Catholics vs protestants

[Tattooed Theist]

So I'm a student in a ministerial leadership major, I'm taking history classes to fill my electives, specifically Christian history because quite frankly I hadn't known much prior.

I'm having a hard time finding truth to what exactly happened between the Catholics and the Protestants... Many history literature will claim one thing and other history books will strongly disagree. They both scream "corruption" and accuse the other of destroying books and evidence of truth...

I grewup Roman Catholic, and I have a bias against it, therefore I'm wanting outside information because I seem to lean toward the Catholic end being corrupt but I want to give each side a fair fight during my studies.

Catholics claim Luther destroyed or got rid of dozens of books of the bible.. I assume this is speaking about the Apocrypha.

Any information would be great, youtube lectures would be ideal because I commute for work and usually fill that time listening to lectures and presentations and debates, etc.


Much thanks in advance.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

An excellent free teaching series on the Reformation

An excellent free teaching series on the Reformation

Any information would be great, youtube lectures would be ideal because I commute for work and usually fill that time listening to lectures and presentations and debates, etc.

You won't do better than this series:

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-course-with-carl-trueman-on-the-reformation/

AMR

 

[Nihilo]

So I'm a student in a ministerial leadership major, I'm taking history classes to fill my electives, specifically Christian history because quite frankly I hadn't known much prior.

I'm having a hard time finding truth to what exactly happened between the Catholics and the Protestants... Many history literature will claim one thing and other history books will strongly disagree. They both scream "corruption" and accuse the other of destroying books and evidence of truth...

I grewup Roman Catholic, and I have a bias against it, therefore I'm wanting outside information because I seem to lean toward the Catholic end being corrupt but I want to give each side a fair fight during my studies.

Catholics claim Luther destroyed or got rid of dozens of books of the bible.. I assume this is speaking about the Apocrypha.

Any information would be great, youtube lectures would be ideal because I commute for work and usually fill that time listening to lectures and presentations and debates, etc.


Much thanks in advance.

The Catholic Church's response to the Reformation was first the council of Trent, followed by publishing the Roman Catechism. It indicates that the Church saw the Reformation as caused by a problem of ignorance; it was not generally known what the Church believed and taught, which is how people like Luther and Calvin were able to persuade so many Christians to schism. Fast-forward four centuries, and the Church revised her Catechism, including everything up through the Second Vatican council, which arguably was the Church's response to WWII and its atrocities (which began in Luther's Germany). I find some clarity in these observations.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

You won't do better than this series:

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-course-with-carl-trueman-on-the-reformation/

AMR

Beautiful, exactly the type of series I was looking for.

The Catholic Church's response to the Reformation was first the council of Trent, followed by publishing the Roman Catechism. It indicates that the Church saw the Reformation as caused by a problem of ignorance; it was not generally known what the Church believed and taught, which is how people like Luther and Calvin were able to persuade so many Christians to schism. Fast-forward four centuries, and the Church revised her Catechism, including everything up through the Second Vatican council, which arguably was the Church's response to WWII and its atrocities (which began in Luther's Germany). I find some clarity in these observations.

Interesting, although confusing since I lack much of the context surrounding. Maybe after I listen to what Mr.Religion sent, your input will line up better. Thank you!

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Still taking input, preferably video or audio as mentioned previously, and hopefully a Catholic can chime in with something so all of the information isn't coming from a Calvinist bent.

Thanks in advance guys

 

[Epoisses]

So I'm a student in a ministerial leadership major, I'm taking history classes to fill my electives, specifically Christian history because quite frankly I hadn't known much prior.

I'm having a hard time finding truth to what exactly happened between the Catholics and the Protestants... Many history literature will claim one thing and other history books will strongly disagree. They both scream "corruption" and accuse the other of destroying books and evidence of truth...

I grewup Roman Catholic, and I have a bias against it, therefore I'm wanting outside information because I seem to lean toward the Catholic end being corrupt but I want to give each side a fair fight during my studies.

Catholics claim Luther destroyed or got rid of dozens of books of the bible.. I assume this is speaking about the Apocrypha.

Any information would be great, youtube lectures would be ideal because I commute for work and usually fill that time listening to lectures and presentations and debates, etc.


Much thanks in advance.

