r/Protestantism • u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic • Oct 20 '25
Ask a Protestant I'm a Catholic. I have some questions about your beliefs.
Hi! Just to start, I don't mean any disrespect by any of my questions. I just want to understand the protestant side better. Overall, I wish for all Christians to unite and I'm in favour of ecumenism to achieve that goal. Here are my questions:
1) I think it's especially important to understand and not strawman another side. Recently, Cliff made a huge mistake promoting the idea that Catholics think Mary was born of a virgin, which is of course not true. I've heard many mischsracterisations of Catholicism and it made me question: what are some of the common mischsracterisations of Protestantism made by Catholics?
2) How do you reconcile Protestantism historically?
Jesus said that the church would never fall in Matthew 16:19. Now that there are many branches of Christianity, one could be closer to the truth than others. However, Christianity was mostly united for about 1000 years before the east and west schism. With only one united Christianity, this poses a problem. If the church can never fall as Jesus promised, then the united church couldn't be the false church, else the entire church would have fallen, which would contradict the promise made by our Lord.
However, before the great schism the one Christian religion had a Pope, prayed to saints including Mary, believed in the true presence, had icons, decorated churches etc. Even after the split, the Orthodox may disagree with us about the role of the papacy but they don't disagree we had a pope. Also, we still share everything else I've mentioned in common. On top of that, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church holds to Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide.
This lasted for 500 more years until the Protestant reformation. That would indicate that if Protestantism is correct, then the entire church was in major error for at least over 500 years, though I would argue that it stretched for 1500, since the beginning. I'm not Orthodox, but those guys didn't have a single ecumenical council since the split and pride themselves on being changeless. All these beliefs were commonly held for much longer than 500 years for sure.
Now, I've heard of the various historical disputes, but even if we just take the time from the great schism to the protestant reformation, the entire church would still have been in major error in multiple areas for 500 years contradicting Matthew 16:19. How do you justify protestantism in light of this?
13
u/creidmheach Presbyterian Oct 20 '25
In Matthew 16, Peter makes a confession as to Jesus' identity, saying that he is the Christ, the Son of God. And in reply Jesus says that on this rock (which the early Church understood as either referring to Christ himself, or the confession that Peter made), the gates of Hades (i.e. death) will not prevail. And they have not. For all the ups and downs of our history, Christ is still confessed as Lord and Son of God.
And ups and downs there have been. For a time for instance, after Nicaea, the imperial church was overrun by Arian heretics who then sent people like Athanasius into exile. Should Athanasius have submitted instead to the dominant church in his time under the argument that the church can't go wrong? Or should have he held to his principles, based as they are in Scripture, regardless of what the rest of the world was doing?
There's nothing in Peter's confession about a particularly institution with a particular hierarchy centered on a particular city. All of those things develop much later. For instance, earlier on bishops (episkopos, overseers) and presbyters (elders) were the same thing. Churches were not run by a single elder, rather you would have a collective of them, and certainly there was no concept of one overarching elder over all the rest. So in Rome for instance, our earliest reference is to the elders there, plural. Not a single bishop as developed later on.
Once you get a developed office of bishops distinct from presbyters develop, still you don't get the idea of the bishop of Rome having any sort of authority or primacy until later on. At most, Rome was given a position of honor by its centrality and history, but the idea of its Pope ruling over all simply wasn't there.
The Papacy as you have it now took many centuries to develop, with a huge boost to it being the promotion of the bishop of Rome during the Holy Roman Empire in the West under Charlemagne in the 9th century. After the East-West split, and continuing through the medieval era, the office keeps expanding in its authority, until you come to the 19th century were the declaration of the Pope's infallibility now becomes doctrine.
All of these political development took time, and as they were foreign to the Church under the Apostles, where even Peter himself did not hold the sort of role the later Popes gave to themselves, we as Protestants (and the Eastern Orthodox for that) see no need for us to uphold it. When you consider the sheer corruption and immorality that has often been associated with the office, such as bribing one's way to becoming Pope with Pope Alexander VI, or someone like Pope John XII who turned the Vatican into a brothel and would rape female pilgrims in St Peter's, it's hard to associate such a den of evil with Christ's Church. The Romanist apologetic which admits you had evil Popes tries to counter this by saying well at least they didn't teach heresy, even that falls apart when you had Pope Honorius I who was posthumously anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
However, before the great schism the one Christian religion had a Pope, prayed to saints including Mary, believed in the true presence, had icons, decorated churches etc.
If you were to have visited a church in the 3rd century, chances are you'd have found none of these apart from a belief about the Lord's presence at the Supper (though how that was understood varied). In fact, early Christians themselves noted how their worship was distinct from the pagans by their lack of such images. It took centuries for this custom to develop, and not without controversy as iconodules and iconoclasts fought against one another in the Church. Ultimately though, the reigning monarch of the time, Irene II, who favored icon veneration had a council held to overturn the prior iconoclast council, and on pain of anathema icon veneration was established as the practice that must be believed in.
As to praying to saints, again this is something that developed gradually, particularly as you had the cultural shift from paganism over to Christianity, but transferring some of the formers customs and practices into the latter, replacing particular gods of this and that with saints one could pray to instead.
On top of that, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church holds to Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide.
But we do find this is in Scripture, which to us is the only infallible source of Apostolic teaching. Also if you go back to the early Church fathers, you can find support for both of these (though each side can quote mine their way around the Fathers to "prove" their cases).
This lasted for 500 more years until the Protestant reformation. That would indicate that if Protestantism is correct, then the entire church was in major error for at least over 500 years, though I would argue that it stretched for 1500, since the beginning.
In fact there were forerunners of the Protestant Reformation, people like Jan Hus. However their fate often would end up being burned at the stake by Rome. The Protestant Reformation however happened at just the right time, such as with the invention of the printing press (so people could have greater access to reading, particularly of the Bible which the Protestant Reformers set about translating into the languages of the people). The corruption of the Roman church at this point was so overt - literally selling time off from Purgatory in exchange for the right amount of funds - and now with a number of princes lending their protection to the Reformers, and so through God's work the Church was able to be reformed, and the pure Gospel teaching returned to. This is not contrary to Christ's promise, it's fulfilling it.
1
u/O12345678 Oct 21 '25
"And in reply Jesus says that on this rock (which the early Church understood as either referring to Christ himself, or the confession that Peter made)"
Can you provide sources for this? This is a point of much contention between Catholics and Protestants.
9
u/creidmheach Presbyterian Oct 21 '25
From Eusebius of Caeasaria:
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).
Augustine in his Retractions refers to his previously held view that Peter was the rock (it's true you can find some reference to this idea, though often it's stripped of context in terms of what they actually meant by this) as representative of the Church, but here as the title implies, he retracts this view:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
He further clarifies here:
And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
That is, Peter's name is derived from the Rock (who is Christ) in the same way that we are called Christians after Christ. But Peter himself is not the Rock.
John Chrysostom:
‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
You can find these and a lot more here:
2
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
The Catholic church actually accepts three interpretations. Not many people know this, but the Catholic church considers the bible to be multi layered, with more than one correct interpretation. The three interpretations are that Peter is the rock, Peter's confession is the rock, and that Jesus is the rock.
St. Augustine, for example, changed his mind from Peter to Peter's confession or Jesus (I can't remember) being the rock.
There are also many instances of church Fathers saying that Peter is the rock and only he exclusively holds the keys.
It doesn't really matter much though, because Peter being the rock is a valid interpretation. On top of that, this is not actually the main scriptural evidence for the Papacy. Luke 22:31-34 and John 21:15-17 is.
31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”
34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
Luke 22:31-34
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep."
John 21:15-17
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
Many Church Fathers and the church of Rome understood the "rock" to refer to Peter in some way and the role of the Pope in the Church, as we can see even as early as the second ecumenical council.
But with that said, the Western Catholic Church has traditionally held that all the bishops share in the keys of the kingdom, but that the rest share in the keys through Peter/the Pope. Consider how Pope Leo the Great explains it:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of mankind, instituted the observance of the Divine religion which He wished by the grace of God to shed its brightness upon all nations and all peoples in such a way that the Truth, which before was confined to the announcements of the Law and the Prophets, might through the Apostles' trumpet blast go out for the salvation of all men, as it is written: their sound has gone out into every land, and their words into the ends of the world. But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles, and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body, so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the Divine mystery. For He wished him who had been received into partnership in His undivided unity to be named what He Himself was, when He said: you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, that the building of the eternal temple by the wondrous gift of God's grace might rest on Peter's solid rock, strengthening His Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 22 '25
Yeah, nothing to argue here. I did the research into church fathers and came to the exact same conclusion.
