems to me that protestant doctrine not only causes but promotes this never ending breakup. My specific question is one that could have been used as a warning to Martin Luther: “Mr. Luther if you postulate “this statement” the church that you are about to create will disintegrate, fracture, and splinter into thousands of denominations within 500 years”. What is it that Martin Luther wrongly proposed, that enables this continual disintegration?

If I am not mistaken, the error that I am enquiring about is not present in the eastern orthodox churches, since they appear to still be coalesced; and 2000 years later, there is still only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 
Ask her if she beleives “This is my body” literally.

When she says no, ask her why not?
 
Such secondary issues such as explicit scripture on purgatory and worshipping Mary are not biblical, babbling and worship to Mary is rebuked.

As far as essentials, Christ is deity , resurrection, Trinity… as Christians we agree which is the most important thing.
 
I don’t think they really take the Bible literally. They don’t chop off their hands for stealing or gauge out their eyes for lusting, do they? The Bible also says we can sit in a barrel of snakes if we want. And stonings don’t really happen that much anymore either.
 
andrewstx said:
Ask her if she beleives “This is my body” literally.

When she says no, ask her why not?
Click to expand...
Simply put… transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change —either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sense at all.

Christ is truly present during Communion, but certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
 
TraditonRules said:
Simply put… transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change —either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sense at all.

Christ is truly present during Communion, but certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert in Apologetics, so I’ll let St. Ambrose do it for me:

“Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” … Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. … For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? … Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.”

Listen to the man, he’s in Heaven!:extrahappy:
 
The difference is your friend is interpreting the Bible literalistically, not literally, as she believes. Nor does she know anything about Sacred Tradition, the origins of the Bible, its overall purpose and why the Church not only wrote the NT (therefore it knows perfectly well what is meant by “babbling” and supposed “worship to Mary”), etc. The literalistic form of interpertation means, in actuality, that those employing it will decide, based on what they already believe, what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant as metaphor. But, no one gave them the right to do so. Christ gave the Apostles that right, not just all and sundry. Luther and the other “reformers” decided they had as much right as Christ’s Church to decide matters of faith and morals. Even within Luther’s lifetime he was appalled at the snowball he’d started rolling when multiple fractures were already taking place among the refomers and their followers, for every man became his own pope and Magisterium and it’s been the same since then until today.
 
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. John 21:25

Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or a letter of ours… 2Thessalonians.

About the Body and Blood of Christ :

"This saying is hard; who can accept it? … As a result of this teaching, many of disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:60
 
All Protestant denominations subscribe to the doctrine os sola scriptura, or ‘bible alone’ as the sole rule of faith. Yet, scripture needs authoritative interpretation to be properly understood (Nehemiah 8:5-8, Acts 8:26-38). “Sola scriptura” intentionally or otherwise, places God’s word under the direct influence of the ego that interprets it. This is the genesis of the entropic nature of Protestantism. Before the reformation was even completed, the disintegration had begun.

As our Lord said, "By their fruits you will know them.’ (Matthew 7:16, 20) This applies also to doctrines. The fruits of sola scriptura are division. Each denomination claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit always and everywhere leads to humble submission and unity, rather than division. It is the demon that divides.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I believe Luther in truth didn’t start this way, however unfortunate he was met with so much resistence he recanted on many of his own beliefs as time passed.

Anyway a short and excellent encyclical to read, and should be read is…

google.com/url?q=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&sa=U&ei=7nA9T_qNCILn0gGtkaTLBw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=x7qO9sUcp-BZCeAAHbg-aw&usg=AFQjCNHo_GUn5Lp9I6__iZLzUKDfd3XKSg
Click to expand...
Luther was reportedly shocked that fellow reformers extracted a different meaning from scripture. Too late, since the dam had already burst. Yet, the Catholic Church is being re-constituted, seeking ways to accommodate and welcome back those who have been separated for centuries.
 
Thanks for the responses. Interpretation, found the bible passage, and also Vatican II. thanks
 
hgb said:
Which is the doctrinal or theological error in Protestantism that has caused it to fracture into 40,000 protestant denominations worldwide and counting since Martin Luther, and all of them claim to have a literal interpretation of the bible…
Click to expand...
I would dispute that. Not all claim to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. I dont think we can even say all claim to rightly interpret the Bible. Some churches are pretty uncertain these days, which I think explains some of the decline in membership.

As to your question I think the cause of disintegration is simply lack of institutional authority. You can only have breaks if you do not recognize the organization from which you are breaking from as having authority. The churches in England and Germany did not initially allow their laity to break and form new churches anymore than Rome did. They suppressed dissidents even using execution as a punishment. At this point with so many Protestant churches so far removed from any institutional authority there is little reason to hesitate before splitting yet again.
 
exnihilo said:
I would dispute that. Not all claim to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. I dont think we can even say all claim to rightly interpret the Bible. Some churches are pretty uncertain these days, which I think explains some of the decline in membership.

As to your question I think the cause of disintegration is simply lack of institutional authority. You can only have breaks if you do not recognize the organization from which you are breaking from as having authority. The churches in England and Germany did not initially allow their laity to break and form new churches anymore than Rome did. They suppressed dissidents even using execution as a punishment. At this point with so many Protestant churches so far removed from any institutional authority there is little reason to hesitate before splitting yet again.
Click to expand...
I think this story, if one have not read it yet…gives insights…freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

And this…calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

and I would highlight this that further makes your point…

Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.

This variety struck Calvin as a recipe for disaster. He was a lawyer by training, and always hated any kind of social disorder.What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3

Evangelicals are used to finding assurance in their “personal relationship with Christ,” and not through membership in any Church or participation in any ritual. Calvin, however, taught that the Eucharist provides “undoubted assurance of eternal life.”5 And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”6.

John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8

It is not surprising that by the eighteenth century, leading Calvinist Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had given up on the quest for complete unity. One new approach was to stress the subjective

Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.

The greatest irony in my historical research was realizing that Evangelicalism, far from being the direct descendant of Calvin, actually represents the failure of Calvinism. Whereas Calvin spent his life in the quest for doctrinal unity, modern Evangelicalism is rooted in the rejection of that quest
 
IMO, the problem is not *primarily *an error in doctrine, as many and grave as they are, but the fact that Luther broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is founded by Jesus Christ, which has as its foundation Jesus Himself, His promises, and His Apostles, and is guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit. It is God the Holy Spirit who makes us One, and the Holy Eucharist is the “fount and apex of the whole Christian life.” The Catholic Church is of divine origin - it is God’s plan for the salvation and sanctification of every person on earth. The Protestant “church” (if you will, since none of the various denominations can properly be called a “Church”) is founded by men. Or, depending on how you look at it, “a man,” Pope Luther I. It has various degrees of Christian (that is, Catholic) truth in it. Since they all hold to the most basic tenets of theology and Christology, the members thereof can properly be called “Christians,” when/if they are validly baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, for there is but “one baptism.” If a group fails to hold these basic tenets and/or have invalid baptisms, then, in my opinion, they are no longer Christian. The LDS and JW’s would fall into this category, though some people believe differently.

Of course, precisely because they were no longer part of the Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit - in spite of the very fallible members of the Church - more and more, and more serious, errors in doctrine were inevitable. Although I should clarify that individual Protestants really are members of the Church, however imperfectly united to Her, since they have valid baptisms, but Jesus’s promise was to guide the Apostles and their lawful successors into “all Truth,” not individual Christians.
 
hgb said:
My question arises from a conversation with a protestant friend. During this conversation she stated that her church takes the contents of the bible literally, and that we, Catholics, do not.

After the conversation, it occurred to me the following proposition:

Which is the doctrinal or theological error in Protestantism that has caused it to fracture into 40,000 protestant denominations worldwide and counting since Martin Luther, and all of them claim to have a literal interpretation of the bible, with equal number of different interpretations regarding Salvation, the Divinity of Christ, abortion, high church, low church, Communion, etc? It seems to me that protestant doctrine not only causes but promotes this never ending breakup. My specific question is one that could have been used as a warning to Martin Luther: “Mr. Luther if you postulate “this statement” the church that you are about to create will disintegrate, fracture, and splinter into thousands of denominations within 500 years”. What is it that Martin Luther wrongly proposed, that enables this continual disintegration?

If I am not mistaken, the error that I am enquiring about is not present in the eastern orthodox churches, since they appear to still be coalesced; and 2000 years later, there is still only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Just some thoughts. And btw, welcome to CAF.

First, I would contend that you propose the question to the wrong man in Luther. And while the polemic in me wants to scream out “ask the question of Pope Leo X”, my real response is that there are very few “spinters into 40,000 denominations” that are in fact splinters of Lutheranism. Zwingli was never Lutheran, nor Calvin, nor the anabaptists. Nor are the Anglicans and Methodists. And to say they all come from Luther is, IMO, rather insulting to them. It makes their leaders sound like lemmings following a rather obscure German friar.

Secondly, there is no “protestant doctrine”, as there is not now nor has there ever been a protestant church.

But if you ask me as a Lutheran, my personal opinion (not necessarily that of pan-Lutheranism), I believe Luther’s “flaw”, if you will, was his movement away from a more hierarchical Church. I sometimes think that congregational polity has flaws equal to, though different from, that of the polity as is held by Rome.
But even this “flaw” relates narrowly to Lutheranism, since what Lutherans believe is, in many ways, irrelevent to Calvinists, Baptists, and certainly American evangelicals.

Jon
 
hgb said:
My question arises from a conversation with a protestant friend. During this conversation she stated that her church takes the contents of the bible literally, and that we, Catholics, do not.
Click to expand...
…And literalism or even the sola scriptura argument does not make room for Mary.

When we leave Mary we leave the Church. This is why She seen as a Tree of Life.
 
JimmytheButcher said:
…And literalism or even the sola scriptura argument does not make room for Mary.
When we leave Mary we leave the Church. This is why She seen as a Tree of Life.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that sola scriptura leaves no room for the Blessed Virgin?

Lutherans accept the virgin birth, the holy Theotokos. The Lutheran confessions speak of sempre virgo. We are certanly sola scripturist. I believe in her sinlessness, that she was “full of grace”, and that she resides with her son in Heaven. I am certainly sola scripturist.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Why do you believe that sola scriptura leaves no room for the Blessed Virgin?

Lutherans accept the virgin birth, the holy Theotokos. The Lutheran confessions speak of sempre virgo. We are certanly sola scripturist. I believe in her sinlessness, that she was “full of grace”, and that she resides with her son in Heaven. I am certainly sola scripturist.

Jon
Click to expand...
I think he means that those teachings aren’t explicit in Scripture. Indeed, the title theotokos was conferred on Mary at the Council of Ephesus precisely because there was doubt, based on reading Scripture alone, if Christ was truly God made man or merely a man endowed with divinity. Not everything we Christians believe is expressed in its fullest theological understanding by a bare reading of Holy Writ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top