Why Be Protestant?

[Georgia]

…but the remaining 10%, not so much.

What things are giving you trouble?

 

[Izdaari]

What things are giving you trouble?

Oh, just the usual stuff, some doctrinal and some cultural –

• papal infallibility
• the magisterium
• perpetual virginity of Mary
• veneration of Mary that seems a little too close to worship for comfort
• intercessory prayer to saints
• overemphasis on works, underemphasis on grace
• contraception
• all of “theology of the body”
• celibate priesthood
• male-only priesthood
• confession to priests
• worst possible (immoral, irresponsible and horrible PR) response to sex scandals within the Church
• an insular culture, not accepting other Christians (not all Catholics are guilty of this, just a significant percentage… and of course it goes both ways)

That’s not necessarily an exhaustive list, just what came to mind immediately.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, just the usual stuff, some doctrinal and some cultural –

• papal infallibility
• the magisterium
• perpetual virginity of Mary
• veneration of Mary that seems a little too close to worship for comfort
• intercessory prayer to saints
• overemphasis on works, underemphasis on grace
• contraception
• all of “theology of the body”
• celibate priesthood
• male-only priesthood
• confession to priests
• worst possible (immoral, irresponsible and horrible PR) response to sex scandals within the Church
• an insular culture, not accepting other Christians (not all Catholics are guilty of this, just a significant percentage… and of course it goes both ways)

That’s not necessarily an exhaustive list, just what came to mind immediately.

The Lord said to His people…

Stand at the Crossroads and Look, ask for the Ancient Paths and where the best Road is!

Walk in it, and you will live in Peace.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Cat]

Better bands?
Better looking preachers with better hair and suits?
Able to wear jeans to church?

I get to be my own authority and nobody tells me what to do or believe.

better youth groups
more parties
parties all the time
party, party, party
oh yeah, we call it “fellowship.”

I sense a little sarcasm here.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss these things. We are human beings, and Catholics will be the first to say that human beings are creatures of the senses. The Catholic Church is rich in sensory experiences–in some parishes. In other parishes, there is no beautiful art, the music is dull and badly-done, and no one is friendly or even raises their eyes to smile a greeting.

I’ve already mentioned music in an earlier post on this thread, which, BTW, is about reasons to be Protestant. This thread, as I understand it, is not meant to be a defense of Catholicism.

When it comes to youth group, there are many many Catholic parents who are grieving because their pre-teens and teenagers have utterly rejected the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. They are into bad things, harmful things, and their parents are rightfully concerned not only for their souls, but for their very lives.

THAT is the value of a good youth group. Yes, Catholic parishes can and do have good youth groups; ours does. Several hundred kids, including Protestants, attend our youth group activities and study times, and crowd into the Life Teen Mass on Sunday evenings.

But many Catholic parishes don’t a youth group, and the parents who are suffering as their teens get further and further in trouble have no place to turn for help.

Yes, of course, Protestant parents have the same problems, and many Protestants teens go astray also. But in many Protestant churches, there are strong youth groups led by well-trained professional youth pastors and trained volunteer youth sponsors. These youth groups sometimes attract hundreds of teenagers, and give the teens a place to go to be safe from the deadlier sins of teenaged culture, to be part of a decent peer group, to hear the Gospel, and to learn more about God. These youth groups will often go rescue those teens who are in trouble.

As for “fellowship,” I think the #1 reason I see why Catholics on CAF leave Catholic churches is that they feel like no one knows them and no one cares. Yes, these people need to step out of their comfort zone and take the first step by joining a parish Bible study, the choir, a service group, or simply by chatting with people at Coffee and Donuts or out in the parking lot. But sometimes even when people do these things, no one is interested in being friends with them. We are not created to be alone, even with the Son of God as our Companion. We are created to have fellowship with other human beings. I agree that often the “fellowship” in Protestant churches, especially evangelical churches, can be just lots of emotion. But I can testify that in many Protestant churches, the relationships and friendships are deep and loving and valuable. No wonder Catholics find this appealing.

