What Catholics believe about Prostestants

[Steeltemplar]

They’re not my Lutherans. I am as saddened as you are by this.

Or at least I hope you’re saddened and not merely gloating.

For the record, my church doesn’t even ordain women, much less lesbians.

Hmmm.

I personally am saddened by it. Gloating? I would not say so. It does confirm to me why the authority of the Church’s doctrine is important. But I am certainly not gleeful to see these things happen among my brother and sister Christians.

Modernism and secularism are powerful and destructive enemies. Doctrinal disagreements aside, I think that all true Christians should work together against them.

 

[Steadfast]

Are you talking about your local congregation, or a different denomination of Lutherans?

LC-MS

The oldest and second largest Lutheran Denomination in the US.

For the record, there are more Missouri Synod Lutherans than Episcopalians in the US, but for some reason, they get all the press.

 

[BrianH]

what is your opinion of catholics? are they all false christians or are there true christians among them?

“False” and “True” are not terms you would catch me using too often in referring to other Christians. Who am I to say is a Christian if they have professed a belief in Christ, are baptized, and following the teachings of Christ?
I strongly disagree with certain Catholic doctrines. Catholics strongly disagree with certain of my beliefs.
I also absolutely feel that Catholics are Christians.

 

[BMSODM]

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20).

Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, “NO” (Acts 8:29-35).

The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the “founder” of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.

Luther opened a “Pandora’s Box” when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity.

Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals’ “different” interpretations of the Bible.

“And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the Apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.” - St. Augustine of Hippo (“On Christian Doctrine” 4th century A.D.)

We must rely on The PILLAR, …

 

[jmcrae]

LC-MS

The oldest and second largest Lutheran Denomination in the US.

For the record, there are more Missouri Synod Lutherans than Episcopalians in the US, but for some reason, they get all the press.

Thanks! How many different kinds of Lutherans are there?

 

[Mannyfit75]

They’re not my Lutherans. I am as saddened as you are by this.

Or at least I hope you’re saddened and not merely gloating.

For the record, my church doesn’t even ordain women, much less lesbians.

I am sadden by this. They are Lutheran though. When they offer her to take a vow of chastity, she denied it. She likewise, was ordain by her Church.

 

[Steadfast]

BMS,

I’ve heard that argument before and I just don’t find it particularly compelling. It isn’t that it’s a bad argument, it’s just that it’s a very human one.

It’s essentially faithless. It is saying, in effect, that we should trust this institution because Jesus’ promise to care for His sheep may not be good.

I know you would say that He cares for His sheep through this institution and thus far okay, but to assume that this institution and your institution are necessarily coterminous is a bit arrogant and, frankly, uncompelling.

 

[Steadfast]

Thanks! How many different kinds of Lutherans are there?

Only one kind, the Real Kind…



I’d say there are two: the true and the false.

 

[mercygate]

I know you would say that He cares for His sheep through this institution and thus far okay, but to assume that this institution and your institution are necessarily coterminous is a bit arrogant and, frankly, uncompelling.

Hmm. Uncompelling perhaps, but nonetheless absolutely consistent with Scripture, with the continuity of doctrinal development and the historical record.

 

[Steadfast]

Hmm. Uncompelling perhaps, but nonetheless absolutely consistent with Scripture, with the continuity of doctrinal development and the historical record.

Needless to say…

I disagree.

 

[Steeltemplar]

To answer the question of what I, as a Catholic, believe about Protestants - I do recognize that there can be great variation in Protestant belief. I experienced this first hand. My (Protestant) family moved a lot when I was young and we also did a great deal of “church shopping”. We never were a part of any particular denomination, though we attended Baptist, Lutheran, and non-denominational churches. We even went to Calvary Chapel for awhile.

There are certain things which are generally held by Protestants, like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I won’t go into all the things which are common in Protestantism, though.

The variation, to me, is one of the great arguments in favor of Catholicism. I do not believe that God would establish His Church with the intent that we should be so confused on the subject of doctrine. I think that God intended for us to have direct guidance so that we would know His will and be able to concentrate on living according to that will - which is a real challenge on its own.

