A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black

I do, but the question was not directed toward me. You are a Protestant, and you have posted on a thread asking you why you think Catholics need to be evangelized. You have stated that they sin. Is that your answer to the question? ** I sin. Enough said.**

You think Jesus had them haul up 153 fish but was not trying to make a point? ** I didn’t say that; I said your point may not be His point.**

You seem to believe that Peter did not repent of his abandoment of Christ, because it is not specifically written in Scripture. is this the case? Absolutely NOT. You are not very good at reading into what I’ve said. You err over and over again when you try to do this.

You suggested that the Pope should resign over the sins of the clergy under his authority. Jesus did not have Peter “quit” because he was less than faithful.** Has the pope confessed to his error and attempted to make it correct?** BTW, when Peter denied Jesus that was before the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. He received his repentance and restored him. He instructed him to care for and feed the flock. He did not encourage Peter to abandon the ministry He called him to, but to return to it, and fulfill it. Apples with apples.

This is basically the reality of the person reading it. There are as many different “realities” as there are belly buttons. That’s quite an exageration!!! Sometimes, people reach a common sense, and group themselves together. This is not how Jesus set things up. Your point???

I think not. Is this why you think Catholics need to be evangelized? **I wish you’d read what I’ve directly said on this issue earlier on this thread; ** if you’d do so you wouldn’t make inaccurate statements like this one.

You are right, we do. Catholics receive the teaching of the Apostles on this point, so we see things differntly than our separated brethren, who have been apart from that tradition for 500 years. Thanks once again for your opinion.

No. There is no doctrinal requirement in Christianity that a person needs to be circumcised. **Of course not; the early church struggled with it, though!! **

Really? You think there are people on CAF that think these human shortcomings do not divide the unity in the Body? ** Context, contex, contex **will give you the answer so you don’t misrepresent me. The context was ‘pride, arrogance and hurt feelings’.

 

[guanophore]

Just want to say a few things.

1. Thanks for this thread. It has helped to answer at least a few of my questions about Catholic practices and beliefs.
2. Though I am a Protestant, I am NOT here to proselytize, but to share and learn, and engage in fellowship. I’m glad this place exists.
3. I do have questions, but will ask them, not to create division, or mock, or to trap… but to truly get answers to gain better understanding.
4. I apologize for other protestants who come here with a spirit of condemnation, arrogance and a hard heart (spite). Which are sins in themselves.

The more I learn about my ancestors devotion to Christ and the Catholic church, the more curious I am.

Glad you are here too, and welcome.I apologize for Catholics who post with a spirit of condemnation, especially when it is me!

 

[guanophore]

** I sin. Enough said.**

But I dont’ think you believe you need to be evangelized, do you? What is different about your sins, and the sins of Catholics, that when they sin, it is a sign they need to be evangelized?

I didn't say that; I said your point may not be His point.

You think the successor of Peter should “quit” since those under his authority sinned?

You are not very good at reading into what I’ve said. You err over and over again when you try to do this.

You are right. It would be much easier for us if you would just plainly address the OP. As it is, you seem to be taking potshots at the Catholic Church based upon the sinful acts of those who are attached to her. Then, when you are confronted about it, you dodge.

Why do you feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics?

** Has the pope confessed to his error and attempted to make it correct?**

Yes. Every day.

BTW, when Peter denied Jesus that was before the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.

Yes, and Jesus restored him before Pentecost also. So you think that the Pope should step down because he does not have the HS in him?

That’s quite an exageration

Indeed yes. But there is no reason, according to SS that there cannot be. Each man interprets according to his own idea of what is right. All believe they are led by the HS.

**I wish you’d read what I’ve directly said on this issue earlier on this thread; ** if you’d do so you wouldn’t make inaccurate statements like this one.

I am reading that you think the pope should step down, because members of his flock were wayward. Perhaps you believe he is not a Christian, does not have the HS,a nd needs to be evangelized?

**Of course not; the early church struggled with it, though!! **

The power of binding and loosing was given to the Church by Jesus to settle disputes such as these. Once the Church arrives at the TRuth, it becomes a matter of dogma.

 **The context was 'pride, arrogance and hurt feelings'.**

These sentiments, together with SS, have done much to divide the Body.

 

[PRmerger]

** This is your opinion; as all opinions this could be correct or incorrect.**

But it has to be one or the other–either it IS correct or it ISN’T. Which one is it?

