Protestants, why?

[enickman]

Oh, I suppose the Protestants study the history of Christianity, find that through imperfect men it fell into corruption, and that God raised his hand in reformation such that the gates of Hell should not prevail against His Church. I’m sure you can find Protestant intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.

And I suppose the Mormons study the history of Christianity, find that it fell into apostasy, and that God raised his hand in reformation, and then later in restoration, such that the gates of Hell should not prevail against His Church. I’m sure you can find Mormon intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.

Naturally the Catholics study the History of Christianity, find that there has been no apostasy nor corruption ever, and that the Church has never been through the gates of Hell in the first place. I’m sure you can find Catholic intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.

And they all think their own view of the matter constitutes the “truth” and wonder, out of pure curiosity, how in the world can the others be so “willfully ignorant!”

Well, I don’t know. All I know is that religious people everywhere seem to think their own stories are perfectly obvious and true, and whenever little holes and chinks appear, legions of super-smart apologists swarm to debunk and fill in the gaps with all the right answers.

And that’s why there are Protestants (Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, etc.), even really smart and thoughtful ones that know all about history and so forth.

All I’m saying by studying Christian history is that you will see the Catholic Church is the one Christ established and the one that the Apostles went out and started. Of course imperfect men run the Church. If you know a perfect man I would like to meet and talk with him. How have the gates of hell prevailed against the Church? It’s still around today. It has flaws, yes, because it is run by men. You can find the name of every man that has started a Protestant church. That is not just reformation, they have created new churches with new foundations. The biggest pillar they have is that the Bible alone is the sole teaching authority, and that Tradition should be put aside. That pillar has created dozens of new belief systems, since anyone who sits down and reads the Bible will have a different take on it. I don’t know any Catholics that think there has never been corruption throughout Church history, because there has been quite a bit of corruption. But that doesn’t mean hell has prevailed over the Church as a whole.

FYI, Catholics aren’t Protestant, and Hindus aren’t Christian.

 

[enickman]

It’s at least as much a socio-cultural and philosophical matter as it is a doctrinal issue. There generally is some of both, of course.

For me, the central doctrinal dispute is baptismal regeneration. I have been baptized. God has also regenerated me. These things did not happen at anywhere close to the same time. The nature of grace is another issue that looms large, and of course **the sacraments **come right along with that.

On a more socio-cultural level, Rome is not my home, nor can it possibly be home for every Christian in the world. What is it with the connection that is made between “Rome my home” and unity? What is so hard about bringing people from different homes into unity? You believe you are in union with everyone at your parish, but you must have noticed that you don’t all return home to some giant compound where you practice communal living. You have different homes- yet you have union with each other. This really is not a difficult concept.

And then at some other level- maybe one of governance-** I understand the desire to have an infallible referee to whom everyone is accountable, but every referee needs to be accountable to someone too.** Quite a few of the major financial scandals that have rocked the world of late have much in common as far as the root problem- certain major figures have been able to act as both a superstar player and as a referee in the game that they play. I very much doubt that anyone would deny that the bishop of Rome is a major player in Christianity. (Understatement? Yes!) So what do we know about major players? Should they also be the head referee who is ultimately accountable to no one else on planet Earth? No! That is completely unacceptable.

So there’s a lot going on here. Everyone is a little unique. It’s just like with the reasons why people are Catholic- certain things come up a lot and some are held in common by nearly everyone, but there’s some variety to it as well. It’s a big, complicated picture you’re looking at which includes churches that are one or two steps removed from the CC and for reasons that are clearly defined if a little complex, and then there’s churches that are so far removed that their members hardly know what the CC is. And there’s other stuff in between. But grace and authority are a couple of common threads that you’ll see a lot of.

