Why so many Protestant denominations

[GandalfTheWhite]

Why so many Protestant denominations.

Well why so many Catholic denominations.

1. Conservative
2. Liberal
3. Eastern Rite
4. Traditional (sspx)
5. Charismatic Renewal
6. Folkloric

These are not denominations but groups with different liturgical traditions and sometimes different approaches to prayer. They are all fully Catholic in their believes (well, maybe except for the liberal, but it depends on what you mean).

So ye, there is no comparison. The fact is that the protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. They think they can read and interpret the Holy Bible for themselves because they are guided by the Holy Spirit. So they open the Bible and “under the guidance” of the Holy Spirit they split into 30,000 denominations (plus several other non-Christian sects) that can’t even get out of the Bible whether the communion is just a symbol or there is some kind of “spiritual presence of Jesus” (whatever they mean by that).

 

[StevenFrancis]

I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible.

It will likely just keep going on and on for quite some time. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the doctrine of sola scriptura and a lack of magesterium. Each protestant is essentially his own faith unit. Him/her and their bible. Everything can go along fine for a while with a group, until a serious disagreement comes up regarding faith or morals. Then there’s no one to settle it essentially, so another church is formed. Frankly I worry about this happening in Catholocism too, because there have been a few incidents, but all in all, Jesus said it would stand the test of time, so I have faith.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[jblake]

Not true.

a) I realize that it is a major embarrassment to Catholics that the Bishop of Rome performed same sex unions in the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano . To deny that they occurred, is to deny history.

b) As far as the "anal sex’ v “homosexuality” goes. the major issue depends upon how one translates the words. The text supports both variants.

c) I’ll skip the issues related to Mary Magdala for the time being. (Unless you really were wanting a detailed analysis of why Jesus either had a homosexual affair, or was married to Mary of Magdala, or Mary of Magdala wrote the Gospel of John.)

No Bible Scholar in history even hinted that at an absurd interpretation like this.

It is only in the last fifty years, that Bible scholars have been willing to be blunt about what they mean, when it comes to sex in the Bible. Prior to that they danced around the topic, without saying what they explicitly meant.

The only thing that is new, is that the delineation is “anal sex only”, rather than both anal sex and homosexuality.

not really. What we have is very recent distortion of the accepted interpretations of scripture for 2,000 years

Only if recent refers to material written almost two millennia ago.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

justinthemartyr;:

show me the evidence of someone teaching sola scriptura in the first century then, outside of scripture.

The Talmud

xan

jonathon

 

[Dauphin]

a) I realize that it is a major embarrassment to Catholics that the Bishop of Rome performed same sex unions in the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano . To deny that they occurred, is to deny history.

That would be very remarkable if it were true, but many Popes are guilty of worse.

I’d still be interested in seeing the evidence.

 

[Dauphin]

The Talmud

xan

jonathon

And which Christians were involved in writing the Talmud?

 

[estesbob]

a) I realize that it is a major embarrassment to Catholics that the Bishop of Rome performed same sex unions in the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano . To deny that they occurred, is to deny history.

Its no embarassment at all becuase it didnt happen. i know that a guy wrote a book claiming this but it has been throroughly debunked. One of the big stumbling blocks for this nonsense is that when the “marriages” supposedly took place homosexual behavior was a serious crime. So you would have us believe that the Church was openly marrying men who would be arrested the moment they stepped outside of the Church. Also the confessional guides at the time listed homosexual behavior as a mortal sin for which severe pennance was required. So I guess prior to stepping outside to be arrested they first stepped in to the confessional to confess the sin the Priest just affirmed. As I said utter nonsense.
.

b) As far as the "anal sex’ v “homosexuality” goes. the major issue depends upon how one translates the words. The text supports both variants.

Only in the last 30 years. It is quite arogant to beleive that evreyone who went before us was ignorant and only the “enlightened” (who by an amazing coincidence belived homosexual behaior was OK) got it right after 2,000 years. And of course that would be quite an inept God who let a incorrect translation lead people to believe they were sinning when they were not for 2,000 years

c) I’ll skip the issues related to Mary Magdala for the time being. (Unless you really were wanting a detailed analysis of why Jesus either had a homosexual affair, or was married to Mary of Magdala, or Mary of Magdala wrote the Gospel of John.)

