Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[RyanBlack]

It’s not in communion with Rome right?

It’s a so called “independent Catholic Church”

To me “independent” = Protestant

I get that they aren’t a product of the reformation but they are nonetheless protesting church authority.

It’s not in communion with Rome, but it’s not Protestant, just as the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, but are not Protestant

You wrote “…the PNCC is no more Catholic than any other Protestant group.” The problem with that is that no Protestant group has valid Holy Orders and a valid Eucharist, while the PNCC does. Furthermore, the Catholic Church permits members of the PNCC to receive Communion, as is the case with members of the other Churches I mentioned above. No such permission is routinely granted to members of Protestant communities.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

What would have been different would be if there was one church and she was clearly following a different group. That Christian faith is x and she is choosing y.

Instead she followed “the Bible”. Protestantism created such chaos. It wasn’t perfect before the reformation but it was much much clearer and much more defined what being a Christian is.

You’re right, it was far from perfect before the Reformation- and much has improved since then. More on exactly what has improved in a minute. To your other point- it continues to be clear what being a Christian is, it has been very clear for quite some time. Being a Christian means you belong to one of the monotheistic religions in this world (those being, primarily, Christianity Islam and Judaism) and the particular monotheistic religion that you belong to is the Trinitarian one. Granted, there is such a thing as Marginal Christianity where one restorationist group attempts to expand the definition to include the existence of other gods, albeit without worshiping them- and another may attempt to expand the definition to include people who basically follow the Bible in some way while denying the Trinity. These types of people are not doing anything new, if you aren’t familiar with people denying the Trinity throughout history then you aren’t familiar with history. These two basic points are as clear now as they have ever been- Christians are monotheistic in the sense that one God is worshiped, the only God who has ever existed, and Christians are trinitarian. Again, this is clear now and it has been clear for a very very very long time.

But what of the things that have improved since the Reformation…that would have to do with the issue of coercion. Prior to the Reformation, politics and religion enjoyed too close a relationship, and through the relationship the church and state could work together in all sorts of ways to coerce people to believe certain things and recant others, else be expelled from the country or in some very extreme cases killed. Here’s an exercise for you- name any heretic from the first eight centuries of Christianity. If you just named one, there’s a fairly good chance that you can look up some information on that person, find out where they were born and raised, and find out where it was they were exiled to once their teachings were declared heretical. Actually, if you look at Augustine- he wasn’t even a heretic, but he was exiled on three different occasions that I know of. His rulers were good at being coercive, but they were not good at making up their minds- nor were they particularly good at ruling, at least not to the point where they are regarded as being among the best rulers in the history of the world. Where was I?

Ah, clarity and outcomes. Teaching that is anti-Trinitarian (just one important example) still are what they are, and clearly so. It has been clear for a long time. The biggest difference from pre-Reformation to post-Reformation was that before the Reformation, at least within Christendom, the Church had the backing of the State in the interest of coercing silence from such people. After the Reformation, the Church gradually lost its monopoly on religious coercion, and then it slowly let go of that capability altogether.

When you put it in terms of coercion (as I most certainly insist on doing), your perspective changes a little, doesn’t it? Instead of seeing a Church that clarifies and makes things easy, you see a Church that used to wield a coercive power and thank God it doesn’t wield that power any longer. And that is the main improvement that came from the Reformation. Was it your wife that belonged to some sort of cult? Well, now that we are post-Reformation, all you could really do was try to change her mind. Pre-Reformation, her cult could have been forcibly disbanded, its leader sent elsewhere, and your wife could have chosen to be exiled from the country as a very loyal follower or renounce her previous affiliation as she’s brought back into line by coercive means. Let’s be very clear- prior to the Reformation, that is how it worked. It was brutal, it was harsh, and it was an inappropriate use of power and authority that impinged on religious freedoms that have Always existed for All people, even when they were neither recognized or respected on a pretty consistent basis.

You should not miss that aspect of Catholic history. Enjoy your religious freedom, and while I do understand your concern for your family, do allow them to enjoy their religious freedom as well.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

By the way,you may not like my church but I certainly do. I can’t imagine anyone being in a church where they did not feel they could get sound Christian advice. and of course we should be equally yoked in our marriages.

