Protestantism as New Catholicism?

[MarkA16]

Protestantism as New Catholicism?

Funny, yesterday I was thinking about Islam as the “new” (or like) Protestantism.

But my mind was just going crazy.

:extrahappy:

 

[Afterburned6387]

Ok, I will, Protestants were invited, but denied the voting ability that even as Priests and in some cases Bishops as they were were entitled to.

It was held only by forcing the hand of Pius IV, who wished to keep the Reformation in control by papal authority.

It was held in numerous towns over a prolonged period with long absences. The first several meetings (as their decrees attest), were entirely dominated by formalities

No RC official was allowed to speak at length on serious reform of the church, because the Italian cardinals would cut them off, or otherwise attempt to silence them

The Eastern church wasn’t even invited, yet even the RC church now says they claim valid Apostolic Succession

And finally, over 2/3 of those voting on the decrees of Trent were Italians, hardly a fair representation of the Roman World, and furthermore, unfair in that Italy was probably least affected by Reformation Thought (as it was the Pope’s own backyard)

 

[fellowChristian]

Romans 11

16If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Those who disobey are cut off. An amputated member is no longer part of the Body of Christ. Why would they “invite” those who amputated themselves?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Essentially you are then proposing that Ecumenical councils are (and are judged valid if they are) a sort of “democratic” process of majority voting?

Would that then make most all ecumenical councils up until that point “shams” since most not attended by a majority of Christian (or even sizeable minority) of bishops in Christendom?

Of the first seven, It isn’t that the councils themselves were broadly attended. At any given council there were less than 20% attendance on the part of the hierarchs of the Church. And western attendance was even less. In some councils about 1%. A stalwart member of ROCOR who was an ex-Episcopalian always told me he felt it ludicrous that a pope could have power that only the universal college of bishops acting in toto could wield. Yet that has NEVER happened. Ever. There has been no council universally attended. But when you consider travel and communication and the political realities of persecution in Babylon, the West, Egypt, how could universal attendance have even been possible?

So are ALL ecumenical councils shams?

Ok, I will, Protestants were invited, but denied the voting ability that even as Priests and in some cases Bishops as they were were entitled to.

It was held only by forcing the hand of Pius IV, who wished to keep the Reformation in control by papal authority.

It was held in numerous towns over a prolonged period with long absences. The first several meetings (as their decrees attest), were entirely dominated by formalities

No RC official was allowed to speak at length on serious reform of the church, because the Italian cardinals would cut them off, or otherwise attempt to silence them

The Eastern church wasn’t even invited, yet even the RC church now says they claim valid Apostolic Succession

And finally, over 2/3 of those voting on the decrees of Trent were Italians, hardly a fair representation of the Roman World, and furthermore, unfair in that Italy was probably least affected by Reformation Thought (as it was the Pope’s own backyard)

 

[fellowChristian]

Ephesians 5

Marriage Like Christ and the Church

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as **Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. **

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as **Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, **

26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

27 that He might present to **Himself the church **in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as **Christ also does the church, **

30 because we are members of His body.

31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND **THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. **

33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

Jesus has one bride, and is still married to her. Not divorced 30,000 times.
**
Matthew 5:32 **

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus has one Body. Not 30,000 bodies.

**Romans 12:5 **

so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

**1 Corinthians 12:12 **

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many,** they form one body**. So **it is with Christ. **

 

[Petergee]

Ok, I will, Protestants were invited, but denied the voting ability that even as Priests and in some cases Bishops as they were were entitled to.

Bishops may vote at a Council. Priests may not. this invitation was extended to any protestant, bishop, priest or lay, who wanted to attend and give a full exposition of his views on what the Church should do. These people had spent the previous 25 years pouring vitriolic abuse on, and publicly dissociating themselves from, the Catholic Church. And you claim that it wasn’t fair that they were invited to speak, that they should have been allowed to simply take over the Church? LOL.

It was held only by forcing the hand of Pius IV, who wished to keep the Reformation in control by papal authority.

Well duh. The whole problem was that some people were rejecting papal authority.

It was held in numerous towns over a prolonged period with long absences. The first several meetings (as their decrees attest), were entirely dominated by formalities.

They deliberately chose Trent because it was in the Republic of Venice, hard by the border of the German empire and well out of reach of papal authority. the invitation specifuically said that people could come and go as they please.

No RC official was allowed to speak at length on serious reform of the church, because the Italian cardinals would cut them off, or otherwise attempt to silence them

Evidence? And yet amazingly in spite of this supposedly anti-reform agenda Trent achieved more serious reforms than any other Council.

The Eastern church wasn’t even invited, yet even the RC church now says they claim valid Apostolic Succession

Pretty sure they were invited, they were invited to every other Ecumenical council, but they wouldn’t have been very interested as the protestant revolt was at that stage confined to Germany.

