Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[Prosmith]

Protestants don’t have the Holy Eucharist, the real body and blood of Christ.

That’s the difference.

(PLUS, reinterpreting the Bible to suit whatever current preference is most popular/gets the most votes from the people who show up that day).

That’s pretty snarky and it’s false to boot.

 

[sdegutis]

That’s pretty snarky and it’s false to boot.

In all fairness, consider birth control and masturbation. Two hundred years ago every Protestant denomination agreed these were objectively immoral. Now, many of them condone and accept these. What changed? Surely God does not change like shifting shadows, so why then was it once objectively immoral and yet now it’s not?

 

[CMatt25]

In all fairness, consider birth control and masturbation. Two hundred years ago every Protestant denomination agreed these were objectively immoral. Now, many of them condone and accept these. What changed? Surely God does not change like shifting shadows, so why then was it once objectively immoral and yet now it’s not?

At one time humankind thought the earth was flat. But their understanding evolves in time. So perhaps God does not, but in all fairness as some people use their God given reasoning and grow in their faith, what might change for some is the understanding of Him and of what He spoke. I think basically people of faith are in 2 camps. Some like every “i” dotted and “t” crossed and everything spelled out for them. They simply are not comfortable otherwise. Others like to more freely reason and to think some for themselves as they walk with faith along their spiritual journey. And they seem to have less of a need to have to think they know everything along their way.

But both journey with faith and hope they arrive at the same destination. And hopefully as they walk, they learn to do so with some charity.

 

[Prosmith]

In all fairness, consider birth control and masturbation. Two hundred years ago every Protestant denomination agreed these were objectively immoral. Now, many of them condone and accept these. What changed? Surely God does not change like shifting shadows, so why then was it once objectively immoral and yet now it’s not?

Which Protestants are you talking about?

 

[104nn01]

I will try to answer your questions, although I have to admit it sounds like you met only ignorant protestants.

I am myself a Lutheran. I adhere to the principles of Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus and Sola Fide.

As long as an aware Lutheran reads the Bible according to these principles, it is hard to pick what we want or not. Solus Christus, means that the Bible is read with the glasses of Christ. That means that Jesus’ words and actions in the Gospels takes president over anything else. If there is not harmony between Jesus and a verse in the Old testament, the old testament looses.

Sola Fide is the idea that only faith can save us. Faith in Christ and faith in God’s Grace is required to be saved. Actions will not save us. We can not force God to save us by doing good deeds. But good deeds should be the fruit of faith. When they are not it is because humans cannot do good all the time. We are bound to sin.

Dedicated Lutherans will of course know the canonization process of the Bible, and we know when it was finished and what texts they are based upon. It is also quite clear to us the faults that can lie in this. That is why we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us.

It seems necessary to point out that it was the Roman Catholic Church that insisted on splitting when Luther wanted to remove the paid letters of absolution. Eventually the Roman Catholic Church did, but it has not yet accepted reckoncilliation.

 

[saveusfromhell]

At one time humankind thought the earth was flat. But their understanding evolves in time. So perhaps God does not, but in all fairness as some people use their God given reasoning and grow in their faith, what might change for some is the understanding of Him and of what He spoke. I think basically people of faith are in 2 camps. Some like every “i” dotted and “t” crossed and everything spelled out for them. They simply are not comfortable otherwise. Others like to more freely reason and to think some for themselves as they walk with faith along their spiritual journey. And they seem to have less of a need to have to think they know everything along their way.

