Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[christosdavid]

What part of “people suffered” didn’t you get. People acting horrible is not the truth. The corrupt people of the Catholic church “let them down”. If Jesus is the truth (and he is) what is his church, untrue? None are righteous, not one.Yet those filled with the Holy Spirit wrote the bible, so people through God could perpetuate truth. If you tell me those church fathers didn’t belong to the first church-the Catholic church, then your into fundamentalist speculation.

Our Church Fathers certainly belonged to the Church Catholic, the Great Church before schism drove east from west and beyond.

Just because something has a divine origin doesnt mean it is incorrupt. Humanity itself has divine origin and yet it is fallen and in need of restoration.

This doesnt mean that humanity lost the image of God, simply that it has been tarnished.

The Church never stopped being the Church, ever, but as you say above, “The corrupt people of the Catholic Church “let them down”.” The thing is, the church is the people! If they are corrupt, then the church is corrupt.

The Catholic Church **at stages **in its history has focussed on minors and it has been argued led people away from the intent of revelation by appealing to such things as superergatory meritorious works of saints and suchlike. The were common practices of simony and the sale of indulgences to raise revenue for the building of St. Peter’s Basilica.

The Council of Trent acknowledges such abuses so you probably should too, further, just in case the CC didnt go bad with Vatican II, it claims there were sins on both sides of the schism of the 16th C.

 

[christosdavid]

I don’t know what that means. It sounds as if you are saying that I ought to be documenting your claims for you, which is a demand commonly made on these forums but one I find puzzling and a little insulting. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Yes. What did superstitio mean? The best source is Plutarch. Fundamentally his argument seems to be that superstitious people believe that “the gods exist and are evil,” and thus fear them as arbitrary and tyrannical. In other words, superstitious people place the gods outside moral laws. Pagan intellectuals did worry that Christianity was superstitious in this sense–Wilken thinks that the movement within Christianity toward belief in creation ex nihilo had something to do with this. And, of course, the Christians who insisted that Christianity wasn’t superstitious were the Christian intellectual elite, and their representations don’t always match what the Christian “masses” (insofar as there were already masses) believed. Compare, for instance, Justin Martyr or Origen with the Shepherd of Hermas or the Acts of Paul and Thekla. (Or, for a really disturbing example of superstition in Plutarch’s sense, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.)

Yes, certainly. For one thing, you are assuming they were fake. That’s likely but not certain–not something I’d base any conclusions on.

For another, whether the relics were real or not, belief in their power was certainly founded on divine revelation–leaving Christian tradition aside, on the Biblical examples I have mentioned above. (And even if they were wrong in thinking that the relics were literally those of the Cross, they may not have been wrong in thinking that God worked miracles and gave spiritual blessings through them. You assume that they were wrong–but your assumption seems to me to be founded in modern Enlightenment rationalism more than in orthodox Christian faith.) You appear to be arguing that we should make “exceptions” for these specific instances because God has specifically endorsed them in Scripture. But the people who touched handkerchiefs to Paul’s body don’t seem to have had any special revelation that it was OK–not that Acts tells us anyway. They were acting out of the assumptions found in their culture–assumptions that continued to prevail in Christianity until relatively modern times (and that do still prevail in many sectors of Christianity), and which lay behind what you are disparaging as “superstition” when it occurs outside the NT.

God bless,

Edwin

sure, even Augustine changes his mind on relics (from calling them superstitous - not very modern there [410 AD] and eventually approves their use because he hears of miracles accompianing them, but seriously, feathers from the holy spirit, Mary’s breast milk? these are catalogued as the electors possessions, I only meant you could verify this if you think I’m trying to make outrageous claims about relics.

God mets us where we are at, he “lisps” so that we can hear and understand him. ok, so they’re glorified stained glass windows, teaching about the original - except that there was a time-out of purgatory for viewing them, I dont think that happens from stained glass windows…

 

[LittleSoldier]

no need to be confused, its not in the future tense, the first crusade already happened. Before the main force of knights and regular soliders were deployed to the holy land there was what is called the “peasants crusade” which was “organised” through the preaching of peter the hermit.

