Protestants, why?

[MatthewMark]

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.

I completely agree. It’s interesting you feel a rift with your Catholic friends. I have many Catholic friends and I’m happy to report we get along just fine. Religion is never an issue. I also agree that not all religions lead to Christ, but I believe we cannot achieve heaven without Christ. He did, after all, say he is the way, the truth and the life. Regardless, you are right again when you say we cannot judge others.

 

[Lucky7]

I agree completely. I knew more about Catholicism whenever I was Protestant, than most cradle Catholics did. I asked my now ex-girlfriend if she was a Christian, and she said “no I’m Catholic.”:doh2:

lol…i love that icon.

 

[Gorillaman]

I heard on ewtn radio that the term Christianity was not present til long after the term catholic…am I wrong on this?

 

[trskms]

I’m afraid that you are wrong (as is EWTN).

"The first recorded use of the term [Christian] (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, which states “…in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replies to Paul the Apostle, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers, “…if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” - Wikipedia

However, even considering it is Wikipedia, this is common knowledge, and you can look it up for yourself in the New Testament.

 

[stewstew03]

Does it mean that Christ’s Church will always teach pure, unadulterated doctrine?

I agree with much of what you’re saying here but must ask, How do you interpret Matt 16:18?

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.

Actually, it had to do with reforming the practice of almsgiving, as they relate to indulgences. Here is a good resource for you: Myths About Indulgences.

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.

The practice of offering indulgences in return for alms giving was never Church doctrine. If praxis is the greatest judge of doctrine, it’s nonsensical to claim that “even the best doctrines can have a corrupt practice.” This is double-speak to an absurd degree.

 

[Radical]

Adam and Eve both didn’t listen to God after being directly spoken to by Him.

they listened for a time and then eventually sinned. I have no doubt that Mary sinned both before and after she listened.

The fact Mary listens even though she is a virgin is a testament to her faith. That isn’t to say no one else has answered God’s call. But how isn’t this in a class of it’s own?

how did her obedience require a faith greater than that of Daniel (for example)?..his life was truly on the line.

She was entrusted to give birth to our Savior, that to me stands in a class of its own.

her selection to give birth to Jesus is most certainly unique, but then we have Jesus’s own assessment of that task:
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

…it wasn’t the most blessed thing.

You Catholics seem to focus only on the Luke passage where she is termed blessed and disregard the other verses where Jesus downplays the importance of the birth role, the mother role and the importance of the physical family all in favour of the spiritual family. The result IMHO is a distorted view b/c it fails to consider all scripture….it builds a grand edifice of Marian doctrine on one passage well disregarding how other passages are not consistent with that grand edifice.

1. I’m not arguing the fact that Jesus is the one who saved us. All I’m saying is Mary had a huge role in bringing Christ into the world. That plays a part in salvation, she was an instrument used by God. There is no arguing that.

and I agree…it is what you add to that limited role that I find so terribly unfounded

What makes all the P of James bizarre and fanciful?

its words, ideas, claims and inaccuracies

I realize a great majority of it has been rejected, along with most if not all infant gospels, but it is some of the only basis we have to the early life of Mary and Joseph.

that should set off alarm bells. The author isn’t James (a false claim)and isn’t familiar with Jewish practise (with the resulting inaccuracies nicely demonstrating that the details are fabricated). If your “only basis” is a work of such untrustworthy quality, then you should understand why others would view any claim derived from it as being extremely suspect.

And I have never seen any other date for this work than 125.

where have you looked?

 

[Nicea325]

Radical:

they listened for a time and then eventually sinned. I have no doubt that Mary sinned both before and after she listened.

Really? You know for a fact Mary sinned? Sources please…If you have no doubt,then kindly tells us where Scripture or any ECF explicitly taught Mary sinned?

 

[Mystophilus]

This question could have been asked already, but I’ll ask it anyway. Why are you Protestant? What about the Catholic Church do you not agree with and why?

#1 Infallibility, of the Pope in ex cathedra pronouncements or of the Church in toto. I see no historical warrant for such a claim, and, in fact, am rather more convinced by Alexander Pope’s comment that “To err is human”. I just cannot believe in the infallibility of anyone except God.

#2 The determining role of Tradition, a derivative of #1. An idea being correct because the Roman Church has continuously held it effectively means that the idea is correct because it entered the chronological stream of reiterations at the right point: if it got in early enough, and got repeated, it is regarded as more valid than an idea which showed up later and was subject to more argument because of the contemporary nature of the Church, of education, of communication, etc.