But both journey with faith and hope they arrive at the same destination. And hopefully as they walk, they learn to do so with some charity.

you make heretics sound like such a cuddle bunch

 

[seng]

There can only be one church that is The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ
Saint Peter was the first pope
No matter how you agree or disagree or hardcore still against it
There can only be One The Roman Catholic Church
Long ago The Catholic Monks who were the one safeguard the
Holy bible from destruction be grateful to us and not to bombard us.
Read Scott Hahn(an anti-hardcore against catholic) coming home
You might in for a big surprises and weeps
Thanks for reading

A Catholic from Singapore
yishun

 

[Prosmith]

There can only be one church that is The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ
Saint Peter was the first pope
No matter how you agree or disagree or hardcore still against it
There can only be One The Roman Catholic Church
Long ago The Catholic Monks who were the one safeguard the
Holy bible from destruction be grateful to us and not to bombard us.
Read Scott Hahn(an anti-hardcore against catholic) coming home
You might in for a big surprises and weeps
Thanks for reading

A Catholic from Singapore
yishun

In all fairness, you have not one shred of proof for what you said here.

 

[pablope]

I will try to answer your questions, although I have to admit it sounds like you met only ignorant protestants.

It seems necessary to point out that it was the Roman Catholic Church that insisted on splitting when Luther wanted to remove the paid letters of absolution. Eventually the Roman Catholic Church did, but it has not yet accepted reckoncilliation.

I would say…Luther was not patient enough and stopped trusting in the Holy Spirit.

Have you heard of Catherine of Sienna? She was a reformer prior to Luther…and she reformed the Church without resorting to disobedience or to the need to split the Church…she kept on praying and trusting in the Holy Spirit, and leaving it to God to effect the reforms.

My question: Why could not Luther wait? What makes Luther a better reformer than Catherine that Luther saw a need to split with the Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

I would say…Luther was not patient enough and stopped trusting in the Holy Spirit.

Have you heard of Catherine of Sienna? She was a reformer prior to Luther…and she reformed the Church without resorting to disobedience or to the need to split the Church…she kept on praying and trusting in the Holy Spirit, and leaving it to God to effect the reforms.

My question: Why could not Luther wait? What makes Luther a better reformer than Catherine that Luther saw a need to split with the Church?

Pab,

Catherine of Sienna as I understand was a heck of a woman. She is my daughters patron saint. Natalie Marie Catherine Coptic.

 

[mercytruth]

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

The Catholic Church of today was not the same as the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. The Papacy and Bishops were chosen by the nobility and emperors. Thus, there was not an official Catholic Church which represented the simplicity and humility of Jesus Christ, but an official church which represented all the conflicts and intrigues of wealth and power. The monasteries were the only refuge of Christian learning and teaching. Saints were the prophetic voices, and shining lights within the church.

It is my contention that God used the Protestant Reformation to stir the Catholic Church to reform itself from the political and secular abuses that had darkened it’s spiritual mission.

Meanwhile, Protestants are recognizing that the institutional Catholic Church indeed has changed, and is more representative of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ than it was at the time of the Protestant Reformation. I thank God for anyone who truly desires to walk in the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, imperfect as their walk may be.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[joe370]

How do you know the Magisterium is infallible? How do you know it is right when, say, the Orthodox claim also to be the One true Church? How do you know that one see, the See of Rome, alone, is right, and the other sees,* in unity*, are wrong?

Our Church’s belief - you mentioned the Trinity - is based on what scripture tells us, AND the fact that the undivided Church, in council, confirms the Trinity.

Jon

You know Jon, to be honest, there really is no way to know, with certainty, that the CC teaches infallibly, just as there is no way to know, with certainty, that the Eastern Orthodox churches teach infallibly.

I think the only real and convincing argument one can make regarding the selection of the CC not being the schismatic church is to take the matter right to scripture because it is the only trustworthy source for all of Christendom, and Matthew 16 seems to resolve the matter quite well. If we find that church, in the world today (my reasoning long ago) then we will find the Spirit-guided church founded by Jesus.

Name changes, by God, seem, to me anyway, to point to something bigger and better. As you know, in the OT, God changed someone’s name to illustrate a new and unique role, e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel.

In the NT we see Jesus (the God Rock who changed Abram’s name, due to the fact that he was given a new role in salvation history) giving Simon a new name as well: Kepha - Cephas - Petros, depending on the language. Like Abram, Simons new name seems to clearly illustrate that he too will play a new and unique role in salvation history, but not limited to just Simons life time for what would be the point, or so I thought, to myself, long ago.