Liking or not doesn’t come into the question.
Pretending that any other church has the authority to answer the question makes a mockery of Jesus’ teaching in Matt 18.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You’re right, it was far from perfect before the Reformation- and much has improved since then. More on exactly what has improved in a minute. To your other point- it continues to be clear what being a Christian is, it has been very clear for quite some time. Being a Christian means you belong to one of the monotheistic religions in this world (those being, primarily, Christianity Islam and Judaism) and the particular monotheistic religion that you belong to is the Trinitarian one. Granted, there is such a thing as Marginal Christianity where one restorationist group attempts to expand the definition to include the existence of other gods, albeit without worshiping them- and another may attempt to expand the definition to include people who basically follow the Bible in some way while denying the Trinity. These types of people are not doing anything new, if you aren’t familiar with people denying the Trinity throughout history then you aren’t familiar with history. These two basic points are as clear now as they have ever been- Christians are monotheistic in the sense that one God is worshiped, the only God who has ever existed, and Christians are trinitarian. Again, this is clear now and it has been clear for a very very very long time.

But what of the things that have improved since the Reformation…that would have to do with the issue of coercion. Prior to the Reformation, politics and religion enjoyed too close a relationship, and through the relationship the church and state could work together in all sorts of ways to coerce people to believe certain things and recant others, else be expelled from the country or in some very extreme cases killed. Here’s an exercise for you- name any heretic from the first eight centuries of Christianity. If you just named one, there’s a fairly good chance that you can look up some information on that person, find out where they were born and raised, and find out where it was they were exiled to once their teachings were declared heretical. Actually, if you look at Augustine- he wasn’t even a heretic, but he was exiled on three different occasions that I know of. His rulers were good at being coercive, but they were not good at making up their minds- nor were they particularly good at ruling, at least not to the point where they are regarded as being among the best rulers in the history of the world. Where was I?

Ah, clarity and outcomes. Teaching that is anti-Trinitarian (just one important example) still are what they are, and clearly so. It has been clear for a long time. The biggest difference from pre-Reformation to post-Reformation was that before the Reformation, at least within Christendom, the Church had the backing of the State in the interest of coercing silence from such people. After the Reformation, the Church gradually lost its monopoly on religious coercion, and then it slowly let go of that capability altogether.

When you put it in terms of coercion (as I most certainly insist on doing), your perspective changes a little, doesn’t it? Instead of seeing a Church that clarifies and makes things easy, you see a Church that used to wield a coercive power and thank God it doesn’t wield that power any longer. And that is the main improvement that came from the Reformation. Was it your wife that belonged to some sort of cult? Well, now that we are post-Reformation, all you could really do was try to change her mind. Pre-Reformation, her cult could have been forcibly disbanded, its leader sent elsewhere, and your wife could have chosen to be exiled from the country as a very loyal follower or renounce her previous affiliation as she’s brought back into line by coercive means. Let’s be very clear- prior to the Reformation, that is how it worked. It was brutal, it was harsh, and it was an inappropriate use of power and authority that impinged on religious freedoms that have Always existed for All people, even when they were neither recognized or respected on a pretty consistent basis.

You should not miss that aspect of Catholic history. Enjoy your religious freedom, and while I do understand your concern for your family, do allow them to enjoy their religious freedom as well.

Times change. Whether the good and the bad can be credited to the Reformation is another matter, although we do know there was plenty of coercion post-Reformation as well, and not exclusively on the Catholic side.

 

[powerofk]

Times change. Whether the good and the bad can be credited to the Reformation is another matter, although we do know there was plenty of coercion post-Reformation as well, and not exclusively on the Catholic side.

No kidding. The United States, with the passage of the Bill of Rights, was the first nation that actually institutionalized a “Freedom of Religion” in law, and even then, the Establishment Clause only applied to the Federal Government until after the passage of the 14th amendment. The only colony that had full religious freedom pre-Revolution was Rhode Island. The other colonies had established churches which all residents were required to be members of, or face persecution: Massachussetts was Puritan/Calvinist, Connecticut was Congregational/Calvinist, Pennsylvania was Quaker, and the rest were Anglican (Maryland was started as a Catholic colony, but soon had more Anglicans than Catholics, and even though Catholics tried to maintain religious freedom through the Tolerance Acts, the acts were eventually repealed).