1. Perhaps read up on baptism and the other sacraments. You could find out where in the Bible Christ established them all and get quite a bit of knowledge of them all.
2. I think you are taking Rome as your home in the wrong context. It’s not saying it’s your birth place or where you ultimately reside. It’s saying Rome is the home of the Church, where Peter went to be Bishop before he was martyred. (His bones are still there.)
3. You say this “referee” has no one to answer to and compare him to financial giants who have misused their power. Well, the Pope (and the financial giants) does have someone to answer to. God. I have a feeling that God passes through the Pope’s mind quite a bit each day. Unfortunately there still have been corrupt Popes, but they have God to answer to for their corruption on earth. That doesn’t mean that the role of the Pope should be cast down.

 

[Radical]

… What about the Catholic Church do you not agree with and why?

quite a bit actually. Take the Catholic Marian beliefs for example. After the virgin birth, Mary receives little attention in the gospels and even less in the rest of the NT. There is simply no indication that she played any continuing role in the salvation of others. In fact, in Mark 3 Mary is included with those who come to take charge of Jesus b/c they think him to be out of his mind. That chapter ends with Christ declaring that his real family (including his mother) are not Mary and his brothers and sisters, but instead, his real family are those who do the will of God. That passage is contained in all 3 of the synoptic gospels, but instead of using those words from Jesus to assess Mary’s ongoing significance, she is elevated immeasurably by Catholics. The earliest non-canonical Christian works also pay little attention to Mary and the first mention of the Catholic Marian beliefs (within the historical record )comes from a rather bizarre and fanciful work that was rejected by a Pope or two for contradicting scripture. It would seem to me that the obvious explanation for this is that the earliest Church simply did not give Mary much importance. Further, the NT focuses on Christ and on those preaching Christ……and in contrast, Catholics today seem to spend a great deal of time focusing on Mary. We are finite beings with a limited time here on earth. Every breath used to praise or pray to Mary is a breath not available to praise Christ or pray to God. You say that your Church is the one founded by Christ, but it seems so terribly obvious that your Church has (what has been designated as essential) beliefs about Mary that were not held by the Church that Christ actually founded. Your claim rings hollow. This may be the type of thing that Dave Noonan had in mind earlier on this thread. He also mentioned authority and provided two passages. I would think that there are a dozen or more passages that wouldn’t sit well with Catholic claims with respect to their hierarchy or with how that hierarchy conducts itself. IMHO, those inconsistencies just can’t be explained away in any satisfactory fashion….if you want more detail feel free to ask, but I would hope that you are honestly trying to understand and not merely seeking an opportunity to explain why you think we’re wrong.

 

[trskms]

Hi,

My sincere reasons for not being Catholic:

1. I was reared in a godly household, and part of a family where God actually stepped into our lives with miraculous results. So, I know that God works outside of the Catholic Church.
2. Mary. I just have issues with her. I’ve read enough to know that what I was taught that Catholics believe and what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Mary are not the same. 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.

However, I am also extremely uncomfortable with the titles “Mediatrix,” “Co-Redemptrix,” and “Queen of Heaven.” (This last title is particularly suspect, since the Bible actually uses it in condemnation to refer to Astarte throughout the Old Testament.)

1. Less so, but still concerning to me, is the role of the Pope. I wonder about his role in relation to the other Bishops now within the Orthodox Church, and I wonder if the Orthodox Church isn’t following the original intent of the apostles a bit better, although their heavy Eastern cultural views and their ethnic loyalties bother me. To me, the 1054 schism may have created two incomplete Churches, though, rather than one “right” Church and one “wrong” Church.
2. The way that various beliefs in the Catholic Church “develop” into “greater fullness.” How am I to trust that Mary won’t end up part of the Trinity (making a Quadrinity)? Or that homosexuality will be suddenly discovered to be okay?

I am on this forum, because I actually find many aspects of Catholicism appealing. So, I have been researching it. But, I find these stumbling blocks (especially Mary) to be greater than I can surmount so far.

Blessings,

Ruth

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Mary was chosen by the King of Heaven (God) to have his son. Hence, the term Queen of Heaven.

How do you know some of the Marian apparitions aren’t real? I have read compelling evidence for Our Lady of Fatima.

