Protestants, why?

[benjohnson]

As honest appraisal of my status I can give:

1. Issues trivial
   A) My young family wouldn’t make the trip to the parish with me. My wife is stubbornly Lutheran.
   B) The local parish has poor religious education.
   C) Non-episcipal governance - our little church has almost perfect pastors.
2. Issues meaningful
   A) I have the fullness of God’s love and teaching in my church. While I may doubt, my faith gives me no reservations. ( I don’t expect Catholics to believe me though)
   B) I am a Christian because of love God has shoes me though the people in my church, I will not abandon them. I am an insignificant part of the rudder that steers their ship toward God, but I am part of it and won’t leave my place.

 

[Nicea325]

Radical:

No solid argument? There are an untold number of world renowned Protestant scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church. There are an untold number of world renowned Orthodox scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church.

And? So what…nothing new!

There are an untold number of world renowned Catholic scholars (you might label them cafeteria Catholics) that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church.

Disagreeing proves nothing. I disagree with a lot of things in life,does not mean my opinion is absolute. I would not hold my breath for Easter and Catholics only.

There are an untold number of world renowned non-Christian scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC of today is fairly said to be the same Church as the Jesus founded….heck, a lot of them wouldn’t agree that Jesus intended to found any Church.

Why do you believe God is into statics and numbers? Sorry,but an “untold” number means squat to the Truth. How many Jews disagreed with Jesus? Did Jesus cater to the “untold” numbers who disagreed?

Your Catholic universities have a hard time finding enough historians and theologians who are prepared to teach history and theology the way that Rome wants it taught….and you claim that there is no solid argument to refute your claims?

PROVE IT! Present legit sources backing up such an absurd comment.

Tis time to wake up and smell some coffee.

Speak for yourself! Time to wake up to REALTY and realize you follow a distorted-watered down Christianity,whether you care to admit it or not!

 

[MatthewMark]

Regardless, it is a different church than the original, would you agree? I just don’t see what authority Luther had to start a church that he saw more fit to his ideas. Not just him, but any other Protestant church founder.

Not to jump in here, but the CC is also different from the original, is it not? As I understand the Catholic faith (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the Pope can issue decrees (bulls) to communicate a change in doctrine. As an example, in 1960s, I believe, the Pope declared that the CC’s view of Protestants had changed, and it was now Church doctrine that Protestants had at least the possibility of achieving heaven, according to God’s discretion. The reason for this change–and for all Papal bulls–was due to the Pontiff receiving divine direction, which is completely acceptable. However, what changed? Did God’s spiritual relationship with Protestants change or did the CC’s attitudes and beliefs toward Protestants–which had been Church doctrine for nearly 500 years–change? Regardless, the Church made the change. The CC has made many such changes throughout history. But one has to ask: What has not changed in the history of Christianity? What is the one constant that runs through all Christian churches? The answer is: Christ, who was sent to earth to die for our sins. He was crucified, rose from the grave, and purged us of sin. He was and is the human representative of God’s immense love and his presence is with us until the end of time. Doesn’t it make more sense that God inspired Luther and ultimately strengthened him to break away, to create new opportunities to spread this good news to even more people? (Let’s not forget that Catholics and Protestants, in competition, hurried to settle the New World and spread influence. Without such competition, would Christianity have spread as far and as fast? Who knows?) Shouldn’t we all rejoice that the word of God has been carried to the ends of the earth? Rather than concern ourselves with the differences and details of ceremony and doctrine, which changes over time, we should all celebrate the thing that connects us all: God’s gift of love and our salvation through Jesus the Christ! (This was a bit more than I intended to write. Sorry.)

 

[andrewstx]

Teastron I was sent and taken to a Nazarene church from age 6 to 16. Not only was I never baptised, it was never even mentioned. I never even saw a single baptism of anyone for 10 years.

The closest thing was one time they dedicated a baby.

Apparently it was good enogh for them that I “got saved” in summer camp when I was 11.

 

[SteveVH]

Not to jump in here, but the CC is also different from the original, is it not? As I understand the Catholic faith (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the Pope can issue decrees (bulls) to communicate a change in doctrine.

The power to speak definitively on doctrine and morals has been in the Catholic Church since Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose. It is nothing new. But the Pope cannot (and has not) change doctrine. Doctrine is based upon revealed truth.

