Protestants, why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter enickman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew, welcome!

But,like many before and after him, Luther was heretic. So “And in fact, this makes sense” makes no sense.

Where do you get the sense that Christ was not being literal in this passage, “churches” not being singular? The early church fathers don’t speak of multiple “churches” either. Scripture and tradition speak of one Catholic church. The apostles didn’t set up all kinds of churches, each believing and teaching differently on faith and morals. And it remained that way for 1,500 years. And, now today, we have 38,000 churches (source: WIKI).
But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church” which can certainly mean the Christian faith, or the body of believers who follow Christ. It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions–some that are radically different and some that are are only mildly different, usually in ceremonial functions. But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches. Is there any other evidence in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church as the one true Christian faith?
 
But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church” which can certainly mean the Christian faith, or the body of believers who follow Christ. It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions–some that are radically different and some that are are only mildly different, usually in ceremonial functions. But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches. Is there any other evidence in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church as the one true Christian faith?
MatthewMark -

You interpretatiQon of “upon this rock” is in error. Where do you get the belief that Jesus is not being literal as he said Church, singular? You didn’t answer my question. :(. Suggest reading the tract below as it highlights the apostolic succession from today, right back to St Peter and the church fathers belief of one church and not 5 or 10 or today’s 38,000. You have to understand both scripture and tradition.

Tradition
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Scripture (and to answer you question)
Below is a sample from scripturecatholic.com. I suggest reading the many scripture references.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

Did Jesus give 38,000 churches the power to bind and loose in heaven? This doesn’t make any sense…so having an abortion is moral in one church but immoral in another? Jesus gave that authority to every pastor at every church, everywhere?
 
I was taught that sola scriptura means the Bible tells us everything we need to do to get to heaven. “from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (1Tim 3:15, NIV)”

Of course there are many beliefs not in the Bible that are important. However, does a person really need to worship on Sunday and believe in purgatory or the Trinity to be a Christian and get to Heaven? I don’t believe in purgatory and I was taught modalism which is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations, instead of distinct persons of the one true God. I’ve read posts from Catholics and Protestants explain the Trinity in ways that are modalist. Are they going to Hell because their beliefs are slightly off?

Under the thread “Can you help me better explain the Trinity?” a Catholic responded:

This person thinks he believes in the Trinity but he really has a modalist view of God without knowing it. Is this person going to Hell because he doesn’t fully understand the Trinity and has a modalist view of God? I don’t think it’s essential to have everything right and I would not condemn this person as a heretic and tell him he’s going to Hell for not understanding the Trinity correctly.
I see that you are sincere, which is all the more a reason for me to reply. It is true that, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (Psst it’s 2Tim, not 1) However, it is not explicit in this declaration that one can live by scripture alone. On those grounds, Sola Scriptura is a self-contradicting fallacy. Please, consider that it says nowhere in the Bible that by faith and scripture alone, are you in the green zone. Hence Sola Scriptura itself comes from without the Bible, effectively contradicting itself.

Xian, you seem intelligent. I don’t think people will go to Hell or fall out of Salvation if they believe the wrong things, but their hearts are in the right place. But for the sake of being at our true Home, I think it best to acknowledge that that poster’s modalistic understanding of the Trinity would not necessarily be eschewed if he were living in the tradition of the Catholic Church. Perhaps there wasn’t scriptural emphasis placed on tradition, but I venture to say it’s because at that time, it seemed self-evident. There was tradition before there was scripture and it was in fact Holy Tradition which guided and dictated the canonization of Holy Scripture and the composition of the Bible. The Council was called in part because so many within the Christian faith had gone astray and into wild practices which differed greatly from mainline, traditional Christianity.

How Protestants came to deny tradition, I don’t quite know or understand, but to be sure, the first generation of Protestants would never have done such a thing. They were reformers, not transformers.
 
But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church”** which can certainly mean the Christian faith, or the body of believers who follow Christ**. It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions–some that are radically different and some that are are only mildly different, usually in ceremonial functions. But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches. Is there any other evidence in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church as the one true Christian faith?
I am sorry,but the higlighted interpretation of Matt 16:18 is faulty. It seems like a desperate attempt to mean ALL denominations are all okay with Jesus. That is a far cry what Jesus meant in 16:18.
 
