Some Protestants Believe the Strangest things.

[Darran]

I know it isn’t talking about Protestants. I’m just saying it resembles them more than it does Catholics.

Zenkai, If I’m not wrong, this problem with Catholicism you have must go deeper than what you are letting us know in this thread.

It takes something else to disagree with reason and history as you are doing.

The main problem I have is that Scripture doesn’t seem to point to the Roman Catholic Church. You would think that if the RCC was the true church, the apostles would at least mention it.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Amoungst others. What would be the use if they did mention it a lot, lot more? (don’t think about the fact that it would take from their message of Christ, just for the minute). Protestants would simply disagree, personally interpret and tamper with more, there would be no difference other than a fact (which is why the Bible is infaliable now, and not subject to human reasoning) that God could have done something in vain, which He can’t.

There is a massive difference in theology and practise of protestants today and early Christians. Perhaps it would do better for you to say “it seems to me that…” rather than claiming what you are saying is truth, atleast accepting a possibility of correction.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I had never thought of their way of thinking in this light. Thanks for the insight - it really does explain a lot.

God bless

It is part of the paradigm. Early on, in my experience, the saved are warned against reading anything but the Bible and protecting their Faith…many of the functions, Bible studies, and other meetings outside the ecclesial body are conducted in homes. In time as these people have a history of meeting in homes they come to believe that the Church was indeed underground as they are a living example of such thinking. When approached with the reality of history…it is hard to bridge the gap with reality…the history that they have been inculcated with is the Whore of Babylon, The Apostate Church, the suppression of real Christians, fostered by books like Martyrs Mirror, Foxes book of martyrs and the varied and sundried attempts to reconstruct history by Protestant writers…including books to support evidence for the existence of the Bible…like “Evidence that demands a verdict”…denying the Catholic Church and production of the Bible…it should be properly called “Evidence that demands a refund”…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zenkai,

This is not a simple issue. Protestants would like to think that they, “…are more Scriptural…” because for most that is their ONLY book. But with 30,000+ different Protestant groups all claiming “Sola Scriptura” and they can interpret the Bible any way they wish - there is an obvious conflict.

I think the acid test is to look at Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII - none of them claimed to have come out of hiding from an ancient (1,500 year old…) church that hid from not only the Romans but the Catholics! These three, who were very instrumental in the Protestant Revolt, all claimed that they better about getting to God then the Church founded by Christ on Peter. It is only after the Revolt was well established that efforts to discredit the Church of Christ took off in earnest.

Then, as others have mentioned, there is this annoying lack of documented history for those who are claiming a historical presence. There were early Catholics who denied the Divinity of Christ - are these Protestants part of this group? Then those who denied the humanity of Christ - how about this group? Some denied the Trinity and some denied Mary as the Mother of God - and none of them seem to claim that their earthly founder (Luther, et al) was visited by Christ and given the order to undo what Christ had done on earth.

To buy into this argument is to abandon both the Early Church Fathers and secular history. Their argument is really just wishful thinking.

God bless

What I was trying to get across was that Protestants are more Scriptural because they follow Scripture and nothing else. The Catholic Church has some traditions that are not recorded in the Bible, such as the Marian dogmas, etc. That’s why Protestants resemble Christianity as recorded in Scripture better than Catholics do. As for those verses, Protestants consider them somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Cursilista]

I was raised in a Non-denominational (Evangelical Fundamentalist) group and I converted to Catholicism. When talking to family and friends in this group one crazy belief keeps coming up that I heard all through my life and I have no idea where to begin to respond to it.

I hear them say that their beliefs are most like early Christian beliefs and for over a thousand years while the Catholic Church was in charge, there was always a small underground “true Christian” group that always existed until they could start joining Protestant churches after the reformation. They sometimes give names of small heretical groups (none of which have any resemblance of modern Protestants in their beliefs) that got snuffed out really quickly.

I just find this belief ridiculous and illogical since even secular sources disagree with their theories and side with the small heretical groups which all didn’t last very long. How do you even begin to respond to such an illogical belief?

JoArtist, Jesus says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church and that his church will be visable through out the world. Now, your protestant friends need to show documented proof of this church they talk about that meets these two basic requirements to be Jesus’s church on earth. The church Jesus started needed to have been established during his lifetime or right after his death. His church would have had to exist since that time up until today. His church would have to have been known and highly visable to the world and would have a proven line of documented leaders such as bishops, priest, etc.

