Protestants, why?

[enickman]

Sorry for butting in here, but the conversation went along a different path while I was away

I would say that this means that the Church will never be destroyed nor will its mission of revealing Christ and mission to the world ever be compromised. On some issues, I believe the Church must teach truthfully or else the Church’s mission would be compromised. On other issues… not so much. This is the vague, protestant notion of essential and unessential beliefs. Let us take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Can we really say that the Assumption of Mary is dogmatic for the gospel of Christ on the same level that the Resurrection is? I would think not, so I really cannot say that the Church must believe this doctrine or else its mission would be compromised.

Ah… Thank you for the correction. I actually knew this already, but I was just using the shorthand to which I am accustomed. I will change this in the future to avoid perpetuating misunderstanding.

I really need to leave my computer for an hour or so and come back and read these posts before I submit them. However, I stand by what I was trying to say. Why is it that the gates of hell would prevail if the Church teaches false doctrine but not when the praxis is corrupt? This puts belief in extreme supremacy over and above praxis, much like the Gnostics did. I am not saying this as a jab against Catholics; Evangelical Christianity at least in the U.S. has much the same problem.

Well you could say that we don’t have Christ in the Eucharist. I say we do. But did Christ not say “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them?” So why do you say we believe we must wait until heaven to be with Christ?

There is also the issue that we have been baptized into the Body of Christ and as such we are the presence of Christ in this world. I had a professor who once said the difference between EO and RC is the mystical and the literal body of Christ. Catholics believe that the bread of the Eucharist becomes the literal body of Christ and the Church is the mystical body of Christ. Orthodox, on the other hand, believe the Church to be the literal body of Christ and the bread to be the mystical body. Now I have no idea if that is true or not, but the fact remains is that due to our valid baptisms, Protestants have every right to claim to be the body of Christ.

P.S. On an unimportant note: “pay no mind to” is about as far from what I do to the Catholic Church that a Protestant can get. For purely selfish reasons, I wish I could be Catholic, but I refuse to be a “cafeteria Catholic” and cannot join until my issues are clarified.

1. Do some research on the Assumption. The Church doesn’t declare something Dogmatic without a LOT of consideration. I think many people fail to recognize this.
2. Ask your pastor if your hosts are consecrated by a priest that can trace his ordination back to the Apostles, or if he believes in the real presence when he hands out what ever you guys use to represent it. (in every Protestant church ive been to, its been saltine crackers and welch’s grape juice)
3. I am aware of your baptism and that we share the belief that baptism erases original sin. What I am telling you is that our churches are not the same due to conflicting beliefs over numbers of issues. We are both Christian, but we are not both One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. And I hope this doesn’t come across arrogant, because that isnt the intention.
4. Why are your reasons to not be Catholic selfish? We would happily welcome you. I do commend you on not wanting to be a cafeteria Catholic, as many are when pertaining to moral issues. It sounds like you’re on a journey, I hope we Catholics can help in any way.

 

[JonNC]

=enickman;9576167]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

It isn’t that Luther wanted (or not) to keep it true, because it is truth, regardless of what anyone wants, from the clear reading of the text of scripture, the historic practice of the Church, and the unanimous testamony of the Fathers.

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.

Lutherans don’t disagree with the other four (5, depending on the Lutheran you talk to) sacraments. My dad was ordained, Lutherans are confirmed, my wife and I were married in the Church, anointing of the sick is available. It has to do with definitions of sacrament, not whether they are valid important practices.

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

Because Christ is the founder of the Church. Luther was a priest, teacher, theologian, not the founder of a church. We preach Christ and Him crucified, not Luther.

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.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[englishredrose]

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?

I was born into a Protestant family first of all and my nearest church is Church of England Anglican and since being 15 years old I haven’t gone anywhere else as a member.

I have no intentions of converting to the Catholic Church and had one sticky moment back at Advent when thankfully our Priest changed the Missal to Anglican rather than the new missal. He had pointed out if they want that then they will have to become Catholic. Thankfully we didn’t go down the new missal route though the only church in the Denary not to do so. I am so glad the Church didn’t convert to Catholicism

Some of the view points on here hasn’t done any favours towards the Catholic Church. The behavour towards those of us who are not Catholic does not help. Also from what I learn on here etc that you all respond to The Authority of the Church seems to be at the centre of why you do things. The number of times I’ve seen Canon Law quoted, regardless to correct usage or not. Canon Law or your Duty to. There is not alot of That You Love God is why you do so etc. God is at the centre of our lives and not some Canon Law saying its duty to. That is why I feel from what has been expressed on these boards at least why I think the Authority of the Church is too controlling. Yes be Obediant but you are Obediant because of God not because the Canon Law expects. Posters here do not seem to be able to express themselves in terms of the Love of God and this is very sad because am sure the Catholic Church has a lot to offer and a lot of very good Catholic Priests out there. But their messages aren’t getting heard from what I meet here. Its all mixed up in wanna be priests here I think and they do not know their faith enough.