In other countries, the ruling monarchs decided the institutionalized church of their territories - all other religions (including other forms of Christianity) were banned and persecuted. If the ruler decided on Lutheranism, all his subjects were required to become Lutherans. If the ruler decided on Calvinism, all his subjects were required to become Calvinists. English kings/queens (starting with Elizabeth I) demanded that their subjects be Anglican. And the Catholic rulers demanded that their subjects remain Catholic. Of course, the coercion here was not truly from the churches (whether they be Catholic or reformed), but from the secular rulers - who generally believed that religious diversity would cause disharmony and disloyalty.

Regardless, the divisions that have occured in the mystical Body of Christ in the past 500 years (and even the ones that happened before this - after the Council of Chalcedon with the Ancient Eastern Churches and with the Great Schism in the 11th century) cause Jesus to weep. The truth is, though, that if one relies on one’s own authority to interpret scripture, most of the time, the only interpretation one can achieve is a strictly literal translation. Or, people try to make scripture say things that it doesn’t. Remember, many people in the US used scripture to justify slavery, eugenics, and anti-miscegenation laws. And, it becomes difficult to apply scripture to things that are not mentioned. Since abortion is not mentioned by name in scripture, many Christian denominations refuse to take a stance on the issue (most notably, the United Methodist Church). The same goes for same-sex “marriage”. And don’t forget the many, many times when a person has tried to discern when the Second Coming will happen through looking at specific pieces of scripture - or the “Left Behind” novels, which are based on one person’s interpretation of the events surrounding the Second Coming.

Honestly, Protestants, I never question your sincerity in trying to find the Truth of what the Bible says, and I must give you props for teaching me to read my own Bible - but I kind of pity the fact that you really have no one outside your own authority to help you understand what you are reading.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Honestly, Protestants, I never question your sincerity in trying to find the Truth of what the Bible says, and I must give you props for teaching me to read my own Bible - but I kind of pity the fact that you really have no one outside your own authority to help you understand what you are reading.

 

[Publisher]

Honestly, Protestants, I never question your sincerity in trying to find the Truth of what the Bible says, and I must give you props for teaching me to read my own Bible - but I kind of pity the fact that you really have no one outside your own authority to help you understand what you are reading.

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do.

 

[paulrxp]

Of course, the “princes of the church” at the time were never going to voluntary reform themselves, which is why the Reformation occurred the way it did. If “the Church” existed in the manner that Christ desired, there would have been no need for a Reformation.

That very well could be, follow Gods law, then no division will be necessary. However,

[BIBLEDRB] 1 Corinthians 1:10 [/BIBLEDRB]

If I have an argument with my family, even if they are the ones doing wrong, they are the ones being sinful, I will make them see their errors and change their ways. Being separated from them through my own choosing is equally as sinful, and clearly as with with the Corinthians was never what was intended for the Church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do.

Jesus said we would know the truth, but I guess we can’t after all. Everything is relative, a matter of opinion.

 

[Jon_S_1]

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do.

Yes we believe what the Holy Spirit tells the church. We believe Christ and his church which he gave authority.

I am happy to hand my authority over to Christ rather than hold it myself.

 

[Nicea325]

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do.

Ahhhhh…the same can be applied to your sect.

 

[DeFuret]

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do

I would say that they do have authority, by virtue of taking into consideration millenia of scholarship and tradition (most of which isn’t arbitrary). It makes no sense to think you suddenly know better than the myriads of people who went before you, and whose insights are worthy of consideration. I used to think like you, but then I read Chesterton.

 

[BeingSaved]

The one you find which is closest to scriptural accuracy,
however,…
maybe someone who is still watching this thread will respond to me in this additional comment,…
is anyone out there non-catholic and sensing a drawing to catholic…?

if so, what are you experiencing, and what do you think about it,…do
you think it is real, from the Lord,…do you think it is the Holy Spirit,
or
do you think it is from the other side,…leading you wrongly,…?

