Sometimes I Feel, Protestants Really Do Understand Where Catholicism Came From, But Pride Is A Deadly Sin

[steve_b]

The Reformation was more about political, rather than doctrinal changes. It is regrettable that it happened. But I suspect pride is not confined to Protestants, or there wouldn’t have been a schism in 1054… which hasn’t been healed yet, either.

Paul was constantly warning against division. He not only warned against it, he condemned it. He also said those who do it serve their OWN interests and NOT Our Lord’s, and they won’t inherit heaven.

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.** Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites**. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

Gal 5:

19* Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension/division,** factions**, 21 envy, * drunkenness, carousing, and the like.** I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God**.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think you are making my case, Steve B. Because of political corruption in the Church and in monarchies, unity was lost because people could no longer in could faith support a church with corrupt human leaders. It is a consequence of sin and pride - on both sides - that unity could not be fostered and the Church stand as one body. No one would admit they were wrong.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Do you read my posts, or just argue because it’s me posting them?

I said in post #64:

I didn’t say Catholic folks had changed the canon. I said that the canon had been changed by folks long before Protestants made changes.

For the record, I don’t think the changes should have been made. However, being from the Anglican/Methodist side of the things, our lectionary includes the texts that are not in the Protestant canon.

You have really got to read the posts you disagree with, if for no other reason than to be sure you are disagreeing with them.

Everything was Catholic before the Reformation. Even the Reformers were Catholic. What people are you talking about long before the Reformers?

 

[JonNC]

Everything was Catholic before the Reformation. Even the Reformers were Catholic. What people are you talking about long before the Reformers?

Originally Posted by O.S. Luke
And that the Orthodox/Eastern canons are different from the Catholic canons? And** Coptic **differences. Long before the 1500’s

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

JonNC:
I must be having a senior moment…:whacky: :hypno: :blushing:

 

[JonNC]

I must be having a senior moment…:whacky: :hypno: :blushing:

My 4th graders think Senior moment is my middle name.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

My 4th graders think Senior moment is my middle name.

 

[steve_b]

I think you are making my case, Steve B.

:ehh: allow me then to further clarify.
O:

Because of political corruption in the Church and in monarchies, unity was lost

Bottomline, did Paul say it was okay to divide? No. As Paul said, those who divide serve their own self interests, NOT Our Lord’s…
O:

because people could no longer in could faith support a church with corrupt human leaders. It is a consequence of sin and pride - on both sides - that unity could not be fostered and the Church stand as one body. No one would admit they were wrong.

I think you’re making MY case.

Is this what produced all the divisions in Protestantism from Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII etc etc etc and all those who divided from THEM, and from all THEIR division, all ensuing divisions from each of those divisions?.

The Catholic Church is still one under the chair of St Peter.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I think you are making my case, Steve B. Because of political corruption in the Church and in monarchies, unity was lost because people could no longer in could faith support a church with corrupt human leaders. It is a consequence of sin and pride - on both sides - that unity could not be fostered and the Church stand as one body. No one would admit they were wrong.

Thanks for succinctly communicating what I tried to say on another thread, but felt that what I had to say fell on deaf ears: SIN HAS CONSEQUENCES. When RCC leaders were corrupt and abused their authority, a portion of “sheep” who were under the RCC’s authority responded by rejecting it. That was a direct result–a consequence–of RCC leadership’s abuse of their authority. Protestants sinned, too–by continually rejecting spiritual authority, which has led to innumerable splits and multitudes of denominations. That is a consequence of sin as well.

Both sides were too proud to admit their wrongs. Both sides are responsible for the divisions within the Church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

That was a direct result–a consequence–of RCC leadership’s abuse of their authority. Protestants sinned, too–by continually rejecting spiritual authority, which has led to innumerable splits and multitudes of denominations. That is a consequence of sin as well.

Both sides were too proud to admit their wrongs. Both sides are responsible for the divisions within the Church.

This is really the bottom line.

 

[sambos671]

Everything was Catholic before the Reformation. Even the Reformers were Catholic. What people are you talking about long before the Reformers?

