Was the Protestant split from Rome ever justified?

ViaCrucis · Dec 21, 2016

sparow said:
under Roman Government authority, Christian and pagan religions were blended into one. Apart from what God is doing

False.

-CryptoLutheran

victorinus · Dec 22, 2016

samir said:
I find it interesting that anti-Catholics have to make up stuff about what the RCC taught centuries ago because they're unable to refute Catholic teaching.

parrots can repeat what they hear

JellyQuest · Dec 22, 2016

i find it interesting that pro popers just deny everything they feel they dont like

JoeP222w · Dec 22, 2016

Paul Yohannan said:
Those denominations are not a part of the Roman Catholic church.

Not surprising that someone will deny that list.

JoeP222w · Dec 22, 2016

sparow said:
James epistles oppose the views of Paul.

No, they do not. The context, focus and audience of the letters of both matters.

JoeP222w · Dec 22, 2016

pdudgeon said:
if they could come back home to Rome, repentant sons and daughters,

So you are calling for repentance to Rome and not Jesus?

That is idolatry.

And Rome did not start Christianity. Jesus Christ did.

Paul Yohannan · Dec 22, 2016

JoeP222w said:
Not surprising that someone will deny that list.

Several of the churches on that list are vagante EO or OO jurisdictions with no connection to Rome.

jimmyjimmy · Dec 22, 2016

JellyQuest said:
i find it interesting that pro popers just deny everything they feel they dont like

We all have a tendency to do that, but the most well balanced among us are those who can look at themselves with a critical eye, and who take the time to consider criticism to see where it is true.

GreekOrthodox · Dec 22, 2016

JoeP222w said:
Not surprising that someone will deny that list.

I already explained that just because a church uses the word "Catholic" in its name does not mean that they are a split from the Catholic church. The Evangelical Catholic Church was formed by a number of Lutherans. Just because I'm Orthodox does not mean that I'm Orthodox Jewish. Heck, there is an arch-conservative Presbyterian body called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and they are not Eastern Orthodox nor Jewish orthodox.

fcs2525 · Dec 22, 2016

[ No is was not. There has existed "one" church for 2000 years that has never changed its core beliefs...The Catholic Church.Protestantism has over 20000 different sects with most of them contradicting each other out of existence.So which one of these 20000 is the true faith as taught by Christ? How do you choose, feelings,emotions or history[2000 yrs], and facts. Is God the author of confusion and error?

bcbsr · Dec 22, 2016

sparow said:
I see James more in line with Christ than Paul; James epistles oppose the views of Paul. I don't see James involved with a new circumcision, Paul yes. Circumcision would require maximum faith and conviction, James was allowing the matter to be postponed.

This may interest you, the author may not be Christion but he is a Professor and Theologian with a PHD: http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/Taking-Paul-at-His-Word.pdf

You misunderstand what I mean by "Neo-Circumcision". It is those sects which are derived from the group of the circumcision, not the ceremony of circumcision.

The "Circumcision":
You must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved.

The "Neo-Circumcision":
You must go through such and such ceremonies and follow our regulations to be saved. (Catholicism being the chief example)

dqhall · Dec 22, 2016

sparow said:
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:
Was Protestantism ever justified?

There has been a general decline in attendance of the Catholic Church in America. I am not sure you can get them back. There has been a decline in Protestant church attendance too. Statistics do not indicate they are heading to mass. Most of these have not read much about Luther.

JellyQuest · Dec 22, 2016

jimmyjimmy said:
We all have a tendency to do that, but the most well balanced among us are those who can look at themselves with a critical eye, and who take the time to consider criticism to see where it is true.

and when we do we find it is true across all denominations and where we find ourselves in error -we repent and stop practicing those errors .

those who refuse to but instead deny or self justify those errors display who they are really of ..

sparow · Dec 22, 2016

JoeP222w said:
No, they do not. The context, focus and audience of the letters of both matters.

There is much more to it than you suggest; the differences between James and Paul is substantial, before context, focus and audience.

James' epistles are considered universal that is general and not to specific audience about specific problems; James manifested the Gospel taught by Christ, i.e. the kingdom is near, repent make the way straight.

Paul's epistles are not universal, they are directed to specific peoples about specific problems and Pauls epistles are always only part of a debate, the rest is unknown to us. Even so, Paul taught a different Gospel to Christ and Christ's disciples, i.e. Paul presents Jesus as a Pagan God of the Roman ilk, Paul's Gospel is about Christ; Paul teaches the way failed, make a new way.

