Skip to comments.The Catholicization of the Protestant Church
Posted on 06/12/2009 5:58:20 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
In just a few days Im going to be walking in the footsteps of Martin Luther. Ill explore the halls of the church in Zurich. Ill be in Geneva when the Protestant world celebrates the 500th anniversary of Calvins death. And, Im afraid the Reformers would hardly recognize the Protestant church they struggled to birth.
In fact, I think Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin might think most Protestant churches are really just inconsistent Catholic churches. Five hundred years after these men and others risked their life to bring reform to the church and the Bible to the people, weve not only forgotten the lessons learned, weve surrendered the gains gotten.
Consider just a few of the ways in which the modern Protestant church resembles the Catholic Church of the 16th century:
Our pastors act like priests. Oh, its not that theyve usurped the priesthood of all believers. Weve given it to them wholesale. If we have a biblical question, we dont struggle to find the answer. We twitter the pastor. Hes the spiritual expert. If we need prayer, we dont call the deacons. We hold out for the pastor because we think theres some magic left in his words. Last, and certainly the worst, the public exposure of the raucous sexual sins of so many pastors would surely remind Luther of what he saw in Rome during his infamous visit to the so-called Holy City.
Our people have given up the Bible. Sure, we all have plenty. Some of us have handfuls of Bibles at home in every translation imaginable. We have Luther and others of that generation to thank for that great blessing. Yet, most of us dont actually read our Bibles. Statistics suggest that only a woefully small segment of the evangelical world reads the Bible with any regularity at all. Instead, we let the experts tell us what it says (see above). And to think, Wycliffe and others were willing to die so we could ignore the Bible in our own language.
Our churches are full of people who are not Christians. In the days of the Reformation, the Catholic Church was full of nominal Catholics, those who rarely darkened the church doors but who assumed their salvation was secure because of that loose association. Protestants today have confused church membership with salvation as well.
Compare your church rolls with active attendance and see how many members never come to church. Now go share the Gospel with them and see how many say, Im okay. Im a member of such and such church. Membership, not active faith, has become the basis of their assurance. That sounds an awful lot like what Luther confronted.
A group of Catholic and evangelical scholars and leaders got together to seek common ground between the two movements in the 1990s. Surprisingly, they found what they believed were points of commonality and issued a lengthy statement detailing their finds. The document, referred to as Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), was lambasted by evangelicals and Catholics alike. In the end, their desire for rapprochement was met with antipathy and suspicion.
Ironically, ECT failed, Im afraid, because they looked at the written theology of the church rather than its practiced theology. We say we believe one thing but all too often our actions belie another set of beliefs. If you look closely, youll find that many Protestants are far more Catholic than theyre willing to admit.
I(n 1680 my French Huguenot ancestors baked their Bible into a loaf of bread in order to smuggle it out of Francer as they fled for their lives ...
First to England...
Where they ate the loaf and read the Bible...
And then to America...where they founded a Huguenot/Christian town...
They wouldnt recognize England, the US, or their town today...
Thank goodness the Bible is still the same...
Now if we would reverence the Words within the same as they did...
And worship the God who wrote the Words the same as they did...
Truth is instinctive. It is Lucifer who breeds the lie.
Luther believed that as long as you had faith in the power of your baptism, you could do pretty much what you liked.
Calvin believed that people were predestined to be damned or saved.
If Protestants have shrugged off those two incubuses, it only shows their good sense.
Help me out here. Didn't Luther believe this also?
(This is a question.)
Nor would they recognize or revile the Catholic Church they would encounter today. I am pretty much sure that, if alive today, Luther would have remained a Catholic priest.
The question is, would he have been a CINO?
This article is unintentionally very damning towards Protestantism as a concept:
“And, Im afraid the Reformers would hardly recognize the Protestant church they struggled to birth.”
Hey, thanks for admitting that your sects were founded by men and not God.
“Five hundred years [later]... weve surrendered the gains gotten.”
No, you’re still holding on to our property. You didn’t gain much else.
“Our pastors act like priests.”
Your pastors were always just actors anyway. It’s not like they were sent by God or something!
“If we have a biblical question, we dont struggle to find the answer. We twitter the pastor. Hes the spiritual expert.”
What? You mean you’ve discovered that hierarchy and specialization were part of God’s plan and happen naturally anyway?
“Last, and certainly the worst, the public exposure of the raucous sexual sins of so many pastors would surely remind Luther of what he saw in Rome during his infamous visit to the so-called Holy City.”
