Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[Contarini]

Tommy, you;re wrong about OSAS. Every non-denominational community and mega-church holds to this concept.

That’s false. Pentecostals don’t hold to it, by and large.

It is by ne means limited to fundamentalists. This is, far and away, the dominant theology in American Protestantism today. The mainline denominations are dead or dying.

What counts as “dead or dying”? Mainline denominations have millions of members. Sure, they are all declining in membership, but for now they are still a major part of the American religious scene.

And Wesleyans, most Pentecostals, Restorationists, Anabaptists, and Lutherans (whether mainline or confessional) don’t hold to it.

The up and comers, the ones with laser light shows, rock bands and etc. all hold to it.

False, in the first place.

And in the second, why do only laser light shows count?

Probably this should have its own thread.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Sketh,

Christianity is the only religion that sees God as love, Who through His Son, is now with us, remains with us.  We have the Lord present physically in all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Protestants, especially those who have foundations not condemning other Christians, encounter Christ among themselves in spiritual communions, and we recognize the Lord at work in them, although they do not worship or participate in the sacraments with us.

Christian baptism is Catholic, and incorporates a believer into the Catholic Church whether they go to our church or not. We view them as separated brethren.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Also, allowing other Christians to take communion in the Catholic church would help encourage unity. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

I am sorry this offends you but this is something the Church has no authority to change. The modern Catholic Church is actually very liberal compared to the ancient Church.The Mass actually has two parts. The first is the Mass of the Catecumens and the second is the Mass of the Faithfull. In the ancient Church, you would not even be allowed to be present for communion. In other words you would have to leave after the first part.

 

[Contarini]

Well that’s interesting indeed. How do they provide that one could lose his salvation and regain it after loss?

It depends. My own Wesleyan tradition (at least in the form taught to me) holds to a view pretty similar to the Catholic one, inasmuch as we thought of certain sinful acts as capable of breaking one’s saving relationship with God. I’ve run into other evangelicals whose view was closer to that of the “fundamental option” position proposed by some Catholic theologians but rejected by the Vatican. In other words, some Protestants are reluctant to say that an individual act could make you lose your salvation, but they would say that if over time you choose to act in ways displeasing to God, don’t maintain your prayer life, etc., you could eventually lose saving faith. This is basically what Luther says in his Galatians commentary. (Much less juicy than his earlier remark about “sinning boldly,” but much more representative of his mature thought and of Protestantism as a whole.)

The basic difference as I see it between evangelicals and Catholics on soteriology is that evangelicals see faith as something that naturally produces love and good works, rather than something to which you have to self-consciously add love and good works. It is this latter activity that evangelicals often describe as “works righteousness.” However, since people have free will, Arminian evangelicals acknowledge that they can choose not to engage in the behavior that naturally flows from faith, and that this will eventually weaken/destroy one’s faith.

Eternal security is essentially a Calvinist position. Calvinists have always been the intellectual backbone of American Protestantism, and a watered-down Calvinism is (as you note) the default for many “nondenominational” evangelicals. In the South, in particular, eternal-security ideas dominate, and have even infiltrated traditions that don’t historically hold those ideas (Restorationists, Methodists, etc.). I find that to be much less true in the Midwest. When I taught systematic theology, I found my students proposing views of salvation that seemed to me to imply eternal security, but when I challenged them on this, most of them said that they didn’t believe in eternal security and articulated something more like the “fundamental option” view I described above.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Copying the Catholics does not make you a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But that’s not an accurate description of what happened (in this respect–some of the other “Catholic” elements in modern Anglicanism did arise this way). We just kept on saying the Nicene Creed, because from our point of view we kept on being Catholic. Now you can challenge our claim to be Catholic and I’ll grant a lot of your points–I have serious doubts about that claim myself. But we say the Nicene Creed for exactly the same reasons you do–because we have always said it as part of the historic Catholic Church.

Monasticism, regular private confession, many minor points of ritual, weekly/daily Eucharist–yes, these things we “copied” from you after sadly abandoning them. But not the Creed.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Evidently the CC didn’t believe most of Luther’s way was against the word of God, since it did eventually adopt the majority of his reforms.

