Protestantism Produces Anarchy, And Not Authentic Christian Unity in Our Lord

[MDK]

I’ve gone through the OP’s assertions a couple of times, but I’m confounded if I can find an actual argument or honest question to Protestants among them. Perhaps my critical-reading skills aren’t what they used to be

It’s nice that you can’t find an argument, as others have asserted there is argumentativeness where there is none. Okay, so you meant the term differently… The point is to speak the truth boldly and without fluff here. The purpose is an admonition, that staying in the Protestant Church is not what God intended. It is not a valid alternative to the one Church Christ built for His faithful, and while all the Protestant denominations do have some truth, none of them teach the fullness of revealed truth as Christ intended. For those who can live with that, they are not really seeking Christ as He asked. The questions and ramifications to Protestants who defend and stay in this man-made system are implied, not expressly listed. They seem pretty obvious.

 

[MDK]

I don’t believe Protestantism produces anarchy.

The evidence shows that it does. There are some organizations within Protestantism, but also the concept of every man an his Bible. Each can teach different and conflicting doctrine, which conflicts with the faith of the Apostles. This is anarchy in what was supposed to be an ordered Kingdom.

In fact the Catechism tells me that the Lord can use Protestant denominations as a means of salvation:

Actually, it says that the Catholic Church is required for salvation. Only invincible ignorance will get you around that requirement. So, if all Protestants are invincibly ignorant, you do them no disservice. If they are not invincibly ignorant, as I believe many are not, then we must tell them the truth.

I also believe that there will be a lot of Protestants who would tell us that their faith was what led them to the Lord. This goes for Catholic converts outs of Protestantism as well. Of all the conversion stories that I have ever read from Protestantism, I have not read very many (any) talk negatively of their Protestant faith. More often than not, they credit their Protestant faith with instilling in them such things as trusting the Lord, seeking truth above everything else and a love of the Scriptures. All things which had made their conversion to Catholicism easier.

God bless you

There are indeed, and this is a good point to bring up. Whatever truth you do have can help you in your journey to the fullness of truth. The Protestant ecclesial communities do have some truth they kept from Catholicism, and that can help them eventually come to the fullness of revealed truth in Catholicism. They can leave the anarchy of Protestantism for Jesus’ ordered hierarchical Kingdom on Earth, Catholicism.

Let me ask you to please consider that if Protestantism was never made by men, and there were no other splits from Catholicism, then all Christians would be Catholic as Christ intended. They would not have been born into a faith that only teaches partial truth. While Protestantism does teach some truth, it was not established by God, and could never be a substitute for Catholicism.

Let me please ask you if you love a family member, would you prefer that they be in an ecclesial community built by men which teaches partial truth and lacks five Sacraments, or in the Church established by Jesus Christ, the God-Man which teaches the fullness of revealed truth, has seven valid Sacraments including the incomparable Eucharist which all salvation is related to?

May God bless all who love Him, and bring us all to the fullness of truth in Christ Jesus, His Only Begotten Son.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

It’s nice that you can’t find an argument, as others have asserted there is argumentativeness where there is none. Okay, so you meant the term differently… The point is to speak the truth boldly and without fluff here. The purpose is an admonition, that staying in the Protestant Church is not what God intended. It is not a valid alternative to the one Church Christ built for His faithful, and while all the Protestant denominations do have some truth, none of them teach the fullness of revealed truth as Christ intended. For those who can live with that, they are not really seeking Christ as He asked. The questions and ramifications to Protestants who defend and stay in this man-made system are implied, not expressly listed. They seem pretty obvious.

I’ll trust that they do seem pretty obvious to you, but that’s one of the reasons that you’re not going to do much good here. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Protestantism is a mistake. Well, you can’t cure what you can’t diagnose, and so far you haven’t evinced any evidence that you understand what Protestants are thinking or why they’re thinking it.

The “fullness of revealed truth” and what Christ intended vis-a-vis His Church/church is far from obvious to many Protestants and Catholics alike. One often struggles to discover the answers, and the legitimate sources of those answers. If you’re right, then by God’s grace one will discover the Catholic Church at the end of that struggle.