Hence that is why I want to remain Protestant. I have the freedom to think and to do Gods will rather than the Church’s will. The Church is there for me to worship and guide me not to be authoritative of me. Its simple being a Protestant and I have no desire to change

 

[Radical]

Why is Mary the only person (that isn’t Jesus) regarded has full of grace?

do you mean why is Mary the only person designated in scripture as being full of grace? The translation “full of grace” is dodgy (and now has a lot of bad baggage attached to it). She was highly favoured.

How can you know for a fact she sinned?

it is what humans do…how do you know that she breathed?

You don’t think God could make the person that would bring His Son into the world without sin?

just b/c we can imagine that God could do something, is no reason to think it happened. Humans sin…it is what we do. A female human will give birth after her egg is fertilized by a male human’s sperm. It is how we work. We don’t assume that Mary was an exception to that way of working, we believe it b/c we are told it by scripture. Likewise, we shouldn’t assume that Mary was sinless, we should believe it only if we are told it by something with an authority equal to that of scripture. You believe that your Church has that authority and I don’t. As such, you can’t appeal to your church in this dialogue with me….it won’t work. …and w/o that, you won’t find something else with an authority equal to scripture. You have nothing from the first two centuries to suggest that Mary didn’t sin, except a work like the Protoevangelium of James….and that ain’t scripture…it is nothing like it. The dramatic contrast between how Mary is presented in the NT and the Apostolic Fathers and how she is presented by the CC today is why (one of a number of things that can be contrasted in that fashion) I would say that the CC is not the Church that Jesus founded (doctrinally). If the Church of the 1st century looked like the Church of the fourth century, then I would be Catholic…errrr, well Orthodox actually.

1. Was Daniel told he was to do something physically impossible?

Mary didn’t do anything that was physically impossible…God preformed a miracle and then Mary experienced a natural pregnancy and birth.

All I’m saying is Mary showed extraordinary faith and is the Mother of God. That’s sort of a big deal.

being the mother of Christ’s humanity was a big deal…no need to inflate the significance.

1. Again I think you’re missing the point here. He’s not downplaying His mother. You keep giving me the same quote. What is the 4th Commandment? That seems like a big part of Scripture.

you can’t have thought this through. Another commandment prohibits killing. Is God prohibited from killing? Is he bound by that commandment? We are to honour our parents. Does honouring them require us to deny God’s teaching, to go against God’s will? I don’t think so….and since Jesus is God, whatever he taught, was God’s teaching and whatever he did, was God’s will. Honouring his parents would have included declaring God’s teaching, including the teaching that devalued the earthly, parental connection in favour of the spiritual connection (with Jesus) created by obedience to the Father. That is the obvious meaning of those four verses and I don’t see that you have offered anything that would suggest that we should disregard the obvious meaning.

1. What is added to the “limited” role?

everything attributed to Mary after the virgin birth…

And how is her role “limited”?

after Christ’s birth she served as Jesus’s mother, led a godly life, died and that is it.

1. How do you explain the apparitions of Mary throughout history? Do you dismiss all these as false? Our Lady of Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. Have you even done research on these?

I have looked at one or two and they don’t pass the smell test.

 

[MatthewMark]

That is big of you to pray for him. Not many would do so, you are obviously forgiving and compassionate. As far as salvation, you can get it all from the Catechism. I’m not saying Protestants don’t know who Christ was/is. I’m saying Protestant churches leave things out such as His real presence, all the Sacraments, moral teachings, etc. He established one Church, and any broken off sect doesn’t fully contain everything that the original Church does.

I would respectfully dispute that Protestant churches leave out Christ’s real presence, the Sacraments, and especially, moral teachings. These things are present in Protestant churches under a different form or interpretation. What we have is a philosophical difference that is nearly as old as Christianity itself. Man has interpreted the Bible in various ways, and I don’t believe there is one correct way to love and serve God. Jesus told us “Love” is the most important of the commandments. Just as God loves us, so too should we love each other. Consider this: You are a child. One day you set out with love and praise in your heart to gather flowers for your mother. You choose the prettiest flowers you see, including colorful dandelions and flowering weeds. When you present this bouquet to your mother, will she scold you and throw them away because you didn’t choose the “right” flowers? Of course not. She knows your heart and she knows that this bouquet is symbol of your love and devotion. God too knows our hearts and knows our level of devotion. Whether you are baptised by immersion or not, or whether you believe communion is a holy sacrament or loving symbolism, is not as important as your loving devotion and servitude to God’s will in your life. Again, I realize this is the one of the basic differences between our faiths for the past 500 years and I’m not going to persuade anyone to make a change in faith. But then, I don’t want to. If your faith strengthens your relationship with God, then you are serving the Father. It’s a joy to me to know that you are saved in Christ!

 

[Taestron]

No - it places doctrine over practice. Was Paul a sinner who preached the Gospel?

Yes. I will admit that doctrine should be placed over practice. I really want to speak my objection clearly, so I’ll wait until I get some sleep.

