Protestantism Today

[MartyrForJesus]

Hm! I have to say that contrary to #94 Catholic material for decades did its best to destroy the personal reputation of Luther.

I recall as a child (I was raised in a mixed Catholic-Protestant environment) how Luther was harshly and persistently assailed for breaking his solemn vows, marrying a nun, throwing an inkwell at a devil, etc. He was presented as demonic, an enemy of Christ, whose anti-Semitism and position against the peasants were highlighted. I remember this well because at an early age I became very interested in whether Catholicism or Protestantism was right, as I was fed (and read) both sides.

Well, you need to look at it from a Catholic perspective. Breaking solemn vows is grave sin, and he never publicly repented from that. The actions of Luther of splitting the Body of Christ and leading countless souls into heresy is demonic and anti-Christ. His later writings were very anti-semitic, and he did support that particular slaughter of peasants. Just because some Catholics attacked Luther personally does not mean that they are correct in doing that. His actions were not of God, but he was still a person made in the image and likeness of Christ.

So this notion that he himself wasn't assailed, only his beliefs, strikes me as false, perhaps the result of a fractured or faded memory. I well recall pamphlets by Frs. Rumble and Carty (was that their names?) Our Sunday Visitor, and even the Paulist Press which were flagrantly anti-Luther - and vigorously bigoted.  Vatican II and John XXIII brought some civility to the debate.

I’m sorry, but until you source me to specific examples, I will take these as simply false. Frs. Rumble and Carty focused on apologetics against Lutheranism, they did not spend their ministry personally attacking Luther, or being vigorously bigoted.

Personally, I'm not uncritical of Luther. He was a brilliant man, charismatic, creative, with a keen love of Christ and desire to serve Christ. He had enormous courage to take on the strongest institution in Europe which had condemned him.

The Church ‘condemned’ him after he had started spreading his heretical ideas. If he was complaining solely about the abuses that were going on, I think it would have gone a little bit differently, but 41 of his 95 thesis were heresy and/or wrong.

I admire these things. He had a bombastic side that I don’t admire as much, and he was considerably more dogmatic generally than I tend to be. I prefer: “Think and let think.” Probably the democratic spirit and tolerance in the USA has been a major factor in all this, and I thank God for it.

**Being dogmatic is absolutely necessary, or we just end up with a democratic belief system. **

The Reformation did several major things. (1) It led to major reforms in Catholicism, although the Council of Trent also tightened certain aspects of the Church that made for less breathing space.

**It would of put them in priority, sure, but the Church was crying out for reform. It would of happened sooner or later. I regularily come across reformation reference books that say what you just said, “The Council of Trent removed any likelyhood of reunion between Protestants and Catholics”. That is however incorrect. The Council of Trent among other things imposed rules against abuses in the Church, issued condemnations on various protestant heresies, and dogmatically defined already existing Church teaching. The Protestants seemed to expect that the Church would ‘change’ its teachings in order to let them re-join. Any informed Catholic knows the possibility of that happening . **

(2) It broke the monopoly of Catholicism in western and northern Europe.
Incredibly bad thing. It led countless souls into heresy.

(3) It resulted in Protestant divisions which was important in sending early dissenters to the USA who established what evolved into the American democracy we have today.

That’s like saying, “I like our Anglican Cathedral here in Adelaide. If it wasn’t for Martin Luther encouraging dissent and Henry VIII from breaking from the Church, causing England to become Protestant so that the first fleet was mostly Anglican, the church wouldn’t be standing here today”. I really don’t know what to say.

As I recall 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestants of one variety of another. Fortunately, no denomination was strong enough to have an established church and the Constitution specifically forbid it. Yet, Christianity in the USA probably continues to be healthier than in any industralized country.