Like what?

In many ways I think it’s a mistake to call Luther a reformer at all. There was a reform movement (actually several) in his day, and while he advocated some reforms that were part of the broader movement (and helped popularize them), the key issue for him was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Calling that a “reform” is kind of straining terminology.

Arguably Luther helped kill the “Christian humanist” reform movement spearheaded by Erasmus. OK, “co-opt” would maybe be better, but aspects of it (like the advocacy of nonviolence) were killed, except insofar as the Anabaptists picked it up in a highly schismatic and sectarian form.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

I find “first among equals” to be a vague term. It’s certainly not true that Leo was the first to assert papal authority or to have those claims taken seriously. Nor did the barbarians have much to do with it at that time, unless you mean the Egyptian monks!

I’m not sure that “first among equals” is a good formula, because I’m not sure that equality is a good value for Christians–it encourages jealousy. I’d prefer “presiding in charity.” Clearly the juridical aspects of later Roman primacy are highly questionable, but are the juridical alternatives any better? I’m largely convinced by the “charismatic” approach of Orthodox theologians such as Florovsky, but it seems to me that an excellent “charismatic” case can be made for Roman primacy, and that perhaps even Vatican I can be interpreted along those lines.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

But that’s not an accurate description of what happened (in this respect–some of the other “Catholic” elements in modern Anglicanism did arise this way). We just kept on saying the Nicene Creed, because from our point of view we kept on being Catholic. Now you can challenge our claim to be Catholic and I’ll grant a lot of your points–I have serious doubts about that claim myself. But we say the Nicene Creed for exactly the same reasons you do–because we have always said it as part of the historic Catholic Church.

Monasticism, regular private confession, many minor points of ritual, weekly/daily Eucharist–yes, these things we “copied” from you after sadly abandoning them. But not the Creed.

Edwin

I was listening to an Anglican, now Catholic, on the coming home network. I admit that there are “elements” as you say, he summed it up this way…

1cannon, 2 testaments, 3 creeds and 4 councils. He also stated that the biggest problem he had was with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, while admitting he believed in traditions, he realized that he was following Anglican tradtion, as he read the Fathers and history it became clear that there was more to be known aside from 1,2,3,4.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

.

It has become clear to many, as you propose some kinship, that the kinship is different with bodies of believers and individuals.

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church speak of each other as sisters. This is not true in the Protestant realm. In the Protestant realm, we speak to individuals as brothers and sisters not the larger bodies.

 

[Contarini]

I was listening to an Anglican, now Catholic, on the coming home network. I admit that there are “elements” as you say, he summed it up this way…

1cannon, 2 testaments, 3 creeds and 4 councils.

Yes, that’s the middle-to-low Anglican position.

Anglo-Catholics (not a separate “denomination” but a wing of Anglicanism) hold to the Seven Councils. Essentially they believe all the things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common, except that they don’t believe the proposition: “there is and always has been and always will be a single, unified Christian communion in which the Catholic Church subsists.” Of course, they have some excuse, inasmuch as Catholics and Orthodox differ with each other on which that Communion is. Still, I think that may be the fatal weakness of Anglo-Catholicism.

I have two conflicting problems with Anglo-Catholicism: one is that I think either Catholicism or Orthodoxy (probably Catholicism, though I go back and forth on this) really is what it claims to be; and the other is that I am Anglican largely because of my reluctance to break entirely with my Protestant heritage, even though I think it’s wrong on many points.

So essentially, to be a true Anglo-Catholic would cut me off from the Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand and from the Protestants on the other, when what I want is a way to be united to everyone

Sorry for the digression. . . .

Edwin

 

[Prague]

Coptic Christian - I am really enjoying your very informative posts.
Keep up the goood work.

 

[GaryTaylor]

what I want is a way to be united to everyone.

I would hope that this is the basis of everyone’s goal. Which is why Catholic/Orthodox are struggling through the dialogue today to resolve the issues, of course we must remove ego/authority and correct this misperception. There’s no plan on leaving anyone behind. The baseline just must be established first.