But if you’ll pardon me, you seem a bit oblique to the idea that anyone can so struggle in good conscience. Your admonitions rest wholly on assumptions that aren’t shared unless you’re already Catholic. They’re the fruit of considered thought and debate by men of good will on this forum & elsewhere. If you think the quandaries that honest men have encountered on the way to your ground assumptions are illegitimate, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here. If not, you might wish to refrain from “admonishments” that treat them as solved.

 

[MusicMan]

Why don’t we ask Christ for His? He has already given it, though and people, decent people who may genuinely love Him to some degree or another are ignoring Him. It’s just man’s pride which causes these splits that were never intended.

I am disappointed that you are unwilling to take my question seriously and answer it. For the Oriental Orthodox Churches will claim that we split from them in 451, we are the first Protestants, and that there is no salvation outside the Church (and we ain’t it).

 

[O.S.Luke]

MDK - I think you are guilty of triumphalism. And perhaps even a touch of Gnosticism…

Give the rhetoric a rest. It doesn’t help your cause. Praying for you to be open to charity and grace.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The evidence shows that it does. There are some organizations within Protestantism, but also the concept of every man an his Bible. Each can teach different and conflicting doctrine, which conflicts with the faith of the Apostles. This is anarchy in what was supposed to be an ordered Kingdom.

Yes the “Bible and me” attitude is common among Protestantism. Still there are quite a few Protestant denominations which do not hold to a “my bible and me” attitude. Lutherans and Anglicans come to mind. Here is a good article on the Reformation belief in Sola Scriptura and how it differs from the modern Evangelical doctrine of Solo Scriptura.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

Actually, it says that the Catholic Church is required for salvation. Only invincible ignorance will get you around that requirement. So, if all Protestants are invincibly ignorant, you do them no disservice. If they are not invincibly ignorant, as I believe many are not, then we must tell them the truth.

It also says that Protestants, by virtue of their Baptisms, are members of the Catholic Church:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ,** and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers** . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

There are indeed, and this is a good point to bring up. Whatever truth you do have can help you in your journey to the fullness of truth. The Protestant ecclesial communities do have some truth they kept from Catholicism, and that can help them eventually come to the fullness of revealed truth in Catholicism. They can leave the anarchy of Protestantism for Jesus’ ordered hierarchical Kingdom on Earth, Catholicism.

Agreed. Everything but the ‘anarchy’ part that is

Let me ask you to please consider that if Protestantism was never made by men, and there were no other splits from Catholicism, then all Christians would be Catholic as Christ intended. They would not have been born into a faith that only teaches partial truth. While Protestantism does teach some truth, it was not established by God, and could never be a substitute for Catholicism.

Considered, however, Catholics played their fair share in the divisions that have come to Christ’s Church and the Catechism recognizes this terrible fact:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Let me please ask you if you love a family member, would you prefer that they be in an ecclesial community built by men which teaches partial truth and lacks five Sacraments, or in the Church established by Jesus Christ, the God-Man which teaches the fullness of revealed truth, has seven valid Sacraments including the incomparable Eucharist which all salvation is related to?

I would, of course, prefer them to be in communion with the Catholic Church, but this does not mean that I believe Protestantism leads to anarchy.

God bless you

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I am disappointed that you are unwilling to take my question seriously and answer it. For the Oriental Orthodox Churches will claim that we split from them in 451, we are the first Protestants, and that there is no salvation outside the Church (and we ain’t it).

The claims of the OO churches are not true.

We can read from their patriarchs that at one time they accepted the primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome, therefore, they left us, we didn’t leave them.

 

[MDK]

I am disappointed that you are unwilling to take my question seriously and answer it. For the Oriental Orthodox Churches will claim that we split from them in 451, we are the first Protestants, and that there is no salvation outside the Church (and we ain’t it).

But, I did take it seriously, and also answered correctly and very sincerely. In more detail, Christ established the Catholic Church… and it was the Orthodox Church who left us. Christ is the authority and who I follow here, not the pride or false claims of men.

We are it. For the life of me, why would anyone stay in the Church they believe is not “It”?

 

[estesbob]

If one is offended by the word “anarchy” what word would you use to describe the total disinitigration of Chrisian unity and uniform Chrisitian Doctrine after the so called “reformation”?

 

[MDK]

MDK - I think you are guilty of triumphalism. And perhaps even a touch of Gnosticism…

Give the rhetoric a rest. It doesn’t help your cause. Praying for you to be open to charity and grace.

Actually, what doesn’t help with truth is false claims you’ve made above.

To say what you did is to completely miss the points being made here. It was never, and still is not about tooting one’s horn. This is such a serious matter, that this kind of thing literally never occurs to me. I also know that this is wrong, and would not help me or anyone else.

Gnosticism… really? Do you really know what they teach, and how the Catholic Church fought it? The Catholic Church teaches revelation of Jesus Christ, faith in Him. Gnostics taught some secret knowledge was necessary. I am Catholic and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One of those Gospels records the establishment of the Office of Prime Minister of the New Covenant Church. Did you miss that? The NT also discusses this Church, and places emphasis in certain areas, and shows authority. Why would the NT be so Catholic? Because it was written by Catholic men, and they wrote down what was being taught orally by Jesus’ one Church.

It’s sad when people accuse the truth of being rhetoric. This is a legacy of Protestantism, where one can just believe whatever they desire, as long as they can somehow relate it to some words in Scripture (although not always the meaning of Scripture). This is why I think you and everyone currently under the model of Protestantism would be better served in the fullness of Apostolic faith taught by Christ.

 

[MDK]

Yes the “Bible and me” attitude is common among Protestantism. Still there are quite a few Protestant denominations which do not hold to a “my bible and me” attitude. Lutherans and Anglicans come to mind. Here is a good article on the Reformation belief in Sola Scriptura and how it differs from the modern Evangelical doctrine of Solo Scriptura.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

How does this differ with the original post? Does it ever say total anarchism?

I am very familiar with sola scriptura, and to assume I’m not familiar with Lutheanism and Anglicanism is really a giant leap here, one which is not true. Perhaps a simple misreading of the original post got you in a tizzy, but it is just that, a misreading.

It also says that Protestants, by virtue of their Baptisms, are members of the Catholic Church:

No, it doesn’t say they are members of the Catholic Church. It says they are Christians, and separated brothers.

Why is it that they are separated? It’s because they don’t teach the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor have seven valid Sacraments. In fact, you’ll note that Pope Benedict has signed off on a statement clarifying their “churches” born of the Reformation having no Apostolic Succession, and therefore no valid Priesthood, cannot be called “churches” in the proper sense.

Agreed. Everything but the ‘anarchy’ part that is

Well, then you’re close.

Considered, however, Catholics played their fair share in the divisions that have come to Christ’s Church and the Catechism recognizes this terrible fact:

Let’s not be misled by lumping it all together and splitting the blame equally, because that kind of thing is not what happened. The blame lies in different areas. What was harmful to the faithful in the Catholic Church was the behaviors of those in the leadership, and it was bad behaviors indeed. This was very objectionable. However the problem is that these men were not living the truths taught by the Church, which many of them taught themselves (but did not live). Didn’t this same kind of thing happen in Jesus’ time when Christ told these men to do what they taught because they had the authority (chair of Moses), but don’t model their behaviors?

The errors in Protestant fathers were to reject 1500 years of apostolic teachings and the office of the Prime Minister in order to make their own teachings that maybe men could follow. I’m not saying that these men were evil in their intent, but they were sincerely wrong in changing the doctrines handed down with the protection of the Holy Spirit for doctrines they could live with and made better “sense” to them. These men were indeed very arrogant.

I would, of course, prefer them to be in communion with the Catholic Church, but this does not mean that I believe Protestantism leads to anarchy.

Once again, I don’t think you understand what was posted. It never says or intends that Protestantism leads to total anarchy, or that all Protestants are anarchists. However, the statement is true that the Protestant model has indeed produced a great deal of anarchy. Following the Protestant model leads to anarchy and divisions. Just look around for verification of that. Following the Catholic model never leads to anarchy.

God bless you

…and may God bless you too.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

How does this differ with the original post? Does it ever say total anarchism?

I am very familiar with sola scriptura, and to assume I’m not familiar with Lutheanism and Anglicanism is really a giant leap here, one which is not true. Perhaps a simple misreading of the original post got you in a tizzy, but it is just that, a misreading.

Who is in a tizzy

Does everyone who doesn’t agree with your position have to be in a “tizzy”. Or are they allowed to disagree?

No, it doesn’t say they are members of the Catholic Church. It says they are Christians, and separated brothers.

I disagree:

838** "The Church knows that she is joined**

in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Let’s not be misled by lumping it all together and splitting the blame equally, because that kind of thing is not what happened.

I didn’t say that the blame was equal, only that both sides have played their share in the division of His Church.

God bless you

 

[MusicMan]

The claims of the OO churches are not true.

We can read from their patriarchs that at one time they accepted the primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome, therefore, they left us, we didn’t leave them.

Cite a source, please.

 

[MDK]

I’ll trust that they do seem pretty obvious to you, but that’s one of the reasons that you’re not going to do much good here. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Protestantism is a mistake. Well, you can’t cure what you can’t diagnose, and so far you haven’t evinced any evidence that you understand what Protestants are thinking or why they’re thinking it.

There was never any question that this would only mean something to a certain number of people, although would prefer that number in society to be smaller as to almost not be needed, if they had already found the faith system that will serve them properly in relation to coming to Christ. The implications that were clear will likely only mean something to one who desires to be in God’s Church and follow God as He intended. An admonition is not intended to be a novel either, but does have its purpose.

For instance, it is quite clear that the Protestant model is not one built by Christ, nor can it support what Christ intended. Those who don’t care, will never be affected by this warning. At least, hopefully people consider this.

It is also to fellow Catholics who tend to teach that Protestantism is okay as some kind of alternative. Protestantism is not a valid alternative and if you’re in it, should only be a stepping stone on the way to the fullness of revealed truth. It is also for those seeking authentic teachings in Christ, and they would benefit themselves greatly by looking into Catholicism, and learning the authentic teachings.

The “fullness of revealed truth” and what Christ intended vis-a-vis His Church/church is far from obvious to many Protestants and Catholics alike. One often struggles to discover the answers, and the legitimate sources of those answers. If you’re right, then by God’s grace one will discover the Catholic Church at the end of that struggle.

This thread is to urge one to undertake that struggle without haste.

Besides, the Holy Spirit is the One who converts hearts and leads them to God.

But if you’ll pardon me, you seem a bit oblique to the idea that anyone can so struggle in good conscience. Your admonitions rest wholly on assumptions that aren’t shared unless you’re already Catholic. They’re the fruit of considered thought and debate by men of good will on this forum & elsewhere. If you think the quandaries that honest men have encountered on the way to your ground assumptions are illegitimate, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here. If not, you might wish to refrain from “admonishments” that treat them as solved.

There is too much dumbing down done in society, and I won’t do it here. I believe that people of sincere desire for God who seek will find Him… even if it takes a while.

The issues are solved with God, but certainly not among men. There is no assumption that they are resolved among men, and if they were, no need for this thread in non-Catholic religions… and so there is full knowledge that many are not there yet. Why should I not build upon what is the truth of Christ? Certainly, building on the preferences and “doctrines” of men is what has gotten Protestantism in trouble. You can’t get out of trouble by doing what got you into trouble in the first place. Honest does not necessarily mean accurate, does it? In fact, if I believed my Protestant brothers were simply dishonest, I would never write something which relied on them honestly seeking God.

 

[MDK]

Who is in a tizzy

One who doesn’t read as was written, and feels the need to refute things not said.