As an example, in 1960s, I believe, the Pope declared that the CC’s view of Protestants had changed, and it was now Church doctrine that Protestants had at least the possibility of achieving heaven, according to God’s discretion.

The Catholic view of Protestants at some point in history is not considered doctrine. Understanding doctrine may change one’s view, but one’s view can never change doctrine.

Doesn’t it make more sense that God inspired Luther and ultimately strengthened him to break away, to create new opportunities to spread this good news to even more people?

No. God would never inspire a person to cause division within his Church. Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and his Father are one. St. Francis caused changes in within the Church by pointing it toward that which it already possessed; the fulness of truth. He did not run off and start his own church. He healed it from within.

 

[JustaServant]

Not to jump in here, but the CC is also different from the original, is it not? As I understand the Catholic faith (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the Pope can issue decrees (bulls) to communicate a change in doctrine.

You’re wrong.

 

[MJDorry]

One of the early Christian groups, based on Jesus, was a “gnostic” sect–which means, “knowing”.
It fell to the wayside after it’s books were not included in the official canon in the late 300’s because all the writings did not adhere to what the bishops decided upon.
But someone of that era thought to save twelve leather-bound papyrus books in a sealed jar, found in Egypt in 1945. This is where we found the only complete text of The Gospel of Thomas.
They were believed to have belonged to monks in a nearby monastery.

Hey DaddyGirl, I just wanted to say that I think to explain the exclusion of Gnostic scriptures simply as, “because all the writings did not adhere to what the bishops decided upon,” is insufficient. What you said was true–The teachings did not adhere to what the bishops declared as true–but the bishops of mainstream Christianity at the time were by no means making wild and arbitrary declarations. Based on the traditions and what was known to be sound faith, they deliberated on what was worthy of canonization and what wasn’t. Don’t source me on this, but I’m also pretty certain that the canonization of the bible was in fact at least in part in response to the increasingly preposterous teachings of Gnostics. They were developing heresies, some of which are (As per wiki page):

-The Creator, was not God Almighty, but a demiurge
-All matter was evil and the body, a prison
-Christ was, for lack of a better modern word, a holograph and was never actually man, but only created the illusion of such.
-Belief in esotericism, hearkening to Gnosticism’s overtly paganistic and Hermetic roots

 

[Taestron]

Teastron I was sent and taken to a Nazarene church from age 6 to 16. Not only was I never baptised, it was never even mentioned. I never even saw a single baptism of anyone for 10 years.

The closest thing was one time they dedicated a baby.

Apparently it was good enogh for them that I “got saved” in summer camp when I was 11.

I am sorry about your experience with the Nazarene Church. However, I am also quite sure that this is not the normal. From the Nazarene manual (emphasis added), source:nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2009-2013.pdf

We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.

We might disagree over the nature of the sacrament, but the Nazarene Church does agree that baptism is commanded by Christ.

 

[andrewstx]

I am sorry about your experience with the Nazarene Church. However, I am also quite sure that this is not the normal. From the Nazarene manual (emphasis added), source:nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2009-2013.pdf We might disagree over the nature of the sacrament, but the Nazarene Church does agree that baptism is commanded by Christ.

Maybe it’s more of a differerence between states. locations. I see you are in Il while I am in Tx.

Perhaps it is the Il Nazarenes falling closer to the Methodist side whileTexans fall more to the Baptist side?

I had the Nazarene Manual as a teen and honestly it confused me, the manual presented a much more Methodist view than what I saw done in the Texas church I went to for 10 years.

Perhaps it is the southern baptist view that predominates here?

I never saw Holy Communion in 10 years, I never saw an infant baptised or anyone else.

Like the baptists they centered their experience and belief on “gettin saved” and sanctified and little else.

I don’t disrespect you or your denomination, just telling my personal experience in it.

 

[MatthewMark]

The power to speak definitively on doctrine and morals has been in the Catholic Church since Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose. It is nothing new. But the Pope cannot (and has not) change doctrine. Doctrine is based upon revealed truth.

The Catholic view of Protestants at some point in history is not considered doctrine. Understanding doctrine may change one’s view, but one’s view can never change doctrine.

No. God would never inspire a person to cause division within his Church. Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and his Father are one. St. Francis caused changes in within the Church by pointing it toward that which it already possessed; the fulness of truth. He did not run off and start his own church. He healed it from within.

