Why are you Protestant?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I do not believe the Marian dogmas or in elaborate rituals in that they were the practices of the church prior to around 125-150 AD. I believed both developed over time. ** I am also despite all my prayers and desire not to be; a liberal on matters of innerancy and Christianity. ** Because of the differences between Luke and Mark and Matthew, I believe that the portion concerning Peter is likely an interpolation. I love the history of it all however. Absolutely love it. On a personal note, after finally getting my wife to come to church with all of the kids and I (it took 11 years), I am in no position to change. She will not go to a Catholic Church (she is an agnostic and finds their stance on many issues objectionable). She tolerates (barely) the church we go to primarily because of the vibrant children ministries and quite frankly the people are nice.

I have no desire to talk anyone into any of my view if I even could. I especially like Catholics and Orthodox because they do respect the history of the Church.

Hello Brian. I am curious, is the bold part easier to conform to Protestantism than Marian Dogmas? I am puzzled because as far as I know the inerrancy of the Bible is one of the cornerstones of Protestantism. You say you can’t be Catholic because you can’t agree with the Marian Dogmas. It would make sense to me that it would be just as easy to not be Protestant because you disagree with the inerrancy issue. Or is the inerrancy of the Bible not a belief of the Methodists?

I hope you don’t mind the questions.

God bless you

 

[dzheremi]

I believe that Jesus wanted Peter (and all the Popes that followed him) to lead the Church. From my understanding (and it is limited so if I am wrong, please correct/educate me) the Orthodox view the position of Pope as one of honor and not of authority.

IF Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the Power to Bind and Loose (Matt 16:19), then truly Peter’s position is more than just honor. This is also evident in Luke 22:31-32 where Peter is singled out and John 21:15-17. Tradition also shows the Authority of the Early Popes.

Fair enough. The RCC interpretation of Matthew 16:19 is, of course, not the only interpretation endorsed by an Apostolic church communion, as the Orthodox churches obviously have their own interpretation of it that is at variance with RCC claims, for which they likewise claim much evidence in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I think it is interesting to read the verse in context and find that it comes only two verses after Peter’s profession of faith, which is apparently what is referred to by “this rock”, according to the Orthodox viewpoints that I have read. I don’t see how this interpretation lessens Peter’s position at all, but that’s just me.

Edit: CMatt25 makes an excellent point in post #20 re: the keys. I’ve often wondered that myself, even before I began looking more into Orthodoxy.

 

[gtrenewed]

**
Because I plan on joining the ministry and would be more useful as a Baptist preacher

Serving as a witness of God’s word is always laudable, but be mindful that personal interpretation isn’t something that is mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Throughout it, Scripture has indicated where priests are the ones who are given authority by God to spread the word for one reason: Consistency. Still, I wish all the best in your decision.

There is plenty of inconsistency in the homily interpreting the days scripture reading from priest to priest. Also, what you will not find in many denominations is liberalism mixed with conservatism viewpoints. They tend to be one or the other. In RC there are fully ordained ministers that support abortion and homosexuality. Many other mixed messages are also preached.

Because I love my church family

It’s great to belong to a church where you are comfortable. Catholics feel the same way in their parishes. But Catholics don’t see themselves as limited to one building. *All *Christians are members of the mystical Body of Christ–including the Catholic Church itself, its members, and any and all those who follow Christ. That means, of course, you, too. One thing that is wonderful about the Catholic Church family is that it is worldwide. If I travel, I can enter any Roman Catholic church and hear the same readings and receive the same Sacraments as from home. In that, your faith may be limiting since your church family may not be worldwide or teach or preach the same things to everyone.

In larger cities where there is more than one RC church, people find the one they like the best for differing reasons but many because they like the priest or the people better.
**Even better is a minister that seeks revelation from the Holy Spirit in order to preach what his congregation needs to hear in that hour. Ritualism is fine for meditation but misses the relevency of the day. **
I had a Jehovah’s Witness tell me his church was the one true unified church because all around the world they heard the same message on the same day. So this is not the arguement for unity of believers.

