Protestants, why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter enickman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What has she said that contradicted the Bible? She asks we show devotion to her, which is permissible, as long as it isn’t the form of devotion shown to God. Now, if she said to turn from Christ, that would be a different story. What prophecies has she proclaimed that didn’t come true?
Well, let’s see. Off the top of my head:
  1. When the Pope consecrated Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary, it was supposed to bring world peace. Two Popes have done so. No world peace.
  2. Rome was supposed to be destroyed in 2011. It is still standing.
Blessings,

Ruth
 
And, just one example of going against the Bible (there are many, actually): She forces people to their knees when she appears, and demands worship from them (which they are usually happy to give.)

Worship is to be to God alone.
 
Because i believe in the bible and the bible alone, not the traditions of men.
The Bible teaches that we wait in the ground until Christs return, so i dont believe everyone is in heaven now (straigt after they die). Therefore no praying to dead people, no praying to Mary, Saints or anyone but to God through Jesus. There are a lot of other things like confesing to a sinful man to forgive sins and so on but these are the main things why im a protestant or should i say, not Catholic. Most Protestants now days dont even know why there Church was formed, the reason behind the reformation, most Catholics dont know why the Protestant churchs/people removed themselves from the Catholic church either. Therefore most Protestant churchs are close to Catholic now anyway and wonder why the reformation in the first place.

Just my 2 bobs worth!👍
 
I am Protestant because I was raised in a Protestant home. Interestingly, my mother was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. My father was a Baptist. My mother left the Catholic Church. In Catholic school, she was intimidated and frightened by the harsh discipline from the nuns. Her parents divorced when she was still rather young, and perhaps because they were somewhat ashamed (it was the 1930s), they gradually drifted away from church services altogether. My mother, disillusioned with Catholicism, eventually began attending Baptist services after marrying my father. Growing up, my mother took me and my siblings to church every week. I never had a negative view of Catholics or Catholicism. To me, Catholics were just as Christian as Baptists—they just had slightly different beliefs and religious ceremonies. But I always considered Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all Christian churches to be part of the body of Christ. Though I would leave the Baptist church in following years, I never found myself attracted to the Catholic Church for a couple reasons. My grandfather, like my mother, was Catholic. I should note here that my grandfather never expressed his displeasure that my mother left the church—he was always a soft-spoken, loving man. After he and my grandmother divorced, he never remarried. My grandmother passed away some years before my grandfather. They had only two children, my mother and my uncle who died shortly after my grandmother. When my grandfather died, my family attended the memorial service at his church. The Catholic ceremony was lovely. My grandfather had selflessly donated his body to research, but his youthful picture was on display along with a folded American flag—a reminder of his military service. But after the presiding priest finished the ceremony, he came down from the altar and extended his hand and words of comfort to my grandfather’s only nephew, who is also Catholic. The priest then turned and walked away, ignoring my mother—my grandfather’s only other living relative. The message was clear: “I will not talk to you because you left the church.” I was shocked that a man of God could do that. I still have never witnessed anything remotely similar to that at a Protestant memorial service. Jesus taught us to love everyone, including our enemies. According to the Bible, we Christians need to open our hearts to everyone. Certainly, a grieving woman is worthy of a kind word and a gentle touch, regardless of her religious affiliation. In the years that followed, I was moved to reach out to find the God I had set aside many years previously. I attended church services at several different Protestant denominations, but none ever seemed to fit me. I became curious about the Catholic faith and started to tune in to the local Catholic radio station while driving. I heard some wonderful messages. But I also heard a message of exclusivity and divisiveness. I learned that Catholics are taught that Protestants are less likely to go to heaven. I learned that Catholics believe Catholicism is the one true Christian religion. One caller asked radio host Patrick Madrid if he believed that people could receive divine signs from God. Madrid replied, “Yes, but not non-Catholics.” I was saddened by that response. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come unto the Father but by me.” He didn’t say “No man may come unto the Father but by the Catholic Church,” or by the Baptist church, or by any church for that matter. Former atheist Howard Storm wrote a book called “My Descent Into Death” in which he describes his death, descent into Hell, and his eventual rescue by Jesus. Obviously he was astonished that an afterlife exists and he asked Jesus many questions, including “What is the correct religion?” Jesus’ response was “The religion that brings you closer to God.” I believe it is a simple as that. God loves us and wants us to worship him with all our hearts. He also wants us to love others. I look forward to the day when I can stand before Jesus and see him in all his wondrous glory. And I look forward to being reunited with my Christian brethren, Catholics and Protestants alike. God bless.
 
