Persecutions from Protestants?

[ajpirc]

In the Acts of the Apostles chapter 8 verse 3, Paul is persecuting the Catholic Church. Then in chapter 4 verse 9, Christ appears to Paul and says, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” The Catholic Church teaches that she is the Mystical Body of Christ. So when a Protestant is persecuting someone for being Catholic or even the Church herself, are they persecuting Christ? The Church also teaches that all who are baptized are members of the Catholic Church, so do baptized Protestant persecute themselves?

 

[Hiskid1973]

Paul was persecuting what was called “the way”/ christians…The word “catholic” started
a century later comprised of all the see’s, Rome included…The issue goes both ways today with the treatment of each other.They had problems from the beginning with I’m of Paul,I’m of Peter, I’m of Appollos…Walking in the Spirit should eliminate this…

 

[CountrySteve]

yea i would say protestants are misguided Christians and they persecuted Christ by persecuting his Church

 

[Hail_Linus]

Paul was persecuting what was called “the way”/ christians…The word “catholic” started
a century later comprised of all the see’s, Rome included…The issue goes both ways today with the treatment of each other.They had problems from the beginning with I’m of Paul,I’m of Peter, I’m of Appollos…Walking in the Spirit should eliminate this…

First, the word Catholic is found in documents as early as 110. However, there is no proof that it was not in use before.

Second, I believe the verse you are citing is 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 which states “For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” This verse is essentially saying there is only one universal (Catholic) Church. He even explicitly condemns divisions which of course is synonymous with denominations.

 

[ajpirc]

First, the word Catholic is found in documents as early as 110. However, there is no proof that it was not in use before.

Second, I believe the verse you are citing is 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 which states “For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” This verse is essentially saying there is only one universal (Catholic) Church. He even explicitly condemns divisions which of course is synonymous with denominations.

But don’t Catholics belong to Peter (Pope Benedict XVI) who is the Vicar of Christ?

 

[hn160]

Before you start casting stones about persecutions from Protestants, you better look around there was persecutions from the Catholics. For example:
ohann Esch and Henrich Voes, Martyrs

Appropos of my conversation with Richard Abanes, on July 1, 1523, Christians who confessed the Apostles Creed but denied trifles like salvation by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith burned Johann Esch and Henrich Voes at the stake at Brussels, Belgium, because these two young Augustinian monks didn’t think that the central doctrine of the Christian faith was a trifle after all.

Esch and Voes were the very first martyrs of the Reformation. When Martin Luther heard of their deaths, he responded by writing his very first hymn, Ein neues Lied wir heben an (Now Shall a New Song Be Begun, aka With Help of God I Fain Would Tell), which appears in The Lutheran Hymnal as Flung To the Heedless Winds.
Many other Lutherans would follow. As it happens, the month of July ends with the anniversary of the burning of another Lutheran martyr, Robert Barnes, by Henry VIII (on July 31, 1540. Henry’s own Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, would be burned by Henry’s daughter, Bloody Mary). Barnes first recanted and then reasserted his confession of Christianity’s central doctrine. Historian Carolly Erickson writes that he died with such courage that dozens were converted to the Evangelical (in the original sense) faith on the spot. When Luther heard the news, it was a personal blow; “this blessed martyr, St. Robertus,” as Luther called him, had been a guest at the Reformer’s table many times

There is enough blame on both sided.

 

[ajpirc]

Before you start casting stones about persecutions from Protestants, you better look around there was persecutions from the Catholics. For example:
ohann Esch and Henrich Voes, Martyrs

Appropos of my conversation with Richard Abanes, on July 1, 1523, Christians who confessed the Apostles Creed but denied trifles like salvation by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith burned Johann Esch and Henrich Voes at the stake at Brussels, Belgium, because these two young Augustinian monks didn’t think that the central doctrine of the Christian faith was a trifle after all.

Esch and Voes were the very first martyrs of the Reformation. When Martin Luther heard of their deaths, he responded by writing his very first hymn, Ein neues Lied wir heben an (Now Shall a New Song Be Begun, aka With Help of God I Fain Would Tell), which appears in The Lutheran Hymnal as Flung To the Heedless Winds.
Many other Lutherans would follow. As it happens, the month of July ends with the anniversary of the burning of another Lutheran martyr, Robert Barnes, by Henry VIII (on July 31, 1540. Henry’s own Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, would be burned by Henry’s daughter, Bloody Mary). Barnes first recanted and then reasserted his confession of Christianity’s central doctrine. Historian Carolly Erickson writes that he died with such courage that dozens were converted to the Evangelical (in the original sense) faith on the spot. When Luther heard the news, it was a personal blow; “this blessed martyr, St. Robertus,” as Luther called him, had been a guest at the Reformer’s table many times

There is enough blame on both sided.