**Because they were all British, and no, Christianity does not continue to be healthier in America. Because of rising secularism in all the West, Christians are facing upcoming persecution because of their moral values not being politically correct. **

 

[Roy5]

MartyrforJesus

 **Frs. Rumble and Carty was a staple when I was very young. Because of that I found their three volumes of "Radio Replies" stashed away years ago**. I don't plan to quote them at length, but to say that they did not attack the character of Luther indicates that you forgot what they wrote. For example, Vol.l, #269: "his diaries record shocking excesses of sensualities which could not be printed in a decent book today....It is not right that people should be duped by the thought that Luther was a well-balanced and saintly reformer....he gave free rein to his lower passions."

** Frs. Rumble and Carty were wild-eyed bigots when it came to Protestantism. They even defended the execution of heretics (see for example, vol. 1 #1066).** I suspect that at least 95% of Catholics today would want to completely dissociate themselves from R & C. Their writings, if publicized as genuine Catholicism today, would lead to an immediate wave of vigorous anti-Catholicism, even from among the faithful. Crazy stuff that reads like material in support of a modern inquisition. How can any intelligent person defend their flagrant hatred now? I trust you don’t. Otherwise I would have to wonder if you also reject democracy, the principles upon which America was founded, and even the basic teachings of Christ.

** Let us make religion a bridge among us rather than a barrier.** May God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries and help us cut out this petty tribal-based hostility that arises mainly out of ignorance and arrogance, certainly not from Christianity charity.

 

[CopticChristian]

MartyrforJesus

 **Frs. Rumble and Carty was a staple when I was very young. Because of that I found their three volumes of "Radio Replies" stashed away years ago**. I don't plan to quote them at length, but to say that they did not attack the character of Luther indicates that you forgot what they wrote. For example, Vol.l, #269: "his diaries record shocking excesses of sensualities which could not be printed in a decent book today....It is not right that people should be duped by the thought that Luther was a well-balanced and saintly reformer....he gave free rein to his lower passions."

** Frs. Rumble and Carty were wild-eyed bigots when it came to Protestantism. They even defended the execution of heretics (see for example, vol. 1 #1066).** I suspect that at least 95% of Catholics today would want to completely dissociate themselves from R & C. Their writings, if publicized as genuine Catholicism today, would lead to an immediate wave of vigorous anti-Catholicism, even from among the faithful. Crazy stuff that reads like material in support of a modern inquisition. How can any intelligent person defend their flagrant hatred now? I trust you don’t. Otherwise I would have to wonder if you also reject democracy, the principles upon which America was founded, and even the basic teachings of Christ.** Let us make religion a bridge among us rather than a barrier.** May God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries and help us cut out this petty tribal-based hostility that arises mainly out of ignorance and arrogance, certainly not from Christianity charity.

Roy,

I own these books. They are available. You see what you want to see. I never saw what you are talking about. I don’t doubt that they are there. I never saw them because I suppose I wasn’t looking where you looked. I have them. I read and have read them. I will look for what you are talking about however I honestly never saw what you see.

 

[BigFellaMick]

The Church is always corrupt. That’s just trivially true. Institutions are corrupt. Period. All of them. Without exception. With only relatively minor variations in degree and kind.

