Was the Protestant split from Rome ever justified?

[JellyQuest]

Glad you like it buddy

i dont - i loathe it -but you knew that you just thought you'd misrepresent what i said .

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Was Protestantism ever justified?

Yes it was. However the RCC went on the offence.
Early works[edit]

Ratio Studiorum, 1598.
The Jesuits were founded just before the Counter-Reformation (or at least before the date those historians with a classical view of the counter-reformation hold to be the beginning of the Counter-Reformation), a movement whose purpose was to reform the Catholic Church from within and to counter the Protestant Reformers, whose teachings were spreading throughout Catholic Europe.

Today most professed followers of Christ follow a counter reformation Jesuit teaching by Francisco Ribera called futurism, they also keep the counterfeit Sabbath which is a RCC teaching.

So in my book most of so called Protestantism has already capitulated to the teachings of the RCC.

I am proud to say I believe in Sola Scriptura.

Matthew 15:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[DingDing]

...
Was Protestantism ever justified?

Was catholicism ever justified?

 

[sparow]

Interesting video.

I say no because sola scriptura was the doctrine that launched 10000 schisms.





I put the following answer on a similar thread which focussed on luther, also anticatholicism. It is just a catholic view...mine!

"
When most denominations and non denominationals disagree with each other on almost all aspects of doctrine, it is suprising that so many unite in a hatred of catholicism. Indeed the accusation of "non christian" about catholics is simply not supportable. We clearly accept the Creed!

I am only too aware of the hatred and misinformation, as an anglican turned evangelical before coming home to Rome , a journey which took a couple of decades, I saw first hand the nasty things that were said about catholics, most of which were born of either illinformed or deliberate misinterpretation of what catholicism stood for. And in my (then) ignorance, sadly I believed what these evangelicals said. It was only when I researched it years later, all the evangelical arguments fell apart.

But there's the thing. Martin Luther is in essence responsible for the doctrine of sola scriptura, which in essence empowered every one to make up their own interpretation of the bible, and in that very act Luther launched 10000 schisms. Because without a source of authority - then from baptism, eucharist, salvation, clergy, morality, sacraments, divorce...each have many mutually exclusive interpretations. You name it, protestants disagree on it. If you don't like the present doctrine, schism to form yet another. None of these can be the true church: because truth is unique, and they all disagree on their version of truth.

The reality is sola scriptura is unsupportable every which way, either historically , biblically, evidentially, even logically as I will now show: If "sola scriptura" is a truth, then for scripture to contain all truth, scripture would have to say so and it does not, so it is self refuting in basic logic.

Indeed scripture itself says sola scriptura is false. It says "the pillar of truth is the CHURCH" which is the "household of God" and in OT speak that means the physical manifestation of the church, not just a spiritual association. Repeat..the pillar of truth is the church! If God had wanted to say scripture he would have done. He did not say scripture, he said Church!

It is fascinating that even reformationists / protestants dont agree with sola scriptura even though they say they do. Martin Luther recognised that "all milkmaids now had their own doctrine" so gradually "articles" and "confessions" and similar documents were added to scripture for reformationists to resolve ambiguities. Yet in doing so, they were adding the very "tradition" they sought to destroy! Except - in the case of reformationists - these traditions were definitely man made in the years after 1500! Somewhat hypocritical. The ones who belong to no denomination , blast the pope and magisterium for "infallible interpretation" , yet all claim the very same power for themseleves to discern truth from scripture: they all make themselves pope!

So why is it reformationists/ protestants disagree on all doctrine? What is the missing piece? The answer is two fold.
First Authority - that is of the apostolic succession to bind and loose, ie interprete doctrinal matters, as done at councils without which we would not even have the present bible, yet protestants dont seem to acknowledge how they rely on that very authority!

Second is tradition. As St Paul tells us the faith was "handed down" (which is the meaning of tradition) by "word of mouth and letter" indeed that was an inevitable fact, because there was no NT for early christians!" So sola scriptura is historically false as the basis of christianity. Jesus gave us apostles, not a book. The book came later.

