Just wondering about Protestantism...

[Moonlight sonata]

...

 

[Carl Emerson]

It seems to me that every main church stream preserves certain truths better than others but none are perfect.

Go where you are called and thrive.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

I agree that the Catholic church has adhered to the Bible in a number of moral issues. It's a shame that they only pay lip service. This is the church that facilitated the escape of Nazi war criminals from justice. It's the church that shielded paedophiles, moving them from parish to parish so that they could spread their foul activities like a disease. This is the church that at best makes Bible teachings equal to the traditions of men. The fact that some protestant churches are following the world does not make Roman Catholicism correct.

 

[Basil the Great]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

The prohibition against divorce and remarriage is somewhat misleading. They do allow remarriage if a Church Tribunal grants an annulment. This used to be a fairly rare happening, but the number of annulments granted has increased considerably in recent decades. As far as the ban on the use of artificial contraception, this might have been fine for 18 or 19 centuries, but with the huge increase in the world's population in recent decades, even with the ban, just think what the world's population would be if all Christians had kept the ban since the mid 1960's. Surely we would now have 1.5 to 2 billion more people on the planet, if this had been the case. I would also add that a Church Commission back in the 1960's urged that the ban be lifted. However, Pope Paul chose to go with the Commission's minority report and keep the ban. Meanwhile, Carl made a worthy observation.

Now, if you are looking at the Catholic Church, you could also consider the Eastern Orthodox Church. They have much in common, but still some differences. Now, the ultimate question that you pose is more than a little complex. I will let others get into a more involved discussion of the matter. I will say that Protestants should not so easily dismiss the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. The EOC claims to be the Church founded by Jesus. The Catholic Church used to make the same claim and they still do, for all practical purposes. However, they now use the phrase, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church". Do not ask me what the difference is, but there would seem to be a slight difference, but not much I suppose.

I used to think a lot of the Catholic and Orthodox claim that the Eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ. However, through the years I began to think less and less of this position and then when I read a few months ago what I had forgotten about my Old Testament, that there is a very strong prohibition therein against the consumption of blood, I now find it virtually impossible to believe that Jesus intended for his followers to drink his blood.

Each of the major Christian bodies have their good points and bad points, in my view. My biggest problem with the Catholic Church is their history during the Middle Ages, not that Protestant groups were perfect. They had their faults as well. You do raise a very important question, however. The largest fault of Protestantism is that it has splintered into perhaps 100+ significant groups. This does not seem to go along with Jesus' request that we be united.

 

[Radagast]

I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..

Within some Protestant churches.

 

[dqhall]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

Catholics used statues of Jesus, Mary etc. in their sanctuaries reminiscent of idolatry. They allowed divorced partners to file for annulments allowing them to remarry. There were statements about papal infallibility in their literature; a sign of false pride. Not allowing women to speak or teach may be a mistake instead of a virtue. Both men and women spoke in Quaker meetings.

In spite of these things some Catholics will surpass those of Protestant sects and vice versa.

 

[Albion]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches...

many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

As for the basic question--your questioning of Protestantism--the answer is that there are many different churches that are loosely classified as Protestant, many of which have almost no common history with many of the other ones. That being so, you could easily find other Protestant churches that agree with your thinking on every one of the points you listed for us. The Catholic Church, by the way, actually does not go along with some of those points appearing on your list, although I agree that a lot of people think she does.

 

[com7fy8]

prohibits divorce and remarriage

Our Apostle Paul says >

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: a wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

You can check out this whole chapter seven of Corinthians. What I get is this command is for a couple who are both Christians. So, if both are Jesus Christ's sheep, divorce is never an option. Because in case they do split apart, what will happen? Each will hear from Jesus, in prayer, and they will be corrected by our Father > guaranteed > Hebrews 12:4-14. And then they will be able to love each other the way God's word says to love and forgive.

But if an unbeliever leaves a Christian . . . Paul says . . . we have 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 about this.

So . . . I consider . . . then . . . if it is ok for the Roman Catholic Church to annul a marriage, this would be because one spouse turned out to be an unbeliever. But this brings in another matter > Jesus Christ's "sheep" know His voice > John 10:1-30. So, if a priest knows the voice of our Shepherd Jesus, that priest can make sure with God about if two people belong together in marriage. Plus, if someone considering marriage knows the voice of Jesus, He is not going to have one of His sheep marry an unbeliever.