Again, IMO, this is a thread to discuss “why be Protestant?” The reasons of great music, youth groups, and fellowship are good reasons to be Protestant, and all too often, the Catholic parishes have no answers to these reasons other than to say, with a sneer, “Christians don’t need those things, we have Jesus.” Protestants would answer the same, “So do we.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

No, the Bishop of Rome imperiously changed it.

I can understand this claim if the Bishop of Rome made a unilateral change to the Creed and tried to impose it on the entire Church. But that never happened. On the level of the local Latin Church, Rome was only catching up to what the REST of the Latin Catholic Churches had been doing for several hundred years already. There was no “imperialism” involved. So, what is your justification for claiming that the Bishop of Rome made an “imperious” change?

And as a result of this change, he was excommunicated by the other four apostolic sees.

What is your source for this claim? Whoever said it is just plain wrong. The 1054 schism was not due to filioque. Would you like to discuss the actual reasons for that unfortunate event?

You equate “the Bishop of Rome” with “the Church”. This is the main issue. As the Great Schism unequivocally shows, Rome could not “make changes due to its authority”. Whatever the merits of the filioque, however well it can be reconciled today with orthodox Christianity, the fact is that the Bishop of Rome sought to change the wording of the Nicene Creed and the Church rejected his authority.

There were different Creeds floating around that had a different word here or there, but the essence of the Faith was always the same. QUESTIONS:

1. Do you know what the filioque is intended to teach?
2. Did the Latin Church preserve the essence of the Faith despite the LOCAL addition?

Please respond.

Since the Great Schism of 1054, the Bishop of Rome has innovated further with the dogma of purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception and papal infallibility. These are all troublesome for Protestant and Orthodox alike and do not, in my opinion, enjoy support from the consensus of the Fathers.

Like the Protestants and Orthodox don’t have their own innovations? Innovations are not necessarily heterodox. No Orthodox has ever been able to demonstrate objectively and conclusively that the “new” dogmas of the CC are heterodox. Which goes back to my earlier question - what gave the EO the right to break communion with Rome?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ESMDHokie77]

For many, it’s the fact that they were raised in a Protestant church, so they believe that the catholic church is flawed just as strongly as Catholics believe that it isn’t.

…]

But continuing with the honesty, whenever a question about Protestants comes up on this forum, the only answers the catholic members seem to give are “They just want shallow and fun services” or “they really don’t understand anything.” There is, with only a few exceptions, an incredibly prejudice view presented.

…]

Really, Protestantism vs. Catholicism boils down to a matter of interpretation.

Indeed, upbringing is a usual start, but eventually it falls on the responsibility of us adults to evaluate who we are and what we believe from more than just a viewpoint of, “I was raised this way”.

I believe what you say here is the exception, not the rule. Catholics on this forum work hard to give a comprehensive, patristic, scriptural, logical, (and any other good kind) defense of the faith!

Yes it does, and I have no authority to interpret against Jesus and his Vicars.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Thank you for this post, I agree completely. Don’t worry though, nobody with “Catholic” in their religion field will actually listen to your eloquent explanation, as they’re too busy smugly congratulating each other on “excellent points” that serve to reinforce their belief that only their denomination holds the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong. /bitter

Oops, I’m a Catholic and my profile declares me as such, and I did read that post!
And the Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. :knight1:

 

[Publisher]

I am a Friend because the simple message of the Light Within seeking to be made known in all people…and that each of us has direct unmediated access to God through Christ without need of ritual and rites…“speaks to my condition” as no other faith tradition ever has. The message of God’s astounding grace and mercy awes me.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

I can understand this claim if the Bishop of Rome made a unilateral change to the Creed and tried to impose it on the entire Church. But that never happened. On the level of the local Latin Church, Rome was only catching up to what the REST of the Latin Catholic Churches had been doing for several hundred years already. There was no “imperialism” involved. So, what is your justification for claiming that the Bishop of Rome made an “imperious” change?

Are individual bishops of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church free to change a Creed agreed to at an Ecumenical Council of that same Church. And should a Bishop “catch up” with errant priests by imposing their change on an entire jurisdiction, without the consent of the rest of the Church? Some Orthodox call this unilateral action “moral fratricide”.