So what it is that the early christians taught and handed down?
Easily visible in the early writings. eg read ignatius of antioch letter to smyrneans (polycarps church, disciple of john the apostle) and speaking in the decades after Christ (he lived AD 35-108.

You see clearly in the writings of that generation. A liturgical, sacramental church that believed in real presence, with a clergy of bishops in apostolic succession and that only they or their appointees could perform the eucharist, that believed in sacraments and infant baptism (see ireanus). In short the catholic church. There was no other. Until the easterns decided to schism, the only other sects got their names because of heresies eg "aryans" "gnostics" "donatists". There were no denominations. There was just one catholic church! It got the name Roman, only when easterns decided to do their own thing.

Sure it grew. It was an acorn that became a flourishing Oak.
The acorn sapling and oak tree dont look the same, but they are the same species! For sure bad people have done many bad things, and since RCC is so big, many catholics, indeed bishops, indeed popes have done bad things. Thats why we need saving! But the doctrine has barely changed in all that time. Whilst all others have descended in to moral and sexual populism, RCC has alone held on to the beliefs all shared less than a century ago!

So all need to consider two or three things.
1/ When jesus said his church would be one and the "gates of hell would not prevail" against it. Is that really consistent with total apostasyin year.. (pick a random number between year 0 and 1500). Do you really think Jesus cared so little for his church he would let it go off the rails for a millenium? Of course an apostasy needs a "bad guy" . Many vote for Constantine. Yet read the "life of anthony" by st anathasius (of aryan, creed council fame) whose ministry spanned constantines reign and you see nothing actually changed!. So it was the apostasy that never was!
2/ When the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" which church did Jesus mean (and by the way it is a physical church, that is the meaning of "household of God"
3/ Jesus made Peter the rock of the church with an inheritied Davidic office (see the time of Hezekiah) similar to prime minister "keys of the kingdom" referred in OT. None of the exegetic cart wheels used to deny that make any grammatical or logical sense. Reformationists are obliged to find a way around Peters authority, but they have yet to come up with any interpretation that denies it, other than ignoring hermeneutic rules!
Jesus asked Peter to "tend his sheep". RCC can clearly say how that scripture is fulfilled in the church. How can others say that about theirs?

It was arguments such as those, that in the end brought me back to Rome.



I think all protestants should read "suprised by truth" Madrid. It is just a collection of anecdotes, by fundamentalists and others who came back to Rome. It presents The questions they could not find answers in reformationism, and how catholicism solves them. And they discovered that most of "anticatholic" stuff, is either deliberate or accidental misunderstanding. And in almost all cases takes the literal meaning of scripture.

Usually when one side criticises the other side it is the pot calling the kettle black. The word "Christian" has no useful meaning unless it means "following Christ". When the pot says "the kettle is non-Christian", it is unaware that it the pot doesn't follow Jesus either.

hatred is usually self defeating if one hates people; we should hate evil. Authority is the nuts and bolts of the problem; Hatred of Papal authority and hatred of those who refused Papal authority has lead to much death; the four hundred year inquisition in Spain for example, was deadly; 400 years to establish Papal authority, yet the Papacy appears innocent; any charges could only be laid the feet of Spanish Royalty, and the local Priesthood; the Jesuits were set up during the Spanish inquisition for the purpose of managing it, without getting their hands dirty.

Sola Scriptura does not mean God and God alone (God being the God of Israel). Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men that facilitates doctrines of men; while these doctrines may be different to those of the Papacy they are no more valid.

Most of Christ's church are among the dead waiting resurrection, the rest who are living are scattered and not identified by any particular worldly church; which combined are Jezebel riding on the back of the beast.

Traditions of men is what brought the Pharisees unstuck. Traditions per say can be good; one of Christ's traditions was to attend the Synagogue on the Sabbath; if a person's tradition was to keep the commandments of God they couldn't go wrong; but if one's tradition is following the teaching of men then the destination is the ditch.