Ok, here is my objection. In Galatians, Paul tells us how Peter was taken in or intimidated by the Judaizers and was implicitly teaching that Gentiles must become Jewish to be saved. Thankfully, he was corrected; the gates of Hell did not prevail. In 1517 Pope Leo X offered the sale of indulgences for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica thus contributing to the corruption of almsgiving and implicitly teaching that one could buy forgiveness. Thankfully, the Council of Trent happened and the system became much less corrupt; the gates of Hell did not prevail. My question is why is it that these two examples of misconduct by the highest authority in the Church leading to the misleading of many until it was corrected, why is this not considered the gates of Hell prevailing, but should the Church teach false doctrine this would constitute the gates of Hell prevailing, even if the offending doctrine is eventually corrected? This distinction seems artificial to me, and at worst seems to imply that the Church is free to be as corrupt in practice as long as its doctrine is correct.

1. Do some research on the Assumption. The Church doesn’t declare something Dogmatic without a LOT of consideration. I think many people fail to recognize this.

I did some research as you suggested, but I could not figure out why this was declared dogmatic. Pope Pius XII seems to be basing the correctness of the doctrine on the dogma of the immaculate conception and the fact that it is indeed a traditional (although later than many) doctrine. That is fine, but there are other true doctrines with traditional support that are not dogma. Side bar: I’m actually not sure what the function of dogma is above doctrine. There also seemed to be some clamoring for the elevation of this doctrine to the level of dogma

I did find this from paragraph 42 of Munificentissimus Deus source:vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

It is to be hoped that all the faithful will be stirred up to a stronger piety toward their heavenly Mother, and that the souls of all those who glory in the Christian name may be moved by the desire of sharing in the unity of Jesus Christ’s Mystical Body and of increasing their love for her who shows her motherly heart to all the members of this august body. And so we may hope that those who meditate upon the glorious example Mary offers us may be more and more convinced of the value of a human life entirely devoted to carrying out the heavenly Father’s will and to bringing good to others. Thus, while the illusory teachings of materialism and the corruption of morals that follows from these teachings threaten to extinguish the light of virtue and to ruin the lives of men by exciting discord among them, in this magnificent way all may see clearly to what a lofty goal our bodies and souls are destined. Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.

But it would seem that all this is accomplished already at the level of doctrine, and so the elevation to dogma is at best unnecessary (the Orthodox objection) or at worst a barrier to to non-catholics who are looking for communion but cannot embrace this doctrine. I also will say I am very leery of the language used in the last few sentences. Compare that language with Paul’s. [BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:20-23[/BIBLEDRB] Christ is our hope of resurrection, if I do not believe in my resurrection because of Christ, why would Mary’s Assumption make it any stronger? All this to say that nothing about Mary’s Assumption seems to make it as central to the Christian faith as Christ’s resurrection. So why is it that any who deny the Assumption should “know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith?” (paragraph 45)

1. Ask your pastor if your hosts are consecrated by a priest that can trace his ordination back to the Apostles, or if he believes in the real presence when he hands out what ever you guys use to represent it. (in every Protestant church ive been to, its been saltine crackers and welch’s grape juice)

Oh man, those crackers taste awful:sad_yes: But in all seriousness, I have never understood what apostolic succession has to do with the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Perhaps you may enlighten me.

1. I am aware of your baptism and that we share the belief that baptism erases original sin. What I am telling you is that our churches are not the same due to conflicting beliefs over numbers of issues. We are both Christian, but we are not both One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. And I hope this doesn’t come across arrogant, because that isnt the intention.

I know it is not meant to be arrogant. I suspect we are at an impasse with this point. I believe that I am baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic Church (and more or less apostolic:thumbsup and our differences do not divide us essentially. And you believe they do.

1. Why are your reasons to not be Catholic selfish? We would happily welcome you. I do commend you on not wanting to be a cafeteria Catholic, as many are when pertaining to moral issues. It sounds like you’re on a journey, I hope we Catholics can help in any way.

Well without getting into the extenuating circumstances of my position in my local church, I would say I want to be Catholic because in some ways it would just be easier. (Ecclesiaslly speaking) But I remain Protestant because I know that the godly Protestants are saved and are the Church. The amount of theological gymnastics I would have to do to believe that statement as a Catholic boggles the mind. So I remain a willful Protestant for now.

 

[enickman]

It isn’t that Luther wanted (or not) to keep it true, because it is truth, regardless of what anyone wants, from the clear reading of the text of scripture, the historic practice of the Church, and the unanimous testamony of the Fathers.

Lutherans don’t disagree with the other four (5, depending on the Lutheran you talk to) sacraments. My dad was ordained, Lutherans are confirmed, my wife and I were married in the Church, anointing of the sick is available. It has to do with definitions of sacrament, not whether they are valid important practices.

Because Christ is the founder of the Church. Luther was a priest, teacher, theologian, not the founder of a church. We preach Christ and Him crucified, not Luther.

Agreed.

