What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rjg99a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A few quickly come to mind. They lost faith in Catholic teaching and Catholic teaching authority if they ever had it to begin with. They see an inclusiveness in, for instance, open communion even while they might also understand both POV and why Catholics believe in closed. Along the same lines of inclusiveness they might favor women priests or pastors. They disagree with the Roman celibacy requirement. Not to mention birth control, views on divorce and various social issues… The list of reasons is probably as long as the line is of Baptized/Confirmed Catholics who do not or no longer practice or who have converted to a Protestant faith.
 
Sy_Noe said:
In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect translation. Porneia refers to illicit marriages, not to adultery.

However, even if we accept that this is a correct rendering of Christ’s words, think about this, Sy. You are proposing that Jesus is giving us permission to divorce if we will just commit adultery.

That is, if I decide that I’m fed up with my husband, all I have to do to licitly divorce him would be to sleep with my hunky co-worker, and then I’d be given a free pass to divorce my husband and marry my new honey?

This is what Jesus is sanctioning, in your opinion?
So what if your friends divorced due to their jerks committing such immorality, your church doesn’t give you the choice to rejoice and celebrate with them?
Click to expand...
Jerky husbands don’t necessarily translate to “therefore they slept around and committed adultery.”

Even in your (incorrect) understanding of Matthew 19:9, your church still ought not be marrying some of these second unions in your church, for the divorces were NOT precipitated by any type of adultery whatsoever.

That is the case with all of my friends, as far as I know. None of them were divorcing because of adultery.
 
PRmerger said:
This is an incorrect translation. Porneia refers to illicit marriages, not to adultery.

However, even if we accept that this is a correct rendering of Christ’s words, think about this, Sy. You are proposing that Jesus is giving us permission to divorce if we will just commit adultery.

That is, if I decide that I’m fed up with my husband, all I have to do to licitly divorce him would be to sleep with my hunky co-worker, and then I’d be given a free pass to divorce my husband and marry my new honey?

This is what Jesus is sanctioning, in your opinion?

Jerky husbands don’t necessarily translate to “therefore they slept around and committed adultery.”

Even in your (incorrect) understanding of Matthew 19:9, your church still ought not be marrying some of these second unions in your church, for the divorces were NOT precipitated by any type of adultery whatsoever.

That is the case with all of my friends, as far as I know. None of them were divorcing because of adultery.
Click to expand...
Pornea is always translated as “sexual immorality” or something like it. It’s never translated “illicit marriage” except for this one verse in Catholic bibles.

I am not saying its a errant translation, but all other translations go with sexual immorality and that is what the word in Greek means.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Pornea is always translated as “sexual immorality” or something like it. It’s never translated “illicit marriage” except for this one verse in Catholic bibles.

I am not saying its a errant translation, but all other translations go with sexual immorality and that is what the word in Greek means.
Click to expand...
Even if we accept that this is the correct translation, think about what you are proposing.

You are saying that Jesus is giving me permission to divorce my husband, so long as I go out and sleep with my neighbor.

Think about that.
 
PRmerger said:
Even if we accept that this is the correct translation, think about what you are proposing.

You are saying that Jesus is giving me permission to divorce my husband, so long as I go out and sleep with my neighbor.

Think about that.
Click to expand...
No he is giving your husband permission to divorce you if you sleep with your neighbor.

Even so, “pornea” doesn’t mean anything other than sexual immorality or unchastity. And it’s not translated as such anywhere else.

Even the DR goes with “fornication” on the translation.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
No he is giving your husband permission to divorce you if you sleep with your neighbor.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see that in Matthew.

Could you please point out where it says that it gives the one party permission to divorce, but not the adulterer?
 
PRmerger said:
I didn’t see that in Matthew.

Could you please point out where it says that it gives the one party permission to divorce, but not the adulterer?
Click to expand...
Matthew 19:9
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
*

He is addressing the non adulterous spouse.

Also, why do you think the translators of the DR went with “fornication” instead of “illicit marriage” which is supposedly the correct translation?
 
PRmerger said:
I think you are both operating under some misapprehension that the DR translation is incapable of error.

That is not the Catholic teaching.