But I hear you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, that’s the middle-to-low Anglican position.

Anglo-Catholics (not a separate “denomination” but a wing of Anglicanism) hold to the Seven Councils. Essentially they believe all the things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common, except that they don’t believe the proposition: “there is and always has been and always will be a single, unified Christian communion in which the Catholic Church subsists.” Of course, they have some excuse, inasmuch as Catholics and Orthodox differ with each other on which that Communion is. Still, I think that may be the fatal weakness of Anglo-Catholicism.

I have two conflicting problems with Anglo-Catholicism: one is that I think either Catholicism or Orthodoxy (probably Catholicism, though I go back and forth on this) really is what it claims to be; and the other is that I am Anglican largely because of my reluctance to break entirely with my Protestant heritage, even though I think it’s wrong on many points.

So essentially, to be a true Anglo-Catholic would cut me off from the Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand and from the Protestants on the other, when what I want is a way to be united to everyone

Sorry for the digression. . . .

Edwin

I believe that The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is East and West. The East and West, as sister churches are talking and as you know the Ravenna document will be available in November. The humanity of the Church at this time suggests disunity, the divinity of the Church demands unity. The humanity will have to figure out how to do what it needs to do while we watch and learn.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, that’s the middle-to-low Anglican position.

Anglo-Catholics (not a separate “denomination” but a wing of Anglicanism) hold to the Seven Councils. Essentially they believe all the things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common, except that they don’t believe the proposition: “there is and always has been and always will be a single, unified Christian communion in which the Catholic Church subsists.” Of course, they have some excuse, inasmuch as Catholics and Orthodox differ with each other on which that Communion is. Still, I think that may be the fatal weakness of Anglo-Catholicism.

I have two conflicting problems with Anglo-Catholicism: one is that I think either Catholicism or Orthodoxy (probably Catholicism, though I go back and forth on this) really is what it claims to be; and the other is that I am Anglican largely because of my reluctance to break entirely with my Protestant heritage, even though I think it’s wrong on many points.

So essentially, to be a true Anglo-Catholic would cut me off from the Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand and from the Protestants on the other, when what I want is a way to be united to everyone

Sorry for the digression. . . .

Edwin

I was shaving and had this thought. If it had not been for Scott Hahn I would never have ventured into reading Luther, Calvin and other Protestant writers. I know now to read around Protestant conclusions. There are insights. I do not think Covenant theology is exclusive.

Paul, never says in his writings, he laments his leaving judaism. Scott Hahn references this book:

Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee [Paperback]
Mr. Alan F. Segal

To the Jew he is an Apostate. Paul talks about being from the tribe of Benjamin and I doubt he ever stopped reading and studying the Old Testament. His insights are part of the New. He talks about his gain and really never stopped being a Jew, just stopped practicing the Old Covenant in light of the New.

I have listened to many Anglicans/Episcopaleans on the coming home network and when I hear them referring to continue to read the book of common prayers, I cringe and ask why, and the better part of me says why not. For them what they gain is not to give up, rather to see as Paul did what he knew and read with a different mind. Change your mind for the kingdom is at hand.

I cannot know what it is like. I had nothing to change or give up as it regards any other Theology so I will never know and I will never understand unless I keep listening to those that came home and people like you.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m sorry that you got that vibe from the priest; remember though… it’s not his church, the Church belongs to Jesus.
How do you know it was the Holy Spirit that led you away from the CC?
I can certainly understand how you wish to be able to share one faith with your husband, and you have my prayers.

The Church “could” let non Catholics receive communion, but why stop there? Why not throw out the deuterocanon, why not dissolve the papacy, why not start having altar calls… I could go on and on, but I won’t.

I give a hearty AMEN to the last segment of your post. I’ve learned a lot from my protestant girlfriend about how to have a sincere and deep love for Christ. But that doesn’t mean we can sweep under the carpet legitimate differences in doctrines. I encourage all Christians to give a thorough logical, historical, biblical, and theological scrutiny to their and others beliefs. …so that they may all be one…

This is similar but different with respect to the letter to the Romans as Paul discusses the Old and the New. To be baptized puts you in the New Covenant. The OHCAC has acknowledged that Baptism puts other than OHCAC members in the Covenant or rather acknowedged reception of a Sacrament.