Jon

I’m aware you don’t preach Luther crucified. I just don’t see how Christ founded the Lutheran church. It isn’t in full accordance with the original Church, and Luther’s name is in the title.

 

[enickman]

I was born into a Protestant family first of all and my nearest church is Church of England Anglican and since being 15 years old I haven’t gone anywhere else as a member.

I have no intentions of converting to the Catholic Church and had one sticky moment back at Advent when thankfully our Priest changed the Missal to Anglican rather than the new missal. He had pointed out if they want that then they will have to become Catholic. Thankfully we didn’t go down the new missal route though the only church in the Denary not to do so. I am so glad the Church didn’t convert to Catholicism

Some of the view points on here hasn’t done any favours towards the Catholic Church. The behavour towards those of us who are not Catholic does not help. Also from what I learn on here etc that you all respond to The Authority of the Church seems to be at the centre of why you do things. The number of times I’ve seen Canon Law quoted, regardless to correct usage or not. Canon Law or your Duty to. There is not alot of That You Love God is why you do so etc. God is at the centre of our lives and not some Canon Law saying its duty to. That is why I feel from what has been expressed on these boards at least why I think the Authority of the Church is too controlling. Yes be Obediant but you are Obediant because of God not because the Canon Law expects. Posters here do not seem to be able to express themselves in terms of the Love of God and this is very sad because am sure the Catholic Church has a lot to offer and a lot of very good Catholic Priests out there. But their messages aren’t getting heard from what I meet here. Its all mixed up in wanna be priests here I think and they do not know their faith enough.

Hence that is why I want to remain Protestant. I have the freedom to think and to do Gods will rather than the Church’s will. The Church is there for me to worship and guide me not to be authoritative of me. Its simple being a Protestant and I have no desire to change

I’m sorry that we seem to lead you away from the Church. That is obviously not any of our intentions. We listen to the Church because we love God and are certain Christ founded it. It’s not that we have the inability to think for ourselves. You’re right it has a ton to offer, and so do its faithful. How are their messages being distorted? You’re right almost every Catholic could learn their faith better, and everyone could live it better. You do have the freedom to think and do God’s will. For any church that gets you to worship and follow it, it must have some authority over you. God is always wanting us to change. I have every desire to change and be able to love and serve Him better than I do now.

 

[enickman]

do you mean why is Mary the only person designated in scripture as being full of grace? The translation “full of grace” is dodgy (and now has a lot of bad baggage attached to it). She was highly favoured.
it is what humans do…how do you know that she breathed?
just b/c we can imagine that God could do something, is no reason to think it happened. Humans sin…it is what we do. A female human will give birth after her egg is fertilized by a male human’s sperm. It is how we work. We don’t assume that Mary was an exception to that way of working, we believe it b/c we are told it by scripture. Likewise, we shouldn’t assume that Mary was sinless, we should believe it only if we are told it by something with an authority equal to that of scripture. You believe that your Church has that authority and I don’t. As such, you can’t appeal to your church in this dialogue with me….it won’t work. …and w/o that, you won’t find something else with an authority equal to scripture. You have nothing from the first two centuries to suggest that Mary didn’t sin, except a work like the Protoevangelium of James….and that ain’t scripture…it is nothing like it. The dramatic contrast between how Mary is presented in the NT and the Apostolic Fathers and how she is presented by the CC today is why (one of a number of things that can be contrasted in that fashion) I would say that the CC is not the Church that Jesus founded (doctrinally). If the Church of the 1st century looked like the Church of the fourth century, then I would be Catholic…errrr, well Orthodox actually.
Mary didn’t do anything that was physically impossible…God preformed a miracle and then Mary experienced a natural pregnancy and birth.
being the mother of Christ’s humanity was a big deal…no need to inflate the significance.
you can’t have thought this through. Another commandment prohibits killing. Is God prohibited from killing? Is he bound by that commandment? We are to honour our parents. Does honouring them require us to deny God’s teaching, to go against God’s will? I don’t think so….and since Jesus is God, whatever he taught, was God’s teaching and whatever he did, was God’s will. Honouring his parents would have included declaring God’s teaching, including the teaching that devalued the earthly, parental connection in favour of the spiritual connection (with Jesus) created by obedience to the Father. That is the obvious meaning of those four verses and I don’t see that you have offered anything that would suggest that we should disregard the obvious meaning.
everything attributed to Mary after the virgin birth…
after Christ’s birth she served as Jesus’s mother, led a godly life, died and that is it.
I have looked at one or two and they don’t pass the smell test.