Only the Father has authority and only the Son is the teacher. Jesus said all authority has been delegated to Him; when the Pope assumes authority he dismisses the Father and the Son.

This I believe.

 

[sparow]

absolutely it is justified and remains so .just because some modern day people have compromised everything and forsaken truth means nothing .

The forces at work are great and are spiritual, it is not just the Papacy.

 

[sparow]

Of course it was justified. It was justified then, and it is justified now. Justified because of issues of justification, in fact.

How can there be unity of spirit with parties adhering to different gospels? Each thinks such of the other.

Unity can be a trap it usually involves compromise; unity against the world provides protection for the group.

 

[sparow]

God is the one who preserves His word and His people. Granted there are many who claim to be Protestant who do not have the vaguest notion of what the Reformation was about and are simply Protestants of Preference rather than conviction, so for those, there will be a great falling away.

Roman Catholicism is the entity that has abandoned the Christian faith.



Yes. Recommend you do some serious study on what the Reformation was all about. Starting with Martin Luther's 95 Theses is a good place to begin.

The thread is about some Lutherans wanting to soften their stance on doctrine but regarding others many do not depend on the reformation which is history and continue to protest against Rome's authority which is not only religious but mostly political. The Catholic Priesthood has allays been in place of Christ and sometimes the laity.

 

[John Hyperspace]

So who do you think has the truth?

When almost all protestants and reformation groups disagree with each other , having many mutually exclusive variants of baptism, salvation, eucharist,other sacraments, clergy, morality, liturgy..you name it, they all disagree on it. Tens of thousands of versions of "truth" when truth itself is unique, so almost all reformationists preach one or more falsehoods - logically that must be true since they preach opposite things.

The problem IS sola scriptura introduced by Luther. A doctrine unsupportable either logically, historically, biblically or evidentially, so launching "customized" "choose your own doctrine" Christianity.

I disagree. First being that, you're making it seem like the Catholic church is the only church that combines tradition with scripture and hierarchic structure, but that's not true. There are many such churches in the world. So a Catholic is in no different a situation as a protestant in regards to this question of "which is the right church?" If protestants have a "customized, choose your own doctrine" then so do Catholics since, you are "choosing" which traditional church body is rightly teaching through tradition, as opposed to the others that also do this. How do you know the Eastern church isn't the "right" church holding to tradition? There's no way for you to know this, and so you're in the same position of "customized, choose your own tradition/doctrine"

Second being that your proposition "the problem IS sola scripture" is based on an opinion without evidences to support. Just because many protestant churches disagree doesn't mean that is because of sola scriptura. It could be the problem; but it might not be. The problem could be that these protestant churches are also based on traditional doctrine which is not inline with the scripture. The same could be said of churches which mix opposing tradition/doctrine, and one would say "the problem IS tradition" it just isn't a reasonable statement.

I will stand by the bible and say "By sincere seeking, this book is all I need or require": I've never needed anyone to tell me what any other book I've read means; and, in the end, how would I know that what they are telling me is true, unless it's in the book to begin with? Just because they say so? What about the others that "just say so" while saying conflicting things, and, holding conflicting hierarchies and doctrine?

I'll take the book, the book alone, and the prayer of "God guide my understanding" and gladly leave everything else to anyone who wants it. I do think the reformation was justified in light of the worldliness clearly visible in the traditional churches (meaning, long robes, and worldly decoratings and all manner of things which appear to the eye to display righteousness) but I also do not believe the protestant churches are all exempt from this worldliness.

There are also doctrines which are outright contrary to scripture. Many reasons to justify the departure even such departure needed justified to begin with. One could ask the question, "Was the Catholic church ever justified to begin with?"

Note I don't say these things to condemn or any such thing; but only to address these things.