It was in the initial stages of this european leg of their journey that they followed (past tense) a duck through the streets that was supposedly infused with the holy spirit…

the unfortunate excercise ended up wiping out 60,000 poorly lead catholic peasants

I am confused when I try to understand why you make remarks about a duck or goose (which was it?) which some people believed was infused with the Holy Spirit and allegedly was used as a non-human, divine leader. (How did it give orders? One quack for “Charge!” and two quacks for “Retreat!”?)

What I am finding confusing is that you have not offered official, infallible Church doctrine which states that this duck or goose ever existed or exists. Dogma does not change. If the Church taught infallibly that a sacred duck or goose was infused with the Holy Spirit she would still be teaching that there was and/or is a sacred duck or goose which was infused with the Holy Spirit.

I am requesting that teaching from you. Otherwise this whole duck/goose thing has nothing to do with the teachings of the Church and is off-topic. The Church does not use false idols in an attempt to gather together very poorly educated masses of peasants and send them off to fight the Muslims. From what I have now read of the Crusades (which is admittedly very little) I believe they were a series of poorly thought out “missions,” most not officially sanctioned by the Church (the first one was in response to a plea to the Pope to help Christians in Muslim-led lands who were in trouble and a Pope *should * try to do what he can do to help those in trouble - just as Pope Benedict has tried to stop the death penalty from being carried out in at least one case I know of). It is my understanding that the peasants who “fought” in the Crusades were mostly just as blood-thirsty as the Muslims and engaged in the same activities in which they accused the Muslims of engaging (looting, rape, slaughter, etc.). Whether these peasants called themselves Catholics is one thing - they definitely did not follow the teachings of Christ and His Church when they engaged in such un-Christian activities.

Sometimes someone will claim that Mary has appeared (I read about her “appearing” in Boise, Idaho). Sometimes someone will claim that the face of Mary has appeared in a tortilla. These people may be Catholic. They may believe what they are saying. But that does not mean that what they are saying has been verified by the Catholic Church. Even the alleged visions at Medjugorje have not been sanctioned by the Church.

This whole duck/goose thing is a straw man.

 

[LittleSoldier]

sure, even Augustine changes his mind on relics (from calling them superstitous - not very modern there [410 AD] and eventually approves their use because he hears of miracles accompianing them, but seriously, feathers from the holy spirit, Mary’s breast milk? these are catalogued as the electors possessions, I only meant you could verify this if you think I’m trying to make outrageous claims about relics.

May I remind you that Augustine was a fallible, sinning human being (and claimed to be one)? Augustine did indeed change his mind and he was wrong about a lot of things. He wasn’t an infallible representative of God or God’s Church - he was a human being, just like the rest of us. He even had a child out of wedlock and I believe he stole some pears once. Yep, a sinner.

God mets us where we are at, he “lisps” so that we can hear and understand him. ok, so they’re glorified stained glass windows, teaching about the original - except that there was a time-out of purgatory for viewing them, I dont think that happens from stained glass windows…

Please provide official Church teaching which states that there is “a time-out of purgatory for viewing…stained glass windows.”

This is another straw man. You are misrepresenting the Church’s position and then attacking it. You are using fallacious arguments. As for your belief about stained-glass windows, your belief about whether there is a “time-out of purgatory for viewing [them]” is irrelevant. Truth is not determined by your beliefs.

 

[christosdavid]

I am confused when I try to understand why you make remarks about a duck or goose (which was it?) which some people believed was infused with the Holy Spirit and allegedly was used as a non-human, divine leader. (How did it give orders? One quack for “Charge!” and two quacks for “Retreat!”?)

What I am finding confusing is that you have not offered official, infallible Church doctrine which states that this duck or goose ever existed or exists. Dogma does not change. If the Church taught infallibly that a sacred duck or goose was infused with the Holy Spirit she would still be teaching that there was and/or is a sacred duck or goose which was infused with the Holy Spirit.