Thank you for the correction, but the point is that the rules can change. Protestants were, at one time, believed to be destined for Hell. In the 1960s they were believed to be saved (possibly). Either they have always been possibly saved, or they have always been destined for Hell. It is man’s attitudes that have changed, not the relationship between God and his children. This is my point. We, as humans, use the rules of religion to construct our own understandings, but there is and always has been a truth. The truth is, we are saved in Jesus, not religion, and that includes Protestantism. Jesus saved the thief on the cross because he accepted Jesus as savior, not because he adhered to the correct religion or doctrine. I have to apologize here. I realize I am arguing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[cmforte]

Jesus saved the thief on the cross because he accepted Jesus as savior, not because he adhered to the correct religion or doctrine.

Wait…isn’t accepting Christ as savior accepting a correct doctrine?

-Chris

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you for the correction, but the point is that the rules can change. Protestants were, at one time, believed to be destined for Hell. In the 1960s they were believed to be saved (possibly). Either they have always been possibly saved, or they have always been destined for Hell. It is man’s attitudes that have changed, not the relationship between God and his children. This is my point. We, as humans, use the rules of religion to construct our own understandings, but there is and always has been a truth. The truth is, we are saved in Jesus, not religion, and that includes Protestantism. Jesus saved the thief on the cross because he accepted Jesus as savior, not because he adhered to the correct religion or doctrine. I have to apologize here. I realize I am arguing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The church has never taught that Protestants are destined for hell. There was confusion on what it meant to be outside of the Catholic church. Attached link is the catechism and it explains better than I can. The catechism is clearer today than previously but the church teaching is unchanged.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[Contarini]

The church has never taught that Protestants are destined for hell. There was confusion on what it meant to be outside of the Catholic church. Attached link is the catechism and it explains better than I can. The catechism is clearer today than previously but the church teaching is unchanged.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Well, the previous teaching, as found in the Council of Florence’s decree on the Jacobites or in Unam Sanctam, certainly seemed clear at the time. And it was obviously a lot simpler than the present teaching. (Simpler is rarely better when it comes to doctrine, because all Christian doctrine is an attempt to square the circle, and you need many, many sides to get the roughest approximation of a circle.)

If you want to say, in a technical sense, that the teaching has not changed (which seems to mean that the present teaching is formulated in such a way as not to directly contradict the previous teaching, but rather to redefine terms so as to maintain the doctrinal principle while drawing a different practical conclusion from it), then that’s fine. But there’s no doubt at all, historically, that Catholics in the early modern era thought that Protestants were damned and that they were required by the Church to believe this.

One of the biggest intellectual obstacles in a historian becoming Catholic (in spite of Newman’s famous dictum), is that Catholics seem to talk about history in a way diametrically opposed to the way historians talk about it. (Obviously there are many good Catholic historians, and they deal with this tension in the same way Christian Biblical scholars of any broadly orthodox persuasion do.)

Edwin

 

[rotlex]

You can ask the same of Catholics:

Why are you Catholic? I was born into it.
Why are you Protestant? I was born into it.

I am Catholic, practicing, devout etc. etc. since birth. To be honest, if I was born into a Baptist, Lutheran, or heck, even Mormon family, guess what? Odd’s are I’m staying there because it is what I know.

That’s the simplest most logical answer to me.

 

[KathleenGee]

The world’s perception of life and a Christian, a Catholic’s perception of life are different from the world’s.

The Council of Florence was political. That was the reason for its failure. Likewise, various nations such as Germany and England were having populace movements that were motivated for political and nationalistic reasons as well, all mixed in with anti-Church sentiments, in part due to clerical corruption.

The Council of Florence had such a tone because what was forthcoming if ecclesiastics did not comply was the dismantling of Christianity.

Look at the world today…in America, we are second class to non-citizens with no voice becaue of our faith, and likewise, there is a complete denigration and invalidation of the Catholic Church’s role in providing much of Western Civilization, as well as defining charity as the world sees it today. You see great work of charity and volunteerism by secular people.

 

[Taestron]

Perhaps it is the Il Nazarenes falling closer to the Methodist side whileTexans fall more to the Baptist side?

I had the Nazarene Manual as a teen and honestly it confused me, the manual presented a much more Methodist view than what I saw done in the Texas church I went to for 10 years.

