Protestant service last night.

[Roy5]

Stewstew03

Infallible doctrines? Quite a few of them. Several were defined many centuries after Christ. Three examples immediately come to mind: Immaculate Conception in 1864 (as I recall); infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra in 1870; and the Assumption of Mary in 1950. Checking out scripture, I don't find sufficient evidence to support any of these three. We don't even find the names of Mary's parents in the Bible. The Pope isn't mentioned in the Bible. The death and assumption of Mary isn't found in the Bible, either.

Then again, for those who can in good faith accept whatever the Church says is a doctrine or dogma - no problem. Among my good friends there are those who believe all sorts of things and they remain my friends. Jews. Mormons. Hindus (I spent time in India). Sola scriptura Protestants. Militant Catholics, a sprinkling of Buddhist and Baptists, of Quakers and Mennonites and Muslims and Sikhs - well, you get the idea. 

  My stumbling-block with Catholicism is its proud claim that it alone is the true religion, that all other religions are inferior, that the CC was started by Jesus. If Jesus returned today would he even recognize his church with its ornate cathedrals, its magnificently robed cardinals, the vicar of Christ receiving adulation, etc.? I doubt it. Yes, he would be approving of those priests and nuns who work among lepers, of those who devote their lives to the poor and in other ways love God and their fellow human beings. 

   Hope the joy of Easter continues to fill your life with peace. And may the world find peace, also.

 

[stewstew03]

Stewstew03

Infallible doctrines? Quite a few of them. Several were defined many centuries after Christ. Three examples immediately come to mind: Immaculate Conception in 1864 (as I recall); infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra in 1870; and the Assumption of Mary in 1950. Checking out scripture, I don't find sufficient evidence to support any of these three. We don't even find the names of Mary's parents in the Bible. The Pope isn't mentioned in the Bible. The death and assumption of Mary isn't found in the Bible, either.

Okay so “whole set” means “quite a few” or “several” or… wait… three?

The Immaculate Conception may have been solemnly defined in 1854, but that doesn’t mean the early Christians didn’t hold this belief. Similarly, belief in the Holy Trinity was pervasive before it became “official dogma.”

By the way - protestants have certain “infallible” doctrines as well; namely, sola scriptura and sola fide.

 

[Roy5]

stewstew

Various other doctrines, among them transubstantiation, a major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Praying to saints. That's a couple more. 

 Now, there seems to be a gross misunderstanding of the range of Protestantism. True, there are many Protestants who are sola scriptura. But there are millions of Protestants - mainly in the mainline denominations (Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc), who are not sola scriptura. They might be called 'liberal Protestants', heavily influenced by what is known as higher criticism. They are not literalistic about scripture, and while they consider it important they place considerable emphasis on reason. Take the genocide so apparent in the Old Testament, for example - when God orders Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho or when God commands Saul to kill every surviving Amalekite. These Protestants will not accept that as true because it contradicts quite obviously the Sermon on the Mount plus the very nature of God ("God is love.")

 Sorry, but I don't have time to go into all this. There is considerable literature about it which I would recommend. These 'liberal Protestants' also respect the wisdom of other religions as found in such Hindu books as the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Tipitakas of the Buddhists, the Adi Granth of the Sikhs, etc. 

  What attracts me to this style of Protestantism is its willingness to respect different faiths and be willing to learn from them. Too often Christians can be arrogant and claim that they alone have the truth and every other religion is grossly inferior to Christianity. So much prejudice and misinformation has resulted over the years.

 

[CopticChristian]

stewstew

Various other doctrines, among them transubstantiation, a major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Praying to saints. That's a couple more. 

 Now, there seems to be a gross misunderstanding of the range of Protestantism. True, there are many Protestants who are sola scriptura. But there are millions of Protestants - mainly in the mainline denominations (Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc), who are not sola scriptura. They might be called 'liberal Protestants', heavily influenced by what is known as higher criticism. They are not literalistic about scripture, and while they consider it important they place considerable emphasis on reason. Take the genocide so apparent in the Old Testament, for example - when God orders Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho or when God commands Saul to kill every surviving Amalekite. These Protestants will not accept that as true because it contradicts quite obviously the Sermon on the Mount plus the very nature of God ("God is love.")