Would they remind Luther of his own sins?
“Our people have given up the Bible.”
Your people never had it. Even Martin Luther knew that:
“We are compelled to concede to the papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John...
“And to think, Wycliffe and others were willing to die so we could ignore the Bible in our own language.”
Wycliffe was willing to die for a vernacular Bible? Says who? He died of a stroke at his country parish essentially in internal exile. He didn’t die nor did he ever really risk death for anything. This is damning to Protestants just because it shows they have no idea what they’re talking about.
“Our churches are full of people who are not Christians.”
When was that ever different for sects?
“Compare your church rolls with active attendance and see how many members never come to church. Now go share the Gospel with them and see how many say, Im okay. Im a member of such and such church.”
Strange, my experience with Protestants is very different. I always get, “I believe in Jesus. That’s all that matters. I can do what I want. I don’t have to go to church. I’m saved.”
“If you look closely, youll find that many Protestants are far more Catholic than theyre willing to admit.”
No, if you look closely, you’ll discover that those Protestants are just being MORE Protestant. They’re doing what they want to do. That’s what Protestantism has always been about: a false belief in total freedom, a self-directed and subjective view of salvation based on feelings, etc.
Preach it brother!
I recall that Luther subscribed to the Augustinian version, not very different from official Roman Catholic dogma.
Calvin believed in something called "Double Predestination". Bound up with that is the concept of irresistible grace.
A contrary protestant theology stressing free will, Armenianism, started in the early 16th Century.
Today, Baptists and even many Presbyterians tend to be more Armenian rather than Calvinist.
There are passages in the Bible that can be used to support either position. That's one reason that some authority is necessary to understand scripture (Acts 8:30-31) despite the thesis of this article that anyone can just pick up a Bible and become a Christian.
Back to predestination, perhaps one of the many Calvinists who post on these threads can enlighten us as to the concepts of the TULIP.
I find it interesting that reformed theology is enjoying such growth.
Calvin appears to be cool today!
Excellent post,dear brother. Right on target!
“We have Luther and others of that generation to thank for that great blessing. Yet, most of us dont actually read our Bibles. Statistics suggest that only a woefully small segment of the evangelical world reads the Bible with any regularity at all.”
This is the part that will affect us all. We now have a society that no longer has a biblical world view. Rampant immorality, ignorance, no discernment, following corrupt spiritual vacuums like Obama, etc. Dark days ahead.
The best thing that could happen is for Protestants to become Catholics or at least to become more Catholic, and for Catholics to become less Protestant in their outlook and understanding of the faith.
A friend of mine, a former Lutheran minister who is now a Catholic and may be ordained as a priest in the not-too-distant future, makes the same point all the time. He constantly urges his fellow Catholics to strip away Protestant tendencies from their lives. He wants only the truth, the Catholic truth and nothing but the traditional Catholic truth. It’s humbling and inspiring to hear this come from a man who I know loves God with his whole heart and who also was a Protestant just a few years ago. God works miracles indeed!
“This is the part that will affect us all. We now have a society that no longer has a biblical world view.”
And that non-biblical world view developed out of the Protestant Revolution. It isn’t an accident that the Protestant Revolution came about in the 16th century and in just four centuries wherever that Protestant ethos went in the new nation states, government, commerce, philosophy, education, culture, etc. liberalism and modernism came in its wake destroying Christian culture and a biblical worldview. Pope Pius X knew this is what happened already over a century ago. He wrote:
“These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next.” section 39; PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS: ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907
Crossing the Tiber is two-way traffic.
I personally know Protestant pastors and elders who were once active and committed Catholics. These men are firmly committed to the truth as well and each felt that the Catholic Church perverted Biblical truth. I'm certain that their testimony would be just as strong and sincere as your former-Lutheran friend.
I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean to make this a Catholic v. Protestant argument. Countries where Catholicism is strong fair no better. Look at the northeastern United States where the RCC is more influential than say the deep south. People are more liberal and the leaders elected in no way reflect the teachings of their Church. The problem cuts across denominational lines.
BTW- I love that quote from Jerome. If Christ was the Word in the flesh then ignorance of Christ is ignorance of scripture indeed. Ties in nicely with our conversation.
“I personally know Protestant pastors and elders who were once active and committed Catholics.... I’m certain that their testimony would be just as strong and sincere as your former-Lutheran friend.”
Not at all. There can only be ONE truth. Those who invented Protestantism were not sent by God. They were founders of sects more than 1400 after Christ founded the Church and sent out the Apostles. The founders of sects do not represent or teach the truth. It’s just that simple.