1. Even if you don’t believe what that passage has been translated as from the beginning of the Church (that she was without sin), you admit she is highly favored. The only person designated in Scripture as highly favored. So why not designate more devotion to her than any other normal human if Scripture itself claims her to be highly favored? (even though it means and has always meant she is without sin.)
2. What did the Church fathers (guys who wrote Scripture) teach on the matter of Mary’s sinlessness?
3. What gives you or your church authority over the Catholic Church? That’s not meant to be snide, I’m just wondering.
4. Did Jesus kill? As Mary is the mother of our Lord, she is also our spiritual mother, so honor your mother and father in her case applies to us as well.
5. Why would the Church look exactly the same as the first century? Our understandings grow deeper and the Church improves. Nothing differently is taught, just our understanding is better. The Church already gets enough flack for being outdated, how much more would they be out of date if it mimicked the first century?
6. What about what was proposed to Mary by the Angel wasn’t physically impossible? Of course it was God who performed the miracle.
7. How reliable is your smell test compared to the Church? Have you ever read about how impossible the appearance of Mary on the cloak at Guadalupe is? Scientists can’t explain it.

 

[enickman]

I would respectfully dispute that Protestant churches leave out Christ’s real presence, the Sacraments, and especially, moral teachings. These things are present in Protestant churches under a different form or interpretation. What we have is a philosophical difference that is nearly as old as Christianity itself. Man has interpreted the Bible in various ways, and I don’t believe there is one correct way to love and serve God. Jesus told us “Love” is the most important of the commandments. Just as God loves us, so too should we love each other. Consider this: You are a child. One day you set out with love and praise in your heart to gather flowers for your mother. You choose the prettiest flowers you see, including colorful dandelions and flowering weeds. When you present this bouquet to your mother, will she scold you and throw them away because you didn’t choose the “right” flowers? Of course not. She knows your heart and she knows that this bouquet is symbol of your love and devotion. God too knows our hearts and knows our level of devotion. Whether you are baptised by immersion or not, or whether you believe communion is a holy sacrament or loving symbolism, is not as important as your loving devotion and servitude to God’s will in your life. Again, I realize this is the one of the basic differences between our faiths for the past 500 years and I’m not going to persuade anyone to make a change in faith. But then, I don’t want to. If your faith strengthens your relationship with God, then you are serving the Father. It’s a joy to me to know that you are saved in Christ!

It is hard to know exactly what each Protestant church teaches, as there are many. I’m sorry if I jumble up beliefs. Ever since the Bible lost its teaching authority (the Church) many sects have sprouted because they all think how they interpret it is the right way.

Consider this: I the child was given instructions on what flowers to pick. It was a long, hard, but completely possible walk to get to the ones I was instructed to pick. But along the way I was distracted by other pretty flowers that convinced me they were beautiful enough for my mother, ones that I liked more, even though she told me which ones specifically to pick. She is hurt because I didn’t listen to her full message. I still brought back flowers, but not the ones I was instructed to. She knows my culpability though. If she knows I did this in spit of her, she throws them away. If she knows I was just deceived and still wanted to please her, she keeps them. But had I put in the work to get the flowers she wanted me to get, she would be extremely happy with me that I listened to her. Is that understandable?

 

[stewstew03]

My question is why is it that these two examples of misconduct by the highest authority in the Church leading to the misleading of many until it was corrected, why is this not considered the gates of Hell prevailing, but should the Church teach false doctrine this would constitute the gates of Hell prevailing, even if the offending doctrine is eventually corrected? This distinction seems artificial to me, and at worst seems to imply that the Church is free to be as corrupt in practice as long as its doctrine is correct.

It’s not an artificial distinction at all. If you are a parent, and you make a mistake, does this mean you have failed as a parent for all time?

But let’s look at the apostle Peter. As I’ve described before, in a separate post, Peter received special attention as an apostle. Putting aside whether Peter or his confession is “the rock” upon which the Church would be built (Mt 16:16), he was given the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:19), he walked on water (Mt 14:28-29), he had special healing power like Benny Hinn (Acts 5:15) , and he was a leader among the apostles (Acts 15:7, Acts 1:13-15).

As great as Peter was, he denied Christ three times (Mt 26:58-75) after he told Jesus he would never do such a thing (Mt 26:33-40), and Jesus called him “Satan” (Mt 16:22-23) Eek! .

So, here you have Peter “the Rock” – Jesus’s beloved apostle, and leader of the 12 – displaying some rather corrupt behavior. Peter denied Christ, and he was called Satan by the Son of God – why is this not considered the gates of Hell prevailing? And what about when he later preached to Cornelius (Acts 10-11), how can a certified-Satanic-Jesus-denier preach the Gospel?? [another ‘eek face’ ]

The “Church” will always have “corruption” because we are all human beings. How can you not see God’s hand in the Catholic Church? Priests and popes fathered children, participated in orgies, sold indulgences, tortured/killed rivals, etc.

And yet, despite the corruption – despite being a certified-Satanic-Jesus-denier – the Church gave us the New Testament, including making the determination that some books were inspired while other were not; and let us not forget the monks that labored away in their monasteries, copying the canon word-for-word - and thank God they did because the original manuscripts were burned up by the Barbarians. The Church taught us essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. Even the form in which many protestant denominations worship on Sundays has its roots in the Catholic Church (singing hymnals, reading scripture, preaching, meeting in a common place, i.e., a church building). The roots of protestantism are found in Catholicism – so if the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church, where does that leave protestantism?