#3 The usage of Latin. Just an ugly, ugly language, and hugely artificial in its regularity. Greek is by far the superior.

#4 The Filioque. I am with the Orthodox on the ecclesiology of this: I do not believe that Rome had the right to insert it without consultation.

#5 The lack of women priests and the attitude to homosexuality, both derivatives of #2. I have friends who are women priests (Anglican ones, obviously), and cannot regard their ministry as any less valid because they lack a Y chromosome. I have friends who are gay, and even gay friends who are priests, and cannot regard them as worse sinners or less-fit ministers than straight people.

On the other hand, parts about Catholicism which I like include Purgatory, *respect *for history and Tradition, not trying to force the whole of the Bible to be literally true, monasticism, and the episcopacy (because accountability is crucial).

 

[stewstew03]

#5 The lack of women priests and the attitude to homosexuality, both derivatives of #2. I have friends who are women priests (Anglican ones, obviously), and cannot regard their ministry as any less valid because they lack a Y chromosome. I have friends who are gay, and even gay friends who are priests, and cannot regard them as worse sinners or less-fit ministers than straight people.

In other words, your faith has been shaped and formed by your feelings toward your friends (i.e., not wanting to offend them), yes?

 

[Mystophilus]

In other words, your faith has been shaped and formed by your feelings toward your friends (i.e., not wanting to offend them), yes?

Nope. Reread the comment: I cannot regard women’s ministry as any less valid because they lack a Y chromosome; I cannot regard gay people as worse sinners or less-fit ministers than straight people.

The problem is not that I have these friends, but that I see no warrant outside of the Tradition for those ideas. Take away the determining role of the Tradition, and the ideas lack support (and you end up Anglican ).

 

[Nicea325]

Mystophilus:

#1 Infallibility, of the Pope in ex cathedra pronouncements or of the Church in toto. I see no historical warrant for such a claim, and, in fact, am rather more convinced by Alexander Pope’s comment that “To err is human”. I just cannot believe in the infallibility of anyone except God.

Historical warrant? It is warrant is based on history? If so,what is the historical warrant of the Anglican Church? Second,apparently you have a profound misunderstanding of infallibility,because infallibility does not teach the pope is infallible in all matters of life;moreover,only when it involves the morals and faith.

#2 The determining role of Tradition, a derivative of #1. An idea being correct because the Roman Church has continuously held it effectively means that the idea is correct because it entered the chronological stream of reiterations at the right point: if it got in early enough, and got repeated, it is regarded as more valid than an idea which showed up later and was subject to more argument because of the contemporary nature of the Church, of education, of communication, etc.

Is the teaching and explanation of the Trinune God (Trinitarian Doctrine) not a derivate of Apostolic Tradition?

#3 The usage of Latin. Just an ugly, ugly language, and hugely artificial in its regularity. Greek is by far the superior

.

A biased and bogus opinion,not a fact. Do you speak Latin? If not,how can you even say such a absurd remark it is ugly? Greek can sound ugly to someone in Nigeria. Greek is by far the superior? In what aspects?

#4 The Filioque. I am with the Orthodox on the ecclesiology of this: I do not believe that Rome had the right to insert it without consultation.

Hs nothing to do with a “right.” The premise of a “right” is what runs wild among Protestant circles. Women have the “right” to be priests and so on.

#5 The lack of women priests and the attitude to homosexuality, both derivatives of #2. I have friends who are women priests (Anglican ones, obviously), and cannot regard their ministry as any less valid because they lack a Y chromosome. I have friends who are gay, and even gay friends who are priests, and cannot regard them as worse sinners or less-fit ministers than straight people.

Yep! Relativism and secularism and individualism at its best! No wonder the divisions never stop.

On the other hand, parts about Catholicism which I like include Purgatory, respect for history and Tradition, not trying to force the whole of the Bible to be literally true, monasticism, and the episcopacy (because accountability is crucial).

Why have parts when the enitre pie is being offered?

 

[stewstew03]

Nope. Reread the comment: I cannot regard women’s ministry as any less valid because they lack a Y chromosome; I cannot regard gay people as worse sinners or less-fit ministers than straight people.

The problem is not that I have these friends, but that I see no warrant outside of the Tradition for those ideas. Take away the determining role of the Tradition, and the ideas lack support (and you end up Anglican ).