Edwin

That’s simply not true. The Church is full of sinners yes. And sinners, as we well know…sin. The Church is not, has never been and can not be corrupted for it has the divine protection and saving grace of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church itself is incorruptible for it is the body of Christ. Christ made the Church, Christ gave the Church the authority and protection of Heaven and is guiding the Church from its first hour in existence to the end of time. If you don’t believe this then you are contradicting scripture. And scripture is the Word of God and can’t be contradicted. That doesn’t leave much breathing room for the protestants “justification” for splitting away from Christ. For 1500 years there was one universally understood Church, just as Christ always wanted, a union of His children. Then martin luther thought he had a better idea and that he could fix everything himself, which is awfully prideful, and his rebellion, much akin to satans rebellion against God, led the Church into disunity. Look at the faith as a whole today. Catholics still stand united as they always have from day one. Protestants and now non denominational churches just continue to splinter and break apart. There is lots of in fighting over big issues, over small issues. Lots of condemnation going around (and I understand a lot of Catholic laity will condemn others. It’s unfortunate but it’s an individual thing, not Church teaching). Christ made one Church that stood for 1500 years, then Satan turned brother against brother and caused a schism. To this day the Catholic Church remains whole, as living testament to Christ’s promise to always remain with His Church. Protestant and non denominational churches do not have that same protection for the church they reside in is man made and flawed. I’m not saying its wrong so please don’t misunderstand that. Wrong on certain issues, some of them very big issues yes. But you won’t hear me suggesting protestants are going to hell. Sadly the same mentality can’t be said for other Catholics and certainly not for many protestants. And look at how today it seems only the Pope is calling for christian unity. I mean unity in general but a big emphasis on coming back to one body as Christ wishes for all of His children. I just pray everyone in time will come back to the table and open dialogue with each other. The Truth found in the Church will serve as a beacon to bring all those to the fullness of communion with Christ and not the impartial/imperfect communion they experience with their symbolic Eucharistic services (if they even have enough respect for Christ’s word to do that much). It’s sad u_u But our Lord is loving and forgiving and I pray everyone comes home soon!

 

[Protestant_Me]

So you believe that respecting rights allows sin by a Christian?

So, do you believe that practicing any religiion is in itself acceptable for a Christian?

Enlighten me.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the ‘true’ church. So, it isn’t a sin to practice something else. Yes there are some ‘religions’ that are completely un-Christian. But being Methodist, Baptist, ect. and not believing everything the Chruch tells you to believe, is not a sin. Going against God’s commandments and His holy words are. There is nothing in the Bible that says “follow the Catholic Church, for it is my church,” unless the Catichism book that was written by man for men to follow says this. God gave us the right to question and search, or He wouldn’t have given us a mind to think with. He is always there with His arms wide open to receive you once again. Please enlighten me where I can find evidence to counteract my belief.

 

[Nicea325]

Protestant Me:

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the ‘true’ church.

Simply because you disbelieve in something does not mean it is right or a fact. Now may you please tell us where is the “true” Church Christ founded? Did it merely vanish into thin air?

So, it isn’t a sin to practice something else.

Not necessarily,depends what you practice.

Yes there are some ‘religions’ that are completely un-Christian. But being Methodist, Baptist, ect. and not believing everything the Chruch tells you to believe, is not a sin.

Then why bother to found a Church guided by the Holy Spirit,if every Joe and Jane is left for themselves to decide what is doctrine,dogma,sin, etc?

Going against God’s commandments and His holy words are.

Yes very true and also against His Church he founded with authority.

There is nothing in the Bible that says “follow the Catholic Church, for it is my church,” unless the Catichism book that was written by man for men to follow says this.

And there is nothing in the Bible that says only follow the Bible or God saying everything must be said in the Bible to make it true.

God gave us the right to question and search, or He wouldn’t have given us a mind to think with.

Yes it is called free-will a gift from God,which also can be very dangerous as displayed by your response.

He is always there with His arms wide open to receive you once again. Please enlighten me where I can find evidence to counteract my belief.

Yes that means conversion of the heart and submitting to His will also empowered to His Church.

 

[pablope]

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the ‘true’ church. So, it isn’t a sin to practice something else.
Please enlighten me where I can find evidence to counteract my belief.

Here you go///The Catholic Controversy…archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain/catholiccontrove00sain_djvu.txt

Excerpts…

THE LACK OF MISSION IN THE MINISTERS OF THE NEW
PRETENDED CHURCH LEAVES BOTH THEM AND THEIR
FOLLOWERS WITHOUT EXCUSE.