Hail Mary, full of Grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou among women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

 

[enickman]

quite a bit actually. Take the Catholic Marian beliefs for example. After the virgin birth, Mary receives little attention in the gospels and even less in the rest of the NT. There is simply no indication that she played any continuing role in the salvation of others. In fact, in Mark 3 Mary is included with those who come to take charge of Jesus b/c they think him to be out of his mind. That chapter ends with Christ declaring that his real family (including his mother) are not Mary and his brothers and sisters, but instead, his real family are those who do the will of God. That passage is contained in all 3 of the synoptic gospels, but instead of using those words from Jesus to assess Mary’s ongoing significance, she is elevated immeasurably by Catholics. The earliest non-canonical Christian works also pay little attention to Mary and the first mention of the Catholic Marian beliefs (within the historical record )comes from a rather bizarre and fanciful work that was rejected by a Pope or two for contradicting scripture. It would seem to me that the obvious explanation for this is that the earliest Church simply did not give Mary much importance. Further, the NT focuses on Christ and on those preaching Christ……and in contrast, Catholics today seem to spend a great deal of time focusing on Mary. We are finite beings with a limited time here on earth. Every breath used to praise or pray to Mary is a breath not available to praise Christ or pray to God. You say that your Church is the one founded by Christ, but it seems so terribly obvious that your Church has (what has been designated as essential) beliefs about Mary that were not held by the Church that Christ actually founded. Your claim rings hollow. This may be the type of thing that Dave Noonan had in mind earlier on this thread. He also mentioned authority and provided two passages. I would think that there are a dozen or more passages that wouldn’t sit well with Catholic claims with respect to their hierarchy or with how that hierarchy conducts itself. IMHO, those inconsistencies just can’t be explained away in any satisfactory fashion….if you want more detail feel free to ask, but I would hope that you are honestly trying to understand and not merely seeking an opportunity to explain why you think we’re wrong.

Mary was told by an Angel that she would give birth to the Messiah and accepted the role, knowing she was a virgin and knowing she would face persecution from society and possibly be put to death. She believed when the Angel told her she would be impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and she believed she would be taken care of by God. I think we don’t understand how hard it would be to accept this, and how frightening this would be, yet she allowed the Lord’s will to be done. She still had to flee during pregnancy under the protection of Joseph and keep the infant in her womb out of harms way, as you know King Herod wanted to kill the Christ child. Then after giving birth to our Lord in a barn, she still had the task of raising this boy. So, after she did all that and Jesus was old enough to fulfill his destiny, you’re right, Mary didn’t do anything in the area of dying for our sins. But to say she played no role in salvation is a pretty big slap in the face.

So in Mark 3, Jesus isn’t denouncing his mother. He was illustrating that all who follow Him and do God’s will are his brothers and sisters. As previously stated, Mary was pretty good at doing God’s will. We don’t waste our time on Mary, and we certainly don’t put her in front of Jesus. You should look at the Apostle’s Creed, something Catholics are encouraged to memorize since it is the outline of our faith. Mary is elevated more than the other saints, but again, she is the mother of Jesus, that deserves some elevation. We look at Mary in awe with how extraordinary and unquestioning her love was/is for God, and we pray to become that way ourselves. You say from the beginning she was not held in much esteem, but that isn’t the case. Have you ever heard of the Proto-evangelium of James? It discusses Mary’s whole life and was written around 125, a few hundred years before the Bible was canonized.

 

[Gorillaman]

