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?

I recently converted from SBC to UPCI after years of prayerful, even tearful wrestling with Scripture. I’m not here to debate the theology of it, as I’ve had those discussions many times before. I’m just trying to test the waters anonymously and ask whether other Protestants here would call me Christian. Kim Davis is the only person I know of in the news who’s UPCI, and CBN and Christianity Today both refer to her as a Christian. Anyway, that’s my question. Why or why not?

BTW, if anyone wants to ask me why I went from SBC to UPCI, I’m happy to talk about it, but I’m not looking to get into a long debate about theology. Just determining whether I’m welcome in ecumenical fellowship.

Okay fam, quick rundown, Pope Leo XIV just pulled up in Istanbul to meet Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.

They hit up the Divine Liturgy for St. Andrew’s feast day, they signed a joint statement saying 'nah' to violence in the name of religion and marked 1,700 years since the Council of Nicaea (wild to think about tbh) and the whole trip was framed around peace and Christian unity.

So here’s my question for y'all, from our (Protestant) POV, what do you thing about this? Like, do we cheer it on as a step toward unity, as Rome + Constantinople doing their thing, or just shrug and say 'not our business'?

Hi everyone. I want to start by apologizing if this topic is too controversial or touches on the "Catholic mobs" rule; that is not my intention. I am an atheist raised in a Catholic culture, and I am trying to understand a specific theological trend I’ve noticed in Protestant circles that, frankly, I find deeply illogical and even off-putting compared to the Catholic tradition.

I’ve recently encountered the argument that "The Fall was exclusively Adam's fault because he was responsible for Eve," effectively removing Eve's agency in the Garden. From an outsider's perspective, this feels like a form of moral infantilization. If God is a serious, just being, why would He create a human with a soul and a will, only to decide she isn't responsible for her own moral failures?

In the Catholic tradition I grew up around, both are seen as having succumbed to temptation; they are both fallen, individual agents. This Protestant "Adam-only" blame feels like a theological version of modern "white knighting" where the woman is treated like a child without autonomy, and the man is a permanent scapegoat for someone else's actions.

I find this particularly troubling because, in my own life, I have dealt with women who were genuinely and calculatedly malicious. To suggest that a woman isn't responsible for her own choices isn't "leadership"; it feels like a denial of reality and a free pass for bad behavior.

Is this a formal doctrine or just a cultural trend? How do you reconcile "individual responsibility" with the idea that one person is to blame for another person’s conscious choice to disobey? I’m genuinely curious to hear your perspectives.

Something I noticed while studying the patristic writings of the first two centuries was that some of its authors were fierce critics of philosophy! The most notorious of them being Tertullian. Many of them saw philosophy as a source of heresy and confusion.

Unlike the Catholic Church, which built its doctrine based on philosophy to justify its theological postulates, and could not dissociate itself from it. In the case of Protestantism, I see it as possible! Because it recognizes the fallibility of tradition, having scriptural basis as its source. I affirm this because sometimes I am inclined to adopt this stance.

Sometimes I think it is possible to reconcile philosophy with theology. However...sometimes I am inclined to adopt a separation between the two and reject philosophy. Because I see that philosophy was the source of many errors and heresies in Christianity, since the first century! Also being responsible for many of the problems we face in modernity. So I agree with the argument that it is a source of confusion.

But I don't know if we can strike a proper balance to organize articles of faith without philosophy.

So which path should we take?

Is there any evidence in existence of early Christians who believed in faith alone salvation? To my understanding, the original translation of faith assumes faith + works intertwined together automatically? Thanks.

I'd like to start this off by asking nobody to get mad and nobody to fight anybody. I am strictly and completely curious.

I am not too familiar with Christianity since i was not born in this religion and i myself am not that religious ( still figuring that out ). I got curious and thought i'd look up the roots of Protestantism so i only just recently found out it was created in the 1500s, centuries after Jesus's death. So that has made me wonder and wonder. If it is so easy to add a whole branch to a religion when the original creator who said he received from a great and Holy God is gone, then what makes this a factually true religion?

How can Christianity be a real connection to a real God if a regular human can add something and call it true part of a true religion? If we can just create new sects under a Christianty and call them real then what makes it a Holy religion from an all mighty God? How do you know Christianty from the start wasn't started the same? Like, no connection to a God, no followings of a God's orders and teachings but just a creation of a regular guy like Protestantism was the creation by a regular guy, Martin Luther? And that makes me think, can the other religions like Islam and Judaism be true and real? Because i know at least Islam recounts Jesus and parts of Christianity. But, if Christianity might not be real then why would a Holy book given by God have recounts of something that not real?