I was just saying that when my Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is attacked and called pagan by many Protestants, they are attacking Christ and calling Him a pagan.

 

[hn160]

I was just saying that when my Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is attacked and called pagan by many Protestants, they are attacking Christ and calling Him a pagan.

Lutherans do not consider the Catholic Church pagan, we may have a problem with the Office of the Papacy and some other issues but Catholics are brothers in Christ.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m almost sorry to say that I think the OP has a valid point.

The visible Body of Christ is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which He established. If one believes that this is not a metaphor, but a reality, that we are all literal members of Christ’s Body, then one must conclude that one who persecutes a member of Christ’s body, persecutes the Body itself, Christ.

Taking it further, if we believe that we see Christ in every human being, that when we give a cup of water to a child we do so to Christ, then one must believe that when we commit any evil against another human being, we do so agaist Christ himself.

The question I would pose to the OP is one of culpability. Some were socialized to think Catholicism is evil and it’s not really their fault. Those who “Persecute” the Church out of ignorance, because of the way they were raised, I’m not too sure about being culpable.

Once they have been told and still reject it…

-Tim-

 

[hn160]

I’m almost sorry to say that I think the OP has a valid point.

The visible Body of Christ is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which He established. If one believes that this is not a metaphor, but a reality, that we are all literal members of Christ’s Body, then one must conclude that one who persecutes a member of Christ’s body, persecutes the Body itself, Christ.

Taking it further, if we believe that we see Christ in every human being, that when we give a cup of water to a child we do so to Christ, then one must believe that when we commit any evil against another human being, we do so agaist Christ himself.

The question I would pose to the OP is one of culpability. Some were socialized to think Catholicism is evil and it’s not really their fault. Those who “Persecute” the Church out of ignorance, because of the way they were raised, I’m not too sure about being culpable.

Once they have been told and still reject it…

-Tim-

Our Apology of the Augsburg Confession has this to say what the Church is:
1 The authors of the Confutation have condemned the seventh article of our Confession in which we said the church is the assembly of saints.1 And they have added a lengthy dissertation, that the wicked are not to be separated from the church since John compared the church to a threshing floor on which chaff and wheat are heaped together (Matt. 3:12) and Christ compared it to a net in which there are both good and bad fish (Matt. 13:47).
2 The saying is certainly true that there is no defense against the attacks of slanderers. Nothing can be said so carefully that it can avoid misrepresentation. 3 That is why we added the eighth article, to avoid the impression that we separate evil men and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the church or deny efficacy to the sacraments which evil men or hypocrites administer. Thus we do not need to defend ourselves at any length against this slander. The eighth article exonerates us enough. We concede that in this life the hypocrites and evil men are mingled with the church and are members of the church according to the outward associations of the church’s marks — that is, Word, confession, and sacraments — especially if they have not been excommunicated. The sacraments do not lose their efficacy when they are administered by evil men; indeed, we may legitimately use sacraments that are administered by evil men. 4 Paul also predicts that Antichrist will “take his seat in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4), that is, that he will rule and hold office in the church.
5 The church is not merely an association of outward ties and rites like other civic governments, however, but it is mainly an association of faith and of the Holy Spirit in men’s hearts. To make it recognizable, this association has outward marks, the pure teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the Gospel of Christ. This church alone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews, consecrates, and governs by his Spirit, as Paul testifies when he says (Eph. 1:22, 23), “And he has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness,” that is, the whole congregation “of him who fills all in all.” Thus those in whom Christ is not active are not members of Christ. This much our opponents also admit, that the wicked are dead members (tr-229) of the church. 6 We wonder why they criticize our description, which speaks of living members.
7 We have not said anything new. Paul defined the church in the same way in Eph. 5:25-27, saying that it should be purified in order to be holy. He also added the outward marks, the Word and the sacraments. He says, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that the church might be presented before him in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that it might be holy and without blemish.” We have repeated this statement almost verbatim in our Confession. The Creed also defines the church this way, teaching us to believe that there is a holy, catholic church. Certainly the wicked are not a holy church! 8 The following phrase, “the communion of saints,” seems to have been added to explain what “church” means, namely, the assembly of saints who share the association of the same Gospel or teaching and of the same Holy spirit, who renews, consecrates, and governs their hearts.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

I was just saying that when my Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is attacked and called pagan by many Protestants, they are attacking Christ and calling Him a pagan.

Who exactly are the ‘many’ you refer to? I don’t think that opinion is quite as common as you’re making it out to be.

