Protestantism has done more harm than good.

GraceBro said:

True, there is no consensus. But, thankfully, there is truth, and God reveals it to us. Faith is our response to it.

Click to expand...

I agree. And...
What I am about to write is a dangerous subject. But, it seems that truth may be more individualized than we want to admit. We tend to think that there is only one truth, that everything else is a lie. But what if truth is somewhat individualized? (within reason)

We often see Bible versus Bible arguments on the forum. But I say, if the Bible tells us two different things about a subject, then as much as we dislike it, both are true. And it does NO GOOD to have a committee vote on which is true and which is false. And then force the decision on the congregation.

We see a lot of latitude in Romans chapter fourteen. What is the truth? It seems to be individualized. Imagine that.

What is the truth about a day? Is it absolute, or individualized?

Romans 14:5
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

doctorwho29 said:

And what of Saul trying to talk to Samuel? That was a huge sin. And yeah we can ask for prayers from others but others still living. I'm not saying saints aren't having the times of their lives in Heaven but their work is done. "Well done good and faithful servant."

As for Bread and Wine, I see zero reason to believe that it is anything but that. Jesus used parables and metaphor ALL the time. Why not here? Why is this the big exception? Catholics have tried to explain but never successfully and they never will.

Not works eh? Then way are the Sacraments held in such high esteem? Why is baptism required to go to Heaven?

Click to expand...

Saul trying to talk to Samuel was a huge sin because a witch/necromancer was involved.
Christ literally says baptism is required.
John 3:5 ESV
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
But we still should pray for mercy for the souls of the unbelievers and unbaptized even after their death because God is merciful and we hope all souls are redeemed.
The early Christian church has records of repeatedly stating that holy communion is literally the body and blood of Christ.
The sacraments are held in high esteem because it is a way to revolve your entire life around Christ and the church.
Even most Protestant denominations believe that baptism and holy communion are sacred.
God bless

ReadSpenglerDesu said:

You're half-right. While ultimately Protestantism brought arrogance to the individual, who now is forced to "choose" the "correct" denomination as if he was so wise to be able to do so. There are other problems, of course, including being what led to secular politics.
Culturally it was inevitable and for a short while birthed the highest point in Western culture-civilization. I suggest you read Oswald Spengler's Decline.
The Decline of the West - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to choose any denomination... You can be a perfectly strong Christian and not hold to any of them.

How did "Protestantism" bring any more arrogance than the RCC has? I find that any denomination that holds that they have it "all right" could be labeled as arrogant. Which is a characteristic that runs counter to Christ.

RushMAN said:

I agree

Click to expand...

Like your avatar at the bottom..

Disagree with your post though.

Inkfingers said:

Essentially I'm wondering if hundreds of denominations, with dozens of versions of the Bible, has resulted in confusion and (in response) apostacy; whether into heretical denominations or fully out of any semblance of the Church whatsoever.

People keep telling me that scripture is protected but it cannot be protected when there are literally dozens of different versions of the Bible. Of course, they claim that their favourite one is the special version, but heck they can't all be right can they...

So I'm calling out Protestantism as doing more harm than good because it makes a chaos and confusion of matters that shatters the Church and drives people away.

What say you all?

Click to expand...

I'm starting to agree.

Also I suggest people with objections to Catholic teachings search for why Catholics believe the way they do. Search for an answer on Catholic Answers or buy a book on the topic that's bothering you.

SkyWriting said:

There is less variation between any two denominations than there is a variation inside any one church.

Click to expand...

This may only be a slight exaggeration. If there were not Protestant Churches, there would be the same people with the same outlook among Catholics (and there probably are such people now.)

At least as far as Catholics are concerned, Protestants who believe in Christ as God and put their faith in Him, are our brothers in faith.
Lumen gentium

I wish our people were not fractured into denominations, but I am glad that they are Christians and have come to God. It's not too much to hope for that His people will eventually put differences aside and recognize our unity in Him.

Aspzan said:

I'm starting to agree.

Also I suggest people with objections to Catholic teachings search for why Catholics believe the way they do. Search for an answer on Catholic Answers or buy a book on the topic that's bothering you.