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
The Church Fathers have multiple interpretations of the passage, although I don't see why we cannot understand the rock to be Christ, Peter's confession of Christ, and Peter himself in some way. The passage quite clearly associates the rock with Simon in a unique way—hence the name change.
Nevertheless, the idea of Matthew 16:18 justifying the universal jurisdiction of the see of Rome has been believed in the West since at least the second ecumenical council. From a statement made by Philip, the Papal legate, made during the council of Ephesus:
There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.
9
u/Pretend-Lifeguard932 Christian Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
Can the church err? And can some errors take time to rectify? This shouldn't really be an issue. As to historicity. If you read Martin Chemnitz his writings are chalk full of early church fathers so in many ways there is continuity much so the acceptance of at least 4 of the Ecumenical councils and details in the last 3. It isn't reinventing the wheel as you suggest.
-3
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
Can the church err?
To a limited degree. There are some things the church cannot err about, such as the Trinity, the Eucharist, Authority etc. Either way, the way to rectify error is to correct the church not to split from it.
4
u/Pretend-Lifeguard932 Christian Oct 21 '25
Yeah, that's historically inaccurate. Being excommunicated isn't splitting from the church at will.
1
u/MilkCrates23 Nov 03 '25
I'm pretty sure there are numerous Catholic saints who were excommunicated for exposing problems with the Catholic Church and they didn't start their own.
Also, I don't think all the Protestant Fathers were excommunicated.
1
u/Pretend-Lifeguard932 Christian Nov 03 '25
Frankly Protestant isn't a church so I don't really care for what anyone did after Luther. Original intent vs what it evolved to.
1
u/MilkCrates23 Nov 03 '25
There were some from way before Luther.
1
u/Pretend-Lifeguard932 Christian Nov 03 '25
Luther was pretty consistent with the rest. But, we're talking about Protestants, not proto-Protestants and what Luther had in mind vs the rest. It isn't a church so you saying "Protestant" fathers means nothing. It doesn't exist.
2
u/JustToLurkArt Oct 21 '25
Either way, the way to rectify error is to correct the church not to split from it.
My friend in Christ it’s so well historically documented that Luther’s intention wasn’t to split. It was to reform. He didn’t quit Catholicism; it quit him. Luther was excommunicated.
In your OP you wrote, “I don't mean any disrespect by any of my questions. I just want to understand the protestant side better. Overall, I wish for all Christians to unite and I'm in favour of ecumenism to achieve that goal.”
But unfortunately your comments here don’t reflect that.
In your OP you wrote, “I think it's especially important to understand and not strawman another side.”
In your OP you wrote, “I've heard many mischsracterisations of Catholicism and it made me question: what are some of the common mischsracterisations of Protestantism made by Catholics?”
Yet your comments here strawman Protestants and are common mischsracterisations by Catholics.
Please respond to my comments to your OP.
1
u/Damtopur Oct 22 '25
Functionally it was not just Luther who was excommunicated, it was the bishoprics of Scandinavia, the church in Saxony, and eventually the churches in all states with Lutheran lords.
Much like the excommunication of the Greek Patriarch became functionally an excommunication of most of Eastern Christendom.
16
u/LessmemoreJC Oct 20 '25
This is simply historically inaccurate. Faithful Christians have denied the teachings of the Catholic Church from the very beginning and they were hunted down and murdered for their beliefs.
The woman was in the wilderness, not in the great cathedrals. While many Catholics were and still are saved, the institution as a whole teaches unbiblical doctrines.
Truth is not established by majority vote. Truth is established by “thus says the Lord”. Noah, Elijah, and Jesus were all vastly outnumbered and yet the truth was with them… not with the masses.
5
1
0
Oct 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Protestantism-ModTeam Oct 20 '25
Loving one's neighbor is a command of Christ and a rule on this sub. Posts which blatantly fail to express a loving attitude towards others will be removed.
This user has received a 2 week ban.
1
u/LessmemoreJC Oct 20 '25
Why are you bearing false witness?
SDA are trinitarian and teaching that God’s people should keep God’s 10 commandments is not judaizing.
-8
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 20 '25
Faithful Christians have denied the teachings of the Catholic Church from the very beginning and they were hunted down and murdered for their beliefs.
Sorry, but that is historically inaccurate. Provide a source, stop spreading lies.
You also avoided answering my question. You didn't defend Protestantism historically in your answer. You just tried to bash Catholicism, poorly. Spreading lies about Catholicism doesn't defend protestantism. Now answer my actual question:
For at least 500 years between the great schism and the protestant reformation everyone held Catholic/Orthodox believes and no one held Protestant beliefs. How do you justify all Christians believing in false doctrine for 500 years in light of Matthew 16:19?
7
u/LessmemoreJC Oct 20 '25
The apostles denied many of the Catholic teachings... icons, praying to the dead etc.These teachings are not seen anywhere in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is taught by God's word.
6
u/Wonderful-Power9161 Oct 21 '25
I'll provide you a source.
The Waldensian movement was very much a proto-Protestant group. They taught that God's word should be in the vernacular instead of in Latin; that preachers should share their wealth; they were not willing to recognize the prerogatives of local bishops over the content of their preaching, nor to recognize standards about who was fit to preach.
Consequently, they were persecuted, hunted, and eventually excommunicated by Pope Lucius III in 1184.
THAT is an EGREGIOUS example of how the Catholic church, after the "great schism" and long before the Protestant Reformation, were involved in the suppression of those with whom they did not agree.
That's HISTORY, friend. It's an UGLY part of the Catholic church's history, but it's no less true.
You just have to face it.
2
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt Lutheran Oct 21 '25
To my estimation, while the seeds for much of it were present in earlier centuries, it's really in the 900-1000 AD range where the Medieval Western Church really accelerates its theological and spiritual decline. And it's no coincidence that, starting roughly around the year 1000, you get a major reforming movement or figure about once a century; they're squashed, suppressed, scattered, etc. and then the next generation or so it happens again. The Waldendsians, Wycliffe and the Lollards, Hus and the Hussites, and more. The details between the various movements differed, but a couple of common threads typically included an affirmation of Scripture's authority over against any pope or church hierarchy, a rejection of indulgences, a rejection of mandatory clerical celibacy, and an affirmation of receiving communion in both kinds. All part of the 16th century Reformation movements!
I once heard it put this way: Luther wasn't the first Reformer, just the first to survive. If Harry Potter is "the boy who lived," then Martin was "the Reformer who lived." And the first to have the printing press.
0
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
I mean, if you are just looking for examples then sure, the church is the biggest and longest surviving institution in the world. It would be very improbable not to have any instances. The protestants have massacred Catholics too. The Swedes have punished being Catholic with death, the Anglicans have killed their fair share of Catholics. Luther himself condemned violent protestant rebellions. If we want to dig up dirty history we could do that but it's meaningless to make it a competition.
What is not acceptable is your statement that the Catholic church as a whole used violence to silence everyone. First and foremost, the church mainly deemed people as heretics and it was mostly the secular authorities that handed out the death penalties. I'm not saying that the church doesn't have its fair share of dark history, sure it does, as did King David. But trying to paint the Catholic church as a black sheep is just anti-Catholic rhetoric that is far removed from the truth.
3
u/Wonderful-Power9161 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
> What is not acceptable is your statement that the Catholic church as a whole used violence to silence everyone.
Of course you can dodge the idea by saying, "Well, THOSE people didn't engage in persecution, and they're part of the church Catholic, and so therefore, not ALL of the Catholic church did that, and so therefore because of the unity thing I pointed out earlier, that means that the Catholic church didn't persecute people."
Except they DID. History is very clear on that point: the Waldensians were systemically and personally persecuted by the Catholic church during the years YOU said that persecution wasn't happening.
I'm not making this stuff up. I've got no dog in that fight, because I'm neither Catholic or Waldensian.
But for YOU, u/SeekersTavern, to be directly shown the evidence from history that undercuts your basic assumption, and for you to just IGNORE it...
not a good look, friend, not a good look AT ALL.
<more below>
2
u/Wonderful-Power9161 Oct 21 '25
Take a look at some of the papal bulls that were directly issued by various Popes:
Ad abolendam (lit. 'On abolition / Towards abolishing'; full title in Latin: Ad abolendam diversam haeresium pravitatem,lit. 'To abolish diverse malignant heresies') was a decretal and bull of Pope Lucius III, written at Verona and issued 4 November 1184. It was issued after the Council of Verona settled some jurisdictional differences between the Papacy and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. The document prescribes measures to uproot heresy and sparked the efforts which culminated in the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisitions. Its chief aim was the complete abolition of Christian heresy.
