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

[Dokimas]

Except when it’s a daisy.

Not at all; simply an observation based on what I know of his character.

When is a rose a daisy?

You know the man personally?

 

[guanophore]

There is plenty of sexual sins from leaders of churches that allow marriage. I’d be a hypocrite to point a finger at the CC for that reason.

Two reasons, really. What you are saying is true, though Catholics have a greater sin, because more has been revealed to us.

However, your statement also implies that the CC does not “allow marriage”, which is purporting a falsehood, It is hypocritical because the truth has been explained to you, and you have rejected it.

That being said, the CC does itself a disservice limiting its pool of pastoral candidates to only those who claim they’ve been called to celebacy, IMO.

I suppose this would be true, if “pastoring” were limited to celibate priests, but it is not. If you were to look into this, you would find that the pastoral councils for Latin Rite parishies in the US are primarily comprised of married laypersons.

As far as the “claim to be called to celibacy”, this seems like a derogatory charge. It is true that it takes time and guidance to discern God’s gifts in one’s life, and that people’s understanding of their gift can change. But every person who is ordained has clarity about the discipline, and freely embraces their vows. If they are disingenuous, why do you blame the Church for that?

• Could you name one belief you or the CC have changed their minds about after study and discussion with non-catholic Christians?

I could not . The doctrines of the faith were handed down to us from the Apostles, and cannot be “changed”. What does change is our understanding, and how the One Faith is to be applied to our modern situation. A good example is our understanding of our separated brethren. Originally, Reformers were heretics. Now we understand that their spiritual descendents have never been introduced to the fullness of the faith, and therefore, cannot qualify for the status of heretics, even though they unknowingly embrace heretical ideas.

• I’ve changed some of my understanding after speaking to catholics. I remember a precious nun who helped me see miracles done by Jesus for what they were, miracles, not naturally occuring happenings.

This is great! I hope this continues. Perhaps you will realize that the Catholic church does not forbid foods, or marriage?

• Can we agree that cherry pickers should not throw cherry pits.

Definitely.

 

[Dokimas]

Friends, this has worn me out so I’m off to bed (not to mention I must get up early tomorrow).

God be with, bless and speak to all our hearts; especially those who don’t yet know Him a Lord and Savior.

 

[guanophore]

That reminds me: the CC allows annulments. That’s a fancy term that’s not supposed to be divorce, but it is divorce no matter what one calls it. Jesus said a man is ‘married’ to the woman he has sex with. If sex took place, in God’s eyes, he’s married, thus should not be remarried.

No, actually it is not. An annulment is recognition that a valid marriage never took place. this is quite different from a divorce. Annulment is based upon the conditions that were in existence at the time of the “union”. Most divorces are based upon the conditions that are present AFTER the union - sometimes years after. Such as discontentment with the relationship for a variety of reasons.

Do you think that Catholics who get divorces need to be evangelized?

I do. I think they don’t understand the Lord’s teaching and are not walking according to his plan for our lives.

If Jesus believed that marriage was equivalent to having sex with someone, then there would be no such thing as adultery, would there?

If he believed what you assert, why did he tell the woman at the well that the man she was currently having sex with “is not your husband”?

 

[wanner47]

When is a rose a daisy?

When the person calling it a rose is horticulturally ignorant.

You know the man personally?

No, but I’ve read the statements he’s issued to the press, interviews he’s done, etc.

 

[guanophore]

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?

That would depend upon what you mean by “on par”. When we are in in unity with the Truth, there will be agreement between our own beliefs, the Catholic Church, and the Scripture. This does not mean humans have divine nature, only that we are able to partake of it.

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 don’t think Doki believes it is possible to be sure of the Truth this side of eternity. I think he believes we all know only in part, and that it is not possible for us to fully embrace the Truth that has been revealed by the HS in this life. He has stated repeatedly that every human can be wrong, and he does not believe that the CC has been preserved from error by the HS.

So, if the Church can err, then anyone in agreement with her doctrines can also be in error, and therefore, cannot be “on par” with truth.

