So how does one determine Protestantism over Catholicism or vice-versa?

Is Protestantism a "false apostasy of Catholicism" (or something less perjorative in tone, but equivalent in meaning)?


or is Protestantism a "reformation of the corrupt and Biblically-inaccurate Christianity of Catholicism" (or again, phrased more "kinder" if you like)?


And how does one tell if one wants to beieve in Christianity but isn't sure which of the two most prominent schisms is "correct"?

 

In German lands they fought a war, years and years long, among Protestants and Catholics. It doesn't seem that 30 years of conflict have made this clear ...

 

First of all, I would underline that Luther actually didn't want to create a new Church, but to reform the existing one [the Roman Catholic]. So that if we pay attention to intentions, we could see him as the Reformer [in the real sense of the word].

It was the Catholic center of power to reject his thesis, causing the schism.
[Ok, I'm Protestant, so about this process I can be accused to be "oriented", anyway ...].

And it's interesting [I discovered this talking with a Catholic authority] that from the Roman perspective, since Luther was an ordered member of the clergy, the Protestants making reference to Luther have got the "apostolic heritage" [ask to a Catholic if I have understood well this point ...].

 

My point though is....both Protestants and Catholics claim "Biblical authority" for their Church's teachings.

So...how does one tell WHICH one is the true "Biblically correct" view of Christianity?

 

A simple world history review would help. The Catholic church was corrupt. It needed to be reformed, hence the Reformation. Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al. We learned about this in high school.

 

IMO, protestants follow the faith alone doctrine, where the RC must include works.
Scripture tells it both ways.
Trevor and giftedone do a very good job of explaining the differences.

 

Well, the Catholics disagree. Even those who might admit to "some" corruption in the RCC, say that the DOGMA and DOCTRINES of the Catholic Church are more Biblically accurate than the Protestant ones.

So...how do we tell who's right?

- - - Updated - - -

"Sola Fide" is a key point....but as you say, the Bible ALSO endorses "faith plus works". Just one of the many contradictions in the Bible, so it's not very helpful to use that....even though that's all a person has to go on, if you are a Christian.

 

I think it comes down to Paul's version of christianity 'sola fide', or the early gospels version of christitanity 'works'. Paul who never met jesus, except for some supposed awestruck moment on the highway.
PS - raised and confrimed protestant.

 

"I think" would imply that you are expressing an opinion, is that correct?

 

This site might help you find out if you're a protestant or Catholic:

http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

As far as either goes. the only thing we can is follow our hearts in the matter, and follow the Bible to the best of our ability. We really shouldn't judge who is a true Christian or not, we should just let God determine that.

 

Well, yeah that is how the Catholic Church sees it.

The truth is, the Catholic Church at the time was corrupt, and Luther had right to be mad. There were movements before Luther to try and reform the Church, but without the support of the Popes, who seemed more concerned with worldly affairs during the Renaissance. Luther's reformation was more like a revolution actually. Later by the mid 1500s there was a Catholic reformation, renewal of faith.

I'm not sure referring to it as a "schism" would be correct so as not to confuse with the actual schism between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. The Church considers Protestantism to be a heresy. Orthodoxy is not.

Reading the NT, mainly the Gospels, and Paul's epistles, and Acts to see how the early Church functioned. I would also read of the early Church Fathers.

The biggest problem I have with Protestantism is "sola scriptura." The Church was never founded on any such documents. It was founded by Jesus Christ who commissioned his apostles to "go make disciples of all nations." The New Testament wasn't even written until about 20-70 years afterword. It wasn't until the early 5th century. Combine this with the fact that literacy was nothing like it is today. Until the introduction of the printing press, a fairly literate populace was impossible. For most of Christian history, people had to have it preached to them. After all, it was Christ's word "to preach to all nations."

 

Actually the Catholic Church was founded by James The Just.

 

First, you wouldn't say calling fellow Christians "heretics" indicates a bit of a "schism"?

Second, isn't it a bit self-serving to say "Don't go JUST by the Bible....use post-Biblical CATHOLIC writings to show that Catholicism is 'the most accurate' form of Christianity"?

Isn't that like an anti-Catholic Protestant saying "don't just use the Bible to show Protestantism is correct....use post-Lutherian documents from the Church of England, Lutheran Church, Baptist Convention, etc."?

 

I never said they were Catholic. A couple of them were considered heretics. Some of them even date back so early, they were actually disciples of the apostles such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. So unlike the reformers, these men had apostolic succession dating back to the very apostles commissioned by Christ. Understanding what they believe is very important because it gives you an incite into what the early Christians believed.