I am experiencing something, since last year.
At first I thought it had to do with the catholic person I was speaking with
about catholic ways and things.

I stopped speaking with them, and this sense is ongoing,…
…there is a pull, or draw, toward cc,. whenever I see a pic for example of priests,
or anything to do with the mass,…or come across something c. in my google searches on scriptural topics,…
can you resond pls.

 

[powerofk]

And from a Protestant point of view, you’d rather beliieve what you’re told n
By your priests what to believe all tied up in nice little bundles…from men who hold no more “authority”" than you do.

If you are reading secular fiction and trying to understand the author’s intent, the best thing to do is to ask the author yourself or find a way to look at correspondence that the author has previously written regarding a given book. This is especially true regarding published poetry.

As such, the same should be true regarding scriputure - go to the ones who wrote the scriptures! Unfortunately, most of the instructions on how to read a given piece of scripture were found in the direct, oral teachings of the apostles. But Catholic Tradition states that these were passed on unbroken through the bishops, especially through the Bishop of Rome who we believe is the direct spiritual descendant of Sts. Peter and Paul. These teachings have been passed down through the generations, and elaborated, further defined, but remarkably unchanged. In order to understand scripture, one must understand the greater context from which the scripture came.

The Holy Scriptures have many levels of meaning, not just the literal word on the page. This is especially true when reading the Johannine works in the Bible (the Gospel of John, the three letters written by John, and the Revelation/Apocalypse of John). St. John states that Jesus turned water into wine. Though we in the Church acknowledge this as Jesus’ first miracle, John cares more about the significance of the miracle - in other words, what the miracle shows Jesus to be. Yet, John doesn’t state what the miracle shows Jesus to be. As such, we have to go to traditional scholarship to understand the miracle.

The synoptic gospels are similar in that they are each trying to make a point about Jesus. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ Davidic lineage and His job as “the new Moses” (shown by the five long discourses Jesus has in the Gospel - representing the five books of the Torah). In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is shown as being the complete fulfillment of the Mosaic Law.

Mark emphasizes Jesus’ power over Satan and sin - emphasizing Jesus’s miracles and glossing over His teachings. His teachings in Mark are not nearly as important as His ultimate mission.

Luke emphasizes the universality of the Gospel and Jesus’s message - he uses many more women than the other gospels, he includes outcasts (like the lepers & Samaritans), and emphasizes the responsibilities we have towards each other. Luke also mentions the “Sending of the Seventy-two disciples”. The three synoptic gospels, though, are really incomplete without each other, even if they cover most of the same material (albeit in different orders).

Unfortunately, if someone doesn’t understand this, his/her faith can be shaken when he/she sees that things happened in different orders in the different gospels. The thing is - it’s not the order that’s important! We don’t really know the order that the miracles happened or where some of the teachings happened. And really, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus stated the beatitudes on a mountain (Matthew) or on a plain (Luke). It matters that Jesus said and did these things, but it doesn’t matter where or when. Each of the gospels is trying to say something different about Jesus, and only when put together does the full picture of Jesus start to emerge. And yet, without the authority given by the Church, we could be drawn into confusion - either by cherry-picking chapters and verses to paint our own picture of the Gospel or by taking everything literally and possibly having crises of faith.

 

[powerofk]

The one you find which is closest to scriptural accuracy,
however,…
maybe someone who is still watching this thread will respond to me in this additional comment,…
is anyone out there non-catholic and sensing a drawing to catholic…?

if so, what are you experiencing, and what do you think about it,…do
you think it is real, from the Lord,…do you think it is the Holy Spirit,
or
do you think it is from the other side,…leading you wrongly,…?

I am experiencing something, since last year.
At first I thought it had to do with the catholic person I was speaking with
about catholic ways and things.

I stopped speaking with them, and this sense is ongoing,…
…there is a pull, or draw, toward cc,. whenever I see a pic for example of priests,
or anything to do with the mass,…or come across something c. in my google searches on scriptural topics,…
can you resond pls.

It’s probably the Holy Spirit calling out to you. Keep praying, and discern this. Learn all you can, and enroll in an RCIA class (the point of RCIA is to help people learn about the Catholic faith and discern if God is calling them to join).