I find it quite bizarre that Catholics post this verse as if there are no issues surrounding its interpretation and that it establishes that religious leaders must be obeyed no matter what.

Where did Jesus say otherwise? I asked you…where did Jesus say or approve of disobedience and rebellion?

I mentioned disobedience…and obedience to our leaders.
What gives? Have you read those passages in the gospels where Jesus went against the traditions of the Pharisees? If not, then read them and tell me how those are reconciled with (your interpretation of) this verse. If you have, then why do you carry on as if they don’t exist?
 
QUOTE=MatthewMark;9688522]But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church” which can certainly mean the Christian faith,
Prior to the Protestant revolt…of 1521…how many variations of the Christian faith were there?One? two? several thousands?
It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions–some that are radically different and some that are are only mildly different, usually in ceremonial functions.
What is also true, is that prior the 1521…there was only one Christianity…and it did not encompass many religions.

And that Christianity believed in…the Real presence, the Marian dogmas, oral confession, purgatory…had one way of worship…the Mass…this is just scratching the surface of what Christianity was prior to 1521.
Is there any other evidence in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church as the one true Christian faith?
The CC came first…before the Bible was produced…or any of the NT writings were written. So may I ask…how could the CC produce a work that contradicted it?

Actually…I would protestantism is not that wholly true and complete Christian faith…since Protestantism was borned of the disobedience of Luther…and this is what the Bible says of disobedience…1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”
 
=pablope;9690610]
Prior to the Protestant revolt…of 1521…how many variations of the Christian faith were there?One? two? several thousands?
there were a number of them, even before the Great Schism.
What is also true, is that prior the 1521…there was only one Christianity…and it did not encompass many religions.
And that Christianity believed in…the Real presence, the Marian dogmas, oral confession, purgatory…had one way of worship…the Mass…this is just scratching the surface of what Christianity was prior to 1521.
On marian dogmas, it depends on which ones you mean. Not only wre some of them not held by both east and west, but also some were not dogmas until after 1521.
The CC came first…before the Bible was produced…or any of the NT writings were written. So may I ask…how could the CC produce a work that contradicted it?
When you say Catholic Church, you of couse mean the pre-schism Church, now in schism.
Actually…I would protestantism is not that wholly true and complete Christian faith…since Protestantism was borned of the disobedience of Luther…
I assume you here mean this:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which,** often enough, men of both sides were to blame.**"269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
Seemingly, there was disobedience on both sides, from which we all the wounds of division.

and,
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
IOW, I assume you mean not that protestants (meaning simply and generally non-Catholic western Christian communion members) are not Christian in the Baptismal sense, or that protestant communions are not Christian, just that they have a lack of the fullness of truth. Correct?

Jon
 
But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church” which can certainly mean the Christian faith, or the body of believers who follow Christ. It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions–some that are radically different and some that are are only mildly different, usually in ceremonial functions. But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches. Is there any other evidence in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church as the one true Christian faith?
Jesus said, I will build my church…How many autonomous churches did Jesus establish here on earth?
 
On marian dogmas, it depends on which ones you mean. Not only wre some of them not held by both east and west, but also some were not dogmas until after 1521.
That Catholic Belief A is not formally defined until Moth, Day, Year, is not an indication that it only came to be believed on Month, Day, Year.
 
MatthewMark;9688522]But what Jesus says to Peter is “upon this rock I will build my church” which can certainly mean the Christian faith, or the body of believers who follow Christ.
Yes, the church built on Peter is comprised of the body of believers who follow Christ. 👍
It is true that Christianity encompasses many religions…
Just one religion with many autonomous churches established by mere men, with the exception of the church founded by God, on Pentecost.
 
But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches.
Sure. Until they start discussing doctrine. 😉

It reminds me of a thought that occurred to me as I was reading the curriculum of our parish Vacation Bible School this summer. It is essentially a Protestant program and as I read the curriculum there was nothing in it that was contrary to Catholicism.

That was all well and good.

