Why are you Protestant?

[chessmane4e5]

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.

Well, it’s interesting to think about. Let’s say that the 12 (Matthias not Judas) were getting ready to go out and Peter started delegating and the others started grumbling. Then let’s just imagine Peter saying to them “Look guys, I am the greatest Apostle because Jesus gave me the Keys” (in the background we hear Luke say “here he goes about the keys again”) “so you have to do what I say”.

I think Jesus would slap Peter upside his head with a fish. He would remind Peter that the greatest is in fact the least, and a leader is really a servant.

But, back to reality, there is no evidence from History that shows Peter to have been a tyrannical leader, or of the Apostles ever questioning his leadership.

I know that it is easy for people today to say, “But the Pope is so much different from Peter. He lives in the Papal estate at the Vatican, or he rides around in the “Pope Mobile” with people adoring him, trying to touch his clothes. It’s ridiculous.”

Actually, when Peter walked the streets, people hailed him as God-like, and fought through the crowds just to touch his cloak. But it seems that Peter did not let this go to his head.

I don’t know. A leader in the Church seems to make sense to me. Not a dictator. The Church at Rome has always listened to other Churches or Councils that were held (Council at Carthage 398 AD comes to mind, I hope I got that date correct). It just seems that without a leader, we get many different Church’s.

 

[CMatt25]

I think the Popes (most of them anyways) were servants to the Church (meaning all it’s members).

My bold emphasis above but your words. Well then if even one wasn’t a servant and the least among them, how does that sit with Papal succession?

 

[chessmane4e5]

My bold emphasis above but your words. Well then if even one wasn’t a servant and the least among them, how does that sit with Papal succession?

The Pope does not choose the next Pope. There have been a few “bad” Popes. What I mean is, that they intended to do harm, but when they were “elected” Pope, they either had a change of heart, or circumstances did not allow them to hurt the Church.

So Papal succession is not hindered and the Church is Protected: “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail Against it [the Church]” Matt 16:13-19

 

[CMatt25]

The Pope does not choose the next Pope. There have been a few “bad” Popes. What I mean is, that they intended to do harm, but when they were “elected” Pope, they either had a change of heart, or circumstances did not allow them to hurt the Church.

So Papal succession is not hindered and the Church is Protected: “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail Against it [the Church]” Matt 16:13-19

Well no. The Cardinals “elect” the Pope based on the concensus they come to supposedly by hearing the will of the Holy Spirit. Of course though take JP2. He pretty much stacked the deck in appointing conservative Cardinals. So since the next Pope comes from the Cardinals, it might be awhile before we have a less conservative Pope again. But then who knows once one gets into the position.

 

[kempo1]

I think most people are Protestant for the same reason most people are Catholic. They were born that way. Some people change denominations, I even changed religion.

I am Episcopalian. I was born Methodist, became Episcopalian at age 14, became Baha’i at age 19, left the Baha’i Faith at age 49, went back to the Episcopal Church and am still there.

Obviously my life has involved spiritual search. Whether I become Roman Catholic or not is yet to be seen. I accept many Roman doctrines, such as Purgatory (I actually believed in that as a Baha’i), the Marian doctrines, Real Presence (Transubstantiation). I have a problem with “the whole enchilada” however.

its a funny thing but protestants seem to always be searching and never quite get comfortable like something is lacking, there is a reason, we true Catholic know what it is that is why you cant shake us. Most of the time a person that leaves our faith its not the faith, they just never dove all the way in. You go all in and your eyes will open up to a beauty like no other, so holy and so beautiful!!!

 

[shalom_molahs]

I was thinking about why are Protestants the denomination they are? And then why are they not Catholic?

I am a convert, and while my mom is Protestant (Nazarene) I was agnostic up until college. I was 21 when I met my future wife, who is a cradle Catholic. I converted to Catholicism because it seems to be the religion that Christ founded.

I am just curious, probably because I just finished “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray

Is protestant a denomination?

When a person becomes born again in Christ do they become a protestant?

Why do people talk in terms of protestants vs catholics?

 

[dzheremi]

But, back to reality, there is no evidence from History that shows Peter to have been a tyrannical leader, or of the Apostles ever questioning his leadership.

I don’t think anyone- Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant - would suggest that Peter was any kind of tyrant. I’m certainly not suggesting that.