The judaizing Christians were baptized and wanted to circumcise and introduce Old Covenant practices and Paul said no. Jews loved, feared, honored, respected God.

The OHCAC has acknowledged one Sacrament, to introduce acceptance of another theology as Paul said is not acceptable. Love, fear, honor and respect of God is not the issue it is accepting and understanding the New Covenant as Paul explained based on the understanding and professed by the OHCAC.

 

[John_oxios]

I am disappointed at the title of this forum. Protestants are not a different “religion” from Catholics. That’s a misuse of the term “religion.” Islam is a different religion from Christianity, but Protestants are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This is acknowledged by most RC scholars.
Tom

Catholic Church est 33a.d., aApostles taught by Sacred Oral Tradition (Which Protestants distrust) until the Paul’s Letters to the Church are written, and eventually the Gospels put to paper to preserve the Apostolic witness to Christ Through His Church. First known written reference to the Church as 'Catholic" By Iraeneus in a homily written in 110 a.d.

Protestantism  roots are from the Catholic Church which they deny, and their is no apostolic succession..  **We are made brothers in Christ through Baptism, **

CCC# 782 "…It is the People of God: God is not the property of any one people. But he acquired a people for himself from those who previously were not a people: "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation …One becomes a member of this people not by a physical birth, but by being “born anew,” a birth “of water and the Spirit,” that is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.

811
“This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

after that? Separate, Lots of congregations claim apostolic beginnings but cannot tie themselves back to the Apostles Only the Catholic Church can do that… The Catholic Church believes being in a Christ based religion is a good start… but if you study biblical and Church history you’ll become catholic eventually

Protestants deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body, mind and soul and Divinity… and that is the core teaching of the Apostles… this teaching wasn’t challenged til the 11th century and defended. Protestants exited stage left on this one…ergo non apostolic teaching and so on and so on

Protestant;

an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

: Protestants hold a great variety of beliefs, but they are united in rejecting the authority of the pope. Protestant groups include the Amish, the Anglican Communion, the Assemblies of God, the Baptists, Christian Science, the Congregationalists, the Lutheran Church, the Mennonites, the Methodists, the Presbyterian Church, and the Quakers.

Not only the Pope but the Church as a teaching authority.

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.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

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.”

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I’ve done everything short of confirmation, when it comes to becoming Catholic. Then, I prayed about it and the holy Spirit led me to a non-denominational church who welcomes Catholics with open arms and doesn’t try to get them to change their beliefs or become a member of their church. Instead, they treat them the same as they do those who are members. Another Catholic told me to follow the Holy Spirit, wherever it was to lead me. One reason I would want to is, because my husband is Catholic and we could take communion together at his church, too. Also, allowing other Christians to take communion in the Catholic church would help encourage unity. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

  I don't understand?  Done everything but confirmation?  Often with adults Baptism and confirmation are done at the same time.  But if you were baptized, "In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit"  the Church would not re baptize you. ONe Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.   Then there's receiving instruction prior to receiving Holy Communion, which a person has to learn what we believe so they can discern what it is they are receiving, and that is Scriptural:

1Cr 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

1Cr 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1Cr 11:25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

1Cr 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1Cr 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

1Cr 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

1Cr 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Some Protestants think it is just a community meal, which is not discerning The Body, Blood Soul and divinity of Christ present in the Eucharist. And if you don’t believe that, well? You are not ready to receive.
Luther, took away what he believed was the power of the priest, [It is Christ in persona of His Spoken Word which transforms the Bread and wine, through the priest] But Luther defined receiving as ‘consubstantiation’ that when you received in faith that then it was changed.

If you do not believe in what and how the Catholic teaching is on the Holy Eucharist,
well? Pray, study and ask until you do… even act as if… til you can… Acceptance is the first part to understanding… contempt prior to investigation is a sin.
You can partake in the Mass and attend it with your husband, and learn… why delay?