 Sorry, but I don't have time to go into all this. There is considerable literature about it which I would recommend. These 'liberal Protestants' also respect the wisdom of other religions as found in such Hindu books as the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Tipitakas of the Buddhists, the Adi Granth of the Sikhs, etc. 

  What attracts me to this style of Protestantism is its willingness to respect different faiths and be willing to learn from them. Too often Christians can be arrogant and claim that they alone have the truth and every other religion is grossly inferior to Christianity. So much prejudice and misinformation has resulted over the years.

Roy,

I went to a Protestant service where the book of prayer was filled with multiple choice questions as to which hymns to sing. It took quite a bit of time as you might imagine. We were able to come to some sort of agreement as to what to sing and to be honest it was somewhat disorganized but what can you do.

The pastor then announced that instead of a regular sermon he would poll the audience about what to speak about and of course you can imagine that took quite a bit of time. They finally settled on the story of the Good Samaritan.

Then when it came to the Lord’s supper they took a vote and could not decide whether it was grape juice or wine or grape juice or wine and bread or bread alone. Someone suggested floating the bread in the wine or grapejuice and someone suggested grapes and breadcrumbs. That took quite a bit of time too.

Then there was time for music and before the music could start the band had to agree who was to sing and who was to play what and in what key. We had to wait…

After all of this and after all this time at the end of the service one man raised his hand and said I just have two verses to share. Well then they had to vote to see if he could share them, debate the necessity and finally they let him talk…he said Genesis and Matthew. They said what do you mean?

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

He then said…much of what you say, much of what you think is no different now than it was then and he left.

8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

 

[Roy5]

CopticChristian

I wonder what sort of Protestant church would be run like that. Only two possibilities even come to mind. The Quakers, though they would be unlikely as they don't have communion and they dont; have voted, but wait for concensus. The other is the Unitarians, but they are not as disorganized and silly as that. Are you sure you attended such a church? I find it rather incredible. I have been to several hundred houses of worship over the years (I always have been interested in different faiths and a more-or-less student of them), many of them Protestant, and witnessed nothing which even approaches what you have described.  

In all honesty, I ... well, I'll leave it at that. Voting on whether to have wine or grapejioce before communion? Really now..Sure it wasn't a dream? It must have been. Or, an attempt to defame Protestantism by misrepresenting it? Protestant churches are more democratic than many othersm though they vary, but they are not anarchistic. They take votes at various committee meetings and such but not on hymns, sermon topics, wine or grapejuice, etc., during worship.

 I am compelled to believe that you were dreaming, or your memory is in very bad shape. Otherwise you are not telling the truth and a good Catholic surely would not do that.

 

[stewstew03]

CopticChristian

I wonder what sort of Protestant church would be run like that. Only two possibilities even come to mind. The Quakers, though they would be unlikely as they don't have communion and they dont; have voted, but wait for concensus. The other is the Unitarians, but they are not as disorganized and silly as that. Are you sure you attended such a church? I find it rather incredible. I have been to several hundred houses of worship over the years (I always have been interested in different faiths and a more-or-less student of them), many of them Protestant, and witnessed nothing which even approaches what you have described.  

In all honesty, I ... well, I'll leave it at that. Voting on whether to have wine or grapejioce before communion? Really now..Sure it wasn't a dream? It must have been. Or, an attempt to defame Protestantism by misrepresenting it? Protestant churches are more democratic than many othersm though they vary, but they are not anarchistic. They take votes at various committee meetings and such but not on hymns, sermon topics, wine or grapejuice, etc., during worship.

 I am compelled to believe that you were dreaming, or your memory is in very bad shape. Otherwise you are not telling the truth and a good Catholic surely would not do that.

