The end of Protestantism

[PRmerger]

That’s your personal interpretation. Maybe not, because it seems widespread on CAF, but not found, I think, in the Catechism, which means it is not Catholic teaching.

But it is true nonetheless.

The confessional Protestant churches (Lutherans, most Prebyterians, Anglicans, for example) thoroughly reject that from the get-go, reserving interpretation at the denominational level (although allowing a great deal of liberty, as Catholics do, in many things).

This is true. but it’s a bit contradictory to hold this position, don’t you think, when their founders did exactly what they are proposing their members can’t do?

 

[Tomyris]

But it is true nonetheless.

No, it’s not.

This is true. but it’s a bit contradictory to hold this position, don’t you think, when their founders did exactly what they are proposing their members can’t do?

What, hold to a Biblical position? There is no contradiction.

 

[dronald]

But it is true nonetheless.

This is true. but it’s a bit contradictory to hold this position, don’t you think, when their founders did exactly what they are proposing their members can’t do?

Isn’t it true with any Religious group that they can say “I don’t agree with these teachings.” and move on to another, regardless if it’s Catholic or anything else?

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s not.

What parts are not true, Tomi?

Do you mean: it’s not what you’ve done, therefore it’s not a reflection of your faith journey?

If so, surely you can see that it may not be *your *faith journey, but it is indeed the journey of others, yes?

What, hold to a Biblical position? There is no contradiction.

So let’s be clear about this: are members of your church free to do what John Calvin did with the Catholic church? That is, declare that their teachings are wrong and leave?

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it true with any Religious group that they can say “I don’t agree with these teachings.” and move on to another, regardless if it’s Catholic or anything else?

No. That is not the paradigm of Catholicism.

Catholicism’s paradigm is this:

It’s like a math problem that your professor, in whom you have great faith, has given the answer.

You can’t quite get to the answer, so you keep searching, reading, studying, discussing, until you come to the correct answer provided for you by your prof.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”. --Cardinal John Henry Newman

Protestantism says this:

if you don’t agree with the answer that your professor gives, since your professor just another human being like you, and you have just as much access to the math text as he does, you read the math text and decide that your answer, “3” is just as correct as her answer “polynomial.”

In the end, Catholics must say, “The answer is ‘polynomial’, not 3.”

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it true with any Religious group that they can say “I don’t agree with these teachings.” and move on to another, regardless if it’s Catholic or anything else?

Protestants are being good Protestants when they do the above.

Catholics are being bad Catholics when they do the above.

EDIT: please save me the eye roll and don’t read into the “good” and “bad” here as being referents to “saved” and “condemned”.

 

[Tomyris]

What parts are not true, Tomi?

Do you mean: it’s not what you’ve done, therefore it’s not a reflection of your faith journey?

If so, surely you can see that it may not be *your *faith journey, but it is indeed the journey of others, yes?

There are many people on this forum who have made the personal judgement and interpretation that the claims of the Catholic Church are true, and so seek to persuade others of the same. YET they condemn others for doing the same thing and remaining or becoming Protestant.

Here is the paradigm behind many posts:

Wise and educated Protestants become Catholic, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Ignorant and sinful Catholics become Protestant, guided by sin and the devil.

So let’s be clear about this: are members of your church free to do what John Calvin did with the Catholic church? That is, declare that their teachings are wrong and leave?

Would it have been more virtuous for him to stay and be burned at the stake, as happened to many he knew?

You will recall that Trent happened, among other things, because there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what the Catholic Church taught, and (offhand, here) what he believed really was not (yet) against Church teaching. And I think he was forced out, more than he left.

 

[frobert]

Isn’t it true with any Religious group that they can say “I don’t agree with these teachings.” and move on to another, regardless if it’s Catholic or anything else?

Didn’t the Society of St. Pius X. whose mass is still considered valid, do that?

 

[Peter_J]

it seems widespread on CAF,

Maybe it is. Honestly, I’ve never tried to find out … anymore than I’ve tried to find out how many posters on PAF (the Protestant Answers Forum), or the like, speak of “the obscenity of _________” in their descriptions of Catholicism, because such a statement isn’t representative of Protestants generally.

