Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[wisdomseeker]

:knight1::knight2:

When Peter sided with Jewish opinion; circumcision was necessary for salvation, wasn’t he teaching error by his actions and perverting the gospel? When Pope Leo accepted the money from the sale of indulgences wasn’t he saying that you could purify for a price?

St peter is not God. obviously he made mistakes with his mouth and actions.
but Jesus knew peter’s heart. he was the chosen one to lead His Church. we see this over and over. we must realize that Peter did not have full understanding of things yet. he didnt perverted the Gospel. he was afraid, like we see his fears in others passages. think common sense. it was his Tradition. it was difficult the changes peter had to make in regard the gentiles and himself. there were many things that peter had to accept. Peter did not teach error in the Gospels. it doesnt make sense for to say this. St Paul said that the things he wanted to do he couldnt do yet he did the things he didnt want to do. the pope didnt teach this, he did at the time only God knows the reason why. but this is not the teachings of the Church. you are having trouble in understanding and separating the teachings of the Church and what some may go about to do. infallibility is not impecabillity. it is the teachings of our Lord through His Church that you must concentrate and not in the faults of some. it would be impossible for all Catholics to be perfect and never commit any sin. even its leaders. any man can fall any time. judas was a companion of Christ yet he commited the ultimate sins. was not him one of the apostles? does that mean that Jesus did not teach Truth? because one of His fell?
do you reject the Bible because St Peter or others fell into temptation? i hope not. neither should we reject Jesus Church because some has dissobeyed Christ on the way.

 

[Detales]

What if God “allowes”* Protestantism for the same reason He “allows” you? Are we, each one, more perfect and worthy than Protestantism just because we think we are Catholic? What if He “allows” Catholicism? In a sane world, I think neither would exist; there would be only loving God as Life living.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

• Protestantism still aboutnds, like itor not. The thread question might better be asked in the present tense.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What if God “allowes”* Protestantism for the same reason He “allows” you? Are we, each one, more perfect and worthy than Protestantism just because we think we are Catholic? What if He “allows” Catholicism? In a sane world, I think neither would exist; there would be only loving God as Life living.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

• Protestantism still aboutnds, like itor not. The thread question might better be asked in the present tense.

Martin Luther broke the Commandment of God. Love thy brother. he not only saw an opportunity for freedom he tried to destroy the Church with his rampage. he turned many Catholics against the Church. that is what we are talking about. it is not because protestants exist itself. it is a religion against the CC.

it is like this. you find yourself with lots of money suddenly. it is your choice what you do with it. you can go around buying all your hearts desire or you find another way of spending like go around building orphanage and picking kids of the streets. or even help the rebuilding of a parish which is falling apart. it is your choice. which do you thing is more tempting?

:byzsoc:

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

What if God “allowes”* Protestantism for the same reason He “allows” you? Are we, each one, more perfect and worthy than Protestantism just because we think we are Catholic? What if He “allows” Catholicism? In a sane world, I think neither would exist; there would be only loving God as Life living.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

• Protestantism still aboutnds, like itor not. The thread question might better be asked in the present tense.

HI Detales, we dont have to face conflicting beliefs, for we are all one belief. it is the Protestants who have to face conflicting beliefs because of all the churches out there that do not agree with each other. The only thing they agree on is that the Catholics are wrong all the rest is taught differnt from themselfs. you all have the same bible and all teach differnt Your trinity’s. your life after death, your sabboth, your"If he does not work dont feed him " That I have herd alot in the protestant churches, I dont believe in what you anti catholics believe, and I find it un scriptual. Your Communion has no life in it people do it as a symbolic favor to God not because they feel the real presence is there. Protestants are in it for money not to bring souls to the Lord. The Catholic asks what ever you can afford not a certain percentage" Let not the Sabboth be A burden unto you. Rejoice and be glad in the Lord Bringing an offering we come into his courts. We worship the Lord in the beauty of his holyness, and fear and give reverence to him, we are one with the Spirit of the living God. You are Loved Nancy

 

[Detales]

Just a thought, Nancy and Wisdom, and a few others, I think; Have you considered the possibility of learning a bit about General Semantics and applying it you your posts? I can recommend an excellent text, if you wish.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

If the Popes are so “infallible” why did Peter, the very first Pope, demonstrate such fallibility - denying Christ three times, having to be rebuked as “Satan” at one stage, and blundering all over the place? And Christ’s disciples all ran away. That was the original magisterium in action. Couldn’t the Holy Spirit have kept them from doing so if He wanted to?

