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

[Roy5]

That Christ established the Catholic Church is one of the doctrines on which Christians disagree. They agree that his teachings led to the Christian church, but was it the Catholic Church as we know it today? Millions of Christians believe that Catholicism went ‘off the track’ during the Medieval Age and incorporated many elements from Greco-Roman religion, including the Papacy as a ‘replacement’ for the Roman emporer. Many see the emphasis on saints as a modified (‘baptized’) continuation of many of the pagan gods and goddesses, As for Mary, if she is to be so venerated, why did the earliest written books of the scriptural canon, the epistles of Paul, make no reference to Mary whatsoever?

Frankly, I think Christianity should be broad enough to incorporate different views, since the Bible and the world are so complex. This notion that there is only one true church has disturbed me since childhood. There have been profound and devout scholars holding many different views, and I tend to respect them all. We can learn from them all.

 Did you see the piece in the current Newsweek about the former professor of theology at Catholic U who was dismissed? He writes that he remains a Catholic priest but teaches Catholic theology at Southern Methodist University. I like that interchange of ideas - a Catholic priest teaching Catholcism in a major Protestant university, and vice versa. Sounds like a good arrangement to help Christians better understand one another.

 This squabble beginning with the Reformation has gone on just about 500 years now. It's time to wrap it up. There remains too much stubborn, close-minded tribalism. Vatican II seemed to move in the direction of reconciliation, but in more recent years bitterness appears to still be widespread, as expressed here on CAF as well as among Protestant and secular bigots. 

 God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

 

[wanner47]

That Christ established the Catholic Church is one of the doctrines on which Christians disagree. They agree that his teachings led to the Christian church, but was it the Catholic Church as we know it today?

Read the early Church fathers and you’ll see that yes, it is indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 5:32 “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

These are the Words of Jesus.

Again, Dokimas, it does not say that the “innocent party can get a divorce but that the guilty party cannot”. That is adding to Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

So I have to assume that since this is the case, is it because you feel that you have a need to show us Catholics just how wrong we are and that you are the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture.

I have never felt that Dokimas is here to show us just how wrong we are. I think that he came to sincerely question why we believe what we believe.

However, I don’t think he’s open to considering, “hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps the Catholics are right on this point.”

 

[wmscott]

I have never felt that Dokimas is here to show us just how wrong we are. I think that he came to sincerely question why we believe what we believe.

However, I don’t think he’s open to considering, “hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps the Catholics are right on this point.”

I am not so sure. This is not the first time that I have been involved with him and the end result is the same. I may have missed it but I have never seen where Dokimas has said “hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps the Catholics are right on this point” no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary. Even now he continues to ignore the truth. If anything positive comes form this, it will possibly be a lurker or two who have had the opportunity to see what the real truth is about Catholic beliefs and not some warped falsehood believed by those who are not willing to admit a mistake, open themselves up to the truth, and see us for who we truly are and what we believe. I will wager that Dokimas did not even read what was provided to him.

 

[Dokimas]

Again, Dokimas, it does not say that the “innocent party can get a divorce but that the guilty party cannot”. That is adding to Scripture.

I read the plain words of Jesus differently than you. Time to move on, I guess.

 

[Dokimas]

I have never felt that Dokimas is here to show us just how wrong we are. I think that he came to sincerely question why we believe what we believe.

However, I don’t think he’s open to considering, “hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps the Catholics are right on this point.”

Can we be fair? Have you ever said ‘hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps Doki’s understanding is correct’? No because that would mean the CC in not 100% correct and that can not be.

I, however, am able to, if I see that there’s a good Scriptural reason, change my understanding to that of the CC without being tied to a church’s understanding.

 

[Dokimas]

I am not so sure. This is not the first time that I have been involved with him and the end result is the same. I may have missed it but I have never seen where Dokimas has said “hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps the Catholics are right on this point” no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary. Even now he continues to ignore the truth. If anything positive comes form this, it will possibly be a lurker or two who have had the opportunity to see what the real truth is about Catholic beliefs and not some warped falsehood believed by those who are not willing to admit a mistake, open themselves up to the truth, and see us for who we truly are and what we believe. I will wager that Dokimas did not even read what was provided to him.

Can we be fair? Have you ever said ‘hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps Doki’s understanding is correct’? No because that would mean the CC in not 100% correct and that can not be.