But the reason why was because everything that was discussed was Baby Theology. I mean, really, how much more babified can you get than, “God made the World!”* “God loves me!”* “Jesus forgives your sins!”*

That’s all that was being presented in the Protestant Vacation Bible School., so of course no one ought to have a problem with that!

**Please note that I understand that there are sublime, magnificent realities that have not even begun to be dipped into with all of those “babified”, simple, yet deeply profound truths like “God loves me!” and “God made the world!”
 
[So, help me please. Is there a passage(s) in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church is the one true Christian religion? Thanks.
You’ll have to first propose that there’s a Bible verse that says that everything we believe has to be found in the Bible.

Until you do that, what you are asking of us here is to submit to a tradition of men. *Your *tradition of men.
[/quote]
 
Sure. Until they start discussing doctrine. 😉

It reminds me of a thought that occurred to me as I was reading the curriculum of our parish Vacation Bible School this summer. It is essentially a Protestant program and as I read the curriculum there was nothing in it that was contrary to Catholicism.

That was all well and good.

But the reason why was because everything that was discussed was Baby Theology. I mean, really, how much more babified can you get than, “God made the World!”* “God loves me!”* “Jesus forgives your sins!”*

That’s all that was being presented in the Protestant Vacation Bible School., so of course no one ought to have a problem with that!

**Please note that I understand that there are sublime, magnificent realities that have not even begun to be dipped into with all of those “babified”, simple, yet deeply profound truths like “God loves me!” and “God made the world!”
Precisely why it is safe to use for VBS. It is all baby- theologically speaking.
 
you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried…it is quite simple. we are to obey Christ, but we first have to understand his teaching.
Indeed.

And this is very Catholic of you to say! 👍

The way that we “understand his teaching” is through, of course, the lens that provided us with that teaching which is…

Sacred Tradition.
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
you don’t deny that teaching do you? now, I suspect you call your priest ‘father’ and that you have your kids call their dad, 'father". Why don’t you follow that command?
Because we understand that verse through the lens which provided us with that verse.

And that lens tells us how to understand that verse.

Without the lens of Sacred Tradition you see, Radical, how some ridiculous interpretations of Matthew’s command can be proclaimed.

Now, your Protestant Tradition has many who claim that we cannot even call a spiritual father, “Father Barron”!

Thankfully, though, we are able to understand how God wants us to understand “Obey your leaders” and “Call no man father”.

And have you come up yet with a way to tell us how you know that Hebrews is inspired without the authority of the Catholic Church telling you that this book is* theopneustos*?

And I am also very interested to know by what canon you would discern whether older manuscripts of Mark’s gospel, should any be found, ought to “revise the contents of Scripture.” 🍿
 
Originally Posted by MatthewMark
But the worship of Jesus and the recognition that he is the way the, the truth, and the life is present in all true Christian churches.
Which begs the question:

Then why the foundation of thousands of denominations? Still waiting to read where Jesus approved,encouraged or advocated divisions within His Body?
 
Some people study the “history of Christianity” and find that it supports Catholicism. Others study the same history and find that it supports Protestantism. Still others are confirmed by the research that Mormonism must be correct. And still others consider the history of Christianity and are convinced that it is yet another man-made religion and nothing more.
It’s a very complex topic. But I can speak with some personal authority on the subject, having bounced through a great many religions before finally coming home.

The reasons for being or not being one thing or another run the gamut from: “I never thought about it” to “I’ve written fifteen books on the subject.” 🙂

Personally, I have a reason for each religion I tried, and a reason I eventually abandoned each of them. The reasons evolved as my knowledge and understanding both of myself, and the disciplines necessary to make a reasoned choice, increased.

I’m not Hindu or Buddhist because one had an easily falsified set of tenets, the other has an inherent flaw in its structure that falsifies the whole thing.

I’m no longer one of the many Protestant sects I tried because I eventually sat down and actually studied Luther, his Protest, and his reasoning (and after learning enough theology and philosophy, ended up independently falsifying two of the solas before discovering that Catholic authors and theologians had already done most of the heavy lifting in that department).