 

[guanophore]

But it has to be one or the other–either it IS correct or it ISN’T. Which one is it?

Actually, he is inaccurate. My statement that SS is heresy is not my “opinion” but a Teaching of the Church.

The fact I also stated that following it has created untold division in the Body is not my opinion either, but an historial fact.

IT is his way of saying disdainfully that he does not like or agree with my comment,.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

After David commited adultery and had Urriah killed he said to God, ‘against you and you only have I sinned’. That maybe why Jesus told us to forgive as we are forgiven: to free us from holding something against others that they did to Jesus. Interesting and confusing.​

I’m saying it about ALL churches until we’re in Heaven. In spirit there is unity; in practice no so much.

No, you are still dodging the issue.

You particularly have said, several times, that because 'Catholics disagree with their church teachings, Catholicism is really not one faith but a bunch of different interpretations, just like all the different denominations in Protestantism"

I have shown you that simply because, say, Methodists have a percentage of their followers who disagree with certain Methodist teachings, you don’t say that METHODISM is composed of Methodism A where the people follow X teachings but deny Y teachings, Methodism B where the people follow Y teachings but deny X, Protomethodism where the people follow A, B and C but deny D, Post Methodism where they have ‘reinterpreted X but repudiated Y’. . .

So WHY do you keep on saying that Catholics who dissent from Catholic teachings have ‘invented’ the equivalent of "Catholicism A, B, C, or even PseudoCatholicism, Post Catholicism’ etc. such that there is no ONE Catholic faith but a bunch of ‘equal’ but different faiths?

Please stop dodging and explain why you only say this of Catholics.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just a quick point: I trust that Doki when he spoke earlier of the Pope turning a ‘blind eye’ on sexual abuse that he supposedly knew of, and that he should step down for this, and then later asking if the Pope had 'repented of his sin", is not implying that the Pope did turn a blind eye on sexual abuse that he knew of.

Because most certainly this is not something that has been in any way proven.

When guanophore spoke of the Pope repenting his sin, I believe (guanaphore can tell me if I am correct or not) that guanophore was speaking of the Pope repenting his ‘real’ sins (of which we all have many) and guanophore was NOT implying that the Pope had been guilty of ‘turning a blind eye on sexual abuse that he knew of’, and is now 'repenting such. . .because, I repeat, there is no proof that the Pope did any such thing, and to keep on harping that he ‘did’ would be calumny.

Only IF we can know for sure that the Pope both ‘knew’ of abuse and deliberately and with malice ‘turned a blind eye’ (which of course would be quite different from knowing of abuse, trying to follow the accepted legal and medical practices of the day, though later these were found to be inadequate and even erroneous, doing all in the belief that this was the ‘right thing’ to do) would there be any need for the Pope to ‘repent’, because only if certain standards were met would there be grave sin.

Like any other grave sin, in order to be grave sin it requires full knowledge (if it was not known that one was sinning, one is not sinning gravely), grave matter, and full consent of the will.

So Doki, would you require a person who had been a slave owner when slavery was legal, and who had released his slaves when it became legally required to do so, to ‘do penance’ for the years he held slaves legally? Even if he thought (erroneously but not maliciously) with sincere belief that he was doing the right thing?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, he is inaccurate. My statement that SS is heresy is not my “opinion” but a Teaching of the Church.

The fact I also stated that following it has created untold division in the Body is not my opinion either, but an historial fact.

IT is his way of saying disdainfully that he does not like or agree with my comment,.

Ah. I see what you’re saying–an *opinion *then, as Dokimas is stating in this context, is something akin to a preference, as in “I prefer vanilla over chocolate”? Thus, it’s neither right nor wrong.

That, then, is not correct, Dokimas. We are stating truths about religious faith. Either those truths are correct, or incorrect. They’re not just preferences!

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black

But I dont’ think you believe you need to be evangelized, do you? What is different about your sins, and the sins of Catholics, that when they sin, it is a sign they need to be evangelized?

Where did I say I evangelize catholics because they are catholics? Where did I say my sins are different (by your implication, less) than catholics? You continue to misinterpret what I say and add to what I say meanings that are WRONG. How can we have a good discussion with you continually doing so?

You think the successor of Peter should “quit” since those under his authority sinned? NO. Because he, according to accounts, ‘covered it up’ in some way, knowingly.