 

[sparow]

Yes it was. However the RCC went on the offence.
Early works[edit]

Ratio Studiorum, 1598.
The Jesuits were founded just before the Counter-Reformation (or at least before the date those historians with a classical view of the counter-reformation hold to be the beginning of the Counter-Reformation), a movement whose purpose was to reform the Catholic Church from within and to counter the Protestant Reformers, whose teachings were spreading throughout Catholic Europe.

Today most professed followers of Christ follow a counter reformation Jesuit teaching by Francisco Ribera called futurism, they also keep the counterfeit Sabbath which is a RCC teaching.

So in my book most of so called Protestantism has already capitulated to the teachings of the RCC.

I am proud to say I believe in Sola Scriptura.

Matthew 15:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is amazing that people accept the irrational throwing of the seventieth week down to the end of time; taking the seventieth week away from Christ and giving it to Satan. Denying Christ of the seventieth week of confirming the covenant leaves the New Covenant slot open and they think they can put anything they like into the new covenant slot.

Do you believe in "the Bible alone" or the doctrine of Sola Scriptura" which excludes the Sabbath and the Law generally.

 

[sparow]

Was catholicism ever justified?

The reformation was a smoke screen that hindered a revival. Catholicism means Universalism or mixing faiths up into a mess; there is a prophesy that says, "they will intermarry." I believe universalism is that prophesy fulfilled.

 

[samir]

There are impending changes to Lutheran and some other Protestant denominations doctrine during 2017 that could lead to the end of Protestantism as we know it. This you tube speaks for two hours on the changes to Lutheran doctrine to bring Lutherans back to Catholicism:

Protestantism will never end. Although Luther made it popular, arrogant and rebellious people have protested the Church in favor of their own teaching since the first century and that will never stop because the root cause of all heresy is pride and there will always be pride among the unregenerate.

Although some Lutherans may come home to Rome, others who don't agree will schism into more Lutheran denominations (I think there are already over 50 Lutheran denominations). Also, the denominations of one (who like to call themselves non-denominational or "evangelical") will continue to follow their own teaching because an easy path to salvation (just believe and you're saved) appeals to many people with carnal desires as well as the arrogant who like to believe they're one of the few "true Christians" so they can look down and judge Christians who don't agree with them.

Was Protestantism ever justified?

No! Rejecting truth in favor of one's own opinions because of arrogance or an unwillingness to submit to Christ's teachings is never justified.

 

[Mountainmike]

But I do know which is right
The answer is very easy.

Jesus clearly gives the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter Alone - a role we know from the OT is a "prime minister" type role with succession. A role in a Davidic kingdom given to a single person not a group. Jesus makes him alone the rock on which he built his church, and asks him alone to "tend his sheep".

So wherever Peter and his successor is, there is the true church.

Orthodox has a similar problem all others do - it is the name for a group of denominations, (not a single denomination ) of many both autocephalous and autonomous churches that do not accept a primary authority, so do not agree with each other on some issues. Some accept some councils, others accept others eg Chalcedonian/non chalcedonian. All have made their own "popes" Some are larger than others.

The point is when you lose the source of ultimate authority, there is bound to be drift. Because orthodox did not lose tradition, or lose the teaching of early councils, it has not become as wayward as Luther and all the reformers that followed. But it cannot be the true church for the first reason given.

The exegetical cart wheels used to deny the rock of the church was Peter would be laughable, were they not so serious. All hermeneutic rules are broken by those seeking to pretend it was "peters confession" or such errant nonsense, to avoid the obvious truth. Peter was the Rock!. God has chosen a variety of others in different eras to lead and represent his church on earth: for example Abraham was made "father" of the church given that name by God! Moses led - indeed we see that "moses seat" referred in the NT was a source of truth.

And in taking "the book alone" you are taking the path that launched 10000 schisms. Sola scriptura, is neither logical, biblical, historical or evidential. In short it is a reformation falsehood.