 

[enickman]

Ok, here is my objection. In Galatians, Paul tells us how Peter was taken in or intimidated by the Judaizers and was implicitly teaching that Gentiles must become Jewish to be saved. Thankfully, he was corrected; the gates of Hell did not prevail. In 1517 Pope Leo X offered the sale of indulgences for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica thus contributing to the corruption of almsgiving and implicitly teaching that one could buy forgiveness. Thankfully, the Council of Trent happened and the system became much less corrupt; the gates of Hell did not prevail. My question is why is it that these two examples of misconduct by the highest authority in the Church leading to the misleading of many until it was corrected, why is this not considered the gates of Hell prevailing, but should the Church teach false doctrine this would constitute the gates of Hell prevailing, even if the offending doctrine is eventually corrected? This distinction seems artificial to me, and at worst seems to imply that the Church is free to be as corrupt in practice as long as its doctrine is correct.

I did some research as you suggested, but I could not figure out why this was declared dogmatic. Pope Pius XII seems to be basing the correctness of the doctrine on the dogma of the immaculate conception and the fact that it is indeed a traditional (although later than many) doctrine. That is fine, but there are other true doctrines with traditional support that are not dogma. Side bar: I’m actually not sure what the function of dogma is above doctrine. There also seemed to be some clamoring for the elevation of this doctrine to the level of dogma

I did find this from paragraph 42 of Munificentissimus Deus source:vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
But it would seem that all this is accomplished already at the level of doctrine, and so the elevation to dogma is at best unnecessary (the Orthodox objection) or at worst a barrier to to non-catholics who are looking for communion but cannot embrace this doctrine. I also will say I am very leery of the language used in the last few sentences. Compare that language with Paul’s. [BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:20-23[/BIBLEDRB] Christ is our hope of resurrection, if I do not believe in my resurrection because of Christ, why would Mary’s Assumption make it any stronger? All this to say that nothing about Mary’s Assumption seems to make it as central to the Christian faith as Christ’s resurrection. So why is it that any who deny the Assumption should “know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith?” (paragraph 45)

Oh man, those crackers taste awful:sad_yes: But in all seriousness, I have never understood what apostolic succession has to do with the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Perhaps you may enlighten me.
I know it is not meant to be arrogant. I suspect we are at an impasse with this point. I believe that I am baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic Church (and more or less apostolic:thumbsup and our differences do not divide us essentially. And you believe they do.
Well without getting into the extenuating circumstances of my position in my local church, I would say I want to be Catholic because in some ways it would just be easier. (Ecclesiaslly speaking) But I remain Protestant because I know that the godly Protestants are saved and are the Church. The amount of theological gymnastics I would have to do to believe that statement as a Catholic boggles the mind. So I remain a willful Protestant for now.

1. No early Christian ever claimed to have a bodily relic of Mary, and no city ever claimed to have Mary’s remains. This is in huge contrast to the early veneration of the tombs of the Apostles and the other saints of the early Church. Everyone knew that the graves of Peter and Paul were at Rome. The graves of John and Timothy were at Ephesus. The grave of Luke was in Greece, whereas the grave of Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt and later being transported to Venice. The grave of James was at Jerusalem, the grave of Mary Magdalene was at Marseille. And, even the graves of the Old Testament saints were similarly venerated such as the graves of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at Hebron, and the grave of David in Jerusalem. Mary was a big player back in those days, the lack of evidence of her body is great evidence she was assumed into Heaven. And remember, she didn’t do this by her own power, just as Elijah didn’t.
2. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, giving them authority just as God gave Him. These Apostles ordained men, who then were given authority just as Jesus had given the Apostles, and so the list goes on. Not just anyone can consecrate the Eucharist. To consecrate the Eucharist a man must be ordained and have his ordination traced all the way back to the Apostles, with no split. If there is a split, the ordination isn’t valid. You can talk to any priest or bishop and I am sure they will be able to trace their ordination all the way back(probably not off the top of their head), and it is quite amazing.
3. We may just have to agree to disagree on the fact that Protestants and Catholics are not One church. One means it is the ONE Church Christ established, He didn’t establish more than one. Holy meaning it continues Christ’s mission and was established by Him, Catholic meaning it is universal and open to literally anyone, Apostolic meaning we trace the Church and its clergy all the way back to the Apostles.
4. What theological gymnastics would you have to do to believe what statement?

 

[enickman]

It’s not an artificial distinction at all. If you are a parent, and you make a mistake, does this mean you have failed as a parent for all time?

But let’s look at the apostle Peter. As I’ve described before, in a separate post, Peter received special attention as an apostle. Putting aside whether Peter or his confession is “the rock” upon which the Church would be built (Mt 16:16), he was given the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:19), he walked on water (Mt 14:28-29), he had special healing power like Benny Hinn (Acts 5:15) , and he was a leader among the apostles (Acts 15:7, Acts 1:13-15).