 

[Zenas]

Who exactly are the ‘many’ you refer to? I don’t think that opinion is quite as common as you’re making it out to be.

Among Southern Baptists it’s truly rare. I have been a Southern Baptist all my life and have never heard anything in my church that is negative toward Catholics.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Among Southern Baptists it’s truly rare. I have been a Southern Baptist all my life and have never heard anything in my church that is negative toward Catholics.

Hmm…I wish I could say the same…I took a world religion class from a Baptist college and they had Catholics listed as a cult. And I’ve experienced it personally when I came home…many of my Protestant friends will no longer talk to me since I am no longer “christian” Sad to say…I do have a few protestant friends that are more reasonable then that, thank goodness.

 

[Hail_Linus]

But don’t Catholics belong to Peter (Pope Benedict XVI) who is the Vicar of Christ?

The answer is in your question. The Pope is only the representative (vicar of Christ/King/Anointed One). We belong to Christ for the Pope is just a man (carnal) who sins like all of us and must go to confession just like any other Catholic.

The Pope has the keys just like the example in Isaiah 22:22 where the key holder was the vicar of the House of David and Father to Jerusalem but the people of the kingdom belonged to the King (Christ/Anointed One).

 

[cooterhein]

He even explicitly condemns divisions which of course is synonymous with denominations.

This is not “of course” synonymous with denominations, and I expect you to try and avoid saying so in the future. It’s not accurate.

What you’re looking at is explicit condemnation of sectarianism. Denominational splits are bad when they’re sectarian in nature, and then there’s sectarianism in a less formal sense that doesn’t necessarily involve the creation of new denominations. In either case, sectarianism is bad.

But as you may or may not know, the vast majority of denominations within Protestantism were not created through sectarian means and most of them do not currently operate within a sectarian climate.

Denominations are not synonymous with painful splits, with strife, or with sectarianism. They usually aren’t associated with any of these things either. When they are, that’s no bueno. But most of the time, they aren’t. So most of the time, there is no valid reason for you to condemn.

 

[cooterhein]

The Pope has the keys just like the example in Isaiah 22:22 where the key holder was the vicar of the House of David and Father to Jerusalem but the people of the kingdom belonged to the King (Christ/Anointed One).

You can’t make a credible link between the Key of David and the pope. Or Peter, for that matter. The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. Here’s one from the OT:

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Isaiah 22:22

This is clearly a Messianic prophecy. It’s perfectly obvious that this is not talking about Peter. No one would even try to make that argument. And here’s the only other place the Key of David is mentioned, in Revelation.

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” Revelation 3:7

According to the Book of Revelation, who is it that has the key of David? It is the holy one, the true one, the one who is giving these words to the angel of the church in Philadelphia. Again, there is no credible link to Peter, to the papacy, or to anyone besides Jesus.

Quick recap: The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. In Isaiah, it is perfectly clear that ownership of this Key is granted to Jesus in a Messianic prophecy. And in Revelation, ownership of this same Key is claimed by the holy one, the true one, him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

That’s who has the Key of David. Is his identity any mystery? Is there any doubt that the one who claims the Key of David cannot possibly be anyone but Jesus?

This line of reasoning came briefly into favor among some of the Catholic apologists affiliated with this site. And within a pretty short period of time, it fell out of favor because this interpretation was easily destroyed in debates- 20 years ago. In my position, all I really have to do is say “Look at these two passages- the only two that mention the Key of David.” And that’s pretty much it. They kind of speak for themselves- the Key of David belongs to Jesus, there’s no credible argument for equating this Key with the keys to the kingdom, and there’s absolutely no reason to think anyone besides Jesus has ever been (or will ever be) in charge of possessing this Key.

 

[Zenas]

You can’t make a credible link between the Key of David and the pope. Or Peter, for that matter. The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. Here’s one from the OT:

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Isaiah 22:22

This is clearly a Messianic prophecy. It’s perfectly obvious that this is not talking about Peter. No one would even try to make that argument. And here’s the only other place the Key of David is mentioned, in Revelation.

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” Revelation 3:7

According to the Book of Revelation, who is it that has the key of David? It is the holy one, the true one, the one who is giving these words to the angel of the church in Philadelphia. Again, there is no credible link to Peter, to the papacy, or to anyone besides Jesus.

Quick recap: The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. In Isaiah, it is perfectly clear that ownership of this Key is granted to Jesus in a Messianic prophecy. And in Revelation, ownership of this same Key is claimed by the holy one, the true one, him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

That’s who has the Key of David. Is his identity any mystery? Is there any doubt that the one who claims the Key of David cannot possibly be anyone but Jesus?