There are a lot of Protestants who have strong faith and whom I admire for it. While I think that doctrine is very important and that differences should not be totally ignored, we can certainly start with finding agreements before we move on to the disagreements.

 

[jmcrae]

It is saying, in effect, that we should trust this institution because Jesus’ promise to care for His sheep may not be good.

Reread John 21:15-19, and this time, read it slowly, while putting out of your mind any idea of "But he really meant to say … - it only sounds like He’s saying … "

Jesus created the institution for the purpose of caring for the “sheep.” To depart from the institution is to depart from the sheepfold. And yes, the Good Shepherd is out seeking the lost sheep, but the lost sheep has to want to be found.

 

[BMSODM]

BMS,

I’ve heard that argument before and I just don’t find it particularly compelling. It isn’t that it’s a bad argument, it’s just that it’s a very human one.

It’s essentially faithless. It is saying, in effect, that we should trust this institution because Jesus’ promise to care for His sheep may not be good.

I know you would say that He cares for His sheep through this institution and thus far okay, but to assume that this institution and your institution are necessarily coterminous is a bit arrogant and, frankly, uncompelling.

Well at the very least if we are going to rely on The Bible Alone shouldnt we make sure we have it all?

Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version? The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same Old Testament books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity.

The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German-Jewish community of Luther’s time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians?

In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because the first contradicted his dogma of “faith alone” as opposed to grace, faith and works “combined?” And the second book proving the Catholic Church’s stance on nothing “impure” entering into Heaven therefore “necessitating” purgation ?

 

[jmcrae]

Only one kind, the Real Kind…



I’d say there are two: the true and the false.

How does one distinguish a “true Lutheran” from a “false Lutheran”?

 

[Steadfast]

BMS,

You’re making a mistake.

It’s not The Church on one side and The Bible on the other.

The Church is still The Church, its just not necessarily only your church.

 

[Steadfast]

How does one distinguish a “true Lutheran” from a “false Lutheran”?

Jell-o.

True Lutherans include fruit chunks.

Also, true Lutherans provide beer at at least all outdoor church functions.

 

[mercygate]

BMS,

You’re making a mistake.

It’s not The Church on one side and The Bible on the other.

The Church is still The Church, its just not necessarily only your church.

Not “our” Church. “His” Church. And if you check Catholic theology on this, you will see that the Church acknowledges that all who call upon the Name of Jesus Christ are to some degree united with the Church, albeit imperfectly.

 

[BMSODM]

BMS,

You’re making a mistake.

It’s not The Church on one side and The Bible on the other.

The Church is still The Church, its just not necessarily only your church.

Its the Church(The Pillar) that Holds the Truth(The Bible)

According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some “Bible” Christians insist that a “pillar” (the Church) was created to “hold up” another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church “hold up” the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn’t even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a “pillar” holding up the Bible, doesn’t that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?

 

[Steadfast]

Its the Church(The Pillar) that Holds the Truth(The Bible)

According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some “Bible” Christians insist that a “pillar” (the Church) was created to “hold up” another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church “hold up” the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn’t even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a “pillar” holding up the Bible, doesn’t that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?

This is not an area where we disagree much so I am not really sure why you’re bringing it up.

 

[jmcrae]

Jell-o.

True Lutherans include fruit chunks.

Ah yes - the Book of Church Cookery, chapter 7, verses 15-17, which states, “Yea, verily, the jello that lacketh the fruit chunks is to be despised, and thrown to the dogs, while that which containeth the fruit is to be offered upon the table of the picnic buffet, where the priests and the people shall gather to make merry, to celebrate the ending of another Sunday School year. But between the red jello with the pieces of banana, and the green jello with the pieces of pineapple, shall no distinction be made; they shall be placed side by side, like unto equals, on the right hand of the potato salad.”

Also, true Lutherans provide beer at at least all outdoor church functions.

I, too, have my suspicions about the quality of the faith of those who don’t provide any alcoholic beverages at their social functions.