As for “imperious”, I mean no offence. I recognise that the filioque was one of a number of issues and there were errors committed on both side. Yet certainly, some bishops at that time believed Rome to be acting imperiously, for example Nicetas, the 12 C Archbishop of Nicomedia:

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office … How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sigh. I’m in a weird spot of being repelled by negative things in the Lutheran church, but trying to hold on to what I’ve been raised with…and finding I agree with much of Catholicism…but being really bothered by certain other things. It’s frustrating me. I’m in a state of profound spiritual growth…and just trying to figure out what God wants from me.

But anywho, you’re statement is pretty much correct.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

Well, have a virtual cup on me. :coffeeread:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, just the usual stuff, some doctrinal and some cultural –

• papal infallibility
• the magisterium
• perpetual virginity of Mary
• veneration of Mary that seems a little too close to worship for comfort
• intercessory prayer to saints
• overemphasis on works, underemphasis on grace
• contraception
• all of “theology of the body”
• celibate priesthood
• male-only priesthood
• confession to priests
• worst possible (immoral, irresponsible and horrible PR) response to sex scandals within the Church
• an insular culture, not accepting other Christians (not all Catholics are guilty of this, just a significant percentage… and of course it goes both ways)

That’s not necessarily an exhaustive list, just what came to mind immediately.

You might enjoy the discussion of these issues over in the Apologetics forum more. This “Non-Catholic Religions” forum always seems a bit of a wild-west shoot-out with shots being fired by Mormons, JW’s, Rastas…who knows?

 

[guanophore]

Is your new, improved version of the Creed sufficiently better that one should leave the Orthodox Catholic Church and cause a schism? Protestantism never arose in the areas of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that didn’t change the Creed. Perhaps if Rome didn’t innovate, Protestantism would have been necessary.

I have often wondered why there has not been such rampant heresy in the Eastern Church. The majority of what it has suffered doctrninally and in praxis has come from pressure from the West, such as imposing Latinzaitons on the Divine Liturgy.

I don’t think it is doctrinal development, though that is at the crux of the spawning of ecclesial communities. I think it was the merging of Church and State. Once the Bishops comflated spiritual power with temporal, the holiness was compromised. All the problems of the Reformation would have been avoided had the Bishops not held any temporal power.

People found themselves in a position to rebel against corrupt authorities, and they were longing for an authentic Christianity. They went about getting it in the wrong way, but the desire to have purity in the Church is certainly worthy of Protest.

 

[Juliebug108]

Oh, just the usual stuff, some doctrinal and some cultural –

• papal infallibility
• the magisterium
• perpetual virginity of Mary
• veneration of Mary that seems a little too close to worship for comfort
• intercessory prayer to saints
• overemphasis on works, underemphasis on grace
  -]* contraception
• all of “theology of the body”
• celibate priesthood
• male-only priesthood
• confession to priests/-]
• worst possible (immoral, irresponsible and horrible PR) response to sex scandals within the Church
• an insular culture, not accepting other Christians (not all Catholics are guilty of this, just a significant percentage… and of course it goes both ways)

That’s not necessarily an exhaustive list, just what came to mind immediately.

LoL - Our lists are pretty similar…the things I’ve left out are either not an issue for me because they are so close to what my own Lutheran denomination teaches, or because I had striking misconceptions about them until I came to CAF.

Here’s what my list looks like:

• papal infallibility
• the magisterium
• veneration of Mary that seems a little too close to worship for comfort
• intercessory prayer to saints
• worst possible (immoral, irresponsible and horrible PR) response to sex scandals within the Church
• an insular culture, not accepting other Christians (not all Catholics are guilty of this, just a significant percentage… and of course it goes both ways)

Add the following:

• congregation not being given the wine/blood during communion
• building shrines to saints and Mary (seems a lot like idolatry to me)
• love for relics (which also seems a lot like superstition and Idolatry)
• the view that un-baptised children who die end up in purgatory…
• purgatory…although this is starting to make sense to me.

