Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[catharina]

i already know that. That info can be gleaned from Chrisianity 101…

I just think that God allowed Protestantism for the aforementioned reasons (explained in previous posts of mine)… Basically, i feel he wanted people to realize more fully their need for Him and His Word/Truth, as found in the Church… which need they would feel all the more in a world that is … not “with” Him that way. the world is mostly Protestant and so, there is more pain and suffering as a consequence of the sin that Protestantism brings… (OSAS )… Pain and suffering lead one to Christ… or back to Christ… or to closer union with Christ…

The goodness of nutrition need not be taught through starvation.

Most of the nation might be Protestant.
Most of the world is NOT Protestant.

(Also from Christianity 101.)

 

[distracted]

The goodness of nutrition need not be taught through starvation.

Most of the nation might be Protestant.
Most of the world is NOT Protestant.

(Also from Christianity 101.)

i meant to say that most of the world is NOT Catholic…

Even Catholics aren’t Catholic these days (birth control, voting for pro-death candidates, etc…)

 

[sambos671]

Catholics (including hierarchy) who did not leave the Church did not break with the Church. Those people who did leave the Church are stuck with the singularity of their decisions. They made their own choices.

When your choice is to support corruptions by being told things that were not true. (paying money will get you family out of purgatory) that you had to climb so many stairs in rome to recieve more oportunities to relieve family from suffering. Suport priest who frequent houses of ilrepute. Your starving but you financially support priest who are well fed and live like kings. What choices do you think you would make? Remember most people were considered too ignorant to understand spiritual truths apart from what certain corrupt preist told them that Scriptures (especially in France) were held from them. The invention of the printing press brought Jesus’ words to them in a language they understood (like german not latin). And they could weigh things themselves. They just wanted to follow God and had been held back. I’m sorry the church is not lacking its part in the reformation.

 

[distracted]

When your choice is to support corruptions by being told things that were not true. (paying money will get you family out of purgatory)

It is not the spending of $ that gets people through Purg… It is the sacrifice that goes with that that does it. I am sick of hearing Protestants say that Indulgences were “sold”. Well, mabye there were a few corrupt Church people doing that. There are alwys those… but not all Church people were corrupting Indulgences… and yet people keep on criticizing this idea of Indulgences… which is actually a beautiful teaching and very powerful (for expiation, etc…) sin does needto be expiated. What better way than to sacrifice what people generally seem to love the most- money

Ithat you had to climb so many stairs in rome to recieve more oportunities to relieve family from suffering.

same thing…

Suport priest who frequent houses of ilrepute.

I’ve been Catholic all my life and this is the worst time in history for sin… yet i have never seen or heard of a priest who does this. I am sure there are those who do it and no one ever knows about it. But its the same old thing: you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater…

Your starving but you financially support priest who are well fed and live like kings.

Now this one, i can kinda relate to… (but won’t comment further… running out of time on this computer)…

 

[sambos671]

It is not the spending of $ that gets people through Purg… It is the sacrifice that goes with that that does it. I am sick of hearing Protestants say that Indulgences were “sold”. Well, mabye there were a few corrupt Church people doing that. There are alwys those… but not all Church people were corrupting Indulgences… and yet people keep on criticizing this idea of Indulgences… which is actually a beautiful teaching and very powerful (for expiation, etc…) sin does needto be expiated. What better way than to sacrifice what people generally seem to love the most- money

same thing…

 

[Melchior]

Well, it is both! Rebellion is never right. All the Reformers were Catholic,and instead of renewing the Church in holiness, they went out to form their own church.

True - but it did come about because of a failure of the church and the current Protestants can hardly be blamed for that.

Btw, I noticed you are a student of Shorin Ryu. Excellent style. My family and I are students of Uechi Ryu another Okinawan style.

Mel

 

[adrift]

When your choice is to support corruptions by being told things that were not true. (paying money will get you family out of purgatory) that you had to climb so many stairs in rome to recieve more oportunities to relieve family from suffering. Suport priest who frequent houses of ilrepute. Your starving but you financially support priest who are well fed and live like kings. What choices do you think you would make? Remember most people were considered too ignorant to understand spiritual truths apart from what certain corrupt preist told them that Scriptures (especially in France) were held from them. The invention of the printing press brought Jesus’ words to them in a language they understood (like german not latin). And they could weigh things themselves. They just wanted to follow God and had been held back. I’m sorry the church is not lacking its part in the reformation.