I know that it is easy for people today to say, “But the Pope is so much different from Peter. He lives in the Papal estate at the Vatican, or he rides around in the “Pope Mobile” with people adoring him, trying to touch his clothes. It’s ridiculous.”

Actually, when Peter walked the streets, people hailed him as God-like, and fought through the crowds just to touch his cloak. But it seems that Peter did not let this go to his head.

This is not what we are talking about, however. We are talking about the nature and exercise of proper authority, not how any particular Pope lived or was received by people.

I don’t know. A leader in the Church seems to make sense to me. Not a dictator. The Church at Rome has always listened to other Churches or Councils that were held (Council at Carthage 398 AD comes to mind, I hope I got that date correct). It just seems that without a leader, we get many different Church’s.

The Orthodox Church has a leader, and He is ultimately the same leader as the Catholic Church (I’ll give you three guesses as to who I’m referring to, and the first two don’t count ). And as for listening to other churches or councils, that may be true in some instances but you cannot honestly be suggesting that the relationship between say, Rome and Eastern Churches has always been as it is now. Much of the new ecumenism pursued by Rome is a result of much more recent initiatives (Vatican II, Orientale Lumen, etc). Even the histories written by the eastern church that has been in union with Rome for the greatest amount of time since the Great Schism, the Syriac Maronite Church, record how Latin representatives exerted enormous pressures on them to conform to Latin customs and theological understandings (see George Labaki’s “The Maronites in the United States”). And certainly Rome does not seem to currently be listening to the objections of Eastern Christians to things like the filioque, as it apparently has not resolved itself to do at any point in the history of the controversy, instead insisting that if understood properly there is no problem while apparently not noticing how few are actually taught properly what this uniquely Latin doctrine is supposed to mean (see: a million other threads here; my current favorite is this one, particularly post #111 where a Catholic admits that the filioque is theologically dangerous!).

I don’t know, either. I don’t think the Pope of Rome is, by definition, a dictator. I admire Pope Benedict XVI in many ways. I think that some of the powers currently entrusted to him have no real analogue in the rest of world Christianity, or (if you prefer) historical Christianity, and I think that is inherently unhealthy for a Church that wants to safeguard its apostolic character and theological and liturgical orthodoxy. I am still canonically Latin Catholic.

 

[chessmane4e5]

The Orthodox Church has a leader, and He is ultimately the same leader as the Catholic Church (I’ll give you three guesses as to who I’m referring to, and the first two don’t count ).

I understand that, but this is the same claim that the numerous Protestant church’s make.

Now I am not saying the Holy Spirit does not guide the Orthodox or many of the Protestant church’s, but given Matt 16 it definitely seems that Jesus wanted the Church to have a visible leader as well.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Seriously, though, what time does Mass start?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Is protestant a denomination?

When a person becomes born again in Christ do they become a protestant?

Why do people talk in terms of protestants vs catholics?

Well, I suppose I use Protestant as synonymous with Non-Catholic Christian. But I didn’t make up the words.

"Protestantism is one of the four major divisions within Christianity, together with the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church traditions. The term is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century Protestant Reformation. " From Wiki

 

[chessmane4e5]

Seriously, though, what time does Mass start?

Ummmm…what times do your services start?

At my Church we have Daily Mass at 9:30 A.M. Saturday Mass at 4 P.M. and Sunday Masses at 8:30 A.M., 10:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.

Do you want to go with me sometime

 

[Lutheranteach]

its a funny thing but protestants seem to always be searching and never quite get comfortable like something is lacking, there is a reason, we true Catholic know what it is that is why you cant shake us. Most of the time a person that leaves our faith its not the faith, they just never dove all the way in. You go all in and your eyes will open up to a beauty like no other, so holy and so beautiful!!!

I could not disagree more.

 

[jmcrae]

My bold emphasis above but your words. Well then if even one wasn’t a servant and the least among them, how does that sit with Papal succession?

He is still in that role. How he behaves doesn’t make him “not the Pope” any more than how the President behaves makes him “not the President,” or how the Queen behaves makes her “not the Queen.” Obviously, we hope that the Pope, the President and the Queen would all behave like civilized Christian people, but they hold their offices regardless of how they behave, until they are replaced by a successor.

 

[dzheremi]

I understand that, but this is the same claim that the numerous Protestant church’s make.