First, then, your ministers had not the conditions
required for the position which they sought to
maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook.
"Wherefore they are inexcusable; and you yourselves
also, who knew and still know or ought to know, this
defect in them, have done very wrong in receiving
them under such colours. The office they claimed
was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord ;
the affair they undertook was to declare a formal
divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church his
Spouse ; to arrange and conclude by words of present
consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new
marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said
they, and more seemly than the other. For in effect,
to stand up as preacher of God’s Word and pastor
of souls, — what is it but to call oneself ambassador

and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the
Apostle : * We art therefore ambassadors for Christ /
And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed,
that the whole Church has erred, and all truth dis-
appeared, — what is this but to say that Our Lord has
abandoned his Church, has broken the sacred tie of
marriage he had contracted with her ? And to put
forward a new Church, — is it not to attempt to thrust
upon this sacred and holy Husband a second wife ?
This is what the ministers of the pretended church
have undertaken ; this is what they boast of having
done ; this has been the aim of their discourses, their
designs, their writings. But what an injustice have
you not committed in believing them ? How did you
come to take their word so simply ? How did you
so lightly give them credit ?

To be legates and ambassadors they should have
been sent, they should have had letters of credit from
him whom they boasted of being sent by. The affairs
were of the greatest importance, for there was question
of disturbing the whole Church. The persons who
undertook them were extraordinaries, of mean quality,
and private persons ; while the ordinary pastors were
men of mark, and of most ancient and acknowledged
reputation, who contradicted them and protested that
these extraordinaries had no charge nor commandment
of the Master. Tell me, what business had you to
hear them and believe them without having any
assurance of their commission and of the approval of
Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves ? In
a word, you have no justification for having quitted
that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the

• 2 Cor. V. 20.

faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from
the Master.

 

[pablope]

Here you go///The Catholic Controversy…archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain/catholiccontrove00sain_djvu.txt

Excerpts…

Chapter 2

Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had,
nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our
Lord had sent them, it would have been either medi-
ately or immediately. We say mission is given medi-
ately when we are sent by one who has from God the
power of sending, according to the order which he has
appointed in his Church ; and such was the mission
of S. Denis into France by Clement and of Timothy
by S. Paul. Immediate mission is when God himself
commands and gives a charge, without the interposition
of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the
prelates and pastors of the Church : as S. Peter and
the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord’s
own mouth this commandment : Go ye into the, whole
worlds and 'preach the Gospel to every creature ; * and
as Moses received his mission to Pharao and to the
people of Israel. But neither in the one nor in the
other way have your ministers any mission. How
then have they undertaken to preach ? How shall they
preach, says the Apostle, unless they he sent ? t

And first, as to ordinary and mediate mission, they
have none whatever. For what they can put forward
is either that they are sent by the people and secular

• Mark xvi. 15. t Rom. x. 15.

14 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.

princes, or else that they are sent by the imposition
of the hands of the bishops who made them priests, a
dignity to which at last they must have recourse,
although they despise it altogether and everywhere.

Now, if they say that the secular magistrates and
people have sent them, they will have two proofs to give
which they never can give, the one that the seculars have
done it, the other that they could do it, for we deny
both the fact and the right (factum et jus faciendi).

And that they could not do it the reason is absolute.
For (i.) they will never find that the people and
secular magistrates had the power to establish and
institute bishops in the Church.^ They will indeed
perhaps find that the people have given testimony and
assisted at ordinations ; yea, perhaps, that the choice
has been given to them, like that of the deacons, as
S. Luke tells us (Acts vi.), which the whole body
of the faithful made ; but they will never show that
the people or secular princes have authority to give
mission or to appoint pastors. How then do they
allege a mission by people or princes, which has no
foundation in the Scripture ? (2.) On the contrary,
we bring forward the express practice of the whole
Church, which from all time has been to ordain the
pastors by the imposition of the hands of the other
pastors and bishops. Thus was Timothy ordained;
and the seven deacons themselves, though proposed
by the Christian people, were ordained by the imposi-

• The Saint in a detached note elsewhere draws particular attention
  to the necessity of mission shown in the fact that Jeroboam is rebuked
  not for dividing the kingdom but for dividing the Church, and making
  temples in the high places, and priests of the lowest of the people, who
  were not sons of Levi. (3 Kings xii. 31.)