And finally, over 2/3 of those voting on the decrees of Trent were Italians, hardly a fair representation of the Roman World, and furthermore, unfair in that Italy was probably least affected by Reformation Thought (as it was the Pope’s own backyard)

Probably a fair reflection that the Italian peninsula was then the most populous part of Europe (it’s nonsense to speak of “Italians”, there was no such thing until the late 19th century when a dozen or more countries were more or less forcibly combined into a country which was then named “Italy”), that Christendom thanks to Turkish and protestant assaults was much smaller than today, and that some would-be delegates were impeded from attending by the Protestant and Moslem rulers of their own countries or the countries they would have to travel through. In spite of all that it was actually the most well-attended Council to date.

 

[JED8643]

Hey,
Haven’t you heard?
CrefloDollarism is the new Protestantism. I mean Protestantism obviously got stagnant and couldn’t offer shiny new cars, private jets, $3000 suits, Rolex’s and beach houses. The “health and wealth gospel” has it all, doesn’t it? Just gotta claim that stuff and your on your way.
Hey, don’t laugh, it’s in the Bible.
Creflo Dollar, Ken Hagin and Ken Copeland all cant be wrong. I mean they all even convened at the annual Senior Pastor’s Praise-a-thon aired on TBN. (my brother said the meeting was a sham, but I didn’t believe him)

Sorry, not buying the premise of the OP. Just silly speculation.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ok, so this thread is about an Idea I had.

In the beginning, there was One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

Then, it split, into the Eastern and Western Churches. Roman Catholics and I can agree, of the two, Roman Catholicism has it a lot more together than the Eastern Orthodox Church, which remains unchanged since the split, in a sort of stagnant state.

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was Roman. This church had it much together, but then it abused the political arm of its power. It became wealthy, it began to rule over princes, it began to claim that it had the authority to sell forgiveness, and many other abuses

Then, it split, into the Protestant and Catholic Church. The Catholics desperately held on to their power, ran a sham council named “Trent,” and to this day has remained largely unchanged…in a sort of stagnant state…

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was the Protestants…

God has moved his church in a new direction once, whose to say He didn’t do it again?

Let me rephrase this a bit more accurately:

In the beginning, there was One Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Founded by Christ through the apostles.

Then, hundreds of years later it split, into the Eastern and Western Churches. The Eastern Churches were concerned that the Western Church was going to “Latinize” them. So they left union with Rome and became the independent Eastern Orthodox Church. However there still remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Over time most of the Eastern Christians who left, returned to union with Rome, no longer fearing westernization and we still have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Catholic Church was centered in Rome. This Church had it much together, but then some in the Church abused the political arm of its power. Some in the Church began to claim that it had the authority to sell forgiveness, and many other abuses.
Then, some in the Church left the Church and started their own version of Christianity called Protestant. They then continued to split and split and split and split, abandoning many and in some cases most of the beliefs and practices of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,as founded by the apostles.

The Catholic Church took measures to correct the abuses of it’s members and eventually did so. We still have today the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, unchanged in it’s beliefs and fundamental practices.

Christ has protected His Church to this day by providing it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit along with His own presence within it until the end of time. When we will still have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, unchanged since apostolic times in it’s beliefs and fundamental practices.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

In the beginning, there was One Church.

Actually I can think of at least a handful?
A few come to mind; Alexandria, Jeruselem, Antioch, Rome to name a few…

 

[Teflon93]

Ok, I will, Protestants were invited, but denied the voting ability that even as Priests and in some cases Bishops as they were were entitled to.

It was held only by forcing the hand of Pius IV, who wished to keep the Reformation in control by papal authority.

It was held in numerous towns over a prolonged period with long absences. The first several meetings (as their decrees attest), were entirely dominated by formalities

No RC official was allowed to speak at length on serious reform of the church, because the Italian cardinals would cut them off, or otherwise attempt to silence them

The Eastern church wasn’t even invited, yet even the RC church now says they claim valid Apostolic Succession

And finally, over 2/3 of those voting on the decrees of Trent were Italians, hardly a fair representation of the Roman World, and furthermore, unfair in that Italy was probably least affected by Reformation Thought (as it was the Pope’s own backyard)

Hmm, have you checked out the first seven ecumenical councils Protestants generally agree were valid? You might be surprised at the number of inadequacies you uncover in their administration given the standard you’ve applied to Trent.

 

[mikeledes]

Actually I can think of at least a handful?
A few come to mind; Alexandria, Jeruselem, Antioch, Rome to name a few…

Hello Simon! These churches did not see themselves as separate entities. They all considered themselves to be members of the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Hey,
Haven’t you heard?
CrefloDollarism is the new Protestantism. I mean Protestantism obviously got stagnant and couldn’t offer shiny new cars, private jets, $3000 suits, Rolex’s and beach houses. The “health and wealth gospel” has it all, doesn’t it? Just gotta claim that stuff and your on your way.
Hey, don’t laugh, it’s in the Bible.
Creflo Dollar, Ken Hagin and Ken Copeland all cant be wrong. I mean they all even convened at the annual Senior Pastor’s Praise-a-thon aired on TBN. (my brother said the meeting was a sham, but I didn’t believe him)

Sorry, not buying the premise of the OP. Just silly speculation.

