Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[ron77nyc]

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.

I don’t think the Church has been a complete failure. Most priests, bishops and popes have done a good job. My main complaint is the hierarchy’s deviation from the spirit of the apostles. Peter didn’t accept adoration from anyone and they didn’t tolerate sexual immorality or misuse of church money. I don’t understand “differentiating between the “office” of the Church and the “persons” holding those offices.” Are we supposed to follow corrupt leaders?

 

[ron77nyc]

i don’t understand your point??

The pope wasn’t preaching the gospel of Jesus. He was preaching a false gospel. He was accepting money for forgiveness of sins. w_stewart 5 asked me if this was official church doctrine. My point is this: What does that have to do with it? The pope has no right to teach his own doctrine. Just because it isn’t the official church doctrine that doesn’t make it OK. In the Middle Ages and now the pope represents the Catholic Church and people think he is infallible all the time. Most people don’t know what infallible means today so back then you know they didn’t have a clue. He took advantage of their ignorance and enjoyed having an ignorant congregation. Isn’t the Church supposed to bring light into the world? He was working for darkness, preaching a phony gospel and we think it’s terrible that Luther said “faith alone.”

 

[1beleevr]

hey, here’s something to try this weekend; go to 1Corinthians 13:4-7, and substitute the word “love” in all these verses, with your name! See how many of rhese are true about you! I was able to get 4 or 5! God bless everyone:thumbsup:

 

[w_stewart]

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.

The corruption in the heirarchy is not a matter of teaching. Christ guarantees that his Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth cannot err. He, however, does not guarantee that he will protect the people within the heirarchy from falling into sin.

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.

Then prove it that the Church erred in its teaching of Indulgence. How does it injure the Word of God?

I need proof, not just sweeping allegations.

 

[w_stewart]

The pope wasn’t preaching the gospel of Jesus. He was preaching a false gospel. He was accepting money for forgiveness of sins. w_stewart 5 asked me if this was official church doctrine. My point is this: What does that have to do with it? The pope has no right to teach his own doctrine. Just because it isn’t the official church doctrine that doesn’t make it OK. In the Middle Ages and now the pope represents the Catholic Church and people think he is infallible all the time. Most people don’t know what infallible means today so back then you know they didn’t have a clue. He took advantage of their ignorance and enjoyed having an ignorant congregation. Isn’t the Church supposed to bring light into the world? He was working for darkness, preaching a phony gospel and we think it’s terrible that Luther said “faith alone.”

Whatever was taught by the Pope, granting for the sake of argument that he had, not officially accepted and taught by the Church remained his and his alone. In the same manner, whatever error or evil committed by the Pope was his and his alone and the Church should not be blamed. That is why I asked whether those things you alleged taught by the Pope were ever officially taught by the Church.

 

[jargon631]

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… "

i dont care WHAT percentage it is…any time someone in a position of trust violates it to that extreme, it is horrible…ESPECIALLY when you have people like bernard law shuffling them about as a matter of policy…thats what makes a horrific situation even more so…and yes, i agree with your point on protestant faiths also…btw…i’m not a christian, so i dont really have any sectarian axe to grind…the media attacks ALL religion…it doesnt have to be the rc…it doesnt even have to be religious…it just has to exist as something that isnt “approved” by the media versian of popular culture…we need to actually THINK about the things we see and hear instead of just taking all things as truth(by “we” im referring to society at large, i’m not singling myself/yourself out)…if we werent so concerned with living a media/pop-culture driven “lifestyle”, we wouldnt have a “house of cards” economy built on money that doesnt exist…the cultural imperative to hurry into crushing debt and stay there until we die is obscene…the only ones to benefit from this mass delusion are the ones holding all our debt…AAAARRRGGGHHH…:banghead:…but, i digress…lol…frederick

 

[jargon631]

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.

good post ron…i agree…to take the position that “it was never officialy sanctioned” is a straw man at best…fd:thumbsup:

 

[jargon631]

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.

***me…***actually, thats a very good point that i would tend to agree with, although i wouldnt use the word iniquity…i would say “horrific crimes against the most vulnerable”

The Catholic Church is a figure of Christianity for the entire world.

***me…***well…it’s ONE figure…i think the many southern baptist sects are up there, also

So we should not be surprised that internal iniquity will generate public scrutiny (and in most cases, this is how it should be).

***me…***thats absolutely correct

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.

 

[SteveGC]

The Catholic Church is a figure of Christianity for the entire world.

me…well…it’s ONE figure…i think the many southern baptist sects are up there, also

Perhaps I should’ve been more specific. The Catholic Church has been a figure of Christianity for the entire world since the dawn of Christianity.

The Southern Baptists have been somewhat of a figure of Christianity for a portion of the United States for about the last 50 years or so. They perhaps are also pseudo-figures of Christianity for portions of a handful of third world countries wherein they do much noble evangelical work, but unfortunately also proselytize Catholics away from The Church.

If any other church is “up there” with the Catholic Church, it would only be the Orthodox.

 

[zosa]

Name one or two reasons you think God allowed Protestantism.

God allows everything because humans have free will. Same reason he “allowed” man to fall in the Garden to Satan’s deception.

 

[jargon631]

Perhaps I should’ve been more specific. The Catholic Church has been a figure of Christianity for the entire world since the dawn of Christianity.

The Southern Baptists have been somewhat of a figure of Christianity for a portion of the United States for about the last 50 years or so. They perhaps are also pseudo-figures of Christianity for portions of a handful of third world countries wherein they do much noble evangelical work, but unfortunately also proselytize Catholics away from The Church.