However, even what the Church really does teach feels wrong to me. I am particularly bothered by the Marian apparitions and the exceptional devotion I see being given to them, despite the fact that much of what “Mary” says in these appearances is not Biblical.
Ruth, just to be clear, which apparitions (do you think) are regarded as dogma by the Church?
 
Well, let’s see. Off the top of my head:
  1. When the Pope consecrated Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary, it was supposed to bring world peace. Two Popes have done so. No world peace.
  2. Rome was supposed to be destroyed in 2011. It is still standing.
Blessings,

Ruth
The fall of the Berlin wall, the dissolution of the USSR… I would say that represents “a period of peace for mankind.” Here’s a timeline for you.
 
How do Protestant churches have communion with the Catholic Church? Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Protestants believe in Scripture alone. We are not in communion with one another, and one of us has to be wrong, to put it bluntly. There are differences with the Sacraments, the Mass, the Liturgy, etc.
In my opinion, no man had any good enough reason or authority to break off from Christ’s Church and start a new one. I would be open to hear though what was so grave and, instead of reformation inside the Catholic Church, led to separation and the building of new churches with different doctrine and dogma.
We are united with the Catholic Church because we share one baptism into Christ. Because we commune with Christ, we have communion with all who commune with Him. This includes the Catholic Church. In a perfect world, this union would lead to full visible communion, but we are fallen and are unable or unwilling to embrace the decisions necessary to facilitate full visible union. I believe that, as a Protestant, I am still as fully a member of the Body of Christ as any Catholic. This mystical communion is the only hope for our eventual reconciliation. Side note: has anybody else read Divided Christendom by Yves Congar? Best theological case for ecumenism I have ever read.
  1. Why wouldn’t “the Catholic” ask that question? It seems like a pretty good/important question. Martin Luther may have made a laundry list of what he personally thought was wrong with the Church, that doesn’t mean he was right or that he was given special authority to start his own church. I praise Luther for getting rid of paying for indulgences, that was obviously a corrupt practice. But he went a couple steps too far after that. A practice in the Church was wrong, it wasn’t doctrinal or Dogmatic. Either way, the whole Catholic Church was wrong or Luther was wrong in taking it too far.
  2. That’s not the Catholic side of the story, it’s the only side of the story. What about that “story” is untrue? What holes are there to poke?
As to the second, I admire your tenacity, but the ability to see the other side of the story is essential for facilitating discussion. The Catholic interpretation of history is that an interpretation. There may be other plausible interpretations, in fact, we are debating the plausibility of these interpretations right now. Plausible does not mean correct, you can still hold to Catholic beliefs and still recognize that Protestants have fair points to make in their interpretation.

As for the first, this is part of the Catholic interpretation that has always bothered me. Before I reveal this let me ask you, what do you think the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail” means? Does it mean that Christ’s Church will always teach pure, unadulterated doctrine? This is what I take to be the standard Catholic interpretation. However, it bothers me when I look at the history of the Church. Let us take Martin Luther’s infamous reforms. By your own admission Luther was trying to reform the corrupt practice of indulgences and he went too far by trying to change Church doctrine and not just practice. But let us think this distinction through a little. In doing this, you are claiming that a practice, even when condoned and instituted by the highest authority of the Church can be corrupt but that the Church is still prevailing over the gates of Hell. I don’t see how this is possible. Praxis is the greatest judge of doctrine, and while I accept that even the best doctrines can have a corrupt practice, I don’t think we can distinguish these to the point that the Church can have bad practice but not bad doctrine. This is subjugating orthopraxis to orthodoxy to an absurd degree.
 