But you haven’t offered anything other than your Personal Tradition as support for your beliefs.

 

[Mystophilus]

But you haven’t offered anything other than your Personal Tradition as support for your beliefs.

No, I have not, because I have no intention of persuading you to accept them. The OP asks why I am a Protestant, not why you should be one.

 

[Mystophilus]

Mystophilus: Historical warrant? It is warrant is based on history? If so,what is the historical warrant of the Anglican Church? Second,apparently you have a profound misunderstanding of infallibility,because infallibility does not teach the pope is infallible in all matters of life;moreover,only when it involves the morals and faith.

Please reread the comment. It refers explicitly to ex cathedra pronouncements, not to “all matters of life”. You are accusing me of a profound misunderstanding of something which I have not even said. My disagreement is not with the idea that the Pope is always infallible, but the idea that the Pope can ever be so.

A historical warrant is the usage of historical evidence as the justification of a claim. The Anglican Church is not an argument (well, not always ), and thus no such warrant is directly relevant.

Is the teaching and explanation of the Trinune God (Trinitarian Doctrine) not a derivate of Apostolic Tradition?

The teaching of the Triune God is, first and foremost, a derivative of Scripture itself, and thence of Apostolic Tradition, that being based upon Scripture. Please note the adjective in the phrase “the determining role”. Please note the validation of the “*respect *for …] Tradition” at the end of the comment, and think about the difference between those two things.

A biased and bogus opinion,not a fact. Do you speak Latin? If not,how can you even say such a absurd remark it is ugly? Greek can sound ugly to someone in Nigeria. Greek is by far the superior? In what aspects?

Gee, thanks for the hostility. Do you understand what means? This is explicitly stated as a personal bias, and whether it is bogus or not depends upon others’ personal biases. I do not speak Latin because there is no one to speak it to, but I have studied it and dislike it. Ancient Greek sounds ugly to most people, and I have not problem with that. I prefer its syntax, grammar, and even its visual appearance to Latin’s.

Why have parts when the enitre pie is being offered?

For all of the reasons presented in the original comment.

 

[stewstew03]

No, I have not, because I have no intention of persuading you to accept them. The OP asks why I am a Protestant, not why you should be one.

Not with the intent of persuasion, but with the intent of understanding.

 

[Mystophilus]

Not with the intent of persuasion, but with the intent of understanding.

Ah, sorry.

It just goes back to the difference between Tradition being determining, as it is in Catholicism, and it being respected, as it is in Anglicanism. For us, Tradition is not the answer to the question, but instead something to consider when answering the question.

Thus, when we finally got around to formally asking “Can women be priests?”, we came up against the complementary question “Why not?”, and had no good answer to that.

The issue of homosexuality is a little more complex, hence the wider (albeit not universal) acceptance within the Anglican Communion of women priests than of gay priests. While we do not take Tradition as being determining, we do not all take Scripture as being so, either: some of us disagree with such things as Paul’s comments on homosexuality, seeing those as being a product of his time; we note Jesus’ lack of commentary on the topic, and the presence and strength of the injunctions about loving one’s neighbours. Then faced with whether we should attempt to prevent people from becoming priests because they happen to be more attracted to people of the same sex than to people of the opposite sex, we figure that it matters more how well they love others.

This issue is still one which the Communion is working through, however, and there are some Anglicans who are staunchly opposed to the ordination of gay people.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Mystophilus: Historical warrant? It is warrant is based on history? If so,what is the historical warrant of the Anglican Church? Second,apparently you have a profound misunderstanding of infallibility,because infallibility does not teach the pope is infallible in all matters of life;moreover,only when it involves the morals and faith.

Please reread the comment. It refers explicitly to ex cathedra pronouncements, not to “all matters of life”. You are accusing me of a profound misunderstanding of something which I have not even said. My disagreement is not with the idea that the Pope is always infallible, but the idea that the Pope can ever be so.

The pope never can be? Really? So I guess all the writers of the NT were always fallible- right?

A historical warrant is the usage of historical evidence as the justification of a claim. The Anglican Church is not an argument (well, not always ), and thus no such warrant is directly relevant.

And historical evidence clearly supports the primacy of Peter. Hence, in this case such a warrant is revelant. It is not relevant when it conflicts with one’s own views.

Quote:
Is the teaching and explanation of the Trinune God (Trinitarian Doctrine) not a derivate of Apostolic Tradition?