 

[CMatt25]

Your agnosticism does not disprove the Nazarene’s just as your wife’s catholicism does not prove the RC church. If you have found Christian spiritual enlightenment in the RC good for you but many cradle catholics never had enlightenment until they went outside of the church for Jesus is the way, the truth, the life.

It is a long journey, love God and your fellow man in practical ways and honor your mother and father and you will do well.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Because I need to know more about history, because I heard the Roman Cathlic Church was something bad in Revelation but I do find it appealing and lean towards it.

Someone already addressed your other points, and I just finished reading an awesome book on the end times called “Trial, Tibulation, & Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist” by Desmond Birch.

I think what you are referring to is the belief that the Catholic Church is somehow the Antichrist. (If I am wrong, then please clarify what you mean by “something bad”, also if you believe it you should probably know what it is).

The RCC can not be the Antichrist, as scripture and Tradition show the Antichrist to be a man. 2nd Thes 2:3-5 is pretty clear, unless you want to say that Paul was not talking about a man, but about something else. Of course, the other claim is that a Pope will be the Antichrist. Again, this does not make sense if you believe in Tradition (note the Bible only says it will be a man, so the only way to is to “guess” who the Antichrist will be, unless you follow Tradition).

I do not have time to go into the details which the book describes right now, but from what I read, their is no way the Antichrist will be a Pope.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I think that people are wired differently and that has a bearing on what and how we believe spiritual things. I really don’t consider myself “protesstant” they way Catholics intend the term.

The great thing about being Catholic is that there have been millions of people who have done the job of “digging for the truth” already. We know it as the Magistarium, the teaching body of the Church, of which the Pope is the head.

This in one (but not the only) reason why I’m not Catholic. Some folks are content to rely on the opinions of those who they consider to be experts. Not me, I have this compelling desire to understand my faith for myself. I don’t disagree with every teaching of the RCC but I do not find support in the Bible for enough of them to keep me from accepting it on the main. I view the Bible as the only standard of the faith, I have many family members who trust the Magistarium. This is our collective right to do so. But just as it is my responsibility to change the battery in my smoke detector, because my life depends on it, it is my responsibility to know and understand the Christian faith, because my life also depends on it.

The Lord has put a great desire in my heart to read and study the Bible, he has not put that same desire in me to study RCC theology although I do force myself to do so, so that I can with a stright face make the claim that I know what I’m missing with respect to the Magistarium.

 

[chessmane4e5]

What is the diffference between having the power to bind and loose and having the keys to heaven? I don’t understand when all the disciples were given the power to bind and loose, the same as Peter, then how they all didn’t have the same keys?

I only have time to address this point.

Having the Keys, in a simple way, means Peter is the man in Charge of things. Isaiah 22 touches on this, but it is from Jewish Tradition. The King would give the Keys of the Kingdom to a steward when he was gone.

Peter was specifically given the power to bind and loose, where as all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose sins. So Peter has absolutely authority to bind and loose, everyone else can bind and loose sins.

 

[BrianH]

Hello Brian. I am curious, is the bold part easier to conform to Protestantism than Marian Dogmas? I am puzzled because as far as I know the inerrancy of the Bible is one of the cornerstones of Protestantism. You say you can’t be Catholic because you can’t agree with the Marian Dogmas. It would make sense to me that it would be just as easy to not be Protestant because you disagree with the inerrancy issue. Or is the inerrancy of the Bible not a belief of the Methodists?

I hope you don’t mind the questions.

God bless you

The Book of Discipline has a nuanced take on that but it certainly leans to a higher view. Mainline Protestants run the gamut but certainly liberal mainline Protestant is not an oxymoron.

 

[dzheremi]

This in one (but not the only) reason why I’m not Catholic. Some folks are content to rely on the opinions of those who they consider to be experts. Not me, I have this compelling desire to understand my faith for myself. I don’t disagree with every teaching of the RCC but I do not find support in the Bible for enough of them to keep me from accepting it on the main. I view the Bible as the only standard of the faith, I have many family members who trust the Magistarium. This is our collective right to do so. But just as it is my responsibility to change the battery in my smoke detector, because my life depends on it, it is my responsibility to know and understand the Christian faith, because my life also depends on it.

The Lord has put a great desire in my heart to read and study the Bible, he has not put that same desire in me to study RCC theology although I do force myself to do so, so that I can with a stright face make the claim that I know what I’m missing with respect to the Magistarium.

Why exactly do you feel that the Magesterium is used or meant to be used in lieu of understanding Christianity yourself? I think that is a false dichotomy, just as any outlook that puts the Scriptures that you describe as “the only standard of the faith” outside of tradition sets up a false dichotomy. If the standard of the faith is the Bible, then how did those whose witness is recorded therein get it all so very right? You are aware that prior to the canonization of the Bible in the Western church (~4th century), Christianity had already spread throughout the entire known world, right? How did the Syriac, Coptic, Greek, and other missionaries manage such a feat? Also, of all the Cannons, how do you know that your denomination follows the right one? Have you ever taken at look at the Biblical cannon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church? It is astounding! And even they do not define it as you have. Instead, they say “The word of God is not contained in the Bible alone, it is to be found in tradition as well. The Sacred Scriptures are the written word of God who is the author of the Old and New Testaments containing nothing but perfect truth in faith and morals. But God’s word is not contained only in them, there is an unwritten word of God also, which we call apostolic tradition. We receive the one and other with equal veneration.”

Ethiopia has been Christian since the days of the Axumites, roughly 1000 years prior to any Protestant movement. All Apostolic churches agree with the EOTC stance described above, even those not in communion with it. What makes the words of any European reformist movement more important than that which worldwide Apostolic Christianity has agreed upon since the beginning of Christianity itself?

 

[dzheremi]

I only have time to address this point.

Having the Keys, in a simple way, means Peter is the man in Charge of things. Isaiah 22 touches on this, but it is from Jewish Tradition. The King would give the Keys of the Kingdom to a steward when he was gone.

Peter was specifically given the power to bind and loose, where as all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose sins. So Peter has absolutely authority to bind and loose, everyone else can bind and loose sins.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are making. Can you clarify your last sentence?

 

[Lutheranteach]

I always felt Catholicism had much truth to it, but I also felt it had become something more, so I looked for a denomination close to it and finally became Lutheran after leaving that church for a number of years in my youth…well sporadically attended.

I would be a dreadful Catholic, but then again, I’ve met many Catholics who have identical beliefs to my own and yet are at mass every week

I don’t believe in the infallibility of the pope or the Catholic Church’s teaching body on any matter. I think the papacy is a man made position not one instituted by Jesus. I don’t believe in the veneration or intercession of the saints. The five solas; especially Justification by faith. I support a woman’s right to safe abortions but consider them a tragic option. I believe in the death penalty. I believe in the ordination of women.I feel there are two sacraments, not 7. I think the church should provide some sort of recognition to same sex partners in devoted lifetime relationships. Priesthood of all believers. I think direct apostolic succession is a myth. I don’t believe in the assumption. I don’t believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. I think clergy should have the option of marrying and having families.I think the majority of canon law is there just to sustain the Catholic Church as an entity and has nothing to do with faith. I was disturbed by news that there was a sex scandal, but was disgusted by the duration of it and how it was handled. I support the use of contraception. The Augsburg confession makes sense to me, canon law often doesn’t. The first mass I went to I was treated coldly if not rudely. The first Lutheran service I went to I was treated like a long lost son. Croatia 1945-48 and the tales of a family friend who lived there at the time. I think it’s entirely possible that Mary had other children after Jesus; and more

 

[MrZetterlund]

Someone already addressed your other points, and I just finished reading an awesome book on the end times called “Trial, Tibulation, & Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist” by Desmond Birch.

I think what you are referring to is the belief that the Catholic Church is somehow the Antichrist. (If I am wrong, then please clarify what you mean by “something bad”, also if you believe it you should probably know what it is).

The RCC can not be the Antichrist, as scripture and Tradition show the Antichrist to be a man. 2nd Thes 2:3-5 is pretty clear, unless you want to say that Paul was not talking about a man, but about something else. Of course, the other claim is that a Pope will be the Antichrist. Again, this does not make sense if you believe in Tradition (note the Bible only says it will be a man, so the only way to is to “guess” who the Antichrist will be, unless you follow Tradition).

I do not have time to go into the details which the book describes right now, but from what I read, their is no way the Antichrist will be a Pope.

No… Not the anti-Christ (that’s Obama) I forget, I think it was the beast? idk, It’s in this video that you will probably find offensive: youtube.com/watch?v=4pKWi-Om6uM
I also found it offensive (and I’m not even Catholic!) You’ll find my comments below the video trying to defend the Catholic faith. But this person is a fundamentalist, so there’s no reasoning with them.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Originally Posted by chessmane4e5 View Post
I only have time to address this point.

Having the Keys, in a simple way, means Peter is the man in Charge of things. Isaiah 22 touches on this, but it is from Jewish Tradition. The King would give the Keys of the Kingdom to a steward when he was gone.

Peter was specifically given the power to bind and loose, where as all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose sins. So Peter has absolutely authority to bind and loose, everyone else can bind and loose sins.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are making. Can you clarify your last sentence?

13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?

Caesarea Philippi has lots of significance, but I do not have the space to go into it.

14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Here is the first indication that something is special about Simon. The Father in Heaven has revealed the Divinity of Jesus to Simon. Also notice that Simon’s last name is not “Bar-jonah”. Some translate this to be “son of Jonah” because Simon’s father’s name is Jonah. Yet Jonah really means “dove”. “Combine the surname of Simon means having the revelation of the Holy Spirit…‘Bar-jonah’ means son of the Holy Spirit.” pg 33

18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Now notice Jesus gives Simon a new name, Peter. Lots of stuff with this. No one has ever been called Rock before except God in the Old Testament. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic to the Apostles, and the Aramaic word for rock is Peter. In the OT, when a names is changed, it is very significant. Abram (which means father) was changed to Abraham (which means father of nations) by God. So Jesus tells Peter, in front of all the disciples that He is going to build His Church upon Peter, the rock, and that the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it. Keep that in mind.

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Notice that Jesus is still speaking to Peter. I already mentioned the importance and significance of the Keys. Also notice that Jesus does not limit the power to bind and loose. That is the key to Chapter 18, where Jesus does tell all the Apostles they also have power to bind and loose, but in reference to Sin.

20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

What is also significant is that not one of the Apostles ever challenges Peter’s Authority. Surely, if they thought they all had an equal share, one of them would have challenged Peter’s Authority.

 

[CMatt25]

I only have time to address this point.

Having the Keys, in a simple way, means Peter is the man in Charge of things. Isaiah 22 touches on this, but it is from Jewish Tradition. The King would give the Keys of the Kingdom to a steward when he was gone.

Peter was specifically given the power to bind and loose, where as all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose sins. So Peter has absolutely authority to bind and loose, everyone else can bind and loose sins.

Do not keys bind and loosen the lock? And wasn’t Christ speaking to all His disciples here, not just one?

Matt 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

19Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

20For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So I don’t quite get the distinction you are making for the Christian tradition.

Here is where the forgiveness of sins is specifically mentioned…

Jn 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

But isn’t forgiveness something all disciples should strive to offer?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Since you ask:

(1) Because I do not have a Catholic bone in my body

(2) Because I feel called to the local assembly where we are and do not feel any prompting of the Holy Spirit to leave it.

(3) Being Catholic would be too much of a culture shock to my wife even if I were seriously thinking of becoming one.

(4) Catholics individually and corporately seem to be ust as messed up as the rest of us. There just does not seem to be something special about Catholics as I observe them that provoke me to think that maybe they have something special that we do not.