I think Peter’s fallibility is in the Scriptures for a reason, along with his Primacy, and that in part was so that later Popes, who inherited his mantle, would not get big ideas of “infallibility”.

Hi Bob…and greetings fellow Aussie!

I’m no expert (and please correct me if I am wrong) but my understanding is that the doctrine of infallibility refers specifically to when the pope proclaims a doctrine, not to his mere general conduct.

In the example you mentioned, I would think it was the manner in which Peter was behaving which was the problem…it does not appear to me he was in the process of outlining or proclaiming any teaching etc.

Popes certainly have, do and will do some imperfect things, Peter included.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just a thought, Nancy and Wisdom, and a few others, I think; Have you considered the possibility of learning a bit about General Semantics and applying it you your posts? I can recommend an excellent text, if you wish.

why? do you find complicated and hard to understand what i wrote? what dont you understand?

 

[Detales]

Well, 'seeker, what are the assumptions, premises, and contexts of the general stream of your thinking? What are they consistent with? What do they exclude? What do they allow and not allow? What is the subtext of your statements? What is your foundational premise?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Just a thought, Nancy and Wisdom, and a few others, I think; Have you considered the possibility of learning a bit about General Semantics and applying it you your posts? I can recommend an excellent text, if you wish.

Just what is it you are trying to say? We only have theory? We are thinkers by ourselfs we cannot realy organize? We are not as skilled in theory as you or the great Philosophers of today?General Semantics is perhaps best classified as a personal growth system providing tools to help us “better” integrate with our advanced symbolic and technological environment through updated understanding and use of the methods and findings of science. General Semantics - names a discipline based on learning and using the scientific method in our daily lives in the context of a classification system that distinguishes among plants, animals, and humans using the dimensions of energy, distance, and time. As any discipline does, it has its beliefs, value, ethics, and behavioral prescriptions.
In up-to-date terms, General Semantics uses the study of and practical application of a particular epistemology, namely a theory of knowledge based upon a particular model of the multi-level structure and functioning of human information processing, including neurological levels through linguistic levels, in its context - people living in a society in a world (organism-in-its-environment-as-a-whole) - as the method for achieving its ethical ends. For its ethical ends, General Semantics, after providing its method of distinguishing among plants, animals, and human, “commands” that humans not behave as animals do (in its model), and General Semantics further “commands” that we seek to maximize the use of only valid scientific method tools of mathematics and logic for reasoning and deciding our day-to-day behavior, in particular, the dictates of empiricism - parochially named “extensional orientation” - to test any guesses, surmises, theories, etc. in the pursuit of cooperative social interaction. In the prescribed model of “knowing” the primary process is abstracting from one level to another with an awareness of the process (consciousness of abstracting). In a “nutshell”, General Semantics “is” empiricism writ large - applied rigorously in everyday life - with an added commandment - that we cooperate.

Most of the remainder of this site deals principally with the theoretical aspects of General Semantics, which I refer to as “general semantics” (in lower case). (2009-03-01)

 

[Detales]

Wow. Nancy. Did you write that so fast? Is that your own understanding of GS? Hmmmm… OK, so how is all that relavant to your own thinking and these posts?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, 'seeker, what are the assumptions, premises, and contexts of the general stream of your thinking? What are they consistent with? What do they exclude? What do they allow and not allow? What is the subtext of your statements? What is your foundational premise?

why dont you keep it simple and say what is in your mind instead trying to make things more complicated than they really are.

i have said nothing that is not well understood. unlike your questions that takes it away from the True meanings of things…

:knight2::knight2:

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Wow. Nancy. Did you write that so fast? Is that your own understanding of GS? Hmmmm… OK, so how is all that relavant to your own thinking and these posts?