I disagree. First being that, you're making it seem like the Catholic church is the only church that combines tradition with scripture and hierarchic structure, but that's not true. There are many such churches in the world. So a Catholic is in no different a situation as a protestant in regards to this question of "which is the right church?" If protestants have a "customized, choose your own doctrine" then so do Catholics since, you are "choosing" which traditional church body is rightly teaching through tradition, as opposed to the others that also do this. How do you know the Eastern church isn't the "right" church holding to tradition? There's no way for you to know this, and so you're in the same position of "customized, choose your own tradition/doctrine"

Second being that your proposition "the problem IS sola scripture" is based on an opinion without evidences to support. Just because many protestant churches disagree doesn't mean that is because of sola scriptura. It could be the problem; but it might not be. The problem could be that these protestant churches are also based on traditional doctrine which is not inline with the scripture. The same could be said of churches which mix opposing tradition/doctrine, and one would say "the problem IS tradition" it just isn't a reasonable statement.

I will stand by the bible and say "By sincere seeking, this book is all I need or require": I've never needed anyone to tell me what any other book I've read means; and, in the end, how would I know that what they are telling me is true, unless it's in the book to begin with? Just because they say so? What about the others that "just say so" while saying conflicting things, and, holding conflicting hierarchies and doctrine?

I'll take the book, the book alone, and the prayer of "God guide my understanding" and gladly leave everything else to anyone who wants it. I do think the reformation was justified in light of the worldliness clearly visible in the traditional churches (meaning, long robes, and worldly decoratings and all manner of things which appear to the eye to display righteousness) but I also do not believe the protestant churches are all exempt from this worldliness.

There are also doctrines which are outright contrary to scripture. Many reasons to justify the departure even such departure needed justified to begin with. One could ask the question, "Was the Catholic church ever justified to begin with?"

Note I don't say these things to condemn or any such thing; but only to address these things.

 

[JellyQuest]

The forces at work are great and are spiritual, it is not just the Papacy.

yeah they are ,but they are also defeated powers . Jesus has conquered .

 

[JellyQuest]

arrogant and rebellious people have protested the Church in favor of their own teaching since the first century and that will never stop because the root cause of all heresy is pride and there will always be pride among the unregenerate.

nahh .they protested romes church and the errors of men -i mean come on lol your "church " was teaching people they could BUY$$ their ancestors salvation long after they had died in their unrepentant sin and 98 other atrocities for $funds $ - .. not the church of Jesus . his ones not based in any one place -he dwells by his spirit in the hearts of all those who have his spirit in them

 

[Mountainmike]

There is the issue.
The NT is relatively silent on it, although when families were clearly baptised it does not rule it out. But then the NT is NOT how the faith was passed down (paradosis, handing down, tradition). Neither is the NT intended to be a "manual of Christian Practice". Just as the OT is almost silent on the practice of temple worship.

But how early christians lived the faith they were taught "by word of mouth and letter" (see Paul) is clear in early writings, from which we know the early church was liturgical, sacramental, had appointed clergy empowered for sacraments and teaching, believed in real presence and so on...

So most evangelicals are way off piste. They pretend they "have gone back to early church" only because they refuse to study it. I know. I was part of it once.

We see in early fathers writings what was handed down on infant baptism. Irenaus (author of against heresies) clearly refers to it.

Where does the NT speak about infant baptism? The Apostle Paul wrote that all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching and equipping Christians to serve God. How is that NOT placing emphasis on scripture as our sole guide? If the letters and the Gospels to the churches were in circulation among the churches and being copied for distribution, during the first century, how is it that you say they did not have the NT?

 

[Mountainmike]

I think you had better study scripture and history!

Scripture clearly states the "pillar of truth is the church" which it states is the "house of God" - and the OT makes the meaning of "house of God" clear: it is the physical manifestation of the church. So the church is NOT just a spiritual association.

Furthermore, you cannot regard your new testament inspiredif you do not believe in the infallibility of a church expressed by decision of a council centuries after Christ. You cannot have it both ways! If you reject the authority of the church, you also reject the new testament!