“I think you misunderstood me.”
No, I don’t think I did. Honestly.
“I did not mean to make this a Catholic v. Protestant argument. Countries where Catholicism is strong fair no better.”
You’re missing the point. Protestant ethos is everywhere you find “modern” society. Protestantism ultimately produced what we call “Modernism” for instance. Wherever you find people - be they Protestants or Catholics or other Christians - you will find they have been tainted by Modernism. (That includes you, me, everybody). Protestant influence - through Modernism and Liberalism - is worldwide, completely pervasive among Christians.
“Look at the northeastern United States where the RCC is more influential than say the deep south.”
You’re just proving my point. In the South, the Church is not influential in society, but its Catholics are more authentically Catholic. I would rather be a Catholic in North Carolina than Boston. The Church is booming in the South and people are more generally and genuinely committed to the faith there. In the North East the faith is suffering, the Church is suffering and it all goes back to the pervasiveness of latter day Modernism that came out of the congrgationalist backed, liberal Protestant and Ivy League atheist culture complex. The South happily skipped all of that. Remember, the Church is made upof people. Yes, it’s guided by God so it still reaches some people no matter what the obstacles. But, when the culture become pervasively “post-Christian”, not so much anti-Christian but post Christian, then millions can be lead by the culture more demonstrably than by the Church. People supplant the Church and its teachings with Obama, television, class envy, drugs, sex, materialism, Buddhism, whatever! And that’s what has happened. And that is what Protestants have aimed for: supplanting the Catholic Church. It’s just that it happened in a way they did not expect or intend. Rather than bringing done the Catholic Church in a “righteous” movement, they created tens of thousands of sects. Rather than having proclaimed the truth which they had believed was hidden, they have emptied the very idea of truth of any import and relativism runs rampant. Unintended consequences.
“People are more liberal and the leaders elected in no way reflect the teachings of their Church. The problem cuts across denominational lines.”
The EFFECTS of Protestantism, Modernism and Liberalism, do cut across all lines. That’s exactly why I pointed out the quote from Pius X. Catholics have known about this for a very long time. Protestants still haven’t figured it out. Those who do figure it out generally become Catholics.
“BTW- I love that quote from Jerome. If Christ was the Word in the flesh then ignorance of Christ is ignorance of scripture indeed. Ties in nicely with our conversation.”
I’ve always liked the quote too.
Thank goodness the Bible is still the same...
Must be a little toasty. ;-)
Perhaps then the Pope should rescind Luther’s excommunication.
If Luther were alive today, he would be married.
Sorry, this entire piece is so full of Straw Men that it’s not worth pondering. In my church, a “normal” contemporary Evangelical church with expositional preaching and contemporary music, it’s understood that the gospel is Christ, not attendance. Our senior pastor does not act like a priest, but is a fellow sinner simply unpacking Scripture and guiding the conversation.
Is my church so unusual?
Oh, I must add: Thank God for His Reformation of His Church. May He increase and may Rome decrease.
You make clear what most Roman Catholics arrogantly quietly believe, that Christ is insufficient for salvation. If you believed that Christ was sufficient, you wouldn’t dismiss non-Roman Christians as belonging to a heretical sect saturated with false doctrine.
Man, I hate what Rome became. And I love what Christ has done with His Church, the body of Christ on earth which includes all who’ve placed their faith in Him.
You go worship the Co-Mediatrix; I’ll worship Mary’s Son instead. He, not she, is the Savior of my soul.
“Perhaps then the Pope should rescind Luthers excommunication.”
If Luther had just been an honest man there would have been no excommunication. Remember, Luther wrote to Pope Leo X on May 30, 1518, Luther, “Wherefore, most blessed Father, I offer myself prostrate at the feet of your Holiness and give myself up to you with all that I am or have: quicken, slay, call, recall, approve, reprove, as shall please Thee. It rests with your Holiness to promote or prevent my undertaking, to declare it right or wrong. Whatever happens, I recognize the voice of your Holiness as that of Christ abiding and speaking in Thee. If I deserve death, I do not refuse to die.” [The English language translation here is in, The facts about Luther, by Patrick F. O’Hare, p. 89. The text in the original language, which I am assuming is Latin, is in Knaake, in “Werke, Weim, ed., I, p. 522.
Two years later, NOTICE: TWO YEARS LATER, on June 15, 1520, in Exsurge Domine the Pope warned Luther that he risked excommunication unless he recanted nearly four dozen of his ideas within 60 days.