I think we are all human beings and we make mistakes no one in the bible was above sin except for Jesus, for all have fallen short of the glory of God we are all sinners that’s why we have confession so even those small sins that creep into our lives unawears can be forgiven Jesus never said to stop asking for forgiveness he said just the oppersite Go to your brother and confess your sins, ask God to cleanse you from your sins we still need to ask for forgiveness even though Jesus became the supreme sacrifice for our sins, we still fall back and need to be cleansed, renewed by the Holy Spirit in our body’s and our minds, or he would have never have sent him for us. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[look3467]

Up an until the cross there was but one structured method/way of worshiping God, and that was at the temple. Such was that for some a journey to the temple was of utmost importance.

Now, after the cross the temple lies within us. That being the case, we hve a new way, a new path to the Father as Jesus so stated: “I am the way, the truth and the life…”.

What we have dear brothers and sisters is the new Testament being as like a workbook.

God granted us salvation so that we could cease from working for it, and has giving us the choice to develop a relationship with Him of our choosing.

The Catholic Church was instrumental in the early days of blindness (Meaning blind to the new path, way and the life in Jesus) bringing in the light into a blind and dark world of spirituality.

It became a workable solution to the spiritual needs of the world of which each individual had the with all to access God directly but the timing for that was not yet available because of the infancy of the early church.

That is why each individual has to work out their own salvation via whatever means of information is available for them for that to happen.

That happens within the individuals soul and not in any one physical locality, such as a church, even though, that is a place to start.

This is what Jesus said concerning the place of worship contrasting before the cross from after the cross:** Before:**
Jhn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
After: Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
The Catholic Church though an important a key instiution in this world, so are the Protestant churches as well, since God is not limited o any one institution but is omnipresent via His Holy Spirit to everyone who seeks Him regardless of church affiliation.

To require others to belong to any one institution for the purpose of salvation fly’s in the face of worshiping the Father in spirit and with a true heart.

So, I say to those of you who adamantly argue the membership requirement in the Catholic Church as a requirement for salvation are arguing in vain, because salvation is in the heart and soul of the individual.

There should rather be and argument of why we should believe in Jesus for our salvation than for any other man made requirement.

You can all see that this thread is all over the place in trying to justify the Catholic Church as a membership requirement for salvation, when if the membership went about proclaiming Christ as the Savior of the soul, and how He can be reached, God would see that membership would increase.

Reach the soul first and then God will ad accordingly, and not the other way around.

Why has Protestantism grown so much? Because it reaches the core of the problem, the soul of the individual.

There, there is where it is at, let’s work on revealing that bit of good news to the world who is blind to it and rain in the lost souls of the world via the love of Christ.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[wisdomseeker]

Up an until the cross there was but one structured method/way of worshiping God, and that was at the temple. Such was that for some a journey to the temple was of utmost importance.

Now, after the cross the temple lies within us. That being the case, we hve a new way, a new path to the Father as Jesus so stated: “I am the way, the truth and the life…”.

What we have dear brothers and sisters is the new Testament being as like a workbook.

God granted us salvation so that we could cease from working for it, and has giving us the choice to develop a relationship with Him of our choosing.

The Catholic Church was instrumental in the early days of blindness (Meaning blind to the new path, way and the life in Jesus) bringing in the light into a blind and dark world of spirituality.

It became a workable solution to the spiritual needs of the world of which each individual had the with all to access God directly but the timing for that was not yet available because of the infancy of the early church.

That is why each individual has to work out their own salvation via whatever means of information is available for them for that to happen.

That happens within the individuals soul and not in any one physical locality, such as a church, even though, that is a place to start.

This is what Jesus said concerning the place of worship contrasting before the cross from after the cross:** Before:**
Jhn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
After: Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
The Catholic Church though an important a key instiution in this world, so are the Protestant churches as well, since God is not limited o any one institution but is omnipresent via His Holy Spirit to everyone who seeks Him regardless of church affiliation.

To require others to belong to any one institution for the purpose of salvation fly’s in the face of worshiping the Father in spirit and with a true heart.

So, I say to those of you who adamantly argue the membership requirement in the Catholic Church as a requirement for salvation are arguing in vain, because salvation is in the heart and soul of the individual.

There should rather be and argument of why we should believe in Jesus for our salvation than for any other man made requirement.

You can all see that this thread is all over the place in trying to justify the Catholic Church as a membership requirement for salvation, when if the membership went about proclaiming Christ as the Savior of the soul, and how He can be reached, God would see that membership would increase.

Reach the soul first and then God will ad accordingly, and not the other way around.

Why has Protestantism grown so much? Because it reaches the core of the problem, the soul of the individual.

There, there is where it is at, let’s work on revealing that bit of good news to the world who is blind to it and rain in the lost souls of the world via the love of Christ.

Blessing’s, AJ

very interesting that you come up with two verses of the Bible and define how man is saved. arent you ignoring all the others Scriptures? do you know what Jesus is really saying on these verses you quoted and why? and how can the world see us as models for Jesus when all the world sees is desunity and one contradicting the other in Christianity? everyone doing their own thing and enterpreting the Bible any way they see fit. shouldnt we first fix our house before point out what is wrong with the world? how about the unity Jesus so much want for us? how about obedience to Him? how are you being obedient to Him when you reject His Church?

 

[ron77nyc]

do you reject the Bible because St Peter or others fell into temptation? i hope not. neither should we reject Jesus Church because some have disobeyed Christ on the way.

I don’t reject the Catholic Church or the bible. Catholics who believe in the resurrected Christ belong to Him and are justified by faith the same as anyone else who believes in the resurrected Christ.

**Galatians 3:23 **But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

**Some popes have added requirements to salvation that the apostles never taught. **

**Galatians 4:17 **They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.

This was and still is the reason for the protest.

 

[look3467]

very interesting that you come up with two verses of the Bible and define how man is saved. arent you ignoring all the others Scriptures? do you know what Jesus is really saying on these verses you quoted and why? and how can the world see us as models for Jesus when all the world sees is disunity and one contradicting the other in Christianity? everyone doing their own thing and interpreting the Bible any way they see fit. shouldn’t we first fix our house before point out what is wrong with the world? how about the unity Jesus so much want for us? how about obedience to Him? how are you being obedient to Him when you reject His Church?

The verses I quoted are absolutely in harmony with what I stated as I understand them.
The point is that God, after the cross reaches out to all humanity, not just to the chosen (Jews) and is in the business of touching hearts.

Churches are like spiritual hospitals where the spiritually wanting go for treatment.

The true church, as I see it is the membership, not the institutional churches.

Membership in the body of Christ is one baptized in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Walking indicates that we are still in procession of our bodies, as in walking, but the difference is that we walk in the newness of life.

If we are walking in the newness of life, we shall know and understand that we are born in an part of the family of God.
We are members of His body,(an assembly) of believers born from within to the newness of life.

The model member is one who abides in the love of Christ, obeying from and with the heart those commandments which He, Jesus left us.

To love God and neighbor.

Nothing said about belonging to any institution.

The new Testament deals with working out the kinks of this new path, and way as Jesus said, because this new creature, us, (life) encourages us.

When you stand on the firm belief that the “church”, the Catholic Church is vital and necessary for meeting the requirement of obedience, then the Catholic Church becomes the object of salvation and not Jesus alone.

Speak to me on the love of Jesus, His wonderful works of salvation and how you and I are granted this wonderful gift of life, we shall be as one in spirit, as Jesus prayed:
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[LXA2]

Why did God allow over half the world to be in poverty, for people to be starving, getting diseases, dying in childhood, and why did God allow Natural Disasters that kill thousands of people.

