What Do You Mean By Protestant?

[awatkins69]

But what I’m saying is that St. Augustine believed specifically in the primacy and universal authority of the Pope. In regards to apostolic succession, the earliest Baptist church can be traced to only 1600 years after Christ. I’m not sure how you can get apostolic succession there. You are in fact correct in stating that Luther did not want to start a revolution (at least at first I’d say). He wanted to have a classic scholastic disputation and discuss his theses. But I’m not sure that the Church fell away. On the contrary, almost everything the Church teaches St. Augustine taught. At the very least from what I’ve shown you, Saint Augustine taught the primacy and authority of the Pope over the Church, and that you must use the Sacrament of Confession to a valid priest in order for your sins to be forgiven. Hardly what the Baptist churches teach.

 

[bogeydogg]

jm

I don’t reject the Nicene creed at all. However the argument of the Reformers was that Rome had lost the Faith and thus ceased to be Catholic and therefore there was and is no conflict. btw I think that this question of catholicity is quite settled in that all the elect are of the Church and therefore are catholic which is a teaching the Pope has confirmed by saying that one need only believe in Jesus as Lord, be baptized in the Triune Name and receive the Table.

I did not say all the churches sprang up at once I said those three sprung up first and as a result of the Reformation. I do group the national churches in Europe with Presbyterian/ Anglican because confessionally they are very similar to Westminster and Heidelberg.

btw read the Baptist confession of Faith it is overwhelmingly Calvinist and very similar to Westminster.

And the last point I would say that a true priest is called of God and duly authorized by the overseers of the church. But this calling is not exclusive to one church as there are many many charlatans who have posed as ministers in all Christian denominations so it is the man of faith and his authority which comes from God which can give the Sacrament.

I think the best example of this would be Augustine when the Donatists said a fallen priest could not have given true sacraments and Augustine argued that it is not the ordination nor the priest (because remember the Donatists also said fallen Bishops could not have legitimately ordained priests whether those priests fell or not) but the power of God which makes all the Sacraments real for the true believers.

God Bless
Jesus saying get up and walk as proof He was God and therefore could forgive sins. The irony is His detractors in saying only God can forgive sin had said much more than they intended.

 

[bogeydogg]

But what I’m saying is that St. Augustine believed specifically in the primacy and universal authority of the Pope. In regards to apostolic succession, the earliest Baptist church can be traced to only 1600 years after Christ. I’m not sure how you can get apostolic succession there. You are in fact correct in stating that Luther did not want to start a revolution (at least at first I’d say). He wanted to have a classic scholastic disputation and discuss his theses. But I’m not sure that the Church fell away. On the contrary, almost everything the Church teaches St. Augustine taught. At the very least from what I’ve shown you, Saint Augustine taught the primacy and authority of the Pope over the Church, and that you must use the Sacrament of Confession to a valid priest in order for your sins to be forgiven. Hardly what the Baptist churches teach.

St Augustine taught the primacy of the Pope when there was only one Church and I think a Pope who allowed the selling of indulgences to pay for St Peters would certainly have fallen under his harsh criticism. Augustine loved the true Faith and the true Church and given Rome reformed herself including Trent I think that is all the historical evidence we need to say the ship was adrift.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

btw the Baptist Church does teach confession and in the church I go to we offer prayers of confession each week and the elders pronounce reconciliation as part of our litugy.

God Bless

 

[awatkins69]

First of, selling indulgences was bad. No question about it. But that doesn’t give one license to start ones own church.

Secondly, the Church still is one. The Catholic Church does not believe that the Church is divided. She teaches that she is the one, true Church. Those who do not adhere to her doctrine or the authority of the Pope, but profess Christ and are baptized, are separated brethren. But even being separated brethren, they do not constitute a part of the Church. Just because various heresies and schisms arise, does not mean the Church is divided. If the existence of schismatics is proof that the Church is divided, then the Church has been divided ever since St. Paul was admonishing the Corinthians and Colossians!

Lastly, I don’t think any Baptist church can have valid sacraments, since they don’t have valid apostolic succession. Again, there is a 1600 year gap between the Baptists and the apostles who they would have to have received ordination from.

 

[bogeydogg]

Just for the record I have noticed before that in my understanding of the faith I lean much more to the Catholic Church than any other, but I have a few problems with ti that I need to get sorted out to see if I understand them correctly or if they constitute a deviation so severe as to prevent me from being a Catholic. That is why I am seriously considering RCIA and also why I spend so much tie on these boards.

Because the issue of Church Authority does bother me. I have a hard time defending the ordination of Baptist ministers but at the same time I know why such ordination exists. I have a hard time believing in the transubstantiation but I do believe that by the Holy Spirit and not by a priest Christ is present. I believe in baptism but not in the way I understand the Catholic Church to believe it as a gateway sacrament. I don’t believe in baptizing infants or infusion of grace but rather imputation.