We are united with the Catholic Church because we share one baptism into Christ. Because we commune with Christ, we have communion with all who commune with Him. This includes the Catholic Church. In a perfect world, this union would lead to full visible communion, but we are fallen and are unable or unwilling to embrace the decisions necessary to facilitate full visible union. I believe that, as a Protestant, I am still as fully a member of the Body of Christ as any Catholic. This mystical communion is the only hope for our eventual reconciliation. Side note: has anybody else read Divided Christendom by Yves Congar? Best theological case for ecumenism I have ever read.

As to the second, I admire your tenacity, but the ability to see the other side of the story is essential for facilitating discussion. The Catholic interpretation of history is that an interpretation. There may be other plausible interpretations, in fact, we are debating the plausibility of these interpretations right now. Plausible does not mean correct, you can still hold to Catholic beliefs and still recognize that Protestants have fair points to make in their interpretation.

As for the first, this is part of the Catholic interpretation that has always bothered me. Before I reveal this let me ask you, what do you think the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail” means? Does it mean that Christ’s Church will always teach pure, unadulterated doctrine? This is what I take to be the standard Catholic interpretation. However, it bothers me when I look at the history of the Church. Let us take Martin Luther’s infamous reforms. By your own admission Luther was trying to reform the corrupt practice of indulgences and he went too far by trying to change Church doctrine and not just practice. But let us think this distinction through a little. In doing this, you are claiming that a practice, even when condoned and instituted by the highest authority of the Church can be corrupt but that the Church is still prevailing over the gates of Hell. I don’t see how this is possible. Praxis is the greatest judge of doctrine, and while I accept that even the best doctrines can have a corrupt practice, I don’t think we can distinguish these to the point that the Church can have bad practice but not bad doctrine. This is subjugating orthopraxis to orthodoxy to an absurd degree.
I haven’t read that, might be interesting to check out. I don’t disagree that you share baptism. But what of the Eucharist? It is my understanding that Protestants only see this as a symbol and not the actual body and blood of Jesus. I also recall reading that Luther wanted to keep this as true, but other reformers felt more comfortable declaring it a symbol. That is just one difference. What about the other 5 Sacraments? That is what Catholics mean when they say we have the fullness of the truth, and that Protestants take partial truths from us. It may sound like an arrogant claim, but if there were no splits it wouldn’t sound arrogant at all. One of the easiest things for me to see, admittedly because I’m Catholic, is that you can research every man that created a new Christian church. I don’t understand why anyone would look at their church and not have a problem that Christ wasn’t its founder.
Lutheran church- Martin Luther
Church of England- King Henry the 8th
Presbyterian- John Knox
Congregationalist- Robert Brown
Episcopalian(off shoot of the Church of England, founded in the colonies) Samuel Seabury
Baptist- John Smyth
Methodist- John and Charles Wesley
Unitarian- Theophilus Lindley
Mormon- Joseph Smith
Christian Scientist- Mary Baker Eddy
Jehovas Witness- Charles Russel
Church of Nazarene- founded by a bunch of people
Pentecostal-founded by another group of people
The farther along you go, the farther you get from the original Church.

To me, hell prevailing over the Church is the Church ceasing to exist. Ceasing to present Christ’s message. Holding teachings that are gravely against the Bible and Sacred Tradition. No doubt hell has attacks on the Church(scandal, abuse of power, corruption among the ranks) but it has never prevailed over the Church. As long as the Church teaches Christ’s message, continues Christ’s mission of salvation through Him, and brings peace to millions around the world, I will never believe hell has beat the original Church Christ founded.
 