You have many unsubstantiated charges. You have a very confused history.
Did you miss this?

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.

 

[sambos671]

You have many unsubstantiated charges. You have a very confused history.
Did you miss this?

Actually, I don’t have a confused history. I have an objective one. I’m sorry but the Catholic encylopedia is not objective. This quote is from Richard Hooker at Washington State University :

. The history of medieval Catholic doctrine is in many ways an attempt to find ways to present exterior signs for the interior state of the individual believer. Repentance was no exception to this. So in order for an individual to demonstrate that he or she is truly repentant and not just mouthing the words, the concept of “temporal punishment” was invented. In other words, the sinner needed to undergo some punishment or task; the sin would not be expiated until this was accomplished. Part of this temporal punishment involved doing “good works,” that is, deeds that are charitable such as feeding the poor or caring for the sick. A truly repentant person would show that repentance by behaving in the most charitable ways towards fellow human beings… Now, here we’ll take a short diversion from church history to economic history. In the latter centuries of the Middle Ages, the Europeans discovered mercantilism in a big way…This booming mercantile economy suddenly changed the way people traded things. For the most part, trade in Europe involved barter for most of the Middle Ages: individual goods were traded for other individual goods…In a money economy, then, money can be substituted for any object whatsoever…Indulgences were originally created by the church for one and only one reason: to collect money… In the spiritual life of sinners, indulgences function exactly the same way money functions in their economic life. Here’s the logic: since the expiation of sin involves temporal punishment and this temporal punishment involves the doing of good works, why not substitute someone else’s good works for the good works you’re required to do? Why not pay someone else to do the good works demanded of you as temporal punishment?..Proof of this substitution was in the indulgence itself, which was a piece of paper, like a piece of money or a check, that certified that the good works of the clergy had paid off the “good works debt” of the individual believer…The first hint of things to come were the complaints from Northern Renaissance thinkers such as Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus. Inspired in part by the spectacle of selling both indulgences and church offices, these two argued for a return to a simple church that was based primarily on faith and charity… The church, however, was forced to sit up and listen when Martin Luther (1483-1546) attacked the practice in his famous 95 Theses. He did not, however, stop with indulgences, but attacked the entire logic behind “good works.” In part responding the the humanism of Erasmus, Luther rejected any exterior qualities of an individual as being relevant to that individual’s relationship to God.

 

[adrift]

Actually, I don’t have a confused history. I have an objective one. I’m sorry but the Catholic encylopedia is not objective. This quote is from Richard Hooker at Washington State University :

You are hardly objective. Richard Hooker’s comment “concept of “temporal punishment” was invented.” shows his bigotry. Your objectivity is shown by the fact I didn’t quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Protestant propaganda has never been objective.

What you have wrote shows a lack of objectivity. You would be hard press to present a neutral source to prove what you wrote. There will always be aberrant behavior but that does not say it is the norm that you try to present. Were and are there bad people in all walks of life? The answer is obvious. Do you know history or have you been mislead by biased and nonobjective accounts that to is an obvious yes.

 

[sambos671]

You are hardly objective. Richard Hooker’s comment “concept of “temporal punishment” was invented.” shows his bigotry. Your objectivity is shown by the fact I didn’t quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Protestant propaganda has never been objective.

What you have wrote shows a lack of objectivity. You would be hard press to present a neutral source to prove what you wrote. There will always be aberrant behavior but that does not say it is the norm that you try to present. Were and are there bad people in all walks of life? The answer is obvious. Do you know history or have you been mislead by biased and nonobjective accounts that to is an obvious yes.

I never said it was the norm or even the majority of the Catholic world at that time. But I’m arguing against your point which was it didn’t happen very often and then only by very few. I believe it was more a problem (a significant problem of its day) than you’re giving it. And as far as being objective I went to a secular source. Not a protestant bible college like Bob Jones University, I went to a state university to gather the quote which doesn’t have a stake in Protestantism or Catholicism. You want to blow off the actual issue of the day. Thats like a Modern Jew saying Jesus was only speaking to the minority of Pharisees that were abusing the Law. When the whole temple system was showing problems. Sure there were pharisees that followed Jesus and disagreed with the Sanhedren. But to blow it off would not be accurate. Which you are trying to do. Your anger is obvious. I am not angry so who is more objective? I call a spade a spade.