Now I am not saying the Holy Spirit does not guide the Orthodox or many of the Protestant church’s, but given Matt 16 it definitely seems that Jesus wanted the Church to have a visible leader as well.

It definitely seems that way to you, yes.

Orthodox Bibles also contain Matthew 16, so I will wait and see what any of our Orthodox posters have to say regarding it, should they choose to participate in the thread. My only point in bringing up the Orthodox is to highlight the poverty of thinking when all discussions are reduced to Catholic-Protestant dynamics, as though there is no other way of looking at things. This has profound implications for the western church which continue to drive us further from the rest of Apostolic Christianity (the Mass, for instance, was not universally performed in Latin until the fourth century, despite Pope Victor I having made the switch some centuries earlier; before that, it was all Greek to me!). So who will have the priority: Upstarts of a million and one denominations starting within the last 500 years or so, or those who we’ve been separated from for twice as long and have actually kept their faith in a way that most Protestants could scarcely imagine or understand?

I know what side I’m going with, but if Rome would rather try to woo Anglicans, what can I do.

 

[CMatt25]

its a funny thing but protestants seem to always be searching and never quite get comfortable like something is lacking, there is a reason, we true Catholic know what it is that is why you cant shake us.

Or could it be if someone submits fully to another mortal, they simply no longer need to search? I’m just askin.

 

[CMatt25]

Ummmm…what times do your services start?

At my Church we have Daily Mass at 9:30 A.M. Saturday Mass at 4 P.M. and Sunday Masses at 8:30 A.M., 10:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.

Do you want to go with me sometime

Are any still in the vernacular with contemporary music, guitars, percussion, the kind of Mass I am most fulfilled spiritually fulfillled by?

 

[Justy90]

I was thinking about why are Protestants the denomination they are? And then why are they not Catholic?

I am a convert, and while my mom is Protestant (Nazarene) I was agnostic up until college. I was 21 when I met my future wife, who is a cradle Catholic. I converted to Catholicism because it seems to be the religion that Christ founded.

I am just curious, probably because I just finished “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray

I was a cradle Catholic until my mid 30’s. I left because I no longer believed that the Roman church was the one true Church that Christ founded. I became an Anglican because I believe how Anglicanism defines God and church authority and Scripture. I have also become so very much closer to Christ and my faith has deepened immensely.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

dzheremi:

Fair enough. The RCC interpretation of Matthew 16:19 is, of course, not the only interpretation endorsed by an Apostolic church communion

It’s also not an interpretation held only within the Catholic Church. This was written by G.K. Chesterton in 1905:

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society,
He chose for its comer-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor
the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward–in a word, a man.
And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell
have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms
have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness,
that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men.
But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded
on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible.
For no chain is stronger than its weakest link… Heretics Chapter 4

Though Matt. 16:19 is not specifically mentioned, it’s not too difficult to understand what Chesterton is speaking of. The date is important (1905) as Chesterton wouldn’t convert to the Catholic Church until 1922.

God bless

 

[MrZetterlund]

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

Honored. But it can be argued that the Pope is a man-God figure, and that’s what 666 is, man over God. Which is a major reason I am hesitant about joining a Catholic church.

Also, I heard that the Roman Catholic church was established after the death of the followers of the original Christianity. Fulfilling the prophecy that the beast’s kingdom would be built on the death of the saints.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Honored. But it can be argued that the Pope is a man-God figure, and that’s what 666 is, man over God. Which is a major reason I am hesitant about joining a Catholic church.

Also, I heard that the Roman Catholic church was established after the death of the followers of the original Christianity. Fulfilling the prophecy that the beast’s kingdom would be built on the death of the saints.

Well if you read the book by Desmond Birch “Trial, Tribulation, & Triumph”, you will see that the Antichrist declares himself to be God. Their has never been a Pope to do that yet. Obviously, I do not know the future, but I can not imagine a Pope doing that anytime in the near future.

The RCC was establish by Jesus in Matt 16:13-19. I just read “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray, which gives all kinds of supporting evidence that all the Apostles understood Peter to be the leader of the Church, and that the Early Church understood that the Bishop (Pope) in Rome was the leader.

As for the “original Christianity”, the RCC is it. I am currently reading Warren Carroll’s 5 volume history of Christendom, do hopefully in a few weeks, I will have more evidence of this.