I am Protestant because I was raised in a Protestant home. Interestingly, my mother was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. My father was a Baptist. My mother left the Catholic Church. In Catholic school, she was intimidated and frightened by the harsh discipline from the nuns. Her parents divorced when she was still rather young, and perhaps because they were somewhat ashamed (it was the 1930s), they gradually drifted away from church services altogether. My mother, disillusioned with Catholicism, eventually began attending Baptist services after marrying my father. Growing up, my mother took me and my siblings to church every week. I never had a negative view of Catholics or Catholicism. To me, Catholics were just as Christian as Baptists—they just had slightly different beliefs and religious ceremonies. But I always considered Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all Christian churches to be part of the body of Christ. Though I would leave the Baptist church in following years, I never found myself attracted to the Catholic Church for a couple reasons. My grandfather, like my mother, was Catholic. I should note here that my grandfather never expressed his displeasure that my mother left the church—he was always a soft-spoken, loving man. After he and my grandmother divorced, he never remarried. My grandmother passed away some years before my grandfather. They had only two children, my mother and my uncle who died shortly after my grandmother. When my grandfather died, my family attended the memorial service at his church. The Catholic ceremony was lovely. My grandfather had selflessly donated his body to research, but his youthful picture was on display along with a folded American flag—a reminder of his military service. But after the presiding priest finished the ceremony, he came down from the altar and extended his hand and words of comfort to my grandfather’s only nephew, who is also Catholic. The priest then turned and walked away, ignoring my mother—my grandfather’s only other living relative. The message was clear: “I will not talk to you because you left the church.” I was shocked that a man of God could do that. I still have never witnessed anything remotely similar to that at a Protestant memorial service. Jesus taught us to love everyone, including our enemies. According to the Bible, we Christians need to open our hearts to everyone. Certainly, a grieving woman is worthy of a kind word and a gentle touch, regardless of her religious affiliation. In the years that followed, I was moved to reach out to find the God I had set aside many years previously. I attended church services at several different Protestant denominations, but none ever seemed to fit me. I became curious about the Catholic faith and started to tune in to the local Catholic radio station while driving. I heard some wonderful messages. But I also heard a message of exclusivity and divisiveness. I learned that Catholics are taught that Protestants are less likely to go to heaven. I learned that Catholics believe Catholicism is the one true Christian religion. One caller asked radio host Patrick Madrid if he believed that people could receive divine signs from God. Madrid replied, “Yes, but not non-Catholics.” I was saddened by that response. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come unto the Father but by me.” He didn’t say “No man may come unto the Father but by the Catholic Church,” or by the Baptist church, or by any church for that matter. Former atheist Howard Storm wrote a book called “My Descent Into Death” in which he describes his death, descent into Hell, and his eventual rescue by Jesus. Obviously he was astonished that an afterlife exists and he asked Jesus many questions, including “What is the correct religion?” Jesus’ response was “The religion that brings you closer to God.” I believe it is a simple as that. God loves us and wants us to worship him with all our hearts. He also wants us to love others. I look forward to the day when I can stand before Jesus and see him in all his wondrous glory. And I look forward to being reunited with my Christian brethren, Catholics and Protestants alike. God bless.
I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with a priest. It isn’t the first time and won’t be the last someone is turned off to the faith from how a priest has acted. I would encourage you to not place blame on the Church, and instead recognize that its members and clergy often slip up while representing the faith.

Catholics are taught that anyone can go to Heaven. Unborn babies, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Jews, it doesn’t matter. The Church teaches greatly on culpability, and how a person will be judged based on their culpability, since God knows the heart of every person. If a person never knows Christ, he isn’t culpable for not believing in Him. If a person only knew a distorted or partially true version of Christ, he isn’t culpable for not entering into his Church and knowing Him fully. If a person knows Christ fully, has been a member of his Church and has had full understanding of the truth, then he is very culpable. We teach that God is merciful beyond our fickle comprehension, but that He is also just. My response to the man in the book: I hope that is very real, stuff like that excites me. As far as Jesus saying “whatever religion gets you closest to God” I see that as Jesus saying “go take some action and find out which religion is closest to Me” rather than “stick with your gut feeling and do what you want.” I could be wrong though.
 
But what of the Eucharist? It is my understanding that Protestants only see this as a symbol and not the actual body and blood of Jesus. I also recall reading that Luther wanted to keep this as true, but other reformers felt more comfortable declaring it a symbol.
Probably most Protestant denominations view it as symbolic. But some (such as Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans) believe in Real Presence, if not exactly in the same way that Catholics do.

(But many Anglicans don’t really think of Anglicans as being Protestant or Catholic, but somewhere in between.)
 
And, just one example of going against the Bible (there are many, actually): She forces people to their knees when she appears, and demands worship from them (which they are usually happy to give.)