CHAP. II.] Mission. 15

tion of the Apostles’ hands. Thus have the Apostles
appointed in their Constitutions ; and the great Council
of Nice (which methinks one will not despise) and that
of Carthage — the second, and then immediately the
third, and the fourth, at which S. Augustine assisted.
If then they have been sent by the laity, they are not
sent in Apostolic fashion, nor legitimately, and their
mission is null. (3.) In fact, the laity have no mis-
sion, and how then shall they give it ? How shall
they communicate the authority which they have not ?
And therefore S. Paul, speaking of the priesthood and
pastoral order, says : Neither doth any man talce the
honour to himself hut he that is called hy God, as Aaron
was (Heb. x. 4). Now Aaron was consecrated and
ordained by the hands of Moses, who was a priest
himself, according to the holy word of David (Ps.
xcviii. 7), Moses and Aaron among his priests and
Samuel among those who call upon his name ; and, as
is indicated in Exodus (xxviii. i) in this word, Take
unto thee also Aaro7i thy brother, with his sons . . . that
they may minister to me in the priest’s office; with
which agree a great army of our Ancients. Whoever
then would assert his mission must not assert it
as being from the people nor from secular princes.
For Aaron was not called in that way, and we cannot
be called otherwise than he was. (4.) Finally, that
which is less is blessed by the better, as S. Paul says
(Heb. vii. 7). The people then cannot send the
pastors ; for the pastors are greater than the people,
and mission is not given without blessing."" For after
this magnificent mission the people remain sheep, and

• Amen, Amen, I say to you; the servant is not greater than his Lord^
  neither is an A;posUe greater than he that sent him (John xiii. i6).

 

[Roy5]

God looks at our hearts and not at our creeds or church affiliation.

Some years ago I spent time with a Hindu family in India. They were very open about religion, emphasizing devotion to the divine rather than any particular faith. Their children went to a Christian school. The only faith they had somewhat negative feelings about was Islam, and this was because their parents had fled what became Pakistan in 1947 and a number of their relatives were killed in the mayhem at that time.

 After some weeks living with their family I concluded that the spirit of Christ lived among them, even though they weren't creedal Christians. They certainly lived by the Sermon on the Mount.

  It made me realize what I continue to believe. The narrow religious tribalism that so many Catholics and evangelical Protestants practice is petty and too often leads to uninformed and narrow bigotry. People have different traditions, many of them fine traditions, and we ought to follow the teaching of Christ: "judge not that ye be not judged". If 'no one cometh unto the Father except through me", as Christ said, I'm sure he will open wide the doors for worthy people of many faiths. 

  I find this spirit of mutual respect prevalent among mainline Protestants, less so among Catholics, and least among evangelical Protestants. 

 God bless everyone - no exceptions!

 

[CopticChristian]

God looks at our hearts and not at our creeds or church affiliation.

Some years ago I spent time with a Hindu family in India. They were very open about religion, emphasizing devotion to the divine rather than any particular faith. Their children went to a Christian school. The only faith they had somewhat negative feelings about was Islam, and this was because their parents had fled what became Pakistan in 1947 and a number of their relatives were killed in the mayhem at that time.

 After some weeks living with their family I concluded that the spirit of Christ lived among them, even though they weren't creedal Christians. They certainly lived by the Sermon on the Mount.

  It made me realize what I continue to believe. The narrow religious tribalism that so many Catholics and evangelical Protestants practice is petty and too often leads to uninformed and narrow bigotry. People have different traditions, many of them fine traditions,** and we ought to follow the teaching of Christ: **"judge not that ye be not judged". If 'no one cometh unto the Father except through me", as Christ said, I'm sure he will open wide the doors for worthy people of many faiths. 

  I find this spirit of mutual respect prevalent among mainline Protestants, less so among Catholics, and least among evangelical Protestants. 

 God bless everyone - no exceptions!