 

[adrift]

I never said it was the norm or even the majority of the Catholic world at that time. But I’m arguing against your point which was it didn’t happen very often and then only by very few. I believe it was more a problem (a significant problem of its day) than you’re giving it. And as far as being objective I went to a secular source. Not a protestant bible college like Bob Jones University, I went to a state university to gather the quote which doesn’t have a stake in Protestantism or Catholicism. You want to blow off the actual issue of the day. Thats like a Modern Jew saying Jesus was only speaking to the minority of Pharisees that were abusing the Law. When the whole temple system was showing problems. Sure there were pharisees that followed Jesus and disagreed with the Sanhedren. But to blow it off would not be accurate. Which you are trying to do. Your anger is obvious. I am not angry so who is more objective? I call a spade a spade.

Your source is not unbiased just because he teaches at a state university does not show that he isn’t unbiased. You have not shown that it was true. My contention with you was over selling of indulgences. This propaganda was put forth by protestants and was not true. I explained to you why it wasn’t but you not being very objective dismissed what I said. Your comments do not seem to be without anger. You may say that I am angry but there is not way you can say that which makes you again not objective. You make charges against priest on your believes not any objective source.

 

[sambos671]

Your source is not unbiased just because he teaches at a state university does not show that he isn’t unbiased. You have not shown that it was true. My contention with you was over selling of indulgences. This propaganda was put forth by protestants and was not true. I explained to you why it wasn’t but you not being very objective dismissed what I said. Your comments do not seem to be without anger. You may say that I am angry but there is not way you can say that which makes you again not objective. You make charges against priest on your believes not any objective source.

You explained using a Catholic source. How is that anymore objective? Its not. And You still have to show that my source is less accurate than yours. My contention is that you’re underselling indulgences. My charges against preist are not my own. They are historically documented. BTW FYI an objective source does not necissarily agree with your perpective. And as far as noting that you seemed angry can be done by the “voice” of your writing which it seems to me. I can say I believe that you are angry.

 

[jmcrae]

Indulgences have been around since the time of Moses.

The punishment for breaking the Law (death) could be remitted by sacrifice (bringing an animal that represents the sin, to the priest - a kind of confession, if you will - who would then kill the animal in place of the person - kind of like Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins), and temporal punishments (loss of family lands and property, expulsion of wives and children from the tribe) reduced or even remitted completely, by compensation - that is to say, by doing good deeds - for the person(s) who had been injured by the first instance of law-breaking, or, if the injured person was not available, then for the community at large. (ie: Zacchaeus, giving four times his profits to benefit the people that he had formerly been robbing, after having been completely forgiven his sins by Jesus.)

 

[sambos671]

Indulgences have been around since the time of Moses.

The punishment for breaking the Law (death) could be remitted by sacrifice (bringing an animal that represents the sin, to the priest - a kind of confession, if you will - who would then kill the animal in place of the person - kind of like Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins), and temporal punishments (loss of family lands and property, expulsion of wives and children from the tribe) reduced or even remitted completely, by compensation - that is to say, by doing good deeds - for the person(s) who had been injured by the first instance of law-breaking, or, if the injured person was not available, then for the community at large. (ie: Zacchaeus, giving four times his profits to benefit the people that he had formerly been robbing, after having been completely forgiven his sins by Jesus.)

You make a good point Jmcrae. However, the discussion revolves around the corruption of indulgences specifically during the time of the reformation. However, corruption of indulgences have been around at least since the time of the Judges. Especially when you look at Samuel’s foster father’s sons and also at Samuel’s sons. It was a problem then too.

 

[adrift]

You explained using a Catholic source. How is that anymore objective? Its not. And You still have to show that my source is less accurate than yours. My contention is that you’re underselling indulgences. My charges against preist are not my own. They are historically documented. BTW FYI an objective source does not necissarily agree with your perpective. And as far as noting that you seemed angry can be done by the “voice” of your writing which it seems to me. I can say I believe that you are angry.

If I want to know what a Muslim believes I go to what they write. Not to a source that “says” what they think they believe. There writings would be the facts of their belief the other would be propaganda. I have shown you why there was not selling of indulgences. There was only a perception that it was sold.