I, however, am able to, if I see that there’s a good Scriptural reason, change my understanding to that of the CC without being tied to a church’s understanding.​

I read most, if not all, the Bible verses given to support your understanding; not just yours but anyone’s verses that makes their point. I read very little of what others outside this formun believes about an issue.

 

[Roy5]

Wanner47

Yes, I've read the Church Fathers, many of them. Three points.

1. The Church Fathers who are recognized as the Church Fathers today agree generally with the Catholic Church because the rest were viewed as heretics and their works didn't survive in many cases. 

2. There were various Church Fathers, among them Arius, Tertullian, Origen, etc., who were considered heretics but some of their works have survived. A number of heretic works by early church leaders have been found in fairly recent times. 

3. In reading the Church Fathers, I found that they were brilliant for their age, but their writings are full of scientific errors since they had poor telescopes and no microscopes. They also contain various superstitions that the Catholic Church has since minimized, such as demons causing disease, etc. True, there is exorcism, but I find this very controversial among rank-and-file Catholics.

 As I mentioned, in some sense St. Paul was the 'founder' of the Church, the great missionary apostle who established churches across much of the ancient world. His epistles bristle with theology, what the early Christians should believe. Yet, he doesn't once mention Mary in those letters. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if Mary was to be venerated as she is today that her name would be mentioned in at least one of those many epistles?

  I'm not arguing against Catholicism. It seems to me that there is some evidence to support different opinions on a variety of issues, and instead of being so definitive and defensive and narrow in its doctrines the Church should accept different opinions as options as long as we believe in Christ and seek to love God and one another. For example, I find it difficult to assume that Mary lived a sinless life. The Bible tells us that "all have sinned and come short....." I have a problem with - what is it? - 10,000 saints, one for just about every vocation, condition, nation, need, etc. I doubt that Fr. Pio, now a canonized saint, belocated and levitated, among his many other miracles. Accuse me of being influenced by science and reason, and maybe that's my problem. I find that millions of others have the same problem, and the Church seems to move in the direction of narrowing its dogmae instead of providing more room for intellectual inquiry, freedom, and expression.

  God gave us brains. I suspect that he is pleased when we use them to his glory. I certainly don't believe we are to be punished by a just and merciful God because we stray from creeds and other traditions going back hundreds of years. In the Apostles Creed, for example, we conclude by saying that "I believe in....the resurrection of the body." In that context it means our bodies. Honestly, I believe in spiritual resurrection, the resurrection of the soul, but probably not of the body. A reasonable belief 2000 years ago, maybe, but not today - in my view. Does that mean I am some sort of rebellious heretic? Sounds more like a straight-jacket than a huge, diverse, catholic community.

  God bless people of every creed, color, and country.

 

[PRmerger]

I I will wager that Dokimas did not even read what was provided to him.

<sigh…> Yes, I think you are correct. :sad_yes:

 

[LMC20608]

All who believe in Christ are in one church. Jesus welcomed all, that is the church I belong to. There is no need to divide and label into “catholics” and “non-catholics”. God is love, the Bible is his word, that is the Truth. If you fear for these people who are “at a spiritual low and weakened in his or her faith” will not follow the Catholic way of Christianity the flaw lies in the religion, not in the people speaking truth to them. If their faith crumbles at questioning then they do not stand on the Rock of Christianity that those “non-Catholics” have found. Questioning is good, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:2 (ESV)

"If Protestants believe that Catholics are Christians, then why the need to prostulize them… I find this a perilous and arrogant position to take. Is it a matter of pride and believing that your beliefs and faith is the only legitimate one? "
-Why do you worry that people will convert and not be Catholics? Do you think that other denominations or non-denominational Christians are less legitimate? Because your entire question/argument is proving that you view converting out of catholicism is a problem? We worship the same God, why do you fret over this instead of worrying about the unsaved? The un-christian? Those are the people we should reach out to.

How are your beliefs and faiths superior to the Catholic beliefs and faiths? Remember we all have the same Bible and aside from some grammatical differences in whatever translation, the Catholic and Protestant Gospels are the same.
-Our beliefs are not superior. Catholics and protestants do follow different bibles. The Gospels, God, basics are the same but their are critical differences in the faiths and practices.