No Bible translation is perfect. All are subject to translation errors.
Click to expand...
Why would the RC allow such a translation rife with error to circulate for so long? And even the modern DR translations don’t have it corrected. Why would they let the error last so long? Seems like even the RCC doesn’t mind the translation.

Also, is there any reputable Greek dictionary that translates “pornea” as “illicit marriage”? Or anywhere else in scripture where the word is translated thusly?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
I am not saying its a errant translation, but all other translations go with sexual immorality and that is what the word in Greek means.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to study the evolution of divorce in the Protestant world.

All Protestant churches (except, of course, for the Church of England, and I suspect an exception was made only for the King. All others seeking divorce were probably not granted one), initially agreed with the Catholic/Scriptural view which is: divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

One has to wonder how all these churches understood porneia to mean what the CC understood it to mean, but, eventually, under pressure from society they ceded and submitted to the will of the world.

And they took it upon themselves to change how porneia was understood.

Unless you can show me where in, say, the 17th century, Protestant churches said that divorce and re-marriage was permissible?
 
PRmerger said:
It is interesting to study the evolution of divorce in the Protestant world.

All Protestant churches (except, of course, for the Church of England), initially agreed with the Catholic/Scriptural view which is: divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

One has to wonder how all these churches understood porneia to mean what the CC understood it to mean, but, eventually, under pressure from society they ceded and submitted to the will of the world.

And they took it upon themselves to change how porneia was understood.

Unless you can show me where in, say, the 17th century, Protestant churches said that divorce and re-marriage was permissible?
Click to expand...
Unless you can show me where in, say, the 17th century, Protestant churches said that divorce and re-marriage was permissible?
Click to expand...
Sure. King Henry VIII and ever bishop and priest in post reformation England.

Anyway that’s besides the point. And irrelevant.

Pornea according to every Greek dictionary I have read is “sexual immorality” or something to that effect, never “unlawful marriage”. And there is no evidence that it should be translated as something else, even in other Greek documents from the time.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Matthew 19:9
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
*

He is addressing the non adulterous spouse.
Click to expand...
No, HH.

Whoever. It says: whoever.

So let’s put the husband as the referent in that verse. Let’s say he sleeps with his servant.

“And I say to you that the husband shall put away his wife, except if he cheats on her, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”

So it is giving him permission to commit adultery, and then divorce his wife.

Or we can use the wife as the referent. Let’s say she sleeps with her servant.

“And I say to you that the wife shall put away her husband, except if she cheats on him, and shall marry another, commits adultery.”

That’s just :whacky:
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Matthew 19:9
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
*

He is addressing the non adulterous spouse.

Also, why do you think the translators of the DR went with “fornication” instead of “illicit marriage” which is supposedly the correct translation?
Click to expand...
I have a question for you: can you imagine any other reason why the Church would stand her ground and not change her position on divorce, despite terrific pressure from all sides to do so, except that she says, “We can’t change what Christ said?”

I mean, really, what reason would she have to be so adamantine about this? What does it get her except grief and tons of folks church shopping for a church that says what they want it to say?

I know some people say that the Church is so stuck on its anti-birth control teaching because she wants to have “lots of little Catholics being born so she won’t go out of business.”

Even though that is gaga lala nonsense, at least there’s a little bit o’ logic in that.

But I can’t fathom what nefarious reasons could be posited for the CC to stick to her guns on this.

Can you?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Why would the RC allow such a translation rife with error to circulate for so long? And even the modern DR translations don’t have it corrected. Why would they let the error last so long? Seems like even the RCC doesn’t mind the translation.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why the RCC would allow such error either especially since it is believed to be Christ’s one true church and as Catholics like to say compiled which books made it into the Bible in the first place. But it does certainly seem not to mind the translation.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I don’t know why the RCC would allow such error either especially since it is believed to be Christ’s one true church and as Catholics like to say compiled which books made it into the Bible in the first place. But it does certainly seem not to mind the translation.
Click to expand...
I think you have a greatly impoverished understanding about the charism of infallibility, as it applies to the Word of God.

Infallibility does not prevent men who are translators–some of them are not even ordained–from error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top