You are right. It would be much easier for us if you would just plainly address the OP. As it is, you seem to be taking potshots at the Catholic Church based upon the sinful acts of those who are attached to her. Then, when you are confronted about it, you dodge.

I have addressed the issue; you must have missed it. My other comments were in response to others, not pot shots at anyone. Point out a dodge and I’ll try harder to be more direct.

Why do you feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics? ** I’ve addressed the issue**. I’m not here to proselytize. I’ve made that clear over and over and over again in many, many ways.

Yes. Every day. So the pope has admitted to covering up the sexual abuse by at least one person in his charge?

Yes, and Jesus restored him before Pentecost also. So you think that the Pope should step down because he does not have the HS in him?

STOP wrongly reading into what I’ve said. Don’t you dislike being so often wrong? ** I have made NO comment about the pope and the Holy Spirit.** If he is ‘born again’ he has the Holy Spirit. PERIOD!!! ** I’m NOT the judge who is or who is not ‘born again’.** HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR???

Indeed yes. But there is no reason, according to SS that there cannot be. Each man interprets according to his own idea of what is right. All believe they are led by the HS.

SS teaches that the Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit. PLAIN and SIMPLE!!!

I am reading that you think the pope should step down, because members of his flock were wayward. WRONG reading!!! Perhaps you believe he is not a Christian WRONG understanding - I have no clue, does not have the HS,a nd needs to be evangelized? **ABSOLUTELY WRONG **once again. Don’t you get tired of being wrong about someone else???

These sentiments, together with SS, have done much to divide the Body. ** I didn’t make the statement first about Christians**!!! ** I just made the observation that it seems to be common to both sides**.

 

[Dokimas]

Tantum ergo in black

No, you are still dodging the issue.

You particularly have said, several times, that because 'Catholics disagree with their church teachings, Catholicism is really not one faith but a bunch of different interpretations, just like all the different denominations in Protestantism" TRUE. That’s what I said.

I have shown you that simply because, say, Methodists have a percentage of their followers who disagree with certain Methodist teachings, you don’t say that METHODISM is composed of Methodism A where the people follow X teachings but deny Y teachings, Methodism B where the people follow Y teachings but deny X, Protomethodism where the people follow A, B and C but deny D, Post Methodism where they have ‘reinterpreted X but repudiated Y’. ** I didn’t deny it either**. However, to be consistent, my comment about the CC applies to the Metholidst church you refer to.

So WHY do you keep on saying that Catholics who dissent from Catholic teachings have ‘invented’ the equivalent of "Catholicism A, B, C, or even PseudoCatholicism, Post Catholicism’ etc. such that there is no ONE Catholic faith but a bunch of ‘equal’ but different faiths? Because some here continue to make a BIG deal about 40,000 denominations.

Please stop dodging and explain why you only say this of Catholics. ** I don’t, as I’ve just proven above**.

 

[Dokimas]

But it has to be one or the other–either it IS correct or it ISN’T. Which one is it?

You didn’t bring the whole discussion forward so I can’t comment until I know what you are referring to.

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black.

Actually, he is inaccurate. My statement that SS is heresy is not my “opinion” but a Teaching of the Church. ** If you are emty minded, then you blindly believe what the CC teaches. If you are a thinker and believe what you have said, then you own your opinion (right or wrong). So which is it?**

The fact I also stated that following it has created untold division in the Body is not my opinion either, but an historial fact. **SS did not cause division **- wrong understanding did!!!

IT is his way of saying disdainfully WHAT? Are you judging now? that he does not like or agree with my comment** I don’t like OR dislike your statements**; **I DO disagree **(so we’re even; you OFTEN disagree with me. Do you ever dislike what I say?).

 

[Dokimas]

Ah. I see what you’re saying–an *opinion *then, as Dokimas is stating in this context, is something akin to a preference, as in “I prefer vanilla over chocolate”? Thus, it’s neither right nor wrong.

That, then, is not correct, Dokimas. We are stating truths about religious faith. Either those truths are correct, or incorrect. They’re not just preferences!

NOPE. I’m stating ‘opinion’ fully knowing that it could be correct or it could be incorrect on the issues commented on.

Need I say, if I hold a different OPINION, I think the oposite opinion in wrong. Don’t you think that when someone’s opinion on issues of the Bible that are different than yours, they are wrong?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo in black

No, you are still dodging the issue.

