Misconceptions about Protestants

[Catherineanne]

Very true! Leaving aside the obvious conclusion of who was the aggressor, who took the leadership role in teaching how to be abusive, and who was merely reacting in kind -

I think that just comes under pot and kettle, chicken and egg. It was a violent time, with violent solutions to dissent. There is no point attempting to ascribe blame.

my point is to leave all that ickiness in the past, which I've repeatedly expressed as - let's not go there, ok? And we've had the PERFECT example of why I disdain flippant and inappropriate usage of the word 'heresy,' in at least 1 RC defending the idea of killing heretics, which sure makes it look like if the practice were re-instated, she'd be all aboard.

I think she would be in a very, very small minority, don't worry. However, in the context of contemporary belief, the burnings were an attempt to eradicate heresy from the soul; bizarre though it seems to us, the intent was salvation.

 

[Catherineanne]

Logic, for me, determined that the Catholic Church that we know -- headed by Pope Benedict XVI -- is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church beloved by the saints throughout history.

Without a knowledge of history, I don't blame anyone for thinking this way, and enjoying that certainty. However, even a cursory knowledge of history will show beyond any doubt that the RCC has changed over the years. Clearly, something residual will remain, but how much is certainly open to question. Your 'throughout history' is highly dubious, therefore.

The RCC of today is most certainly not the RCC of 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago or 1,500 years ago. It is highly questionable whether it is even the RCC of 100 years ago.

 

[Heavens]

I make over 40 citations of scripture, and you say I'm caught in delusions.

The first question is whether or not they establish that Christ instituted a Church government, giving it the authority to determine doctrine. They do that, indeed.

quote]

Yes. Caught in delusion. Throwing scripture around that has nothing to do with your statements is no better than what the Pharisees did.
For you to assume that any scriptures you quoted has to do with the Catholic denomination as if "that was the only church" is extremely naive.

The answer to the question whether Christ established a church government like catholicism is NO. If you think it was, do better in showing it. And don't for one moment think that Peter's confession made Peter any more special than others who make the same confession, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God".
ONLY those who confess this are the "government" of the Church.
Your faith in the catholics doesn't translate into faith in Jesus Christ. I would think you would desire salvation a little more than to swallow their rhetoric and twisted scriptures.

 

[Catherineanne]

Thanks for the information on the Latin primers!

"The advantage would be that classical Latin tends to be more difficult than medieval Latin, so anyone who might like to read classical sources as well might be better off just to start with classical Latin."

Greek is similar, Attic is harder than Classic is harder than Koine is harder than modern. The language gradually became simpler as time went on. There are odd declensions in Attic that disappeared even by the Koine era.

Brian

I think the appropriate way to express this is that languages tend to become less inflected over time, which makes learning them somewhat easier. The languages themselves don't get simpler; an uninflected language is just as complex as an inflected one.

 

[Heavens]

Most of the weeping statues (addressing only modern ones) have been declared hoaxes by the Church. It is kind of one of those "miracles" like finding a picture of Jesus on your toast or the Virgin Mary in a tree knot. Other times, it's just straight-up faked by people trying desperately to get attention.

One of the false cases is the from Naju, South Korea. There have been many false "miracles" associated with this woman and her alleged "messages from Mary". Here is her statue which is said to have cried tears of blood (blood also plays a part in some of her other "miracles"). Some people say it is a hoax, others say it is demonic.

HOAX

FALSE "MIRACLE"


One of the true, authenticated miracles which regards a weeping statue is Our Lady of Akita, Japan (the weeping accompanied private revelations):

There have also been alleged cases of weeping icons in Orthodox churches, usually of the Theotokos.

In most cases, the judgment is up to the local bishop as to whether or not to recognize the phenomenon as a probable miracle or not. As for the messages, the bishops does not say they come from Heaven but merely that they are not in conflict with the Catholic faith (indeed, false revelations -- even popular ones -- often contain at least something contrary to the Catholic faith).

Wikipedia -- Weeping Statue

Wouldn't avoiding idolatry and worshipping graven images eliminate the problem?

 

[Catherineanne]

It is disingenuous to say it was just about abuses in the Church.

It is also disingenuous to misrepresent what people say.