I may be wrong, but I am not sure he believes we are partakers of the divine nature, either. I just read some posts where he seemed to think that Catholics are arrogant and presumptious for claiming to have produced the Bible.

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?

Good question!

 

[guanophore]

  I destorted what you said to see the reaction.  Know you know how I feel when you and many others distort what I say.

Well, let’s keep working on our communication.

I am tired of this happening to me is NO reason for using you as an example. Sorry again.

You have demonstrated one debate technique, which is to amplify something in the post for effect. You deliberately took what was written and carried it off in another direction. It does happen a lot around here.

Sometimes, I think it can add an interesting element to a debate, but more often, it does what you demonstrated, which is to create strawment, hurt people, and disrupt the communication.

It elicited an uncharitable response from Church militant. Though it did not have your name on it, I think you rightly judged that it was a direct response to your comment.

  I am not anti-catholic (I'm assuming a-C means anti-catholic).  I speak for NO ONE but for me...

You suffer from some anti-Catholic theology and attitudes. I think your perspective does represent a significant portion of non-Catholicism.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t think he meant that. The real problem is that if one gets all that knowledge and assents to its truth and then refuses to become Catholic, persisting in that willful obstinacy to death…one would put one’s own soul in dire jeopardy.

So…say I understand some article, tenant, belief you hold to be true, but DO NOT AGREE with said belief, there’s no harm to your soul, right?

Right.

Or mine…well, I suppose if I didn’t believe that my soul would be harmed, it would be a moot point…

Pretty much…

But…if I say, oh, yeah, I agree with this belief, sounds great to me, and walk away with this knowledge and not make an effort to put this belief into practice, I am placing your soul in peril? Or is it MY soul that is in peril?

Yours.

Or both? I’m gathering it would be mine…

Nah…yours.

You know…forever ago, I did start to go through religious instruction. I was a freshman in college. I got no father than the idea of the trinity and transubstantiation. I could not reconcile myself to swallow that belief…sorry.

The latter is easier for me to explain than the Trinity. Provided that you consider the Bible is good to go as a source an that the Church has the authority to correctly interpret it.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

The Trinity is not explicit in scripture but is implied n a great many places. These articles may help.
God in Three Persons (Fathers*)
The One True God (Fathers*)
The Trinity (Fathers*)

SO, needless to say, that was the end of MY religious instruction. The nun was very kind about it all, though. I really felt so bad that I just couldn’t swallow the idea…

Well, that could be said for most miracles don’tcha think?

My thinking is that if the Trinity was easy to get my mind around then He wouldn’t be God.

Anyway. I am gathering I am NOT OT here, unlike I was on another thread, so I stopped discussing this…I kind of felt bad that I couldn’t ask more questions on the other thread, but I was pulling the thread way OT

Nah… this thread is kinda messed up and has ranged all over the place.

In general, the Forum Rules require a single topic for each thread. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks,

The poster really opened my eyes a bit to some basic tenants, but…I still can’t reconcile myself to believe them…makes no sense to me, it just does not…

Yeah well, hang in there. That’s why we call it a “journey of faith”.

 

[PRmerger]

If a man wants to marry, all he has to do is not be a priest. It’s that simple.

Indeed! It’s like homosexuals who say that they are being forbidden to marry. They are not being forbidden to marry–if they want to get married, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they like (provided, of course, he/she is not already married)!

 

[PRmerger]

When the person calling it a rose is horticulturally ignorant.

Ohmygosh! That made me laugh and spit out my milk!

 

[guanophore]

NOT TRUE.  The Bible is a Jewish and Gentile book which means it's for all of us who are willing to come to Jesus by faith.

Indeed, the Bible, compiled by the Catholic Church, is intended for all who are willing to come to Jesus by faith. It never occurred to those that created the canon that anyone would do this in isolation from the Apostolic Succession.

Didn’t you say the Bible wasn’t for non-catholic Christians? Now you ask where we’d be without it? I’m so easily confused.

