Why Be Protestant?

[Randy_Carson]

Add the following:

• congregation not being given the wine/blood during communion

I receive the Eucharist under both species at every mass I attend and have for 30 years in a large number of states and countries.

• love for relics (which also seems a lot like superstition and Idolatry)

Maybe this will help:

The Use of Relics Proved from the Bible

Although many non-Catholic Christians object to the use of relics, it is important to keep in mind what the Church says about relics. The Church does not say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.

The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life:

2 Kings 13:20-21
So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.
This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). Even more interesting is the evidence of “second-class” relics of Paul:

Acts 19:11-12
"And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them"
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are?

In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Finally, let’s consider a passage from an ancient document known as “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” which illustrates the reverence that the earliest Christians had for the relics of their fallen comrades.

CHAPTER 18 – The Christians take the ashes.

1 When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. 2 Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. 3 There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested,1 and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be.

1 This is almost a technical term for martyrdom, cf. Ignatius’s epistle to Polycarp 1:3.

Polycarp was martyred ca. 155 AD. Since some anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church did not exist before the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, this account of Polycarp’s death includes an early example of the veneration of the bones of the Christian Church in accordance with the scriptures long before the Catholic Church “allegedly” even existed!

• the view that un-baptised children who die end up in purgatory…

Perhaps you meant Limbo, but Limbo is no longer recognized. It was a theological speculation that has been abandoned.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

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

I hope your list just got smaller.

 

[Randy_Carson]

sex scandal

Julie-

Is your concern that the pedophile scandal happened at all or that the Church mishandled it from a public relations perspective?

 

[qOcOp]

Julie-

Is your concern that the pedophile scandal happened at all or that the Church mishandled it from a public relations perspective?

Scandal can never be a valid reason for why a person would leave or not join a Church. If it was no one would have joined Christ’s Church after Judas betrayal, or Peters denial of Christ, or when 11 of His apostles completely vanished during Christ’s Passion, or when Paul became an Apostle even though he was responsible for the stoning of the first Christian martyr Saint Stephen and killing other Christians. No no I think Christ’s Church will always be attacked by some sort of scandal since it poses the greatest obstical to the devil and his work.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

What history are you reading? I would think a review of the writings of the Early Church Fathers would present an overwhelmingly Catholic view of the early Church and its beliefs, eh?

Yes, this my point exactly; most of what is popularly understood as “THE Early Church Fathers” consists of a highly selective collection of primarily Latinate writers (but with some Byzantine writers to be sure). People then extrapolate the selected views of a few in the West (and certainly almost no one outside the Roman Empire) and set them up as some sort of totalizing universal belief that is assumed to have existed always in all places prior to 1056. That’s a huge and potentially deceptive distortion, in my view.

If you are really interested in such history, a good place to start would be Philip Jenkins The Lost History of Christianity. Jenkins also wrote The New Anti-Catholicism, so I don’t think anyone could claim that he is not sympathetic to the Catholic viewpoint. One could also start by reading (just as an example) the works of Aphrahat, an Eastern Christian, not considered a schismatic or heretic in the West, but someone whose writings present a very different flavor of 3rd-4th cen. Christianity outside of the Roman Empire.

True to a large extent. But you have to remember, Dave, that a lot of posters here are relatively new to the world of apologetics. Sometimes the “eager beavers” make me cringe, too, but it’s a learning process. Fair enough?

I guess my frustration is when one points out to certain posters that, for example, they’ve entirely misunderstood Luther’s conception of Sola Scriptura, or that the early church existed well beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire, they don’t seem to want to be engaged in a learning process. The enterprise comes across more as not wanting to have to adjust what they’ve been told by their favorite apologists to take new information into account. Just my observation and experience.

But the real point of my post was that in my view, the Catholic Church has historically had a very difficult time reforming itself. People seem to think that Martin Luther simply popped out of nowhere to begin complaining about abuses. However, when one reads the Carmina Burana, you realize that people in Germany had been complaining about church/clerical corruption for over 300 years. That’s a long time to complain and have nothing happen.

The current state of Protestantism (XX,000 distinct denominations and growing) is a sad indictment of Protestantisms understanding of the nature of the Church, IMHO.