I am requesting that teaching from you. Otherwise this whole duck/goose thing has nothing to do with the teachings of the Church and is off-topic. The Church does not use false idols in an attempt to gather together very poorly educated masses of peasants and send them off to fight the Muslims. From what I have now read of the Crusades (which is admittedly very little) I believe they were a series of poorly thought out “missions,” most not officially sanctioned by the Church (the first one was in response to a plea to the Pope to help Christians in Muslim-led lands who were in trouble and a Pope *should * try to do what he can do to help those in trouble - just as Pope Benedict has tried to stop the death penalty from being carried out in at least one case I know of). It is my understanding that the peasants who “fought” in the Crusades were mostly just as blood-thirsty as the Muslims and engaged in the same activities in which they accused the Muslims of engaging (looting, rape, slaughter, etc.). Whether these peasants called themselves Catholics is one thing - they definitely did not follow the teachings of Christ and His Church when they engaged in such un-Christian activities.

Sometimes someone will claim that Mary has appeared (I read about her “appearing” in Boise, Idaho). Sometimes someone will claim that the face of Mary has appeared in a tortilla. These people may be Catholic. They may believe what they are saying. But that does not mean that what they are saying has been verified by the Catholic Church. Even the alleged visions at Medjugorje have not been sanctioned by the Church.

This whole duck/goose thing is a straw man.

its certainly a wild goose chase… theres a link to it from Edwin above which has some historical sources.

The peasants were responding firstly to Urban II and then to Peter the Hermit who preached (taught) to the peasants. These peasants then followed the duck (or goose, sorry theres no dvd) around europe (yes, it was catholic christendom, how catholic? well, they were willing to obtain martyrdom). These peasants scavanged for food allthe way and then because they got there before all the knights and regulars were wiped out. about 60,000 catholics perished from this action.

You can find out more by googling the peasants crusade…

 

[LittleSoldier]

its certainly a wild goose chase… theres a link to it from Edwin above which has some historical sources.

The peasants were responding firstly to Urban II and then to Peter the Hermit who preached (taught) to the peasants. These peasants then followed the duck (or goose, sorry theres no dvd) around europe (yes, it was catholic christendom, how catholic? well, they were willing to obtain martyrdom). These peasants scavanged for food allthe way and then because they got there before all the knights and regulars were wiped out. about 60,000 catholics perished from this action.

You can find out more by googling the peasants crusade…

Perhaps you still don’t understand. I will repeat myself:

What I am finding confusing is that you have not offered official, infallible Church doctrine which states that this duck or goose ever existed or exists. Dogma does not change. If the Church taught infallibly that a sacred duck or goose was infused with the Holy Spirit she would still be teaching that there was and/or is a sacred duck or goose which was infused with the Holy Spirit.

I am requesting that teaching from you.

 

[christosdavid]

Perhaps you still don’t understand. I will repeat myself:

What I am finding confusing is that you have not offered official, infallible Church doctrine which states that this duck or goose ever existed or exists. Dogma does not change. If the Church taught infallibly that a sacred duck or goose was infused with the Holy Spirit she would still be teaching that there was and/or is a sacred duck or goose which was infused with the Holy Spirit.

I am requesting that teaching from you.

It happened in real history, I didnt make it up! and all this was before the CC defined that it could define things infallibly…

 

[LittleSoldier]

It happened in real history, I didnt make it up! and all this was before the CC defined that it could define things infallibly…

Please provide official Church teaching that specifies exactly when the Church defined that [she] could define things infallibly.

I am *not *saying that a large group of illiterate peasants did not follow a duck or a goose or a goat that someone told them was somehow infused with the Holy Spirit. I am *not *saying that these peasants were not part of a Crusade. What I am saying is that if you are going to use this example to show that the Church “went bad” or did anything wrong you need to provide official Church teaching to back up your assertion.

What you have provided so far is nothing more than an unfounded assertion.

Please back up your assertion. That is what I am requesting. We could spend all day saying that some peasants followed a duck. Although that might be an interesting speculation on history (history is written by whoever wins the battles, is usually re-written many times, and neither you nor I was there) it has no bearing on the Church *unless *the Church herself officially taught that this duck or goose or goat or whatever was infused with the Holy Spirit. I have not seen one iota of evidence from you to provide this.