Now, now—calling attention to the Billionaire Boys Club of Protestantism is not licit. It distracts from discussion of serious issues such as Catholics worshipping statues and/or Mary and/or dead people.

At least they’re not called “Father”–THAT would be un-Christian!

 

[wmscott]

Protestants made one mistake during the Reformation. The sinful men running the Church were the one’s in need of reform, NOT the ancient teachings and doctrines of the Church. The reformers could have done a lot of good if they had fought to reform the evils that plagued the Church at that time instead of leaving it.

By attempting to start the Church from scratch 1500 years later, justifying their new doctrines on the basis of their own private interpretations of Scripture, it opened up the possiblity of an infinite number of divisions and conflicts among Christians because everyone is using their own private interpretation rather than relying on the interpretations handed down through the ages and preserved by the Church.

Luther may have started with good intentions to rid the Church of evil men, but he took it too far by starting his own Churhc and we are still suffering the consequences of his actions…

Thanks DESERTBROTHER for a very insightful point of view regarding the Reformation. (IMO) Had there been a true desire to combat evil for the sake of the Church that Christ instituted here on earth, had ones pride and desire for power been set aside, had Martin Luther not been misguided into believing the “HE” could make the “Authoritative” proclamation as to what the Church is supposed to believe, then leading the sinful back into the light of Christ would have been a legitimate approach to healing the Church.
Think about it how much stronger would the Church have been had Martin Luther chose the high ground and healed it from the inside, instead of spitting in the face of Catholicism.
Talk about the evils that plagued the Church at the time, were not Martin Luther’s attempts to tear it down just as bad if not worse. It is so much easier to tear something down than it is to build it up or heal the wounds. I think you are dead on with “Protestants made one mistake during the Reformation. The sinful men running the Church were the one’s in need of reform, NOT the ancient teachings and doctrines of the Church.” This is one concept that I will remember and use as an example whenever this issue comes up in any of my future discussions on the Reformation. Thanks again.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Hello Simon! These churches did not see themselves as separate entities. They all considered themselves to be members of the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church.

God Bless,
Michael

Funny how Catholocism has forced seperate entities by its abuse of power. The universal church these churches considered themselves a part of is no different than the protestant view, the one and the same that each and every born again regenerate Christian considers himself a part of.
We are Christ’s body!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

. The reformers could have done a lot of good if they had fought to reform the evils that plagued the Church at that time instead of leaving it.

…

They did fight the evil men running the church and furthermore for example Luther didn’t leave, HE WAS KICKED OUT!!!

 

[mikeledes]

Funny how Catholocism has forced seperate entities by its abuse of power. The universal church these churches considered themselves a part of is no different than the protestant view, the one and the same that each and every born again regenerate Christian considers himself a part of.
We are Christ’s body!

These churches also believed in Apostolic succession, a hierarchical church (bishop, priest and deacon), and believed that the Church of Rome enjoyed primacy - even if it that merely meant “in honor”, as argued by those against the papacy - and that a regenerated Christian was one who has been “water” baptized. That’s sounds very un-Protestant to me.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

They did fight the evil men running the church and furthermore for example Luther didn’t leave, HE WAS KICKED OUT!!!

Luther’s fate was a lot kinder than that of the man he hounded to death for having the temerity to do his duty raising money for the Church.

And Luther of course was kicked out only after refusing every bit of Christian charity offered him and after repeatedly and obscenely inveighing against bishop and Pope.

In short, he was Yoko Ono, not Ringo Starr.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Luther’s fate was a lot kinder than that of the man he hounded to death for having the temerity to do his duty raising money for the Church.

.

Oh now Luther is to be blamed for Tetzels death…
Tetzel was selling releases from purgatory, my goodness man. Money can buy alot but sheesh, it ain’t gonna get ya a golden stairway to heaven.

 

[mikeledes]

Oh now Luther is to be blamed for Tetzels death…
Tetzel was selling releases from purgatory, my goodness man. Money can buy alot but sheesh, it ain’t gonna get ya a golden stairway to heaven.

Tetzel sold “indulgences” and Martin Luther recommended violence against peasants during the Peasant’s revolt and against the Jews. Nobody’s perfect.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Oh now Luther is to be blamed for Tetzels death…
Tetzel was selling releases from purgatory, my goodness man. Money can buy alot but sheesh, it ain’t gonna get ya a golden stairway to heaven.

And what does the cleric get who attacks, vilifies, hounds, and persecutes a man as Luther did Tetzel?

Or are we not allowed to criticize Luther because he claimed to speak with Christ’s mouth as he did such things as Christ never did?