In my view, once you move beyond this highly selective Western canon of Patristics the amount of diversity that has always existed in Christianity comes into greater focus. This makes the diversity found within Protestantism less troublesome–at least to me. But not to say that it’s all good either.

Any objective reading of history should be sufficient to convince a neutral reader that the Church has been and continues to fulfill its mission to “make disciples of all nations.”

To me, it’s a pretty mixed bag. And much work has also been done outside the bounds of the Roman Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And much work has also been done outside the bounds of the Roman Church.

Beginning when?

I’m not disputing…just seeking clarification.

And just so I understand where you’re coming from, what is your church affiliation?

 

[Juliebug108]

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.

Hmmm…nope…the fact that pagans looked down on that doesn’t help at all…Just like it wouldn’t help if Muslims or Hindus were looking down on it. I’m not concerned with with the opinions of non-Christians when it comes to judgments against anything within the Christianity because their perspective is already skewed. Just because the pagans were disgusted by it doesn’t mean that I, as a Christian, should approve of it.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[Juliebug108]

Julie-

Is your concern that the pedophile scandal happened at all or that the Church mishandled it from a public relations perspective?

Well, it’s concerning to know that it happened at all, especially to the degree that it happened. I’m more concerned with how horribly it was handled. It has nothing to do with PR. It has to do with failing to remove dangerous priests, and instead shuffling them around to new positions. They had a responsibility to protect, and they clearly dropped the ball. But anywho, I don’t want to come off as bashing or stirring the pot. It’s a concern that I share with many Catholics whom I’m very close to, so I think that makes it a valid concern.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[Juliebug108]

Scandal can never be a valid reason for why a person would leave or not join a Church. If it was no one would have joined Christ’s Church after Judas betrayal, or Peters denial of Christ, or when 11 of His apostles completely vanished during Christ’s Passion, or when Paul became an Apostle even though he was responsible for the stoning of the first Christian martyr Saint Stephen and killing other Christians. No no I think Christ’s Church will always be attacked by some sort of scandal since it poses the greatest obstical to the devil and his work.

You seem to be completely minimizing the horrendous abuse that happened. I’m not quite sure how to take your statement. When the people in charge fail to protect children from dangerous clergy and sex abuse, that’s ***incredibly ***serious.

 

[Cat]

You seem to be completely minimizing the horrendous abuse that happened. I’m not quite sure how to take your statement. When the people in charge fail to protect children from dangerous clergy and sex abuse, that’s ***incredibly ***serious.

I tend to agree with this. The media has had a field day with this, exaggerating the story to demonize the Catholic Church. But there have been cases of confirmed abuse and confirmed protection of abusers.

This kind of thing causes people to lose their trust in the Church, specifically in her human leaders.

What I think is important for people to know, though, is that there are also such cases in Protestant churches. They have been hushed up throughout the years. In many Protestant churches, when a pastor or other leader is caught in a sin, he/she is simply kicked out of that church and denomination. There is a doctrine in many evangelical churches that Christians should not bring their grievances to a secular court, so often the “victims” were encouraged to simply let it go and not report it.

No church is “clean,” IMO.

 

[Juliebug108]

I receive the Eucharist under both species at every mass I attend and have for 30 years in a large number of states and countries.

Well I’m a little confused because in a thread on the apologetic forum, people were discussing that the chalice is only offered to the congregation during special occasions. Also, I watch daily Mass on EWTN quite often and have noticed that the communicants only receive the body of Christ…

What is the norm?

The Use of Relics Proved from the Bible

Although many non-Catholic Christians object to the use of relics, it is important to keep in mind what the Church says about relics. The Church does not say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.

My issue is not so much on what the church teaches, but rather with what I have witnessed Catholics practicing. I’ve seen people praying to relics.
I’ve also known people to create shrines for relics…and I’ve also known people to be quite superstitious about them. It’s almost like a rabbit’s foot on steroids, so to speak. It troubles me. The scripture passages that you provided me with recognize that relics can have miracles associated with them…but the Bible doesn’t go on to say that people prayed to those relics, built shrines to those relics, or carried those relics around for protection or luck.

Perhaps you meant Limbo, but Limbo is no longer recognized. It was a theological speculation that has been abandoned.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

OK there are a few things that I’m confused about in the following excerpts from the link you provided me:

The century of a teaching’s promulgation is not an argument for or against it. An old teaching is not necessarily truer for being old, and a new teaching is not necessarily truer for being new.