I did not say that protestantism's protest was 'just' about abuses in the Roman Catholic Church. I did say that the protest part of protestantism was not against the RCC per se, but against its abuses, and then I listed some of those abuses.

An undercurrent of complaint against the abuses of the RCC existed long before; it is evident even from Chaucer's day, when he writes of richly dressed nuns, lecherous friars and priests who set out to trick people into giving them money. These practices were endemic at the time, and it is these practices which ultimately led to the Reformation a hundred years or so later. Of course the Reformation resulted in a new way of looking at faith, but without the abuses, nobody would have tried to find that new way.

As Chaucer rightly says of aberrant priests; if the gold rust, what will the iron do? It is the cumulative effect of hundreds of years of such abuses that ultimately resulted in Erasmus, and Tyndale, and Wycliffe, and Luther et al. And we can all be grateful, Roman and non Roman, that the former abuses have well and truly reformed. We no longer have convents were the nuns openly bring up their own children, or for that matter, Popes with children. We no longer have medicant friars wandering the streets, offering to sell us handkerchiefs hemmed by Our Lady herself, or to sell us a bone from St Peter's finger. And thank God for that.

 

[Standing Up]

Without a knowledge of history, I don't blame anyone for thinking this way, and enjoying that certainty. However, even a cursory knowledge of history will show beyond any doubt that the RCC has changed over the years. Clearly, something residual will remain, but how much is certainly open to question. Your 'throughout history' is highly dubious, therefore.

The RCC of today is most certainly not the RCC of 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago or 1,500 years ago. It is highly questionable whether it is even the RCC of 100 years ago.

Clearly there are numerous Roman Catholics that would agree with your point. Some just haven't heard of Polycarp, Firmilian, Cyprian, Leo the Great, Augustine, and numerous others through the age.

 

[Standing Up]

Wouldn't avoiding idolatry and worshipping graven images eliminate the problem?

Let's not make it too simple or scriptural

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

If you think that they must be referring to a Church other than the Catholic Church, I'd be interested in knowing what other Church it is that you think has existed since the time of the Apostles, and what evidence you have to support your position.

-snip-

Part of the problem is definition of Church. It has changed over time, like numerous other things.

Church long ago simply meant the called-out ones. If you were, then you were the Church.

Since then, men have substituted false ideas like "I go to Church" or "The Church is not sanctified until we get our relics back" or "the Church is the same as the Church 2000 years ago".

Try to understand the scriptural definition of Church, rather than the one that's been taught more recently.

 

[Standing Up]

Very true! Leaving aside the obvious conclusion of who was the aggressor, who took the leadership role in teaching how to be abusive, and who was merely reacting in kind -

my point is to leave all that ickiness in the past, which I've repeatedly expressed as - let's not go there, ok? And we've had the PERFECT example of why I disdain flippant and inappropriate usage of the word 'heresy,' in at least 1 RC defending the idea of killing heretics, which sure makes it look like if the practice were re-instated, she'd be all aboard.

What's sown is reaped. We just don't want to be in that field, eh? OTOH, God is able to separate the wheat and tare.

 

[Catherineanne]

Here is her statue which is said to have cried tears of blood (blood also plays a part in some of her other "miracles"). Some people say it is a hoax, others say it is demonic.

HOAX

I would say it is highly disrespectful of Our Lady.

 

[Heavens]

I would say it is highly disrespectful of Our Lady.

a god of porcelain and wood doesn't care

(Exo 20:3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

[Catherineanne]

a god of porcelain and wood doesn't care

Our Lady is not a God, she is the mother of Our Lord. If she is made of porcelain and wood, then so is he.

Good luck with that.

 

[Heavens]

Our Lady is not a God, she is the mother of Our Lord. If she is made of porcelain and wood, then so is he.

Good luck with that.