Please provide it. Otherwise it is a straw man and off-topic.

If you can’t provide it, then please let us return to the topic of this thread. Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

its certainly a wild goose chase… theres a link to it from Edwin above which has some historical sources.

Do you mean the Edwin (user name of Contarini) who wrote the following (post #396) as a response to your post?

It’s true that some medieval chroniclers report the story, precisely in order to express scorn for the foolish common people and their stupid Crusade. It seems likely to me that somebody did follow a goose somewhere, but if you look at the sources you see that one of them makes it sound like a very limited incident, and I suspect that the source that makes it sound more general is wildly exaggerating. Of course, it’s hard to prove this one way or the other.

Yes, indeed. And those who generalize about all charismatics/Pentecostals are wrong. But you’re doing something much worse than that. You’re generalizing about the medieval Church, when it’s quite clear from the very sources your story depends on that the folks who had power in the medieval Church condemned this kind of folk Christianity quite harshly. It’s much worse than blaming one group of Pentecostals for what another group does. It’s like blaming John Piper for what Pentecostals do.

Edwin

[underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

 

[JonNC]

**To be Protestant you must believe that for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS God let the Christian church wander aimlessly in false doctrine. **Doctrines were tested, proved and reproved. Yes, bad people arose, many suffered, but evil actions by individuals who corrupted the truth in the church does not change what the truth is. Because people are bad and go against the truth does not make “truth” itself bad, it just makes the individuals bad.

In the 16th century (“reformation”) people were bad and continued to be bad. Going against the FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEAR old doctrines of the church only created more division and splinter groups who can hardly agree on scripture passages. The real wandering and what went “bad” was just this.

johnnyjones,
I try my utmost not to tell other people what they believe, or what the must believe, but instead try to listen to what** they **say they believe.
In no way to I accept your premise, which I bolded. As a Lutheran I accept the truths of the faith, as expressed in the 3 creeds and 7 councils. For me to say that the SPirit allowed the Church to stray for 1500 years would be rediculous, since much of what I believe is the same thing.
In fact, I would say two things:

1. that the straying of the Catholic Church was after the schism, in large part.
2. the Spirit doesn’t let people stray, as in an abandoning of the Church, but that people stray because of sin.

Finally, Luther said the following - in 1537!

“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

johnnyjones,
I try my utmost not to tell other people what they believe, or what the must believe, but instead try to listen to what** they **say they believe.
In no way to I accept your premise, which I bolded. As a Lutheran I accept the truths of the faith, as expressed in the 3 creeds and 7 councils. For me to say that the SPirit allowed the Church to stray for 1500 years would be rediculous, since much of what I believe is the same thing.
In fact, I would say two things:

1. that the straying of the Catholic Church was after the schism, in large part.
2. the Spirit doesn’t let people stray, as in an abandoning of the Church, but that people stray because of sin.

Finally, Luther said the following - in 1537!

Jon

Amen to that brother Jon!

 

[johnnyjones]

Our Church Fathers certainly belonged to the Church Catholic, the Great Church before schism drove east from west and beyond.

Just because something has a divine origin doesnt mean it is incorrupt. Humanity itself has divine origin and yet it is fallen and in need of restoration.

This doesnt mean that humanity lost the image of God, simply that it has been tarnished.

The Church never stopped being the Church, ever, but as you say above, “The corrupt people of the Catholic Church “let them down”.” The thing is, the church is the people! If they are corrupt, then the church is corrupt.

The Catholic Church **at stages **in its history has focussed on minors and it has been argued led people away from the intent of revelation by appealing to such things as superergatory meritorious works of saints and suchlike. The were common practices of simony and the sale of indulgences to raise revenue for the building of St. Peter’s Basilica.

The Council of Trent acknowledges such abuses so you probably should too, further, just in case the CC didnt go bad with Vatican II, it claims there were sins on both sides of the schism of the 16th C.

When Jesus speaks of his church is he speaking of the “great church” that he knew would be corrupt and ALL that he taught them would fall into error? Although the people became evil (and not everyone), the preservation of the apostolic traditions remained because Christ said the Church was built on a rock (Peter) and “the gates of hell would not prevail.”. The church became corrupt because people are falible. The substance of the teachings remained because Christ said it would.