And yes I believe Mary is our mother but not the queen on heaven.

However I am open to listening to what the Church has to say on all these matters and regularly listen to Open Line on EWTN because I want to know. And not because I think the Catholics are cool but because my own walk with God has led me this way.

But I have some hard to get by shibboleths and I know that. That is why I am considering RCIA because the thing I crave most is not to be right to be in the truth.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

I guess that is also why I started this thread because I wanted to know what you meant by Protestant and there is sometimes some pretty virulent hostility on these boards but I don’t like that game and don’t want to play it anymore.

God Bless

 

[Belloc_Fan]

However I am open to listening to what the Church has to say on all these matters and regularly listen to Open Line on EWTN because I want to know. And not because I think the Catholics are cool but because my own walk with God has led me this way.

But I have some hard to get by shibboleths and I know that. That is why I am considering RCIA because the thing I crave most is not to be right to be in the truth.

God Bless

I guess that is also why I started this thread because I wanted to know what you meant by Protestant and there is sometimes some pretty virulent hostility on these boards but I don’t like that game and don’t want to play it anymore.

God Bless

I think you’re in the right place.

 

[awatkins69]

God is giving you grace. I know that Baptists have a large amount of respect for the Holy Bible. You should know that the Catholic Church preaches love for God’s infallible Word. Also, I hope you looked at that article which shows how TULIP can be similar to Catholicism in some respects.

It would take a long time to go through all those doctrines. Just for one, we believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven. In the Old Testament, all the Kings of Israel’s mothers were the Queen, not the wife. And since Jesus is the true King of Israel (Son of David), and the King of Heaven, we say Mary, His mother, is the true Queen of Heaven.

As for transubstantiation, let’s look once more at John 6:53-63:

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.”

The word used for “eat” here is “trogon”, which is the most literal word for eat you can use.

However, the Jews didn’t believe. “This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?” Jesus asks us if we will allow this doctrine to scandalize us.

“If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Jesus uses his divinity to prove what He says.

“It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” The Jews could only apprehend things in a carnal way. They couldn’t understand having Jesus’ body and blood in a sacramental way.

“The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist gives us grace and life.

Afterwards, many of His disciples left, because they couldn’t accept His teaching on the Holy Eucharist. But He did not stop them. If this was just a parable, why would it upset so many people? And why wouldn’t he clear things up, like in every single other instance of misunderstanding? Not only that, if Jesus was using a metaphor, it would be referring to a Hebrew idiom about brutal war, which makes no sense in the context. (cf. Deut 32:42 and Ezek 39:17-18)

Since this is already a long enough post, I’ll leave the rest to you. For more information on Catholic teaching in the Bible and the Fathers go here:
scripturecatholic.com/
If you’re interested, scrolling down there are some conversion stories here:
bringyou.to/apologetics/spirit.htm
and here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AKINSTOR.htm
I didn’t convert from any other religion, but was a practical atheist. All the best.

 

[awatkins69]

I guess that is also why I started this thread because I wanted to know what you meant by Protestant and there is sometimes some pretty virulent hostility on these boards but I don’t like that game and don’t want to play it anymore.

God Bless

I hope I didn’t come across as being virulently hostile. That wasn’t my intention at all. “Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil.”

 

[bogeydogg]

That is just it I do believe we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but I do not believe in the transubstantiation or the legitimacy of a man offering that which was offered once for all. It is not ‘this is my body’ which gives me trouble but the rite of the Mass itself.

You see why I am considering RCIA

God Bless

 

[Belloc_Fan]

And the last point I would say that a true priest is called of God and duly authorized by the overseers of the church. But this calling is not exclusive to one church as there are many many charlatans who have posed as ministers in all Christian denominations so it is the man of faith and his authority which comes from God which can give the Sacrament.

I think the best example of this would be Augustine when the Donatists said a fallen priest could not have given true sacraments and Augustine argued that it is not the ordination nor the priest (because remember the Donatists also said fallen Bishops could not have legitimately ordained priests whether those priests fell or not) but the power of God which makes all the Sacraments real for the true believers.

This is a point seemingly in the opposite direction as you’re making it. Augustine is specifically arguing that even a bad priest can validly confer the sacraments if he’s received Holy Orders. That means the question of whether a priest is a “charlatan” or not just isn’t relevant. Augustine calls it ex opere operato, that the priest performing an objectively valid sacrament performs it – not by the priest’s own faith, but by the working of God.