(5) Because I do not believe that any one organization is exclusively THE church of Jesus Christ and receives special benefits and graces from God almighty that He can and will not grace any other organization.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No… Not the anti-Christ (that’s Obama) I forget, I think it was the beast? idk, It’s in this video that you will probably find offensive: youtube.com/watch?v=4pKWi-Om6uM
I also found it offensive (and I’m not even Catholic!) You’ll find my comments below the video trying to defend the Catholic faith. But this person is a fundamentalist, so there’s no reasoning with them.

Wow, that video is laughable. All he does is grab random Scripture, and some that he uses doesn’t even make sense. The Eucharist for example, he said John 6:63 refutes Transubstantiation, but Jesus is talking about something completely different. He definitely misrepresents the Catholic faith, but it is too bad people are going to believe it.

He does say the Church is the Beast, and that the Popes title adds up to 666, I wonder what kind of math he did to get that

Thanks for trying to stick up for Catholics though

 

[chessmane4e5]

Do not keys bind and loosen the lock? ** And wasn’t Christ speaking to all His disciples here, not just one?**

In Matt 16:13-19 Jesus is speaking directly to Peter.

Matt 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

19Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

20For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Here He is speaking to all the Apostles and if you read the verses 16 and 17 you will get that He is talking about Sins.

So I don’t quite get the distinction you are making for the Christian tradition.

Here is where the forgiveness of sins is specifically mentioned…

Jn 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

But isn’t forgiveness something all disciples should strive to offer?

That quote from John is more evidence that all the Apostles have the power to bind and loose sins.

 

[dzheremi]

Chessmane4e5,

I don’t think anyone here is trying to deny that Peter was given the keys to bind and loose, only that this power is uniquely his. I thought I had been told in RCIA that all apostles were given this power, the difference being that Simon-Peter is given the keys first (in Mat. 16:19), while the others were given that same power later (in 18:18)? This seems in keeping with the idea that Peter is to rightly be given a primacy of honor, not that he has some special powers that are not given to other apostles, and certainly not that any such authority invested in him is to reside henceforth in the chair of Peter for ever and ever in perpetuity throughout the universe, or whatever we’re supposed to make of universal jurisdiction,

Orthodox apologetics recognize this distinction, as this piece from Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis shows. Some highlights (emphasis mine):

"…although the distinctive features of Peter’s ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter’s leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. …] It is possible to accept the primacy of Rome in a qualified way as part of God’s purpose regarding the Church’s unity and catholicity even while admitting that New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for it. Whether or not Peter’s role can be transmitted in its totality, it would not exclude the analogical continuation of his ministry of unity, guided by the Spirit, among those who continue the apostolic mission. This “Petrine function” is necessary for the unity and catholicity of the Church. It may be executed by the pope, as Vatican I suggests, in consultation with but not independently from the bishops of God’s Church.

The Orthodox, it would seem, do not reject the idea of the primacy of Peter, only the RCC interpretation of what that primacy means.

Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome’s claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as “supreme power” transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo-Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ‑ “presiding in agape” according to St Ignatios of Antioch.

And, interestingly, recalling a bit of scripture from before the verses in Matthew that you take to be indicative of the correctness of Papal primacy…

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25).

 

[chessmane4e5]

Chessmane4e5,

And, interestingly, recalling a bit of scripture from before the verses in Matthew that you take to be indicative of the correctness of Papal primacy…

I admit, I need to learn more about what Orthodox believe regarding the Pope. As for that Matthew quote, it does not seem that Jesus is denying any of the Apostles the role of leader, but teaching them that with Great Power comes Great Responsibility. He is telling them to be great they must also be servant. I think the Popes (most of them anyways) were servants to the Church (meaning all it’s members).

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, that is fine. I have no disagreement with that idea. But said in the context of a debate among the apostles themselves as to which was “greatest”, I can’t help but think it works against the sorts of arguments we see for Papal Primacy as modern RCC apologetics sees it.