I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong, but our separated brethren have no grounds upon which to accept the Bible. Catholics wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized it. All this was done by the HS, through the authority given by Chrsit to the Catholic Church. It is impossible to separate Catholicism from it. An effort was made to do this during the Reformation. Some of the books used by Jesus and the Apostles were removed, and people began to interpret the contents of it apart from what the Apostles believed and taught. This has caused much division and confusion.

Actually the apostles wrote the letters that became the NT.

Some of them. Some of the writings are not from Apostles, the books of Luke and Acts, for example. We also don’t know the author of Hebrews. What we can affirm is that the contents represents the faith of the Apostles. Otherwise, the books would not have been included.

I sure hope some fellow catholics pick up on this one. The implication here is uncalled for.

Especially since Catholics were the ones that added the chapters and verses. There were none before that!

While I agree that it is wrong to take books out of the Bible, and the actions of separating it from the Apostolic Faith during the Reformation does seem to be the work of the Father of Lies, I don’t think that modern day Protestants, for the most part, have any clue how they got their Bibles. Most of them seem to act like it fell out of the sky.

Where does the Pentateuch fit into this scholarly comment?

The Jews divided the writings into category. the Pentateuch was considered “the books of Moses” or the Law. There were also “the writings” and “the prophets” and “the psalms”. It was not until Catholics bound all these together that they were “bible”. Jesus and the
Apostles used the Septuagint, which was the Gk. translation of the Penteteuch, and the other writings we call the “Old Testament”.

How about the prophetic books?

Both major and minor prophets were called “the prophets” by Jesus and the Apostles. Other writings that were togehter with them are historical works, such as Chronicles and Maccabees.

I’m glad (an understatement) that Jesus will never leave us nor forsake us. Hebrews 13:5.

We are in complete agreement on this point!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Come on; it appears you’re not being honest with yourself. I have never said celibacy was an evagelizing issue so for you to ask means you were challenging why I was speaking on a thread about evangelizing catholics. Thus my response. I’m evangelizing catholics just as much a you are.

D re-read my original post.

Unless you think the celibacy issue is a reason to proselytize Catholics what does it have to do with a thread titled

---

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



Since you don’t believe it is, what is the point of this topic in this thread? Open a thread on it in the Apologetics forum or, better yet, search the threads for previous discussions on it.

BTW I am still lost as to whether you are trying to decieve me into the same trap you pulled on CM. I guess it is possible that you honsetly do not understand what I am saying but, well, your honesty isn’t exactly beyond repute.

God bless you

 

[guanophore]

Actually I’ve said the CC errored in ‘forbidding’ marriage to its church leaders.

If this were the case, then you would be right. However, since it is a theological impossiblity to “forbid marriage”, it is not an accurate assertion.

it is also incorrect to believe that “church leaders” are all ordained, because they are not, and there are many who are ordained that are not “church leaders”. Some ordained persons serve in cloistered communities, or are members of contempletive orders. It is a mistake to confuse Holy Orders with church leadership.

While the Latin Rite prefers to call upon those with the gifft of celibacy to serve as Pastors, this in no way “forbids marriage”, as you continuously erroneously assert. I am puzzled why you wish to cling to this untruth.

I don’t know what this is about.

It is about you asserting falsehoods. You have stated that the CC has erred in “forbidding marriage”. It is a false assertion.

Please show me where Jesus said married leaders were unacceptable? You can’t and you haven’t.

No, certainly not! The fact that the Latin Rite needs the gift of celibacy in this day and age does not mean that married leaders are unacceptable.

In fact, you seem to be confusing the gift of the priesthood with church leadership, which is a mistake.

Most of those who enter seminary,a nd determine that they are not called to celibacy do become strong leaders in their parishes.

**

 But I'll wait for your Bible quotes that says church leaders can't be married because that's what this discussion is about.  It's NOT whether it is better to be celebate, which I've agreed with.

You are attacking a straw man of your own concoction. It may be that you don’t understand leadership in the American Latin Rite parish? Leadership is not synonomous with ordination.

Some ordained priests are sent away for years to study, or for spiritual formation. some are never placed in leadership positions.**

 

[guanophore]

The following is taken from: catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

“The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.”