There were some terrible Popes, but there was always enough essence of truth to hold it together. It is here to squash misinterpretations of scripture that Protestants continually argue over amongst themselves. A house divided against itself can not stand. There is no one Protestant church. God is not the author of confusion. Which Protestant church is the “right” one? It always becomes easy for those opposed to the Catholic church to imply we are the “wrong” ones when it has remained unchanged at it’s core (the Eucarist) for ages.

I don’t deny abuses, I spoke of corruption from my first post. Is it your contention that all was was wrong for 1,500 years? The reformation produced more and more confusion. Denomination upon denomination with no absolute authority. Many denominations can’t even agree on salvation. There is one church that Christ founded.

 

[LittleSoldier]

its certainly a wild goose chase… theres a link to it from Edwin above which has some historical sources.

The peasants were responding firstly to Urban II and then to Peter the Hermit who preached (taught) to the peasants. These peasants then followed the duck (or goose, sorry theres no dvd) around europe (yes, it was catholic christendom, how catholic? well, they were willing to obtain martyrdom). These peasants scavanged for food allthe way and then because they got there before all the knights and regulars were wiped out. about 60,000 catholics perished from this action.

You can find out more by googling the peasants crusade…

Is martyrdom limited to Catholics? Has no Protestant *ever *given his/her life up in martyrdom for the One True God? I find that very difficult to believe.

 

[CMatt25]

The best I can do on a person level is acknowledge that some of my most strongly held beliefs may be wrong, and may or may not be corrected in this life.

In matters of faith, the truth is if we want to be honest not only with ourselves but with others, this is indeed the best any human can do.

It is by faith that I believe by the end it is He, not the gates of hell, Whose one ultimate truth shall prevail. But in the meantime it is called faith for a reason.

As others have said, it’s not it seems to some so much when the CC went bad. It’s more that all humans on this earth are fallible. I know many have a need and desire to think and believe they know their teachings are absolutely 100% correct. It’s human nature for some to want to believe this. But it takes many faith steps along the way to even begin to reach that point of thinking one is for certain correct. Yet when it comes to matters of belief, we can only walk by faith and trusting if we are wrong about something, the good Lord in His mercy and love, has the capacity to understand us and our hearts and shall judge accordingly.

Peace to all who journey in faith with Him. Catholic and Protestant and Anglican alike. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are on our journeys with Him. Peace as well to all people of faith and even non faith. All of us His created children.

 

[LittleSoldier]

In matters of faith, the truth is if we want to be honest not only with ourselves but with others, this is indeed the best any human can do.

It is by faith that I believe by the end it is He, not the gates of hell, Whose one ultimate truth shall prevail. But in the meantime it is called faith for a reason.

As others have said, it’s not it seems to some so much when the CC went bad. It’s more that all humans on this earth are fallible. I know many have a need and desire to think and believe they know their teachings are absolutely 100% correct. It’s human nature for some to want to believe this. But it takes many faith steps along the way to even begin to reach that point of thinking one is for certain correct. Yet when it comes to matters of belief, we can only walk by faith and trusting if we are wrong about something, the good Lord in His mercy and love, has the capacity to understand us and our hearts and shall judge accordingly.

Peace to all who journey in faith with Him. Catholic and Protestant and Anglican alike. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are on our journeys with Him. Peace as well to all people of faith and even non faith. All of us His created children.

The goal is to have a *catholic *Church (“catholic” meaning universal). There was a schism. It can be repaired and will be repaired one day and I hope and pray that we will all be faithful members of God’s True Church. I think that most Protestant churches teach Jesus’ Great Commandments:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

[Matthew 22:36-40, Douay-Rheims]

Those are the words of God and I think we would all agree on at least that. Jesus died for everyone, not just Catholics and not just Christians but absolutely everyone. There was a certain priest who taught that one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. He was told to stop teaching that but he didn’t. He was even called to the Vatican and he was excommunicated. He was leading people away from God’s Truth. His heresy, called Feeneyism, is still alive and kicking. He was so wrong about the Church! I’m writing this because it shows up every once in awhile on the forum. I used to be surprised to see it as it was declared to be heresy a long time ago but some Catholics still believe it is true and it makes me angry to see the Church’s teachings mangled - especially over a heresy. I mean, if the Church says something is heresy it should be clear that the Church is saying that it is heresy!

