Why I'm discontent with my Protestantism

[Root of Jesse]

I tend to think all Christians have to bear that guilt to some extent.

Yes, I know there was corruption, and reform was necessary. But why was division and murder and war necessary?

The Catholic Church wasn't moving fast enough for the people who wanted an excuse to revolt. Of course, most of what people don't like, me included, about the Catholic Church is the politics. I love the faith, and tend to try to separate the politics.

What I really want to do is follow's Jesus's path.

AMEN.

Really? Evil in the pursuit of good? "The ends justify the means"? I have a really hard time with that. What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

That's a political concept if there ever was one-evil in pursuit of good. The ends never justify the means if you have to use that mantra.

It's not a concept that I've encountered in history... unless you mean it's historical in the context of the Reformation.

No, but I would like to follow the model Jesus set up for His Church as closely as possible.

Right on. I believe if you follow the Catholic FAITH, you get that. If you follow the Catholic institution, not so much.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I for one do not believe you are a Protestant based on your responses. One could go on and on for days about historical ugliness of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church and calling it the "One True Church" does not make it all magically disappear so as to erase the pages of history. If you want to be Catholic, you'll have to learn how to own up to the ugliness and embrace it as your own, as a part of the "ONE TRUE CHURCH". Enjoy!

Politics, including the politics of the Catholic Church, is ugly. To be sure. Why not ignore the politics, stick to the faith? I know we're a church of human beings, all fallen, so is everyother church denomination. The Church is one because Christ instituted only one Church. And we claim that we are that one. Politics didn't really intrude until Constantine legalized the Christian faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

From what I read, the fault lines were breaking down between Christians and Jews well before Bar Kochba. According to Ignatius (writing in about 107 A.D.):

(VIII) Be not led astray by strange doctrines or by old fables which are profitless. For if we are living until now according to Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For the divine prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. Therefore they were also persecuted, being inspired by his grace, to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his son, who is his Word proceeding from silence, who in all respects was well-pleasing to him that sent him. (IX) If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord’s Day, on which also our life sprang up through him and his death,—though some deny him,—and by this mystery we received faith, and for this reason also we suffer, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians VIII-IX, trans. Lake)​

Most biblical scholars think it was happening even before the close of the New Testament books that we have today. Witness how John's Gospel uses the term "the Jews" alot, or how other books have disclaimers to explain Jewish customs. They never use "us", but "them". That's probably because by the time the Gospels were written down, followers of the Way were already being tossed out of synagogues and the identity of Christians as a separate religious movement was clear.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ok, enlighten me. How did Orthadoxy come to be.
In Him

I'll enlighten you about how to spell 'Orthadoxy'. It's spelled 'Orthodoxy'.You might respond that spelling does not matter. It does. If you can't correctly spell the subject of what you are discussing, that should serve as a subtle clue that you need enlightenment on the whole subject.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Politics, including the politics of the Catholic Church, is ugly. To be sure. Why not ignore the politics, stick to the faith? I know we're a church of human beings, all fallen, so is everyother church denomination. The Church is one because Christ instituted only one Church. And we claim that we are that one. Politics didn't really intrude until Constantine legalized the Christian faith.

The way I view it, politics is not outside of the sovereignty of God, and Jesus is Lord over every realm of life, over all knowledge and experience. Christianity is more than a religion, it is a worldview, the lens through which we interpret all of reality. Essentially this means there is a Christian philosophy of politics, a Biblical blueprint if you will for politics. So I do not find it helpful to separate politics from faith, in fact, social issues are a source of 50%+ of division among Catholics, historically at times higher, other times slightly lower. It has been this way longer than I've been alive. The social divide is also an indicator that the conservative/liberal theology ratio among Catholics is probably about the same. Unity in the Catholic Church is a grand illusion I am afraid.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Orthadoxy came out of an apostate church via repenting of the false doctrine of indulgences. Great, I applaud that!! Was the doctrine of indulgences Catholicism's first deviation from God? Did Orthadoxy return fully to sound doctrine provided by God?
In Him

This video explains it. Orthodoxy had 4 of the 5 Remaining Patriarchal Bishops after The Roman Bishop left (The Pope). Orthodoxy Is / Was The Church.

