Protestantism as New Catholicism?


#1

Ok, so this thread is about an Idea I had.

In the beginning, there was One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

Then, it split, into the Eastern and Western Churches. Roman Catholics and I can agree, of the two, Roman Catholicism has it a lot more together than the Eastern Orthodox Church, which remains unchanged since the split, in a sort of stagnant state.

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was Roman. This church had it much together, but then it abused the political arm of its power. It became wealthy, it began to rule over princes, it began to claim that it had the authority to sell forgiveness, and many other abuses

Then, it split, into the Protestant and Catholic Church. The Catholics desperately held on to their power, ran a sham council named “Trent,” and to this day has remained largely unchanged…in a sort of stagnant state…

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was the Protestants…

God has moved his church in a new direction once, whose to say He didn’t do it again?


#2

God doesn’t move HIS church, HIS perfect bride, in any stinkin’ new directions. She is the one the gates of Hell will NEVER prevail against, and which will not only persever but attain to ALL truth.

There has been ONE church from the beginning - you are right about that - as Jesus desired there would be - and that one is the same church that St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the Apostle, called ‘Catholic’ back in the second century, and still exists as todays Roman (in union with Rome) Catholic Church.

All else, Orthodox included (with deepest respect for my Orthodox brothers) has split off, partly or wholly, from it and is an irrelevancy except in so far as these branches retain some, but only some, of the same fullness of truth which we alone possess.


#3

Besides, there’s a HUGE difference between the Catholic-Orthodox and Catholic-Protestant split. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Doctrinally Catholic and Orthodox churches are very close, whereas Catholics and Protestants are very different in their beliefs. Protestants today have come to reject almost everything the Catholic Church believes (and even what the early Protestants believed), so it is very hard that all of the sudden God decided to move His Church in a completely different direction.


#4

Not to mention that the Protestants have been deeply and bitterly divided amongst themselves right from the start. Luther, Zwingli, Knox and the proto-Anglicans all bitterly opposed each other and have since split further into thousands of denominations. Which of these is the One Holy Apostolic Church with the fulness of truth entrusted to the Apostles?:confused:

btw the Catholic Church has never claimed it has the authority to sell forgiveness. Ask anyone who claims it did to provide evidence - there is none. (Yeah, don’t tell me, those evil Catholics burned all the evidence.)

And by what measure was the Council of Trent a “sham”? It was one of the most important and successful Ecumenical Councils. The Pope even invited the proto-protestant leaders to attend the Council and contribute their ideas, but to a man they refused.


#5

Stagnant? I’m really not sure what you mean by this. One minute you guys are criticising us for “changing” too much, then you criticise us for not changing enough. What the heck! :confused:

God didn’t move (divide) the Church, Satan did!


#6

And then he thought it’d be good to split it again and again and again and again, ad nauseum to the point where there now exist thirty thousand Christian denominations

Yup. Makes sense to me.


#7

Ok tell us.

In the beginning, there was One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

You are correct. Christ founded a visible Church on Peter as it’s head - a new universal covenant.

Then, it split, into the Eastern and Western Churches. Roman Catholics and I can agree, of the two, Roman Catholicism has it a lot more together than the Eastern Orthodox Church, which remains unchanged since the split, in a sort of stagnant state.

Not really, it did change. They denied the Papacy and entered a full scale schism. But in a lot of ways it remained stagnant. This included their believes and this applied to the Catholic Church as well.

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

Of course and it was the one in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter (ie. the Pope).

And it was Roman. This church had it much together, but then it abused the political arm of its power. It became wealthy, it began to rule over princes,

Man is sinful and Satan loves to attack it’s Church. Some people then follow the idol of mammon rather then Christ. Whenever you say that the Church abused it’s power stop and think about it once more. Who was it? The Holy Church or sinners in the Church?

it began to claim that it had the authority to sell forgiveness, and many other abuses

Church NEVER EVER sold the indulgences. They were sold illegaly by some corrupted clergy.

Then, it split, into the Protestant and Catholic Church.

Oh no, it never slit. Some people during the reformation (and after) left the true Church instituted by Christ to create their own Christian denominations.

The Catholics desperately held on to their power, ran a sham council named “Trent,” and to this day has remained largely unchanged…in a sort of stagnant state…

Stagnant state? I’m glad you say it because the Truth doesn’t change. :thumbsup:

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

Yes and it was the same Church when Jesus founded his Church on Peter

And it was the Protestants…

Wishful thinking. But let me ask you.
**Are Catholics and Orthodox not Christians? **You just said that they are not because they are not part of the Church. I guess I should covert or I’m going to hell! :rolleyes:
How much do you have to ‘protest’ to be part of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church?