This is a more complete list of the things keeping me in the Lutheran church.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[crazzeto]

LoL - Our lists are pretty similar…the things I’ve left out are either not an issue for me because they are so close to what my own Lutheran denomination teaches, or because I had striking misconceptions about them until I came to CAF.

Here’s what my list looks like:

Add the following:

• congregation not being given the wine/blood during communion
• building shrines to saints and Mary (seems a lot like idolatry to me)
• love for relics (which also seems a lot like superstition and Idolatry)
• the view that un-baptised children who die end up in purgatory…
• purgatory…although this is starting to make sense to me.

This is a more complete list of the things keeping me in the Lutheran church.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

Julie,

Would it help to know that veneration of relics was actually looked upon with disgust by idolotrous pegans like Julian the Apostate? It’s worth reading the fathers, it will give you a lot of perspective when it comes to your list.

 

[Publisher]

It’s not “purgatory” it’s “limbo” as I understand.

 

[Augustus24]

One word: Entertainment.

 

[crazzeto]

It’s not “purgatory” it’s “limbo” as I understand.

No, there is no doctrinal teaching with regard to where unbaptised children go hence the midevil terminology of “limbo”. It was a way of expressing “I don’t know”. The most commonly held view is they go to heaven despite not being baptised today, but again you can’t rely on this as a doctrinal teaching. If one is being careful and honest about the matter, then “I don’t know” or “limbo” is the best answer.

 

[Publisher]

No, there is no doctrinal teaching with regard to where unbaptised children go hence the midevil terminology of “limbo”. It was a way of expressing “I don’t know”. The most commonly held view is they go to heaven despite not being baptised today, but again you can’t rely on this as a doctrinal teaching. If one is being careful and honest about the matter, then “I don’t know” or “limbo” is the best answer.

This must be a fairly recent “change” in Catholic thought on the subject then I assume?

It was “taught” in the past but no longer a “hard line position” by Catholics?

 

[crazzeto]

This must be a fairly recent “change” in Catholic thought on the subject then I assume?

It was “taught” in the past but no longer a “hard line position” by Catholics?

No, actually that was the midevil terminology, however over time “limbo” evolved from a expression of “I don’t know” into a beleif that it was a “place” or “state” like purgatory. When the pontiff struck down limbo in this context, there was a general reawakening to what it really means.

The only “change” is that we can say in a more formal doctrinal sense that limbo does not exist as a place or state. There is only Heaven, Purgatory or Hell… The only two eternal states are heaven & hell, purgatory will be cast away when all things come to completion.

 

[mardukm]

Are individual bishops of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church free to change a Creed agreed to at an Ecumenical Council of that same Church. And should a Bishop “catch up” with errant priests by imposing their change on an entire jurisdiction, without the consent of the rest of the Church? Some Orthodox call this unilateral action “moral fratricide”.

• Well, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, local Churches professed their local Creeds, and there were some slight textual variations in local Creeds, but everyone recognized that the Faith remained the same.
• Among the OO, the Armenian Apostolic Church has a different text for their Creed, but all OO recognize that the Armenian Creed, despite the different text, represents the EXACT SAME FAITH.
• In the Coptic Orthodox Church, during certain liturgical seasons, some clauses are left out when the Creed is professed. This is a LOCAL praxis, and the fact is that the FAITH of the COC has not changed despite the variation.
• When did the EO become SO legalistic, that they cannot see the greater value of the Faith over local expressions of Faith? When did the EO become SO legalistic that they are willing to break the unity of the Church over a variation in text.

This goes back to my original question - do YOU know what the filioque is intended to teach? If you do know, please explain for us how the teaching of filioque does NOT represent the same FAITH that every other Church professes?

As for “imperious”, I mean no offence. I recognise that the filioque was one of a number of issues and there were errors committed on both side. Yet certainly, some bishops at that time believed Rome to be acting imperiously, for example Nicetas, the 12 C Archbishop of Nicomedia:

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office … How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.’

May I ask a question - what is the highlighted portion above referring to?

Blessings,
Marduk