quite a bit actually. Take the Catholic Marian beliefs for example. After the virgin birth, Mary receives little attention in the gospels and even less in the rest of the NT. There is simply no indication that she played any continuing role in the salvation of others. In fact, in Mark 3 Mary is included with those who come to take charge of Jesus b/c they think him to be out of his mind. That chapter ends with Christ declaring that his real family (including his mother) are not Mary and his brothers and sisters, but instead, his real family are those who do the will of God. That passage is contained in all 3 of the synoptic gospels, but instead of using those words from Jesus to assess Mary’s ongoing significance, she is elevated immeasurably by Catholics. The earliest non-canonical Christian works also pay little attention to Mary and the first mention of the Catholic Marian beliefs (within the historical record )comes from a rather bizarre and fanciful work that was rejected by a Pope or two for contradicting scripture. It would seem to me that the obvious explanation for this is that the earliest Church simply did not give Mary much importance. Further, the NT focuses on Christ and on those preaching Christ……and in contrast, Catholics today seem to spend a great deal of time focusing on Mary. We are finite beings with a limited time here on earth. Every breath used to praise or pray to Mary is a breath not available to praise Christ or pray to God. You say that your Church is the one founded by Christ, but it seems so terribly obvious that your Church has (what has been designated as essential) beliefs about Mary that were not held by the Church that Christ actually founded. Your claim rings hollow. This may be the type of thing that Dave Noonan had in mind earlier on this thread. He also mentioned authority and provided two passages. I would think that there are a dozen or more passages that wouldn’t sit well with Catholic claims with respect to their hierarchy or with how that hierarchy conducts itself. IMHO, those inconsistencies just can’t be explained away in any satisfactory fashion….if you want more detail feel free to ask, but I would hope that you are honestly trying to understand and not merely seeking an opportunity to explain why you think we’re wrong.

Any continuing contribution?..that’s like saying your mother doesn’t play an important role in your life…she is the holy vessel that delivered the son of Man to us…she is our mother…honestly doesn’t it make sense? I think to separate Jesus from the Holy Mother is making Jesus seem like he just dropped out of sky to save the world…but what made him REAL is that he was BORN…idk…I never can understand the hang up with our Mother …

Hail Mary full of grace
the Lord is with thee
blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

Holy Mary
mother of God pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

AMEN.

 

[trskms]

Again, because some of what “Mary” has said in these visitations has directly contradicted the Bible. She points to herself, rather than Christ. She has made a number of prophecies that have not come true (what is the Biblical view of a false prophet again?). She appears with a baby (is Christ STILL a baby???). She asks for devotion to herself (again, rather than directing it at all times to Christ). She does not ask the world to turn to Christ and Christianity for salvation, but rather often presents a fully ecumenical vision where Christ is not the “narrow door” nor the only way to God.

To get more specific examples, I would have to go to various sources to retrieve quotes.

 

[enickman]

Again, because some of what “Mary” has said in these visitations has directly contradicted the Bible. She points to herself, rather than Christ. She has made a number of prophecies that have not come true (what is the Biblical view of a false prophet again?). She appears with a baby (is Christ STILL a baby???). She asks for devotion to herself (again, rather than directing it at all times to Christ). She does not ask the world to turn to Christ and Christianity for salvation, but rather often presents a fully ecumenical vision where Christ is not the “narrow door” nor the only way to God.

To get more specific examples, I would have to go to various sources to retrieve quotes.

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?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Actually, every prediction she made at Fatima has come true, which miraculous because there were things about Russia that those ordinary children could not possibly have known.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Why is Christ still a baby?

My explanation would be that she might appear this way to be more recognizable. She is eternally the Mother of God. As an apparition, I would think she could be seen any way she wants to be seen.

 

[enickman]

Why is Christ still a baby?

My explanation would be that she might appear this way to be more recognizable. She is eternally the Mother of God. As an apparition, I would think she could be seen any way she wants to be seen.

I agree. In the OT it says God came to Moses from the clouds because it was something he could relate to.

 

[Gorillaman]

Why is Christ still a baby?

My explanation would be that she might appear this way to be more recognizable. She is eternally the Mother of God. As an apparition, I would think she could be seen any way she wants to be seen.

I think it also says that time will fall away…she is standing upon the moon which is always changing just like time…idk if that has any significance…it’s just the way I see it.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

“A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth.” Revelation 12:1-2

 

[enickman]

I would say that what makes up a Church is communion and not belief. Belief is very important, so much so that if you hold or not hold certain beliefs you can lose communion with the Church. But are Catholics not allowed to hold to a variety of beliefs if there is no teaching? Catholics are not united in these beliefs but still make up the communion of the Church. The question then becomes which beliefs are the ones that are necessary for communion. I’ll not attempt to answer that question here, but I will say that many Protestants would say that when we lost normal communion with the Bishop of Rome, we still are united by baptism.