If any other church is “up there” with the Catholic Church, it would only be the Orthodox.

arent we referring to the present day?..why should u care if a catholic becomes a baptist or vice-versa?..arent they both worshipping the same god?..does a denominational change indicate a lesser adoration of their saviour?..fd…

 

[Nino]

It was a lesson…Remember Jesus tossed the money changers out of His fathers temple…that sealed His doom! Martin Luther sided with the money changers in Germany against the common folk…it was they who were the secular humanists of the day and therefor hated the RCC! By proclaiming that one can use ones own ‘conscience’ and thus decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong! This has led to the disaster of the nazi party and the holocaust and now we have what is happening in washington dc…all kinds of perversions are being pushed into our faces as right and true! and if we oppose such demonic reasoning we are called childish names like rightwing extremists and terrorists! Eternity is a long time so we are tested time and time again here.

 

[ron77nyc]

It was a lesson…Remember Jesus tossed the money changers out of His fathers temple…that sealed His doom! Martin Luther sided with the money changers in Germany against the common folk…it was they who were the secular humanists of the day and therefor hated the RCC! By proclaiming that one can use ones own ‘conscience’ and thus decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong! This has led to the disaster of the nazi party and the holocaust and now we have what is happening in washington dc…all kinds of perversions are being pushed into our faces as right and true! and if we oppose such demonic reasoning we are called childish names like rightwing extremists and terrorists! Eternity is a long time so we are tested time and time again here.

And don’t forget all this bad weather we’re having in New York.

 

[Matariel]

If any other church is “up there” with the Catholic Church, it would only be the Orthodox.

Even so, the Orthodox churches are disunified and also have much less influence in the West (and the world in general) and do not have an unified embodied voice such as Catholic Christians have in the Pope. There are tonnes of wonderful Eastern Orthodox people. In the future they may reunite to the Church, but until then we’ll just have to hope and pray.

 

[DLClark]

You are asking the wrong question. What if protestantism is correct? What should you do about it?

 

[SteveGC]

You are asking the wrong question. What if protestantism is correct? What should you do about it?

If it’s correct, then I should protest the Church and claim the Bible as the only authority we have on earth. Then I should…hmmm.

What then?

Well, I suppose I should re-read my Bible under the guidance of…well okay, the Holy Spirit. I’m doing that now as a Catholic, but I guess I’ll continue to do that…

then…

let the Spirit teach me the REAL doctrine of the faith…and…

I should not worry that the doctrine He teaches me differs from many many other protestant communities…we’ll just agree to disagree, which is OK since God teaches his children different things about how to be saved sometimes…it’s OK, since atleast we aren’t Catholic any more.

And when I get a little nervous about my salvation, I’ll just cling to the protestant mantra of…“just believe in Christ”…and I am instantaneously declared righteous and bound for heaven…no matter what!

What a wonderful world.

On second thought…

 

[SteveGC]

Even so, the Orthodox churches are disunified and also have much less influence in the West (and the world in general) and do not have an unified embodied voice such as Catholic Christians have in the Pope. There are tonnes of wonderful Eastern Orthodox people. In the future they may reunite to the Church, but until then we’ll just have to hope and pray.

Agreed.

 

[SteveGC]

arent we referring to the present day?..why should u care if a catholic becomes a baptist or vice-versa?..arent they both worshipping the same god?..does a denominational change indicate a lesser adoration of their saviour?..fd…

You may have been referring to the present day, but I wasn’t. The public focus on Catholicism is leaps and bounds above any other branch of Christianity because she is not limited to present-day Christianity. She is as old as Christianity is. Precisely as old.

I care if a Catholic becomes a baptist because that change is not necessarily a lesser adoration of the Savior (atleast in their own mind)…but it IS a lesser degree of obedience. They also would have put themselves outside of the fullness of Truth, opting for partial Truth.

So, yes…I care about that.

 

[DLClark]

Here something to think about.
Have you come to the place in your spiritual life where you know for sure that if you were to die today that you will be in heaven with God? You can know this wonderful truth for sure. Do you know it?

 

[SteveGC]

Here something to think about.
Have you come to the place in your spiritual life where you know for sure that if you were to die today that you will be in heaven with God? You can know this wonderful truth for sure. Do you know it?

I’ll respond to that with a set of questions for you to “think about”:

1. what do you make of people who aren’t as absolute in their confidence of their eternal destiny as you are? Is their lack of 100% without-a-doubt confidence a sign to you that they do not believe, nor follow, Christ? If so, I would argue that the level of one’s confidence in their eternal destiny is in no way proportionate to, or even a reflection of, their faith and discipleship in Christ. If I’m driving cross-country somewhere, and I’m not 100% certain that I won’t somehow die before I get there, do I stop driving? Do I stop following the road I’m on that leads me there? Just because I don’t know the outcome, it has no bearing on my belief that the road will lead me there if I keep driving. I am just as faithful to the driving as another driver who’s convinced himself 100% that he WILL NO DOUBT make it to his destination. I’m wondering why you think confidence is a valid measure of faith? Is not faith more appropriately described as belief and acceptance without the possession of full knowledge of any outcome? And wouldn’t you agree that Christians are called to be faithful throughout their entire lives? If you think about it, what use is there for lifelong faith, if one is already 100% assured in their mind of their fate? All I’m saying is that the essence of “faith” is perpetual belief and discipleship, not an instantaneous or one-time proclamation of salvation.
2. Catholics actually ARE confident in their salvation. We have a reasonable and moral assurance of it, which is to say that we know our eternal destiny is with God so long as we truly follow Christ until the end of our lives. Using my analogy, we know that if we keep driving, following the rules of the road, stay within the lines, we will eventually make it home. Knowing that about us, why would it be still so important for you to preach the necessity of absolute, here-and-now, assurance?