God is Love,
Lin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

There is no need to divide and label into “catholics” and “non-catholics”. God is love, the Bible is his word, that is the Truth. If you fear for these people who are “at a spiritual low and weakened in his or her faith” will not follow the Catholic way of Christianity the flaw lies in the religion, not in the people speaking truth to them.

If the first part of your post is correct then the second part is a waste of time. If there is no distinction then there is no reason for non-Catholics to try to convert Catholics.

-Why do you worry that people will convert and not be Catholics? Do you think that other denominations or non-denominational Christians are less legitimate? Because your entire question/argument is proving that you view converting out of catholicism is a problem? We worship the same God, why do you fret over this instead of worrying about the unsaved? The un-christian? Those are the people we should reach out to.

For me it is because most Protestants (from my experience with those who try to convert Catholics. Not all do.) think that if they can prove Catholicism wrong that the Catholic will automatically become Protestant. A lot of the times it doesn’t work that way. A Protestant may very well be able to “prove” to someone that Catholicism is in error and in doing so talk someone out of the Christian faith all together. You see no danger in that?

Our beliefs are not superior. Catholics and protestants do follow different bibles. The Gospels, God, basics are the same but their are critical differences in the faiths and practices.

Who is “our”? Do you speak for all of Protestantism? Are there not “critical differences” between Protestant denominations? Baptism? Communion? How come you can look past these “critical differences” when it comes to other Protestants but not when it comes to Catholics?

God bless you

 

[PRmerger]

All who believe in Christ are in one church. Jesus welcomed all, that is the church I belong to. There is no need to divide and label into “catholics” and “non-catholics”. God is love, the Bible is his word, that is the Truth. If you fear for these people who are “at a spiritual low and weakened in his or her faith” will not follow the Catholic way of Christianity the flaw lies in the religion, not in the people speaking truth to them. If their faith crumbles at questioning then they do not stand on the Rock of Christianity that those “non-Catholics” have found. Questioning is good, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:2 (ESV)

"If Protestants believe that Catholics are Christians, then why the need to prostulize them… I find this a perilous and arrogant position to take. Is it a matter of pride and believing that your beliefs and faith is the only legitimate one? "
-Why do you worry that people will convert and not be Catholics? Do you think that other denominations or non-denominational Christians are less legitimate? Because your entire question/argument is proving that you view converting out of catholicism is a problem? We worship the same God, why do you fret over this instead of worrying about the unsaved? The un-christian? Those are the people we should reach out to.

How are your beliefs and faiths superior to the Catholic beliefs and faiths? Remember we all have the same Bible and aside from some grammatical differences in whatever translation, the Catholic and Protestant Gospels are the same.
-Our beliefs are not superior. Catholics and protestants do follow different bibles. The Gospels, God, basics are the same but their are critical differences in the faiths and practices.

God is Love,
Lin

Lin, how is saying that “Christianity is the true religion” (which I assume you would say to a Muslim) any different than a Catholic saying, “Catholicism is the One True Church”?

Isn’t it the same paradigm?

 

[guanophore]

’ Not permitted’ sounds like ‘forbidden’ to me.

I agree. I think it is a poor choice of words. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage to anyone. Nor can she "not permit’ anyone to marry.

The Latin Rite chooses from among those called to celibacy to serve in these roles. If they wish to abandon their freely chosen and embraced vows to celibacy, the can certainly do so.

'Paul taught that biships could be married but to one woman.

Actually, he did not. But if a man was married, he was not to be a polygamist. That includes the serial polygamy that is common today, getting married, divorced, then remarried.

If Paul had taught that, he would have disqualified himself, as well as the person to whom he was writing! Those that were trained by Paul understood his instructions, and they have been followed by the Church ever since he gave them.

Modern American Evangelicals, separated from the Apostolic succession, misunderstand the teachings because they read scripture apart from knowing what the Apostles believed and taught.

'How do you know that Timothy and Titus were unmarried?

Because they were Catholics, and they were part of the Apostolic Succession, and we keep track of stuff like that. It is part of the faith that is not included in the scriptures.

’ I’m sure their lives would be easier being single, with all the travel they did.

Well, as Paul pointed out, all of them had the “right” to have a believing wife to accompany them. Those whose wives did come were supported by them, just as Jesus was supported by “the women” who accompanied him.