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The CC choose not to allow men to be priest and to marry and stay priest. It just happened in FL (I believe it was there).

Well, it is not that rose, Doki, so naming it one is erroneous. One who voluntarily announced marriage has received the gift of celibacy. This is NOT the prohibition of marriage!

When a person takes vows to God, then abandons them, the quality of their spirituality falls into question. This is no different than a priest who takes a vow of celibacy then chooses to act out sexually with a child, another man, or a woman. It is the violation of the vow that is problematic.

when Paul writes about younger women becoming “wanton”, he means that their sexual urges have more value than their vow to God. He says not to enroll them because they will forsake their vows.

Now the CC still enrolls young (marriagable age) women, but great care is taken in their formation so that they will not later succumb to forsaking their vows to give in to the lusts of the flesh.

Again, in the example above, the church does not “forbid” one who does want to forsake their vows. The Church just does not want to hold up such a one as an example to the community. It is no different than taking a marriage vow, then later, deciding you are tired of it and leaving the marriage.

I thought the CC has one teaching on any given subject, the unity idea?

This an excellent point, which is also part of the basis for your error. You are confusing doctrine with discipline and practice.

The doctrine of the Church is that marriage is a calling, and celibacy is a calling. Both are valued and affirmed.

The Latin Rite prefers to choose from among those called to celibacy to serve as priests.
Some of those received as priests are married. This does not represent any disunity of doctrine. Those who are defiant about how the unity of the faith is applied do, indeed, find themselves in disunity.

 

[guanophore]

If a man chooses marriage they can’t be a priest.

This is a false statement, Doki. If you read the post just above yours, several examples are given that demontrate how it is false.

Have you considered what the implications might be for you to let go of this false idea? How would it affect your faith? Your attitude toward the Catholic faith?

Have you considered what your motives might be for coming to a Catholic forum, trying to convince Catholics of something we know to be false?

The quote says the church only chooses those who choose celebacy. That’s a fancy way of saying they forbid priests that want to remain priests from marriage.

No, Doki, it is not. There are pastoral provisions that accomodate married persons who are called to the priesthood.

It is not possible for the Church to “forbid marriage”. The church does not have the authority to abrogate God’s commandments and gifts. It is as theologically impossible as it is to ordain a woman as a priest. the Chruch simply is not able.

Let me remind you of the priest in FL.

A person who takes vows before God then abandons them is not a good role model for the Christian community, whether he has abandoned his marriage, or abandoned his celibacy. the problem is the same.

I agree, this concept is not hard to understand – a rose by anyother name is still a rose.

You are trying to call a carnation a rose, and it only appears to be working for yourself.

It is a puzzle to me why it is so important for you to persist in this willful misrepresentation.

It could be that it all boils down to an authority problem. Many reject the authority of the church to bind and loose.

 

[guanophore]

Have you missed my repeated attempt to say I am NOT trying to evangelized catholics. I made it clear from my very first post on this thread.

No, I did not think you were.

Then I responded to something said that I disagreed with (NOT, let me repeat,** NOT**, let me repeat, NOT, let me repeat, NOT, let me repeat, NOT) an evangelizing issue.

We are on a thread about why Protestants feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics. I keep trying to relate the content of your posts to the thread topic.

If you do not wish this to happen, perhaps you should start a new thread with all of your spurious allegations?

 

[guanophore]

When is a rose a daisy?

Only in your imagination, Doki. that is why,w hen you try calling daisies roses here, it is not getting us to believe they are roses.

The Catholic Church does not forbid marraige, mandate celibacy, or forbid foods. You continued assertions that they do so have no merit.

 

[PRmerger]

.You know…forever ago, I did start to go through religious instruction. I was a freshman in college. I got no father than the idea of the trinity and transubstantiation. I could not reconcile myself to swallow that belief…sorry.
SO, needless to say, that was the end of MY religious instruction. The nun was very kind about it all, though. I really felt so bad that I just couldn’t swallow the idea…

Welcome, phoenix! I hope you will post lots and read lots on this forum. There’s no better way to learn, IMHO, than to discuss/digest/discourse with people who know their faith.

