C
Church_Militant
Guest
Your opinion does not align with the Word of God, as I’ve already shown. Let us know when you are given the authority to overrule the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. (I don’t see that happening…)
A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well, based upon your discussion thus far it was important that I get some real clarification.
L
LMC20608
Guest
I see great error in speaking anyone out of following Christ, yes. I don’t however, think that it is solely a protestant attack on catholics that does this. I have been attacked many a time by catholics because i worship differently and have doubted my own faith because of it. There is great danger in this for both sides, I didn’t think you meant protestants talking people out of Christianity, I thought you meant people sharing their protestant faith and talking them out of Catholicism.
Sorry when I say “our” I mean as Christians. All these denominations that are different (I shouldn’t have said “critical”) that have a relationship with God and believe in Christ as their savior should be one.
Hope that better explains what I meant.
L
LMC20608
Guest
The One True Church you refer to I believe is the church of Christ. All christians belong to this church, all denominations. It would not be the same because Muslims have a totally different faith.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Hogwash cleans hogs. Nice touch.
In your own words, 'our Lord called some to celibacy and the Bible teaches NOT all are called to celibacy. You and the Bible then are in agreement.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Where have I tried to over rule the Lord? You, yourself, said Jesus only called some which means others were called differently so my statement stands with what the Bible teaches.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But it’s the same paradigm, Lin. A Muslim could say, "All who believe in One God belong to the same religion. There is no need to divide us into Christian and Muslim."
You’re saying the same thing, essentially. “All who believe in Christ belong to the same religion. There is no need to divide us into Protestant and Catholic.”
Yet, clearly, when Christians discuss religion with Muslims we are not at liberty to ignore all the untruths their religion professes. Yes, we are agreed on many points, but to the degree that their faith departs from Christianity is the degree that they are wrong.
Similarly, when Catholics discuss religion with Protestants we are not at liberty to ignore all the untruths a denomination may profess. Yes, we are agreed on many points, but to the degree that said denomination departs from the Apostolic Teaching is the degree to which it is wrong.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yep, the Bible, the Catholic Church, and me.
D
Dokimas
Guest
That’s quite a statement: you, the Bible and the CC are on a par with each other. Some of your catholic friends here have said the CC equates with the Holy Spirit. So you think you are on a par with the Holy Spirit?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Let’s see what exactly your post said.
You sit there and assert that the Catholic Church errs (that’s what “**does itself a disservice” **means in that context, right?) with celibacy for our priests.
That’s where you err IMO. Rather than criticize something that has a clear scriptural basis, perhaps you should criticize those n-C clergy that don’t even bother to discern a celibate priesthood because of errant teaching from their own pulpits.
According to the way you have interpreted scripture a poor man considering ministry would be counseled that to remain unmarried would be a bad thing. (We know this for a fact from most of the n-C posts on this topic as well as the amount of a-C propaganda easily found.) I believe that that is wrong.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hmm. Funny, the impression that I got from his post was that he, the Bible, and the CC were not ‘on par’ with each other but in agreement with each other.
IOW, that Scripture supports the teaching of the CC which he accepts.
**I don’t know why you then segued into a charge of him placing himself on a par with the Holy Spirit. . . **
I mean, if you want to disagree with what he says, do so. . .but don’t make a strawman, and disagree with that, and act as though you have addressed the actual post. . .
So tell us, Doki, when you accept the teachings of your Church, are you putting yourself on par with your Church and Scripture the way you accuse others of putting themselves on par with Church and Scripture?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Don’t divert Dokimas. Anyone who has the IQ of a garden plant knows that I have in no way even infered that I have any such authority.
The point I was making was that I agree with both the other two sources. ***To Dokimas…***You might wish I meant otherwise…but you’ll have to keep dreaming.
Thank you TE.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No Catholic here on this thread has put himself on the level as the Church and the Holy Spirit! 
R
Roy5
Guest
Gosh, this topic fascinates me, as many others do, too, but time is at a premium, so let me just say a few things in response.
Code:
**Church Fathers** Those viewed as Church Fathers today are because one Christian faction won. Had the Gnostics won, we'd be reading Marcion, Cerinthus, Basilides, Simon Magus and others. If the Monarchians had won Theodotus and Paul of Samosata would be studied in the seminaries. If Seballianism (Modalism) had become the orthodox belief, Sabellius, Peareus, Noetus and Epigones would be among our Church Fathers.
The Church Fathers disagreed with one another, one reason why such great minds as Tertullian and Origen lost their status. I don't recall the various points (it's been some years since I read up on all this), but as I remember Origen, for example, said that the Bible could not be taken literally in many places, as it was immoral and non-believable at those spots, so he treated much of scripture as allegorical. So he was dropped from the approved list of Church Fathers. Personally I found the works of Origen especially provocative and interesting.
**Pagan influences**. I don't want to overstate things, but there appear to be many pagan influences in Christianity, many of them adopted from mystery religions or Greco-Roman polytheism. I forgot the number, but a variety of gods were born at the time of the winter equinox, on or about Dec. 25. There seems to be evidence that Sun worship may have influenced the moving of the Sabbath from the 7th to the 1st day - Sunday. Then we have Moonday - and every other day is named after a pagan god or goddess. Same with the planets. And we could go on and on. Lots of feast days fall today on days that already were observed for somewhat similar reasons in one or another pagan faith.