When your choice is to support corruptions by being told things that were not true. (paying money will get you family out of purgatory) that you had to climb so many stairs in rome to recieve more oportunities to relieve family from suffering. Suport priest who frequent houses of ilrepute. Your starving but you financially support priest who are well fed and live like kings.

Document these charges. Not just the money but the stairs the priest and the starving while priest lived as kings.
Objective means that you read both sides. You seem to read only one.

 

[jmcrae]

Document these charges. Not just the money but the stairs the priest and the starving while priest lived as kings.

I have only met one priest who even lived in an ordinary house, never mind living like a king. Most priests live in small apartments - a sitting room and a little bedroom - in the roof of the church where they serve, or where they are staying (if they don’t happen to serve in that parish, or if they are still in the transitional diaconate, and don’t serve any parish, yet). They have a common dining room that they all share together, and also a common recreation area with a TV set and some books that they share.

This is by contrast to the Protestant pastors I know, all of whom live in houses with their families - usually, quite large houses that have been paid for by the congregation that they serve.

Our Diocese also has an apartment building that is used to house retired priests. The Bishop also lives in that building, from what I understand.

 

[sambos671]

If I want to know what a Muslim believes I go to what they write. Not to a source that “says” what they think they believe. There writings would be the facts of their belief the other would be propaganda. I have shown you why there was not selling of indulgences. There was only a perception that it was sold.

Document these charges. Not just the money but the stairs the priest and the starving while priest lived as kings.
Objective means that you read both sides. You seem to read only one.

First of all If muslims are going around killing people and you see it and call them to task on it and they tell you they’ve never done it look at their documents would you believe them? I’m not asking what Catholics currently believe about indulgences but what they did at the time of Pope Leo X. And as far as Indulgences with regard to pergatory what about this? It’s a partial quote.

No. 2. The Bull Salvator noster of Sixtus IV.

(i)
Et ut animarum salus eo tempore potius procuretur, quo
magis aliorum egent suffragiis et quominus sibi ipsis proficere
valent, auctoritate Apostolica de thesauro ecclesiae, animabus
in purgatorio existentibus succurrere volentes quae per caritatem
ab hac luce Christo unitae decesserint, et quae dum viverent
sibi ut huiusmodi indulgentia suffragarentur meruerunt, paterno
cupientes affectu, quanto cum Deo possumus, de divina
misericordia confisi et de plenitudine potestatis, concedimus
pariter et indulgemus, ut si qui parentes amici aut caeteri
Christifideles pietate commoti pro ipsis animabus purgatorio
igni pro expiatione poenarum eiusdem secundum divinam
iustitiam expositis, durante dicto decennio pro reparatione ec*
clesiae Xanctonensis certam pecuniae quantitatem aut valorem
iuxta dictorum decani et capituli dictae ecclesiae aut nostri
collectoris ordinationem dictam ecclesiam visitando dederint,
aut per nuntios per eosdem deputandos durante dicto decennio
miserint, volumus ipsam plenariam remissionem per modum
suffragii ipsis animabus purgatorii pro quibus dictam quanti*
tatem pecuniae aut valorem persolverint ut praefertur pro

As far as the stairs in Rome I’m referring to the Scala Santa. Common knowledge.

 

[sambos671]

I have only met one priest who even lived in an ordinary house, never mind living like a king. Most priests live in small apartments - a sitting room and a little bedroom - in the roof of the church where they serve, or where they are staying (if they don’t happen to serve in that parish, or if they are still in the transitional diaconate, and don’t serve any parish, yet). They have a common dining room that they all share together, and also a common recreation area with a TV set and some books that they share.

This is by contrast to the Protestant pastors I know, all of whom live in houses with their families - usually, quite large houses that have been paid for by the congregation that they serve.

Our Diocese also has an apartment building that is used to house retired priests. The Bishop also lives in that building, from what I understand.

I’ve been to the Vatican. I’ve also met the Pronuncio of Uganda. Both were very elaborate places. The home of the Pronuncio was a mansion. Very Beautiful. Lived very well I would say. But your right most priest today have humble accomidations. However, the middle ages were a different time.

 

[sambos671]

this was the bull that sent Matin Luther on his fit:

Yeah, I can use catholic sources.