Roy5, I think CC was employing the literary device known as “metaphor.”

 

[andrewstx]

Probably metaphore…BUT.

I remember visiting a Presbyterian church where the tray passed was 1/2 wine and 1/2 juice, seriously, not a metaphore. But I don’t think they voted except in session.

 

[Roy5]

Yes. I’ve heard that some Protestant churches now offer a choice between wine and grapejuice. The use of grapejuice over the years was encouraged by the temperance movement, an attempt to minimize the damage alcohol does in society. Think of all the people killed by drunk drivers, all the marriages wrecked, all the bankrupt families, all the wasted money (average at least $60,000 per person who moderately drinks during their lifetime), etc. I am one of those who has never acquired the habit and feel blessed because of it. I regard it as a drug. If people drink very moderately, no problem. But millions begin that way and end up as alcoholics. Isn’t it wise simply to abstain? You can get the same benefits with grapejuice without the risks involved.

 

[silverdenali]

I’m simply presenting a different viewpoint. I assume this is welcome on these forums. Wouldn’t they be dull if everyone agreed?

Yes, it's true. I favor major changes in the Church, including the option of priests to marry, the ordination of women Deacons, admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to communion (minus an*** annulment***), the right of married Catholics to follow their consciences when it comes to birth control (which they do already), and a freer atmosphere when it comes to discussion of ancient doctrines and dogmae.  

  I know few posters here agree with me, but so be it. Reform usually comes only after considerable build-up. I well my childhood when it was a major sin to worship with Protestants, and now this community has ecumenical and/or interfaith services several times a year. This suggests that changes can come about. A variety of other regulations were changed, too, such as those governing marriage to non-Catholics. Etc.

Not to threadjack, but…

Registered with the site just to rant on annulments; I think annulments are as garbage as indulgences were. The RCC has gotten a thing or two wrong as others may not admit, but I think are annulments are all about the RCC looking down on from high. Spare me Mark 10:11-12, pretty weaksauce if that’s the best defense of the annulment you can come up with. Guess John 3:16 should have an asterisk to dis include divorced non-annulled people. Pretty crazy & downright embarrassing as a Catholic IYAM.

/endrant

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t think anyone would become an alcholic from the wine in one of the “wee cuppies”.
To me the answer is moderation, not total abstinence.

But the problem I saw in that particular church is they pass the trays in the pews for anyone to have.

A boy maybe 13 unsupverised drank the wine, and that I that I think is bad.

Even in moderation wine is for adults.

 

[VeiledCatholic]

I suppose they couldn’t related because they were not strong in their faith due to partly the fault of their parents who were probably ignorant of their Catholic Faith. Trust me when I say if you are a public school child and attend from 1st grade until 8th grade formal religious education lessons for approx. an hour and half a week and you are not being brought to church to worship God on Sunday on a regular basis and nothing is being taught at home about God, Jesus or His Holy Spirit and no one is saying grace before meals and no one is prayiing bedtime prayers together, then trust me, the wolf in sheeps clothes is just waiting around the corner for the opportunity to lead you away with lies.

Hey,…were you at my house while I was growing up? I was baptized, 1st Communion, got Confirmed into the Church, left at 16. Got saved / born again, etc at the age of 20 in a Pentecostal Holiness church in 2001. Left there in 2005 after the church split. Church floated from 2005-2008, then from 2008 - present I attended a Conservative Mennonite church while getting involved in the Hebrew Roots Movement / Messianic Judaism. I am now on my way back home to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Woohooooo :extrahappy:
I came from a non Catholic Christian home. Yes, my mom was and still is a cradle Catholic so I went to Mass once per week and confession once or twice per year and of course CCD and confirmation classes. But that’s where anything Christian stopped. There were never any prayers said at home. No Bible reading…didn’t even know we had a Bible till I seen some red book on the shelf one day. I asked mom what it was and she said it was Grandma’s Bible. I grew up very secular. My parents were divorced. My dad wasn’t anything.
My mom is 66 years old. She has never even picked up a Bible, has a potty mouth that would make the Pope cringe, yet she is still faithful to Mass every day. Once in a while when things get tough she tells me she’s praying the rosary.

