Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you follow Him, you are in His Church, which is universal and invisible to human eyes (though highly visible and powerful in the spiritual realm).

Would you please quote the scriptures that state if you follow Him, you are in His Church and that the Church is invisible to human eyes?

 

[StTommyMore]

Would you please quote the scriptures that state if you follow Him, you are in His Church and that the Church is invisible to human eyes?

I would be curious about this too. Especially since the metaphor commonly used by St. Paul is “the Body of Christ.” If the Church is invisible, would not there have been a better metaphor (like soul of Christ).

 

[seeker57]

I would have to agree with the original poster. Protestant Christians are not a different religion from Catholic Christians or Orthodox Christians, just a different denomination.

From my point of view, all of the above are the same religion, Christian.

Seeker

 

[StTommyMore]

I would have to agree with the original poster. Protestant Christians are not a different religion from Catholic Christians or Orthodox Christians, just a different denomination.

From my point of view, all of the above are the same religion, Christian.

Seeker

I would say that they are different, because Protestantism has rejected historical Christianity.

 

[PLeeD]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

Doctrinally they are very similar: Marian veneration, real presence in the Eucharist, seven sacraments, etc. At any rate we should not base our worship on “what we like” but on “what has been revealed”

In at least one issue that is very important to me personally, what has been “revealed” to the Orthodox is apparently quite a bit different than the revelation to Rome. Orthodoxy matches what I believe on that issue. The CC discipline is much different, and would serve as a great barrier to me ever converting.

Marianism - I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine. I’m not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking. I’m satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

Confession would be new and strange for me. I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

In at least one issue that is very important to me personally, what has been “revealed” to the Orthodox is apparently quite a bit different than the revelation to Rome. Orthodoxy matches what I believe on that issue. The CC discipline is much different, and would serve as a great barrier to me ever converting.

Marianism - I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine. I’m not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking. I’m satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

Confession would be new and strange for me. I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

Rely not on your own understanding. It seems to me that you decide what to believe and what not to. What is true and what is not true. Do you really think that you are capable of knowing what Jesus tought the Aposltes is exactly in line with what you want to believe? How are you to know what Jesus really stablished with the Apostles if you werent there and do not really understand the kingdom of Israel?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sure, but which is the one that Christ founded? Given that it was hundreds of years before the Bishop of Rome was anything more than “first among equals”, (it was Leo I who first successfully asserted the claim to papal authority, and that worked because the barbarians were literally at the gates) it looks like a human evolution rather than something divinely instituted. If apostolic succession is necessary, it looks to me like the Eastern Orthodox claim is at least as valid as the Roman one, and I think their doctrine is better. From a Protestant perspective, being in the Church Christ founded is not being in any particular organization, but simply being one of his followers. If you follow Him, you are in His Church, which is universal and invisible to human eyes (though highly visible and powerful in the spiritual realm).

And what first among equals means to you? how would you know that this is not a belief before the holy father declared as such? how can an invisible Church teach people? how? Just follow Him? did not Jesus took the time to teach His Apostles to build His Church? Did not Jesus stablished many things we should do to be saved? how would knonw what to believe if you are not tought by His Church? Did Jesus not want His people to be together and tough the same thing? Does He not want us to know One Truth? Did He teach one Apostle one thing and another another different Truth? I dont think so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How did the letters, that make up the New Testament, get delivered to an ‘invisible’ Church?

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

In at least one issue that is very important to me personally, what has been “revealed” to the Orthodox is apparently quite a bit different than the revelation to Rome. Orthodoxy matches what I believe on that issue. The CC discipline is much different, and would serve as a great barrier to me ever converting.

Marianism - I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine. I’m not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking. I’m satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

Confession would be new and strange for me. I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

Finding a faith that matches what you already believe is not the proper way of doing things. The proper way is finding the Faith that has been around since Christ (under the Authority of Peter and his successors) and conforming yourself to the Truth.

 

[onenow1]

John 6: 54, " Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day." WOW !!!

God Bless

 

[PLeeD]

Rely not on your own understanding. It seems to me that you decide what to believe and what not to. What is true and what is not true. Do you really think that you are capable of knowing what Jesus tought the Aposltes is exactly in line with what you want to believe? How are you to know what Jesus really stablished with the Apostles if you werent there and do not really understand the kingdom of Israel?

Finding a faith that matches what you already believe is not the proper way of doing things. The proper way is finding the Faith that has been around since Christ (under the Authority of Peter and his successors) and conforming yourself to the Truth.

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

 

[qOcOp]

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

EO is not a valid choice only because it is schismatic. Personally I would think that it would be great news if a Christian searching for the Church chose Orthodoxy. In my opinion their journey would be just one step closer to having the fullness of the Faith. The closer you are to the Catholic Church the better. Now would I be correct in concluding that you are EO?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

Right. If the CC is the One Church found by Christ, are you saying that the HS is guiding you away from Christ’s Church? It doesnt make any sense.

 

[qOcOp]

 

[StTommyMore]

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

They are not in submission to the Chief Steward of the House of David. (Matt 16:13-20, cf. Isa 22:20-25)

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guan, I still do not undertand how the corruption of some of the Roman Clergy had to do with rejecting the Catholic faith. They still left the Catholic faith. I am at a loss at how the actions of some leaders of the Church would be a excuse to reject the Church.

The corruption was so rampant and longstanding that the faith was not evident to the people. They did not have their own Catechism or Bible and they believed all the lies that were told to them by the clergy. They left because the faith was not evident to them. When the Bible became available, they could clearly see that what they were being told was not consistent with what was written.

I mean you have had bad leaders even in the times of Jesus. But just because you could call Judas's actions corrupt and actually as much as it hurts to admit it Peter was not  exactly the perfect example of a follower of Christ at all times. It still had nothing to do with the Church.