I would like to ask you to thinking about Matthew 23:2-4:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

The corrupted leaders of the old covenant were still holding the authority given to them by God - despite his corruption. Christ told the people to obey them but not to sin like they do. Those who would disobey them would be guilty of disobedience before God.
When the Church instituted by Jesus Christ is to teach us the true and is protected by the Holy Spirit. The people and even the leaders however still have free will to sin and thus some act not under the guidance of Christ but under the guidance of Satan (we are blessed with many holy leaders these days). God doesn’t make them sinless just like he didn’t make the Pharisees and teachers. At the time of the greatest corruption many left the church and they are guilty of disobediences. They should have lead an example with their lives and not disobey the authority and thus ultimately disobey Christ.

God has moved his church in a new direction once, whose to say He didn’t do it again?

But the question is rather: Who is to say that he did?
Perhaps only Joseph Smith, Jr., right? :rolleyes:


#8

Isn’t the Church Rich?

I was recently in Rome where I saw the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. I could not take photos in there because a Japanese company owned the copyright. The Vatican didn’t have enough money in the budget to restore the Sistine Chapel so a Japanese company did it in exchange for the copyright privileges. The Vatican itself has a yearly budget that is equivalent to the Archdiocese of Chicago, and frequently runs on a deficit…

Sometimes Evangelicals look at beautiful Catholic Churches and ask “why can’t Catholics worship in a humble building.” Certainly Mass can be held almost anywhere. There were secret Masses held by priests in German concentration camps before Catholics were gassed to death for their beliefs…

The big beautiful traditional Churches that receive the most complaints were not built with big bucks. They were built with the sweat of the brow of volunteers who worked 'till 11 PM every night after a full day of working their regular day jobs… That is the real wealth of the Catholic Church - the people, and 2000 years of prayers of the faithful.

http://www.davidmacd.com/images/Guatemala/guatemala_evangelical_church_100_0591.jpg

In Guatemala city, a couple of kilometres from the “tin village,” the Evangelical organization"Fraterinidad Christian de Guatemala"is building a new Church that holds 7,000 people in its amphitheater. It has a hundred meeting rooms. It has two stages, including the one below, a 1000 car parking lot, sleeping complex and dozens of other amenities. In fact, it competes with the Vatican in its size.


#9

Critics have also objected to the use of costly vessels, including, in the past, even diamond-encrusted chalices. The Church has always used precious metals and other valuable materials in the construction of sacred vessels because they hold the Body and Blood of Christ.

This tradition dates back to Old Testament times, when God ordered the use of precious metals and other costly materials in the construction of the ark of the covenant, the temple, and the furniture in the temple. These materials included gold, silver, bronze, fine linens, acacia wood, spices for oils and incense, and onyx stones…

By giving our best to God, we are reminded that everything we have is a blessing from Him and that we need to seek Him first and trust in Him (cf. Mt. 6:33), instead of relying on ourselves and our own plans…

In times of moral crisis, the Vatican has used her wealth to aid people, such as selling gold to stave off the extermination of many Jews during World War II. link


#10

I deny the premise. The Orthodox are not “stagnant,” and the Church before the schism was not identical with the current Orthodox Church.

The far more interesting version of this argument invokes the “move” from OT to NT. My advisor, a very ecumenical scholar of the Reformation, actually justifies the Reformation with this example. I don’t agree, because the coming of Christ involved new revelation of God. The Reformation, if correct, was simply the purifiying and further development of the original revelation. Therefore, it cannot be justified as a “new move” of God. That is heresy and amounts to establishing a new religion altogether.

(For the record, I don’t think the “purification and development” argument works either. At best, the Reformation was a flawed but valuable movement whose insights can be reconciled with those of historic, pre-Reformation Christianity, and where they cannot be so reconciled they are necessarily wrong. The Reformation as schism was indefensible, period, though that does not necessarily mean that the “Roman” side didn’t also commit schism in some sense.)

Edwin


#11

Incorrect, the Eastern Orthodox church faltered because it changed by the point that it fell away from the teaching of God that loyalty to the Vicar of Christ is a key point of the church. Conversely it is the CATHOLIC church which remained unchanged.