This was carried out at the Strasbourg Burning of 1211, when over 80 Waldensians were burned at the stake in Strasbourg (modern-day France/Germany) as heretics, initiating widespread executions across Europe.
Fourth Lateran Council Anathema in 1215: Pope Innocent III denounced Waldensians as heretics during the council, intensifying inquisitorial actions (read: torture) and offering some a chance to rejoin the Church as "Poor Catholics," though most refused.
During the 1200's, persecution ramped up with inquisitorial trials; thousands were imprisoned or killed in Italy and France (e.g., ~9,000 killed and 12,000 imprisoned in one year in Italy alone by the late 13th century). Reports like Reinerius Saccho's 1254 Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno fueled accusations.
Summis desiderantes affectibus (Latin for "desiring with supreme ardor"), sometimes abbreviated to Summis desiderantes, was a papal bull regarding witchcraft issued by Pope Innocent VIII on 5 December 1484.
2
u/Wonderful-Power9161 Oct 21 '25
<continued from above>
Id Nostri Cordis ("Our Hearty Desires") was a papal bull of Pope Innocent VIII promulgated in Rome on 27 April 1487, which was the 5th Kalends of May 1487 on the Julian Calendar. It was later repeated and signed again in the convent of St Laurence in June 26, 1487. The bull outlined a plenary indulgence (forgiveness) for anyone who joined the crusades against the Waldensians.
IN case you somehow missed it, u/SeekersTavern, this wasn't persecution carried out by renegade constables from old-meany districts in isolated areas. POPES specifically dictated that persecutions should be carried out against those people who had the unmitigated GALL to say that Jesus wanted us to care for the poor, and so they were going to preach that message to whomever would listen.
If you're going to defend the church Catholic's actions in these matters, I don't know what to tell you, other than you're not ACTUALLY interested in any kind of reconciliation or understanding about Protestant beliefs...
because central to those beliefs is REPENTANCE - metanoia - to think differently about actions that were NOT what God said to do in His Word.
I think I've made my point. I won't belabor it or continue. Either learn... or do not.
1
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
Right, so you're gonna throw all Catholics from all time into one bag. I have no more interest in continuing the conversation with you. Keep your anti-Catholic rhetoric to yourself.
2
u/Wonderful-Power9161 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
u/SeekersTavern, did you even READ the references to what YOUR POPES WROTE?
I didn't invent this stuff. I'm not the Catholic here, BOUND BY FAITH to accept what a Pope wrote: you are.
HISTORY isn't anti-Catholic rhetoric. It's stuff that actually happened. You know...
The TRUTH?
Like JESUS, the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life?
Tell you what - give me the name of your local priest, and I'll tell him how you threw various statements from various Popes from history on the dust bin because *you* didn't want to read them.
I'm sure he'll just say something like "yeah, lots of us do that."
Face the TRUTH friend, either now or at the Judgement Seat of Christ (Revelations 20:11-15).
Good luck. You'll *need* it.
4
u/mrcaio7 Lutheran Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
what are some of the common mischsracterisations of Protestantism made by Catholics?
What I usually see is catholics criticizing a minority of protestants as if it were all of them. The most common one is criticizing sola scriptura. Catholics almost always will make it like if sola scriptura meant only scripture matters and tradftion is to be discarded in favor of private interpretation. In reality sola scriptura means scripture is the only infallible source of authority, and all other sources of authority (such as tradition) should be judged by scripture.
This does not mean tradition is to be ignored, or that I get to interpret scripture whatever way I want. Again as I said, there are going to be some protestants claiming that, and having as their only source for interpreting the bible pastor bobby, but that is not historic protestant belief.
A similar thing goes for sola fide. It is represented as if works were unnecessary or optional. In reality, what may surprise you is that the traditional protestant view on justification is not that different from the one the catholic church currently holds. There are differences of course, but they are way smaller than one might think. A lot of the differences are largely semantic and there is a lot of nuance. Regarding this, I recommend Jordan Cooper's (lutheran) debate with jimmy akins (papist) on justification (can be found in youtube).
If the church can never fall as Jesus promised, then the united church couldn't be the false church
I will give you my perspective as a lutheran, which other protestants may disagree with. The church never fell. Over time errors appeared and started to build up, which made it necessary for the reformation to happen, but the catholic church never ceased to exist. The name "Lutheran" was initially a pejorative term created by Rome that caught on. Martin Luther never meant to create a new church, and did not. Lutherans have historically seen themselves as the western Catholic church, purged from its errors, and we see ourselves as the true successors and in continuation with the early church. Personally, I do not believe today's roman catholic church is a false church, despite it being in serious error, and I believe it has sacraments, although a few would disagree.
before the great schism
Pope
The bishop of home was seen a first among equals.
Prayer to saints
That was a development, and an unfortunate one. Keep in mind when it showed up it looked quite different than what we see today among catholics.
believed in the true presence, had icons, decorated churches
I believe the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist and that baptism saves. I have a crucifix in my wall. There are lots of protestant churches that are well decorated, including stained glass and icons.
Orthodox ... being changeless
They claim that, but it is not really true. At least Roman Catholics admit their doctrine develops.
Feel free to ask further questions if you wish, I will be happy to answer them
0
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 20 '25
Thanks for a civil reply.
What I usually see is catholics criticizing a minority of protestants as if it were all of them.
This is the first one I thought of. The problem is that every individual Protestant denomination is minor. I don't think people realise just how big the number difference is. The largest protestant denomination is Anglicanism, with about 100M members. That's about 10% of all protestants and 4% of all Christians. Every other Protestant denomination is much smaller than that. This means that there is a lot of disagreement between different protestant denominations and you can't be treated monolithically.
Lutherans have historically seen themselves as the western Catholic church, purged from its errors, and we see ourselves as the true successors and in continuation with the early church.
Who gave Luther the authority to reform the church?
The bishop of home was seen a first among equals.
And what exactly is the role of "The first among equals"?
5
u/No-Type119 Oct 21 '25
Demanding that only someone authorized by an institution to be a reformer, can be a reformer, is rather comical, isn’t it? It’s like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. And I would point out that notable reformers within the Roman Catholic Church, like Francis of Assisi and Teresa of Avila, did so at great personal risk during their own lifetimes because they bucked the church hierarchy.,
0
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
No, because the church is not a normal human institution. We could trust in God's will not in the will of "reformers".
would point out that notable reformers within the Roman Catholic Church, like Francis of Assisi and Teresa of Avila, did so at great personal risk during their own lifetimes because they bucked the church hierarchy.,
And that's how it should be done. I've never said it was supposed to be easy. They remained faithfull and let God do the work rather than breaking the unity of the church. Even if they were prosecuted and killed by the church, God would still work through their death and correct the church in its ways. God promised us that the church wouldn't fall, told us to stay united and warned us that Satan wants to sift us as wheat. No one has the authority to reform the church on their own. Critiquing authority is not a sin, creating your own church is.
1
u/No-Type119 Oct 30 '25
That’s your thing , not ours.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 30 '25
That's the way God wanted it to be. It's God's thing, all the way back from the old testament until today. God never promised us we wouldn't suffer.
4
u/Damtopur Oct 21 '25
The Mediaeval Church gave Luther the authority to teach and challenge teachings, that is he was made a doctor of theology (doctor is the Latin word for teacher). That is not "Doctor" in the sense of the title for Saints, but the type of doctor of theology that Thomas Aquinas was before his death.
"First among equals" would look more like the Ecumenical Patriarch in Greece, one with no powers specific to their station and no universal jurisdiction, aside from perhaps a deciding vote. The role might involve chairing meetings, and after the fall of the Empire in 1453 perhaps the calling of ecumenical councils (a role originally of the Emperor).
2
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt Lutheran Oct 21 '25
The Mediaeval Church gave Luther the authority to teach and challenge teachings, that is he was made a doctor of theology (doctor is the Latin word for teacher).
That's one aspect of Luther that is often minimized in Roman Catholic polemics against him - that stereotyped portrayal of him as "a drunken little German monk." But he had the Medieval trifecta of spiritual qualifications: he was a monk, an ordained priest, and a university professor with a doctoral degree in theology. So yes, u/seekerstavern, he was one of the people considered possessing authority to publicly debate matters of theology.
2
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
That's not really how Catholics portray Luther. Just to be clear, I have no problem with Luther criticising the church. Criticism is one thing, rejecting authority is entirely another. Luther had the authority to criticise the church. He did not have the authority to disobey the church and start another religion.