I became convinced that Abram, renamed Abraham, (who is called rock by God - Tsur) truly is the father of many nations via Jesus the Christ, just as Simon, renamed rock, truly is the rock on which Jesus continues to build His church, fulfilling what he had promised to Abraham. I also have no problem believing that Jesus’ church is based on Simons confession or profession: “…You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” To me the two are not mutually exclusive. Without Simons confession there would be no name change. Your thoughts?

Gen. 17 - “What’s more, I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram. Instead, you will be called Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations.”

Matthew 16 - “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

 

[JK8619]

I would say…Luther was not patient enough and stopped trusting in the Holy Spirit.

Have you heard of Catherine of Sienna? She was a reformer prior to Luther…and she reformed the Church without resorting to disobedience or to the need to split the Church…she kept on praying and trusting in the Holy Spirit, and leaving it to God to effect the reforms.

My question: Why could not Luther wait? What makes Luther a better reformer than Catherine that Luther saw a need to split with the Church?

Martin Luther did not set out split the Church. He did not leave Catholicism, but was excommunicated. Although I do not agree with all of Luther’s philosophy, I believe his excommunication was one of the biggest mistakes that the Catholic Church has ever made. Luther made some great points on corruption. If the Church would have worked with him the split most likely would have never occurred. I would rather see Lutherans and Catholics together, but I don’t see any good blaming Luther or any other Lutherans for the division.

 

[joe370]

Martin Luther did not set out split the Church. He did not leave Catholicism, but was excommunicated. Although I do not agree with all of Luther’s philosophy, I believe his excommunication was one of the biggest mistakes that the Catholic Church has ever made. Luther made some great points on corruption. If the Church would have worked with him the split most likely would have never occurred. I would rather see Lutherans and Catholics together, but I don’t see any good blaming Luther or any other Lutherans for the division.

I totally agree! On the other hand, we were not there, and therefore, perhaps, are not privy to all of the pertinent facts, so for us to make that call in hindsight might not be the most prudent move.

 

[JonNC]

You know Jon, to be honest, there really is no way to know, with certainty, that the CC teaches infallibly, just as there is no way to know, with certainty, that the Eastern Orthodox churches teach infallibly.

I think the only real and convincing argument one can make regarding the selection of the CC not being the schismatic church is to take the matter right to scripture because it is the only trustworthy source for all of Christendom, and Matthew 16 seems to resolve the matter quite well. If we find that church, in the world today (my reasoning long ago) then we will find the Spirit-guided church founded by Jesus.

Name changes, by God, seem, to me anyway, to point to something bigger and better. As you know, in the OT, God changed someone’s name to illustrate a new and unique role, e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel.

In the NT we see Jesus (the God Rock who changed Abram’s name, due to the fact that he was given a new role in salvation history) giving Simon a new name as well: Kepha - Cephas - Petros, depending on the language. Like Abram, Simons new name seems to clearly illustrate that he too will play a new and unique role in salvation history, but not limited to just Simons life time for what would be the point, or so I thought, to myself, long ago.

I became convinced that Abram, renamed Abraham, (who is called rock by God - Tsur) truly is the father of many nations via Jesus the Christ, just as Simon, renamed rock, truly is the rock on which Jesus continues to build His church, fulfilling what he had promised to Abraham. I also have no problem believing that Jesus’ church is based on Simons confession or profession: “…You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” To me the two are not mutually exclusive. Without Simons confession there would be no name change. Your thoughts?

Gen. 17 - “What’s more, I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram. Instead, you will be called Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations.”

Matthew 16 - “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

And yet, Joe, this really doesn’t answer my concern because, I think clearly, the early Church, while valuing in a special and unique way the Bishop of Rome, doesn’t seem to view the Roman see in the way Rome now claims for itself, the universal jurisdiction, etc.