Worship is to be to God alone.
As far as the previous post goes, I have never heard of a prediction of Rome falling. I could be wrong, or that specific apparition was investigated by the Church and proven to not be valid (as people can unfortunately make these things up)

I’ve also never heard of any story of an apparition when Mary forced a person to their knees, rather, they went to their knees by free will of adoration. Worship is a tricky word. Now days, it’s most commonly used in the aspect of only due to God. But if you go to the dictionary, worship only means to show honor that is rightly due. Therefore, the Church teaches three levels of worship. 1. Dulia-honor shown to saints for their devout lives 2. hyper-dulia-honor shown to Mary since she is the Mother of God and has appeared to many throughout history 3. latria-honor and reverence shown to God and God alone.
 
I am Protestant because I was raised in a Protestant home. Interestingly, my mother was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. My father was a Baptist. My mother left the Catholic Church. In Catholic school, she was intimidated and frightened by the harsh discipline from the nuns. Her parents divorced when she was still rather young, and perhaps because they were somewhat ashamed (it was the 1930s), they gradually drifted away from church services altogether. My mother, disillusioned with Catholicism, eventually began attending Baptist services after marrying my father. Growing up, my mother took me and my siblings to church every week. I never had a negative view of Catholics or Catholicism. To me, Catholics were just as Christian as Baptists—they just had slightly different beliefs and religious ceremonies. But I always considered Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all Christian churches to be part of the body of Christ. Though I would leave the Baptist church in following years, I never found myself attracted to the Catholic Church for a couple reasons. My grandfather, like my mother, was Catholic. I should note here that my grandfather never expressed his displeasure that my mother left the church—he was always a soft-spoken, loving man. After he and my grandmother divorced, he never remarried. My grandmother passed away some years before my grandfather. They had only two children, my mother and my uncle who died shortly after my grandmother. When my grandfather died, my family attended the memorial service at his church. The Catholic ceremony was lovely. My grandfather had selflessly donated his body to research, but his youthful picture was on display along with a folded American flag—a reminder of his military service. But after the presiding priest finished the ceremony, he came down from the altar and extended his hand and words of comfort to my grandfather’s only nephew, who is also Catholic. The priest then turned and walked away, ignoring my mother—my grandfather’s only other living relative. The message was clear: “I will not talk to you because you left the church.” I was shocked that a man of God could do that. I still have never witnessed anything remotely similar to that at a Protestant memorial service. Jesus taught us to love everyone, including our enemies. According to the Bible, we Christians need to open our hearts to everyone. Certainly, a grieving woman is worthy of a kind word and a gentle touch, regardless of her religious affiliation. In the years that followed, I was moved to reach out to find the God I had set aside many years previously. I attended church services at several different Protestant denominations, but none ever seemed to fit me. I became curious about the Catholic faith and started to tune in to the local Catholic radio station while driving. I heard some wonderful messages. But I also heard a message of exclusivity and divisiveness. I learned that Catholics are taught that Protestants are less likely to go to heaven. I learned that Catholics believe Catholicism is the one true Christian religion. One caller asked radio host Patrick Madrid if he believed that people could receive divine signs from God. Madrid replied, “Yes, but not non-Catholics.” I was saddened by that response. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come unto the Father but by me.” He didn’t say “No man may come unto the Father but by the Catholic Church,” or by the Baptist church, or by any church for that matter. Former atheist Howard Storm wrote a book called “My Descent Into Death” in which he describes his death, descent into Hell, and his eventual rescue by Jesus. Obviously he was astonished that an afterlife exists and he asked Jesus many questions, including “What is the correct religion?” Jesus’ response was “The religion that brings you closer to God.” I believe it is a simple as that. God loves us and wants us to worship him with all our hearts. He also wants us to love others. I look forward to the day when I can stand before Jesus and see him in all his wondrous glory. And I look forward to being reunited with my Christian brethren, Catholics and Protestants alike. God bless.
This is also something i have felt in general from the catholic church. It could have been something i heard from a priest, from another catholic, the radio or something i read that gave me the impression that the catholic church was exclusive.
One of the biggest burdens for me is that one of my closest friends is catholic and this “rift” feeling is something that has made me very sad. I do not believe that all religions lead to Christ, but if you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, protestant or catholic then i have no right to judge you. Even more, scripture teaches that we have no right to judge anyone, christian or not.
 