I am also sure you would be horrified by the views handed down to and expressed by those who formed the nicean creed and ratified the new testament. For example - They were staunch advocates of the invocation of saints and the intercession of Mary . You seem to want to take their authority on what is the bible, then wholly disregard what they thought it meant, which is part of the basis they chose the books they did, and rejected others as heresy!

As for paid indulgencies, the Pope himself spoke clearly against the practice at a council some years after luthers hissy fit ( which practice was never an infallible teaching ) but sadly Luther threw his toys out of the pram, before accept that RCC is so big and lumbering and slow it takes time to pronounce on any matter.

Advocates of Luther are not fond of echoing his later writings where he sincerely regretted having let Pandora out of the box.

RCC is made of people. People do bad things, including popes.
Thats why we all need salvation. But the fact that catholics have done a few hideous things, has no bearing on whether it is the true church! Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous!

The mark of the true church is that it still believes what it has fundamentally believed for two millenia. And where every other has blown with the winds of moral , marriage and sexual populism, RCC alone has stood firm. Because the truth does not change.

nahh .they protested romes church and the errors of men -i mean come on lol your "church " was teaching people they could BUY$$ their ancestors salvation long after they had died in their unrepentant sin and 98 other atrocities for $funds $ - .. not the church of Jesus . his ones not based in any one place -he dwells by his spirit in the hearts of all those who have his spirit in them

 

[jimmyjimmy]

But I do know which is right
The answer is very easy.

Jesus clearly gives the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter Alone - a role we know from the OT is a "prime minister" type role with succession. A role in a Davidic kingdom given to a single person not a group. Jesus makes him alone the rock on which he built his church, and asks him alone to "tend his sheep".

So wherever Peter and his successor is, there is the true church.

Orthodox has a similar problem all others do - it is the name for a group of denominations, (not a single denomination ) of many both autocephalous and autonomous churches that do not accept a primary authority, so do not agree with each other on some issues. Some accept some councils, others accept others eg Chalcedonian/non chalcedonian. All have made their own "popes" Some are larger than others.

The point is when you lose the source of ultimate authority, there is bound to be drift. Because orthodox did not lose tradition, or lose the teaching of early councils, it has not become as wayward as Luther and all the reformers that followed. But it cannot be the true church for the first reason given.

The exegetical cart wheels used to deny the rock of the church was Peter would be laughable, were they not so serious. All hermeneutic rules are broken by those seeking to pretend it was "peters confession" or such errant nonsense, to avoid the obvious truth. Peter was the Rock!. God has chosen a variety of others in different eras to lead and represent his church on earth: for example Abraham was made "father" of the church given that name by God! Moses led - indeed we see that "moses seat" referred in the NT was a source of truth.

And in taking "the book alone" you are taking the path that launched 10000 schisms. Sola scriptura, is neither logical, biblical, historical or evidential. In short it is a reformation falsehood.

If Protestants granted that Peter was given the "keys of the Kingdom", that does not mean that the RCC is *the* church, and it certainly doesn't mean that its practices are not errant, most grievous its "gospel" of salvation by sacrament/works.

Go ahead, do what Christ does not do and call Peter a "pope". It changes nothing.

 

[Mountainmike]

But then we don't believe in salvation by works. So the normal "anti catholic" caricature is wrong! One of these days anti catholics will actually research what we do believe!

We do on the other hand believe in the bible... which tell us clearly and unequivocally - to feed the hungry, look after the sick and so on (sheep and goats) So we do it. Indeed..Jesus tells you what will happen if you don't!

And when scripture tell us "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day" or "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man you have no life in you".. We do as we are commanded, because we want eternal life!

All of these things are biblical commands and so made necessary.
Do you do them? or do you ignore the bible?

None are sufficient. We are saved by Grace having endured in faith.

Sadly protestants no longer believe in what the bible commands, they would rather listen to Luthers manmade tradtion of "sola fide".
we certainly dont believe that the wholly unbiblical "asking Jesus into you life" is either necessary or sufficient for salvation forever as many evangelicals would have you believe.