Click to expand...

Here's an example to one of the objections in this thread: Did the Church Chain Up the Bible?

The Church did chain Bibles to stands in churches. It was the only way to make them available to the public, and still not have them stolen. Books in general and Bibles in particular were very expensive items, taking long hours of skilled work and expensive materials to produce.

So the Church took care to keep them available to the laity by securing them.

The Barbarian said:

The Church did chain Bibles to stands in churches. It was the only way to make them available to the public, and still not have them stolen. Books in general and Bibles in particular were very expensive items, taking long hours of skilled work and expensive materials to produce.

Click to expand...

That is the standard RCC excuse. Even schoolchildren in parochial schools are taught to answer that way. However, the fact is that Bibles were generally forbidden to the laity because the church believed that the untrained might--and probably would--misunderstand or misread the contents and so fall into heresy.

Albion said:

That is the standard RCC excuse. Even schoolchildren are taught to answer that way. However, the fact is that Bible were forbidden to the laity because the church believed the untrained might--and probably would--misunderstand or misread the contents and so fall into heresy.

Click to expand...

Actually your reason here was closer to the standard RCC reason that I heard at some point early on as a Catholic, probably as a schoolchild.

Albion said:

That is the standard RCC excuse. Even schoolchildren in parochial schools are taught to answer that way. However, the fact is that Bibles were generally forbidden to the laity because the church believed that the untrained might--and probably would--misunderstand or misread the contents and so fall into heresy.

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems that even after Bibles became readily available and affordable enough for anyone to own one, the Church (capital C) discouraged parishioners from reading and study them. After all, what good could come of that? (invitation to "heresy")

The Church did chain Bibles to stands in churches. It was the only way to make them available to the public, and still not have them stolen. Books in general and Bibles in particular were very expensive items, taking long hours of skilled work and expensive materials to produce.

Albion said:

That is the standard RCC excuse. Even schoolchildren in parochial schools are taught to answer that way. However, the fact is that Bibles were generally forbidden to the laity

Click to expand...

If so, it's odd that they were placed in churches, secured by chains to keep them there, where anyone could walk up and read them.

because the church believed that the untrained might--and probably would--misunderstand or misread the contents and so fall into heresy.

Click to expand...

The Church published the English-language Douay-Rheims Bible for laymen in 1610, for example.

After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation.
Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?

It would be very odd if the Church provided vernacular versions of the Bible, which would have been necessary only for those unable to read Latin (which priests used), if it was discouraging Bible reading.

There's a disconnect between your beliefs and the facts.

Saint Steven said:

Yes, it seems that even after Bibles became readily available and affordable enough for anyone to own one, the Church (capital C) discouraged parishioners from reading and study them. After all, what good could come of that? (invitation to "heresy")

Click to expand...

Certainly. The Papacy recently urged laypersons to get involved in Bible Study groups, but the reason that recommendation was considered newsworthy was because such a thing was not encouraged prior to our own times.

fhansen said:

Actually your reason here was closer to the standard RCC reason that I heard at some point early on as a Catholic, probably as a schoolchild.

Click to expand...

Pope Pius 6th (April 1st 1778 AD)
“BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity ...
Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.”


Pope Pius VII (1742 –1823) in a rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the English Bishops, he expressed his wish
“to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.”

Catholic Bishops in AD 1826
“Q. Do not Catholic Bishops and Popes discourage the reading of the Scriptures?
A. No; the Catholic clergy are bound to read the Scripture for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation of authentic copies of Scripture was never discouraged by the Church”
(A Doctrinal Catechism published in AD 1846)

Third Council of Baltimore (7 December AD 1884)
“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures.... We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”
The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition (Chicago: Catholic Press,1951) p.xxi.

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

In closing, Francis again repeated the experience of praying in contemplation: “Today for example”, he suggested, “find 10 minutes, 15 minutes and no more: read the Gospel, imagine and speak with Jesus. And nothing more. And in this way, your knowledge of Jesus will be greater and your hope will grow. Don’t forget, keeping your eyes fixed on Jesus”. This is why we call it “contemplative prayer”.
3 February 2015, Daily Meditations

Of all the superstitions people have concerning the Church, the oddest one is the faulty belief that the Church discouraged Bible reading.