Jesus makes us sheep able to tell the difference between another sheep and a predator. So, if a priest could not tell the difference so he pronounced an unbeliever with someone who was supposed to be a child of God . . . why couldn't that priest tell the difference? Jesus Christ's voice and personal guiding could have kept him from pronouncing them. But also . . . why did the spouse who now wants an annulment not know and obey the voice and personal shepherding of Jesus?

The priest and the annulment seeker had at least weeks, in most cases, to check out the one who turns out to be not of God for marriage. They had all that time to pray and make sure with God and make sure if He was personally guiding them to trust someone for marriage.

Plus, then, how come high-up religious leaders have been ordaining predators? Even Jesus' "sheep" can tell the difference. A sheep has the sense of smell, and in God's love we have love's "senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (in Hebrews 5:14) This is basic, of how our Father takes care of us. So, there is no excuse how high-up leaders, even, and pew members all have so fooled themselves into trusting predators or fooled themselves into marrying the wrong person!

So . . . instead of first trying to figure out who is the right group with the right doctrine and morals . . . I think all of us now need to make sure we have trusted in Jesus so with God we can tell the difference between a person to trust and someone not to trust. In God's ruling of His peace in our hearts, we have God our Heavenly Father personally ruling us, including if and how to trust each person >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

And Jesus says,

"'Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.'" (John 7:24)

People's talk and how they tone their voices is appearance. Doctrinal and moral and historical claims by a church group is appearance. You need to be able to tell the difference between a real pastor and one not qualified . . . so you are not trusting the wrong person.

Plus, you can see if a religious group upholds and obeys the Bible standards for who qualifies to be ordained to be a pastor > we have 1 Timothy 3:1-10 which our Apostle Paul has given, for standards for who qualifies . . . just to be considered . . . for ordination to "take care of the church of God". This is Bible basic; you can see for yourself if a Catholic or Protestant group is obeying this basic standard.

I will offer what at least this partly means. The person is married and has succeeded in bringing up their children well . . . with the help, of course, of his wife who has also helped him become "blameless" the way God's love matures a person to become "blameless" > so his wife, actually, is included in his being qualified, because she has helped him to mature in Jesus and find out how to love in marriage and how to bring up children . . . so they can help other married couples and individuals. This is part of what the real Christian priesthood is, by the way > you go through things with God, so now you can help others to do well with God while doing things. So, a married couple is perfect for pastoring families, since they have grown in their own homes. This is what Jesus did > Jesus went through things of this life, so now Jesus as our Groom can feel for us and minister to us His grace which had Him doing so well in any and all things of this life >

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

So, married couples are part of Christ's priesthood, by how they go through things so now they can help other couples . . . and individuals . . . helping us in how to relate in a close relationship, and in how to care for children . . . while staying with God in the personal ruling of His peace in our hearts > Colossians 3:15, Matthew 11:28-30, Philippians 2:13-16.

So, I would say > get with people who are "examples" of this, who help you get more with God in the ruling of His peace in our hearts, and who help you discover how to love in close sharing and how to be an example to help others find out how to love >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

Anyone can talk their way out of this, and make excuses. But God is perfect and able to make us deeply stable and real in His love. So, don't worship excuses with anyone. Worship God and discover how His grace almighty has us succeeding in how He means His word > His love meaning, not only explanation and doctrine and excuses.

 

[zippy2006]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

Christianity has a deposit of faith that must be preserved. Catholics tend to do that better than Protestants because they have more hierarchy, they have a longer tradition, and they have a deeper tradition. Without hierarchy, historical rootedness, and theological-philosophical groundedness, one is more likely to be "tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching." Without a strong anchor, you drift. This is especially true in our times.

 

[Albion]

Christianity has a deposit of faith that must be preserved. Catholics tend to do that better than Protestants because they have more hierarchy, they have a longer tradition, and they have a deeper tradition. Without hierarchy, historical rootedness, and theological-philosophical groundedness, one is more likely to be "tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching." Without a strong anchor, you drift. This is especially true in our times.

That isn't entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church has kept its discipline pretty well, but it has changed a lot about its beliefs and practices in the process. While there are Protestant churches that have just about turned themselves inside out and upside down, there are others which have retained their "theological-philosophical groundedness" better than the RCC has.