If they could possibly show a group of christians that secretly existed , they would fail the visable portion of jesus’ promise. If they can show a visible group of christians that were heretical and didnt last long, then they fail the gates of hell shall not prevail against it promise.

If they cannot prove the existence of this church, then they are left with the only explanation, that the CC is the only true church. Now they cant have that so they then counter with another theory, that the church fell in to aposethy that jesus didnt tell the truth about his church and that he waited 1500 years to begin his church during the reformation.

 

[Zenkai]

Zenkai, If I’m not wrong, this problem with Catholicism you have must go deeper than what you are letting us know in this thread.

It takes something else to disagree with reason and history as you are doing.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Amoungst others. What would be the use if they did mention it a lot, lot more? (don’t think about the fact that it would take from their message of Christ, just for the minute). Protestants would simply disagree, personally interpret and tamper with more, there would be no difference other than a fact (which is why the Bible is infaliable now, and not subject to human reasoning) that God could have done something in vain, which He can’t.

There is a massive difference in theology and practise of protestants today and early Christians. Perhaps it would do better for you to say “it seems to me that…” rather than claiming what you are saying is truth, atleast accepting a possibility of correction.

I’m not ignoring history or reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert to Catholicism, but as I researched more, I realized that if all of the RCC’s doctrines were so important, the apostles would have mentioned them. Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that? Also, confession to a priest for forgiveness of sins seems to be EXTREMELY important; it could keep you out of Heaven because it’s such a big deal. However, If confession to a priest is the only way to get forgiveness, the apostles would have mentioned it many, many times. But they didn’t mention it at all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sojourner61,

Welcome to CAF

Nice post.

Thanks for the comment on AofG - I know nothing about them.

God bless

I can’t comment on the Catholic Church, having experienced Mass a handful of times. I can say this, however: Mass is as Christ-centered as you can get. I did grow up in the Assemblies of God, and can tell you that over the last 40 years, that denomination has changed, and not for the better. As far as extra-biblical teaching in Protestantism goes, take a look at the charismatic movement, the new apostolic reformation, and any of the other movements on the fringe of Protestantism. You can find anything from the prosperity doctrine(which is extra-biblical), to teachings that Christians are unpunishable, and that manifestations such as gold dust, feathers and jewels appearing out of thin air, and people laughing uncontrollably and barking like dogs are perfectly acceptable. I find myself agreeing more and more with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and less with Protestantism. I do pray for my brothers and sisters in both camps, and love them equally.
I also look forward to the day when the Body is in one accord…again.

 

[CDB1718]

I’m not ignoring history or reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert to Catholicism, but as I researched more, I realized that if all of the RCC’s doctrines were so important, the apostles would have mentioned them. Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that? Also, confession to a priest for forgiveness of sins seems to be EXTREMELY important; it could keep you out of Heaven because it’s such a big deal. However, If confession to a priest is the only way to get forgiveness, the apostles would have mentioned it many, many times. But they didn’t mention it at all.

I recommend some more early church history reading. Primary sources from the first 300 years. Then you’ll have a much better perspective for what the church taught and did and will better appreciate the Biblical texts.

I was watching some videos on Judaism the other night. It’s amazing to see the similarities. There is so much that is culturally taken for granted with Jewish worship that they didn’t need to teach much of it until they started converting Gentiles. Keep searching! It’s all there.

 

[Link0126]

I’m not ignoring history or reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert to Catholicism, but as I researched more, I realized that if all of the RCC’s doctrines were so important, the apostles would have mentioned them. Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that? Also, confession to a priest for forgiveness of sins seems to be EXTREMELY important; it could keep you out of Heaven because it’s such a big deal. However, If confession to a priest is the only way to get forgiveness, the apostles would have mentioned it many, many times. But they didn’t mention it at all.

They did mention it many times. So many times, that even though it isn’t EXPLICTLY written in what we now call the Bible we still believe in it. Why do you think the oldest Christian groups believe in these things (the Catholics and Orthodox)? The oldest Christian groups all believe in purgatory and confession to a priest because these things were taught by the Apostles.

