Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[jmcrae]

I’ve been to the Vatican.

Then you already know that it’s not a private house, and that it contains museums, art galleries, offices, and other people’s apartments, in addition to the Pope’s apartment. He doesn’t get the whole thing to himself.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

We are more spiritually starved now than they ever were, then. The majority of people had more Scripture memorized, because of the Mass, than do today, in an age of literacy.

Not only the Waldensians and Anabaptists, but now the Reformers. It’s awesome how these groups finally joined up.

When did these groups ever “join up” with each other? For the first 150 years of the Reformation, they were all busy burning each other at the stake.

As far as I can tell, they are even more fragmented than ever, right now, although at least they are not burning each other at the stake any more.

There are only two congregations of Waldensians left in the world (which stands to reason, since they require their clergy to work for free, and not to own any property of any kind, including books, clothing, etc., which they are required to borrow from members of the congregation), and the Anabaptists have fragmented into everything from the Hutterites to the Amish, to the Mennonites, to Plymouth Brethren, and various flavours of “non-denominational,” etc.

 

[distracted]

]
I think you’re underplaying the problems of indulgences at the time of the reformation. And the houses of illrepute were regularily visited by preist. Especially in Rome which is why the Pope established a tax on them. o.

So the devil is in the Church…He is everywhere else as well…

he is in every one of us… as the song says…

"Every single one of us, the devil inside… "

Why do you think Jesus had to come to Earth and expiate for our sins???

 

[adrift]

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.

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

We aren’t talking about actions. We are talking about beliefs. If a Muslim says There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet and I say that is not historically true because of a quote I have from someone who is not Muslim then I would be doing the same thing that you do. We are talking about a belief. Indulgences were not sold. You could not pay to get your loved ones out of Purgatory.

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

I knew what you were referring to I also knew you misrepresented it.

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

There are indulgences attached to the devotion but what suffering you are referring to I haven’t a clue. Talking about tone do you really believe this post doesn’t show not only anger but hate?

 

[adrift]

Pope Leo X. And as far as Indulgences with regard to pergatory what about this? It’s a partial quote.

So where does it say that indulgences can be purchased?

(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

 

[believers]

We are more spiritually starved now than they ever were, then. The majority of people had more Scripture memorized, because of the Mass, than do today, in an age of literacy.

When did these groups ever “join up” with each other? For the first 150 years of the Reformation, they were all busy burning each other at the stake.

As far as I can tell, they are even more fragmented than ever, right now, although at least they are not burning each other at the stake any more.

There are only two congregations of Waldensians left in the world (which stands to reason, since they require their clergy to work for free, and not to own any property of any kind, including books, clothing, etc., which they are required to borrow from members of the congregation), and the Anabaptists have fragmented into everything from the Hutterites to the Amish, to the Mennonites, to Plymouth Brethren, and various flavours of “non-denominational,” etc.

On this side of the fence. We know the Waldensians were great men of the Word of God. They even memorized entire books of the Bible (no printing press during this time). I heard of one that memorized the entire book of Job. These people were pre-Reformation and were hunted down as heretics because they loved the Word of God. You probably wouldn’t hear these things in your circle because it’s not your history. Besides, the RCC says “protestants” didn’t exist before Martin Luther remember? Well… we know that’s not true.

 

[jmcrae]

On this side of the fence. We know the Waldensians were great men of the Word of God. They even memorized entire books of the Bible (no printing press during this time). I heard of one that memorized the entire book of Job. These people were pre-Reformation and were hunted down as heretics because they loved the Word of God.

They were considered heretics because they twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction, and not only their own, but other people’s, too. They also created their own unique “translation” of the Bible that contains many things that you won’t find in your KJV, or any other authentic translation.

You probably wouldn’t hear these things in your circle because it’s not your history. Besides, the RCC says “protestants” didn’t exist before Martin Luther remember? Well… we know that’s not true.

There have been heretics from the beginning - remember the Gnostics? But Martin Luther is the original founder of that particular set of heresies known as Protestantism. The Waldensians were not (and are not) Protestants.

 

[believers]

They were considered heretics because they twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction, and not only their own, but other people’s, too. They also created their own unique “translation” of the Bible that contains many things that you won’t find in your KJV, or any other authentic translation.

There have been heretics from the beginning - remember the Gnostics? But Martin Luther is the original founder of that particular set of heresies known as Protestantism. The Waldensians were not (and are not) Protestants.

Of course that’s what the RCC would have you believe. Besides, Protestants before Reformation don’t exist remember? How exactly would you know anything about the Waldensians?