That is pretty much what I was trying to say.

To say it was a misunderstanding implies that both sides of the schism essentially agree. The problem is they didn’t and still don’t to this day. There are very real disagreements as to what authority the Bishop of Rome has (for example, does the Pope have the authority to call an ecumenical council with only the bishops of Italy?). Yes egos and tempers exacerbated the problem, but the problem is very much real. And the solution is not simple or else the schism would have been healed by now. But in answer to your question, because the schism was about authority, it calls into question the authority of the Catholic Church. Can we really say that the Pope speaks ex cathedra when a large portion of the world’s bishops are not in communion with him? Why should Protestants just accept the authority of the Pope when godly men have rejected this authority for nearly 1000 years now and have been no worse for the wear? So, if the Orthodox Church can reject the Catholic understanding of the authority of the Pope and still retain their status as part of Christ’s Church (as they seem to in my eyes) then Protestants can as well. Now whether or not my particular branch of Protestantism has replaced the Pope with a viable alternative:shrug:

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.

 

[Radical]

Mary was told by an Angel that she would give birth to the Messiah and accepted the role, knowing she was a virgin and knowing she would face persecution from society and possibly be put to death.

with Joseph sticking beside her, it doesn’t seem that she faced enough persecution (let alone death ) to merit mention by any NT author.

She believed when the Angel told her…

wouldn’t most Christians?

I think we don’t understand how hard it would be to accept this, and how frightening this would be, yet she allowed the Lord’s will to be done.

I don’t think that it stands out (in a class by itself) from many of the other acts of faith described in the scriptures…all those acts are very impressive

So, after she did all that and Jesus was old enough to fulfill his destiny, you’re right, Mary didn’t do anything in the area of dying for our sins. But to say she played no role in salvation is a pretty big slap in the face.

not no role….it’s no further role (after the virgin birth)

So in Mark 3, Jesus isn’t denouncing his mother. He was illustrating that all who follow Him and do God’s will are his brothers and sisters.

to be precise, after mention of Mary is made, Jesus identifies his disciples as his mother etc. …in so doing, Jesus declared a preference for his disciples over his mother Mary who was waiting outside.

Mary is elevated more than the other saints, but again, she is the mother of Jesus, that deserves some elevation.

again, before you make too much of what elevation is merited by possessing the womb that gave birth to Christ and the breasts that nursed him, consider these words of Jesus where he again shows a preference to the obedient over Mary:
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.”

You say from the beginning she was not held in much esteem, but that isn’t the case. Have you ever heard of the Proto-evangelium of James? It discusses Mary’s whole life and was written around 125, a few hundred years before the Bible was canonized.

that is exactly the work I had in mind when I mentioned a rather bizarre and fanciful work that was rejected by a Pope or two for contradicting scripture….oh, and your date for the P of J is 20-50 years early. That would make it quite a bit later than the gospels.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

again, before you make too much of what elevation is merited by possessing the womb that gave birth to Christ and the breasts that nursed him, consider these words of Jesus where he again shows a preference to the obedient over Mary:

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.”
​

But Mary heard the word of God and obeyed it! She had one of the toughest commandments from God to obey! She is the Ark of the Covenant.

“Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed.” Luke 1:48​

 

[enickman]

with Joseph sticking beside her, it doesn’t seem that she faced enough persecution (let alone death ) to merit mention by any NT author.
wouldn’t most Christians?
I don’t think that it stands out (in a class by itself) from many of the other acts of faith described in the scriptures…all those acts are very impressive
** not no role….it’s no further role (after the virgin birth)**
to be precise, after mention of Mary is made, Jesus identifies his disciples as his mother etc. …in so doing, Jesus declared a preference for his disciples over his mother Mary who was waiting outside.
again, before you make too much of what elevation is merited by possessing the womb that gave birth to Christ and the breasts that nursed him, consider these words of Jesus where he again shows a preference to the obedient over Mary:
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.”
that is exactly the work I had in mind when I mentioned a rather bizarre and fanciful work that was rejected by a Pope or two for contradicting scripture….oh, and your date for the P of J is 20-50 years early. That would make it quite a bit later than the gospels.