This line of reasoning came briefly into favor among some of the Catholic apologists affiliated with this site. And within a pretty short period of time, it fell out of favor because this interpretation was easily destroyed in debates- 20 years ago. In my position, all I really have to do is say “Look at these two passages- the only two that mention the Key of David.” And that’s pretty much it. They kind of speak for themselves- the Key of David belongs to Jesus, there’s no credible argument for equating this Key with the keys to the kingdom, and there’s absolutely no reason to think anyone besides Jesus has ever been (or will ever be) in charge of possessing this Key.

I think you’re confusing the owner of the keys–Jesus Christ the King–with the keeper of the keys who received them from their owner in Matthew 16:19. Regardless of how you look at the papacy, Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

In the Acts of the Apostles chapter 8 verse 3, Paul is persecuting the Catholic Church. Then in chapter 4 verse 9, Christ appears to Paul and says, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” The Catholic Church teaches that she is the Mystical Body of Christ. So when a Protestant is persecuting someone for being Catholic or even the Church herself, are they persecuting Christ? The Church also teaches that all who are baptized are members of the Catholic Church, so do baptized Protestant persecute themselves?

Yes, I believe if someone is persecuting the Catholic Church, they are persecuting Christ. If someone is persecuting Christians, they are persecuting Christ. We must love our Christian family, but we are not obligated to love the beliefs of our separated brethren.

 

[Son_of_Liberty]

You can’t make a credible link between the Key of David and the pope. Or Peter, for that matter. The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. Here’s one from the OT:

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Isaiah 22:22

This is clearly a Messianic prophecy. It’s perfectly obvious that this is not talking about Peter. No one would even try to make that argument. And here’s the only other place the Key of David is mentioned, in Revelation.

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” Revelation 3:7

According to the Book of Revelation, who is it that has the key of David? It is the holy one, the true one, the one who is giving these words to the angel of the church in Philadelphia. Again, there is no credible link to Peter, to the papacy, or to anyone besides Jesus.

Quick recap: The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. In Isaiah, it is perfectly clear that ownership of this Key is granted to Jesus in a Messianic prophecy. And in Revelation, ownership of this same Key is claimed by the holy one, the true one, him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

That’s who has the Key of David. Is his identity any mystery? Is there any doubt that the one who claims the Key of David cannot possibly be anyone but Jesus?

This line of reasoning came briefly into favor among some of the Catholic apologists affiliated with this site. And within a pretty short period of time, it fell out of favor because this interpretation was easily destroyed in debates- 20 years ago. In my position, all I really have to do is say “Look at these two passages- the only two that mention the Key of David.” And that’s pretty much it. They kind of speak for themselves- the Key of David belongs to Jesus, there’s no credible argument for equating this Key with the keys to the kingdom, and there’s absolutely no reason to think anyone besides Jesus has ever been (or will ever be) in charge of possessing this Key.

Actually, my friend, many theologians make this link… Jesus was drawing from Isaiah when using this language just as he was drawing from David when using the term “Son of Man” and “Kingdom of God”.

Whenever Jesus says something that you can’t quite understand without “self interpretation”, go back to the OT… Jesus spoke to them from scripture.

 

[Hail_Linus]

This is not “of course” synonymous with denominations, and I expect you to try and avoid saying so in the future. It’s not accurate.

What you’re looking at is explicit condemnation of sectarianism. Denominational splits are bad when they’re sectarian in nature, and then there’s sectarianism in a less formal sense that doesn’t necessarily involve the creation of new denominations. In either case, sectarianism is bad.

But as you may or may not know, the vast majority of denominations within Protestantism were not created through sectarian means and most of them do not currently operate within a sectarian climate.

Denominations are not synonymous with painful splits, with strife, or with sectarianism. They usually aren’t associated with any of these things either. When they are, that’s no bueno. But most of the time, they aren’t. So most of the time, there is no valid reason for you to condemn.

The Greek word in the scripture is Dihostasiai (my own phonetic spelling). Even Protestant Biblical Greek scholars such as William Mounce and G. Abbott-Smith define the word as meaning “a standing apart; a division, dissension.”

All Protestant Churches stand apart from the Catholic Church as well as the other Protestant Churches. All Protestant Churches are by nature a division. The Protestant Reformation was a Protest. A protest is a dissension.

Merriam Webster Definition of Sect is “a Religious denomination.”

If you don’t see what I consider the obvious then what else can I say? I sincerely believe you are mistaken. However, I do not condemn you and I do not consider you evil. I sincerely see this as obvious and this is one of the reasons I returned to the Catholic Church.