This doesn't invalidate Christianity of course, but it should make us aware that some doctrines and rites may have been influenced by the ethos of the time. Frankly, I think it isn't obvious that the Pope became the undisputed head of the western church until the time of Gregory the Great (590 AD?). Before that evidence suggests that the various bishops zealously guarded their diocese from outside control, even from Rome. Before that Constantine had moved the seat of the empire to Constantinople and synods and dioceses.in the East looked to that city as the seat of ecclesiatical authority, although with more of an emphasis on 'first among equals' which was lost with the growing dominance of the Roman bishop in the west.
So much more to say, but is it worth my time? I doubt it. Tribalism is strong, and those who want to believe something will believe it whatever.... And that's okay with me. My problem is that I have great sympathy for independent thinkers within the church, people of intelligence and curiosity who find it hard to give their assent to everything that Catholics are supposed to believe. So many have been lost. I think that there should be more room in the church for different viewpoints. For example, I think priests should have the freedom to marry, but Pope John Paul II, as I recall, took that issue off the table. not even to be discussed. I personally think it's not important whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or that she and Joseph had other children - no sin in that, actually a more attractive Holy Family in my view. You can get an annulment (I believe) if a couple doesn't have normal marital relations.
Oh, well, off to other duties and concerns. God bless everybody.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I was only pointing out that this is a very real possibility, trying to convert a Catholic out of Catholicism only to have him/her denounce the Christian faith altogether. If you believe that all denominations are the same then the risk (denouncing Christianity) is no where near the reward (denouncing just Catholicism and becoming Protestant).
So then how does this not include Catholics? I took your “our” to mean non-Catholic Christians ie Protestants.
Catholics have a relationship with God and believe Christ is their savior.
God bless you
D
Dokimas
Guest
Note the purple highlight from your post. That’s exactly what I did to you and you didn’t like it and your friends came to your support. I knew you were NOT making yourself on a par with the Holy Spirit. I destorted what you said to see the reaction. Know you know how I feel when you and many others distort what I say.
BTW, sorry for doing so. It wasn’t right nor fair.
I am tired of this happening to me is NO reason for using you as an example. Sorry again.
If I understand you in the red highlight, you are wrong to understand me through what other say. I am not anti-catholic (I’m assuming a-C means anti-catholic). I speak for NO ONE but for me and upon occation that God still speaks through donkeys, maybe God uses me.
D
Dokimas
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Umm. Interesting also that you admitted that you knew exactly what he meant and yet chose to distort what he said (and you apologized for that).
So, if YOU were aware that you were distorting what was said, what is your problem with CM’s post? Obviously he was as aware of your intelligence as you could wish. Equally obviously since you really did not believe what you then said but were ‘distorting’, you’re proving his point that only a person with a low IQ could have believed or posted the distortion you did and believe that distortion.
You say you knew that you distorted, so you don’t believe it, so obviously you do not have the IQ of a garden plant. (CM, were you watching MASH reruns? I seem to recall Trapper John saying that Radar had the IQ of a house plant in an old episode. . .)
**
So unless you’re trying to play the martyr card of “Look what mean old CM called me, how unChristian” . . . and that right after you admitted doing something WRONG YOURSELF. . .you might just want to consider deleting that last little post of yours. . .**
B
beehumble
Guest
First of all, Protestants should stop using the Bible, or at least the New Testament portion thereof. The Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics for Catholics.
Where would protestants be without the Bible? The Bible did not even exist for the first twenty years after Jesus ascended, at least. Jesus did not have the new Testament, nor did the Apostles.
The entire premise of sola scriptura is not Bible-based. It is a man-made idea ‘invented’ in the 15th century or thereabouts.
It is weird that after the Protestants removed books from the (Catholic) Bible, they ended up with a number that could be taken as the mark of the beast – they have 66 books! This should give them a clue.
That and the fact that their scaled-down version of the Bible is based on books those Jews who denied Jesus is Messiah defined as the OT canon. Contrary to that, the Catholic Bible is based on the books used by Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus said “I am with you always, even unto the end of time”. Always does not mean, “first I am going away for 1100 years starting around the 4th century, and will return in truth through the likes of a man named Luther in about the 15th century. I will let those who live in that time when I am gone flounder and die outside of truth. See how powerful the Holy Spirit is!”
All Protestants should read the early Church fathers before saying anything against Catholicism.
God Bless you all!
Where would protestants be without the Bible? The Bible did not even exist for the first twenty years after Jesus ascended, at least. Jesus did not have the new Testament, nor did the Apostles.
The entire premise of sola scriptura is not Bible-based. It is a man-made idea ‘invented’ in the 15th century or thereabouts.
It is weird that after the Protestants removed books from the (Catholic) Bible, they ended up with a number that could be taken as the mark of the beast – they have 66 books! This should give them a clue.
That and the fact that their scaled-down version of the Bible is based on books those Jews who denied Jesus is Messiah defined as the OT canon. Contrary to that, the Catholic Bible is based on the books used by Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus said “I am with you always, even unto the end of time”. Always does not mean, “first I am going away for 1100 years starting around the 4th century, and will return in truth through the likes of a man named Luther in about the 15th century. I will let those who live in that time when I am gone flounder and die outside of truth. See how powerful the Holy Spirit is!”
All Protestants should read the early Church fathers before saying anything against Catholicism.
God Bless you all!
D
Dokimas
Guest
She/he posted that before my apology.
This is not martyrdom.The post stands.
I’ll wait for you to ‘stick up’ for those CM destorts, whether purposely or not. Let’s be fair. BTW, it’s not just CM that destorts so I’ll keep my eye on you for your support against others who do the same. I’m sure CM appreciates your support.
- Status