You particularly have said, several times, that because 'Catholics disagree with their church teachings, Catholicism is really not one faith but a bunch of different interpretations, just like all the different denominations in Protestantism" TRUE. That’s what I said.

I have shown you that simply because, say, Methodists have a percentage of their followers who disagree with certain Methodist teachings, you don’t say that METHODISM is composed of Methodism A where the people follow X teachings but deny Y teachings, Methodism B where the people follow Y teachings but deny X, Protomethodism where the people follow A, B and C but deny D, Post Methodism where they have ‘reinterpreted X but repudiated Y’. I didn’t deny it either. However, to be consistent, my comment about the CC applies to the Metholidst church you refer to.

So WHY do you keep on saying that Catholics who dissent from Catholic teachings have ‘invented’ the equivalent of "Catholicism A, B, C, or even PseudoCatholicism, Post Catholicism’ etc. such that there is no ONE Catholic faith but a bunch of ‘equal’ but different faiths? Because some here continue to make a BIG deal about 40,000 denominations.

Please stop dodging and explain why you only say this of Catholics. I don’t, as I’ve just proven above.

So actually then, if you say that the Methodists who ‘dissent’ from Methodist teachings are starting a whole bunch of different “Methodist A, B, C, Proto, Pseudo, Post” etc. teachings. . .

Then you have far more than 40,000 protestant denominations, don’t you?

If 50% of Methodists are starting their own ‘separate denoms within Methodism" such that they are not all a ‘unity of Methodist faith’. . .then you could have literally 40,000 different "Methodist denoms’ alone.

I think you’ve really put yourself way out on a limb here.

I doubt if other Protestants would agree with you. So why is your personal ‘opinion’ to be held as truth when other Protestants don’t agree with you?

 

[Dokimas]

So actually then, if you say that the Methodists who ‘dissent’ from Methodist teachings are starting a whole bunch of different “Methodist A, B, C, Proto, Pseudo, Post” etc. teachings. . .

Then you have far more than 40,000 protestant denominations, don’t you?

If 50% of Methodists are starting their own ‘separate denoms within Methodism" such that they are not all a ‘unity of Methodist faith’. . .then you could have literally 40,000 different "Methodist denoms’ alone.

I think you’ve really put yourself way out on a limb here.

I doubt if other Protestants would agree with you. So why is your personal ‘opinion’ to be held as truth when other Protestants don’t agree with you?

Can’t you see how silly this is?​

I’m responsible for what I believe; not for what anyone else believes. That being said, I’m responsible for sharing the Truth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can’t you see how silly this is?​

I’m responsible for what I believe; not for what anyone else believes. That being said, I’m responsible for sharing the Truth.

And what is the Truth? You’ve been saying, over and over, that the Catholic faith is not a unity of faith, in which at any given point some of its members may not actually ‘practice’ some parts of it; you’re saying that by some of its members not practicing some parts, they are actually making lots of different ‘individual’ (i.e., not a unity) faiths just like Protestant denominations.

And we keep saying that is not so.

Furthermore, I have yet to see other Protestants coming on to say, oh yes that’s right Doki, there are at least 40,000 different Methodist ‘faiths’ and the Methodist faith is not a unity of faith. There are at least 40,000 different Baptist faiths and the Baptist faith is not a unity of faith. . .etc. etc.

If anything is silly, it is your insistence on making statements which you don’t back up and then try to dodge around by insisting that ‘you’re right’ and you don’t NEED to prove it, and the problem is with us for questioning you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sadly, we all can have our moments where we can truly be more ‘condemning’ than welcoming.

We do have to be careful though to separate appearance from reality.

Suppose you can only ‘hear’ a parent and a tiny child, not see them. You hear the parent yell’ No’ in a loud, harsh tone and then you hear the sound of a slap and then a child crying loudly.

What would you think? Many would think that the parent was abusing the child. Many would find the ‘tone of voice’ of the parent to be offensive. Many would find themselves feeling extreme ‘sadness’ and pity at the child crying.

Now suppose that suddenly you see what was happening as well as ‘hear’ it.

You see the child about to pull over a pan of boiling water which would scald him severely. You hear the parent yell, see the child, though startled, still reaching, and see the parent slap the child’s hand away before he pulls over the pan. The child is safe but crying from the slap.