They were talking about reforming the church. The reformation didn’t happen over night with Luther. There was a long process of priest and others that wanted to reform the church. Ones who went to the extreeme were excommunicated and or killed others tried to work with in and were faithful to the Catholic church even though with the Borja’s and others influence on the church was discuraging. I view the reformation as happening at the bottom of a long hill where the snow ball at the top kept rolling down until the eventual collpase at the bottom. Look how the chruch initially dealt with St. Francis. Or look at how close the Jesuites came to being dismantled. So the church was in need of reformation but the reformers didn’t reform the church so much as Europe. They left the church and restructured the power base of Europe.

 

[steve_b]

This is really the bottom line.

As Paul said in [Rm 16:17…], those who divide serve their own self interests, NOT Our Lord’s. Through soaring rhetoric and campaign promises they (those in revolt) fool the weak minded to follow them into sedition. But as Paul continues, division is evil, and it’s not permissable to DO evil.

That’s the bottomline.

 

[Metamorphoo]

As Paul said in [Rm 16:17…], those who divide serve their own self interests, NOT Our Lord’s. Through soaring rhetoric and campaign promises they (those in revolt) fool the weak minded to follow them into sedition. But as Paul continues, division is evil, and it’s not permissable to DO evil.

That’s the bottomline.

And it is also sinful to INCITE others to the point of sin. I would also say that the one who incites others to the point of sin bears a greater responsibility than the other party. This is where I think Catholics have a hard time accepting responsibility for the division. Even if Protestants had not left the RCC, there was still division within the Church. The clerical abuses, even at the highest ranks of the Church, had antagonized many sheep. That division was merely made manifest through the Protestant Reformation.

 

[steve_b]

And it is also sinful to INCITE others to the point of sin.

agreed.

met:

I would also say that the one who incites others to the point of sin bears a greater responsibility than the other party.

I would suggest that one can’t make you sin. You sin because of choice. You ALWAYS have the choice NOT to sin. Just like there is ALWAYS the offer to reconcile AFTER one has sinned.

Met:

This is where I think Catholics have a hard time accepting responsibility for the division.

Let’s be clear on something at the heart of this. Sin is evil. NO ONE can MAKE you sin. Sin is a choice.

Met:

Even if Protestants had not left the RCC, there was still division within the Church.

Are you speaking of the Eastern Orthodox who divided?

 

[Metamorphoo]

I would suggest that one can’t make you sin. You sin because of choice. You ALWAYS have the choice NOT to sin. Just like there is ALWAYS the offer to reconcile AFTER one has sinned.

Let’s be clear on something at the heart of this. Sin is evil. NO ONE can MAKE you sin. Sin is a choice.

Are you speaking of the Eastern Orthodox who divided?

I agree that one person cannot FORCE another to sin–sin is a personal choice. Yet I think it unrealistic to believe that God would blame Protestants 100% for the split when the RCC leadership had provoked its sheep so severely with its leaders’ corruption and abuse of authority.

King David was “a man after God’s own heart.” God made a unilateral covenant with him. Yet David committed adultery with Bathsheba and subsequently attempted to cover it up by having her husband, Uriah, killed in battle. Under Mosaic Law, David deserved the death penalty. God, in His mercy, forgave David when he repented. God spared his life–and He never disqualified David from the covenant blessings He had promised him.

Yet David had to deal with the consequences of his sins for the remainder of his earthly existence. Those consequences included the loss of the child conceived through his adulterous act with Bathsheba. But God also said through the prophet Nathan that “I will raise up evil against you from your own household” and that “the sword shall never depart from your house.” The reason God has so severely disciplined David was because “by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” (ref: 2 Sam. 12).

I simply fail to understand why Catholics are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the RCC lost its spiritual influence over a portion of its sheep as a consequence of its leaders’ abuse of authority and corruption. There was certainly adultery, murder, and many other sins of corruption among RCC leaders of that day. Those things had been ongoing for an extended period of time in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation.