My apologies. I thought you were referring to that graven image with blood on it in the picture. That god. My misunderstanding. I'm glad you know that isn't Jesus mother.
Then I'm sure you rejoice in knowing Jesus' real mother;

(Mar 3:33) And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
(Mar 3:34) And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(Mar 3:35) For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Blessings in Jesus' true mother

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My apologies. I thought you were referring to that graven image with blood on it in the picture. That god. My misunderstanding. I'm glad you know that isn't Jesus mother.
Then I'm sure you rejoice in knowing Jesus' real mother;

(Mar 3:33) And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
(Mar 3:34) And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(Mar 3:35)For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Blessings in Jesus' true mother

Women.....can't live with 'em, can't live w/o 'em

Revelation 12:1 And a great Sign was seen in the heaven.
A Woman having been about-cast/peri-beblhmenh <4016> (5772) the sun,
and the moon underneath of the feet of Her

Reve 17:4 And the Woman was having been about-cast/peri-beblhmenh <4016> (5772) purple and scarlet
and having been gilded to gold and precious stone and pearls

 

[hedrick]

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ&#8217;s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
​

Surely you can guess what I'll say. Of course the Church exists and has an important role, and so do its leaders. (I note however that some of the passages about Apostles probably mean the original Apostles, and not succeeding church leaders and others appear to apply to all Christians.) It's even visible, even if its boundaries are a little fuzzy. I just don't identify the catholic Church with the Roman Catholic Church. I think it's unfortunate that certain portions of the catholic Church think they're the whole thing, but most Protestants aren't guilty of that.

That's not to say that I agree with all the citations above. E.g. the references in 7 don't seem to support the conclusion.

These views are common enough among Protestants that reading the Bible passages cited is unlikely suggest to most of us that we should become Catholic. It would be interesting to know what was different about you.​

 

[razeontherock]

If the Protestant revolt was simply about abuses in the Church, why did they not rejoin the Church following the Catholic Reformation (aka. Counter-Reformation)?
If that was the true purpose of the Reformation -- to liberate Christianity from the cloister -- then I should become a Protestant and so should everyone.

What, you mean we can have meaningful dialogue?

I actually started a thread on why didn't Luther join EO. There was some info presented there that was surprising to me.

The true reformation happened, as it always must, inside the Church not by those who had split away from it.

All you're saying is there was both a Reformation, and a counter-reformation. Yes, I know. If you would like to posit that the counter-reformation is more significant, I will let you hold that view

I'm perfectly happy with the notion that the greater achievement of the Reformation is the counter-reformation. I trust Luther would agree.

And while RC holds it has never changed it's teachings, the old "actions speak louder than words" proves that you HAVE changed your teachings! For example, no longer is it "taught" that you should torture, maim and kill those that disagree with you, in utter defiance of everything Jesus said.

You guys have made great strides forward

Those who preached separation from the Church

Gotta stop you there, Sister. Surely you recognize Luther did NOT preach separation from the Church, but wanted reform within?

But is that the true face of the Reformation -- a desire to return to the love affair with Our Lord and His costly grace or was it something born of materialism, humanism and skepticism? How do we find our modern world changed by Protestantism? What have been its fruits over the past 500 years? That is the real question.

AGREED! And the answer is as individual as the individual. It still comes down to a personal relationship with Our Lord. A congregation can only help so much, and one congregation that will help one individual may well be a hindrance to another. The various denoms really don't do any dis-service, as long as it is the same Jesus being preached.

 

[razeontherock]

Then why aren't you Orthodox?

Turns out i basically am! I never heard of it til CF, but I have yet to find a belief that is any different than I have learned from my own reading of Scripture. The closest congregations are too far for me to really "koinonia" with, but i do plan on learning more and at least visiting.

 

[razeontherock]

in the context of contemporary belief, the burnings were an attempt to eradicate heresy from the soul; bizarre though it seems to us, the intent was salvation.

I do realize that. Instead of finding comfort in it, I also see that bizarre type of intent in all the teachings of RC that I find objectionable: as if our own works could help G-d?

I see in the OT it was imperative that things be done w/o the works of our hands ...

 

[MKJ]

A large part of my problems were the result of my not really understanding the teachings.

I ended up deciding that this is an untenable position. Because Christ gave teaching authority to the Church, if I disagree with its doctrines then by definition I must be wrong.

One might postulate that the true Church was an invisible remnant, but that contradicts Christ's promise that His Church would remain visible forever. It also necessitates a belief in a Church for which there is no evidence: to say that it's invisible is to admit that there's no evidence for it's existence.

The only Church hierarchy for which there's any evidence going back to the time of the Apostles is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and in fact it was the Catholic Church that dealt with all of the great heresies of Christianity.

I don't think I am misunderstanding the teachings of the Catholic Church. I've taken some care in thinking about them.