2 quick thoughts:
-Transubstantiation: I read somewhere that if one can believe in the creation of the world out of nothing (*creatio ex nihilo) *then believing that transubstantiation is possible is quite easy.

(NB: I get that you’re an agnostic so don’t presume that you believe creatio ex nihilo; also note that I’m merely saying that believing in such makes it easier to accept that transubstantiation is possible, not necessarily true.)

-Trinity: the way I like to think of it is that human beings are a body/soul composite–one person unified by body and spirit. God, being MORE, is a 3 person composite–Father, Son and Holy Spirit, unified into ONE God.

Finally, I leave you with this, from St. Augustine: *If you can understand Him, He is not God. *

 

[Roy5]

I found a letter in today’s NY News of particular interest - and I have considerable sympathy for it. Here’s what it says - it is short.

“Manhattan, Muslims say non-Muslims are infidels, Jews claim to be God’s chosen people. Christians say that if you don’t accept Jesus Christ, you don’t get into heaven. It seems to me that they are three sides to the same coin. If you’re not one of us, God doesn’t like you - at least not as much as He likes us.”

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry, whether sugar-coated or unsweetened. I believe God certainly is wise and kind and merciful and big enough to look beyond narrow doctrines and look at our hearts. If we love Him (by whatever name we call him) and if we do our best to love and serve humankind, then we're on his team whatever label we have. The notion that only one religion alone is fully true and all the rest are wrong, or significantly inferior to ours in God's eyes, is (in my opinion) an insult to God's benevolence and charity

 So, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims etc - let's rejoice in our love of God and love one another and cut out the arrogant 'our faith is superior to all others' nonsense. God will divide the sheep from the goats in eternity and heaven will be filled with people of different religions, colors, tongues, cultures, nations, etc.

 Let's make religion a bridge and not a barrier. The world needs compassion, tolerance, and understanding rather than indictment, bickering, accusation and 'how many angels can dance on the point of a pin'. Look at the trouble religion continues to create in the world, even today, when Christ calls us to join together as his children whatever our faith. He must weep when he sees people preach exclusiveness and prejudice and "only Catholics (or Protestants or Orthodox or Muslims) are right' in his name. If there is such a thing as heresy, I suspect that religious zealots who claim they alone have the fully truth are chief among them.

 

[PRmerger]

I found a letter in today’s NY News of particular interest - and I have considerable sympathy for it. Here’s what it says - it is short.

“Manhattan, Muslims say non-Muslims are infidels, Jews claim to be God’s chosen people. Christians say that if you don’t accept Jesus Christ, you don’t get into heaven. It seems to me that they are three sides to the same coin. If you’re not one of us, God doesn’t like you - at least not as much as He likes us.”

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry, whether sugar-coated or unsweetened. I believe God certainly is wise and kind and merciful and big enough to look beyond narrow doctrines and look at our hearts. If we love Him (by whatever name we call him) and if we do our best to love and serve humankind, then we're on his team whatever label we have. The notion that only one religion alone is fully true and all the rest are wrong, or significantly inferior to ours in God's eyes, is (in my opinion) an insult to God's benevolence and charity

 So, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims etc - let's rejoice in our love of God and love one another and cut out the arrogant 'our faith is superior to all others' nonsense. God will divide the sheep from the goats in eternity and heaven will be filled with people of different religions, colors, tongues, cultures, nations, etc.

 Let's make religion a bridge and not a barrier. The world needs compassion, tolerance, and understanding rather than indictment, bickering, accusation and 'how many angels can dance on the point of a pin'. Look at the trouble religion continues to create in the world, even today, when Christ calls us to join together as his children whatever our faith. He must weep when he sees people preach exclusiveness and prejudice and "only Catholics (or Protestants or Orthodox or Muslims) are right' in his name. If there is such a thing as heresy, I suspect that religious zealots who claim they alone have the fully truth are chief among them.

Roy, I’m interested in your thoughts regarding God’s injunction to love him with our entire MIND. What do you think that means? How does that differ from loving God with our entire heart?