Suddenly the harshness in the parent’s voice is seen to be from fear of the child’s hurt and LOVE of the child. The slap is done not to ‘hurt’ the child out of anger but to save the child from a dreadful burn. While the child suffers a momentary ‘sting’ of pain, it will soon be over and indeed, the parent, after a moment to breathe a sigh of relief --the child is safe!–will be moving in to soothe and comfort the child, to explain what happened and why.

Often a harsh ‘tone’ (especially noticeable in a medium where the printed word is often all we see) is ‘perceived’ by a reader as being anger and hate toward the reader, but it is actually more fear and love (just as above). A child does not know that Mommy or Daddy’s ‘angry voice’ can be used in situations of more than simple ‘anger at me’. Only the child growing older and becoming more mature and having more experience, indeed often only the child growing up and having children of his or her own and then experiencing things from the ‘parental’ point of view, can enable the child to understand that Mommy and Daddy were not ‘mad’ at him when he was about to pull over boiling water.

I’m not saying that all ‘angry voices’ are coming from people who are really all sweetness and light. And I’m not saying that all the readers who react with “why are you so angry at me” are as simple and inexperienced as a 2-year-old. No analogy is perfect and none covers all situations. But we do need to be aware that mere ‘perception’ by any of us (no matter what the perception is) is not necessarily an accurate understanding.

That being said, there have been a few remarks here on this thread that did appear to cross the line to personal anger. Hopefully they were made in a combination of ignorance and haste and are being repented. Hopefully too we will be aware of these and repudiate the erroneous sentiments, whether these statements are made about those who ‘support’ us or not.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Guanophore in black

But I dont’ think you believe you need to be evangelized, do you? What is different about your sins, and the sins of Catholics, that when they sin, it is a sign they need to be evangelized?

Where did I say I evangelize catholics because they are catholics? Where did I say my sins are different (by your implication, less) than catholics? You continue to misinterpret what I say and add to what I say meanings that are WRONG. How can we have a good discussion with you continually doing so?

You think the successor of Peter should “quit” since those under his authority sinned? NO. Because he, according to accounts, ‘covered it up’ in some way, knowingly.

You are right. It would be much easier for us if you would just plainly address the OP. As it is, you seem to be taking potshots at the Catholic Church based upon the sinful acts of those who are attached to her. Then, when you are confronted about it, you dodge.

I have addressed the issue; you must have missed it. My other comments were in response to others, not pot shots at anyone. Point out a dodge and I’ll try harder to be more direct.

Why do you feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics? ** I’ve addressed the issue**. I’m not here to proselytize. I’ve made that clear over and over and over again in many, many ways.

Yes. Every day. So the pope has admitted to covering up the sexual abuse by at least one person in his charge?

Yes, and Jesus restored him before Pentecost also. So you think that the Pope should step down because he does not have the HS in him?

STOP wrongly reading into what I’ve said. Don’t you dislike being so often wrong? ** I have made NO comment about the pope and the Holy Spirit.** If he is ‘born again’ he has the Holy Spirit. PERIOD!!! ** I’m NOT the judge who is or who is not ‘born again’.** HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR???

Indeed yes. But there is no reason, according to SS that there cannot be. Each man interprets according to his own idea of what is right. All believe they are led by the HS.

SS teaches that the Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit. PLAIN and SIMPLE!!!

I am reading that you think the pope should step down, because members of his flock were wayward. WRONG reading!!! Perhaps you believe he is not a Christian WRONG understanding - I have no clue, does not have the HS,a nd needs to be evangelized? **ABSOLUTELY WRONG **once again. Don’t you get tired of being wrong about someone else???

These sentiments, together with SS, have done much to divide the Body. ** I didn’t make the statement first about Christians**!!! ** I just made the observation that it seems to be common to both sides**.

Dokimas, would you please use the function correctly? You obviously know how to change colors, bold, etc. When you don’t use the function other have to pick apart your post in order to respond. It’s difficult to do.

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

SS teaches that the Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit. PLAIN and SIMPLE!!!

Doki, please provide the Scripture verses which say that the “Bible interprets itself through the Holy Spirit.”

 

[PRmerger]

Dokimas, would you please use the function correctly? You obviously know how to change colors, bold, etc. When you don’t use the function other have to pick apart your post in order to respond. It’s difficult to do.

Thank you.

Yes. When you want to insert your response, you have to put this ] at the end of the original post (where /QUOTE is inside the ]

I think you’re not using the backslash, Doki

" / " then QUOTE so it looks like this: blah blah blah

except that these <> are replaced with these ]