Albion said:

Certainly. The Papacy recently urged laypersons to get involved in Bible Study groups, but the reason that recommendation was considered newsworthy was because such a thing was not encouraged prior to our own times.

Click to expand...

That's a common superstition,but it's wrong. See above. There's a lot more documentation of the Church encouraging Bible reading. Would you like to see some more?

Albion said:

Certainly. The Papacy recently urged laypersons to get involved in Bible Study groups, but the reason that recommendation was considered newsworthy was because such a thing was not encouraged prior to our own times.

Click to expand...

The first time that it was encouraged as far as I know was actually in an 1893 encyclical letter on the study of holy Scripture written by Pope Leo XIII. There may be earlier such examples but not that I'm aware of.

Albion said:

That is the standard RCC excuse. Even schoolchildren in parochial schools are taught to answer that way. However, the fact is that Bibles were generally forbidden to the laity because the church believed that the untrained might--and probably would--misunderstand or misread the contents and so fall into heresy.

Click to expand...

What if they did eventually misunderstand, misread and fall into heresy, resulting in Protestantism?

Saint Steven said:

I agree. And...
What I am about to write is a dangerous subject. But, it seems that truth may be more individualized than we want to admit. We tend to think that there is only one truth, that everything else is a lie. But what if truth is somewhat individualized? (within reason)

We often see Bible versus Bible arguments on the forum. But I say, if the Bible tells us two different things about a subject, then as much as we dislike it, both are true. And it does NO GOOD to have a committee vote on which is true and which is false. And then force the decision on the congregation.

We see a lot of latitude in Romans chapter fourteen. What is the truth? It seems to be individualized. Imagine that.

What is the truth about a day? Is it absolute, or individualized?

Romans 14:5
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

Click to expand...

I believe this is about the level of understanding and maturity each individual experiences as they grow in Christ. In the early church, you had believers who were coming out of a background steeped in the Mosaic Law with its rigid conformity and rules. Therefore, as they come into the freedom Jesus Christ offers, those things disappear based on the individual's understanding of what the Lord is revealing to them. So, I believe that it is not about "absolute or individualized" truth, but about the individuals understanding of truth and how quickly they begin to trust in it. In short, it is the difference between trusting in your flesh to respond to rules designed to modify your behavior and depending on God to live His life in and through you as you respond to the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Barbarian said:

Pope Pius 6th (April 1st 1778 AD)
“BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity ...
Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.”


Pope Pius VII (1742 –1823) in a rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the English Bishops, he expressed his wish
“to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.”

Catholic Bishops in AD 1826
“Q. Do not Catholic Bishops and Popes discourage the reading of the Scriptures?
A. No; the Catholic clergy are bound to read the Scripture for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation of authentic copies of Scripture was never discouraged by the Church”
(A Doctrinal Catechism published in AD 1846)

Third Council of Baltimore (7 December AD 1884)
“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures.... We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”
The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition (Chicago: Catholic Press,1951) p.xxi.

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

In closing, Francis again repeated the experience of praying in contemplation: “Today for example”, he suggested, “find 10 minutes, 15 minutes and no more: read the Gospel, imagine and speak with Jesus. And nothing more. And in this way, your knowledge of Jesus will be greater and your hope will grow. Don’t forget, keeping your eyes fixed on Jesus”. This is why we call it “contemplative prayer”.
3 February 2015, Daily Meditations

Of all the superstitions people have concerning the Church, the oddest one is the faulty belief that the Church discouraged Bible reading.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I didn't realize that the encouragement for laypersons went back that far. The truth is that even today the Church teaches that we should read Scripture in light of Church teachings because of how easy it is to misinterpret t, as disagreements between Sola Scriptura folk make evident. JWs are Sola Scriptura adherents for that matter, and depending on the issue involved, they often make quite plausible arguments for their positions based on Scripture alone. But more mainstream Protestants often disagree on relevant matters as well.