The teaching of the Triune God is, first and foremost, a derivative of Scripture itself, and thence of Apostolic Tradition, that being based upon Scripture. Please note the adjective in the phrase “the determining role”. Please note the validation of the “respect for …] Tradition” at the end of the comment, and think about the difference between those two things.

Nope! You have it backwards. Scripture is a byproduct Apostolic Tradition. The teaching of a Triune God was taught before anything was written down,thus it preceded written Scripture. I know it is stumbling block for non-Catholics to accept a historical fact,but it is what it is.

Quote:
A biased and bogus opinion,not a fact. Do you speak Latin? If not,how can you even say such a absurd remark it is ugly? Greek can sound ugly to someone in Nigeria. Greek is by far the superior? In what aspects?

Gee, thanks for the hostility. Do you understand what means? This is explicitly stated as a personal bias, and whether it is bogus or not depends upon others’ personal biases. I do not speak Latin because there is no one to speak it to, but I have studied it and dislike it. Ancient Greek sounds ugly to most people, and I have not problem with that. I prefer its syntax, grammar, and even its visual appearance to Latin’s.

Hostility? I simply said it is an opinion of yours,not a confirmed fact. And just because you studied and dislike it makes it an ugly language? Thus, it is an opinion no matter how much you wish to deny it. Okay,you prefer Greek,but that does not make ANY ugly simply because you dislike it.

Quote:
Why have parts when the enitre pie is being offered?

For all of the reasons presented in the original comment.

Understood.

 

[stewstew03]

Ah, sorry.

It just goes back to the difference between Tradition being determining, as it is in Catholicism, and it being respected, as it is in Anglicanism. For us, Tradition is not the answer to the question, but instead something to consider when answering the question.

Thus, when we finally got around to formally asking “Can women be priests?”, we came up against the complementary question “Why not?”, and had no good answer to that.

The issue of homosexuality is a little more complex, hence the wider (albeit not universal) acceptance within the Anglican Communion of women priests than of gay priests. While we do not take Tradition as being determining, we do not all take Scripture as being so, either: some of us disagree with such things as Paul’s comments on homosexuality, seeing those as being a product of his time; we note Jesus’ lack of commentary on the topic, and the presence and strength of the injunctions about loving one’s neighbours. Then faced with whether we should attempt to prevent people from becoming priests because they happen to be more attracted to people of the same sex than to people of the opposite sex, we figure that it matters more how well they love others.

This issue is still one which the Communion is working through, however, and there are some Anglicans who are staunchly opposed to the ordination of gay people.

Surely the Catholic Church has gay priests - but they are “required” to remain chaste.

As far as women and the priesthood - what do you make of the lack of women among Jesus’s twelve apostles?

 

[trskms]

The issue of homosexuality is a little more complex, hence the wider (albeit not universal) acceptance within the Anglican Communion of women priests than of gay priests. While we do not take Tradition as being determining, we do not all take Scripture as being so, either:*****

So, basically, you pick and choose whatever you choose to believe because it is what you want to believe. As someone said, you rely completely on your personal interpretation and opinion.

How is that belief in anything, really, since it could change with the puff of wind, or of culture, or in time, or simply because you ate a bad piece of meat?

I’m far more inclined to believe the Catholic view that God can preserve His Word in both Scripture and in the combined tradition of Spirit-filled followers (going back to the apostles), then that I should simply believe something because you (and some other modernists) decide that it is what I should believe because you LIKE certain people with homosexual leanings and because you LIKE certain women preachers.

In other words, 6000 years of Jewish tradition, 2000 years of Christian tradition, all of the Fathers of the faith, and the fact that Jesus NEVER corrected the supposed “misinterpretation” of homosexuality by the Jewish people (surely He was aware of it??), Paul, and the apostles trump the last 50 years of modernist revisionist “Christianity.”

 

[Mystophilus]

How is that belief in anything, really, since it could change with the puff of wind, or of culture, or in time, or simply because you ate a bad piece of meat?

Most people’s beliefs do change over time. That does not stop them from being devoutly held at a certain moment.

I’m far more inclined to believe the Catholic view that God can preserve His Word in both Scripture and in the combined tradition of Spirit-filled followers (going back to the apostles), then that I should simply believe something because you (and some other modernists) decide that it is what I should believe because you LIKE certain people with homosexual leanings and because you LIKE certain women preachers.

Where have I decided what you should believe?

The OP asked for people’s reasons for their own beliefs, not why others had to believe the same.