Probably most Protestant denominations view it as symbolic. But some (such as Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans) believe in Real Presence, if not exactly in the same way that Catholics do.

(But many Anglicans don’t really think of Anglicans as being Protestant or Catholic, but somewhere in between.)
Perhaps different Lutheran churches teach differently on the subject. My friend has a Lutheran pamphlet that explains why the Eucharist is just a symbol. Maybe that isn’t the universally accepted teaching with the Lutheran church though.
 
Perhaps different Lutheran churches teach differently on the subject. My friend has a Lutheran pamphlet that explains why the Eucharist is just a symbol. Maybe that isn’t the universally accepted teaching with the Lutheran church though.
There are several different Lutheran synods (denominations), and they do vary a bit. I’m with ELCA (& TEC - my parish has both affiliations), and I believe in RP.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence#Lutherans_.E2.80.93_the_Sacramental_Union:_.22in.2C_with.2C_and_under_the_forms_of_bread_and_wine.22
 
I haven’t read that, might be interesting to check out. I don’t disagree that you share baptism. But what of the Eucharist? It is my understanding that Protestants only see this as a symbol and not the actual body and blood of Jesus. I also recall reading that Luther wanted to keep this as true, but other reformers felt more comfortable declaring it a symbol. That is just one difference. What about the other 5 Sacraments? That is what Catholics mean when they say we have the fullness of the truth, and that Protestants take partial truths from us. It may sound like an arrogant claim, but if there were no splits it wouldn’t sound arrogant at all. One of the easiest things for me to see, admittedly because I’m Catholic, is that you can research every man that created a new Christian church. I don’t understand why anyone would look at their church and not have a problem that Christ wasn’t its founder.
Lutheran church- Martin Luther
Church of England- King Henry the 8th
Presbyterian- John Knox
Congregationalist- Robert Brown
Episcopalian(off shoot of the Church of England, founded in the colonies) Samuel Seabury
Baptist- John Smyth
Methodist- John and Charles Wesley
Unitarian- Theophilus Lindley
Mormon- Joseph Smith
Christian Scientist- Mary Baker Eddy
Jehovas Witness- Charles Russel
Church of Nazarene- founded by a bunch of people
Pentecostal-founded by another group of people
The farther along you go, the farther you get from the original Church.

To me, hell prevailing over the Church is the Church ceasing to exist. Ceasing to present Christ’s message. Holding teachings that are gravely against the Bible and Sacred Tradition. No doubt hell has attacks on the Church(scandal, abuse of power, corruption among the ranks) but it has never prevailed over the Church. As long as the Church teaches Christ’s message, continues Christ’s mission of salvation through Him, and brings peace to millions around the world, I will never believe hell has beat the original Church Christ founded.
Thanks for the answer. I actually have a similar view about hell prevailing; I just expand the definition of the Church that Christ founded to include Protestants. I should say that what I mean by “founded” might be a little different than your definition. I say that Christ founded one Church, and the individuals who are baptized into that body are part of the Church which Christ founded. Out of curiosity, under your definition who founded the Orthodox Church, and if it was indeed Christ, how do you explain that there are two churches which Christ founded?

I don’t say that the Nazarene Church is really a different Church than other Weslyan churches, or Baptists, or even Catholics. When a group of pastors got together in Chicago in 1907 and formed the Nazarene Church they were merely trying to define the most authentic way to be the Church and not founding a different Church. Yes, there are doctrines and practices that make it impossible for us to have visible communion; I am not denying that the views on the Eucharist are very important. However, I believe we can have differing views on the Eucharist and still “teach Christ’s message, continue Christ’s mission of salvation through Him, and bring peace to millions around the world.” Does that make sense?

So in short answer to your original question. I remain a Protestant because I am not convinced we are a different Church than the Catholic Church and we fully preach the salvation of Christ.
 
Thanks for the answer. I actually have a similar view about hell prevailing; I just expand the definition of the Church that Christ founded to include Protestants. I should say that what I mean by “founded” might be a little different than your definition. I say that Christ founded one Church, and the individuals who are baptized into that body are part of the Church which Christ founded. Out of curiosity, under your definition who founded the Orthodox Church, and if it was indeed Christ, how do you explain that there are two churches which Christ founded?