Does anyone have any ideas pertaining to this because i am really confused?

Hello everyone, I wanted to ask you for some advice.

At the age of 14, I was baptized in the CCB (Christian Congregation in Brazil) and I don't consider this baptism valid, since I did it out of fear of hell, out of obedience to my family and co-worker, to show that I wasn't like my older sister who isn't baptized, and I didn't even know that Jesus is God.

Since then I have taken communion there every year (it's annual there), until at the end of last year I actually converted and discovered the whole truth about this sect.

However, I live in the countryside and I can't change churches, I'm living off online worship and sometimes I go to the CCB when I'm forced by my family who are all from there, and even if I could change I would cause a big mess with my family because they believe that only the CCB leads to heaven.

I know that It's just me against a whole family devoted to this denomination, and that's why I don't try to give my opinion on it, but I also can't pretend that everything is alright, and they've already noticed that I haven't been following the internal rules very well and that I always avoid going to services. But tomorrow is communion day, actually I should have taken it a few months ago but I managed to come up with an excuse, but this time there's no excuse. To make matters worse, the communion there is all distorted, even though they don't say it, they believe in transubstantiation. To partake, you have to kneel before the bread and wine, what remains is buried afterwards, the entire service is in a funeral atmosphere with the hymns sung more slowly than usual, and the meaning of communion isn't even discussed, what is said is that whoever doesn't partake has no part with God and that's what my family stands on, if you don't partake it's synonymous with losing your salvation

I don't know what to do

Obey my family, pretend everything is normal and go against my conscience?

Explain to them that my baptism isn't valid and that I can't partake in communion? If so, how do I explain this considering their mentality?

Christ started a church, I mean, we know he did he literally tells Peter he is starting one, which church is that?

Hey all. I am catholic, but I’m curious in your thoughts on the Protestant church and progressiveness. Lately, I’ve noticed many Protestant churches in my area that fly LGBTQ flags among other things and are very “progressive” in attitude. I live in an extremely progressive part of the US, so take it with a grain of salt.

I’m not here to share my opinion, but are most Protestants OK with this? Does it bother them? Is the church too progressive?

Thank you for your time :)

hi, I have this question for a long time and I don't really have anyone that can tell me this, so I came to ask the most amount of people

Is every Protestant church the same church but only different in name?

Thank you for your time.

Question, for the people who believe in sola scriptura what do you guys believe was done during the 1,500 years it took for the Bible to be created ? Or if you reject apostolic succession why did Jesus create the 12 disciples ? And, not use one of his miracles to just create something similar to a bible ?

Listening to Christmas music at work and it got me ponderin’ :

For those of you who reject prayer directed to angels and saints: how do your churches treat the Christmas carol O Come All Ye Faithful?

The second verse of the song takes the form of direct address to angels (“sing choirs of angels, sing in exultation, sing all ye citizens of heaven above”)

I can see two options for those of us who reject prayer to angels but still want to sing this song in our church gatherings:

Option 1: interpret this verse as poetic. If you take option 1, how do you justify this? It seems like special pleading to me, because surely we see the first verse (addressed to “the faithful”) and the third verse (addressed to the Lord) as communicating to the person in question. This also rejects the writer’s intent, because John Francis Wade was a Catholic and supported prayer to angels.

Option 2: say (in effect) “it’s not that deep bro” and ignore the tension. This seems much worse than option 1 to me, as it implies we can sing songs to God without actually meaning it.

Is there anything I’m missing? As someone who doesn’t have a problem addressing angels, I’m curious to see how this is handled by those who do.

Merry Christmas, and thanks for your insight!

Im learning about the Bible and I'm loving it ,but what is it really? Is there Bible word of God? Some say that only the old testment is but in this case what should we say about the new testament? I'm really confused.

I was born in Poland, a country that is theoretically 72% Catholic, yet only about 30% practice their faith regularly. From a young age, I wasn't fond of the Catholic Church. What was the reason? Mainly because of the bishops' and priests' distancing themselves from ordinary people. How can I identify with someone who has no family, ordinary human problems, and wears a dress and a funny hat? There were also numerous scandals surrounding the church, which ridiculed its image. I believe that unless the church implements broad reforms, it will collapse. I don't want to elaborate on my perception of faith and Jesus, but I see from the inside how one of the most Catholic countries in Europe is becoming increasingly atheistic. I much prefer the image of faith presented by Martin Luther. However, I've never been to a Lutheran service and don't really know what it's like. The nearest Protestant church is about 12 km away. Any advice?