Liquet omnibus Christianae fidei cultoribus beatum Petrum
ab ipso Salvatore nostro Domino Iesu Christo Apostolorum
principem fuisse constitutum, eique ligandi atque solvendi
animas coelesti privilegio traditam esse potestatem, cum ei
dicitur, Tu es Petrus &c.
§ 1. Unde nos qui licet imparibus meritis eiusdem coelorum
clavigeri successores sumus, et eius loco in sancta Dei ecclesia
residemus, considerantes quod diffusis per orbem terrarum
ecclesiis ex iniuncto nobis a Deo Apostolatus officio providere
teneamur, ut ecclesiae ipsae quae domus Dei sunt in suis
structuris et aedificiis non solum conserventur sed etiam, si
opus fuerit, reparentur, circa tamen Basilicam de Urbe ipsius
Petri principis Apostolorum maiorem curam et diligentiam
adhibere nos convenit, ut sicut ipse beatus Petrus ab ipso
Salvatore nostro princeps Apostolorum est constitutus, ita
etiam ipsius Basilica quae non parva reparatione indiget inter
caeteras Urbis et orbis ecclesias, congruentibus ac etiam
necessariis aedificiis reaedificetur, construatur et amplietur, ac
reaedificata, constructa, et ampliata conservetur.
§ 2. Et cum nuper ex praemissis et certis aliis rationalibus
causis, iuxta nostri cordis desiderium ad dictae Basilicae
restaurationem manus operarias apposuissemus, cognoscentes
fabricam huiusmodi absque piis et largis fidelium eroga
tionibus ad finem optatum perduci non posse, per quasdam
primo universis Christifidelibus utriusque sexus, qui infra
annum a die publicationis earundem computandum, in capsa
ad id in dicta Basilica collocanda per seipsos mitterent, vel
per alios mitti et poni facerent, tantum quantum eorum pia
devotio eis dictaret in pecunia numerata aut rebus aliis ad
opus ipsum convertendis, vel circa opus se personaliter
exercerent . . .
§ 3. Ut idoneum possent eligere confessorem, qui eos a
certis tunc expressis casibus absolvere et super certis etiam
tunc expressis in foro conscientiae dumtaxat dispensare posset,
concessimus facultatem . . .
§ 6. Nos cupientes prout nobis et inter caetera nostra
desiderabilia cordi est praedictae Basilicae fabricam ad debitam
perfectionem deduci, et de fidelitate, diligentia et solicitudine
in praemissis dilecti filii Francisci Zeni de Mediolano, d.
Ordinis fratrum Minorum de Observantia nuncupatorum
professoris et provinciarum citramontanarum dicti Ordinis . . .
Vicarii generalis, . . . plurimum confidentes ipsum in dictis
provinciis et insulis1 indulgentiarum huiusmodi nostrum et
Apostolicae Sedis Nuncium et Commissarium . . . tenore
praesentium facimus, constituimus et deputamus . . .
§ 7. Et nihilominus universis Christifidelibus utriusque
sexus, tam saecularibus quam regularibus Ordinum quorum
cumque provinciarum et insularum praedictarum quil iuxta
ciusdem Francisci Zeni Commissarii et Nuncii aut deputati
seu subdelegati, aut deputandorum seu subdelegandorum,
ad eorundem providam ordinationem super hoc faciendam
in capsis ad hoc in subsidium dictae fabricae . . . pias elee
mosynas effectualiter posuerint, plenissimam omnium pecca
torum suorum remissionem consequantur.
§ 8. Et qui cum praefato Commissario, seu delegandis et
subdelegandis praedictis convenerint, ut idoneum possint

 

[believers]

Name one or two reasons you think God allowed Protestantism.

I think one reason might be that Catholicism is so… difficult, that maybe God wanted there to be an “easier, softer” way that would lead people to Christ (and He knew that many would then be led to the RC Church)?? Just a thought.

Also, i think that Protestants generally focus on different things than Catholics do, different “aspects” of God, things that are nonetheless very important… like, well… i just think that sometimes they are more… friendly… & i feel they may trust in God’s mercy more than a lot of Catholics…

I personally believe God’s timing is impeccable. I find it amazing that the printing press was somewhat perfected by the time of the Reformation. What better time to get the Word of God into the hands of spiritually starved believers? Not only the Waldensians and Anabaptists, but now the Reformers. It’s awesome how these groups finally joined up. God is truly amazing in how He preserved His Word and built His “Church” (called out people)