You are the second person in as many months that has suggested that the southern Nazarenes have a strong Baptist influence. Perhaps I’ll have to ask my pastor about this. It does baffle me how different churches can blatantly violate the established teaching of the Nazarene Church and not bat an eye. But, we have a weak ecclesiology, and this will always be a danger.

Contarini:

One of the biggest intellectual obstacles in a historian becoming Catholic (in spite of Newman’s famous dictum), is that Catholics seem to talk about history in a way diametrically opposed to the way historians talk about it. (Obviously there are many good Catholic historians, and they deal with this tension in the same way Christian Biblical scholars of any broadly orthodox persuasion do.)

How so? Granted I am more a theologian than a historian, but I would say that the Catholic view of history is a qualified version of the historian’s view.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you for the correction, but the point is that the rules can change.

Rules are not necessarily doctrine. This is an extremely important point. Take the matter of celibacy. At one time priests and bishops were allowed to be married. The Church changed this, but this is a discipline, not a doctrine. The belief that God is a Trinity is a doctrine. The belief that Jesus Christ is 100% human and 100% divine is a doctrine. The belief that Jesus was resurrected and that we will be resurrected is a doctrine. No man in the Church can change these doctrines because they were divinely revealed.

Protestants were, at one time, believed to be destined for Hell. In the 1960s they were believed to be saved (possibly). Either they have always been possibly saved, or they have always been destined for Hell.

Even if this were true (which it is not) it would have nothing to do with doctrine. From a very general point of view I believe the Church held that anyone who would reject the Church that Christ founded would be in danger of damnation.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matt 18:17)

Even so, there has never been a definitive statement by the Church that any particular person has been damned. We all rely on the mercy of God.

The truth is, we are saved in Jesus, not religion, and that includes Protestantism. Jesus saved the thief on the cross because he accepted Jesus as savior, not because he adhered to the correct religion or doctrine.

The theif on the cross was saved because he confessed and had contrition for his sins. The Catholic Church provides this opportunity for all of us in the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

The truth is that Jesus founded a Church upon Peter and the Apostles. The Church is Christ’s presence on earth and it is in and through this Church that we find salvation. Properly speaking, the Church is salvation. Jesus started the Church in order to continue the work that He did while He was on earth. The Church is the union of God with man in Christ Jesus.

If it is truth that you are seeking, the scriptures tell us that “you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” So if it is truth that you are seeking, the Catholic Church is where you will find it. This is not a man-made institution. It is a divine institution with Christ as its head and sinful human beings as its body. We are made clean by Christ through his Church where we become a member of the family of God. We are not in this alone. It is not about just God and me, but about a familial relationship which is found in the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

1. The tradition of the Catholic Church goes back all the way to the beginning, since it is the first and only Church established by Christ.

Radical:
no matter how many times you make this claim, repetition won’t make it true.

And no matter how many times you wish to deny a FACT of LIFE and HISTORY, your repetitive denials also does not make true either.

 

[Radical]

Sir, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

no, that is just something that some people read into scripture…Luke didn’t beat around the bush and merely give hints that John the Baptist should be seen as Elijah. He flat out said it. ….but supposedly, regarding seeing Mary as the Ark, he resorts to a subtle code.

This ark was so pure that it couldn’t be touched by a sinful man, as it was designed not to be touched (Ex 25:10-22), is reiterated that people will die if they touch it (Numbers 4:15), and as Uzzah died touching it (2 Sam 6:1-9). But the New Ark is not just an object, but a person: Mary. And she is more pure than the Old Ark because Hebrew 10:1 tells us that the Old law is “only a shadow of the good things to come.” This shines a light to the fact that Mary will be free from the ill of sin in order to be worthy to carry Christ in her womb.

your parallel falls apart…the old ark was pure, but Mary was rendered unclean by her monthly period….the old ark couldn’t be touched w/o killing the toucher, but Mary could be touched w/o consequence.