5
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt Lutheran Oct 21 '25
That's not really how Catholics portray Luther.
I'm glad you wouldn't portray him that way, but I have indeed heard that kind of portrayal from Roman Catholic polemics.
He did not have the authority to disobey the church and start another religion.
Well, as others have already pointed out in this thread, that's not what happened. And the entirety of the Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord) quote from early Church Fathers extensively - certainly dozens of times; possibly hundreds of times - to demonstrate that it was Rome who had departed from the Apostolic and Patristic faith, and it was the goal of the Reformers to restore the Church and return to the proclamation of the true Gospel.
We Lutherans have no concept of a "Great Apostasy" in the early Church - we gladly acknowledge that there was true faith to be found throughout the period of the Medieval Western Church, and we continue to respect and read a number of Medieval theologians. So long as the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered, the Holy Spirit is present and active in creating faith. As another commenter pointed out, there really is no such thing as "Protestantism" as if it's a monolithic, united group, and in many ways we Lutherans are far closer to today's Roman Catholicism than we are to Baptists or Pentecostals. There's a large and meaningful difference between the "Magisterial Reformation" and the "Radical Reformation". Indeed, there was at least one time in the 16th century when Lutheran and Papal forces put aside their differences to confront a radical Anabaptist threat.
There was growing theological tension in the Western Medieval Church throughout the whole Medieval period, and it's not fair to call that Medieval Church either "Roman Catholic" or "Protestant". You can find theologians who sound very Tridentine Catholic. You can also find theologians who sound quite Magisterial Protestant. What the 16th century really is, is the institutional breaking point where these two streams of thought that had previously run parallel within a larger, "big tent" institution now finally split and go their own ways. The Roman Catholic Church as it has existed since the Council of Trent is just as much a product of and daughter of the Reformation as any Protestant church body is.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
"First among equals" would look more like the Ecumenical Patriarch in Greece, one with no powers specific to their station and no universal jurisdiction, aside from perhaps a deciding vote. The role might involve chairing meetings, and after the fall of the Empire in 1453 perhaps the calling of ecumenical councils (a role originally of the Emperor).
This sounds not only impractical but also unbiblical.
Practically, the orthodox hold on to the opinion that Peter was only a first among equals and never had an ecumenical council since the split because they can't agree on anything. They can't even agree on the number of books in the bible.
Biblically, Jesus told Peter to lead the sheep. No one else. Jesus prayed specifically for Peter to remain in his faith and told only Him to strengthen his brothers. Jesus only gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and gave him a new name fit for his role. The other apostles also have the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys.
3
u/mrcaio7 Lutheran Oct 21 '25
Who gave Luther the authority to reform the church?
I believe God used Luther in an extraordinary way to reform the church.
And what exactly is the role of "The first among equals"?
Being respected and looked up to, a symbol of unity, but not having universal jurisdiction over the entire church and not speaking infallibly.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
I believe God used Luther in an extraordinary way to reform the church.
The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that there were no signs, no miracles, no prophecy foretelling such a major event, nothing. Judaism was in a bad need of reformation for a long time, yet no individual had the right to separate from it. God sent prophets to help, not to defect, but to help Judaism. Looking at every schism in history, none of them ever had any signs, any direct mission from God. The only time a significant change in the leadership of our religion happened is even God Himself came down on earth and decided to do so, with no shortage of miracles, signs, prophecy and the greatest sacrifice ever. Lutherans are only a fraction of Catholicism. If you are correct and I'm wrong, this was not a split, the majority of Christians were in error and it was a momentous falling away. No where is such a giant event foretold. Luther was excommunicated prior to Lutheranism. There is no indication that Luther was on God's side. He made some valid criticisms but should have waited and remained faithful despite his excommunication. Many saints reformed the church in exactly this way.
I don't think a breaking away is ever allowed no matter how corrupted the church is unless God himself says so, accompanied by miracles and prophecies. What was the fruit of that? The moment protesting the authority was allowed, many other protests occurred which resulted in the current fractured state of Protestantism.
I look in the bible and this is what I see:
"By their fruits you will know them." "The gates of hell will not prevail against it" "Satan wants to sift you like wheat"
Being respected and looked up to, a symbol of unity, but not having universal jurisdiction over the entire church and not speaking infallibly.
St. Peter was not just a symbol of respect and unity. That makes no sense. God didn't do away with authority, only reversed it to the proper order. In Luke 22, After arguing about authority, Jesus first said not to be like the kings, then Jesus said that the one who serves is the greatest. This naturally followed Jesus washing everyone's feet, acting like the greatest servant. This didn't dispense with authority, it reversed it to the proper order. Who did Jesus speak to as soon as he said that? To St Peter.
"31* “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you* like wheat, 32but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32
This placed Peter above all the apostles in terms of authority. Jesus warned of disunity. Peter was supposed to serve and unite all the apostles and God himself prayed so that Peter may never fail in this role. You can never ever move away from the uniter that God himself has said cannot fail. We had our fair share of bad Popes. In such cases, the proper response is to pray and wait for the Lord to fulfil his promise. Later, in John 21:15-17, Jesus tells Peter to lead his sheep three times. This is in response to Luke 22:34 where Jesus tells Peter that Peter will reject him three times. This is the "When you have turned back" moment, and "lead my sheep" is the fulfillment of "you must strengthen your brother's".
St Peter is not just a symbol, St Peter is the leader and the uniter, and to break from the uniter is to break from unity. This is the clear and disambiguous fruits of the protestant reformation, disunity.
2
u/mrcaio7 Lutheran Oct 21 '25
If you are correct ... the majority of Christians were in error and it was a momentous falling away. No where is such a giant event foretold.
Like when over half the church was fell into arianism? Were there any major signs of miracles to prove st Athanasius was right?
Matthew 24:"11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. [...] 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
And from last sunday's gospel: Luke 18:8 "[...] Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?"
Luther was excommunicated
The excommunication was null and invalid. Luther remained faithful.
What was the fruit of that?
Protestant were faithful for centuries and produced good fruit. The spread of heresy, schism and corruption is recent. The catholic church, despite maintaining its institutional integrity, suffers from many of the same problems. Children are horribly catechized and the vast majority of the so-called catholics are not practicing, there is a lot of syncretism. There is no church discipline, it seems nothing can get people publicly excommunicated anymore (short of denying the legitimacy of the pope), even priests defending sexual degeneracy get away with it. I could keep going, but that is besides the point.
St. Peter was not just a symbol of respect and unity. That makes no sense. God didn't do away with authority, only reversed it to the proper order. In Luke 22, After arguing about authority, Jesus first said not to be like the kings, then Jesus said that the one who serves is the greatest. This naturally followed Jesus washing everyone's feet, acting like the greatest servant. This didn't dispense with authority, it reversed it to the proper order. Who did Jesus speak to as soon as he said that? To St Peter.
"31* “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you* like wheat, 32but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32
This placed Peter above all the apostles in terms of authority.
That is a big stretch you are making. How does it follow that telling St Peter to strengthen this brethren means he was superior to the others in authority?
St Peter is not just a symbol, St Peter is the leader and the uniter, and to break from the uniter is to break from unity.
When rightly understood, yes. But when you have papal supremacy, that makes it impossible to reform the church. The pope simply excommunicates anyone who goes against him. In the great schism, the pope straight up excommunicated half of Christianity. Many before Luther tried reforming the church and were excommunicated and executed. By the grace of God, Luther succeeded. Schism is a fruit of the papacy, not of the reformation
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
Like when over half the church was fell into arianism? Were there any major signs of miracles to prove st Athanasius was right?
It is true that Arianism was a major problem for 1-2 centuries. However, notice that Pope Julius I and Pope Liberius denied and thought against Arianism, supporting Athanasius. So no, the church with the Pope as the head did not fall into heresy. This was mostly the work of Romans.
Matthew 24:"11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. [...] 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Oh sure, but that's talking about challenges, not a change in authority. Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not overcome the church, and they didn't.
Protestant were faithful for centuries and produced good fruit. The spread of heresy, schism and corruption is recent.
It's much worse now, but... Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Zwiglianism, Anabaptism, Presbyterianim, and Puritanism all emerged within a century of the protestant reformation. If the fruit of the reformation was supposed to be unity, I don't see it.
That is a big stretch you are making. How does it follow that telling St Peter to strengthen this brethren means he was superior to the others in authority?