If I will say one thing, it will be this… train your children up in the way they should go and when he is old he will not turn from it…Proverbs 22:6

 

[Ron_Obvious]

I waited about a week and a half after originally posting this before responding to the pastor. After sending him a response by email and addressing every point where I felt he was in error and leaving him a few questions of my own (most notably regarding sola scriptura and his own private interpretation), I never heard back from him (its been three weeks now). I will continue to pray for him.

 

[CopticChristian]

I waited about a week and a half after originally posting this before responding to the pastor. After sending him a response by email and addressing every point where I felt he was in error and leaving him a few questions of my own (most notably regarding sola scriptura and his own private interpretation), I never heard back from him (its been three weeks now). I will continue to pray for him.

Ron,

You probably won’t hear back from the Pastor. In my experience with Pastors I find this. They have a congregation. They have a job. They are concerned about their job. The congregation can vote the Pastor out ie hire and fire. How ever many people they have you are just someone that did not get saved. The likelyhood of getting is response is dependent on your acceptance of the message.

If you want a response then the only way to get one is to do it person to person…I have done that until ultimately after much discussion their is an offer to accept Jesus…my response to these Pastors is that you can’t have me accept something that is not yours to offer…and I leave.

 

[Trebor135]

Ron,

You probably won’t hear back from the Pastor. In my experience with Pastors I find this. They have a congregation. They have a job. They are concerned about their job. The congregation can vote the Pastor out ie hire and fire. How ever many people they have you are just someone that did not get saved. The likelyhood of getting is response is dependent on your acceptance of the message.

If you want a response then the only way to get one is to do it person to person…I have done that until ultimately after much discussion their is an offer to accept Jesus…my response to these Pastors is that you can’t have me accept something that is not yours to offer…and I leave.

I second this post. Go visit the pastor–once you feel prepared to do so–and arrange an appointment. When the both of you meet up, raise all the issues you consider important, and discuss them kindly but firmly.

We must not remain silent in the face of the spreading of error.

 

[highrigger1]

Ok, so I went to a Non-denominational service last night. I was doing it as a favor and trying to be somewhat ecumenical. Knowing where they stand, I had serious misgivings about attending. Now I know why.

The sermon was on Revelation Chapter 2:18-3:5, specifically the the churches of Thyatria and Sardis. The pastor proceeded to say the church of Thyatria represented the Catholic church, talking about all of the good the Catholic church has done in the world. Then, quoting the passages addressed to the churches of Thyatria, especially v 20-21, proceeded to talk about idolatry and false teachings. He then mentioned purgatory, confession to a priest, and the Mass itself, all as being unbiblical. He kept talking about how people are “caught up in this system”, and “the system isn’t going to save you”. “dont need a church, just a relationship”. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I wasn’t really surprised, but I was upset by it.

When talking about the church at Sardis, he immediately compared it to Protestantism. Honestly, I know I didn’t take in all he said here, because I was so upset that he was using the pulpit to attack Holy Mother Church. However, I do remember that when he spoke negatively of Protestantism, it was mainly the Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist churches (probably because they werent enough like his church). Of course he only had good things to say about his own brand of Protestantism.

The pastor asked for a show of hands before the sermon of how many had a Catholic upbringing. About 40-50 people raised their hand. I wanted to walk out in the middle, but I didn’t out of respect for who I was there with. All I wanted to do afterward was go to Adoration.

A lot was on my mind afterward. I know a lot of what this preacher said was nonsense. Should I have walked out? Should I not have gotten so upset? This pastor was using his position and attacking the Catholic church as idolatrus and false. Not sure whether it was ignorance or malice. It seems as though my misgivings about attending were confirmed.

I welcome any thoughts on this

I am protestant and I would have been insulted and walked out after such an insult.
My church never insults other denominations. IF they are mentioned at all it is in a positive reference; For example when the Catholic church has been mentioned in my church it is with regard to Mother Teresa or their excellent Boy Scout program.