 

[LutheranScholar]

That’s your personal interpretation. Maybe not, because it seems widespread on CAF, but not found, I think, in the Catechism, which means it is not Catholic teaching.

The confessional Protestant churches (Lutherans, most Prebyterians, Anglicans, for example) thoroughly reject that from the get-go, reserving interpretation at the denominational level (although allowing a great deal of liberty, as Catholics do, in many things).

And this neglects the working towards unity of many Protestants and the merger of many denominations, many times. That’s why there are the United Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and there is no more Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, as they merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.

True enough. Our confessions and catechisms are generally in book or net form and are easily accessible. If a minister teaches something against the catechism or against the confessions, he can be sanctioned by higher- ups, generally the elders of the congregation. I’m not sure how Anglicans handle heterodox teaching, or if there even IS heterodoxy in Anglicanism.

 

[Tomyris]

No. That is not the paradigm of Catholicism.

Catholicism’s paradigm is this:

It’s like a math problem that your professor, in whom you have great faith, has given the answer.

You can’t quite get to the answer, so you keep searching, reading, studying, discussing, until you come to the correct answer provided for you by your prof.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”. --Cardinal John Henry Newman

Protestantism says this:

if you don’t agree with the answer that your professor gives, since your professor just another human being like you, and you have just as much access to the math text as he does, you read the math text and decide that your answer, “3” is just as correct as her answer “polynomial.”

In the end, Catholics must say, “The answer is ‘polynomial’, not 3.”

I don’t think there is one Protestant position, as there are relativists here (as also are in the Catholic Church, you must admit).

It’s more like ‘let’s keep working at the solution, since there is still doubt here.’ There is, ultimately, only one truth, only one thing that is right. It is ultimately either a polynomial or a 3. It cannot be both.

 

[dronald]

Protestants are being good Protestants when they do the above.

Catholics are being bad Catholics when they do the above.

EDIT: please save me the eye roll and don’t read into the “good” and “bad” here as being referents to “saved” and “condemned”.

But there are actually Catholic Church’s with Priests who do a bad job, and the laity move on. Again I would say it’s prevalent in every Religious group.

 

[JonNC]

That’s your personal interpretation. Maybe not, because it seems widespread on CAF, but not found, I think, in the Catechism, which means it is not Catholic teaching.

The confessional Protestant churches (Lutherans, most Prebyterians, Anglicans, for example) thoroughly reject that from the get-go, reserving interpretation at the denominational level (although allowing a great deal of liberty, as Catholics do, in many things).

And this neglects the working towards unity of many Protestants and the merger of many denominations, many times. That’s why there are the United Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and there is no more Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, as they merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.

Additionally, it could be said that Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) set the example of schism and division 500 years before the Reformation. One side, or the other, decided to break
away from the other due to the teachings on the supremacy of the pope, or on the Filioque, or…
Regardless, PR’s scenario has been at work within the Church for a very long time. Even the argument regarding whether or not one Bishop can be infallible (ex cathedra) has led to division. So, simply by declaring (without benefit of council) that one’s Bishop is infallible (ex cathedra) doesn’t change the scenario.

PR is, to some degree, correct, except that she can’t apply it exclusively to protestants.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

There are many people on this forum who have made the personal judgement and interpretation that the claims of the Catholic Church are true, and so seek to persuade others of the same. YET they condemn others for doing the same thing and remaining or becoming Protestant.

Not sure how this addresses my question?

What part of this do you believe to be false?

It won’t die out. But the gospel is being vitiated by Protestantism. And this is tragic indeed. Calamitous.

Because of the cardinal principle of Protestantism–“I don’t need any magisterium to tell me what is the kerygma”–it has resulted in the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each preaching that its own version of the gospel is the correct one.