You scare me Roy. I have traveled to the Peoples Republic, Manilla, Hong Kong, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Honduras and plan to travel more. People all over the world are like Paul says…children of God…some just don’t have all the revelation…some do have more others have less…when you say what we ought to do I fear that you have judged that tribalism as you call it does not. I am not a fan of Protestant thought however since you are willing to stand up for liberalism and shout…then I say that there have been Protestants that I have seen that shine ever so brightly against the paradigm you paint and Catholics as well…I will add I have seen Mormons, Muslims, heathens that do the best they can with what they got…we are all human after all…you scare me Roy.

 

[Protestant_Me]

I am not a fan of Protestant

Not many Catholics like Protestants or Protestantism because it is different from what you believe.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8604503:

I am not a fan of Protestant

Not many Catholics like Protestants or Protestantism because it is different from what you believe.

This statement is based on what you percieve. Ask me why I don’t like Protestantism, not Protestants, there is a difference. You may change your mind as to what you conclude as to the reason being “difference”…

 

[joe370]

Protestant Me

Not many Catholics like Protestants or Protestantism because it is different from what you believe.

Sadly, when one does a thorough google search one finds copious amounts of anti-catholic rhetoric from almost the entire spectrum of Protestantism. You will not find the same thing in reverse. Below are just 2 examples of anti-catholic rants and you will not find the Catholic Church behaving in such an anti-Christian way, which was just one of the things that drew me to the CC:

antichristconspiracy.com/the_antichrist.htm

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&spell=1&q=cache:k-21G6HhMrEJ:http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm+catholic+church+is+the+antichrist&ct=clnk

 

[Roy5]

** As a watcher of EWTN** I always am surprised at how much emphasis is placed upon the ‘splendor of truth’ of Catholicism, while Protestantism is under constant implicit judgment. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is “The Journey Home” when considerable attention is given to converts, most of them former Protestants.

** Maybe I don’t get around among Protestants enough,** but I’m aware of two thngs in this area: (1) a large number of Catholics have drifted from the church, many to mainline or evangelical Protestant churches; (2) I never see such converts trumpeted in such a public fashion as on “The Journey Home”. Whenever I watch “The Journey Home” and several other EWTN programs the thought runs through my mind: “This strikes me as very defensive. If Catholicism is the one true faith and has the full support of the Holy Spirit why is such an effort made to diminish Protestantism? Catholics should relax since they believe the truth is theirs.”

** Actually, I believe that all Christians should feel a sense of unity since they share so much in common.** This petty tribalism - “we have the truth and you don’t!” - seems so piddling and small-minded, unworthy of the body of Christ. Tonight we will gather in a local Catholic church for an ecumenical Thanksgiving service. The largest number of clergy participating will be Protestants. I rejoice in such a gathering and feel nothing but goodwill and respect for other Christians and fine people of all faiths. I find, in fact, that mainline Protestants are then most open to a true ecumenical spirit. men and women who hold various views but escape the arrogance that comes from insistence upon conformity.

** Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.** That is in keeping with the love of God and the teachings of Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

** As a watcher of EWTN** I always am surprised at how much emphasis is placed upon the ‘splendor of truth’ of Catholicism, while Protestantism is under constant implicit judgment. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is **“The Journey Home” **when considerable attention is given to converts, most of them former Protestants.

** Maybe I don’t get around among Protestants enough,** but I’m aware of two thngs in this area: (1) a large number of Catholics have drifted from the church, many to mainline or evangelical Protestant churches; (2) I never see such converts trumpeted in such a public fashion as on “The Journey Home”. Whenever I watch “The Journey Home” and several other EWTN programs the thought runs through my mind: “This strikes me as very defensive. If Catholicism is the one true faith and has the full support of the Holy Spirit why is such an effort made to diminish Protestantism? Catholics should relax since they believe the truth is theirs.”