**Catechisms are not infallible documents. The Roman Catechism may have erred on the fate of unbaptized infants, and it may be that the new catechism, which offers no particular solution but just a generalized hope, is nevertheless closer to the right answer. **It might be better to go with the “novel” teaching, which is more vague, and set aside the “traditional” teaching, which, some say, suggests a deficiency in God’s mercy.

The Catholic church often use the argument of “sacred tradition” to defend “century old” practices or beliefs that are not found in the Bible. How is it determined which traditions or beliefs are valid and which are not?

Also, who decides what is included in the catechism? How is it that these can be fallible? Aren’t catechisms based upon doctrine/dogma…which is defined by the Pope and Bishops…who are infallible in the determinations of doctrine?

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[SteveVH]

You seem to be completely minimizing the horrendous abuse that happened. I’m not quite sure how to take your statement. When the people in charge fail to protect children from dangerous clergy and sex abuse, that’s ***incredibly ***serious.

That’s not the message I got from this post. What he is saying is that there have been scandals in the Church from the beginning, but those scandals do not reflect the approval or the teaching of the Church. We are a divine institution made up of sinners.

This in no way lets the perpetrators of these crimes off the hook or minimizes their actions. You are correct. It is incredibly serious and it should be treated in that manner. The point is, you do not leave the truth based upon those who do not practice it. The truth remains and the Church possesses that truth.

 

[Juliebug108]

I tend to agree with this. The media has had a field day with this, exaggerating the story to demonize the Catholic Church. But there have been cases of confirmed abuse and confirmed protection of abusers.

This kind of thing causes people to lose their trust in the Church, specifically in her human leaders.

What I think is important for people to know, though, is that there are also such cases in Protestant churches. They have been hushed up throughout the years. In many Protestant churches, when a pastor or other leader is caught in a sin, he/she is simply kicked out of that church and denomination. There is a doctrine in many evangelical churches that Christians should not bring their grievances to a secular court, so often the “victims” were encouraged to simply let it go and not report it.

No church is “clean,” IMO.

I agree with much of what you said. It’s just something that concerns me. It’s not going to be the deciding factor on whether or not I convert to Catholicism, but it is something that I’m going to keep in mind. One thing that might be positive from all of this is that the extensive media coverage has hopefully encouraged the CC (and protestant churches) to handle sex abuse of minors in a far better manner. I was just a little put off by the previous posters apparent minimizing of the issue…

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[qOcOp]

You seem to be completely minimizing the horrendous abuse that happened. I’m not quite sure how to take your statement. When the people in charge fail to protect children from dangerous clergy and sex abuse, that’s ***incredibly ***serious.

I’m not minimizing anything. I too see the actions of these officials as being horrendous; however, I will not let these men’s actions lead me to think irrationally. It’s one thing to be angry at the actions of these men who abused their position of authority and hurt innocent people, and another to be angry at the Church which is Christ’s Mystical Body. Everyone should keep in mind that there are two victims of this scandal 1) The innocent children and 2) Christs Church.

Christ’s Church is (until the end of the world) going through its very own Passion. It will be beaten, betrayed, spat on and crucified by the very people who claim to be followers of it. It will resemble the same Passion our Lord went through and It will try the very faith of all Catholics as it did to the apostles when Christ went through His. Yet it will also emerge triumphant just like Christ did so lets not lose sight of this!

 

[Cat]

That’s not the message I got from this post. What he is saying is that there have been scandals in the Church from the beginning, but those scandals do not reflect the approval or the teaching of the Church. We are a divine institution made up of sinners.

This in no way lets the perpetrators of these crimes off the hook or minimizes their actions. You are correct. It is incredibly serious and it should be treated in that manner. The point is, you do not leave the truth based upon those who do not practice it. The truth remains and the Church possesses that truth.

One of the differences in the year 2011 compared to “the beginning” is that so much information about the scandals is out there and easily accessible by all the common people. Because of this, the world is a much smaller place and all of us feel a kinship (and possibly HAVE a kinship!) with people in the next city, state, country–even on the other side of the world.

In the past, information travelled so slowly, and many people were illiterate and didn’t really understand what exactly was happening. Also, many people never left their place of birth, and most people lived and died knowing a very small circle of people.