This is the paradigm:
A pastor preaches.
A Christian listens.
Disagrees with pastor’s message.
Understands that this pastor is fallible, and by definition is going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation.
Christian says, “I can not abide by this erroneous interpretation”.
Christian leaves.
Christian church shops.
Christian joins a new church, hopeful.

Repeat above 1-2 more times, until Christian realizes: “this is silly!”

Christian says: “I can form my own church!”

#Christiangospelvitiatedyetagain
#yetanotherchristiandenomination
#toomanytocount

And no Protestant can raise objections to the above events since it is formed upon that which Protestantism rises (and falls).

 

[Tomyris]

True enough. Our confessions and catechisms are generally in book or net form and are easily accessible. If a minister teaches something against the catechism or against the confessions, he can be sanctioned by higher- ups, generally the elders of the congregation. I’m not sure how Anglicans handle heterodox teaching, or if there even IS heterodoxy in Anglicanism.

If I disagreed with the pastor on something in the Confession, the WORST way to approach it would be to say,“I heard your sermon today. You spoke of Heaven or Hell as the only destinations. I disagree. There is also New Jersey.”

He would look at me oddly and we would go over all the reasons why New Jersey is un-Biblical. If I were obstinate, at some point that would be discussed. If I insisted that it had to be Heaven, Hell, or New Jersey, and he was wrong, then I am departing from the Confession and church discipline is in order, not necessarily for my odd faith in Newark but for my stubborn pride and refusal to be corrected.

But I am not going to pray that New Jersey is not anyone’s final destination. I’ve been there.

 

[PRmerger]

Would it have been more virtuous for him to stay and be burned at the stake, as happened to many he knew?

You will recall that Trent happened, among other things, because there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what the Catholic Church taught, and (offhand, here) what he believed really was not (yet) against Church teaching. And I think he was forced out, more than he left.

Can you please just answer my question?

Are members of your church free to do what John Calvin did with the Catholic church? That is, declare that their teachings are wrong and leave?

 

[Tomyris]

Not sure how this addresses my question?

What part of this do you believe to be false?

I already pointed it out.

the cardinal principle of Protestantism

is wrong, because there really isn’t one. Many will say justification by faith, but not all.

I certainly don’t say I can form my own church.

And your final statement has been demonstrated to be false.

 

[LutheranScholar]

If I disagreed with the pastor on something in the Confession, the WORST way to approach it would be to say,“I heard your sermon today. You spoke of Heaven or Hell as the only destinations. I disagree. There is also New Jersey.”

He would look at me oddly and we would go over all the reasons why New Jersey is un-Biblical. If I were obstinate, at some point that would be discussed. If I insisted that it had to be Heaven, Hell, or New Jersey, and he was wrong, then I am departing from the Confession and church discipline is in order, not necessarily for my odd faith in Newark but for my stubborn pride and refusal to be corrected.

But I am not going to pray that New Jersey is not anyone’s final destination. I’ve been there.

Indeed, the job of the clergy is to rebuke and correct errant laity according to the guidelines laid down by the Book of Concord or the Westminster Confession of Faith ( maybe the Book of Common Prayer…** ducks**).

 

[Tomyris]

Can you please just answer my question?

Are members of your church free to do what John Calvin did with the Catholic church? That is, declare that their teachings are wrong and leave?

That’s not what he did.

I suppose I am as free to declare the teachings of my church to be false and leave as you are free to declare Catholicism false and leave. I do know that I would have to explain it to an elder, and probably more than one, if I did so.

 

[PRmerger]

True enough. Our confessions and catechisms are generally in book or net form and are easily accessible. If a minister teaches something against the catechism or against the confessions, he can be sanctioned by higher- ups, generally the elders of the congregation. I’m not sure how Anglicans handle heterodox teaching, or if there even IS heterodoxy in Anglicanism.

So how would your elders handle someone doing what Martin Luther did?

Please note, the question is not about what Luther professed–for, of course, I understand that your elders would state, “His theology is correct”.

My question has to do more with the process of a man in your church declaring that your elders are incorrect theologically in their interpretations of the Bible.

Which is what Luther did, right?