** Actually, I believe that all Christians should feel a sense of unity since they share so much in common.** This petty tribalism - “we have the truth and you don’t!” - seems so piddling and small-minded, unworthy of the body of Christ. Tonight we will gather in a local Catholic church for an ecumenical Thanksgiving service. The largest number of clergy participating will be Protestants. I rejoice in such a gathering and feel nothing but goodwill and respect for other Christians and fine people of all faiths. I find, in fact, that mainline Protestants are then most open to a true ecumenical spirit. men and women who hold various views but escape the arrogance that comes from insistence upon conformity.** Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.** That is in keeping with the love of God and the teachings of Christ.

I watch TBN occasionally and other Protestant run stations and hear and see vignettes and statements of “I used to be Catholic”…EWTN is a Catholic station…I believe that there is still a Playboy channel out there somewhere…there is the History channel…the Food Network…what do you expect to see when you tune in on these stations? They air what is intended for their audience.

The Journey home for converts. Tell me how you would program this and what you would name it?

You don’t get around Protestants enough you say and yet you have a compare and contrast mentality of this “large” number of Catholics that are losing their faith…I have had Catholic friends, go to Catholic Church and to be honest there have been problems, issues, tragedies, births, deaths and I cannot for the life of me recall any stream of “large” numbers of Catholics losing their faith…I periodically encounter a "I used to be Catholic’ and when I do their understanding of what they left and what they left for indicates poor understanding as a result of poor catechesis. That is what I see.

Blame Jesus, Paul and the Apostles for wanting the truth…you don’t want it, so OK. You appear to have this mentality that misery loves company, wait and see, I want to be around to see how you do it, when somebody breaks your heart…you appear to want people to join you in your rant. I read what you write and feel sadness, pity, no joy…and wonder?

 

[joe370]

Hey Roy5…

I watch EWTN all of the time and in no way is the show defensive and **in no way **is the show an attempt to diminish Protestantism. The exact opposite actually.

You trumpet the notion that “a large number of Catholics have drifted from the church, many to mainline or evangelical Protestant churches” and that’s cool; to each their own, but when they do leave, they always seem so vitriolic, in my experience. I sure wish there was a protestant show equivalent to “The Journey Home” that aired Protestant converts talking about their conversion in the same Christian like manner that those folks do on “The Journey Home”. Instead, again in my personal experience, they always seem very defensive and big time attempt to diminish Catholicism. As a former protestant I saw the anti-catholic jabs almost on a daily basis. Quite sad indeed.

Again, you will not find that kind of scathing hostility on the web, when it comes to catholic apologetics.

Peace brother…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Protestants feel compelled to explain why they aren’t Catholic, but few know or understand Catholicism. What is said on those websites joe370 describes is the product of ignorance.

Many Protestants also know little about the history of the Bible they profess to live by. They don’t know that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings and that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible at the end of the fourth century. The Bible is a Catholic book.

When I was a Protestant, I was also ignorant of the Truth. It never occurred to me to ask where we got the Bible. I guess I thought it fell out of heaven. But God chose to make the Catholic Church the agent of the Holy Spiirt to produce the Bible. Every Protestant has his/her own personal interpretation (i.e., opinion) of the Bible – or they accept someone else’s personal interpretation. But only the Church who wrote the NT knows what it means. The Church is not based on the NT; rather, the NT is based on the Church.

 

[Roy5]

** It’s important to understand that Protestants believe that the early Christians were on target, **but over the Middle Ages the need for the Reformation developed when Catholicism veered further and further from the original church and became an institution controlled in large part by church politics and politicians, corrupted by money and luxurious living in the Vatican and elsewhere, and increasingly invaded by superstitions, myths and wild apparations and such that were borrowed from world of paganism. Perhaps most disturbing were new doctrines that they believed departed from the scriptures.

 **Whether the Protestants are right or wrong, the notion that Protestants are ignorant when it comes to the history of the church is not fair.** Like Catholics, Protestants run the gamut from those that are very versed in scripture and history to those who aren't. Since I have both within my family circle, I have always hoped that the hostility that sometimes shows its ugly head could be replaced by mutual respect and the love which Christ commanded.