 

[guanophore]

I do not need the CC to tell me that divorce is wrong. Jesus told us NOT to get a divorce (except for infidelity).

Actually, you do! If it were not for the CC, you would have no way of knowing this.

-BTW, many catholics get divorce. And for enough money, it can be annulled by the church.

Yes it is deplorable.

But an anullment is not a divorce, and it is not related to money. It is about the conditions under which the couple united.​

• Jesus, Paul nor John made it a ‘law’ to be single to serve as pastors or bishops or apostles.

You are right, and the Church follows their example. The present decision of the Latin Rite to choose clergy from among those called to the celibate life is a discipline, and could be changed.

 

[guanophore]

-Could you please highlight above where Jesus mandated celebacy? Thank you.

You seem to be confused, Doki. It is not possible to “mandate” celibacy. Celibacy in this context is a gift from God, and no human has control over that. Jesus said that those to whom the gift is given “should” receive it. It cannot be mandated. It can only be received.

The Church prefers to choose from among those who have received this gift from God.

Could you highlight above where Paul mandated celebacy? Thank you.

For some reason you think that the Church choosing from among those who are called to it is a “mandate”. Not sure where you get that. Is this coming from some anti-Catholic propoganda source?

Paul was strongly in favor of celibacy, especially those who were serving the Church. That is one reason we know that marriage was not a requirement to serve. Modern American Evangelicals have gotten a very mixed up understanding on this point.

Could you show me where this verse applies to anyone but the 144,000 male Jews during a future time in human history, most likely during the Great Tribulation and their job is to witness to fellow Jews.

I think this concept of the future is off the topic in this thread.

Suffice to say that God approves those who choose to dedicate themselves to HIs service, even refraining from marriage to devote themselves to Him.

Is this why you think Catholics need to be evangelized? Because we affirm that celibacy is a gift from God?

 

[guanophore]

There was a 10 year gap of communication between myself and a priest friend. He contacted me last year, back in his own province and asked me to see his webpage. I could not believe all that he did for others…he is needed by so many. If he were married, he could not have done so much with the integrity of faith that he has.

And this is exactly what Paul is teaching. A married man is to focus on pleasing his wife, and raising his family. This is a sacred duty. An unmarried man is able to devote his time and energy to serve the flock, because he is not distracted by other duties.

 

[guanophore]

–
Oh, while I’m thinking about it, you sure do give the CC the stature of the Holy Spirit in telling us that it’s the church that is responsible for the Bible that tells me not to commit adultery.

Actually, it is the HS that gives stature to the Church. The HS is the Soul of the Church. As is reflected at the council of Jerusalem in Acts, the Church still functions in unity together with the teaching authority appointed by Christ, and the HS. That is what makes the teaching of the Church infallible. It is not the humans, but the HS that provides the divine infallible element. this is why, when the Church reaches a decision about what books go in the Bible, and the parameters of adultery, it can be said just like in Acts “it seemed right to the HS and to us”…

–BTW, the CC is not responsible for the OT. It told us not to commit adultery long before Trent.

On the contrary, the CC is definitely responsbile for the OT. This responsibility was given to the Apostles by Jesus. This is how we know that the Alexandrian Septuagint is the right collection of books - this is the one that Jesus used to teach the Apostles.

You are right, God’s commandments about adultery came a long time before Trent. So did the gift of celibacy!

 

[guanophore]

I was told that Jesus, Paul and John mandated church leaders to be celebate. I was directed to the verses above. I responded by asking to be shown where the mandated is.

I am sorry that you were misled, or misunderstood. Perhaps if you can point me to where you were given this misinformation then we can try to correct it? If you were not given it my someone here on CAF, then it may be that you are persisting in this misinformation needlessly.

I have NEVER said pastors or bishops MUST be married. I has shown the verse from Paul where he says they should only have one wife. My point has ALWAYS been that a church has no Biblical grounds to mandate celebacy (and let me add marriage) for their leaders.

At least we are in agreement about something!

 

[Dokimas]

Well, as Paul pointed out, all of them had the “right” to have a believing wife to accompany them. Those whose wives did come were supported by them, just as Jesus was supported by “the women” who accompanied him.

Too bad young men in catholic seminaries studying for the priesthood can’t experience this, not because they have to, but because they may want to chose to be married. That choice is taken away, if they want to be a priest, hoping one day to be a bishop and maybe a cardinal.