But today, there is nothing hidden. Priests who committed their sins back in the 1950s and 1960s are now public figures, as their stories were ferretted out by reporters using modern methods of research, and distributed to the entire world using not only print and film media, but also online.

So the scandal of today is REAL to us. It’s not just a story that the noblemen are discussing, and those of us in the kitchen are hearing snatches about and not really understanding. I’m guessing that all of us here on CAF probably can find a connection to someone who was involved in the sex scandals of the Catholic Church. That’s the way our world is today. If we’re going to sin, we have to accept that eventually, everyone will know about it.

Again, though, I would like to bring this thread BACK to the topic of “Why Be Protestant?” I want to repeat what I have said several times before–that Protestant churches and leaders have been involved in sex scandals, too, but these stories have not been as widely circulated and drooled over by a scandal-hungry public.

I think, though, that what we have to keep in mind is that priests stand in persona Christae, and so it is absolutely shocking to think of Jesus preying on little innocent boys and teenaged boys. But Protestant pastors do NOT claim to stand in personae Christae–they are just regular men and women who are called to preach and shepherd their congregations.

This is a very important difference between Catholic and Protestant clergy, and perhaps explains why people are leaving the Catholic Church to become Protestant.

It is not shocking at all when a regular human being sins–we expect it and since we all sin, we are more ready to forgive others like us who sin. But it is shocking when Jesus sins. In fact, it is not possible, and that’s why the priests are held to a much higher standard than Protestant pastors, and perhaps why people reject the Catholic Church when a priest sins against children–the idea of Jesus sinning causes our trust in the Catholic Church to be utterly and totally destroyed. We feel that if the Church had any “power” at all, this power would be transmitted to the priests who stand as Jesus, and would prevent them from committing at least the more heinous and despicable sins of fornication, pedophilia and homosexuality.

I have a theory that one reason why the Protestant Reformation occurred is in response to the sins of these priests in the 20th Century. God KNEW that these priests would commit these awful sins against children, teenagers, and women, and that people would leave the Church over it. So in His mercy, He provided an alternative for Christians–“lesser” churches that contained enough of the Gospel to make sure that people continued to be baptized and believe in Jesus. These churches, which we know as Protestant churches, were allowed to develop back in the 15th Century because God knew that one day, Christians would flee the True Church and seek out a place of refuge where they could still worship Jesus.

Of course, none of this was foreseen by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all of the other Reformers. But God knew what was coming, and he allowed these churches to develop because He KNEW that the sin of the Catholic priests would send many thousands fleeing the Catholic Church, and in His mercy and love, He wanted these people to have a place to go. Christians cannot survive outside of the Church–they are easy prey for wolves who prowl about to steal their souls. So God provided a place–the Protestant churches.

And I believe this is one reason why people become Protestant–they are seeking a refuge from a Church that has, in some way, hurt them to a point where they cannot return because they no longer have trust in the Catholic Church.

This just goes to show how serious our sin is–God has allowed a split in the Church because of our sin. How tragic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I’m a little confused because in a thread on the apologetic forum, people were discussing that the chalice is only offered to the congregation during special occasions. Also, I watch daily Mass on EWTN quite often and have noticed that the communicants only receive the body of Christ…

What is the norm?

The norm is for the congregation to receive our Lord under both species every Sunday.

That having been said, it MAY be that a bishop somewhere has directed differently in his diocese…maybe. As far as EWTN goes, it could be the camera angle…dunno.

At any rate, you might be relieved to know that Jesus is fully present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - under both species, so even if you only receive the host, you still receive his blood, etc.

My issue is not so much on what the church teaches, but rather with what I have witnessed Catholics practicing. I’ve seen people praying to relics.

Well, talking to a saint is perfectly acceptable. Worship of a saint is not. If the presence of a relic inspires someone to petition that saint for certain needs, there is no problem. Protestants, for example, will often choose to talk to God in the presence of a Bible that they have open before them during their “quiet time”. Are they praying “to” the book? Talking “to” a bit of bone or cloth would be just as silly.

I’ve also known people to create shrines for relics…

A legitimate form of honoring the dead who have won the crown we all hope to receive.

and I’ve also known people to be quite superstitious about them.

A bad thing.