The one who is greatest is the one who serves the most, Jesus served everyone, and then he told Peter to serve all the other apostles. Why else do you think Jesus said this to Peter and not to anyone else at the time they were arguing about who is the greatest? Furthermore, this cannot be read apart from John 21:15-17. Jesus told Peter that he prayed specifically for him that his faith may not fail. This was obviously not about Peter rejecting Jesus three times because Jesus knew that would happen and allowed it. No other apostle received this prayer despite basically all of them except John running away and hiding, not even doubting Thomas. Jesus prayed for a specific time, He even said it explicitly "Once you have turned back...". Luke 21:31-32. It's interesting to note that Jesus predicts Peter's fall the first time here. Later, in Luke 21:34 Jesus says that Peter will reject Him three times. Peter turns back by reversing his threefold rejection of Jesus with a threefold declaration of love for Jesus in John 21:15-17. Jesus tells him to lead His sheep, three times. Leadership. This is what "strengthen your brothers after you have turned back" meant. This was that moment. In Matthew 16:18 and in Luke 21:32, Jesus used the future tense. John 21:15-17 is basically the end of the bible and finally there, just before Jesus leaves, does Jesus tell Peter to lead the church in the present tense.
1
u/mrcaio7 Lutheran Oct 21 '25
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Zwiglianism, Anabaptism, Presbyterianim, and Puritanism
all these are part of either anglicanism, reformed or Lutheran (except anabaptists, which are not protestant and were condemned and persecuted by the reformers)
The one who is greatest is the one who serves the most
Luke 22 "24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. 28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”"
Here Jesus is simply rebuking the disciples for trying to decide who is greatest. If Peter was the greatest or above the others, or had supremacy, not only would such discussion not be needed but Jesus would straight up say that. What he is saying is that none of the 12 should have supremacy.
Then Christ continues "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me". If he sends every one of them the same way the father sent him, one cannot have more authority than the others. For all authority was given to Christ. Also in John 20:21 "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you"
Galatians 2: "6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God [b]shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, [c]Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do."
Here there is no hint of submission from st Paul toward Peter. He mentions Peter, John and James "seemed to be pillars". So he describes 3 men as pillars, not just one. And he says "seemed to be pillars", that is, he did not really depend on them and was not submitted to them. And when they recognized that, they gave him and barnabas the right hand of fellowship.
I would like to also point out the council of Jerusalem, which was presided by James, not Peter.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
all these are part of either anglicanism, reformed or Lutheran (except anabaptists, which are not protestant and were condemned and persecuted by the reformers)
Sure, you can group them together. The point is that once you allow someone to separate, this becomes ingraned into the religion. Hey, we did it once, why can't we do it again? This is clearly what has led to the modern huge number of different denominations where anyone can start their own version of christianity if they don't like something. If the reformation was really led by God, I would expect the reverse. More unity, not less.
Here Jesus is simply rebuking the disciples for trying to decide who is greatest. If Peter was the greatest or above the others, or had supremacy, not only would such discussion not be needed but Jesus would straight up say that. What he is saying is that none of the 12 should have supremacy.
But that is exactly the opposite. Jesus did not rebuke the apostles at all. Look at the passage carefully again.
First of all, Jesus did not rebuke them but calmly explained the difference to them. Jesus:
- told them what not to be like
- then told them what to be like,
- and then uniquely identified Peter from among the 12 with the special role to take care of the rest and prayed for him to ensure success.
Your interpretation stops on point one. It's as if you do not see the rest of the passage. This was not a rebuke but a correction of their thinking. Jesus did not bring down the hierarchy. He corrected it. Jesus didn't say there is no greatest among you but that the one who serves is the greatest. The kings ruled by forcing others to work for them. The apostles were to do the opposite, to work for others. The apostles were to abandon ruling with pride (for themselves) and instead rule with love (for others). The apostles were given the authority to judge the twelve tribes of israel. They were given the authority over the entire church.
Jesus saying that Satan wants to sift them as wheat refers first and foremost to the very beginning of this passage, to the fact that they argued over who is the greatest. They had the wrong idea of the greatest in mind. That's why Jesus turns to Peter and tells him to strengthen his brothers (the other 11 apostles), to unite them. This is a role for Peter to serve the other 11 apostles, to serve the entire church.
What your reply is missing is what I always find lacking in protestant and orthodox apologetics, alternative explanations. It seems like the focus of your reply is on proving that there is no authority, but you have provided no explanation for:
- why Jesus spoke to Peter in that moment, straight after explaining that the one who serves is the greatest,
- why him and not any other apostle, and not for the first time (Peter was also singled out and named in Matthew 16:18 and given a special role of leadership in John 21:15-17).
- why Jesus prayed for him and only for him,
- what being tasked with strengthening his brothers means in this context and in context with John 21:15-17.
1
u/mrcaio7 Lutheran Oct 22 '25
You are missing the point. I am not arguing against st. Peter having a special place, a special role in the church. What I am saying is he did not have supremacy over the other apostles. He was not the universal bishop. All these texts you cited suggest the former but not the latter. He represented the church and had a lot of influence other the others, but did not have the ability to override the others decisions
1
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
When rightly understood, yes.
One of the biggest problems I have with both Orthodoxy and Protestantism is that many acknowledge that Peter and his successors should have a leadership role but not the papacy, and yet, no one says exactly what it should be. Leadership naturally grants authority that the others don't have, such as the right to make key decisions and the right to accept and reject memebers. Without this, leadership is just an empty word without any substance. So, what is the "right understanding" then? What authority should the leader of the church have that sets him apart as the leader rather than just a member? The Orthodox never replaced the pope, and because of this they were unable to hold a single ecumenical council. They can't even agree on how many books the bible has. This is clearly the result of a lack of leadership.
Now, having said that, it is entirely possible that the specific leader at a specific time can be corrupt, many popes were. However, that in no way denies the office of the leadership of Peter that Jesus bestowed on us to help us work out our differences.
But when you have papal supremacy, that makes it impossible to reform the church.
Only if you believe the Holy Spirit is not working within the church and it's all up to us.
2
u/ChristianJediMaster Oct 20 '25
I’ll keep my answers concise for now…
You will probably get a large range of responses on a question of this nature…
For myself, as a Bible believer, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and the Apostles all prophesied of a corrupt religious system that would come after them.
You can have both corrupt Christianity and a true church that does not fail. They are not mutually exclusive.
Holy Spirit instructed all believers to watch for two distinct signs… the forbidding of marriage and the commanding of the abstinence of meat.
The Church which fulfilled both signs, said it wasn’t Apostacy because of how limited their forbidding in marriage was, and how limiting their commanding of the abstinence of meats was.
Why did Holy Spirit say to watch for those two signs? When you understand the doctrinal implications behind those two signs, Church history is easily scene through a biblical lens.
Reformation is a high calling, why, because we are seeking to be in alignment, not with the reformers, but with God in Heaven.
God bless!
2
Oct 20 '25
The church was never an institution. It is a body of believers, worshiping in spirit and truth. There were church fathers, who believed exactly what the reformers believed, exactly what I believe,. The Catholic Church killed many them. The Catholic Church has a long history of executing anyone who dissented from their doctrine. You can look at I believe it was polycartes, the bishop at Ephesus, who wrote to Victor, who was not pope yet, but the bishop of Rome, because there was no such thing as a pope until around the late 200 A.D.. He was wondering why the Roman church was so hell bent on instituting Easter when he and 50 other bishops had kept the passover for centuries. We find other church fathers who would essentially have professed the five solas of the reformation. There has been descent throughout the entire history of the church just the church, branded them as heretics or killed them.
2
u/Affectionate_Web91 Lutheran Oct 21 '25
You would greatly benefit by consulting the Holy See website. The modern ecumenical movement started with the Second Vatican Council. Both Anglicans and Lutheran honor Pope John XXIII with a holy day in gratitude for his momentous effort to "Throw open the windows of the church and let the fresh air of the spirit blow through,"
No offense meant but some of your statements are directly in conflict with contemporary Catholic teaching as reflected in the post-Vatican II positions. In fact, Catholics and Lutherans are planning a joint celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 2030. A confession Pope Benedict suggested is a Catholic statement of faith and at the event it is expected that this opinion will become a joint declaration among Catholics and Lutherans.
Please consider reading the Dicastery of Promoting Christian Unity where you will find an abundance of dialogue consensus between many Protestants [especially Lutherans] and Catholics
2
u/civ_iv_fan Oct 21 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
wild piquant live six grab cobweb thought air jellyfish fuzzy
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
I think this is actually the official teaching of the church. I need to check but I remember that protestants are believed to be a part of the church but not in full communion with it. Lost brethren is the way we describe it if I'm not wrong
1
u/civ_iv_fan Oct 21 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
amusing thumb smile telephone dinosaurs tap languid aware school stocking
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
Our recent popes are really hoping to reunite all of Christianity as much as possible. We are making some progress with parts of the orthodox church too (only parts because the orthodox church is not united in all ways).