Alexandria: Leontius (1052-1059 A.D.)
Jerusalem: Ioannikios (1048-?) or Sophronios II (?-1059 A.D.)
Rome: Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.)
Constantinople: Michael Cerularius (1043-1059 A.D.)
Antioch: Peter III (1028-1051 A.D.), or John IV, V, or Dionysius (1051-62 A.D)

 

[Just_a_Christian]

If what you are wanting to do is follow Jesus as closely as possible, all you need for that is God's word. Study God's word and compare what you see. The New Testament church had one head, Christ, no pope, no regional bishops, dioceses or anything of the sort. Each individual congregation was completely autonomous in nature and responsible for it's own spiritual health, Christ being the head and mediator. Look at the hierarchy of the New Testament church. Christ has ALL authority. Not some and some delegated elsewhere. God knowing the nature of man, Adam, the Israelites and all the rebellion over thousands of years; you honestly think God is going to require the life of His only begotten son and turn right around and give total power of the church over to man? Not a chance! Not to mention Peter told the church to not let our liberty to become a cloke of maliciousness; indulgences is the exact epitome of maliciousness!! God's word is the blueprint for the church, not some man.
In Him

 

[Just_a_Christian]

This video explains it. Orthodoxy had 4 of the 5 Remaining Patriarchal Bishops after The Roman Bishop left (The Pope). Orthodoxy Is / Was The Church.

Alexandria: Leontius (1052-1059 A.D.)
Jerusalem: Ioannikios (1048-?) or Sophronios II (?-1059 A.D.)
Rome: Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.)
Constantinople: Michael Cerularius (1043-1059 A.D.)
Antioch: Peter III (1028-1051 A.D.), or John IV, V, or Dionysius (1051-62 A.D)

And....the church had drifted long before 1050AD. In fact, Paul said the falling away had already began when he penned 2nd Thessalonians.
In Him

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

If what you are wanting to do is follow Jesus as closely as possible, all you need for that is God's word. Study God's word and compare what you see. The New Testament church had one head, Christ, no pope, no regional bishops, dioceses or anything of the sort. Each individual congregation was completely autonomous in nature and responsible for it's own spiritual health, Christ being the head and mediator. Look at the hierarchy of the New Testament church. Christ has ALL authority. Not some and some delegated elsewhere. God knowing the nature of man, Adam, the Israelites and all the rebellion over thousands of years; you honestly think God is going to require the life of His only begotten son and turn right around and give total power of the church over to man? Not a chance! Not to mention Peter told the church to not let our liberty to become a cloke of maliciousness; indulgences is the exact epitome of maliciousness!! God's word is the blueprint for the church, not some man.
In Him

The Lord Jesus Christ Is The Authority, Absolutely I agree.

He Also left A Church on the earth with Bishops, Deacons, Teachers, Preachers, Pastors, Evangelists, Elders, Presbyters and Priests Etc.

 

[Chris V++]

This video explains it. Orthodoxy had 4 of the 5 Remaining Patriarchal Bishops after The Roman Bishop left (The Pope). Orthodoxy Is / Was The Church.

Alexandria: Leontius (1052-1059 A.D.)
Jerusalem: Ioannikios (1048-?) or Sophronios II (?-1059 A.D.)
Rome: Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.)
Constantinople: Michael Cerularius (1043-1059 A.D.)
Antioch: Peter III (1028-1051 A.D.), or John IV, V, or Dionysius (1051-62 A.D)

At 5 minutes into the video the priest states that Rome dismissed the Orthodox as 'Greeks' which was a derogatory term implying they were behaving like pagans. I found that a curious idea as I was doing research into Orthodox iconography.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

I'll enlighten you about how to spell 'Orthadoxy'. It's spelled 'Orthodoxy'.You might respond that spelling does not matter. It does. If you can't correctly spell the subject of what you are discussing, that should serve as a subtle clue that you need enlightenment on the whole subject.

Ever heard of auto correct?? I don't know why my phone does it. You're correct about one thing, I could not care less....congrats.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

And....the church had drifted long before 1050AD. In fact, Paul said the falling away had already began when he penned 2nd Thessalonians.
In Him

You can believe what ever you want. I believe what the Bible says.


And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; And The Gates Of Hell Shall NOT Prevail Against It.
• Matthew 16:18

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

He also gave The Disciples the power and authority to forgive sins:


" If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
• John 20:23

 

[Just_a_Christian]

The Lord Jesus Christ Is The Authority, Absolutely I agree.