I agree, but if there was not even one clergy person following the faith, you could see how it would scatter the sheep. Many of those Catholics NEVER got the true faith. The clerics were largely uneducated and those that were educated were corrupted by worldly influences.

Jesus never promised us the leaders would not sin and be perfect. He promised us the Church would be because it was guided by the Holy Spirit.

They did not see a church that was guided by the HS.

Luther questioned more then the leaders. He questioned much of the teachings.

I don’t think so. If you read the theses, he was mostly complaining about practices. There were some doctrinal issues, but the majority of his complaints were valid against the corrupted clergy. The biggest problem was his refusal to acknowledge the authority appointed by Christ. He thought his own authority, or what he believed came from Scripture was superior.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, but which is the one that Christ founded? Given that it was hundreds of years before the Bishop of Rome was anything more than "first among equals", (it was Leo I who first successfully asserted the claim to papal authority, and that worked because the barbarians were literally at the gates) it looks like a human evolution rather than something divinely instituted.

How do you figure? How is the authority given by Christ to the Apostles any less valid just because his successors did not have to use it for a long time?

That is like saying the canon of scripture is not valid because it was not declared until 382.Or that the word Trinity is not valid because it is not found in the bible. Something is wrong with the premise you are using.

If apostolic succession is necessary, it looks to me like the Eastern Orthodox claim is at least as valid as the Roman one, and I think their doctrine is better.

Of course the Orthodox have valid succession. Did you think otherwise? What doctrine is “better”? I think you will find it is 98% identical to the Catholic.

From a Protestant perspective, being in the Church Christ founded is not being in any particular organization, but simply being one of his followers.

Yes. This is one of the gross deficiencies running rampant among our separated brethren. Jesus founded One Church, a visible Church, with visible authority.

If you follow Him, you are in His Church, which is universal and invisible to human eyes (though highly visible and powerful in the spiritual realm).

Baptism is how we are made members of His One Body, the Church. The Church does have invisible members, but it the Church on earth is quite visible and powerful in the temporal realm as well.

 

[guanophore]

I understand what you’re saying, however, the only requirement that is needed to be labeled a heretic is if you follow a heresy.

No, this is an inappropriate use of the term. On the contrary, most Protestants who embrace heresies do not qualify, since they don’t know any better.

Maybe most of the Protestants are ignorant that Protestantism (in all its forms) is a heresy within Christianity, this ignorance sadly does not change the fact that they are heretics nonetheless.

Yes, it does. They are simply poorly catechized. They follow in the tradition of Apollos.

In short Protestants are part of the Catholic Church because they have received the sacrament of Baptism; however, because they do not follow the doctrines and teachings of the Church they are considered dead members within Christ’s body.

This statement is not consistent with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Besides, I would take an on fire Protestant every day of the week over a pew warming cafeteria Catholic.

To illustrate what I mean, imagine if you will a human body, and on this body a foreign object has been placed on the left arm. Once this foreign object is placed on the arm it immediately cuts off circulation to the rest of the body thus rendering the left arm dead. Now while this dead arm is still part of the Body, the foreign object is not. The foreign object neither originated from the body nor does it contribute to the body. Likewise is the case with Protestantism. It is the foreign object and Protestants are the dead, and they will not be able to contribute to the body until they rid themselves of the foreign object.

You are suffering a gross mischaracterization about Protestants. Most of them accept the vast majority of Catholic faith. The Catechism affirms that the HS is at work in them to bring them to Himself.

Whether this was their real intention of whether it was something malicious is neither here nor there. I’m not God so I can neither presume to know their real intentions or pass judgment on their actions.

On the contrary, it seems that you have judged them, and found them wanting. And you have done so in violation of what the Church teaches.

All I know is when you create new doctrines that contradict the already existing ones you’re not reforming a Church but starting a new one.

I agree, but most Protestants have not “created new doctrines that contradict”. They received contradictory doctrines from the Reformers (who do qualify as heretics). They are under the mispprehension that it is Catholics who have created new doctrines that contradict the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

In a sad way it quite humerous:

“The Church Get’s ALL OF THE BLAME” and little if any credit.

Yet the “Catholic Church” is an enity by herself…

It is the CC that has no possibility of error EVER when teaching officially on matters of Faith-Beleifs and or Morals amd Morality. [Jn.14:16-17; Jn. 17:15-19; Mt. 16:19] all confirm this as FACT.

It is THEE Church [Roman Catholic] that is::

One
Holy
Catholic
Apolostolic

These terms apply directly to and speak about THEE CHURCH NOT the people [popes included] in Her.

And ONLY when the Pope or Magisterium teach in the Official capacity of there Offices; and then ONLY on matters of Faith and or Morals; MUST they be held [not infallibly] but nevertheless are required for salvation and MUST be accepted and lived.

**canons 747-754 **

Thee Church can’t sin! Only the people in Her can [and do]

God Bless,
Pat

This is the main deficiency that I see among Protestants about the nature of the Church. They cannot see that she is infallible, and that it is only the members attached to her that sin.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

In at least one issue that is very important to me personally, what has been “revealed” to the Orthodox is apparently quite a bit different than the revelation to Rome. Orthodoxy matches what I believe on that issue. The CC discipline is much different, and would serve as a great barrier to me ever converting.

Marianism - I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

No, but it is like the eye saying to the hand “I have no need of you”, but in this case, it is the mouth, saying to the Womb, “I have no need of you”.

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine.  I'm not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking.  I'm satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

Definitely a mystery. The AogG don’t believe like you do, do they?

Confession would be new and strange for me. I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

So far, you have not idenified anything that you object to in Catholicism that is not also found in Orthodoxy.