So there are two fundamental contexts 1 "Repent, make the way straight"; and 2 "The way failed, make a new way." James is read in terms of con text 1 and Paul is read in terms of context 2.

jimmyjimmy · Dec 22, 2016

JellyQuest said:
and when we do we find it is true across all denominations and where we find ourselves in error -we repent and stop practicing those errors .

those who refuse to but instead deny or self justify those errors display who they are really of ..

Yes. People often suppress truth that doesn't fit their worldview. Those people will never change. They will never grow. In fact, they cannot grow.

The healthiest people are those who can be self-critical, and that include the ability to see the errors or weaknesses of their particular group, e.g., denomination the case of Protestants.

sparow · Dec 22, 2016

bcbsr said:
You misunderstand what I mean by "Neo-Circumcision". It is those sects which are derived from the group of the circumcision, not the ceremony of circumcision.

The "Circumcision":
You must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved.

The "Neo-Circumcision":
You must go through such and such ceremonies and follow our regulations to be saved. (Catholicism being the chief example)

I probably did misunderstand you but not as much as you think; evolving from the Bible circumcision is a circular cut which is then extended to circular border but always involves separation, as Israel was separated from the world; the new church is separated from the world whereas THE NEW CHURCH is the world.

By neo-circumcision I thought you were referring to new sects separating.

""You must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved.'" The Law is the most misunderstood thing and the Law is the most important thing; the Law defines God, the Law defines the High Priest and the Law defines the shedding of blood for the remission of sin; no wonder this is where Satan has attacked.

You must be circumcised and follow the law; not to be saved but as a perquisite to salvation. There is circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart; in the OT these go hand in hand; there is the Law and there is entering into the covenant; it is possible to be circumcised in the flesh but no circumcised in the heart and it is possible to keep the Law with out entering into the covenant.

sparow · Dec 22, 2016

dqhall said:
There has been a general decline in attendance of the Catholic Church in America. I am not sure you can get them back. There has been a decline in Protestant church attendance too. Statistics do not indicate they are heading to mass. Most of these have not read much about Luther.

The prophesied falling away has nothing to do with the worldly Churches but to do with the few who follow Christ and they fall as their faith is tested; their fall may be observed at times when they return to Rome.

samir · Dec 22, 2016

JellyQuest said:
haha its in the history books . it didn't come from a pastor .. geuss someone lied tro you huh

No, it's not in the history books. guess your reading comprehension skills could use some improvement.

com7fy8 · Dec 22, 2016

sparow said:
Was Protestantism ever justified?

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

People can use a good thing the wrong way, even doing this in order to make something good look bad. If people get into division, it is because of their own nature being divisive.

Jesus said there would be division because of Him. And Jesus is good ! ! ! It is not His fault how worldly people have taken Him the wrong way.

Now, in case people get away from a wrong group, then they need to do things the right way, not just start another wrong way.

I personally find that Jesus and the Bible give me more and better than what I have been getting from both Roman Catholic and Lutheran ministry; so what they do is not relevant . . . if neither one gives as much good as God shares.

So, if they both have been less than the ministry of God through Jesus and the Bible, then the one leaving the other was not doing all which could have been done. And so . . . going back together would not be doing all which God has been doing.

ViaCrucis · Dec 23, 2016

JoeP222w said:
Not surprising that someone will deny that list.

It's what someone who is concerned with truth and facts should do.

The Roman Catholic Church is constituted by those churches which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome: thus Latin Rite Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc.

Sedevacantist churches are not Roman Catholic, they teach that the seat of St. Peter is vacant (that's what sedevacantist means) and are not in communion with Rome; though they do believe they are the "true" Catholic Church.

The Old Catholic Churches are a collection of disparate churches which broke away from Rome over the First Vatican Council in the 19th century, most are united together under the Union of Utrecht.

The Polish National Catholic Church used to be one of the Old Catholic Churches, but is no longer one of them either.

Go ahead and actually look up the churches you listed, here's the first three:

American Catholic Church in the United States, Old Catholic, not Roman Catholic.
American National Catholic Church, founded in 2009 apart from the Roman Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic.
Antiochian Catholic Church in America, an independent Catholic Church founded in 1991, not Roman Catholic.

If it is not in communion with Rome then it's not Roman Catholic. It's that simple really.

-CryptoLutheran

Was the Protestant split from Rome ever justified?

Confessional Lutheran

catholic

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

Psalti Chrysostom

New Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency