Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[ron77nyc]

Be careful about the history, there were contemporaries at the time that were critics of the Church but saw Lutheranism (Luther was an ex Catholic monk) as a movement motivated by two objects “money and women.” (see Erasmus)

If you care to answer I’d like to know what you think about Jews for Jesus. They are not part of Catholicism and not part of Protestantism. They are Jewish converts to Christianity whose main purpose is to preach the gospel to their own people.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

I am so, so sorry that that has been your experience. I would say uncatagorically that treating you and Catholics in general in this way is at best uncharitable. At worst it is, well, I won’t say.

Jon

I am so sorry that these things have happened to you and others. As Jesus put it, “get the board out of your own eye before helping your neighbor with his splinter.”

I think one of the (supply one’s own adjectives) things about the majority of Christians is that they haven’t read the Bible. It says things like: judge not lest ye be judged, love your neighbor as yourself, don’t start foolish discussions that don’t lead to the works of the two greatest commandments, God loves everyone equally, and… I could go on but think this is sufficient.

Besides, as an amatuer Bible scholar, I’m working on my own Greek to English translation of the New Testament; it has been my observation that much of the best “bible criticism” [studies and translations] are being done by Catholic scholars. The [annotated] New Jerusalem Bible is second to none in authenticity and objective adherence to the Greek manuscripts.

Simeon Hovey

 

[jargon631]

hi jmcrae…i just realised how unintentionaly harsh my last post was…i would like to be very clear in stating that most faiths/beliefs/creeds/philosophies/governments have been guilty of terrible things at one time or another…i’m only referring to the rc because that is the subject at hand…it is truly nothing personal…no,really……frederick

 

[Worthy5]

they also said things like “dont harm children” and “thou shalt not kill”…so has the past behavior of the rc eliminated it from the “only church status”?..if not, why ?..it would be right in line with the logic that you have put forth…fd…

Sorry Jargon that is not an argument. You cannot characterize the Catholic faith by the bad actions of a few members of the Church. If you do, then you have to recognize at the same time the tremendous people who are and were the saints of the Church and the reality that no institution has performed more acts of charity around the world than the Church. You have to find another avenue. Good Luck

 

[w_stewart]

God had established an everlasting covenant with the Jews and these apostles were telling them there was a new covenant. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; making Himself equal to God. Paul was so convinced of their error that he dedicated his life to eliminating all of them.

Could you say the same to the Protestants? Did God promise another “New Covenant” to Luther and his minions? Did God give Luther and his followers the authority to forgive sins? Had the Church erred in its teachings to justify Luther’s rebellion?

 

[w_stewart]

are you equating protestantism with the existence of evil?..WOW…fd…

No. All I was saying was that the reason of God allowing the existence of evil could be the same reason he allowed the existence of Protestantism.

 

[w_stewart]

W_Stewert, you have not the right to say that the Protestants are evil that is a miss quote or statement. there are alot of Protestants that are very loving and giving and they are Christains also. We are not here to condem or pass judgement. you are Loved Nancy

I never called Protestants evil. Read back my posts.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Name one or two reasons you think God allowed Protestantism.

I don’t think that Protestantism was part of God’s Will. I think that God wanted the Reformation to happen in the sense of clearing abuse and scandal in the Catholic Church at the time. I think that Herr Luther then took God’s Plan one step farther than God intended…

It’s kind of a rolling snowball scenario. Martin Luther broke away from the Church, which led to this denomination. People didn’t like that so they broke away from Luther and started their own denomination…
Wash, rinse, and repeat as needed

 

[ron77nyc]

Could you say the same to the Protestants? Did God promise another “New Covenant” to Luther and his minions?

New covenant not necessary this time; only the teaching of it.

Did God give Luther and his followers the authority to forgive sins?

Luther was a priest with apostolic succession. He heard confession, forgave sins and consecrated the eucharist.

Had the Church erred in its teachings to justify Luther’s rebellion?

The Church was selling indulgences, deceiving for cash and preaching a false gospel. Read some of Luther’s grievances and decide for youself.

1. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
2. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
3. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
4. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
5. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
6. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
7. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
8. To wit: – “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

 

[w_stewart]

New covenant not necessary this time; only the teaching of it.

Your basis, if any?

Luther was a priest with apostolic succession. He heard confession, forgave sins and consecrated the eucharist.

The moment he rebelled against the authority of the Church founded by Christ, his authority ceased. He no longer could administer licitly the Sacraments of the Church.

The Church was selling indulgences, deceiving for cash

Were these ever officially taught by the Church?

and preaching a false gospel. Read some of Luther’s grievances and decide for youself.

1. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
2. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
3. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
4. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
5. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
6. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
7. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
8. To wit: – “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

 

[jmcrae]

I have to agree with Richard Kastner on the issue of what Jesus told John from the Cross, in regards to Mary. And not just because he is a fellow non-catholic, but because the wording in your post was vague, as to what Jesus meant by saying,“Here is your mother,”. I read this(John19:27), and hear compassion from Jesus, and it appears, that because John is the"disciple that Jesus loved", Christ is entrusting her care to John:thumbsupon’t underestimate we non-catholics; we do not simply discount Mary’s contribution to the entire plan of salvation, and her worth to God> We just don’t place her in as high of a position of importance as the catholic church does

The wording is extremely important. Jesus never says, “John, here is your mother,” He says, “Beloved disciple, here is your mother” - John is a stand-in and a representative of everyone whom Jesus loves, and Mary is for all of us; not only for John.

 

[ron77nyc]

Were these ever officially taught by the Church?

You take the position that many take when defending the guilty and that is: if you can’t prove it then it didn’t happen, or that’s just your opinion. There were other reformations before the Protestant reformation. There was always corruption in the hierarchy and still is today because it became a cushy job with a lot of benefits for the old timers rather than the self denying task that the apostles dedicated themselves to. To say the church never officially taught something means: We have the truth. That’s the important thing. It makes us the true religion. If the people want it they can find it. Is that any way to run a church?
“My people perish for lack of knowledge.” “Feed my sheep.” This is their job.

 

[ron77nyc]

New covenant not necessary this time; only the teaching of it.

Your basis, if any?

Were these ever officially taught by the Church?

Why would anyone say the following if there were no reason to say it?

1. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
2. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

 

[SteveGC]

ron,

seems to me you’re bent on declaring The Church corrupt and a failure based on a handful of isolated events in her 2000 year history. You also seem to have some difficulty differentiating between the “office” of the Church and the “persons” holding those offices. Are you holding the persons to a standard of impeccability, and tolerating nothing less of The Church? God doesn’t. He knows grievous sin would occasionally arise from within the hierarchy. Jesus had to deal with that firsthand while on earth. Did the sin of Peter or any of the 12 alter God’s plan for The Church? I think not. Luther had the right intent, initially. His disdain over the corruption of the hierarchy in his day was quite understandable, and appropriate. His actions to completely abandon Mother Church, however, were absolutely unnecessary and quite inappropriate. If you look deep into the life of Martin Luther, you would see that it wasn’t the iniquities of The Church that spawned the reform, it was Luther’s deep-seated alternative theologies which could not be reconciled with The Church he pledged his life to. They were erroneous, heretical theologies. This was the fuel for the fire. The indulgence corruption was the spark for Luther, but the fuel needed to orphan so many from their Mother was well in place by the time the spark was lit.

 

[distracted]

Why would anyone say the following if there were no reason to say it?

1. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
2. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

i don’t understand your point??

 

[jargon631]

Sorry Jargon that is not an argument. You cannot characterize the Catholic faith by the bad actions of a few members of the Church. If you do, then you have to recognize at the same time the tremendous people who are and were the saints of the Church and the reality that no institution has performed more acts of charity around the world than the Church. You have to find another avenue. Good Luck

actually, im not using it to “characterize” the catholic faith…i’m also not trying to attack the rc, but it as much of an arguement as the post i was responding to…btw…the molestations and other bad acts were commited by far more than a few people…the use of that word is a mischaracterisation of actual events…fd

 

[distracted]

ron,

seems to me you’re bent on declaring The Church corrupt and a failure based on a handful of isolated events in her 2000 year history. You also seem to have some difficulty differentiating between the “office” of the Church and the “persons” holding those offices. Are you holding the persons to a standard of impeccability, and tolerating nothing less of The Church? God doesn’t. He knows grievous sin would occasionally arise from within the hierarchy. Jesus had to deal with that firsthand while on earth. Did the sin of Peter or any of the 12 alter God’s plan for The Church? I think not. Luther had the right intent, initially. His disdain over the corruption of the hierarchy in his day was quite understandable, and appropriate. His actions to completely abandon Mother Church, however, were absolutely unnecessary and quite inappropriate. If you look deep into the life of Martin Luther, you would see that it wasn’t the iniquities of The Church that spawned the reform, it was Luther’s deep-seated alternative theologies which could not be reconciled with The Church he pledged his life to. They were erroneous, heretical theologies. This was the fuel for the fire. The indulgence corruption was the spark for Luther, but the fuel needed to orphan so many from their Mother was well in place by the time the spark was lit.

from what i can tell, this is only half of the story about Luther… As you say, in the beginning he may have had legit concerns over corruption but what i think happened is that he was overly-scrupulous and couldn’t handle his constant falling into sin… I tend to think he (like most people) was tempted w/ impurity (acts w/ self)… and since he began to feel he couldn’t StOP sinning, he began to focus on Christ’s mercy to the exclusion of God’s justice and truth… and the need for purification… which he denied in the end. He felt that since he virtually couldn’t stop sinning (so he told himself) … then God doesn’t expect a person to stop… that he is saved entirely by faith in Christ. At one time he said that you could commit adultery 20 times in one day and still go to Heaven @ death…(As in: w/o repentance) … He said things like this a lot… and i don’t believe he ever retracted those things… in any case, it seems his ego also got the best of him… His followers were somewhat worshipful of him… and he probably got really used to that… got a swelled head… I am deducing this from things i’ve read about him and by his own words… (writings)…
and then there is that thing that Protestants never seem to want to fully deal with: Why is it OK to leave the Church even if there IS massive corruption therein??? leavning doesn’t change the fact that it is THE Church Christ began…
The audacity of it all: leaving the Church Christ established!! I truly believe Luther was possessed… and again, i base this on HIS writings… the filth that spewed out of his mouth …
In any case, now… just because he DID break w/ the Church… no one thinks of that as being… extreme or uncalled for… and yet… What is worse than breaking with the one true Church??? and starting ‘another church’??? Soemthing was very wrong with that man’s mental processes, IMHO…

 

[distracted]

actually, im not using it to “characterize” the catholic faith…i’m also not trying to attack the rc, but it as much of an arguement as the post i was responding to…btw…the molestations and other bad acts were commited by far more than a few people…the use of that word is a mischaracterisation of actual events…fd

it’s interesting that people focus on the 2% of priests who were convicted of sexual misconduct… and ignore the 98% who were/are not… who are doing their jobs… doing good in the world…

it’s also interesting that the rate of child molestation is TWICE as high in Protestant church communities… but you don’t hear much of that because everyone seems to want to attack the RCC… They LOVE making a big issue of this kind of thing… OK, it should be made a big deal of… it iS disgusting when this happens… but why is there not such a big deal made of Protestant ministers who do the same thing?

Is it in a way actually an insult to Protestants? is it possibly saying: Well, we don’t EXPECT Them to live up to standards of absolute sexual purity? but we DO expect that of Ctholics… Makes you wonder…

but mostly its just because the media, knwn for its liberalism and hatred of the Church (we don’t need the Church in our bedrooms, etc…) that LOVES to attack the RCC…

and since they spend so much time attacking the RCC, well, for one, they don’t have time for all that stuff going on in the non-Catholic churches… plus, well,

" the stuff going on in protestant churches doesn’t make for as big a story as when you’re digging up dirt on Catholics… those &^%$# holier-than-thou-Thus-saith-the-Church Catholics… who try to tell us not to contracept and not to abort our children and not to do homosexual acts and all… We’ll show them… We’ve got the power of the written word and by – we’re going to use it… "

 

[Worthy5]

actually, im not using it to “characterize” the catholic faith…i’m also not trying to attack the rc, but it as much of an arguement as the post i was responding to…btw…the molestations and other bad acts were commited by far more than a few people…the use of that word is a mischaracterisation of actual events…fd

Actually studies show around 4% to 6% of the priests over the last 50 years or so are involved in the scandal. So I think the word “few” is appropriate unless some more numbers come out showing higher numbers. The point remains, the faith itself is different from any individual.

 

[SteveGC]

it’s interesting that people focus on the 2% of priests who were convicted of sexual misconduct… and ignore the 98% who were/are not… who are doing their jobs… doing good in the world…

it’s also interesting that the rate of child molestation is TWICE as high in Protestant church communities… but you don’t hear much of that because everyone seems to want to attack the RCC… They LOVE making a big issue of this kind of thing… OK, it should be made a big deal of… it iS disgusting when this happens… but why is there not such a big deal made of Protestant ministers who do the same thing?

Is it in a way actually an insult to Protestants? is it possibly saying: Well, we don’t EXPECT Them to live up to standards of absolute sexual purity? but we DO expect that of Ctholics… Makes you wonder…

but mostly its just because the media, knwn for its liberalism and hatred of the Church (we don’t need the Church in our bedrooms, etc…) that LOVES to attack the RCC…

and since they spend so much time attacking the RCC, well, for one, they don’t have time for all that stuff going on in the non-Catholic churches… plus, well,

" the stuff going on in protestant churches doesn’t make for as big a story as when you’re digging up dirt on Catholics… those &^%$# holier-than-thou-Thus-saith-the-Church Catholics… who try to tell us not to contracept and not to abort our children and not to do homosexual acts and all… We’ll show them… We’ve got the power of the written word and by – we’re going to use it… "

It’s also largely because of the visible prominence of The Church throughout all time. You don’t see public scrutiny over non-Catholic iniquity because there’s no target…the sins of non-Catholic leaders evade detection because each individual represents only the congregation on 5th and Main in Anywhere USA. So it doesn’t make headlines. The Catholic Church is a figure of Christianity for the entire world. So we should not be surprised that internal iniquity will generate public scrutiny (and in most cases, this is how it should be). Alot of this boils down to who is most visible in the world. Anglican iniquity makes some headlines too. The more prominent, historic and unified the community, the larger the target it becomes. We, as Catholics, have to take the bad with the good. Fortunately the bad is minimal, and the good is abundant and everlasting.