As I said before - the possibility that there is a "true" Church is an argument that is plausible from the standpoint of Christian history, but of course if one can't find a Church with actual correct teachings, that rather suggests that no one has the authority. I hear Catholics (and others to really) argue that if one determines that a church has authority, we should just accept it's teachings. That would be true if the argument for authority was itself air tight, but of course it isn't. Even if one gets as far as saying it seems probable, if it then teaches some crazy doctrine (we all go live on our own planet after we die, say) that kind of puts the probability down.

And of course Catholicism is not really the only contender here; there is also Orthodoxy, and I find there arguments for authority more probable, and they don't have the difficulties the CC does with works/merit/penance/indulgences, and as I get older I find their spirituality healthier, and they don't have the awful liturgy, which I am sure would lead me to an early grave, even if it got me to Heaven.

I looked more at the existing prospects. The Anglican Communion seemed to be disintegrating between women's ordination, homosexuality, abortion, and false ecumenism problems. My parish had split and so I had to really examine the 39 Articles and whether it was really possible to interpret them according to the Fathers and the small-c catholic Church (Newman, Tract 90).

Failing that, it was between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church -- which was the true Catholic Church? It took a while but the Catholic Church seemed more reasonable and logical, it made more sense. Then I had to examine the modernist crisis. I knew full-well going from the Anglican Communion into the Catholic Church was going out of the pot and into the fire. If I disagreed on some position taken by the ECUSA (say, women's ordination), that was all well and good because there was no claim of infallibility but there wasn't that same freedom with the Catholic Church. If the Episcopal Church taught something contrary to God's Law (say, the affirmation of same-sex unions), I could still be against it but what if I believed something in the Catholic Church to be in error, I must be the one who was wrong. Finding the proper limits to this infallibility and understanding where I was wrong was necessary.

So thus I had to explore the problems of Vatican II and the New Mass. I rejected sedevacantism because I already was "catholic without the pope" as an Anglo-Catholic and if I was going to embrace Rome's claims, it would seem silly to do that and then to say there is no real pope. So then it was between the SSPX and the FSSP, I currently attend an FSSP parish but I don't mind the SSPX (I just posted a video of a conference talk on my Facebook from Bp. Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX). Perhaps that's just because I don't know them that well (some people in my parish are ex-SSPX and they left for various reasons), but if they're right on certain issues, then they're right. I don't think it is wrong to attend Mass at an SSPX parish, if there was no FSSP parish nearby and there was an SSPX one, I would go there.

So yes, it took a while but St. Thomas made the Catholic faith seem to be perfectly reasonable and rational. I didn't trust the Orthodox's lack of trust in reason, nor do I care for when they attack "the West" and the Latin Rite (Western Orthodoxy is still in its infancy and not universally accepted as good). But I still don't mind lurking on Orthodox forums (e.g. Monachos), reading articles or listening to sermons by Orthodox priests. In the video I posted on my Facebook (Bp. Fellay on false ecumenism and Assisi), he referred to the different religions as airplanes and said the Catholic airplane was the only one that actually flies, the Orthodox have a perfectly good airplane with all the parts but no pilot because they don't have the pope, the Protestant airplanes are missing their engines because they don't have all the Sacraments, and the other airplanes are missing even more important parts like the wings or the tail and the Buddhist one is made out of paper .

Logic, for me, determined that the Catholic Church that we know -- headed by Pope Benedict XVI -- is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church beloved by the saints throughout history.

THat's funny. I probably had more sympathy for the idea of all that rigorous logic when I was a student, but even then I think I had a bent for apophatic thelogy. I took a class called "Christian neoplatonism" one year and we studied the Periphyseon of John Scotus Eriugena and it really influenced my thinking about theology.

There seems to be no traditional Catholic movement where I live - the best you can do is the local cathedral, but they still use the yucky liturgy, just with a better choir in an old building. (Although this region has been a real centre for the co-operative movement and distributist thought centered around one of the Catholic universities, which I find very interesting.)

I agree the Anglicans will probably fall apart. Being Canadians perhaps not so spectacularly here as TEC will. I actually think Eastern thinking is more rational than Western thought in many ways. Buddhism I don't think I agree on as bing a paper plane - at least not in all it's forms. If I were not a Christian, I think I might be a Buddhist - as a form of natural religion I think it is generally quite elegant.