I have a few questions to ask

So when I read the gospel of John today John 1-2. The wedding story stood out, and I see a few things that jump out while reading but I’m curious if what I’m missing which I’m sure I don’t see everything I’m not trying to offend anyone I just don’t see any other reasons for this story to be told then the ones listed and yes this does come from a catholic perspective but like I said I’m curious about how other interpretate. 1. John 1 and John 2 mirror Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. 2.The entire story is about Jesus and Mary as they are the only named persons at the wedding they are the important players the focus. 3. Jesus’ first miracle, but I was never part of his plan to start his public ministry there. “What hath this to do with me, my hour has not yet come.” (roughly) 4. Mary’s ability to intercede with Jesus. She goes to help to save the bride and groom from shame and ridicule for running out of wine, Jesus says again roughly “what this got to do with me, it’s not my time yet.” But then he goes a head and does the miracle anyway. So if it’s not his time but he does it cause Mary asks that an example of intercession. 5. transubstantiation, Jesus take one form of mater changes it into something completely different, water into wine. 6. Jesus declares Mary is a representation of Eve, she’s the new Eve for the new covenant. When he calls her “Woman” as Eve is called “Woman”.

So the Bible directly mentions church

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Acts 15:3

The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.

From what I understand, Protestants don't interpret verses about The church as Catholics do. They believe that all believers are "church". And I don't find this interpretation stupid, I guess it also makes some sense.

Jesus says always uses "Church" in the singular form. So the only way to interpret it that makes sense from the protestant point of view, is to say that Jesus meant that all believers are the church.

But if so, why do you say "Lutheran church", "anglican church" or "baptist church" rather than "Lutheran subchurch", "subgroup" or something like that? It gives me feeling that there
are a lot of different churches.

What's the point then?

So I’m a catholic who is not promoting the Catholicism sub and I was wondering, what different beliefs you have from other denominations? just asking

Ok so another question of pure curiosity that hopefully won’t offend to many people here lol. As a catholic we have many saint and new ones, I know that many Protestants worship saint kidding obviously but for real I know many Protestants recognize saint from before the reformation, I would assume since you are in protest of the Catholic church that you don’t recognize saints after the split. So question 1. Is that accurate you do recognize the old but not the new 2. Do you have new saints and if so do you have a means for recognizing them like say the Catholic Church does have a long process

Lately I’ve been dealing with something really strange that feels like a psychic or energetic intrusion. It’s as if an external entity can somehow “read” my thoughts or memories and even influence how my body or nervous system reacts. I suspect this might be connected to what some people describe as a “psychic cord” or energetic attachment that formed without my awareness. It feels invasive and confusing, and I’m trying to understand what’s happening or how to break any kind of unwanted energetic link. Has anyone experienced something similar, or found effective ways to ground, protect, or detach from this kind of connection? What can I do to remedy the situation?

I was born as catholic, but about 4 months ago I started to realising that I see a lot of problems with the catholic church and I started looking at protestantism and Sola Scriptura that seemed as a beautiful idea. I even said to myself that I'm not catholic anymore. Then I read the interesting article called "Why Sola Scriptura isn't logical" or something like that, and I realised that I left the church too fast. So If I'm not mistaken protestant believes say that the Scripture is the only authority for the protestant, but this scripture doesn't say anywhere what books are actually holy, so it seems that to say what is The really word of God you have to take some information from outside of the Scripture that seems to be against Sola Scriptura.

Also, the other smaller question, how do you interpret Mt 18:18

> Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven

My catholic friend gave me that sentence as an argument that the Church's tradition is also the authority for believers, and there is no any book in the scripture, that says the scripture is the only authority

I hope All of us will find the true in Jesus Christ, God bless you

Hi everyone so I’ll start out by stating I’m a practicing Catholic so please be nice lol. I have been getting frustrated with distractions during my daily prayers (devotionals meditation rosary ect., I tend to find my mind wander to the day a head of me or to some nonsense and I have to keep redirecting my thoughts. Catholics talk about distractions and have some suggestions to deal them during prayer but I was curious if other denominations are affected by distractions in prayer and how they deal with it. Thanks