 

[Jon_S_1]

The one you find which is closest to scriptural accuracy,
however,…
maybe someone who is still watching this thread will respond to me in this additional comment,…
is anyone out there non-catholic and sensing a drawing to catholic…?

if so, what are you experiencing, and what do you think about it,…do
you think it is real, from the Lord,…do you think it is the Holy Spirit,
or
do you think it is from the other side,…leading you wrongly,…?

I am experiencing something, since last year.
At first I thought it had to do with the catholic person I was speaking with
about catholic ways and things.

I stopped speaking with them, and this sense is ongoing,…
…there is a pull, or draw, toward cc,. whenever I see a pic for example of priests,
or anything to do with the mass,…or come across something c. in my google searches on scriptural topics,…
can you resond pls.

I will respond (OP HERE). I just joined the church this year. I was strongly Evangelical Baptist leaning before that.

I felt the Holy Spirit pushing me along, from the first time I entered a Catholic Church for mass for a school field trip all the way to today.

The biggest realization of the feeling if God was in the confessional being absolved. It was unbelievable, unlike anything I’ve ever felt. Only true grace from God could create that. I’m certain of it.

You may like some of the posts on my blog.

Here is my full conversion story. findingthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-am-i-becoming-catholic-personal.html?m=1

 

[BeingSaved]

dear Jon,
I take it you are fairly young, age-wise? Were you a born again Christian in the Baptist church, ie. did you attend there with your family from your physical birth?

Re confessional, and sin being forgiven, can you be more specific as to what you felt, relief, that sin was gone, was it a physical feeling, spiritual feeling, did you notice any
sound , ie. not audible, but another kind of a sound?

How long were you a Baptist?

 

[BeingSaved]

to jon,

ps what does it mean, the ‘observing member’ status on my board, that they tagged me with, at first I had a ‘new something or other’, and then I noted it changed to this,…does this mean that not everyone can see what I write, or that im not supposed to write, just observe, or what exactly?

 

[Jon_S_1]

to jon,

ps what does it mean, the ‘observing member’ status on my board, that they tagged me with, at first I had a ‘new something or other’, and then I noted it changed to this,…does this mean that not everyone can see what I write, or that im not supposed to write, just observe, or what exactly?

I’m not sure? I wouldn’t worry about it. It is related to the amount and frequency of your posts.

 

[Jon_S_1]

dear Jon,
I take it you are fairly young, age-wise? Were you a born again Christian in the Baptist church, ie. did you attend there with your family from your physical birth?

Re confessional, and sin being forgiven, can you be more specific as to what you felt, relief, that sin was gone, was it a physical feeling, spiritual feeling, did you notice any
sound , ie. not audible, but another kind of a sound?

How long were you a Baptist?

I was born into a devout baptist family and attended baptist, non denominational, and evangelical free churches my whole life. We were practicing. I went to a Pentecostal private school for k-8th grade and we went to church nearly every Sunday. I was married to my wife I met in church in our church. Had all 3 of my kids dedicated in the church, was an Adult Fellowship Leader and on track for being a deacon.

I was born again and accepted Jesus in my heart at age 5 and re dedicated my life at age 13. I was baptized at 17.

I am now 31 years old.

I will start with my feelings of my first mass. It was very moving to me. I knew nothing about Catholicism, but I could feel a stirring in my heart, a sense of goodness. A sense if worship and appreciated that the mass encouraged a penitential spirit before God. I felt something fundamentally different than I felt in my Protestant churches (although the last baptist church I attended was quite liturgical with communion weekly and I dealt something similar there but not as powerful)

I had confessed my sins to God many times, sought his forgiveness, I was once saved always saved baptist so it seemed like the right thing to do but not eternally necessary. A couple sins I kept to myself between me and God. No one else knew.

Confessing all this to a priest was humbling and therapeutic. When he said the words of absolution I felt a tremendous peace. It literally felt like a backpack full of weights was taken from my back. I felt like I walked lighter. It was so overwhelming the forgiveness that I was moved to sobbing.

I have told many that my intellectual belief in the truth of Catholicism and the apologetics were mere rubbish compared to feeling Gods healing hand in that moment.