I don’t say that the Nazarene Church is really a different Church than other Weslyan churches, or Baptists, or even Catholics. When a group of pastors got together in Chicago in 1907 and formed the Nazarene Church they were merely trying to define the most authentic way to be the Church and not founding a different Church. Yes, there are doctrines and practices that make it impossible for us to have visible communion; I am not denying that the views on the Eucharist are very important. However, I believe we can have differing views on the Eucharist and still “teach Christ’s message, continue Christ’s mission of salvation through Him, and bring peace to millions around the world.” Does that make sense?

So in short answer to your original question. I remain a Protestant because I am not convinced we are a different Church than the Catholic Church and we fully preach the salvation of Christ.
I see exactly what you are saying. But Christ didn’t start Protestant churches. Men started these, as I showed above. You say we are in communion through baptism, and I completely agree. But you say even though we have different takes and doctrines and teachings that we are still one Church that Christ founded. That would mean Jesus found a Church that both accepts and denies the Eucharist, accepts and denies the authority of the Pope, accepts and denies teachings on Mary, accepts and denies some if not most of the 7 sacraments, the list goes on. We aren’t the same Church, but we are the same religion: Christianity. Christianity ties in any denomination or non denomination (even though that is still a denomination) that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and Savior of the World and saves us by Grace though baptism. That is a GREAT part of the truth revealed to us, but it is not the only truth. Again, why Catholics says Protestants only have partial truth.

As far as the Orthodox Church goes, I’m not an expert, and won’t tread far in waters I’m unfamiliar with. What I do know, is they split from the Catholic Church over authority of the Pope in the 15th century (even though the schism is credited to 1054, nothing drastic happened until the 1400s.) There is also some other traditions like leavened bread used for mass and other things, I’m sure. But as far as I know, they are identical to the Catholic Church in everything else.
 
This is also something i have felt in general from the catholic church. It could have been something i heard from a priest, from another catholic, the radio or something i read that gave me the impression that the catholic church was exclusive.
One of the biggest burdens for me is that one of my closest friends is catholic and this “rift” feeling is something that has made me very sad. I do not believe that all religions lead to Christ, but if you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, protestant or catholic then i have no right to judge you. Even more, scripture teaches that we have no right to judge anyone, christian or not.
Exclusive meaning what? That anyone can’t join? A relationship with the Lord is a great thing. Catholics aren’t taught to judge, nor should they practice judging anyone, as we have no room to do any judging. It’s not about judging anyone. It’s about leading our brothers and sisters who have fallen away from the Church back to it, and back to the truth Christ gave to us here on earth.
 
I guess I’m in a slightly different situation because I’m not really Protestant or Roman Catholic anymore. I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, and up until high school that was all I knew. As a freshman in high school, I started feeling that my spirituality was missing something – it felt incomplete. I went to a Lutheran church for a couple of months with a friend, but found it wasn’t really for me either. I’d always been attracted to Catholicism, so I started going to the Roman Catholic church near my house regularly, studied Catholicism intensely, and was finally baptised and confirmed my senior year (my parents made me wait until I was 18).

When I was 21, I left Christianity altogether for a few years. I did attend Mass occaisionally, but for the most part, I felt unwelcome in the Church. When I graduated from university, I discovered there was a Gnostic church in town, and started attending Mass there. I’ve been going there for several years now, and have even joined the clergy (something that wasn’t much of an option for me as a Roman Catholic). My church is still catholic, sacramental, liturgical, and we have apostolic succession – it’s just not “orthodox”.