The Old Ark was overshadowed by a cloud which is the Holy Spirit in Ex: 40:32-38. With Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35). When the Old Ark was being carried into Jerusalem, David “leapt and danced” before it (2 Sam 6:14-16). As soon as Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary’s salutation, John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in her womb (Luke 1:41-44). When God shows his Power in the Old Ark, David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me”?(2 Sam 6:9). When Elizabeth realizes Mary is carrying Jesus in her womb, she asks “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). The Old Ark remained in the house of Obededom for 3 months (2 Sam 6:11). Likewise, “Mary remained with her (Elizabeth) about 3 months and then returned to her home.” (Luke 1:56).

you are fudging the passages to make connections:

A. Your first is a comparison of Exodus 40:34-35 to Luke 1:35. In the one case a cloud covered the Tent of Meeting which housed the ark and in the other case Mary was overshadowed by the power of God. The ark doesn’t even get mentioned in the first instance. When the correspondence is cloud <=> Holy Spirit and unmentioned Ark (as opposed to the mentioned Tent) <=> Mary the correspondence strikes me as being manufactured

B. David danced and leaped as the ark was moved to Jerusalem. John, leaped inside Elizabeth’s womb. These are considerably different movements and the mere use of “leaped” in both cases does not make a connection. Further, if any connection is to be made it would be the Jesus-Ark connection for 2 Sam twice specifies that David danced in front of the LORD.

C. Luke 1:43 reads: And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 2 Sam 6:9 reads: And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David… David and Elizabeth really ask two totally different things. Elizabeth’s question is an expression about an honour. She wonders why she should be blessed with the presence of the mother of her Lord. David’s question is one of dread. He is afraid and wonders how he can possibly transport the ark…and ends up not wanting the ark brought to him in Jerusalem. These near opposites do not make a connection.

1. What achievements do we give them that they don’t possess?

see the Catholic Marian beliefs

By your logic, time spent honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his life achievements and untimely death is wrong because it could be time spent worshipping Christ.

a day here and there is no big deal…is that all Catholics do regarding Mary?…a day or so a year honoring her contribution in giving birth to Christ? If so, then that seems quite sensible

1. What Church came before the Catholic Church?

the catholic (note the small “c”) Church that didn’t believe in all this extra stuff about Mary and about transubstantiation and about Papal infallibility etc.

1. If transubstantiation wasn’t taught until the 4th century, what is John 6 all about?

primarily it is about belief that Jesus came from the Father …posts 42-45

And why did so many people stop following Him after He gave this sermon? If it were symbolic then surely he would have called these men back and told them so when they began to leave.

see the link

1. A person can be a renowned scholar and still be wrong.

agreed, but you are saying that there isn’t even a solid argument against your claim.

You bring up Mormons, well I’ll use them, … I’m sure their scholars a renowned, but that doesn’t make them correct.

there are indeed renowned Mormon scholars, but I don’t think that there is one renowned Mormon historian who has gained a good reputation through a process that saw him put forward (for peer review) a history particular to conservative Mormonism. (that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, wandered through the wilderness and sailed to the Americas where they founded vast civilizations with a decidedly Semitic cultural flavour). The Mormon scholar realizes that only devote Mormons take such a “history” seriously….everyone else dismisses it. That should set off alarms. You seem to think that there is no sound argument against your claims, but what we find is renowned scholars, specialists in the area in question, who have gained their good reputations (in part) through a process that saw them put forward (for peer review) a history that contradicts your claims. That should set off alarm bells in your head. For example, regarding your claim about transubstantiation, experts in that matter peg the introduction of the belief in a real somatic presence at the 4th century Antiochene school. Some Catholic biographers of Augustine conclude that he did not hold to a real bodily presence. You probably think that Newman’s famous dictum is sound, but the mere existence of so very many renowned conservative Christian historians gives the lie to that dictum.

Lastly, which Church brought us the Bible? Not wrote it, but put it together.

that job was about complete by the end of the second century….apart from tightening up the loose fringes.

You yourself rely on the New Testament that was decided by a few Catholic councils.

those councils were local and not particularly significant…they ratified what had already been established by practice.

You trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church to create an infallible canon, but why not now?

technically, I don’t view the canon as being infallibly set….if a “dead sea scroll” site was found for early Christian works, I wouldn’t be adverse to revisiting the books to be included in the NT

1. I’m not fighting with you. We are having a discussion. Please refrain from “are you kidding???” or “wake up and smell the coffee.” You are better than that.

it is my way of expressing my incredulity during a discussion, but I’ll try to refrain from expressing it…just know that it is often there

 

[Radical]

PROVE IT! Present legit sources backing up such an absurd comment.

just google “mandatum catholic universities” if you want to look into the matter…