The New Testament was not written to be a full, complete, listing of every Christian doctrine. Why didn’t they just take a piece of papyrus and make a list straight down of everything they believed? The Church then, as now, is the teacher, not JUST the Bible.

And there are verses in the Bible which support those doctrines btw…

 

[Cursilista]

I’m not ignoring history or reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert to Catholicism, but as I researched more, I realized that if all of the RCC’s doctrines were so important, the apostles would have mentioned them. Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that? Also, confession to a priest for forgiveness of sins seems to be EXTREMELY important; it could keep you out of Heaven because it’s such a big deal. However, If confession to a priest is the only way to get forgiveness, the apostles would have mentioned it many, many times. But they didn’t mention it at all.

Zenkai,

please dont give up your search for the truth within the CC. On purgatory, enclosed is a link to scriptual as well as early church fathers writings on the subject. scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

On confessions to a priest , please read the same supportive scriptures and early writings
scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

Most Catholics find it difficult to support their beliefs due to a lack of finding a concise scriptual reference on the CC’s doctrines. I found this website to be very informative. I hope your journey will proceed towards the fullness of the truth i found in the CC.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Zenkai,

Hold on there a minute … That sounded a bit dismissive.

There really was no other church as we understand the time in the 1st Century until the 16th century with the Protestant Revolt. In the 1st Century, had there been another church - they would have been persecuted by the Roman Empire, too - but, you do not hear anything about this. And, this is not an accident. You will find that Protestants gloss over just where the Catholic Church was in the 1st - 5th Century … and would much rather call this group ‘Christians’.

Now, for 16 centuries the Catholic Church grew. The Early Church Fathers do not really get started until after St John dies in about the year 100AD. So, from the 2nd - 5th Centuries you have the attacks from multiple heretics - doubting the divinity of Christ, doubting the humanity of Christ, doubting the Trinity but none doubted the Primacy of Peter (interesting, eh? ) Standing tall, the Early Catholic Church was lead by the Holy Spirit and defeated these heresies - chances are, as a Protestant thinking about becoming a Catholic - you believe in the divinity and humanity of Christ (2 natures and 1 Person) and you believe in the Trinity … maybe even the Primacy of Peter? Well, none of this comes from Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII.

Do not be mislead by someone using the same word - after having turned it on its head.
Yes, 'Elder" or “Presbyter” are used in Scripture - and not ‘Bishop’. So what? When you look at Matthew 16:18 where Christ gives Peter the power to bind and lose along with the Keys as a symbol of Peter’s unique authority - don’t you think he, or one of his successors, change the name to Bishop?

In the Roman Rite, Deacons may be married - and I have known two priests who were formerly married and had children (their wives had died and their children were grown) and while I have not known a married Bishop - it could well be… with a formerly married priest being elevated as a Bishop. Marriage is highly praised by Christ - it iis one of the Seven Sacraments. The Catholic Church wants its ministers to be totally focused on their ministry - so, as a church discipline, those who are not married vow to remain chaste and unmarried so that they can best serve the Flock of Christ. But, please, do not try to suddenly compare current Catholic and Protestant churches and make a decision on which is most closely aligned with Scripture. Please note, there is much more involved than just Scripture.

If, as was previously pointed out, the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church i- are we going to throw out the pillar and bulwark established by Christ and set up a man-made structure with the traditions of man as its foundation? This would be a poor bargain today - and it was a poor bargain in the 16th Century and thereafter with the Protestant Revolt.

Our prayers are with you as you assess the Catholic Church and make a most important decision.

God bless

I know it isn’t talking about Protestants. I’m just saying it resembles them more than it does Catholics.

 

[Link0126]

Do not be mislead by someone using the same word - after having turned it on its head.
Yes, 'Elder" or “Presbyter” are used in Scripture - and not ‘Bishop’. So what? When you look at Matthew 16:18 where Christ gives Peter the power to bind and lose along with the Keys as a symbol of Peter’s unique authority - don’t you think he, or one of his successors, change the name to Bishop?

Bishop is used in the scriptures. The office at that time had not yet been as clearly defined though and could refer to what we know today as a priest.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zenkai,

And, you think that they were not mentioned because … they are not in Scripture?

Based on your logic, if the doctrines were that important, wouldn’t Christ have ‘mentioned’ them?