 

[believers]

They were considered heretics because they twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction, and not only their own, but other people’s, too. They also created their own unique “translation” of the Bible that contains many things that you won’t find in your KJV, or any other authentic translation.

There have been heretics from the beginning - remember the Gnostics? But Martin Luther is the original founder of that particular set of heresies known as Protestantism. The Waldensians were not (and are not) Protestants.

The Waldensians were great men of faith hunted down and persecuted for His name sake. They were Word of God based, Holy Spirit filled, Born again Christians. You would not know this as they didn’t exist according the RCC. You call them heretics, I call them brothers.

 

[vocatio]

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…

You state your case like God wanted and supported the creation of Protestantism. This is just not the case. God allows free will. Original Sin blinds us and many sins in the hierarchy caused such sin to come about. However, God uses even sinners to bring people to Christ. We are all sinners. Only some of us have the fullness of truth as established by Christ without the straying away. We have the 7 signs. The Church is visible, One …Holy…Catholic…Apostolic. This is what we state we believe in reciting the Nicene Creed, which is BTW also recited by many Protestant faiths ironically. I nearly fell out of my chair once when we stood for the first time in our previous church and recited the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed along with the Our Father, which we had already done several times. I suspect that the precher was toying with ancient church writings that he had discovered but still doesn’t admit to doing. He did say however that he believes that the Nicene Creed is as rich if not more profound that Acts 2. Amazing. I’m packaging up Bruce Sullivan’s book and Karl Keatings book as a late Christmas present. I have many protestant faith bishops, deacons and preachers in my family. The world is about to stop…watch. Hell might actually freeze over when they find out WE’RE CATHOLIC.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course that’s what the RCC would have you believe. Besides, Protestants before Reformation don’t exist remember? How exactly would you know anything about the Waldensians?

The same way I know pretty much anything, these days. They have (or at least had) a web site. (It seems to be down … )

 

[sambos671]

First of all Distracted I have never said the RCC is evil or the devil. I just state the obvious which there was corruption in the church at the time of the reformation and I believe it is a cause of the reformation. I also am stating that you are under playing the leadership’s role in the reformation. You are all misunderstanding me. I don’t hate the Catholic Church one bit but that doesn’t mean I accept the premise that the only reason the protestants left the Church was because they were lead by satan. If Satan had a role it was the corruption which made these people feel the need to leave was my ultimate point. And even in the fact that there was Catholic leadership that was corrupt I’m not even saying the Majority of the Chruch was corrupt just enough that it was a problem which made people feel they had to leave.
Adrift, I do not hate the Catholic Church but I don’t turn a blind eye to issues either. I would that every Catholic live by the CCC experience the Sacraments and witness the gospel of Jesus Christ in their lives and Liturgy. Many Catholics do exactly this and Many do not. I have an issue with those who do not. Just like I have an issue with protestants who do not live according to scripture. Don’t expect me to say something didn’t occur when it did. And the catholic belief in the Middle ages is at issue here. You cannot compare Catholic thought today exactly with Catholic thought of Pope Leo’s day. Society, the world, values all have changed. Certainly the reformation caused Catholics to ask the very important questions that lead to the council of Trent, the first Vatican Council, and eventually the Second Vatican council. If not for the reformation these things would have been left unanswered. So, in my view Satan corrupted European Church leaders which lead the laity astray. God permitted the reformation to bring about good change to the Catholic church and I believe that there will be a future return to the Catholic Church of both Orthodox and Protestants. Just like the Nestorians were excluded and eventually the Assyrian church returned. Certain Coptic Churches have returned. It seems many Anglicans will return. But don’t expect me to say bad things never occured. Which is what you guys are trying to do.

 

[catharina]

But don’t expect me to say bad things never occured. Which is what you guys are trying to do.

It sounds like you’re attempting to justify sin as a “good” response to other sins. It doesn’t work that way. The revolt by Protestants was action that wounded the Body of Christ. Saying that others wounded the Body first is equal to nothing.

 

[sambos671]

It sounds like you’re attempting to justify sin as a “good” response to other sins. It doesn’t work that way. The revolt by Protestants was action that wounded the Body of Christ. Saying that others wounded the Body first is equal to nothing.

My point is that the body of Christ was already wounded. The reformation was a consequence of it. I’m not saying two wrongs make a right but I won’t say the first wrong never occured. I am saying God used the problems and the wounded church to do something greater.

 

[catharina]

My point is that the body of Christ was already wounded. The reformation was a consequence of it. I’m not saying two wrongs make a right but I won’t say the first wrong never occured.