Because catholics believe in scripture! Also the need for authority to help interpret it!

Thats why there is FAR MORE scripture read in a catholic mass, than any other denomination service, I have ever been to. Far more than any evangelical worship contains , and they are the so called "bible bashers". Go figure. A sing song is all very nice. We prefer scripture, and then do do what we are commanded as eucharist!

If Protestants granted that Peter was given the "keys of the Kingdom", that does not mean that the RCC is *the* church, and it certainly doesn't mean that its practices are not errant, most grievous its "gospel" of salvation by sacrament/works.

Go ahead, do what Christ does not do and call Peter a "pope". It changes nothing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

And when scripture tell us "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day" or "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man you have no life in you".. We do as we are commanded, because we want eternal life!

I would argue that you don't. Jesus' body is part of His human nature, not His Devin nature, which means that He can't physically be in more than one place at a time, and He certainly forbids drinking blood.

It's a metaphor. We don't think that men are literally sheep, or that Christ is literally a wooden gate, right?

Jesus is with us spiritually in the bread and cup.

Catholics, I would argue, miss the entire point of Jesus said in John 6. Reading the entire chapter help, as almost all heresy stems from ripping verses out of context.

But then we don't believe in salvation by works. So the normal "anti catholic" caricature is wrong! One of these days anti catholics will actually research what we do believe!

You can't pull hat one on me. I was a Roman Catholic. From birth I was in her pews. . . I know from first-hand experience and from the doctrines.

None are sufficient. We are saved by Grace having endured in faith.

You play with words there. That's not grace. That's works + grace, which, as we know from Paul, is no grace/gospel at all.

we certainly dont believe that the wholly unbiblical "asking Jesus into you life" is either necessary or sufficient for salvation forever as many evangelicals would have you believe.

Neither do many Protestants. I certainly don't.

Thats why there is FAR MORE scripture read in a catholic mass, than any other denomination I have ever been to.

You've never been to my church. We conservative Presbyterians read large chunks of scripture weekly in service.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sadly many cradle catholics are illinformed - too few take the time and trouble to learn the faith - as I discovered on my Journey to Rome. Now read the catechism.

And equally sadly presbyterian no longer represents a unified view. Which is how it got the nicknamed the "Split P"

As for the eucharist, that is why you need tradition and authority to understand meaning.

Apart from which "gnaw" not consume was the word used in John 6 , wholly inconsistent with symbolic meaning - he really did mean flesh and blood that is why they all wanted to leave and many did, it was an anathema to jews. Thats why they left.
.Jesus just asked the rest "will you go too". If it was only symbolic why did he not state it rather than let them leave?

it is also why Romans considered Christians cannibals because of what they were told went on behind closed doors! So totally consistent with history!

But why do you put limits on God? If that is what Jesus wants to do...who are you to rationalise in your far lower intelligence than his, why he cannot? He made the universe. He can do anything. He never banned anyone drinking HIS blood, indeed he asks you to!

It is fascinating that catholics always take a more literal view of scripture than others.


And another thing.... the eucharistic miracles...I believe, though I am not obliged to!

I am glad to hear you recite scripture. The mass lliturgy is almost entirely scripture.

I would argue that you don't. Jesus' body is part of His human nature, not His Devin nature, which means that He can't physically be in more than one place at a time, and He certainly forbids drinking blood.

It's a metaphor. We don't think that men are literally sheep, or that Christ is literally a wooden gate, right?

Jesus is with us spiritually in the bread and cup.

Catholics, I would argue, miss the entire point of Jesus said in John 6. Reading the entire chapter help, as almost all heresy stems from ripping verses out of context.



You can't pull hat one on me. I was a Roman Catholic. From birth I was in her pews. . . I know from first-hand experience and from the doctrines.



You play with words there. That's not grace. That's works + grace, which, as we know from Paul, is no grace/gospel at all.



Neither do many Protestants. I certainly don't.



You've never been to my church. We conservative Presbyterians read large chunks of scripture weekly in service.