Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[distracted]

The Spanish inquisition happened. .

what you know about the inquisition and what others know may be two different things…

It used to that heresy was seen as a crime against the state because it disrupted things… so the state had an interest in controlling it. The Church and state were united at one time and that wasn’t “right” compared to w hat we know now … but in any case, once someone was accused of heresy, the person was brought to hte Church’s inquisitor… and asked about what he believed. He was given chance after chance to change his heretical beliefs. Since God only established ONE Church, that Church had(has) the right to say what is heresy & what is not. So the heretic knew he was wrong… or should have. Also, if he wanted to save his life, he could (even if he believed himself to be right in his beliefs) say that he recanted in order to save his life. If he persisted in his heresies, he was then handed over to the STATE (the king) to be dealt with. The king usually did not have the mercy that a lot of priests and bishops had. A lot of clergy would intervene & ask the king not to put the heretic to death. The Church has never taught that someone should be killed for his heretical beliefs but that he should be won over to truth through dialogue, etc… but in any case, the kings would not always listen to compassionate priests/bishops… and would execute the person…

 

[jmcrae]

The original sin is upon all mankind as separation from the spirit of God?

How suppose God was to remedy it?

And if He did remedied it, who all were included?

All who believe and join His Church.

Excluded?

All who continue afterwards in their disobedience.

If you say it this way, Universal church body of Christ is the body of believers, if the word catholic means universal.

Yes, the Catholic Church is God’s Universal Church, to whom any human being on earth may belong, if they so choose. No one can be forced against his or her will to belong, obviously, but at the same time, there is no category of human being who is excluded for any reason other than not being willing to be a part of it.

I will not deny that, for God is worshiped in spirit and not be partially connected to any thing except to a direct relationship with God.

Some of them? Psa 107:16 For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.

Please do a little research on the gates of Brass and Iron and its reference to.

Isa 45:2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

The gates of heaven and the gates of hell opened to let and to receive, to where before, were held prisoners.

In modern times, God does all of these things through His Church.

 

[sambos671]

what you know about the inquisition and what others know may be two different things…

It used to that heresy was seen as a crime against the state because it disrupted things… so the state had an interest in controlling it. The Church and state were united at one time and that wasn’t “right” compared to w hat we know now … but in any case, once someone was accused of heresy, the person was brought to hte Church’s inquisitor… and asked about what he believed. He was given chance after chance to change his heretical beliefs. Since God only established ONE Church, that Church had(has) the right to say what is heresy & what is not. So the heretic knew he was wrong… or should have. Also, if he wanted to save his life, he could (even if he believed himself to be right in his beliefs) say that he recanted in order to save his life. If he persisted in his heresies, he was then handed over to the STATE (the king) to be dealt with. The king usually did not have the mercy that a lot of priests and bishops had. A lot of clergy would intervene & ask the king not to put the heretic to death. The Church has never taught that someone should be killed for his heretical beliefs but that he should be won over to truth through dialogue, etc… but in any case, the kings would not always listen to compassionate priests/bishops… and would execute the person…

Yes this is true - though I’m not sure about “the church never taught part” Urban III may have a different opinion - however that does not mean that some priest were involved (and some repremanded) for participating in executions. And if you publicly anounce that someone was a heretic with the knowledge of what the public authorities would do…well isn’t that complicit? Kind of like voting for a polititian supporting abortion?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes this is true - though I’m not sure about “the church never taught part” Urban III may have a different opinion - however that does not mean that some priest were involved (and some repremanded) for participating in executions. And if you publicly anounce that someone was a heretic with the knowledge of what the public authorities would do…well isn’t that complicit? Kind of like voting for a polititian supporting abortion?

Well, no different than a lawyer prosecuting a suspect in a crime, even though the penalty is likely to be death if he is found guilty. If he is guilty, he is guilty - it is up to the judge to sentence him; not the lawyer.

But you wouldn’t see the prosecutor failing in his duty to prosecute, just because he is worried that the guy might get the death penalty. Justice still has to be served.