Well, there are two important things to keep in mind:

1.) the Bible is NOT a catechism - read Luke 1 - Luke is writing to someone who already knows the Faith

2.) the Bible is NOT a complete record - look how St. John ends the last two chapters of his Gospel: read John 20:30-31

30Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book.s 31But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name

and John 21:25

25There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written

Seriously, what do you think John is saying here?

And, then you have to ask yourself, “Self, what was going on for the with these Early Catholics, who did not have the Bible until around 400AD? How did they manage without a ‘Bible’ as we know it today?”

If you are serious about looking into the Catholic Church, you may want to change to Catholic authors rather than the obvious Protestant ones you are using. Here is a link you may find helpful: ourcatholicfaith.org/

God bless

I’m not ignoring history or reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert to Catholicism, but as I researched more, I realized that if all of the RCC’s doctrines were so important, the apostles would have mentioned them. Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that? Also, confession to a priest for forgiveness of sins seems to be EXTREMELY important; it could keep you out of Heaven because it’s such a big deal. However, If confession to a priest is the only way to get forgiveness, the apostles would have mentioned it many, many times. But they didn’t mention it at all.

 

[asd72]

Zenkai,

I would like to recommend a good starter book for understanding Catholism for those with a Protestant background. It is ‘Born Fundamentalist Born again Catholic’ by David Currie.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Link0126,

Looks like you got me on that one … can you please give me a reference?

Thanks

Bishop is used in the scriptures. The office at that time had not yet been as clearly defined though and could refer to what we know today as a priest.

 

[Zenkai]

Thank you for all the replies and encouraging words.

I will continue with my studying of the Catholic Church.

-God bless

 

[PbloPicasso]

They live in a dream world. There is no way to fight a phantom of their imaginations.

Agreed. That’s why they continue to exist today.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Protestants generally have beliefs that more closely resemble Scripture than Catholics do. However, Protestants do not have Tradition; all they have is Scripture, so they try to follow it as closely as possible.

I’m sure this was covered already, but I must object to this assertion. It’s false and totally un founded, lacking any proof.

Many Catholics are not as rigorous of bible readers as some Protestants. First, we must strip out the liturgical Protestants that make up the majority of Protestantism. They are very similar to Catholicism. What you have remaining afterwards is a relatively small group known as Fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Christianity is a major misnomer. It implies they believe only what the bible says. The problem is that in fact they do many things that the bible doesn’t say and ignore much of what the bible actually says. It’s been the stick in the eye for me most of my life trying to find the “true church founded by Christ”. The problem with being able to recite scripture is that for the most part, most people not only misquote the bible, but misapply and worst, take scripture out of context… meaning they conveniently ignore the part of the same scripture that tells them, e.g., “faith without works is dead”. That applies to our Baptist friends that buy into the false teaching. They also buy into the teaching that “once saved always saved”… totally unsupported and even debunked in the scriptures. We ought to start a “Christian Myth Busters” series.

Note: this is only one of many examples. I know Catholics that are even so confused they believe what the Protestants tell them. Talk about embarrassing to me and shameful to be them. Pick up a book people…but make sure the book is founded on truth, not fictoin [made up authoritative people]. One of my Church of Christ history books cites “modern experts agree”… meaning the authorities, who shall remain nameless, are experts and therefore we should believe what the author of this books says. Boetner is guilty of supporting and helping create an entire network of anti-Catholic propoganda that appears to disprove Catholcism. The problem is that once you dig into his sources you find them to be friends of friends of the same heretical movement.j The lies became popularized under Catholic hypocrites that were not practicing the teachings of the Church. Priest, and even Bishops [cardinals, archbishops and even popes] having children outside of marriage, etc. They took advantage of a weak point in time to attempt overthrowing the Christian Church [Catholic]. The Catholic Church leaders seem to have countless offenses, when in fact, these acts were performed by governments, not clergy. However, like today, clergy were also adversely affected by the secular world around them. Many of the Saints “called them out on the carpet”. to try to get them to stop being so … unorthodox. The sins of leaders in the Church caused the Great Schism, which hopefully one day will be resolved with a LOT of humility on both ends. I see some Orthodox leaders working towards unity and enough Catholic leaders working towards unification. Hey, it happened with Germany in my lifetime. Maybe it will eventually happen. We just have to come to an understanding about what “theology” really is and stop binding imagined rules on those not under the same authority, e.g., married men becoming priests. Fast and penance practices, etc.