1. I do remember a passage in the OT when God tells a couple they will have children, but they’re both very old and laugh at God. Then lie when God asks why they laughed at Him. Adam and Eve both didn’t listen to God after being directly spoken to by Him. 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? She was entrusted to give birth to our Savior, that to me stands in a class of its own. If I recall, at first Joseph was angry and upset and was going to quietly divorce her, but God sent the same Angel to him as well, so yes, she had some help.
2. 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.
3. Not preference over Mary, preference to those like her. Who have answered God’s call, and she has. If we want to sling Bible quotes, how about Luke 1:41-48.Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
   She gave a loud cry and said, ‘Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
   Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord?
   Look, the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy.
   Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled.’
   And Mary said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord
   and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour;
   because he has looked upon the humiliation of his servant. Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed Mary seems very much to be important in this passage.
4. What makes all the P of James bizarre and fanciful? 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. And I have never seen any other date for this work than 125.

 

[pmccombs]

All I’m saying by studying Christian history is that you will see the Catholic Church is the one Christ established and the one that the Apostles went out and started.

Yes, you’re saying that and it is clearly the only possible explanation for the Catholic, and I suppose protestants don’t deny it either. But I know of at least two historians who would say otherwise, and who have their own reasons to believe in a different story. Stories, stories, stories.

Of course imperfect men run the Church. If you know a perfect man I would like to meet and talk with him. How have the gates of hell prevailed against the Church? It’s still around today. It has flaws, yes, because it is run by men.

Exactly. How have the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church? That is what the Catholic asks. And yet Martin Luther made a laundry list. And so the argument goes, back and forth; True Believers on both sides of the issue! Bulletproof arguments all around! Yes it is! No it isn’t!

You can find the name of every man that has started a Protestant church. That is not just reformation, they have created new churches with new foundations. The biggest pillar they have is that the Bible alone is the sole teaching authority, and that Tradition should be put aside. That pillar has created dozens of new belief systems, since anyone who sits down and reads the Bible will have a different take on it. I don’t know any Catholics that think there has never been corruption throughout Church history, because there has been quite a bit of corruption. But that doesn’t mean hell has prevailed over the Church as a whole.

Yep! The Catholic side of the story. The only story even remotely plausible to Catholics. Protestants, I imagine, see all kinds of holes in it. Don’t ask me… but they do. Or they wouldn’t be Protestants. Right?

FYI, Catholics aren’t Protestant, and Hindus aren’t Christian.

Exactly my point. Yet they all have the same quality of belief in their religion, even if the particulars differ completely.

 

[enickman]

Yes, you’re saying that and it is clearly the only possible explanation for the Catholic, and I suppose protestants don’t deny it either. But I know of at least two historians who would say otherwise, and who have their own reasons to believe in a different story. Stories, stories, stories.

Exactly. How have the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church? That is what the Catholic asks. And yet Martin Luther made a laundry list. And so the argument goes, back and forth; True Believers on both sides of the issue! Bulletproof arguments all around! Yes it is! No it isn’t!

Yep! The Catholic side of the story. The only story even remotely plausible to Catholics. Protestants, I imagine, see all kinds of holes in it. Don’t ask me… but they do. Or they wouldn’t be Protestants. Right?

Exactly my point. Yet they all have the same quality of belief in their religion, even if the particulars differ completely.

1. What arguments do you or your two historian friends have that combat the idea that the Catholic Church is the one Christ established?
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. I’m not sure what your point is. That people have different beliefs? I agree. I also believe that not all of them can be true.