This thread is about when the Church “went bad” from a Protestant point of view. I’ve never been a Protestant so I can’t write from that point of view. But I was an agnostic/atheist for many years and I did a little checking around in my teens (as my Mom did) to find the One True Church. I wish I could say that I read the bible and the scales fell from my eyes but that would be a lie. It took a friend, an agreement to see a monk as a birthday present (that’s what my friend wanted for her birthday), and that monk to bring me back to the Church. What was weird was that it didn’t appear to be the same Church that I had left. I have spent a lot of time researching, reading, and mostly bugging my very knowledgeable friend. I’ve learned that I was very poorly catechized. That is not the fault of the Church but of teachers who just didn’t teach the truth. I’m learning so much now.

I will always believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. I will always believe that, as the Church is the Body of Christ, she is infallible. But as far as I know all Protestant churches teach love for God and how there is faith, hope, and charity and charity is by far the greatest of these. Most of us are Christians here - some are Catholic Christians and some non-Catholic Christians but we are still Christians and we do need to make an effort to join together, using God as our basis. We’re really very much alike; God created all of us in His image and He loves us and His Truth is written on our souls.

Once a pastor from a Protestant church where I live actually went from door to door, inviting people to attend services at the church where he was the pastor. I thought that was great. But as he left I suddenly felt that I wanted to invite him to come to the church I attend, too - St. Mary’s, our Lady of the Dunes, and as he was some distance away I called out “Father?” in order to get his attention. I didn’t know! I thought I was showing him respect as “Father” to me means one who loves God’s lambs and looks out for them, as a good father does. Our Father created us but “Father” obviously means more than just that particular father (there is my biological father and if I had had a male mentor I would have considered him to be my father, too). Anyway, the pastor stopped and turned around and if looks could kill I wouldn’t be here typing these words.

I had offended him. I didn’t know any better. It was not the time or the place to have a debate about calling pastors “father.” My intentions were good but I was ignorant. I’ve learned since then. I won’t make that mistake again. I’ll probably make another one, lol. I hope that the Protestants here know that some Catholics just don’t know how to approach them (I’m one of them) but that we don’t mean to be disrespectful. In order to open dialogue between us we need to be able to communicate clearly. I’ll be working on that. And my charity.

I wish God’s peace for everyone.
Dominus vobiscum!

 

[CMatt25]

The goal is to have a *catholic *Church (“catholic” meaning universal). There was a schism. It can be repaired and will be repaired one day and I hope and pray that we will all be faithful members of God’s True Church. I think that most Protestant churches teach Jesus’ Great Commandments:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

[Matthew 22:36-40, Douay-Rheims]

Those are the words of God and I think we would all agree on at least that. Jesus died for everyone, not just Catholics and not just Christians but absolutely everyone. There was a certain priest who taught that one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. He was told to stop teaching that but he didn’t. He was even called to the Vatican and he was excommunicated. He was leading people away from God’s Truth. His heresy, called Feeneyism, is still alive and kicking. He was so wrong about the Church! I’m writing this because it shows up every once in awhile on the forum. I used to be surprised to see it as it was declared to be heresy a long time ago but some Catholics still believe it is true and it makes me angry to see the Church’s teachings mangled - especially over a heresy. I mean, if the Church says something is heresy it should be clear that the Church is saying that it is heresy!

This thread is about when the Church “went bad” from a Protestant point of view. I’ve never been a Protestant so I can’t write from that point of view. But I was an agnostic/atheist for many years and I did a little checking around in my teens (as my Mom did) to find the One True Church. I wish I could say that I read the bible and the scales fell from my eyes but that would be a lie. It took a friend, an agreement to see a monk as a birthday present (that’s what my friend wanted for her birthday), and that monk to bring me back to the Church. What was weird was that it didn’t appear to be the same Church that I had left. I have spent a lot of time researching, reading, and mostly bugging my very knowledgeable friend. I’ve learned that I was very poorly catechized. That is not the fault of the Church but of teachers who just didn’t teach the truth. I’m learning so much now.