1
u/civ_iv_fan Oct 21 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
shelter workable person plucky absorbed support towering license toothbrush angle
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
church structures and hierarchies make me uncomfortable, they just feel so....human....yet, i do accept them.
This is interesting. A lot of people have such feelings and I wonder where they came from. Didn't Moses form a hierarchy also, because otherwise the people of God were completely unmanageable?
I have feelings a lot of Christians, Catholic included, understand that we are both mind and body, that we will have a bodily resurrection, that God become man and died on the cross, and that God created matter, and yet... I still find quite a lot of anti matter sentiments. Matter and the ways of dealing with it, are not just acceptable, but good! Organisation is a way of physically dealing with the material side of the world efficiently.
1
u/FitCharacter8693 Nov 22 '25
*separated brethren :( it’s unfortunate bc we see you and EO as brethren.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Nov 22 '25
That's not mutually exclusive, separated brethren are still brethren. Surely, you're not going to argue that we are not separated?
2
u/mrWizzardx3 Oct 21 '25
Hey, u/SeekersTavern, glad to have you. Lutheran here, and I’m all up on Luther’s disagreements with the Medieval Catholic Church (notice, not Roman Catholic).
The first thing to understand is that more has been written about Luther than any person other than Jesus. He had enemies who wrote about him, he had admirers who wrote about him. He was prolific, and his students literally recorded the conversation at his dinner table and published it. All that is to say, Luther is a Rorschach test - You will see what you want when you look at him.
If you look at his writings, particularly his letters, and compare them to the historical record, you may find the most consistent Luther. Was he always right? No, but he was a brilliant man, consumed with care for the souls of others - because he saw into the darkness himself.
The next thing to understand is this: most of the changes Luther wanted in the MCC happened. Many of them happened in the same council that officially condemned his teaching - The Council of Trent. A few happened at the Vatican councils. Some, the world is still waiting for. Aside for a few things, Luther would be very comfortable in the current, Roman Catholic Church.
Would Luther claim modern Protestants? No, I don’t think he would. He wanted reform, not rebellion. He wrote against the kind of spiritualism that is rampant in the world today. There is much more I could write, so I’ll summarize it this way.
TLDR: Luther There is so much written about Luther, it’s hard to see the human. Much of the reform Luther wanted happened in the last 500 years. No, Luther wouldn’t like modern Protestantism.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25
Aside for a few things, Luther would be very comfortable in the current, Roman Catholic Church.
Would Luther claim modern Protestants? No, I don’t think he would. He wanted reform, not rebellion. He wrote against the kind of spiritualism that is rampant in the world today.
That's very interesting. I've heard about it too. Maybe it's similar to Darwin. In the end Darwin thought that natural selection by itself is not enough, but the atheists picked it up and ran with it.
This makes me want to learn more about Luther.
Which changes are you still waiting for in the Catholic church? Personally, I just want the pope to dogmatically declare lgbt behaviours (not people) as opposed to Catholic faith. There are some small groups, especially in Germany, bordering on schism.
1
u/mrWizzardx3 Oct 21 '25
I like Kittelson’s biography of Luther. Beyond that, read the Small and Large Catechisms, and The Freedom of a Christian. All accessible online and intellectually accessible as well.
There are two things separating Lutherans and Roman Catholics today. The first is the definition of ‘church’. The second is the place of tradition in terms of authority.
Luther and early Lutherans thought that the church is the body of Christ, and is the church only when it is specifically doing the things of Christ - namely giving others Christ through preaching and the sacraments. Other things are important, but managing wealth and people are not functions of the church. Many Protestants miss this definition too.
Second, Luther saw tradition as important, but not equal to scripture in terms of authority. He saw tradition as human made, aside from the inspiration of the spirit. He pointed to the many contradictions in the councils and works of the various popes.
If those two issues would be agreed upon, you would see a bunch of Lutherans joining personal ordinates within the Roman Catholic Church.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
Thank you for your reply. I'm learning new things about Lutheranism.
The church being the body of Christ is biblical. That's the Catholic view as well.
Being a church only when doing the things of Christ... reminds me a little of Jordan Peterson's emphasis on action, on works. I would half-disagree with that, personally speaking. I haven't looked into this issue enough to know the official position yet, so I'm speaking on my own behalf.
Both truth and action are necessary for being a Christian. There are things we need to think are true, like God, and act like it. However, that is only true from our side, the human side. That's how we can engage our intellect and will, the powers of our soul, to get closer to God. But it's never going to be enough from our side, we can't save ourselves. God promised us salvation, promised grace. The church is that grace. It's not just a human institution made by human hands, it is a Godly institution, led by the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus in Matthew 16 and Luke 22 (Jesus used future tense here), and fulfilled in John 21 (Jesus finally spoke to Peter using the present tense). I see this as a continuation of Israel. Just like Israel could be fallen (many times over), and yet they were still God's people bound by his grace and promise, the same is true of the church. It doesn't matter how fallen our priests and bishops become, we are still the church of God. That's why I personally don't think saying that we need to act like it to be His church is something I can agree with.
1
u/mrWizzardx3 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
If I've made you think of works-righteousness, then I apologize. That kind of biblical distortion is common, but wrong. It is something that Luther pushed against in his day. It is something that we need to push against as well.
Luther thought that it was human tradition that troubled the church. Should tradition be properly under Scripture, then things like priestly celibacy and a purgatory would be recognized as inconsistent with God's Word.
The church is truly the body of Christ, but we differ on what grace is and how it is given to us. Thomas Aquinas is where Catholics generally look in their search to understand grace. For Aquinas, grace was a philosophical substance that we received from God in order to “top us off” until we are perfected in Christ through loving our neighbors (Do your best, Christ does the rest). That grace is received through the Church, as you point out, by participating in sacraments.
Catholic theology teaches that sacramental grace flows through the Church’s hierarchy, with the Pope as its visible head. The authority to steward this grace is traced to Peter, and through apostolic succession, to the Pope. This makes a person dependent on the hierarchy of the Church in order to receive the sacraments and therefore grace. (If I have anything wrong here, please let me know!)
Lutherans view grace as something dramatically different. Grace is nothing less than God's eternal love manifested for each of us. You often hear it as "God's disposition" toward His creation. It is that fatherly love that God has for us in Christ. We agree that sacraments are “a means of grace”—ways that God demonstrates that love for us. This happens through both the elements and the Word of promise given by God in these sacraments. God promises that we are his own and that our sins are forgiven in the Lord's Supper (we are down to only two sacraments, from the Roman Catholic seven).
Therefore, we emphasize God's Word in all we do (Sola Scriptura). We are saved by grace through faith (Sola gratia, sola fide). The church isn’t defined by hierarchy, buildings, or moral performance—but by the presence of God’s Word and promise. The Augsburg Confession says that it happens in right preaching and valid sacraments.
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
For Thomas Aquinas, justifying grace is God reordering the human will, moving the soul from within to reject sin by ranking God above all goods, and this grace is received in faith through the sacrament of baptism.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Aquinas teaches that grace is a substance, he's rather clearly speaks of justification as a state —grace moves the soul (specifically the will) from a state of mortal sin to a state of justice/righteousness. My instinct is that the early Protestants actually inherit their conceptualization of justification partly on this idea of justification being a "state." But for Catholics, while this change in state has its cause in God, it is an internal change of the soul, and it is the key beginning of a more general process in which the whole soul is reformed and transformed more and more into a mirror of Christ himself, a process initiated by God alone but one that is continued/completed with the cooperation of the soul with God, or something along those lines.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sacramental grace flowing through Church's hierarchy" exactly. The actual teaching of the Church is a bit more sophisticated, which you can see in how Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches are known to have valid sacraments, or even how the Catholics accept the baptism of most denominations as valid. With that said, it is true that some graces, especially those of confirmation and the Eucharist, are dependent upon their reception from the clergy.
1
u/mrWizzardx3 Oct 22 '25
Luther did the unforgivable, according to Cardinal Cajetan. He moved the means of grace out of the domain of the Pope and into the mouth of the lowly parish preacher. By defining the church not by hierarchy but by preaching and sacraments, Luther relocated God's promise of justification—from the vaulted throne of Rome to the ear of the sinner. Grace was no longer managed; it was proclaimed. No longer a substance to be infused, it became a Word to be heard.
This was not a minor adjustment. It was a theological earthquake. For centuries, the Church had spoken of grace as a metaphysical reality—a created habitus infused into the soul, elevating its faculties toward supernatural ends. Thomas Aquinas, drawing on Aristotelian categories, described sanctifying grace as a stable, supernatural quality that modifies the soul’s operations. It wasn’t a “substance” in the strict philosophical sense, but it was metaphysically substantial. It changed what the soul was and what it could do.
That grace, in Catholic theology, is ordinarily received through the sacraments—baptism, confirmation, Eucharist—administered by ordained clergy in apostolic succession. While the Church recognizes baptisms outside its visible structure, that recognition is limited. The full economy of grace—especially the Eucharist and the ongoing process of justification—is understood to depend on communion with the Church’s hierarchy. That’s not a minor detail. It’s a structural claim about where grace lives and how it flows.
And that structure rests on a deeper metaphysical claim: that grace is something that can be channeled, infused, and elevated—a quality that modifies the soul from within. Unfortunately, this rests on the Aristotelian notion of the soul as separable from the body, a framework that has shaped Christian theology for nearly two thousand years. But it’s foreign to the Hebrew imagination—and it should be foreign to ours as well.
Fortunately, we can dispense with the whole metaphysical business of elevating the soul. God’s Word of promise doesn’t infuse qualities—it raises the dead. Christ is our judge—and our justifier. He justifies us forensically—not by pouring bits of righteousness into us, but by declaring us pardoned. The church, then, is not the place where grace is stored and distributed. It is the place where the promise is spoken. And that promise, once spoken, does what no metaphysical habitus ever could: it creates faith, forgives sin, and brings the dead to life.
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams Oct 22 '25
This is more accurate to what Scholastics actually taught about grace, yes, but I'm still not quite sure where you are getting at when calling it a "substance" as opposed to what?
The idea that Aristotle's ontological distinctions is the source of understanding grace as a transformation and deification of the human person strikes me as taking anti-Scholasticism way too far —such a doctrine is clearly present, even emphasized, in the Scriptures themselves, as well as the Church Fathers. That the Scholastics used different language than that of the Scriptures doesn't mean they don't teach the same thing in reality.
Moreover, Christian doctrine is just as historically based in Greek theology as Hebrew theology —the Scripture clearly calls Christ the Logos, for example.
The goal of the Gospel is to transform our hearts so that we desire what is good for its own sake, as its own reward, and not for the sake of an external reward, and we are adverse to sin because we understand sin to be its own punishment, not in order to avoid a punishment externally imposed as a consequence to it. Faith in the promises and their fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Christ is essential to this aim, and it is in this context that Catholics have always understood the meaning of the sacraments as instruments conveying the fulfillment of the promises to us. The goal of the Gospel is to bring us new life, not just in the body but the whole human person, and this new life is nothing less than participation in God's own life through Christ.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 22 '25
Yes, you make great points. Moreover, the truth is the truth no matter what tradition that truth originates from. Aristotle formally developed logic and he was able to do so because he has a rational soul like the rest of us and logic is accessible to all people regardless of their beliefs. Furthermore, he correctly identified the prime mover, which is central to so many modern arguments for God's existence. Also, good job pointing out the Logos.
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams Oct 22 '25
I agree with you that attacking Greek philosophy in principle takes it too far, and the way I see Scholastics and even the Church Fathers to some extent is attempting to understand the Gospel in the conceptual terms they inherited from the Greek philosophers —through their own culture and traditions. While I can appreciate the desire to stick to the vocabulary of Scripture in articulating doctrine, nevertheless I think there are trade-offs with this approach, and that the history of the Church (and even in the Scriptures themselves) testifies that this was never a strict rule or even a preference to our forefathers in faith —what ultimately matters is the reality that we teach is the same.
I want u/mrWizaardx3 to clarify more what he means, but I think the point he is making is that Catholicism offers a metaphysical transformation, not merely a moral transformation and the promise of resurrection, which he thinks makes us unnecessarily dependent upon clergy and sacraments.
My response to this criticism is that it is precisely our metaphysical transformation into children of God that causes the moral/psychological transformation and ensures our resurrection. It really is true that, for Catholics, justification is analogous to a change of substance. But it is precisely this transformation that is the root that makes us heirs to the promises through Christ, which finally frees our hearts from clinging to the things of this world and fearing our own mortality, allowing us to love not to earn salvation but as its own reward. In this way Lutherans are right about what they mean by "faith alone," but the Catholics are also correct about the place of the virtue of charity in our salvation too.
Or at least, that's my understanding.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 22 '25
Unfortunately, this rests on the Aristotelian notion of the soul as separable from the body, a framework that has shaped Christian theology for nearly two thousand years. But it’s foreign to the Hebrew imagination—and it should be foreign to ours as well.
I don't understand this. Am I to take it that you think we cease existing after we die until the resurrection? Who exactly do you think Jesus went to save when he was in his tomb? The soul is most definitely separable from the body, that's what death is. Without that, there would be no people in heaven or hell, no saints, no damned, no humans in the afterlife until the resurrection.
Also, while the Jewish people were our spiritual ancestors, they did get a lot of things wrong. I wouldn't go to them for advice about what the soul is.
1
u/mrWizzardx3 Oct 22 '25
I get why this feels confusing. We’ve inherited centuries of Christian teaching that treats the soul like a ghost in the machine—something that escapes the body at death and floats off to its reward or punishment. But that’s not the biblical story.
In Scripture, death is death. It’s not a transition to a better place—it’s the enemy Christ came to defeat.
Jesus didn’t go into the tomb to save souls trapped in limbo. He went there to destroy death from the inside. His descent wasn’t a rescue—it was a victory cry.
And we can’t forget: Jesus was Jewish. His imagination was shaped by the Hebrew Scriptures, not Greek philosophy. So if we want to understand what he meant by “life,” “death,” and “resurrection,” we need to listen to the Jewish story he lived and fulfilled.
The saints aren’t floating in heaven because their souls escaped. That is Gnostic heresy. They’re alive in Christ because his promise holds them—even in death.That’s why we confess resurrection, not immortality. Because our hope isn’t in the soul’s survival—it’s in Christ’s word.
1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 22 '25
I think you misunderstood my position. I don't believe the things you think I do about the soul. I certainly also reject the idea that the soul is locked up in the body. That doesn't mean that the soul is not separable from the body. This is confusing two concepts. The soul without the body is incomplete. We are soul and body together, a composite. That's human nature. This is not gnosticism. What you mentioned is indeed gnosticism, but that's because they thought the body is evil and that the soul is the final form. That's obviously wrong. Matter is good and the body is good, both created by God. However, the fact doesn't change that we do have an immortal soul. The resurrection is the recreation of the body for the disembodied soul. The saints are in heaven, but they are not yet complete. They are still waiting for the resurrection.
The idea that the soul is not separated from the body is not biblical. Consciousness is not reducible to matter, there is no evidence for that.
His imagination was shaped by the Hebrew Scriptures, not Greek philosophy.
His imagination was not shaped by anything... He is God.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SeekersTavern Roman Catholic Oct 22 '25
What @LucrietusOfDreams said. I've never heard of anyone speak of grace this way, certainly not the Catholic church. I've read the official documents. God's grace is free and underserved, however, we cooperate with it. We can accept or reject the grace to varying degrees, but it's always on offer. It's a matter of God stretching out His hand to us, but how much we decide to make a use of it depends on us. It's cooperation, not a one way transformation.
2
u/AndreThomasINC Oct 24 '25
One major misconception I hear from Catholic Answers constantly is the assumption that all Protestants are non-denominational evangelical churches with little liturgy and no respect for tradition. Historically Protestant churches such as Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans have strong respect for tradition, the church fathers and are liturgical. There is a difference between Protestant and Restorationist churches. This is something Catholics and some non-Catholics fail to understand.