Catholics for the most part teach a gospel of works and Protestants for the most part teach a gospel of faith. God has sheep in the Catholic church who live up to all the light they have but for the most part it's a corrupt system.

 

[Spitfire]

This is an extremely complicated topic. Basically, there were many, many reasons - so many that there is probably no one scholar, no matter how learned, who knows all the reasons. Corruption was a huge problem in the Roman Catholic Church, and most Catholics would agree that Luther was right to protest the abuses that he did at least at first. Luther himself suffered from scrupulosity and despaired over his own salvation, for which he found it necessary to reject the sacraments of confession and penance and basically deny that it belonged to the church to forgive sins (rather than to God alone in the most personal and singular sense), while still maintaining some of the church's traditional role in communicating God's grace to sinners (which modern Evangelical Christians seem to be doing away with altogether). Luther wanted to decomplicate salvation and faith in general, but one could have a debate about whether and to what extent he succeeded, especially when you get into thorny questions about how one goes about cooperating with God's grace if some degree of witting cooperation is indeed necessary (the wedding garments of Matthew 22) and what it means to be Christian and belong to Jesus' church in the first place.

I think, more than anything else, it was the culmination of a long term power struggle between secular powers and the church. Kings had clashed routinely with popes (the conflict between Herny II and Thomas Becket being a classic example), and the idea of local state churches was appealing to secular rulers who could control their affairs more easily without having to worry about censure or interference from distant Rome. On a theological level, once it was no longer centered on the abuses that Luther originally began to protest, it was and still is primarily a dispute about the nature of the church and whether it is visible and hierarchical and has temporal power, or whether the church only truly exists in a looser, more metaphysical sense (the dispute over the canon of the Bible being a major subheading in this).

 

[Nihilo]

On a theological level, once it was no longer centered on the abuses that Luther originally began to protest, it was and still is primarily a dispute about the nature of the church and whether it is visible and hierarchical and has temporal power, or whether the church only truly exists in a looser, more metaphysical sense (the dispute over the canon of the Bible being a major subheading in this).

And for her part, the Catholic Church teaches that she is both, not just one or the other.

 

[clefty]

The Catholic Church's response to the Reformation was first the council of Trent, followed by publishing the Roman Catechism. It indicates that the Church saw the Reformation as caused by a problem of ignorance; it was not generally known what the Church believed and taught, which is how people like Luther and Calvin were able to persuade so many Christians to schism. Fast-forward four centuries, and the Church revised her Catechism, including everything up through the Second Vatican council, which arguably was the Church's response to WWII and its atrocities (which began in Luther's Germany). I find some clarity in these observations.

Hmmm...yes many changes since the first century church...it itself being a continuance of the church in the wilderness as Stephen called...

He was killed because He wished to reform restore...did not start a new religion...

But now even Vatican 2 has made it catholic vs catholic...

 

[Nihilo]

Hmmm...yes many changes since the first century church...it itself being continuance of the church in the wilderness as Stephen called...

But now even Vatican 2 has made it catholic vs catholic...

And many changes to the world, because of the Church. The first century world was a far cry from who we are today, in large part because of the Church. This is why most historians rank Jesus Christ as the most influential person Who ever lived. It doesn't take too much faith to imagine that perceived changes to the Church's teachings are actually adjustments and developments the Church has made in response to societal changes that she herself effected. A wildly pagan/heathen world is in the dustbin of history because of her, for example.

 

[Spitfire]

And for her part, the Catholic Church teaches that she is both, not just one or the other.

Yeah, I wondered if maybe I should add a disclaimer that Catholics also believe that the church exists in a spiritual, metaphysical sense (the mystical body of Christ and all) but the physical form of the sacraments and the church in general are not mere structure without function either.

 

[john w]

I'm taking the Protestants this year-they have a better QB.

 

[KingdomRose]

So I'm a student in a ministerial leadership major, I'm taking history classes to fill my electives, specifically Christian history because quite frankly I hadn't known much prior.

I'm having a hard time finding truth to what exactly happened between the Catholics and the Protestants... Many history literature will claim one thing and other history books will strongly disagree. They both scream "corruption" and accuse the other of destroying books and evidence of truth...

I grewup Roman Catholic, and I have a bias against it, therefore I'm wanting outside information because I seem to lean toward the Catholic end being corrupt but I want to give each side a fair fight during my studies.