I will always believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. I will always believe that, as the Church is the Body of Christ, she is infallible. But as far as I know all Protestant churches teach love for God and how there is faith, hope, and charity and charity is by far the greatest of these. Most of us are Christians here - some are Catholic Christians and some non-Catholic Christians but we are still Christians and we do need to make an effort to join together, using God as our basis. We’re really very much alike; God created all of us in His image and He loves us and His Truth is written on our souls.

Once a pastor from a Protestant church where I live actually went from door to door, inviting people to attend services at the church where he was the pastor. I thought that was great. But as he left I suddenly felt that I wanted to invite him to come to the church I attend, too - St. Mary’s, our Lady of the Dunes, and as he was some distance away I called out “Father?” in order to get his attention. I didn’t know! I thought I was showing him respect as “Father” to me means one who loves God’s lambs and looks out for them, as a good father does. Our Father created us but “Father” obviously means more than just that particular father (there is my biological father and if I had had a male mentor I would have considered him to be my father, too). Anyway, the pastor stopped and turned around and if looks could kill I wouldn’t be here typing these words.

I had offended him. I didn’t know any better. It was not the time or the place to have a debate about calling pastors “father.” My intentions were good but I was ignorant. I’ve learned since then. I won’t make that mistake again. I’ll probably make another one, lol. I hope that the Protestants here know that some Catholics just don’t know how to approach them (I’m one of them) but that we don’t mean to be disrespectful. In order to open dialogue between us we need to be able to communicate clearly. I’ll be working on that. And my charity.

I wish God’s peace for everyone.
Dominus vobiscum!

Little Soldier, a charitable and beautiful post. His blessings and peace to you as well.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In matters of faith, the truth is if we want to be honest not only with ourselves but with others, this is indeed the best any human can do.

It is by faith that I believe by the end it is He, not the gates of hell, Whose one ultimate truth shall prevail. But in the meantime it is called faith for a reason.

As others have said, it’s not it seems to some so much when the CC went bad. It’s more that all humans on this earth are fallible. I know many have a need and desire to think and believe they know their teachings are absolutely 100% correct. It’s human nature for some to want to believe this. But it takes many faith steps along the way to even begin to reach that point of thinking one is for certain correct. Yet when it comes to matters of belief, we can only walk by faith and trusting if we are wrong about something, the good Lord in His mercy and love, has the capacity to understand us and our hearts and shall judge accordingly.

Peace to all who journey in faith with Him. Catholic and Protestant and Anglican alike. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are on our journeys with Him. Peace as well to all people of faith and even non faith. All of us His created children.

Well said, Matt.

 

[Publisher]

Friends Matt and Abide…I echo your sentiments…it is only by His astounding grace and mercy we have any hope at all…it is in Him that I trust…It is in Him that we must at the end of our days trust in. We all must eventually place ourselves in the Hands of the One who loves us and gave Himself for us…I may indeed understand many things wrong…He alone knows “my anxious heart”…and “my trust is in the Lord”.

 

[1voice]

when it comes to matters of belief, we can only walk by faith and trusting if we are wrong about something

Faith comes by hearing “the Word of God”
Jesus is described in the Bible as “the Word of God”

If a person hears Jesus and obeys… then he is exercising faith (which pleases God) … If faith is present it is because a person believes what is right and is holding fast to that which is good… and rejecting that which is wrong.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Friends Matt and Abide…I echo your sentiments…it is only by His astounding grace and mercy we have any hope at all…it is in Him that I trust…It is in Him that we must at the end of our days trust in. We all must eventually place ourselves in the Hands of the One who loves us and gave Himself for us…I may indeed understand many things wrong…He alone knows “my anxious heart”…and “my trust is in the Lord”.

Well, not that a thumbs up from me means much, Publisher, but…

“It is only by His astounding grace and mercy we have any hope at all…” —how very true.