God severely disciplined His covenant people, Israel, for their grave sins. He severely disciplined David for his. Why do you assume that there would be no severe or lasting consequences for the RCC, even after there was genuine repentance? Did not the sins of RCC leaders also give “occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme”? Do you honestly believe that the RCC bears no responsibility for the division in the Church?

By no means am I absolving Protestants from their sins. BOTH parties were responsible for the division in the Church. I just want to hear Catholics admit the RCC does bear at least some of that responsibility instead of casting 100% of it on Protestants.

 

[steve_b]

I agree that one person cannot FORCE another to sin–sin is a personal choice. Yet I think it unrealistic to believe that God would blame Protestants 100% for the split when the RCC leadership had provoked its sheep so severely with its leaders’ corruption and abuse of authority.

King David was “a man after God’s own heart.” God made a unilateral covenant with him. Yet David committed adultery with Bathsheba and subsequently attempted to cover it up by having her husband, Uriah, killed in battle. Under Mosaic Law, David deserved the death penalty. God, in His mercy, forgave David when he repented. God spared his life–and He never disqualified David from the covenant blessings He had promised him.

Yet David had to deal with the consequences of his sins for the remainder of his earthly existence. Those consequences included the loss of the child conceived through his adulterous act with Bathsheba. But God also said through the prophet Nathan that “I will raise up evil against you from your own household” and that “the sword shall never depart from your house.” The reason God has so severely disciplined David was because “by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” (ref: 2 Sam. 12).

I simply fail to understand why Catholics are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the RCC lost its spiritual influence over a portion of its sheep as a consequence of its leaders’ abuse of authority and corruption. There was certainly adultery, murder, and many other sins of corruption among RCC leaders of that day. Those things had been ongoing for an extended period of time in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation.

God severely disciplined His covenant people, Israel, for their grave sins. He severely disciplined David for his. Why do you assume that there would be no severe or lasting consequences for the RCC, even after there was genuine repentance? Did not the sins of RCC leaders also give “occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme”? Do you honestly believe that the RCC bears no responsibility for the division in the Church?

By no means am I absolving Protestants from their sins. BOTH parties were responsible for the division in the Church. I just want to hear Catholics admit the RCC does bear at least some of that responsibility instead of casting 100% of it on Protestants.

As I’ve been saying sin is a choice one makes. It started way back in the garden. Adam and Eve BOTH tried to pass the buck. Eve tried to blame the snake, and Adam blamed Eve that God gave to him. I.e. he blamed God. :doh2:

As you know, it didn’t commute their guilt. Adam and Eve committed a grave sin ON THEIR OWN. They were guilty.

• Does Jesus give any excuse one can use for division from His Church? NO Does Paul give any excuses or permit division? NO
• If reconcilliation is what you want to talk about, then even if both sides apologise to each other TODAY, the wrong of division needs to end ALSO. One can’t expect forgivness of the sin and continue to remain Protestant., namely they all return to the Catholic Church.
• In other theological regards,** Trent** met and thoroughly dealt with all the issues brought up by Luther, Zwingly, Calvin, and Henry VIII, the original players in the revolt. Prior to Trent, efforts to work with L,Z,C, &H VIII didn’t work and they didn’t budge. Henry VIII was probably sick at the time of Trent which began 3 years before Henry’s death.
• As you know, from THEM (L, Z, C, & H VIII) conflicts arose between them and their own diverse views, and as you know, from them came serial divisions of monumental proportions within Protestantism. A key point here is that The founders of the revolt weren’t unified in their theology. And by definition, neither were those who broke from them. Do you blame the Catholic Church for THAT? If there was a purity of intent in the revolt, where was it and what happened to it? It didn’t take long for the revolution to experience internal revolution. The dividers continued to divide.
  But at Trent
  1. No dogmas or doctrines of the Church were eliminated.
  2. Some disciplines changed but then disciplines can ALWAYS change.
  3. The Church was smaller but remained one under the chair of Peter
     The revolt had more to do with grabbing authority away from the Catholic Church by various principalities AND Kings, and grabbing Church property while they were at it.