I think most protestant churches are the same but in a Non Denom church one never knows. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

The Bible is a Catholic book. No where in teh Bible does it say “only use the Bible as your basis”. There were 400 years before the Bible where Catholicism laid down its traditions, creeds and faith. We are the only Church founded by Christ. Be sure of that.

He’s just a silly little man with the wrong end of the stick, which he is waving around trying to scare you.

Protestantism is a heresy.

I would have walked out. I went to a few Protestant services years ago, and one was of those weird little “churches” started by some nut job. Frankly, I found it empty and unfullfilling with a great big helping of historical and bibical ignorance.

Perhaps take the time to research and write a letter to this pastor outlaying where he is grossly wrong. It will give you the chance to see the history of the Church, the true Chrsitian theology of the Church and help you understand why this man is wrong.

vera,
That of course is your opinion. Protestant opinion is that there was no RCC when the bible was written and that the term “catholic” meant universal, in other words ALL of us. Most mainline protestants consider themselves catholic and many recite the apostles creed every sunday. Mine does.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

As someone else said there were many other books floating around at the time, also. How did they come to the decision of what books should be in the New Testament and what ones shouldn’t. Catholics led by the Holy Spirit. It didn’t just happen, it wasn’t like here are the books we all use. There was much confusion. It took prayer and Holy Spirit guiding to decide which books to include and which ones not.

Hi Diana,

The churches simply came to a informal agreement on it by practice. There was no RCC canon until Trent. But they decided by selecting the apostles and the disciples of apostles and judging by what fit with the popular teachings (Rule of Faith). The Churches were independent and there was no central authority to tell them exactly what was in the bible. It was by informal consensus in the fourth century. By consensus I mean they just accepted the 27 books of the NT and everyone seemed to fall in line. This was true throughout history. The Reformers accepted that consensus. Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

vera,
That of course is your opinion. Protestant opinion is that there was no RCC when the bible was written and that the term “catholic” meant universal, in other words ALL of us. Most mainline protestants consider themselves catholic and many recite the apostles creed every sunday. Mine does.

Peace, JohnR

High,

There is an Oriental Orthodox Church that dates its history to the 5th century. They daparted leaving One Church divided into two.

The Eastern Orthodox dates its history to the year 1000 when it split with the Roman Catholic Church leaving One Church divided in three.

How does your opinion that there was no Roman Catholic Church when the Bible was written compare to these facts?

If the Eastern Orthodox split from the Roman Catholic Church in the year 1000 then the Roman Catholic Church must have existed so as to split from. Try and tell an Eastern Orthodox that they did not exist prior to the year 1000.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Diana,

The churches simply came to a informal agreement on it by practice. There was no RCC canon until Trent. But they decided by selecting the apostles and the disciples of apostles and judging by what fit with the popular teachings (Rule of Faith). The Churches were independent and there was no central authority to tell them exactly what was in the bible. It was by informal consensus in the fourth century. By consensus I mean they just accepted the 27 books of the NT and everyone seemed to fall in line. This was true throughout history. The Reformers accepted that consensus. Peace, JohnR

High,

There was no need to declare a cannon until Trent and if you look at other councils such as Carthage and Hippo then you will see that what was declared at Trent was a confirmation of what was declared at Hippo and Carthage. Your problem is to explain why you have fewer books and on whose authority they were removed.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Diana,

The churches simply came to a informal agreement on it by practice. There was no RCC canon until Trent. But they decided by selecting the apostles and the disciples of apostles and judging by what fit with the popular teachings (Rule of Faith). The Churches were independent and there was no central authority to tell them exactly what was in the bible. It was by informal consensus in the fourth century. By consensus I mean they just accepted the 27 books of the NT and everyone seemed to fall in line. This was true throughout history. The Reformers accepted that consensus. Peace, JohnR

High,

Did I lose you in the discussion?