Luther burned Exsurge Domine in public on December 10, 1520.
Luther then was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, as laid out in Decet Romanum Pontificem.
In other words, Luther was a liar, while Pope Leo only very slowly got around to excommunication him - after giving warnings and plenty of time to shape up.
The following was written in 1853....
Once they abolished the supernatural realm and returned to pagan rationalism, the modernizers of society found that they could not stop. They had to continue their demolition, beginning with the moral truths that serve as a foundation for the existence and order of society, and then societys whole natural organic structure
.All that remains to do now is to have the individual unlearn all the essences of things, deny all the laws of logic, and burrow into the Night of complete ignorance in order that he be said to reach the apex of perfect liberty. (La Civiltà Cattolica, I, vii, 1851, 45; II, i, 1853, 31.)
You love a splintered, divided cacophony of competing voices? You love the great American tradition of custom-made churches where if nothing currently available suits your taste, you simply start your own? You love souls left to their own devices to try and figure out what Holy Scripture is saying when God, in His Divine Providence, left us with an infallible apostolic body to explain it, guard it and transmit it untainted to future generations? You love to listen to some guy in a suit whose done a "course" on Scripture when you could have the 2,000 year tradition of holy apostles, saints, theologians and doctors of the Church?
What's the good of having an "infallible" Bible if you don't have an "infallible" guardian and interpreter of same?
Rome is not an ogre trying to push you off the rails and damn you to hell. It's a father. A mother. A parent put in place by God to provide you with stability, continuity and guidance. More importantly, it has what no self-appointed biblical expert has; authority. That's the real problem inherent in Protestantism. It's the elephant in the living room about which nobody wants to speak.
When you strip away all fluff, it all comes down to one basic thing. The fundamental problem which Protestants have with Rome is authority. The won't accept what Rome says about Scripture or anything. They prefer their own opinions.
You go listen to the latest take on the Redemption. Embrace the latest half-baked biblical exegesis about the importance of the Mother of God. I'll take the words of Holy Mother Church founded by Jesus Christ and built on the rock, Petrus Romanus.
“If Luther were alive today, he would be married.”
If Luther were alive today, he would be shacked up. He may have shacked up with Katherine von Bora before they were married after all, and he saw nothing wrong with polygamy. If he were alive today, he would give full license to his libido. Even his reasons for marrying his wife show that he was not very principled in this area. He wrote to Spalatin that he married von Bora because he wanted to put an end to rumors about the two of them (i.e. they were accused by many of having an affair). Even some of his own followers apparently denied the marriage was even valid according to the civil law.
Wow! That was prophetic.
Good find, stfassisi!
Just about everything you wrote is wrong, a simplistic caricature of the Church that our Lord established (which includes all those who trust in Him, not just those whose center is Rome).
Want to talk about “competing voices”? Let me bring up your pedophile PRIESTS. Yeah, they’re part of that infallible apostolic body, right? I should trust in that pedophile to interpret Scripture for me, right? That pedophile has, as you say, “authority,” right?
Then you paint non-Roman Christian pastors as merely suit-wearing guys who’ve “done a ‘course’ on Scripture.” You really are either ignorant of the years of training that most Christian pastors go through or are malicious in your attempts to mischaracterize them.
Your commitment to your denomination, marshmallow, has caused you to cling more to it than to Christ.
You’re a hateful man, Vladimir.
Luther was a course man, in many ways “uncivilized.” But he was no fornicator. To say that he was is a classic approach that Libs take — if you can’t effectively trash the message, then trash the person who delivers it.
God was not its author.
And you bear false witness.
You go worship the Co-Mediatrix; Ill worship Marys Son instead. He, not she, is the Savior of my soul.
There's no such thing as a "Co-Mediatrix," nor do Catholics pay worship to such a person. We adore the Most Holy Trinity.
No, actually the first “Libs” of the modern era were the first Protestants.
Thank goodness the Bible is still the same...
I meant the Words within...
Not that particular copy
If Luther were alive today, he would be married.
He was at that time...
Plus had children
Would he still be an antisemite?
“Youre a hateful man, Vladimir.”
No, I’m not. Wanting the truth of a thing said, does not make me hateful.
“Luther was a course man, in many ways uncivilized.”
He was coarse, not course. And yes, he was in some ways uncivilized, and brutal.
“But he was no fornicator.”