No one has said a first wrong hadn’t occured!

I am saying God used the problems and the wounded church to do something greater.

You seem to be stating/implying that God endorsed additional wounds (the breaks of Prostestant division). That could NEVER happen.

 

[sambos671]

You seem to be stating/implying that God endorsed additional wounds (the breaks of Prostestant division). That could NEVER happen.

You are not understanding what I am saying. I’m not saying God endorsed anything. God doesn’t endorse sin yet he did something greater than Adam and Eve would have imagined primarily the incarnation. Their sin was evil God condemns it. My contention is the Church was already wounded by corruption. People could have become atheist altogether and Europe could have become pagan again. It didn’t (which is a good thing). I am saying that he used the reformation to make the church do two things one have the majority of the members (not just the clergy) start taking Sacred Scripture seriously without relying soley on tradition. 2) review their errors and (name removed by moderator)roved the documents and leadership of the Church and their function. I’m referring to a principle directly related to the nature of God where Paul could say

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

 

[catharina]

You are not understanding what I am saying. I’m not saying God endorsed anything. God doesn’t endorse sin yet he did something greater than Adam and Eve would have imagined primarily the incarnation. Their sin was evil God condemns it. My contention is the Church was already wounded by corruption. People could have become atheist altogether and Europe could have become pagan again. It didn’t (which is a good thing). I am saying that he used the reformation to make the church do two things one have the majority of the members (not just the clergy) start taking Sacred Scripture seriously without relying soley on tradition. 2) review their errors and (name removed by moderator)roved the documents and leadership of the Church and their function. I’m referring to a principle directly related to the nature of God where Paul could say

If you’re saying that God can bring good out of evil, then I agree - of course. That’s Scriptural and it’s the entire story of the Incarnation and Salvation History. If you’re saying that God’s Church benefitted from the heresies and separations of Protestantism, then I disagree. Those things were wounding to the Church and so to God Himself.

 

[sambos671]

If you’re saying that God can bring good out of evil, then I agree - of course. That’s Scriptural and it’s the entire story of the Incarnation and Salvation History. If you’re saying that God’s Church benefitted from the heresies and separations of Protestantism, then I disagree. Those things were wounding to the Church and so to God Himself.

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree. The Church was already wounded by sin and corruption. Fortunately Gods grace worked in such away that he was not abandoned all together. Most people who’ve been abuse go to the other extreme. Europe did not initially do this. They could have said Christianity was false because certain Christian leaders were horrible to include some of those sitting in Peter’s Chair. What they did do was say Christianity is misrepresented and developed their own theology which may not be good but is better than leaving Christ all together. You may say the reformers were wrong but you have to just as equally say that the guilty clergy were just as equally wrong if not more since it was their activities that brought about the reformation.

 

[distracted]

You state your case like God wanted and supported the creation of Protestantism.

that’s the way you see things. God never wants us to leave Him or His Church… but does God always get waht he wants? Not when it comes to human beings… :banghead: :hypno: but he knows we will leave him/ do terrible things because we are ignorant & selfish (etc) and he also ***knows what any given person needs to go through to find Him… ***

, God uses even sinners to bring people to Christ.

I thought you disagreed??

 

[catharina]

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree. The Church was already wounded by sin and corruption. Fortunately Gods grace worked in such away that he was not abandoned all together. Most people who’ve been abuse go to the other extreme. Europe did not initially do this. They could have said Christianity was false because certain Christian leaders were horrible to include some of those sitting in Peter’s Chair. What they did do was say Christianity is misrepresented and developed their own theology which may not be good but is better than leaving Christ all together. You may say the reformers were wrong but you have to just as equally say that the guilty clergy were just as equally wrong if not more since it was their activities that brought about the reformation.

So now I’ll repeat and re-emphasize for you.

Christ told us - and Peter - that Peter is the rock and upon the rock of Peter He built His Church; the gates of hell would not prevail against it. So how could ANYONE justify leaving the rock of Peter, the chair of Peter??? To “help” Peter out, some leave him and “develop their own theology?” Christ has no theology outside of Peter’s Chair.

That is PROMISED - by Christ Himself. The faith rests with the line of Peter.

How pure were the motives of Luther and Henry VIII?

Luther tossed off his priesthood and married at once. Henry commenced to marrying and killing a number of wives. Who can pretend the fruits of those trees are “good?”

So again, God allowed Protestantism because God allows man to choose good or evil. Abandoning the Barque of Peter can’t be seen as a good.