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I’ve done everything short of confirmation, when it comes to becoming Catholic. Then, I prayed about it and the holy Spirit led me to a non-denominational church who welcomes Catholics with open arms and doesn’t try to get them to change their beliefs or become a member of their church. Instead, they treat them the same as they do those who are members. Another Catholic told me to follow the Holy Spirit, wherever it was to lead me. One reason I would want to is, because my husband is Catholic and we could take communion together at his church, too. Also, allowing other Christians to take communion in the Catholic church would help encourage unity. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

What were you taught? what do you believe? Does it come from Man? Or Christ and His Apostles?

Picked up some commentary:
blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=8008&commInfo=31&topic=1%20Corinthians&ar=1Cr_11_25

i. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus spoke of His longing expectation for the day when He would take communion with His people in heaven, which is the ultimate Lord’s Supper.

h. The precise nature of the bread and the cup in communion has been the source of great theological controversy.

i. The Roman Catholic Church holds the idea of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.

ii. Martin Luther held the idea of consubstantiation, which teaches the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by faith they are the same as Jesus’ actual body. Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but he did not go far from it.

iii. **John Calvin **taught that Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not physical. Zwingli taught that the bread and wine are mere symbols that represent the body and blood of Jesus. When the Swiss Reformers debated the issue with Martin Luther at Marburg, there was a huge contention. Luther insisted on some kind of physical presence because Jesus said this is My body. He insisted over and over again, writing it on the velvet of the table, Hoc est corpus meum – “this is My body” in Latin. Zwingli replied, “Jesus also said I am the vine,” and “I am the door,” but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, “I don’t know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me.” Luther was so strong on this because he saw it as an issue of believing Christ’s words, and because he though Zwingli was compromising, he said he was of another spirit (andere geist). Ironically, later, Luther later read Calvin’s writings on the Lord’s Supper (which were essentially the same as Zwingli’s) and seemed to agree with Calvin’s views.
iv. Scripturally, we can understand that the bread and the wine are not mere symbols, but they are powerful pictures to partake of, to enter in to, as we see the Lord’s table as the new Passover.

Baptist believe the bread and wine are mere symbols, but even up to the 1950’s a symbol, especially to a Jew is ‘reality distilled’ (Herman Wouk) this means represents what is actually happening.

Biblically in the Temple sacrifice the high priest would transfer the sins of the people to a goat not just mere symbolism but it was actually happening.

Calvin? Zwengli?? I dunno know… they were mere men.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

You can protest about lots of stuff and that is OK. It was not protest alone that caused the problem, they left and started a new religion. If indeed the only thing was indulgences we would see a Pope, a Church, and all the elements of the Church without indulgences as a doctrine.

They had help, Luther was protected by the German Hierarchy, and also other reformers were given special political rights to help remove the peoples from Catholicism to get the Pope off the european nobilities backs. Protestantism became the State religion. They say they have no Pope? but they traded for another hierarchy, every protestant community has a hierarchy it’s just not the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Sometimes it is a board… a vicar… they even got their own bishops who are the authority?? They survived and were protected by Secular Nobility.

And it wasn’t the Church’s total fault Teslar had taken indulgences to a whole different area, indulgences were about making a self-sacrifice (doing without, or giving up) as a means of prayer to help those who have died with sin on their soul.

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, **which are the prayers **of the saints;

Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given** much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;**
Rev 8:4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

We pray (petition) for those who have died and they in turn pray for us… that is called the communion of saints.
God bless,
John

 

[Contarini]

They had help, Luther was protected by the German Hierarchy

I presume from the context that you’re talking about civil rulers, but it sounds as if you’re talking about bishops.

Edwin

 

[John_oxios]

I presume from the context that you’re talking about civil rulers, but it sounds as if you’re talking about bishops.

Edwin

don’t presume

Civil… secular… I believe I stated European nobility.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify, read Church history and find out just how much the Nobles aided the reformation. King made himself the head of the Church of England, those who refused? well?

God bless,
john