He Also left A Church on the earth with Bishops, Deacons, Teachers, Preachers, Pastors, Elders, Presbyters and Priests Etc.

The word bishop and elder is used interchangeably in the New Testament. In fact Paul did so within the span of only two or three verses.
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Acts 14:23
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Titus 1:5
Each church had their own overseers and deacons. I'm sure you've read the qualifications for each office in the word. We are to all be priest, and yes there are preachers. However, there is no Pope or anything else. Each warning in Revelation is directed to a specific church, not to mention the epistles. If there was a "leader" over multiple churches the reprimand would've been addressed to him but that's not the case. Why would it be best for each congregation to be autonomous? No stranglehold on the church? No man attempting to enforce a false doctrine over multiple congregations. Not to mention the fact that changing the church and it's name robs Christ of His rightful glory.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Colossians 1:18-19
Christ is to have THE PREEMINENCE in All things, period.
In Him

 

[chevyontheriver]

Friendly question: aren't all Christians that follow the teachings in the Epistles by Peter, James, John, and Paul...well, apostolic?

There are lots of ways people use the term 'apostolic'. Some groups even put it in their name, like 'First Street Apostolic Bible Temple and College' or some such thing. But the groups I include as Apostolic are ones that have bishops who have been appointed in succession back to the apostles. Thus the term 'apostolic succession', which means that a bishop was consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by bishops who ... were consecrated by the apostles themselves. So 'apostolic' Churches would be the various Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, and I suppose you could argue that there are other bishops among Anglicans or Lutherans or Old Catholics who are technically in that same succession. But it isn't just people who say they follow Peter, James, John, and Paul. It is those under the authority of the successors of Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the apostles. So not all Christians are under that authority, so not all Christians are apostolic.

Another friendly question (these are sincere, real questions) -- how do you yourself see the word "catholic"? What does it mean?

It comes from the Greek words 'kata holos' meaning 'pertaining to the whole', or simply 'universal'.

I've thought of the word 'catholic' to mean universal -- meaning all of us Christians together. In short, all Christians that follow what is in the New Testament with faith -- loving their fellow believers -- all such are 'catholic' of course!

But that's not quite how it has been historically understood. In Augustine's day there were lots of pretenders to be the true representatives of Christianity. He suggested to seek out the Catholic Church, the one where the belief here is the same as way over there on the other side of the empire, the one with the unified belief and not just some one off place with an interesting twist to the teaching of the faith. Vincent of Lerins said "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Catholic then means the whole of Christians, wherever there are Christians, from every age of Christianity. Today we have people who reject what Christians from the first millennium believed, so how are they Catholic? Many people who might call themselves Christian in no way want to be called Catholic. Others want to be called Catholic but believe things radically different from what Catholic Church believes today or at any time in history. So who can claim rightly to be 'catholic'?

So, to me the word 'catholic' represents "Love One Another" in action (and I realize that only those that 'love one another' even have a chance also).

To be 'catholic' one must embrace all their brothers and sisters in love. Else one is not there yet. Of course then there are some 'catholics' in the Catholic church, just as in other churches.

You can define things as you wish. And I can even sympathize with your doing so. And who can be against love? It's just that words have meaning, and the meaning is defined largely by how it has been used over history.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah, but I'm a girl.

So were St. Catherine of Siena, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux. They are Doctors of the Church. You are in very good company. You may not have a future as a pastor but you can certainly use your gifts in ways some mere pastors will never get to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ever heard of auto correct?? I don't know why my phone does it. You're correct about one thing, I could not care less....congrats.

You need a smarter phone.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

You need a smarter phone.

Buy it and send it to me, if it's that important to you. Works just fine for me, makes calls and it will run the biblegateway app.
Howaboutthat

 

[Tone]

A great deal of it was simply ethnic tensions between Franks and Greeks which lead to the development of different religious cultures.

One of the same reasons that the Greeks split from the Jewish sect of Messiah.

 

[Tone]

Rhetorical question here, If God created/allowed/facilitated schisms between the Jews prior to the 1st century, is it possible He is ok with or had a hand in the Great Schism, the reformation, and the subsequent 12000 protestant denominations?

Have you heard of the latest one?:

Forumists