He was many things. He violated his vows and encouraged others of doing so. He was a liar. He was something of a thief (he and his family moved into the local convent that had been seized by the government, for instance). He talked rather openly about his drinking and libidinous thoughts. Does that make him a fornicator? No. It does, however, make me think that those who lived in his own day and accused him of being a fornicator, may have been on to something.
“To say that he was is a classic approach that Libs take if you cant effectively trash the message, then trash the person who delivers it.”
No, what the liberals would have done is accuse someone (me) of having said something (Luther is a fornicator) when it was not actually said. I said the following: “If Luther were alive today, he would be shacked up. He may have shacked up with Katherine von Bora before they were married after all, and he saw nothing wrong with polygamy. If he were alive today, he would give full license to his libido.”
I never said he was a fornicator. I said he would be one today because that’s where his temperment and our culture has gone. The simple fact is that he himself talked about his lust and he was a hypocritical supporter of polygamy as his letter to the Duke of Hesse clearly shows.
And, if I am supposedly hateful for telling the truth about Luther, then how horrible must have Luther himself been to lie as he did and to spew venom on all those who dared to disagree with him? Did that thought even occur to you?
My personal favorite of Leo's demands was #33, that Luther repudiate his statement: "That heretics be burned is against the Spirit". Luther could have chosen to have continued in his fealty to Leo and publicly agreed that the Pope was doing God's work when he ordered heretics to be burned or he could have taken a stand for righteousness. He chose the latter.
Of course, Leo's threat to Luther was that, unless he recanted, the princes of the church could "...proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notorious and suspect and, in fact, is a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures". Luther's reaction to this bizarre papal bull was to treat it with the same dignity and respect with which Leo ordered Jonathan Eck to treat the writings of Luther; that is, to burn it.
“Either Luther was a liar, as you suggest,...”
No, Luther was a liar in any case. Luther simply struggled to tell the truth.
“Luther could have chosen to have continued in his fealty to Leo and publicly agreed that the Pope was doing God’s work when he ordered heretics to be burned or he could have taken a stand for righteousness. He chose the latter.”
No, he didn’t. 1) How many heretics were burned at Leo’s orders? How many? 2) Luther’s promise of fealty to the pope was complete. The idea that he later had moral qualms on an issue is silly. He had to know the pope would disagree with his heretical doctrines.
“Of course, Leo’s threat to Luther was that, unless he recanted, the princes of the church could “...proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notorious and suspect and, in fact, is a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures”. Luther’s reaction to this bizarre papal bull was to treat it with the same dignity and respect with which Leo ordered Jonathan Eck to treat the writings of Luther; that is, to burn it.”
The papal bull was not bizarre in the least. What is bizarre is that Luther pretended that his heresy would be accepted by the Church. Also, while Eck had every right and reason to publicly burn the works of a notorious heretic whose teaching was pulling apart the fabric of society, Luther burned copies of canon law to show he simply would ignore the laws of the Church he formerly claimed loyalty too. Luther was a revolutionary. He wa smore than happy to overthrow the law, change the Bible, and destroy those who followed him or opposed him if it further his cause or saved his neck.
OK, you think a dispute over the Pope’s authority to have heretics burned at the stake is insignificant. Leo and Luther disagreed with you.
By the way, although Luther may have been against the burning of heretics he certainly wasn’t against the mass killing of rebellious peasants (whom he had inspired to rebel in the first place) and he certainly wasn’t against repressing those who disagreed with him (e.g. Karlstadt)
“OK, you think a dispute over the Popes authority to have heretics burned at the stake is insignificant. Leo and Luther disagreed with you.”
I never said anything about it being insignificant. Why don’t you try again?
"All those who trust in Him" are members of the Church, if imperfectly and without full communion and often without realizing it.
"The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth."
Want to talk about competing voices? Let me bring up your pedophile PRIESTS. Yeah, theyre part of that infallible apostolic body, right? I should trust in that pedophile to interpret Scripture for me, right? That pedophile has, as you say, authority, right?
Individual priests are not infallible. The Church is infallible. The Church is the Body of Christ and it is stainless. Those who sin against Her, wound Her. However, do not be caught up into thinking that this invalidates what the Church is, the nature of its mission, nor who founded Her. In so far as "the pedophile priests" preach Catholic dogma, they are indeed infallible. Even if their personal sins are the gravest and most vile. The betrayal of Judas in no way invalidated the ministry of Jesus nor that of the other apostles.