It’s almost like a rabbit’s foot on steroids, so to speak. It troubles me.

Me, too. Some people should not have relics, I guess.

The scripture passages that you provided me with recognize that relics can have miracles associated with them…but the Bible doesn’t go on to say that people prayed to those relics, built shrines to those relics, or carried those relics around for protection or luck.

Actually, I think the OT does give examples of the bones of Jacob being gathered up to be taken to the promised land, etc. I think they were probably re-buried with honor and not thrown in just any hole in the ground. However, I agree with the essence of your sentiments.

So, here’s the thing: reverence for the relics of saints is normal and legitimate. Misuse and misunderstanding are not good. Since you now know that relics are not instrinsically bad, you could honor them properly and pray for those who do not.

OK there are a few things that I’m confused about in the following excerpts from the link you provided me:

The Catholic church often use the argument of “sacred tradition” to defend “century old” practices or beliefs that are not found in the Bible. How is it determined which traditions or beliefs are valid and which are not?

Ah…if I understand the question, then I would say that there is a difference between tradition (small “t”) and Tradition (large “T”). Tradition is the handing on of the Word of God received from God through the Apostles whereas tradition can be something like bingo on Wednesday nights.

To make matters even more confusing, the Church refers to Sacred Tradition which includes both Scripture and Tradition. “Tradition” is a sub-set of Sacred Tradition.

We need to talk more on this, don’t we?

Also, who decides what is included in the catechism?

A committee, probably.

How is it that these can be fallible?

The Catechism is not inerrant (only people can be infallible).

Aren’t catechisms based upon doctrine/dogma…which is defined by the Pope and Bishops…who are infallible in the determinations of doctrine?

Yes, a catechism is an organized collection of teaching of the church. The Pope is individually infallible when he teaches formally on matters of faith and morals. Big subject, I know. The Bishops are infallible when they teach in union with the Bishop of Rome (Pope). However, they are not individually infallible apart from their communion with Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a theory that one reason why the Protestant Reformation occurred is in response to the sins of these priests in the 20th Century. God KNEW that these priests would commit these awful sins against children, teenagers, and women, and that people would leave the Church over it. So in His mercy, He provided an alternative for Christians–“lesser” churches that contained enough of the Gospel to make sure that people continued to be baptized and believe in Jesus. These churches, which we know as Protestant churches, were allowed to develop back in the 15th Century because God knew that one day, Christians would flee the True Church and seek out a place of refuge where they could still worship Jesus.

Cat-

Are you saying that God allowed Protestantism to divide the body of Christ, to create scandal in the eyes of non-believers and skeptics who may be lost for eternity as a result, and to separate hundreds of millions of His people from the sacraments He gave us as means of receiving grace, just so a relatively small number of people who leave the Church over the pedophile issue could “still worship Jesus”?

Wow.

That concept requires a lot more thought. And not by me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, who decides what is included in the catechism? How is it that these can be fallible? Aren’t catechisms based upon doctrine/dogma…which is defined by the Pope and Bishops…who are infallible in the determinations of doctrine?

A few more thoughts on the Catechism from something I posted last year:

The Catechism – 2,000 Years of Greatest Hits

Imagine that you go to church one Sunday and hear a really good sermon by the pastor of your church. You are so impressed with his talk that you call the church office on Monday to get a copy of his notes. You’re in luck…it turns out that the tape ministry department has just completed duplicating the sermon, and you can stop by to get a copy to listen to while you’re driving. Delighted, you drive over and buy a copy and pick up the notes…

*The following Sunday, the same thing happens. And the next. And the next. After awhile you have a notebook full of your pastor’s talks and a tape library of all your favorites to match. Yes, sir…you’ve learned a lot from this gifted man of God…you’re really being fed in this church. *

The Catechism is sorta like that except that it represents the “Greatest Hits” of the past 2,000 years.

 

[Cat]

Cat-

Are you saying that God allowed Protestantism to divide the body of Christ, to create scandal in the eyes of non-believers and skeptics who may be lost for eternity as a result, and to separate hundreds of millions of His people from the sacraments He gave us as means of receiving grace, just so a relatively small number of people who leave the Church over the pedophile issue could “still worship Jesus”?

Wow.

That concept requires a lot more thought. And not by me.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

We must not underestimate the seriousness of sin. The consequences are horrendous.