As for why I go to a Gnostic church… I feel it is what I had been searching for all along. Roman Catholicism was a step up along the journey, as it filled in many of the gaps I found in Protestant Christianity. But Gnosticism seems to fill in even more of those gaps. I still feel very connected to my Catholicism, and have a great appreciation for the RCC; but there were things about it that went against my conscience, as well as things I believed naturally that weren’t in line with orthodox teachings. I’d been interested in Gnostic scripture since high school, and always felt that something important had been lost by the early orthodox Christians rejecting these invaluable books. I’m definitely not a Protestant, but my Catholicism now feels more complete as a Gnostic Christian.
I’m glad for you that you have found a home in a Christian church! I wonder what a modern day Gnostic church is like, I’ve never been to one. I’ve been reading about the historic Gnostic churches and there were several that differed from each other in terms of the spiritual role they believed the demiergos (old testament god) played in the world. I claim to be Marcionite now and I used to be somewhat offended if Marcionite’s were characterized as Gnostic, but now I have come to learn that the historic Marcionite faith is much closer to Gnostic than it is to orthodoxy. The famous Gnostic Valentinius was a contemporary of Marcion, and, it seems to me that except for just a few points, Marcion and Valentinius were about mostly the same things.

One thing that I had never before supposed to be true was that there were a great many Jewish-Christian-Gnostics in the first few centuries of the Christian church. All Gnostics and Marcionites, including the Jewish-Christian Gnostics, held to the dualism of God the Father (of Jesus), and the lesser god, the creator god, of the old testament. The Jewish Gnostics saw the demiergos as sort of a prophet in the spiritual world that governed this world, as a god, but was supposed to be acting under the (unconscious) direction of God the Father. And this was why the Jews had prophets, as they believed that the earth is patterned after the heavens. And I am now convinced that, not only were the very first Christians all Jewish, but all the very first Christians were Gnostic Jews! James, the one called “the bother of the Lord”, was no exception, he too was Gnostic!

But then came the Gentile-Christian-Gnostics, and they didn’t see the demiergos as a good god, faithfully doing the will of the Father. To them Jesus came from the Father to overthrow the evil rule of the demiergos and his archon co-rulers.

I believe the Gentile Gnostics were right about their view of the old testament god (the demiergos) and that is why they did not follow the Law of Moses as the Jewish Gnostics did. But it is something that one can have sympathy for. It would be a hard thing for someone to come to believe that the god they once held to turned out to be the creator of evil!

But of course the good news is that Jesus is now Lord of all, and he is the good Lord of the good God!

Why be Protestant? The thread asks? It comes closer to the pure message of salvation by grace, apart from the law, that was, I think, the most important message of the (Gnostic/Marcionite) Apostle Paul. But at least the Catholics and Orthodox canonized our Gnostic bible (the Apostolicon – the Bible of St Paul) within their canon by inserting the books of St Paul there, so they have the message of the good too.

May God, the unknowable one except threw Jesus only, bless you throw Jesus Christ the Lord! 👍
 
I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with a priest. It isn’t the first time and won’t be the last someone is turned off to the faith from how a priest has acted. I would encourage you to not place blame on the Church, and instead recognize that its members and clergy often slip up while representing the faith.

Catholics are taught that anyone can go to Heaven. Unborn babies, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Jews, it doesn’t matter. The Church teaches greatly on culpability, and how a person will be judged based on their culpability, since God knows the heart of every person. If a person never knows Christ, he isn’t culpable for not believing in Him. If a person only knew a distorted or partially true version of Christ, he isn’t culpable for not entering into his Church and knowing Him fully. If a person knows Christ fully, has been a member of his Church and has had full understanding of the truth, then he is very culpable. We teach that God is merciful beyond our fickle comprehension, but that He is also just. My response to the man in the book: I hope that is very real, stuff like that excites me. As far as Jesus saying “whatever religion gets you closest to God” I see that as Jesus saying “go take some action and find out which religion is closest to Me” rather than “stick with your gut feeling and do what you want.” I could be wrong though.
First, I agree. Many people of many different faiths can trip up. Goodness knows it’s happened to Protestants as well. I have no ill feelings toward the priest who snubbed my mother. I am disappointed with him, but I continue to pray for him. Your assertion that the Catholic Church teaches anyone can go to heaven is surprising to me. I haven’t heard that message before now, but I accept what you say. But I’m interested in the believer’s culpability that you speak of. Are you saying that Protestants do not know a true version of Christ and thus, are not culpable? In other words, can Catholics alone know Christ fully? I’m not searching for an argument–I’m just trying to learn Catholic doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top