 

[zippy2006]

That isn't entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church has kept its discipline pretty well, but it has changed a lot about its beliefs and practices in the process. While there are Protestant churches that have just about turned themselves inside out and upside down, there are others which have retained their "theological-philosophical groundedness" better than the RCC has.

Whereas I would say that Protestants simply don't have the same philosophical tradition to ground their theology, so when a feminist ideology comes along, reinterpreting scripture and tradition, and reforming theology, there is no principled way to stop it. Taking that example, for Protestants to oppose female ministers in today's world would be like a small vessel to oppose the ocean currents. Of course some have resisted, and Catholics also feel pressure, but the difference between the two groups is also clear.

 

[Albion]

Whereas I would say that Protestants simply don't have the same philosophical tradition to ground their theology, so when a feminist ideology comes along, reinterpreting scripture and tradition, and reforming theology, there is no principled way to stop it.

If that were true, it would affect all or almost all Protestant denominations...which it quite obviously has not.

It has affected the Roman Catholic Church, however, but just not to the extent of allowing women priests.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Christianity has a deposit of faith that must be preserved. Catholics tend to do that better than Protestants because they have more hierarchy, they have a longer tradition, and they have a deeper tradition. Without hierarchy, historical rootedness, and theological-philosophical groundedness, one is more likely to be "tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching." Without a strong anchor, you drift. This is especially true in our times.

As a Catholic (although not Roman), I personally have no use for protestantism (or any other -ism for that matter), nor for man-made traditions. I don't need the Roman Mary and other dead people to pray for me, don't need the guy in a funny robe doing what they think is changing bread into the literal body of the Roman christ and the worship of that bread, confessions to man-made priests, or even the papacy.

I'm content with the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ Jesus for the TOTAL cleansing of my sins, and who therefore imputes His righteousness to us. I'm content with the Spirit of the Lord to teach us as stated in 1 John 2:27, and the Bible (without the added apocryphal books).

I've got no use for the recent declarations, such as the 1950 declaration that the Roman Mary allegedly ascended bodily, nor all the other recently man-made, contrived doctrines of the Romans from their leadership at the vatican.

Nope, being a Catholic biblicist is enough for me.

Jr

 

[Albion]

As a Catholic (although not Roman), I personally have no use for protestantism (or any other -ism for that matter),...

With the exception of Catholicism, I take it.

nor for man-made traditions.

In that case, Protestantism should be right up your alley, as they say. It believes that the revealed Word of God, Holy Scripture, is our guide to all necessary doctrine unlike the Catholic churches which hold Tradition (or "man-made" traditions, if you want to put it that way) to be of equal authority to the Bible.

I don't need the Roman Mary and other dead people to pray for me, don't need the guy in a funny robe doing what they think is changing bread into the literal body of the Roman christ and the worship of that bread, confessions to man-made priests, or even the papacy.

I'm content with the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ Jesus for the TOTAL cleansing of my sins, and who therefore imputes His righteousness to us. I'm content with the Spirit of the Lord to teach us as stated in 1 John 2:27, and the Bible (without the added apocryphal books).

I've got no use for the recent declarations, such as the 1950 declaration that the Roman Mary allegedly ascended bodily, nor all the other recently man-made, contrived doctrines of the Romans from their leadership at the vatican.

Nope, being a Catholic biblicist is enough for me.

Jr

I still trying to figure what "other" Catholic Church you are describing.

 

[SwordmanJr]

With the exception of Catholicism, I take it.

Yes, that's also out.

In that case, Protestantism should be right up your alley, as they say. It believes that the revealed Word of God, Holy Scripture, is our guide to all necessary doctrine unlike the Catholic churches which hold Tradition (or "man-made" traditions, if you want to put it that way) to be of equal authority to the Bible.

You do have a sense of humor. On the other hand, I would agree protestantism has man-made traditions, and I'm sure they have many a corrupt minister who thinks some or many of those man-made traditions are on par with the Bible (ie, as being biblical), but that doesn't mean anything to me what they think.

I still trying to figure what "other" Catholic Church you are describing.

The word Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English when referring to religious matters; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal")[3][4] comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole". [WIKIPEDIA]

I'm not religious, so I generally use the lower case "c".