Oh by all mean amuse us. Hopefully you will not pull out novel transaltions of the Gnositc an Arian gospels wrtten hundreds of years after Jesus died…

I

It is only in the last fifty years, that Bible scholars have been willing to be blunt about what they mean, when it comes to sex in the Bible. Prior to that they danced around the topic, without saying what they explicitly meant.

Once more presentism rears its ugly head. Isnt it an amazing coincidence that these new imporved translations just happened to occur at the same time the Homosexual “rights” movement came into existence???

The only thing that is new, is that the delineation is “anal sex only”, rather than both anal sex and homosexuality.

The only thing that has changed is that only in the current genration have there been people foolish enough to accpet this nonsense.

 

[estesbob]

The lat few pages of this thread are a vivid example of why there are so many Protestant denominations. once you make yourslef the authortiy on Scriptue and tradition anything goes. In this thread alone we have a person invent a new denomination who’s doctrines include:

1. Jesus was a bi-sexual
2. Jesus Married Mary Madgeline
3. The Catholic Church performed same sex marriages
4. Mary Magedeline wrote the Gospel of John

Kinda a cross between the “Davinci Code” d “Queer eye for the Straight Guy”

 

[jblake]

Dauphin:

And which Christians were involved in writing the Talmud?

You realize that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, don’t you?

You also realize that even after the Council of Jamnia, Judaism continued to influence Christianity, don’t you?

And you further realize that the Church in Jerusalem had more authority than the Church in Rome until Christianity was declared the state religion of the Roman Empire, don’t you?

xan

jonathon

 

[Dauphin]

You realize that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, don’t you?

You also realize that even after the Council of Jamnia, Judaism continued to influence Christianity, don’t you?

And you further realize that the Church in Jerusalem had more authority than the Church in Rome until Christianity was declared the state religion of the Roman Empire, don’t you?

xan

jonathon

Back to the topic… can you present the writings of any first-century Christians which endorse the notion of sola scriptura? Just one will do.

 

[estesbob]

You realize that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, don’t you?

No

You also realize that even after the Council of Jamnia, Judaism continued to influence Christianity, don’t you?

No

And you further realize that the Church in Jerusalem had more authority than the Church in Rome until Christianity was declared the state religion of the Roman Empire, don’t you?

Oh no-not the Constantine founded the catholic Church myth!

I tell you its like fighting the Hydra-everytime you knock one
down another rears its ugly head.

http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01666/Images/hydra.jpg

 

[estesbob]

Back to the topic… can you present the writings of any first-century Christians which endorse the notion of sola scriptura? Just one will do.

While hes at it perhap he can show us some first century Christians who beleive Jesus was a homosexual who had Mary Magdeline for a wife.

 

[rien]

I think Mormons might disagree

ITA, how can anyone who supports Sola Scriptura deny the LS as Chritian. The Bible does not state the canon - let alone it was closed. That is a man-made doctrine.

 

[jblake]

estesbob;:

1. Jesus was a bi-sexual

You are the first person in this thread to make that claim.
But since you brought it up, I’ll just point out that that claim was first made by French Catholics.

1. Jesus Married Mary Magdalene

That can be traced back to the second or third century.

1. The Catholic Church performed same sex marriages

“Lord our god and ruler, who makest humankind after thine own image and didst bestow upon us the power of life eternal, do Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one other and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives… that they be granted
love in the spirit and [that they] honor each other, that the Lord grant them blameless life and pleasing conduct, that they be saved from all danger…” is a twelfth century quote from such a ritual.

1. Mary Magedeline wrote the Gospel of John

That was first proposed by a fairly devout Roman Catholic.