No, that would hardly be the same. First off, would be skipping over a thousand years of Christian history. The Bible, along with the Church, is the earliest sources of the Christian faith. Reading the Bible has made people both Protestant and Catholic, so it would help to examine these early Christian writings for yourself and then come to the conclusion on what Christians believed.

 

Well, personally I prefer the approach to the Holy Texts which doesn't require a doctrinal background imposed by a clergy [I'm Protestant ...]. That is to say that the Bible is available for everybody, we have just to read it and try and understand it.

In a few words: it's a personal matter.

 

I suppose so, I would rather use two separate terms so not to confuse the breakup with the Orthodox and the birth of Protestantism.

 

One sure fact is that the title "Pope" places such groups which use that title as being in direct contradiction to the 'Bible':
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

"The term pope (Latin: papa "father") is used in several Churches to denote their high spiritual leaders (for example Coptic Pope). This title in English usage usually refers to the head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic pope uses various titles by tradition, including Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, and Servus servorum Dei. Each title has been added by unique historical events and unlike other papal prerogatives, is not incapable of modification.[SUP][3][/SUP]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Popes

 

oh boy, a new term!

I just love the term pontifax maximus. It's very comical sounding, well, at least to me.

 

Sure, it may not have been what he intended, but that's what he did. The same could be said of the 13 colonies and the American Revolution. It's in that context that I see the Protestant Reformation more like a revolution. I suppose it's because of this the Catholic Counter-Reformation is also called the Catholic Reformation.

Or was it the other way around? Luther had taken out 7 books from the OT due to his belief on purgatory which was most likely formed by the controversy of selling indulgences. He also tried to remove James for the verse "Faith without works is dead." This conflicted with Luther's "salvation by faith alone" doctrine.

No such succession would have been possible since Luther was not a bishop. He was an Augustinian friar. Even so, since the Church excommunicated him, this made the case of succession impossible anyways.

 

And there are degrees of separation as well. Protestant, is an exceptionally broad term. And covers anyone not part of the Catholic faith. For example the High Church of England is basically Catholic spelled differently, all the way to the rancid Westbro church - yet both in some way are considered protestant churches

 

If we are to take Mathew 23:8-10 literally, than we cannot call anyone teacher, masters, or fathers. Jesus was simply illustrating the difference between an earthly and heavenly father. I mean there are different types of fathers. We have fathers, father figures, what the Bible and the papacy is referring to is a heavenly father. We have only one father in heaven because of our belief in one God.

St. Paul considered himself a spiritual father to Timothy and Onesimus(1Cor 4:15, Phil 10).

Spiritual fatherhood can also be found in the OT as well: (Judges 17:10, 18:19).

"The term pope (Latin: papa "father") is used in several Churches to denote their high spiritual leaders (for example Coptic Pope). This title in English usage usually refers to the head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic pope uses various titles by tradition, including Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, and Servus servorum Dei. Each title has been added by unique historical events and unlike other papal prerogatives, is not incapable of modification.[SUP][3][/SUP]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Popes[/QUOTE]

There's this as well: http://www.ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/titles.htm

I prefer the title "Patriarch of the West."

 

I think you're right about the Anglican Church, from an Italian perspective, comparing it with the Catholic one, I could even define the English Church a "Catholic Church without the Pope".

 

In Italian historiography it's the Counter Reform and here Catholics have never made reference to the Reform as a "Revolution".

As I sad before, it's a matter of perspectives ...

Thanks for clarification, I heard about that "succession" from a Catholic member of the Francisco Secular Order. Or I understood wrong [actually, as any good Protestant, I don't mind that much about this aspect], or he wasn't that informed about this matter.

 

A;so. I should add:

Check out things first, and check out things on both sides of the issue, and then see what makes sense to you.

There are many different perspectives on religion, you just have to find out the one that's right for you.

 

I'm not that concerned that a Church organizes itself up to give all the power to an absolute emperor [the Pope in Rome]. It's a free choice of the organization.

What I find curious is all the doctrinal corollary that the Church has built around such a figure.

And the Pope has become a kind of living myth.

For example, let's start from banal aspects of human life.

According to Catholics, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, so we should expect that he should behave like the Bible says a Bishop should behave, also in his daily common life [should or could].

Let's see what the first letter of Timothy says about the "overseer" [the "episkopos"] and deacons.

So ... how was that the Catholic Church came out with the idea that the clergy has to be made by not married men?