Jr

 

[Albion]

You do have a sense of humor. On the other hand, I would agree protestantism has man-made traditions,

Like coffee hours after the service ends and having people go caroling at Christmas time, you mean? OK, but it does not make doctrine on the basis of tradition(S), whereas the Catholic churches do.

they have many a corrupt minister who thinks some or many of those man-made traditions are on par with the Bible (ie, as being biblical), but that doesn't mean anything to me what they think.

Have you missed the news about the hundreds of millions of dollars in reparations that Catholic dioceses have had to pay to victims of their priests?

The word Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English when referring to religious matters; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal")[3][4] comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".

I'm going to conclude that you are not affiliated with any Catholic Church body,
whether Roman, Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, SSPX, or any other variety. None. Correct me if you want and if this isn't what you meant.

 

[hedrick]

Remember, however, that the majority of Catholics in the US don't agree with the official teachings on these issues. I believe that likely includes priests as well. If you want a church that actually believes traditional ethics, you may be better off with confessional Protestant churches.

Personally I don't see why you'd want to do this in the first place.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Like coffee hours after the service ends

And there is something anti-scriptural about that? I don't do it, but how does that stack up against the false doctrine of purgatory?

and having people go caroling at Christmas time, you mean? OK, but it does not make doctrine on the basis of tradition(S), whereas the Catholic churches do.

Uh, where did the apostles ever teach anything akin to purgatory, and therefore the alleged lack in the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ? What about the alleged taking up of Mary bodily, which was totally unknown until 1950? If these and many more doctrines originated from the apostles, then where, pray tell, did they get those apart from man-made traditions and beliefs?

Have you missed the news about the hundreds of millions of dollars in reparations that Catholic dioceses have had to pay to victims of their priests?

Oh, yes. Money paid out is always a washing away of sin.....or not.

I'm going to conclude that you are not affiliated with any Catholic Church body,
whether Roman, Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, SSPX, or any other variety. None. Correct me if you want and if this isn't what you meant.

You're trying to gauge my belief system against affiliations with some labeled doctrinal systems that have earthly roots and origin. I am not a part of any of them. I have no use for those "variety," man-made organizations you listed. Why would I be a part of any of them? Do you believe that affiliation with any of them somehow legitimizes my faith and beliefs? Please share the organic solution to which your questions lead? Do you feel legitimized by sitting under the label of "anglican" somehow elevates you in any way in the eyes of God?

Yes, I am Catholic, just not Roman or any other institutionalized system of which you may label as having any kind of degreed and/or ordination of its leadership from some other man-made institution that enjoys the pomposity of worldly acceptance. Jesus, the real One described in the Bible, said the world will hate His followers because it first hated Him. Religion and those who slink about in the shadows of religion enjoy acceptance and praise from the world. I covet no praise from the world. I would hope you would be of the same mindset.

Jr

 

[bbbbbbb]

I’ve long been Protestant. But lately I’ve been questioning things. I note that the Catholic Church has maintained a strict view of traditional marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, prohibits use of contraceptives, is staunchly pro-life, rejects freemasonry, sticks to male led churches... many of these things have been watered down within some of the Protestant churches and I question and wonder why..
I would be interested in people’s different perspectives on these things...

It appears that you have precious little exposure to Catholicism. As they say, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

I grew up in an extremely Catholic city within a Protestant home, so I got to have a lot of first-hand experiences with Catholics and their religion. Trust me, you definitely should not even think of going there.

 

[Albion]

And there is something anti-scriptural about that? I don't do it, but how does that stack up against the false doctrine of purgatory?

I was saying that there are traditions, i.e. customs, among Protestants but they do not establish doctrine. That's the difference.

Uh, where did the apostles ever teach anything akin to purgatory, and therefore the alleged lack in the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ?

I don't think they do.

What about the alleged taking up of Mary bodily, which was totally unknown until 1950?

Well, it wasn't "totally unknown" before that, but it is based upon legend rather than Scripture, that's right.

You're trying to gauge my belief system against affiliations with some labeled doctrinal systems that have earthly roots and origin.

Not really. It was just a bit of curiosity arising from your first comment about being a Catholic but not being a Catholic.

I am not a part of any of them. I have no use for those "variety," man-made organizations you listed.

Okay.