IOW, zero out of four were originally from Protestant Christianity.

xan

jonathon

 

[estesbob]

You are the first person in this thread to make that claim.
But since you brought it up, I’ll just point out that that claim was first made by French Catholics.

c) I’ll skip the issues related to Mary Magdala for the time being. (Unless you really were wanting a detailed analysis of why Jesus either had a homosexual affair, or was married to Mary of Magdala, or Mary of Magdala wrote the Gospel of John.)

That can be traced back to the second or third century.

Thrree hundred years after Jesus died? Arian assertion, correct?

“Lord our god and ruler, who makest humankind after thine own image and didst bestow upon us the power of life eternal, do Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one other and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives… that they be granted
love in the spirit and [that they] honor each other, that the Lord grant them blameless life and pleasing conduct, that they be saved from all danger…” is a twelfth century quote from such a ritual.

Nice prayer but where is the same sex marriage ceremony you purport was performed? And how do you reconcile such a mythical marriage with the laws of the time and the instrucions in the Confessional guide.

That was first proposed by a fairly devout Roman Catholic.

So?

IOW, zero out of four were originally from Protestant Christianity.

 

[SIA]

Hey jbake,

Some protestant churchs allow homosexual marriage is that supported by the Bible? Most of all protestant churchs allow birth control and that is against Holy Scripture. True love for Holy Scripture is not picking and choosing the verses one likes and forgetting the other verses. I think that is what protestantism does.

and I think that maybe you should find out more about your separated brothers and sisters and probably get some further and better knowkledge of Scripture and try it again.

 

[jmcrae]

and I think that maybe you should find out more about your separated brothers and sisters and probably get some further and better knowkledge of Scripture and try it again.

Try what again? Try to pick out which Protestant denomination is correctly interpreting the Scriptures? And using what as a basis for making this decision? Since we won’t know what is “biblical” until we actually sit down and read the Bible, right?

We know that homosexuality is wrong because the Church teaches it; not because it’s “obvious” in the Bible - it isn’t. That’s the only way we know that Protestants who accept homosexuality and interpret the Scriptures to be saying something else must be wrong - because the Church teaches differently.

If we say, “I will interpret the Scriptures for myself, and make my own decision,” what guarantee is there that we won’t read them from the liberal Protestant point of view? After all, when you exclude everything else, their interpretation makes just as much sense as everyone else’s. It’s only when you take the Tradition into account that it begins to make sense that the Bible is condemning homosexual activity as it is practiced today, and that there is no difference between what we call homosexuality today, and what it was 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago - that, indeed, as Qoheleth has written, there is, in fact, nothing new under the sun.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible.

St. Augustine wrote, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

It seems to me that many Protestant denominations are separate denominations as a result of non-essentials. Questions of church government, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, methods of baptism, and such are issues that denominations often debate, but over which they should never divide. A Baptist might disagree with his Methodist and Evangelical friends and debate his differences with them vigorously, but still go out for pizza with them afterward. The differences between them keep things interesting, i think.

Isn’t it true that even in the Roman Catholic church there is room for debate and differences of opinion about non-essential doctrines?

 

[jmcrae]

St. Augustine wrote, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

It seems to me that many Protestant denominations are separate denominations as a result of non-essentials.

Obviously, they weren’t “non-essentials” at the time of the division, though. Someone thought it was “essential” enough to divide over.

Questions of church government, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, methods of baptism, and such are issues that denominations often debate, but over which they should never divide. A Baptist might disagree with his Methodist and Evangelical friends and debate his differences with them vigorously, but still go out for pizza with them afterward. The differences between them keep things interesting, i think.

There are irreconcilable differences between these three groups - the fact that they can go for pizza together just shows that they are human. They will still be going different places for Church on Sunday, though.

Isn’t it true that even in the Roman Catholic church there is room for debate and differences of opinion about non-essential doctrines?

Absolutely - and, we’ll all be going to Mass together on Sunday, too!

 

[jblake]

estesbob;:

Three hundred years after Jesus died? Arian assertion, correct?

Nope.

Nice prayer but where is the same sex marriage ceremony you purport was performed?

the adelphopoiia liturgy

And how do you reconcile such a mythical marriage with the laws of the time and the instructions in the

The persecution of homosexuals came later.

xan

jonathon
So?