 

[distracted]

And if you publicly anounce that someone was a heretic with the knowledge of what the public authorities would do…well isn’t that complicit? Kind of like voting for a polititian supporting abortion?

not hardly…

If the Church said something was not heresy that really was/is…

that would make the Church heretical… and that is something Jesus promised would not happen (“Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell [the very gates of Hell itself] will not prevail against it”)… St. mt 16:18

 

[sambos671]

not hardly…

If the Church said something was not heresy that really was/is…

that would make the Church heretical… and that is something Jesus promised would not happen (“Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell [the very gates of Hell itself] will not prevail against it”)… St. mt 16:18

They could have always said if you believe such and such you are a heretic with out pointing to a specific individual. Let the authorities ask the questions.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

**The Fathers at Trent admitted it - why can’t Catholics today ? Why be so defensive ? **​

There are alwys those… but not all Church people were corrupting Indulgences…

Not all priests are molesters, nor do all bishops have mistresses (& sometimes, bastards on the side) - but these things have happened even so, though they should not. An abuse is an abuse is an abuse, & bad as such, whether it is widespread or not. And if an abuse lasts a long time & is widespread, ISTM Protestants have every right not to let the Church forget it in a hurry. A Church that traffics in indulgences & in relics, & practices simony (as the CC has ), when there is no other Church to challenge it, is not a good advertisement for a Church which has no “competition”; so maybe the “competition”, by being hostile at times, keeps the Church “on its toes”, in a way that a unified Church might not be.​

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

**Yes, it is very beautiful - but relations between Catholics & Protestants have often not been of a kind which is conducive to civilised discussion of disputed matters such as this - instead, Catholics have tended to emphasise whatever makes them unlike Protestants, while Protestants have emphasised whatever is not Catholic in them. This does not help mutual understanding, & underlines the great importance of inter-confessional dialogue. **​

same thing…

I’ve been Catholic all my life and this is the worst time in history for sin…

Everyone thinks their own time is the worst ever - in 2200 people will probably be complaining of how horrible the 2200s are, & comparing them most unfavourably with the Golden Age enjoyed by their forebears in 2000. And their descendants in 2300 will idolise the 2200s in the very same way. ​

yet i have never seen or heard of a priest who does this.

Read widely enough, & you will. ​

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…

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

 

[sambos671]

Gottle of Greer whats up with the font changes and the red all over the place?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

##** “Myth 7” is no reply. It is a fact, & not a myth, that indulgences were sold. It is no good to dodge the problem by describing what in principle the practice should be, & the doctrine underlying it,** as though these were the problem. They were not. The abuse lay, **not **there, but in how the doctrine all too often found expression in practice.

**To describe what the practice ought to be, & in a healthier Church would be, as though this were a sufficient reply, is a useless way of dealing with the actual facts of the indulgence traffic. Worse still, it is either confused, or ignorant, or deceitful. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

**The Fathers at Trent were Protestants ? OK. **​

**TAN Books publishes the entire canons and decrees of Trent. Session 25 explicitly refers to abuses of indulgences, while defending indulgences themselves. Anyone who tries to deny that there were real and scandalous abuses has the words of the Council to explain. The Fathers of Trent seemed to think there were serious abuses. Innocent VII (1389-1404) is suspected of having trafficked in indulgences as Pope. (I got that from a Catholic source - “The Popes”, by E.John (1964). **

**The translation is that of H.J.Schroeder O.P, “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”, TAN Books 1978. It should not be confused with the translation by Canon James Waterworth, also republished by TAN, which is to be found in the TAN book “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees”. This is a collection of the doctrinal and dogmatic parts of Trent - unlike Schroeder’s book, it does not include the decrees for the reform of the Church which are included in the sessions of the Council. (“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” also includes the 1864 Syllabus of Errors and the definitions of Vatican I.) **
**Session 21 chapter 9: **

• **“Since many remedies heretofore applied by different councils, those of the Lateran [Lateran V (1512-17) ? ] and Lyons [it is not clear which one] as well as that of Vienne [in 1312], against the pernicious abuses of quaestors of alms, have in later times become useless, and since their depravity is, to the great scandal and complaint of the faithful, found to be daily so much on the increase that there seems no longer to be any hope of their amendment left, it is decreed that in all parts of Christendom their name and service be henceforth absolutely abolished and in no wise shall they be permitted to exercise such an office; any privileges granted to churches, monasteries, hospitals, pious places, and to any persons of whatever rank, state, or dignity, or any customs, even though immemorial, notwithstanding. With regard to indulgences or other spiritual graces of which the Christian faithful ought not on this account to be deprived, it is decreed that they are in the future to be announced to the people at suitable times by the local ordinaries aided by two members of the chapter. To these also the authority is given to collect faithfully and without fee the alms and chritable contributions offered them so that all may understand that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered not for gain but for piety.” **
  **(Schroeder p.142) **

---

**Session 5 Chapter 2 in June 1546 had restrained quaestors (Schroeder p. 28) - now, 16 years and a month later, the Fathers of the Council are making a clean sweep. **

---

**Session 25 chapter 21 **
**Session 25 in December 1563 says: **

• **"…But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, [indulgences, which are being regulated by the decree here quoted] and by reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it [the council] ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the christian people, be absolutely abolished…" **
  **(Schroeder p.253, 254.) **

 

[sambos671]

I picked up a copy of the Catachism from the council of trent. Any good?