Hoestly, I envy you that you are/were able to move in the direction you have. I remain conflicted on the issue, and just wish it were solved.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by seng
There can only be one church that is The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ
Saint Peter was the first pope
No matter how you agree or disagree or hardcore still against it
There can only be One The Roman Catholic Church
Long ago The Catholic Monks who were the one safeguard the
Holy bible from destruction be grateful to us and not to bombard us.
Read Scott Hahn(an anti-hardcore against catholic) coming home
You might in for a big surprises and weeps
Thanks for reading

A Catholic from Singapore
yishun

In all fairness, you have not one shred of proof for what you said here.

But you are aware there is proof-right?

 

[joe370]

And yet, Joe, this really doesn’t answer my concern because, I think clearly, the early Church, while valuing in a special and unique way the Bishop of Rome, doesn’t seem to view the Roman see in the way Rome now claims for itself, the universal jurisdiction, etc.

Hoestly, I envy you that you are/were able to move in the direction you have. I remain conflicted on the issue, and just wish it were solved.

Jon

I certainly understand. :thumbsup:I have quite a few quotes from the early church, both east and west that suggest what the catholic church claims; some are quite compelling and even decisive; from the east as well. However, it was certainly met with resistance and incredulity, by a few in the east, as time progressed, just as the Trinitarian doctrine was met with resistance by some in the east. Of course, I do agree that universal jurisdiction was not firmly defined and universally accepted by everyone early on. It seems pretty clear that quite a few things developed over time, in the early church.

If we view the problem strictly from a scriptural point of view, we see that Jesus founded His church on Cephas, gave him alone the keys, and stated that even the gates of hell would not prevail…I would have definitely given eastern orthodoxy a greater consideration, long ago, if they had actually claimed to be the the church of Matthew 16, but they deny Peter’s pivotal role in salvation history; that was problematic for me when attempting to choose between eastern orthodoxy and catholicism.

 

[joe370]

Hoestly, I envy you that you are/were able to move in the direction you have. I remain conflicted on the issue, and just wish it were solved.

Jon

Jon, I feel your struggle; lived it; you will always be in my prayers brother.

 

[JonNC]

I certainly understand. :thumbsup:I have quite a few quotes from the early church, both east and west that suggest what the catholic church claims; some are quite compelling and even decisive; from the east as well. However, it was certainly met with resistance and incredulity, by a few in the east, as time progressed, just as the Trinitarian doctrine was met with resistance by some in the east. Of course, I do agree that universal jurisdiction was not firmly defined and universally accepted by everyone early on. It seems pretty clear that quite a few things developed over time, in the early church.

**
If we view the problem strictly from a scriptural point of view, we see that Jesus founded His church on Cephas, gave him alone the keys, and stated that even the gates of hell would not prevail…I would have definitely given eastern orthodoxy a greater consideration, long ago, if they had actually claimed to be the the church of Matthew 16, but they deny Peter’s pivotal role in salvation history; that was problematic for me when attempting to choose between eastern orthodoxy and catholicism**.

But even this scriptural perspective lacks certainty, Joe. Even if one views the giving of the keys to Peter the man, there is also scriptural credence to the position that the keys, given to Peter, are therefore given to the Church. That’s the authority a Lutheran pastor refers to when announcing absolution - “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority…”.
I don’t think even Lutherans deny the pivotal role Peter plays. We just don’t see that role as universally jurisdictional (is that a phrase? ) in the way Catholicism does.

Jon

 

[joe370]

But even this scriptural perspective lacks certainty, Joe. Even if one views the giving of the keys to Peter the man, there is also scriptural credence to the position that the keys, given to Peter, are therefore given to the Church. That’s the authority a Lutheran pastor refers to when announcing absolution - “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority…”.
I don’t think even Lutherans deny the pivotal role Peter plays. We just don’t see that role as universally jurisdictional (is that a phrase? ) in the way Catholicism does.

Jon

I think I understand. Is there a catholic tradition (since scripture is silent regarding the matter) that supports the idea that the keys were also entrusted to the entire Church as well