This is 100% Catholic teaching. If we taught that the priest’s own goodness was the source of the sacraments, we’d have to rebaptize everyone who’d been baptized by a predator priest, for example. And even an excommunicated priest still has the ability to act as a priest, because that’s not a power that the Church can ever fully take away. In his function as a priest, the man is simply a vessel for the sacrament to operate through – his own unworthiness is assumed to be true. That argument is closely tied with the need for a sacrament of Holy Orders, though. Augustine’s pretty clear on this, I believe.

The way you tell if a priest is a “true” priest or a charlatan isn’t whether he’s got a great personal faith (since there’s a possibility he’ll trick you, and it makes everything turn on his own faith, which is irrelevant for God’s grace to work through him), but if he’s a valid minister of the sacrament.

Similarly, the kerchiefs touched by Paul were able to heal people – the issue wasn’t whether the kerchief was itself clean or dirty, but whether it was connected back to the Apostle. Priests are just like that.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

That is just it I do believe we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but I do not believe in the transubstantiation or the legitimacy of a man offering that which was offered once for all. It is not ‘this is my body’ which gives me trouble but the rite of the Mass itself.

You see why I am considering RCIA

God Bless

These should answer that:
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-eucharist-re-sacrifice-christ.html
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-eucharist-re-sacrifice-christ_29.html

The short answer is that Christ is the Paschal Lamb. You can go back to the Lamb for second helpings without re-slaying Him.

The long answer is Christ’s death in c. 32 A.D. pays the price for our sins, but that payment is applied at a later date, namely, our Baptism. All Christians, to my knowledge, believe some variation of this. When people talk about when they “got saved,” nobody says, “32 A.D.” The Holy Spirit applies the Blood of Christ in atonement for our sins. Even though that occurs at least once in every Christian’s life, it doesn’t re-Sacrifice Christ.

The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, already slain, simply offerred up for our sins once more. It’s no different, in this regard, than praying to God, and saying, “I ask you to apply the Blood of Jesus Christ in atonement for all of my sins.” Because that’s the major sacrificial aspect of what’s going on.

But besides that, there’s literally no question that the early Church believed this, and they had a pretty good idea of what the Apostles taught. And even within a number of Baptist church services, there are traces of this doctrine still taught. Consider the term “Altar Call.” It’s calling people down to the… altar. And what’s an altar used for? And who serves at an altar?

 

[awatkins69]

That is just it I do believe we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but I do not believe in the transubstantiation or the legitimacy of a man offering that which was offered once for all. It is not ‘this is my body’ which gives me trouble but the rite of the Mass itself.

You see why I am considering RCIA

God Bless

I’m glad you’re considering RCIA. That would make things clearer, maybe. Depends on whether you have a bad RCIA teacher or not, and there are a **lot **of them. If you believe we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, that is basically transubstantiation. With that, didn’t Jesus command His disciples to do the same thing? “Do this in memory of me.”

And doesn’t Saint Paul say that even after Christ’s ascension they do what Jesus did? “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

We believe that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the miracles of forgiveness of sins and turning bread into Christ’s Body takes place. It’s not based on any merits of the priest. In fact, we believe the priest is simply working in the place of Christ, “in persona Christi”.

If it’s the liturgy you’re worried about, I suggest you read here, and look under “worship” and “sacraments”:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Church
For more from the Holy Bible and the Fathers, look here:
scripturecatholic.com/

 

[cadee]

That’s a hard question to give a quick answer to but here goes;

“Protestantism” is not one religion, denomination or church. It’s a collection of many churches with sometimes quite different ideologies that are spread out across the world.
.
I suppose the main and most shared characteristic is that they are Christians that do not accept the authority of the Pope or of Rome. The movement started in the 16th century as a number of churches broke away in ‘Protest’ from the Roman Catholic Church.
.
They place strong emphasis on scripture (the Bible) and place this above church doctrine. They recognize and practice baptism and communion but not any of the other 5 sacraments of the RC Church. Most accept the concept of the trinity.

---

Limo Hire
Slimming Pills

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Sorry for so many posts - last one of the night! Here are the basic issues which troubled you, and my best attempt to answer them:

Church Authority

I agree Augustine believed in the authority of the Church as well as the Bishops I believe these things too. I most certainly believe the members of any Church are subject to its leadership as the Church is subject to Christ. The Apostolic succession is not nebulous. We know from history the line of bishops descended from the Apostles and those men duly ordained by God are part of it.

Exactly. We don’t judge the Church, the Church judges us.

**

The argument of the Reformers was not that catholicity was invalid but the Rome had lost Her way. **
If we don’t judge the Church, how to rectify this? If the Reformers say, “I’ll submit to the Church, but only when I think the Church is 100% right,” that’s not submission at all. Do you see what I mean there? The tendency is for believers today to seek out a church that agrees with what they already believe, and then claim they’re submitting. That’s not submission, and it’s clearly not what the Bible intended, nor (as you acknowledged above) is it how the early Church operated.

** Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth**
This one was hard for me, because I didn’t understand what it meant. But for me, the plain language of Revelation 12 really sealed the deal. There’s a Woman, the Mother of God (Rev. 12:3), who is described as “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” in Revelation 12:1.

If that wasn’t clear enough, the last verse of Rev. 11 mentions the Ark, and John immediately proceeds to talk about Mary. That’s not a mistake. Mary was frequently described as the New Ark, since She contained the fulfillment of the original Ark in Her womb.

Now certainly, some Protestants take a non-literal interpretation of this, and think it means only Israel/the Church, rather than both/and, but Catholics are the ones hewing to the plain language of Scripture on this one. Most of the issue, to be frank, isn’t exegetical – it’s that Protestants often have a certain unease with someone being honored in Heaven. The Bible’s relatively clear on this one.

Eucharist
This one’s a home-run for Catholics. I’d suggest the book The Hidden Manna by Fr. O’Connor. It’s an easy-to-read collection of writings of the Early Church Fathers on this subject.

the Priesthood
Look at the last chapter of Isaiah. It’s a New Covenant prophesy. Isaiah 66:19-20 talks about sending a remnant out to the nations who “will proclaim my glory among the nations,” and who will bring in “your brothers” from “all the nations” to worship. Isaiah 66:21 then has a heck of a kicker: “’‘And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,’ says the LORD.” So some of the New Testament faithful will be set aside as “priests and Levites.” The inclusion of the term Levites is important here, because they were sacrificial priests, not just members of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ established in Exodus 19:6. Feel free to check out (catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-biblical-evidence-for-catholic.html) for more.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree Augustine believed in the authority of the Church as well as the Bishops I believe these things too. I most certainly believe the members of any Church are subject to its leadership as the Church is subject to Christ. The Apostolic succession is not nebulous. We know from history the line of bishops descended from the Apostles and those men duly ordained by God are part of it. The argument of the Reformers was not that catholicity was invalid but the Rome had lost Her way. That is why it was the reformation and not the Revolution. It was Rome who threw out the Reformers at Trent not the other way around.

Most of the Reformers were dead by the time Trent had completed their deliberations. There were already second and third-generation Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, and Mennonites, by then - they were long gone from the Catholic Church, decades since.

 

[jmcrae]

btw the Baptist Church does teach confession and in the church I go to we offer prayers of confession each week and the elders pronounce reconciliation as part of our litugy.

God Bless

All I can say is that things have changed pretty radically in the Baptist church since I was a kid. In my day, they would never have thought of doing any kind of liturgy at all, let alone a Rite of Penance.

 

[Contarini]

So there a lot of folks on here asking questions to “protestants” as an all encompassing group which is unified in its belief and understanding of Scripture. Because of this assumption a great many out of left field questions get asked to people to make them defend doctrines to which they do not adhere. While of course it may be great good fun to do this, it ultimately winds up being a straw man because the questioner is putting words into the questioned’s mouth without actually bothering to find out what he believes.

In other words it is a straw man argument.

It would be like some Chick-track soaked know nothing asking Catholics to defend the Church’s position on the sacrificing of the children born of the illicit relations between priests and nuns for the glory of Baal. (No really I once read a Chick track which claimed this to be a practice of the Roman Catholic Church)

Of course you would answer, “Well I don’t have anything to say about that doctrine because it does not exist.”

To which the reply would come, “Ah Hah so you can’t answer it then huh!”

You see it is ridiculous.

In the same way it is absurd to ask a Presbyterian why his Church does not baptize infants because it does. Or to ask a Methodist about double predestination because he won’t believe it.

So before you get all high and mighty about “protestants” try and figure out what you are talking about and to whom you are speaking because some of us who come to these boards are not Catholic and yet have taken the time to learn a great deal about Catholic Doctrine and don’t think the Church is an enemy of the Faith. As such it would be nice to have the same courtesy returned.

God Bless

Yes, a lot of us have been saying this for a long time on here. I would say that on the whole people have improved. One problem that has developed is the habit of saying “non-Catholics” instead of Protestants, which is of course worse because that’s a broader category.

I think the best approach is to be patient, recognize that Protestantism is extremely confusing for Catholics, and point out erroneous assumptions when they occur. (Just recently someone said on a thread I was on that “Protestants rebaptize Catholics”!)

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

That is just it I do believe we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but I do not believe in the transubstantiation or the legitimacy of a man offering that which was offered once for all. It is not ‘this is my body’ which gives me trouble but the rite of the Mass itself.

The priest offers the sacrifice of the bread and wine (the thanksgiving sacrifice of Melchizedek; Genesis 14:18) - it is Christ who offers us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in exchange.

You see why I am considering RCIA