I gave up on Atheism because of the fundamental ignorance and irrationality that one must embrace to hold it as true.

I’m no Muslim because it has a different inherent flaw than Hinduism or Buddhism, but still a flaw that falsifies it (and to my surprise, the Holy Father later replicated my argument in a speech, though not with the intent I had.)

But none of that would have happened had I not been who I am. My internal drives, combined with some fortunate external events, allowed me to study, learn, think and finally, decide. I’m Catholic because I can’t falsify it. God knows I tried, too! But others take a less tortured, shorter path.

So the short answer is: “God calls us all, but not all of us listen, and of those who listen, not all answer.”
 
MatthewMark -

You interpretatiQon of “upon this rock” is in error. Where do you get the belief that Jesus is not being literal as he said Church, singular? You didn’t answer my question. :(. Suggest reading the tract below as it highlights the apostolic succession from today, right back to St Peter and the church fathers belief of one church and not 5 or 10 or today’s 38,000. You have to understand both scripture and tradition.

Tradition
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Scripture (and to answer you question)
Below is a sample from scripturecatholic.com. I suggest reading the many scripture references.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

Did Jesus give 38,000 churches the power to bind and loose in heaven? This doesn’t make any sense…so having an abortion is moral in one church but immoral in another? Jesus gave that authority to every pastor at every church, everywhere?
I wish I could isolate each of your comments and then respond, but I’m not sure how to do that. : )
No matter. I’ll do my best.
First, you say “Where do you get the belief that Jesus is not being literal as he said Church, singular?” I might ask you: Where do you get the belief that Jesus IS being literal? There is certainly no indication that he’s talking about a single faith. The Bible doesn’t expound on this. This conclusion was arrived at by the Church fathers.

You say: “Did Jesus give 38,000 churches the power to bind and loose in heaven?”
The authority to “bind and loose” was certainly given by Jesus to his apostles, but nowhere is there any implication that he intended it to be confined to one specific group of believers. Indeed, Jesus gave this power to his followers, of which there are hundreds of millions today. Why is it wrong to think Jesus empowers and blesses all true believers? Obviously there are some who twist and distort God’s message and these are cannot be considered true believers. But imagine this scenario: Mother Theresa is a Lutheran and comes before Jesus in the hereafter. Jesus is pleased with her unselfish acts and loving kindness to strangers on earth and her unyielding faith in God, but he is disappointed because she confessed her sins to Him and not to a priest. She also did not believe in infant baptism and did not necessarily believe that communion bread and wine was the literal body and blood of Christ. Will these variances matter to Jesus, or will he be pleased that Mother Theresa lived an unblemished life to glorify Him?

I did read the page you provided on Apostolic Succession, but again, this doesn’t prove that Jesus intended there to be only one literal Church. Martin Luther was an ordained Catholic priest. This succession would also apply to him and the Lutheran church. There are many doors to heaven and each one opens to Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus gave authority to every church everywhere. When Jesus died on the cross, the tapestry to the Holy of Holies was torn in half and a great crack appeared in the floor of the temple signifying that brick and mortar temples no longer held sacred places where only priests could enter. The temple of the Lord became each one of us. We are now God’s temple and Jesus lives in each one of us who believes and accepts Him as Savior and Lord.

But here’s the best part. I am deliriously happy that Catholicism has saved you and brought you closer to God. I’m not here to tell you your religion is wrong, because it isn’t, as long as it helps you to grow in Christ.
 
I wish I could isolate each of your comments and then respond, but I’m not sure how to do that. : )
No matter. I’ll do my best.
First, you say “Where do you get the belief that Jesus is not being literal as he said Church, singular?” I might ask you: Where do you get the belief that Jesus IS being literal? There is certainly no indication that he’s talking about a single faith. The Bible doesn’t expound on this. This conclusion was arrived at by the Church fathers.
MatthewMark -

You still haven’t answered my question. Twice. :confused::confused:

The belief in his being literal is in the scripture itself, he describes a “church”, singular, in multiple passages. And, the church fathers created ONE church. Not two, three or 38,000. These are the same Church fathers who canonized the bible that you use, although you are missing a few books because you let a printing company take them out. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top