As great as Peter was, he denied Christ three times (Mt 26:58-75) after he told Jesus he would never do such a thing (Mt 26:33-40), and Jesus called him “Satan” (Mt 16:22-23) Eek! .

So, here you have Peter “the Rock” – Jesus’s beloved apostle, and leader of the 12 – displaying some rather corrupt behavior. Peter denied Christ, and he was called Satan by the Son of God – why is this not considered the gates of Hell prevailing? And what about when he later preached to Cornelius (Acts 10-11), how can a certified-Satanic-Jesus-denier preach the Gospel?? [another ‘eek face’ ]

The “Church” will always have “corruption” because we are all human beings. How can you not see God’s hand in the Catholic Church? Priests and popes fathered children, participated in orgies, sold indulgences, tortured/killed rivals, etc.

And yet, despite the corruption – despite being a certified-Satanic-Jesus-denier – the Church gave us the New Testament, including making the determination that some books were inspired while other were not; and let us not forget the monks that labored away in their monasteries, copying the canon word-for-word - and thank God they did because the original manuscripts were burned up by the Barbarians. The Church taught us essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. Even the form in which many protestant denominations worship on Sundays has its roots in the Catholic Church (singing hymnals, reading scripture, preaching, meeting in a common place, i.e., a church building). The roots of protestantism are found in Catholicism – so if the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church, where does that leave protestantism?

I’d also like to add that Jesus hand picked the disciples. One of Christ’s elect ended up betraying Him and had Him put to death. To me that is Christ showing us that there will always be failure in men, not every man to that degree, but some degree.

 

[Taestron]

The “Church” will always have “corruption” because we are all human beings. How can you not see God’s hand in the Catholic Church? Priests and popes fathered children, participated in orgies, sold indulgences, tortured/killed rivals, etc.

And yet, despite the corruption – despite being a certified-Satanic-Jesus-denier – the Church gave us the New Testament, including making the determination that some books were inspired while other were not; and let us not forget the monks that labored away in their monasteries, copying the canon word-for-word - and thank God they did because the original manuscripts were burned up by the Barbarians. The Church taught us essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. Even the form in which many protestant denominations worship on Sundays has its roots in the Catholic Church (singing hymnals, reading scripture, preaching, meeting in a common place, i.e., a church building). The roots of protestantism are found in Catholicism – so if the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church, where does that leave protestantism?

Praise God that He preserves His Church despite humanities urge to continue in sin. I am not saying that Hell has prevailed against the Church or even that anything about the Church is corrupt right now. I am merely pointing out that if we say that God preserves the Church in the event of corrupt practice, then God could also preserve the Church through mistaken doctrine. Thus there is no great need to say that doctrine needs to be completely pure.

1. No early Christian ever claimed to have a bodily relic of Mary, and no city ever claimed to have Mary’s remains. This is in huge contrast to the early veneration of the tombs of the Apostles and the other saints of the early Church. Everyone knew that the graves of Peter and Paul were at Rome. The graves of John and Timothy were at Ephesus. The grave of Luke was in Greece, whereas the grave of Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt and later being transported to Venice. The grave of James was at Jerusalem, the grave of Mary Magdalene was at Marseille. And, even the graves of the Old Testament saints were similarly venerated such as the graves of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at Hebron, and the grave of David in Jerusalem. Mary was a big player back in those days, the lack of evidence of her body is great evidence she was assumed into Heaven. And remember, she didn’t do this by her own power, just as Elijah didn’t.

I am not doubting the truth of the Assumption. I am merely questioning why it was elevated to the point of dogma (and what dogma actually means in this case).

1. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, giving them authority just as God gave Him. These Apostles ordained men, who then were given authority just as Jesus had given the Apostles, and so the list goes on. Not just anyone can consecrate the Eucharist. To consecrate the Eucharist a man must be ordained and have his ordination traced all the way back to the Apostles, with no split. If there is a split, the ordination isn’t valid. You can talk to any priest or bishop and I am sure they will be able to trace their ordination all the way back(probably not off the top of their head), and it is quite amazing.

I see that makes sense given your ordinal theology. I’ll have to look to this more. The problem of being a member of “low church” all your life is that your ordinal theology is hazy at best.

1. What theological gymnastics would you have to do to believe what statement?

Well, I would start with the statement “There is no salvation outside the Church,” something I firmly believe even now. If I were to be Catholic, I could not easily believe that Protestants are the Church, in fact I don’t know if it would even be possible. Right now, I can’t not believe that Protestants are the Church, so despite being a theological contortionist in other areas, this is one way I could not begin to fathom how to bend.

 

[MatthewMark]

It is hard to know exactly what each Protestant church teaches, as there are many. I’m sorry if I jumble up beliefs. Ever since the Bible lost its teaching authority (the Church) many sects have sprouted because they all think how they interpret it is the right way.