And it was Roman. This church had it much together, but then it abused the political arm of its power. It became wealthy, it began to rule over princes, it began to claim that it had the authority to sell forgiveness, and many other abuses

Then, it split, into the Protestant and Catholic Church. The Catholics desperately held on to their power, ran a sham council named “Trent,” and to this day has remained largely unchanged…in a sort of stagnant state…

Things on your to-do list for learning:

  1. The protestant reformations were partially a product of the germanic princes who were NOT being made wealthy or powerful by the church. Recall, Martin Luther never wanted a split from the church, soon-to-be protestant princes drove that change because it was politically expedient.

  2. The selling of indulgences was NEVER about buying forgiveness, and though abuses were cleaned up indulgences can still be gained today. You should learn more about what indulgences are before you continue your baseless slander of the church in ignorance.

  3. no council of the church is ever a sham, and you lack authority to make such a determination

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was the Protestants…

Incorrect:

The marks of God’s Church
[LIST]
*]One
*]Holy
*]Catholic (universal)
*]Apostolic
[/LIST]

Marks of the protestant SECTS:
[LIST]
*]30,000+
*]not sanctioned by God or sealed with the Holy Spirit
*]Plagued with doctrinal confusion/contradiction
*]completely lacking in sacraments and apostolic succession/authority
[/LIST]

God has moved his church in a new direction once, whose to say He didn’t do it again?

God’s word is universal and eternal. It does not change because that would imply that God’s initial choice was incorrect or needed improvement. Thanks for asking though. God bless.


#12

Then there was the One Church, One Holy and Apostolic Church.

And it was the Protestants…

God has moved his church in a new direction once, whose to say He didn’t do it again?

Protestants made one mistake during the Reformation. The sinful men running the Church were the one’s in need of reform, NOT the ancient teachings and doctrines of the Church. The reformers could have done a lot of good if they had fought to reform the evils that plagued the Church at that time instead of leaving it.

By attempting to start the Church from scratch 1500 years later, justifying their new doctrines on the basis of their own private interpretations of Scripture, it opened up the possiblity of an infinite number of divisions and conflicts among Christians because everyone is using their own private interpretation rather than relying on the interpretations handed down through the ages and preserved by the Church.

Luther may have started with good intentions to rid the Church of evil men, but he took it too far by starting his own Churhc and we are still suffering the consequences of his actions…


#13

Certainly not any Protestants - they’d have to maintain that he has moved it thousands of times.
Your concept of “moving” the Church doesnt really fit with any Scripture I can think of, and it seems to contradict the notion of the Church being the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The reason for this last comment is that within Protestantism we find not only novel concepts (like your concept of the “moving” church), but also contradictory concepts and theology from the earliest forms of Protestantism. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, then the Truth is a moving, self contradicting target. Sorry, I dont buy it. It is the latter issue of contradictory doctrines which refutes your concept of the “movable” Church IMHO.


#14

This would be just like the way God abandoned Israel and made another people his chosen people.

Oh wait, that never happened. Unless, maybe, you count the coming of the Messiah. In which case, who is the Protestant Messiah of the 16th century?


#15

Oh wait, that never happened. Unless, maybe, you count the coming of the Messiah. In which case, who is the Protestant Messiah of the 16th century?

It was prophet Martin Luther, acting with the full authority of God! :smiley:

:wink:


#16

Sorry, but based upon the verifiable historic writings of the early church and the current teachings of the Catholic Church and the Bible itself, your scenario is a work or fiction.

Even the idea that Eastern Orthodoxy is stagnant is not factual by any means.

Protestantism is a new wind of doctrines blowing through Christianity and based directly upon the fundamental errors of the reformation, (rightly condemned by the Council of Trent), chiefly whatever variant of Sola Scriptura each community has embraced.

Your scenario is wishful thinking IMO.


#17

Agreed. I don’t know that Protestantism can be considered a single “church”, or even if Protestants themselves consider themselves one, big, happy, divisive church.


#18

The only true church now is mine. We call ourselves The Church in the Basement. (Well, I say “we,” but actually it’s just me. Everyone else compromised The Truth and backslid.) (We’re not OSAS.)

All other denominations are stagnant as three-inch-thick pond scum. By the way, we do have a tax number now if anyone wants to donate. Make checks out to—well, me, I guess. :smiley:


#19

Ohio State University competes with the Vatican in its size. And then handily wins - OSU is bigger.

This sort of megachurch growth is common enough… but what it proves, well that is where the debate REALLY begins…


#20

Hold the phone.

Back that horse up, cowpoke!

Can you justify or explain your assertaion that Trent was a sham?

You may in fact wish to take a moment to read:

tcrnewscom.blogspot.com/2007/07/when-protestants-were-invited-to.html

before responding.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.