Does everyone who doesn’t agree with your position have to be in a “tizzy”. Or are they allowed to disagree?

Knock yourself out disagreeing if that’s what you want. However, if I am being faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which teaches the truth of Jesus without error, then it’s not really me you need to worry about.

I disagree:

You have the right to do just that. We can choose whether to side with truth or not so much truth. You gave me an incorrect interpretation of the Catechism, and I have given you the Catechism.

I didn’t say that the blame was equal, only that both sides have played their share in the division of His Church.

Where was it stated that you literally did? It was a matter that I wanted to clear up, that you had just left very vague and poorly represented… When one digs deeper, we see what the issues were, which showed the important issue about Protestantism leaving the faith of the Apostles. Your statements have unfortunately been less than clear in your statements regarding Catholic consideration of Protestantism, and so need clarifications.

God bless you

… and God please bless you.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

One who doesn’t read as was written, and feels the need to refute things not said.

“Protestantism produces anarchy…”

My refutation was based on the comment that Protestantism produces anarchy. Is this, or is this not what you said? If it is not, then I have indeed refuted things not said. If it was (which I believe it is since I cut and pasted it from your thread title) then how have I “felt the need” to refute something that was not said?

Knock yourself out disagreeing if that’s what you want. However, if I am being faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which teaches the truth of Jesus without error, then it’s not really me you need to worry about.

I have shown you what the Catechism has to say about the matters that you are referring to (ie are Protestants apart of the Catholic Church via their baptism).

You have the right to do just that. We can choose whether to side with truth or not so much truth. You gave me an incorrect interpretation of the Catechism, and I have given you the Catechism.

I gave you the quote from the Catechism. Here it is again:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

What, to you, is it saying?

When one digs deeper, we see what the issues were, which showed the important issue about Protestantism leaving the faith of the Apostles.

MDK, how is this anarchy? You have left the word with very little meaning or perhaps too broad a meaning. Perhaps the word you are looking for is rebellion or schism? Rebellion and schism may be very wrong and lead to very bad things but they can never be anarchy in the sense of Protestantism. You can argue that Protestantism looks to set up a new authority, but it does, in the end, look to establish an authority. Anarchy, by its very nature, strives to deny any and all authority and to achieve the absence of any and all authority. We may disagree with the established Protestant authority and consider it wrong and even sinful, but they have established an authority. That is not anarchy.

God bless you

 

[FickleFreckled]

MDK,
You’re off the mark about most of the responses. The point most of us were making is that you’re Protestant-bashing, which IS un-Christian.
You do more to provoke disunity than any splintering into denominations can. It is what it is, no matter what the original design of Christianity was. To browbeat non-Catholics (on their own forum!) is sort of similar to the Pharisees, or to the original Jewish converts to Christianity who felt strongly that even the Gentile converts must be circumcised. It is what it is. You influence no one positively toward Catholicism with rhetoric or Protestant-bashing. Rhetoric doesn’t change minds or hearts. Only love, kindness and humility does that.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Gnosticism… really? Do you really know what they teach, and how the Catholic Church fought it? The Catholic Church teaches revelation of Jesus Christ, faith in Him. Gnostics taught some secret knowledge was necessary.

Yep. And it seems that you have it - even above the other Catholic brothers and sisters who are posting on this thread.

It’s sad when people accuse the truth of being rhetoric. This is a legacy of Protestantism, where one can just believe whatever they desire, as long as they can somehow relate it to some words in Scripture (although not always the meaning of Scripture).

I think you just implicated yourself on that one - you are making my case far better than I could.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[Hisalone]

Protestants might argue that since scripture promises the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church…**God caused the reformation to deal with the sin in the church and ensure the continuance of biblical Christianity. **That would be another perspective.

 

[estesbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RevDrNorth forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Protestants might argue that since scripture promises the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church…**God caused the reformation to deal with the sin in the church and ensure the continuance of biblical Christianity. *That would be another perspective.

Thousands and thousands of different and often contradictory version of “biblical” christinaity it appears. Anarchy by another name is still anarchy.