Also, we must not underestimate the importance of the souls of the “relatively small number of people who leave the church over the pedophile issue.”

If you knew nothing about Christianity, and someone told you that God Himself would allow Himself to leave the splendors of heaven and be incarnate as a human being, be treated like garbage most of his life, and then die a torturous death at the hands of criminals, all so that a percentage of earth’s people could eventually be redeemed–now honestly, doesn’t that sound way around the bend? Crazy?

But that’s what God did.

So who are we to say that His plan to allow Protestantism for the sake of those hurt by the Catholic Church (and remember, that’s just my theory) is crazy?

God doesn’t seem to do things the way we think He should. Little children die of cancer while criminals live long, healthy lives. That doesn’t make sense. Abortion continues in this nation after nearly 40 years of work and prayer by Christians–that doesn’t make sense.

It’s just my theory, but it covers the facts, as Sherlock Holmes would say.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I left the CC because I was hungry for the Scriptures. My Baptist brethren taught me to read and pray the Scriptures - something that was not being taught in Latin parishes at the time.

For some, the Catholics themselves keep them out. I'll be honest, I don't have a problem with Catholicism. There are a few little details that, though theologically significant, are irrelevant to the topic of salvation. 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.

I think this is a result of ignorance, really. Catholics that say such things have never sojourned in a Protestant community, and have a very superficial view of their spiritual experience -perhaps gleaned from television.

I was a much better Christian when I sojourned among Protestants than I had ever been raised “Catholic”. I read my Scriptures daily, was active in a personal prayer life, and was in fellowship almost every day of the week. I was earnestly seeking God and wanted to live the life He had prepared for me from before the beginning of time.

Don't get me wrong, having strong faith is important. But failing to treat brothers and sisters in Christ as family will only serve to push them away.

Ignorance really does drive wedges. We seem to tend toward prejudice and bigotry as human beings. I just watched a movie about the crusades, and found it curious that both the Muslims and the Christians referred to one another as “infidels”.

That said, Protestantism isn’t really easier. The people that don’t care just go through the motions, just like Catholics that don’t care, and those who are devout hold to a strict personal discipline, just like devout Catholics.

I would take a devout Protestant over a cafeterial Catholic every day of the week.

The biggest reason someone devout would be Protestant is because they came to the conclusion, through the study of the Bible and history, that the catholic church became broken at some point and that the best thing for the church was to prune the rotting branches from the vine.

This was my thinking at one time also. However, I came to realize that people are always “broken”, and that the Church, like Christ, is incarnational. She has Divine elements, as Christ is her Head, and the HS is her soul, and she has human members, just as Jesus did. The human part of her is breakable, but not the divine. I also realized that it is not the duty of man to uproot what he perceives as “weeds among the wheat”, but reserved for the angels, and it is also not the duty of man to “prune the rotting branches”. When man takes upon himself the perogatives of God, it alwasy causes more problems.

Usually, I hear people say that the rise of the bishop of Rome from equal to ruler of the church was the moment corruption was allowed in. Because of beliefs like that, they pick Protestantism.

I understand this, though I don’t agree with it. Jesus charge Peter with the duty to feed and care for His flock. This is a duty that was given singularly to Peter (though in unity with the other Apostles, of course). He was also very clear that the one who was “leader” should be the SERVANT of all (not lord it over others). I don’t think the problem is that Jesus gave Peter this gift and responsibility, but there are many bishops who have failed to fulfill their office as Christ directed. It is like having a bad president, though. It does not invalidate the office.

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

I am not really sure what this means. I think that God has revealed His truth to man, and sent the HS to guard and protect that revealed truth. I dont think God’s revelation is a matter of interpretation. We either accept what He revealed, or we take the stance of Pilate - “What is Truth”?

 

[Timonator348]

Personally, I have no idea! I attended a Protestant (Presbyterian) church growing up and could tell it seemed empty and baseless and something was just “off”. I know from talking to Protestant friends though it seems mostly invincible ingnorance and unwillingness to face that something they learned from their parents about Catholicism may not be true. There’s also the feel good Christianity factor. The Mega churches or relative “cool” churches make people who have a hard time examining their conscience and being good enough to be Catholic feel good about themselves and regardless of their sinful behavior like they are still good Christians.