 

[ron77nyc]

Why did God allow over half the world to be in poverty, for people to be starving, getting diseases, dying in childhood, and why did God allow Natural Disasters that kill thousands of people.

Man is responsible for wars and poverty. Natural disasters, disease and suffering are something else. We could blame God but does He owes us something or do we owe Him something?

Whatever happens in this life is very small compared to what happens in eternity. God could place all those people in heaven and spare them more suffering in this life or He could judge them for their sins. It’s His universe.

There is a story in the bible about Paul being visited by Jesus after killing we don’t know how many Christians. I always wondered why God didn’t reveal Himself to Paul before he killed all those Christians.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The verses I quoted are absolutely in harmony with what I stated as I understand them.
The point is that God, after the cross reaches out to all humanity, not just to the chosen (Jews) and is in the business of touching hearts.

Churches are like spiritual hospitals where the spiritually wanting go for treatment.

The true church, as I see it is the membership, not the institutional churches.

Membership in the body of Christ is one baptized in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Walking indicates that we are still in procession of our bodies, as in walking, but the difference is that we walk in the newness of life.

If we are walking in the newness of life, we shall know and understand that we are born in an part of the family of God.
We are members of His body,(an assembly) of believers born from within to the newness of life.

The model member is one who abides in the love of Christ, obeying from and with the heart those commandments which He, Jesus left us.

To love God and neighbor.

Nothing said about belonging to any institution.

The new Testament deals with working out the kinks of this new path, and way as Jesus said, because this new creature, us, (life) encourages us.

When you stand on the firm belief that the “church”, the Catholic Church is vital and necessary for meeting the requirement of obedience, then the Catholic Church becomes the object of salvation and not Jesus alone.

Speak to me on the love of Jesus, His wonderful works of salvation and how you and I are granted this wonderful gift of life, we shall be as one in spirit, as Jesus prayed:
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Blessing’s, AJ

and what does it mean to be One in Spirit to you? what does it mean to you when Jesus said to the Apostles: “whoever hears you hears me, and whoever rejects you, rejects me and the One who sent me.”?

:knight2::knight2:

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hi Bob…and greetings fellow Aussie!

I’m no expert (and please correct me if I am wrong) but my understanding is that the doctrine of infallibility refers specifically to when the pope proclaims a doctrine, not to his mere general conduct.

In the example you mentioned, I would think it was the manner in which Peter was behaving which was the problem…it does not appear to me he was in the process of outlining or proclaiming any teaching etc.

Popes certainly have, do and will do some imperfect things, Peter included.

Paul had to rebuke Peter, “even Peter”, on caving in to the Jews over circumcision. Had the first Pope had his way, we’d all have been Jewish Catholics, or Catholic Jews.

As far as I’m concerned the business about “Papal Infallibility” is unnecessary. He is recognised as the head of the Catholic Church, is the direct heir of Peter, and doesn’t NEED this contentious label to qualify him. All it does is create a stumbling block to church unity.

I’m well aware the context is limited to the Pope’s speaking on behalf of the whole church on a question of “faith and morals”. When I was talking to one priest about it, the example he used was that if the Pope gave you a tip for next Saturday’s races, it would not be regarded by the church as “infallible”, particularly if the horse came in last.

I don’t see the necessity. It was brought in essentially as a knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of hardline Ultramontanists to the humiliation of the Pope by revolutionary forces. These were the sorts of clowns who thought Cardinal Newman was an Anglican in drag. One of the things I’ve been told is never to make a major decision in the middle of a crisis, unless it’s absolutely necessary. They totally ignored that rule. It was unnecessary.

What Christ said about the Pope’s authority was that it was “BINDING” in heaven and on earth. But He implied the Pope could change the rule and it would be “LOOSED” in heaven and on earth… In other words this year’s binding infallible ruling could next year be revoked, infallibly no doubt. I see the contraceptive ruling in that regard. It’s never been subjected to infallibility as a doctrine, but the mere fact that the Pope is “infallible” gives the impression it’s fixed and immutable. And personally I think that particular ruling is a load of ****.