** As we mark another Thanksgiving let’s not forget that the USA was founded by Protestants** (e. g., 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence). Should we dismiss them and their faith as heretics and heresy? Nonsense. There are brilliant theologians and saintly people among both groups. Up until modern times, the Papacy opposed true freedom of religion. Read, for example, the “Syllabus of Errors” by Piux IX (1864). It is a diatribe against much that we hold dear in our American democracy.
We need less dogmatism and arrogance and more respect for other views and humility.

 

[CopticChristian]

** It’s important to understand that Protestants believe that the early Christians were on target, **but over the Middle Ages the need for the Reformation developed when **Catholicism veered further and further from the original church **and became an institution controlled in large part by church politics and politicians, corrupted by money and luxurious living in the Vatican and elsewhere, and increasingly invaded by superstitions, myths and wild apparations and such that were borrowed from world of paganism. Perhaps most disturbing were new doctrines that they believed departed from the scriptures.

 **Whether the Protestants are right or wrong, the notion that Protestants are ignorant when it comes to the history of the church is not fair.** Like Catholics, Protestants run the gamut from those that are very versed in scripture and history to those who aren't. Since I have both within my family circle, I have always hoped that the hostility that sometimes shows its ugly head could be replaced by mutual respect and the love which Christ commanded.

** As we mark another Thanksgiving let’s not forget that the USA was founded by Protestants** (e. g., 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence). Should we dismiss them and their faith as heretics and heresy? Nonsense. There are brilliant theologians and saintly people among both groups. Up until modern times, the Papacy opposed true freedom of religion. Read, for example, the “Syllabus of Errors” by Piux IX (1864). It is a diatribe against much that we hold dear in our American democracy.

 We need less dogmatism and arrogance and more respect for other views and humility.

Dileneate where the veering was and how there is something somewhere that is correct and absent that veering.

 

[wisdomseeker]

** As a watcher of EWTN** I always am surprised at how much emphasis is placed upon the ‘splendor of truth’ of Catholicism, while Protestantism is under constant implicit judgment. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is “The Journey Home” when considerable attention is given to converts, most of them former Protestants.

** Maybe I don’t get around among Protestants enough,** but I’m aware of two thngs in this area: (1) a large number of Catholics have drifted from the church, many to mainline or evangelical Protestant churches; (2) I never see such converts trumpeted in such a public fashion as on “The Journey Home”. Whenever I watch “The Journey Home” and several other EWTN programs the thought runs through my mind: “This strikes me as very defensive. If Catholicism is the one true faith and has the full support of the Holy Spirit why is such an effort made to diminish Protestantism? Catholics should relax since they believe the truth is theirs.”

** Actually, I believe that all Christians should feel a sense of unity since they share so much in common.** This petty tribalism - “we have the truth and you don’t!” - seems so piddling and small-minded, unworthy of the body of Christ. Tonight we will gather in a local Catholic church for an ecumenical Thanksgiving service. The largest number of clergy participating will be Protestants. I rejoice in such a gathering and feel nothing but goodwill and respect for other Christians and fine people of all faiths. I find, in fact, that mainline Protestants are then most open to a true ecumenical spirit. men and women who hold various views but escape the arrogance that comes from insistence upon conformity.

** Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.** That is in keeping with the love of God and the teachings of Christ.

You cannot accept the fact that there is ONe Truth. What you want is that Catholics forget the Truth and just follow protestantism ideology and just form another religion to which we all belong.

The fact is that there a lot of differences between us. protestants reject practically all the Church teaches. If Catholics give up the Truth, who would be left to tell the world the Truth?

EWTN- when protestants find the CC, there is a reason for it. they have found the Truth. they state how they came to knwo the Truth. when Catholics leave to protestantism, all they can say is that they found the Bible. there is no reason given by them to why they left the Church.