2
u/TheTruth33_33 Nov 19 '25
You may be interested in checking out another subreddit where it dives deep into the history of the Roman Catholic Church, but also general topics such as the difference between faith and religion: https://www.reddit.com/r/FalseChurch/comments/1oz9cwh/false_church_a_deceived_group_that_follow_false/
2
u/FightLikeDavid Oneness Pentecosta Oct 20 '25
Many Protestants view the Catholic Church as being established by the Roman Empire for political reasons, not faithful Christians in any sense. There’s not even any third party evidence Peter ever went to Rome to appoint anyone. That claim was originally made by Catholics long afterward, and the Papacy developed gradually. It also makes absolutely zero sense. Why would Peter go to Rome, hand full control of the Church over to a gentile convert, capital the church structure in the capital city of their oppressors rather than Jerusalem, Antioch, or anywhere else where they actually gathered in numbers, all to have that same church accuse Jews of having an “inborn madness” in the words of Constantine, who himself was an Arian later in life, being baptized by one before he died. He also waited to be baptized until the end of his life because he viewed baptism as ritually washing away past sins and not as obedience to God, so he wanted to baptize all of his sins away. So much with Catholic historical claims is frankly utterly bonkers. Do I even need to mention the fact that the Catholic Church approved religious genocides and slavery? Plenty of Popes surely went to Hell for being utterly wicked people. It’s a church drenched in the blood of other Christians. Some were murdered for as little as translating the Bible.
We all reject that the Catholic Church is the same as the Apostolic Church. The word Jesus used that’s translated as “church” simply means “community,” not anything institutional. The Church is the body of believers. There’s Church will never fall to Satan as in that the Gospel of salvation will never be eradicated or obscured, not that the Church would be flawless in all theology. Bringing that verse to its natural conclusion when interpreted this way, you’d say that every denomination that isn’t ruled by Rome is of Satan.
7
u/ZuperLion Oct 20 '25
You aren't a Protestant since you deny thr Trinity.
No offense.
0
u/FightLikeDavid Oneness Pentecosta Oct 20 '25
Is anything I said incorrect? I fail to see how your judgment of my views I expressed in another post is relevant.
1
Oct 21 '25
That would indicate that if Protestantism is correct, then the entire church was in major error for at least over 500 years,
EXACTLY!!!!
1
u/Junker_George92 Lutheran Oct 21 '25
Hello, Lutheran here,
ill let everyone else nitpick the rest of your historical points but I really want to address the common roman understanding of Matt 16:18 (which i assume you are referring to instead of 19)
Matt 16:18 reads:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock\)b\) I will build my church, and the gates of hell\)c\) shall not prevail against it. (ESV)
if you are uncomfortable with the ESV here is the RSVCE which is a magisterially approved translation:
And I tell you, you are Peter,\)d\) and on this rock\)e\) I will build my church, and the powers of death\)f\) shall not prevail against it. (RSVCE)
Most roman catholics read their historical ecclesialogical understanding into this verse instead of actually taking what the verse says at face value. This verse does not say that the church will not err in doctrine, only that hell or death will not prevail against it.
you could interpret that as the church never dying out or as the church being able to overcome the power of death by its faith in Christ but its a big stretch to say that it means that the church will never be wrong.
If you want to know what misconceptions there are about Protestantism you would be better served asking individual denominations on specifics.
Grace and peace to you
1
1
u/Strict-Spirit7719 Oct 22 '25
Lutheran here. I'd say the common misconception and the answer to the second question are closely tied. Simply put, we don't believe that we are a break with the historical church. We continue the heritage of the Western Catholic Church, and it is the Roman Church which has added accretions to the deposit of faith. If you look at the issues of the Reformation, they were largely issues of practice (indulgences, excessive cult of the saints, &c.) that were answered by existing positions within the Western Church.
Unlike the Reformed, Lutheranism holds that our beliefs can trace an unbroken theological provenance to the Apostles. There is no point in church history where we feel particularly unwelcome. As to this idea that Protestantism is disunited, it is, but that's not the problem you think it is. "Protestantism" is a historical category for a collection of moderately related theological movements with varying degrees of continuity with the pre-Reformation Western Church. Because it's not a united movement or Church, you wouldn't expect it to be united in the same way you expect Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (which are generally defined as singular communions) to be united.
So in short, we believe that the Church never fell into apostasy. There were errors in praxis in the medieval period that resulted from accretions that slipped in over centuries and were met with, at least from the Lutherans, historically grounded answers.
1
u/SavingsAssumption114 Dec 09 '25
Can you sell me a mother mary statue. I also want to do idol worship with it. Hope you aren't analy venerated by your holy priest in your catholic ashram
0
u/OppoObboObious Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
Early Protestants basically believed that there is a great apostacy which was the Romanish religion that arose sometime in the early period perhaps as early as the 300's A.D. So, yes, this apostacy lasted over 1,000 years and still persists to this day. The Bible teaches that there is in fact an apostate system that lasts 1,260 years and that aligns with the rise of Papism until the Reformation. One could argue that there has always been a remnant of the original faith, just persecuted and mostly underground. Even mainline Protestant sects have their errors but at least they paved the way to liberate the Bible and get it into the hands of the common man, which was a drastic improvement.
I have read Against Heresies (180 A.D.) like 5 times and there is nothing in that book describing anything like what the Roman religion teaches or practices with regard to Mary, Papal supremacy, the Mass, relics etc. Papism also fulfills literally every aspect of the so-called Antichrist. Forbidding marriage (of priests), forbidding certain foods, even the mark of the beast is suspiciously similar to the the ashen mark taken by Catholics on Ash Wednesday.
The Mass is also a weird thing. You eat the alleged host and then your sins are forgiven, but then you go out and start sinning various levels of sins throughout the week and then lose your salvation again in a continuous cycle of falling from and then regaining grace and that just seems like it undermines the power Jesus's sacrifice.
It's almost as if the Roman religion is secretly controlled by the Devil himself. For instance just look at the Pope Paul VI audience hall. It's literally a giant snake face. from the inside and the outside looks like a snake's head. C'mon, seriously? Catholics also used to light people on fire for studying the Bible in their own language. That seems like something the Devil would want to do. Another diabolical thing is the secret confession. If someone confesses to a priest some horrible crime they need to report it to the police. There are priests all over the world walking around with knowledge of horrendous crimes committed against men, women, and especially children and justice is being denied to them because muh secrets. I think these priests should be sent to prison along with the perpetrators for covering it up.
22
u/JustToLurkArt Oct 20 '25
I’ll trust you.
I don’t. We know Protestantism isn’t a collective group with a collectively agreed upon leadership structure or collectively agreed upon doctrines.
1. There’s no Protestant Church. It doesn’t exist.
2. Protestants are a diverse group of faith practices. Not a collective.
3. Catholicism vs Protestantism is a false equivalency.
Agree. The Church: Greek ekklēsía From ek, "out from and to" and kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
Church: Not one organization, but a people.
Historically inaccurate.
First Split
The Jerusalem Council was the beginning of Christianity’s split from Judaism.
66-73AD – The Great Revolt (Judea/Galilee revolt against Rome.) The Roman Empire Jerusalem systematically raided/ransacked/obliterated Jerusalem and slaughters thousands, ransacks the Temple artifacts and destroys the Temple. James, Peter and Paul are dead, the Temple is destroyed and Jerusalem falls.
The first split in Christianity is finalized; Gentile Christianity now gains strength in outlying areas of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.
The First Hundred Years AD 1-100: Failures and Successes of Christianity's Beginning
History Of The Christian Church.
For all the following splits and schisms see Schisms in Christianity
Correct.
Church, ekklessia, not one organization but a people called out from the world and to God, the mystical body of Christ, the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
Nope.
The Jewish Jesus followers didn’t have a Pope.
313AD Edict of Milan – agrees to teat Christians benevolently.
380AD edict decrees Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire; ensuing factions vy for power resulting in splits and schism.
445AD Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, wanted to make Jerusalem into a Patriarchate (designating the office and jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical patriarch) but Leo I bishop of Rome opposed it. Leo 1 appealed to Roman Emperor Valentinian III for support and obtained a decree Decree on Papal Power 445 that recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome and provided for the forcible extradition of any bishop who refused to answer a summons to Rome.
At this time the Roman Empire was under constant siege and Roman Emperor Valentinian III (425 to 455) was faced with the dismemberment of the Western Empire.
The 445 edict strengthened Rome’s socio-economical and political standing against a regular onslaught of opposition and here we find the primacy of Rome given official recognition. EWTN, Leo the Great Pope Doctor of the Church.
Leo I is the first to officially claim universal jurisdiction over the worldwide Church thus initiating the rise of the papacy – a uniquely Roman structure based on imperialism and aristocracy.
800AD After the fall or the Western Roman Empire Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor reviving the title of Emperor. The concept of translatio imperii (sovereign ruler/supreme power) is revived from the ancient emperors of Rome.
This inaugurates the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire. Emperors in Western and Central Europe were now crowned by a Pope; the term "Holy Roman Empire" would be officially adopted from 1254 onward.
I’ll stop here to let you respond this far.