4 ms·

> The only way someone can be Protestant is to be ignorant of history Or being born into it. Kinda like the vast majority of Roman Catholics in fact. > and the

> The only way someone can be Protestant is to be ignorant of history Or being born into it. Kinda like the vast majority of Roman Catholics in fact. > and they were saints because they lived those teachings They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that. > All forms of Protestants started off in the 1500s Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer. > They started off on the logical fallacy... Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. > There is no credible basis for any of their teachings at all The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching. > And she was healed of her gangrene and errors Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church.

sdegutis 7y ago
> They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that. Yeah and that test is that (a) they lived a very virtuous life, with virtues being generally well defined and these definitions generally agreed upon by anyone who ever learned a thing or two about them, and (b) through their intercession miracles have happened and been verified thoroughly as being outside the boundaries of science. > Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer. Sure, there were Arians and Gnostics for example, but no Christians today ever say they're Arians of Gnostics, they say they adhere to the doctrines of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or the Queen of England, etc. > Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. [...] The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching. That's the same thing I said: they claim the church became corrupt, and for their reasoning they point to bad practices, trying to draw from these bad practices conclusions about corrupted doctrines. > Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church. Your sarcasm is very warming on this bitterly cold day. Yes, there is corruption in the church once again. That doesn't mean the teachings or the Sacraments are invalid, just that the teachings aren't understood as well or followed as much anymore, nor are the Sacraments received properly often enough. That's why I try to correct any and all misunderstandings anyone has about Catholic teachings insofar as I am able. So many people are led away from Catholicism, or lukewarm with it, simply because of misunderstandings about what it really is and what it really teaches.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer. "Protestant" and "schismatic" don't mean the same thing. There are certainly Christian and pseudo-Christian groups that have existed out of union with Rome before the Protestant Reformation, but neither they nor the Catholic Church nor Protestants consider them "Protestant", and their disagreements with and relations with the Roman Catholic Church are distinct from those between Protestant Churches and Rome (and the latter group is itself quite diverse.) > Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. Not with your expansive definition of Protestantism they didn't. I mean, that clearly isn't an issue with the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and either the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Churches. And while I suppose that something that might loosely be described that way was involved with groups like the Bogomils and Cathars, in both cases more fundamental differences over Christology and the nature of God were more central. (For that matter, much of the Protestant-in-the-strict-sense split was more about secular politics than theology.)

sdegutis 7y ago

> They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that. Yeah and that test is that (a) they lived a very virtuous life, with virtues being generally well defined and these definitions generally agreed upon by anyone who ever learned a thing or two about them, and (b) through their intercession miracles have happened and been verified thoroughly as being outside the boundaries of science. > Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer. Sure, there were Arians and Gnostics for example, but no Christians today ever say they're Arians of Gnostics, they say they adhere to the doctrines of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or the Queen of England, etc. > Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. [...] The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching. That's the same thing I said: they claim the church became corrupt, and for their reasoning they point to bad practices, trying to draw from these bad practices conclusions about corrupted doctrines. > Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church. Your sarcasm is very warming on this bitterly cold day. Yes, there is corruption in the church once again. That doesn't mean the teachings or the Sacraments are invalid, just that the teachings aren't understood as well or followed as much anymore, nor are the Sacraments received properly often enough. That's why I try to correct any and all misunderstandings anyone has about Catholic teachings insofar as I am able. So many people are led away from Catholicism, or lukewarm with it, simply because of misunderstandings about what it really is and what it really teaches.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer. "Protestant" and "schismatic" don't mean the same thing. There are certainly Christian and pseudo-Christian groups that have existed out of union with Rome before the Protestant Reformation, but neither they nor the Catholic Church nor Protestants consider them "Protestant", and their disagreements with and relations with the Roman Catholic Church are distinct from those between Protestant Churches and Rome (and the latter group is itself quite diverse.) > Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. Not with your expansive definition of Protestantism they didn't. I mean, that clearly isn't an issue with the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and either the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Churches. And while I suppose that something that might loosely be described that way was involved with groups like the Bogomils and Cathars, in both cases more fundamental differences over Christology and the nature of God were more central. (For that matter, much of the Protestant-in-the-strict-sense split was more about secular politics than theology.)