Consider this: I the child was given instructions on what flowers to pick. It was a long, hard, but completely possible walk to get to the ones I was instructed to pick. But along the way I was distracted by other pretty flowers that convinced me they were beautiful enough for my mother, ones that I liked more, even though she told me which ones specifically to pick. She is hurt because I didn’t listen to her full message. I still brought back flowers, but not the ones I was instructed to. She knows my culpability though. If she knows I did this in spit of her, she throws them away. If she knows I was just deceived and still wanted to please her, she keeps them. But had I put in the work to get the flowers she wanted me to get, she would be extremely happy with me that I listened to her. Is that understandable?

Touche. That is understandable. I understand why the Catholic Church believes in its authority. After all, it was the first Christian church. I also understand there are differences between Catholicism and Protestantism that cannot be bridged through an online message board. I guess my point would be: It’s not the differences that matter to me, it’s the similarities. Mother Teresa once said, “You will see the love of God in the smile of a child.” Mother Teresa was a beautiful, selfless, loving servant of the Lord. She would have been just as wonderful if she’d been Lutheran or Episcopalian. She knew that God’s love is all around us–each and every one of us–if we know where to look. Our Christian faiths joyously overlap with the knowledge that Christ died to eradicate our sins and offer us eternal life. That message is the best and most important of all! I thank you for exchange of ideas. God bless.

 

[gcnuss]

I’m aware you don’t preach Luther crucified. I just don’t see how Christ founded the Lutheran church. It isn’t in full accordance with the original Church, and Luther’s name is in the title.

The reason that Luther’s name is in the title is, at least partially, because Leo X declared that those who sided with Luther should be called “Lutherans.” From the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem:

III. Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.

I suspect that for some of them being called “Lutheran” became a badge of honor because it was intended to be a badge of ignominy.

 

[MatthewMark]

The reason that Luther’s name is in the title is, at least partially, because Leo X declared that those who sided with Luther should be called “Lutherans.” From the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem:

I suspect that for some of them being called “Lutheran” became a badge of honor because it was intended to be a badge of ignominy.

Pastor Gary–Where would be a good place to start learning more about the Lutheran church? I was raised Baptist for the first 18 years of my life and then drifted away from church altogether. I accepted Christ at the age of 12, but I was never baptised. It wasn’t until about 10 years ago that I began my journey back to God. Since then I was married and my wife and I–a former Catholic–have begun to wonder if we can find a church that fits us. The Lutheran church seems like a logical fit–somewhere between Baptist and Catholic! We have attended a neighborhood EL church sporadically, but we feel a bit out of place. Contrary to the Baptist faith, communion takes place every Sunday, but not for non-baptised members of the congregation. I’m not sure this is the place for us, but I’m praying about it. Anyway, maybe you can point me in the right direction.

 

[enickman]

Praise God that He preserves His Church despite humanities urge to continue in sin. I am not saying that Hell has prevailed against the Church or even that anything about the Church is corrupt right now. I am merely pointing out that if we say that God preserves the Church in the event of corrupt practice, then God could also preserve the Church through mistaken doctrine. Thus there is no great need to say that doctrine needs to be completely pure.

I am not doubting the truth of the Assumption. I am merely questioning why it was elevated to the point of dogma (and what dogma actually means in this case).

I see that makes sense given your ordinal theology. I’ll have to look to this more. The problem of being a member of “low church” all your life is that your ordinal theology is hazy at best.

Well, I would start with the statement “There is no salvation outside the Church,” something I firmly believe even now. If I were to be Catholic, I could not easily believe that Protestants are the Church, in fact I don’t know if it would even be possible. Right now, I can’t not believe that Protestants are the Church, so despite being a theological contortionist in other areas, this is one way I could not begin to fathom how to bend.

1. All doctrine is what the Church teaches in matters of morals and faith. Dogma is doctrine that has been defined as divinely revealed and therefore must be accepted as truth. You just said yourself you believe the Assumption to be truth, so why wouldn’t the Church proclaim it as absolute truth?
2. Yes Apostolic succession is a great thing to look into, and is very neat.
3. Let me help you with what the Church teaches on no salvation outside the Church. This is from the Catechism.

*How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his Body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.* (CCC 846-848)

Then this passage pertaining explicitly to non Catholic Christians:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

Hope this helps.

 

[stewstew03]

I am merely pointing out that if we say that God preserves the Church in the event of corrupt practice, then God could also preserve the Church through mistaken doctrine. Thus there is no great need to say that doctrine needs to be completely pure.

Truth matters, otherwise, it could not set us free.

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:32[/BIBLEDRB]

And furthermore, how else would we make sense of this:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

?

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary–Where would be a good place to start learning more about the Lutheran church?

To begin with some historical background, I would suggest Luther the Reformer by James Kittelson. For what Lutherans believe, the website bookofconcord.org has the texts of all the basic Lutheran theological documents. Luther’s Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession are foundational. I would suggest finding a Lutheran church in your area and make an appointment to talk with the pastor, explaining that you are seeking to learn about Lutheranism and asking for any suggestions he might have. Sometimes it is easier to clarify things in person.

I’ll be happy to try to answer questions you might have. Just send me a private message.