Historical Church is already proven. Why are these fundamentalist trying to be historical revisionists? They are affected by original sin, just as all mankind is affected by it. Trying to get these misguided folks is like trying to convince a farmer to stop reading the Farmers Almanac.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Zenkai
I would be right for RCIA if I decided to start it.

The main problem I have is that Scripture doesn’t seem to point to the Roman Catholic Church. You would think that if the RCC was the true church, the apostles would at least mention it.

Unfortunately you are incorrect,Scripture does point to the CC. Why would the Apostles have to mention it? Show me where the Apostles mention the canon of the NT?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PbloPicasso,

Thanks for your comments on the Fundamentalists. This group claims they believe everything the Bible says - and then begin to throw out what they do not want by the use of their interpretations.

Doctrines like Christ actually founding His Church on Peter - like He said He did - are not believed. Christ requiring us to eat His Flesh and drink Hi Blood are rejected in the same manner that the Jews in John 6 walked out on Christ because they refused to believe.

They have truly crafted their own set of beliefs that have nothing to do with Christ. What is so painful is that there are people who are believing these man-made doctrines and totally missing the boat.

God bless

I’m sure this was covered already, but I must object to this assertion. It’s false and totally un founded, lacking any proof.

Many Catholics are not as rigorous of bible readers as some Protestants. First, we must strip out the liturgical Protestants that make up the majority of Protestantism. They are very similar to Catholicism. What you have remaining afterwards is a relatively small group known as Fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Christianity is a major misnomer. It implies they believe only what the bible says. The problem is that in fact they do many things that the bible doesn’t say and ignore much of what the bible actually says. It’s been the stick in the eye for me most of my life trying to find the “true church founded by Christ”. The problem with being able to recite scripture is that for the most part, most people not only misquote the bible, but misapply and worst, take scripture out of context… meaning they conveniently ignore the part of the same scripture that tells them, e.g., “faith without works is dead”. That applies to our Baptist friends that buy into the false teaching. They also buy into the teaching that “once saved always saved”… totally unsupported and even debunked in the scriptures. We ought to start a “Christian Myth Busters” series.

Note: this is only one of many examples. I know Catholics that are even so confused they believe what the Protestants tell them. Talk about embarrassing to me and shameful to be them. Pick up a book people…but make sure the book is founded on truth, not fictoin [made up authoritative people]. One of my Church of Christ history books cites “modern experts agree”… meaning the authorities, who shall remain nameless, are experts and therefore we should believe what the author of this books says. Boetner is guilty of supporting and helping create an entire network of anti-Catholic propoganda that appears to disprove Catholcism. The problem is that once you dig into his sources you find them to be friends of friends of the same heretical movement.j The lies became popularized under Catholic hypocrites that were not practicing the teachings of the Church. Priest, and even Bishops [cardinals, archbishops and even popes] having children outside of marriage, etc. They took advantage of a weak point in time to attempt overthrowing the Christian Church [Catholic]. The Catholic Church leaders seem to have countless offenses, when in fact, these acts were performed by governments, not clergy. However, like today, clergy were also adversely affected by the secular world around them. Many of the Saints “called them out on the carpet”. to try to get them to stop being so … unorthodox. The sins of leaders in the Church caused the Great Schism, which hopefully one day will be resolved with a LOT of humility on both ends. I see some Orthodox leaders working towards unity and enough Catholic leaders working towards unification. Hey, it happened with Germany in my lifetime. Maybe it will eventually happen. We just have to come to an understanding about what “theology” really is and stop binding imagined rules on those not under the same authority, e.g., married men becoming priests. Fast and penance practices, etc.

Historical Church is already proven. Why are these fundamentalist trying to be historical revisionists? They are affected by original sin, just as all mankind is affected by it. Trying to get these misguided folks is like trying to convince a farmer to stop reading the Farmers Almanac.

 

[Nicea325]

It doesn’t seem to be talking about the Catholic Church though. In fact, the whole chapter seems to fit Protestant churches more than it does the Catholic Church.

Really? Name one Protestant church before the 16th century?