Catholics claim Luther destroyed or got rid of dozens of books of the bible.. I assume this is speaking about the Apocrypha.

Any information would be great, youtube lectures would be ideal because I commute for work and usually fill that time listening to lectures and presentations and debates, etc.


Much thanks in advance.

There is a lot of information about Catholic AND Protestant history. You would probably do a favor to yourself by going on YouTube yourself, and also just typing in on your search engine "Bible translators burned at the stake." You would at least get some names to look up on YouTube.

Both Catholic and Protestant people killed men for translating the Bible so that common folk could read it. Actually, the only really major thing that Luther "destroyed" was homage to the pope, indulgences, and other non-Biblical traditions that the RCC adhered to. Both Catholic and Protestant beliefs---the basic ones---are virtually the same. They both are in bed with politicians, and try to manipulate what is accepted as "politically correct."

As I said, there is so much info out there that it would behoove you to look yourself; it would reduce the amount of unwanted articles that might be sent to you, and the wool being attempted to pull over your eyes. Finding information that isn't biased is a challenge, but you can practically be sure that religious videos and recordings by Calvinists and other biased groups will steer you off the path of truth concerning their denominations' complicity in hiding the truth. Info presented by historians without a religious ax to grind would be more correct in such matters.


.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Roman Catholicism Today and Yesterday

Roman Catholicism Today and Yesterday

Still taking input, preferably video or audio as mentioned previously, and hopefully a Catholic can chime in with something so all of the information isn't coming from a Calvinist bent.

I am confident that Carl Trueman's lectures will not come across to you as some Calvinistically biased account. Rather they will be an accurate account of exactly why and what was being protested by those who would later become known as Protestants in their call for the church of the day to reform itself according to the teachings of Scripture. My STL thesis as a young Jesuit some thirty-plus years ago concerned the response of the RCC to the Reformation.

The rise of what would become the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men.

The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Roman Catholicism owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned (that would come later with Trent). Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.

The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Indeed, God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the more true path. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.

Summarizing, do not buy into “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric and historical revisionism you may run across. The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of the RCC, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

Good luck in your studies. May they be fruitful and edifying.

AMR

 

[Nihilo]

Yeah, I wondered if maybe I should add a disclaimer that Catholics also believe that the church exists in a spiritual, metaphysical sense (the mystical body of Christ and all) but the physical form of the sacraments and the church in general are not mere structure without function either.

If we take Matthew 16:18 (KJV) seriously, we have to conclude that of the multitude of churches/ecclesial communities extant today, one of them at least must be the Church the Lord mentioned. The realistic possibilities are the Orthodox churches (hint), and the Catholic Church. For my money, the Catholic Church is she, because of Matthew 16:18 (KJV), because Christ here makes clear that the bishops are not to organize democratically or as a republic, but as a monarchy. There is one man who speaks for the Church here on earth; Peter, and his successors.

 

[S-word]

A catholic Nun asked one young girl in her class what she wanted to be when she left school, and the girl replied that she wanted to be a prostitute.

The nun spun on the girl and screamed, "What did you say?" I said that I wanted to be a prostitute said the young girl.

The Nun then heaved a sigh of relief, saying; "Oh, thank goodness, I thought you said that you wanted to become a protestant."

 

[Truster]

Roman Catholicism first showed itself in Eden in the guise of a serpent. It questioned the authority of the word given to man.

 

[Robert Pate]

Its very simple. Protestants believe they are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law.

Catholics believe that they are justified by faith including the works of the law.

The Gospel says that we are justified by Christ and by Christ alone, plus nothing.

 

[jamie]

Protestants believe they are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law.

Why? What scripture says that?

 

[Nihilo]

Roman Catholicism first showed itself in Eden in the guise of a serpent. It questioned the authority of the word given to man.

Ay ay ay. It's closer to say that the Church was in the garden in seed form in Eve, since she was the mother of all the living, like how Mary the second Eve is the mother of the Church.

 

[Nihilo]

Its very simple. Protestants believe they are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law.

Catholics believe that they are justified by faith including the works of the law.

The Gospel says that we are justified by Christ and by Christ alone, plus nothing.

Protestants and Catholics believe the same thing, namely the following. We all believe that being a member of the Church is salvation now and forever. Membership depends upon baptism and the faith thereof, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.