 

[look3467]

Yes, the Catholic Church is God’s Universal Church, to whom any human being on earth may belong, if they so choose. No one can be forced against his or her will to belong, obviously, but at the same time, there is no category of human being who is excluded for any reason other than not being willing to be a part of it.>>>jmcrae

Ok! Here is the ultimatum: I am or I am not of God if:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I guess you and I are safe for we both believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Cheers!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[guanophore]

I’m curious jmcrae, there is this Benedictine order in Oklahoma that’s raising funds for its monestary there. These people’s goal is to obtain Sainthood. Yet they keep themselves isolated from their community and I wonder how can they acheive sainthood and not do anything for anyone else? Also How did St. Anthony become a Saint? What did he do other then hide out in some rock hole somewhere in Egypt meditate and and have strange visions of satan? what did he do for anyone else. How can you demonstrate charity without interaction? It relates to this thread because at least protestants teach their members to interact with their communities and give something of value to it.

There are many and various gifts and callings in the Kingdom. Some are called to a life of contempletive prayer, adoration, and intercession. I recommend that you see if you can visit this monastery, and join them for a day, to find out what the liturgy of the hours is all about.

Just like Simeon and Anna, who never left the temple, but remained there in prayer, waiting for the messiah, there are still some called to wait in His presence in prayer and praise, looking for HIs coming. This ministry is balanced by other apostolic ministries that reach out into the world with the corporate works of mercies. I think it would be very difficult to criticize the Catholic Church about the vast varieties of apostolates and ministries.

Of course we are to interact with our community, and be light and salt. It is the prayers of the cloistered communities that strengthen us to do this type of work. They remain in the presence of God, interceding for those of us thatare out there in the trenches. Both ministries are essential.

 

[ethereality]

For the same reason that He allowed Gnosticism, Nestorianism, Arianism, and every other heresy - so that the Church would be moved to define its teachings even more clearly, and bring us even closer to a full understanding of Christ.

Yeah, in a sense it’s the same question, “Why does God allow evil?” If we didn’t have the bad, could we appreciate the good?

I don’t want that statement to be misunderstood; I’m not saying all of Protestantism is bad, because it seems clear many Protestants are following Jesus, which can only happen as a result of the Holy Spirit, right?

But to some degree it is bad, since it’s heretical. It’s like fornication: inherently evil, but God can bring good from it, in this case with the conception of a new human being. So Protestantism is bad, but the Holy Spirit can use it to bring new life to God, just as the Holy Spirit can use fornication to bring new life into this world.

Of course, just as fornication is called to cease, especially once the truth is known (about God’s will and our existence), so it Protestantism.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

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…

Hi, you brought up alot of good reasoning, but God gave us free will, and people get killed,raped,robbed,die of dreaded diseases,every day.God dosn’t stop that nor will he until he returns.He allows all of us to pick and choose,like we can pick him or the devil. If there wasn’t a choice we would not have needed Christ,think about it love of Christ Nancy.Adam and Eve had a choice.

 

[jmcrae]

I picked up a copy of the Catachism from the council of trent. Any good?

Why did you get the Catechism of the Council of Trent? The 1994 Universal Catechism is easier and cheaper to get, isn’t it?

To answer your question, there would be nothing wrong with the Catechism of the Council of Trent that I am aware of, other than that the disciplinary teachings will have changed, which would mean that you’d have to get a modern Catechism, anyway, to see what the new disciplines are. Also, the 1994 Catechism is written in “kinder” language.

 

[sambos671]

Why did you get the Catechism of the Council of Trent? The 1994 Universal Catechism is easier and cheaper to get, isn’t it?

To answer your question, there would be nothing wrong with the Catechism of the Council of Trent that I am aware of, other than that the disciplinary teachings will have changed, which would mean that you’d have to get a modern Catechism, anyway, to see what the new disciplines are. Also, the 1994 Catechism is written in “kinder” language.

Whats wrong with harsh language with regard to discipline?

 

[distracted]

They could have always said if you believe such and such you are a heretic with out pointing to a specific individual. Let the authorities ask the questions.

you seem to want to continue to refute the validity of Catholicism… regardless of anything that is said…

 

[jmcrae]

Whats wrong with harsh language with regard to discipline?

Nothing, as long as you don’t take offense and then do the opposite out of spitefulness. Or complain that the Church is “a big meanie.”

 

[Roamin_Xian]

OP,

Protestantism happened due to our free willl, just as the split within the Catholic Church that created Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was a result of human’s arrogance and inability to reational compromise.