This is poor, addled thinking and while I'm mentioning it, it has to be said that this is precisely the thinking of many of the bitterly anti-Catholic posters on this forum. They know who they are. Their MO is very simple. It is based on the belief that if the level of sin and scandal within the Catholic Church can be demonstrated to rise to a certain arbitrary level, this therefore invalidates the claim of the Church to be the one, true Church and ipso facto, justifies the Reformation.
Mistake. Big, big mistake. It in no way alters the historical facts of who founded the Church and the promises which He made to Her and the ministry with which she was commissioned. Being free from scandal was not one of those promises.
In the Protestant world, scandalous sins of a pastor are motive for either a) leaving his church and finding another and/or b) decreased belief in what he may have to say about the Scriptures. That's because of the individualistic nature of Protestantism. There is no overarching ecclesiastical authority; only that which the man possesses himself. Thus, this authority can be forfeited by the same man due to sinfulness. That is not the Catholic approach.
"At all times and in every race God has given welcome to whosoever fears Him and does what is right.(85) God, however, does not make men holy and save them merely as individuals, without bond or link between one another. Rather has it pleased Him to bring men together as one people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. He therefore chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself. With it He set up a covenant. Step by step He taught and prepared this people, making known in its history both Himself and the decree of His will and making it holy unto Himself."
Then you paint non-Roman Christian pastors as merely suit-wearing guys whove done a course on Scripture. You really are either ignorant of the years of training that most Christian pastors go through or are malicious in your attempts to mischaracterize them.
OK, I exaggerated. So these guys have trained for years. That's great. However, the Church has a 2,000 year history. Its teaching has been illuminated by some of the greatest theological and spiritual minds in history. There's no comparison.
Your commitment to your denomination, marshmallow, has caused you to cling more to it than to Christ.
I'm not committed to "a denomination". I'm committed to the one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church which is the Body of Christ.
OK, does burning heretics at the stake please the Holy Spirit?
“Let me bring up your pedophile PRIESTS. Yeah, theyre part of that infallible apostolic body, right? I should trust in that pedophile to interpret Scripture for me, right? That pedophile has, as you say, authority, right?”
Welcome to a collection of news reports on ministers who have sexually abused children:
ALL Protestant denominations - 838 Ministers (known cases)
147 Baptist Ministers
251 “Bible” Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)
140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers
38 Lutheran Ministers
46 Methodist Ministers
19 Presbyterian Ministers
197 various Church Ministers
Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year
By Rose French
June 18, 2007
The three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America say they typically receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members.
The figures released to The Associated Press offer a glimpse into what has long been an extremely difficult phenomenon to pin down the frequency of sex abuse in Protestant congregations.
But he believes these are just the “tip of the iceberg’’ because churches don’t have to report abuse cases to the registry and aren’t likely to.
“The problem we’re having is that churches just weren’t sending the names,’’ Trull said. “In the normal scenario, they just try to keep it secret. We’re going to have to be more proactive and let them know if they don’t come forward, they’re helping to perpetuate this problem.’’
Just because the NY Times headlined the priest abuse daily for 3 months doesn’t mean Protestants etc., are off the hook. The NYT’s and other leftie media know that if they could bring down the Catholic Church they’ve won the battle. How long do you think you’d survive without the RCC?
Now go take the log out of your own eye and stop using this as an excuse to evade answering the questions. Next it’ll be the Holy Crusades or Constantine. You remind me of debating muslims and lefties who use the same straws.
I forgot to mention the burning of heretics when I mentioned the priest abuse scandal, Holy Crusades and Constantine. lol Keep it up - you’ve given lots of fodder to our enemies through the centuries - one expects nothing more.
I believe we are in a time where Christians should pray more and talk less of who is right and who is wrong. A committed Christian who lives the Gospel and has love for Jesus will more than likely not be swayed by anyone here and what they think is true or false. But we DO have people who believe they are Christian and embrace sins such as abortion and homosexuality. These people are the ones to reach out to and pray for not the constant talking whose faith is best,God will be the judge. It just seems that with the way this country is going we need each other to stand and unite for Christ. I am Catholic and the only thing I am going to say is we DO NOT worship Mary. I remember a time when I used to get so mad when people say things like that but it still surprises me if people can just simply say something enough they believe it. I need no response because what you want to believe and what you do believe has no effect on me and what I do as a Catholic. And we have enough problems with priests like Jenkins to get worked up about rather than by someone who believes Catholics worship Mary syndrome. I am a conservative CATHOLIC and I am saying it very clearly it is not true. But we have to love our Lord together to reach out to those such as the liberal Christians who are like this woman used to be in this article- God bless Nora http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mwest/090610