Origins of Protestant Disintegration

  • Thread starter Thread starter hgb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
They take literal what suits their own taste buds. I am curious where is the literal passage of the Bible-Only?
 
I used to be excessively anti-denominationalist. (I think I just made up a word). I thought that, by not belonging to a denomination, that I was refusing to contribute to the fracturing of Christianity.

When I stopped to think about this for five seconds, I realized that it made no sense.

I mourn all the in-fighting that goes on, but I’m not entirely sure that it’s the fault of denominationalism. (Is that another new word?) See, my pastor wants so much to do community outreach with the two Baptist churches up the street from us. Trouble is, one pastor thinks that anyone who doesn’t go to his church isn’t really saved and the other just can’t be bothered. I think that these problems have much more to do with human ego and sinful pride than differences on minute points of doctrine.
 
Page 2 and nobody has said it yet? Holy Orders (apostolic succession).

Jesus didn’t have 12 apostles just to have a posse. He chose them to be the leadership that would be endowed with special graces that stayed with the office.

Jesus didn’t give us any sacraments as mere window dressing. He gave us them because we (humanity) need them ALL to persevere in the faith across generations.

Same reason the eastern orthodox are still basically orthodox after even more years without the papacy. They haven’t rejected the apostolic succession and grace of Holy Orders.
 
manualman said:
Page 2 and nobody has said it yet? Holy Orders (apostolic succession).

Jesus didn’t have 12 apostles just to have a posse. He chose them to be the leadership that would be endowed with special graces that stayed with the office.

Jesus didn’t give us any sacraments as mere window dressing. He gave us them because we (humanity) need them ALL to persevere in the faith across generations.

Same reason the eastern orthodox are still basically orthodox after even more years without the papacy. They haven’t rejected the apostolic succession and grace of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I tell many non-Catholics. If he just wanted to have a few buds hang out with Him,then why bestow any authority own them?
 
Della said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Della.
May I then express a doubt that he really has a grasp of sola scriptura, other than what is espoused by some in the American evangelical movement.
We accept Ephesus and see it as confirming what scripture is fairly clear about, that being the incarnation .of the Savior.
Not everything we Christians believe is expressed in its fullest theological understanding by a bare reading of Holy Writ
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t argue with this. I, as a layman, read scripture in light of the teachings of the Lutheran confessions, the creeds, and yes the early councils.
Additionally, on issues such as the IC, there is strong scriptural evidence of Mary’s sinlessness, at least up until His birth. When she became “full of grace”, is not so clear. At her own conception? At the visitation of the angel? So, Luherans have some freedom here, as it is adiaphora.

In any event, sola scriptura does not, in any way, exclude these beliefs regarding the Blessed Virgin, so long as we recognize that they are much more about the Christ, than they are about Mary. that’s not to say she is, perhaps, the greatest Christian to ever live.
Jon
 
Marie_Gregg said:
I used to be excessively anti-denominationalist. (I think I just made up a word). I thought that, by not belonging to a denomination, that I was refusing to contribute to the fracturing of Christianity.

When I stopped to think about this for five seconds, I realized that it made no sense.

I mourn all the in-fighting that goes on, but I’m not entirely sure that it’s the fault of denominationalism. (Is that another new word?) See, my pastor wants so much to do community outreach with the two Baptist churches up the street from us. Trouble is, one pastor thinks that anyone who doesn’t go to his church isn’t really saved and the other just can’t be bothered. I think that these problems have much more to do with human ego and sinful pride than differences on minute points of doctrine.
Click to expand...
He should talk to the local Catholic priest. Ours has combined outreach programs with the Lutheran church across the street from our parish. Just a thought. 🙂
 
TraditonRules said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a problem with Protestant idea of essential teachings vs non essentials. Its not Biblical.
see Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Peace
David
 
Della said:
He should talk to the local Catholic priest. Ours has combined outreach programs with the Lutheran church across the street from our parish. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
We had a priest that took the youth group to a paintball plae to play against the Lutheran church youth group a few years back.

Actually I guess one could view that either way, huh?😛
 
manualman said:
We had a priest that took the youth group to a paintball plae to play against the Lutheran church youth group a few years back.

Actually I guess one could view that either way, huh?😛
Click to expand...
When I was a youngster, we played in church basketbal league - all protestant, while the CYO had their league. we would sometimes scrimmage against one of the Catholic teams. It was fun.

Jon
 
manualman said:
We had a priest that took the youth group to a paintball plae to play against the Lutheran church youth group a few years back.

Actually I guess one could view that either way, huh?😛
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Yes, I guess one could. 😛
 
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...
Jon,
Good points.

I think part of the problem is that Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. For some, the idea of Sola Scriptura does not deny the role of Tradition.

The debate over the true meaning of Sola Scriptura eventually lead to Solo Scripture–a much more strict view than Sola Scriptura.

Peace,
Anna
 
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...
hgb,

As has already been noted, many non-Catholics claim the creation account in Genesis is literal, but consuming the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is not. This is the case in the Southern Baptist Church, the Church I grew up in.

What many, such as your friend, do not realize, is they have been “catechized” (though less formally than Catholics) by their pastors/religious leaders, which creates a “tradition” of interpretation.

Once one word of Biblical commentary has been uttered, “Bible alone” ceases to exist.

The decision to interpret some parts of the Bible literally and others not, can be traced to the teachings/commentaries of pastors and religious leaders.

Ironically, many will listen to Biblical interpretations/commentaries of contemporary Christian writers; but disregard the writings of the Early Church Fathers—which of course, makes no sense.

If all one needs is the Bible and it is to be taken literally; there would be no need for Sermons, Homilies, Christian Formation, Sunday School, etc.

Peace,
Anna
 
I will say that I thin part of the problem is that in protestantism, you come to a constant problem of the ego. It comes in lots of ways, but it’s ego. If I want to do something – say I want to justify not going to church – I could probably find some scriptural text that suggests that. There’s a verse for that, to paraphrase Apple. Now, if you’re really truely interested in figuring out the whole truth without bias, you aren’t going to have an easy time. If you can find verses to justify anything (if I wanted, I could justify just about anything I wanted to – including the Holocaust), that means that you don’t know anything either. You’ll never be sure that the Bible is telling you that your ideas are OK, or if you are telling the Bible it’s OK.

The other way that this manifests itself is that the churches are constantly puffing themselves up in all kinds of ways. If you go by any Protestant church, you’ll find the sermon topic listed. If the pastor is famous, the church will be sure to let you know that. So you have things like “Creflow Dollar Ministries” or “Joyce Myer” or other such self-named ministries in which the name of the preacher is well known. They literally build huge empires in the name of preaching. Most of the successful ones are really good preachers. I don’t fault them for talent, but this is more about their egos than about anything else. It’s very rarely about teaching the Bible as it is – in many cases, the Bible verse is a very short 3-4 verses that become the authority for a 30 minute speech. Bible for 10 seconds, the preacher for 29:45. I don’t think a Catholic preacher (even presuming that he wasn’t under the formal control of the Church) could get away with building million dollar “ministries” in which people send him money to buy his CDs and videos. And that prevents a lot of people who are in it for the fame to get that fame by making a living giving christian speeches.
 
Anna_Scott said:
hgb,

As has already been noted, many non-Catholics claim the creation account in Genesis is literal, but consuming the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is not. This is the case in the Southern Baptist Church, the Church I grew up in.

What many, such as your friend, do not realize, is they have been “catechized” (though less formally than Catholics) by their pastors/religious leaders, which creates a “tradition” of interpretation.

Once one word of Biblical commentary has been uttered, “Bible alone” ceases to exist.

The decision to interpret some parts of the Bible literally and others not, can be traced to the teachings/commentaries of pastors and religious leaders.

Ironically, many will listen to Biblical interpretations/commentaries of contemporary Christian writers; but disregard the writings of the Early Church Fathers—which of course, makes no sense.

If all one needs is the Bible and it is to be taken literally; there would be no need for Sermons, Homilies, Christian Formation, Sunday School, etc.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Very good points, Anna. 👍
 
septimine said:
… I don’t think a Catholic preacher (even presuming that he wasn’t under the formal control of the Church) could get away with building million dollar “ministries” in which people send him money to buy his CDs and videos. And that prevents a lot of people who are in it for the fame to get that fame by making a living giving christian speeches.
Click to expand...
Actually catholics are just as susceptible to this human weakness as anybody else. Do a web search on Fr. John Corapi or Fr. Ken Roberts if you want tragic examples.

Catholicism is not as structurally reliant on the charisma of the pastor for the identity of a parish. But the risk of malignant ego is still there with us too.
 
manualman said:
Actually catholics are just as susceptible to this human weakness as anybody else. Do a web search on Fr. John Corapi or Fr. Ken Roberts if you want tragic examples.

Catholicism is not as structurally reliant on the charisma of the pastor for the identity of a parish. But the risk of malignant ego is still there with us too.
Click to expand...
manualman,

I love humble. 👍 It’s just a powerful witness. When we think we have arrived, we’re in trouble.

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna, Baloney! 😃

NOBODY loves humble, me included. It hurts too much. :o

If you want proof, google “Litany of Humility” and pray it a few weeks. It should come with a warning label: “Warning, this prayer is ALWAYS granted. Beware what you ask for.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top