S
Sirach2
Guest
Second the motion.
- Status
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Excuse me ?
I am going off the responses. If that is not enough to respond to, what am I supposed to respond to?
And to think that my upbringing in the Catholic Church was one of Christ being continuously presented in front of me is the farthest thing I can think of from the truth.
If I have offended anyone in particular, I am sorry. I recognize the possibility of true Christians in the Catholic Church. Can you forgive me? I understand I have made generalizations where it was just not my place.
However, with the little light the Lord has given me through the Scriptures, I feel like I have been led away by God from the Roman Catholic Church. Why? I have given many reasons doctrinally but also the practice of Christianity.
I have seen many many people get miraculously converted and whose lives have been radically transformed into obedient children of God, and their fruit remains and perserveres.
I myself have fallen and have since greatly repented and I have many doubts about the protestant reformation.
Since I recognize I am in a sense lost in limbo because I not only severely doubt my protestant reformation experience, but also I am a bit afraid of the Catholic Church.
If the thread is over, please just respond with “it’s over”, but if not, can we start over?
My main concerns are that the doctrine of justification is very clearly stated in Chrysostom 's homilies on Romans. I am not reading these documents as a protestant finatic looking to find silly reasons to support protestantism, as Church Militant would say, but rather as someone who has a great desire to see the vindication of the Catholic claims that I am hearing. However, as I dig into the history of the early fathers, I find the exact oppossite affect happening to me that happened to Scott Hahn. It seems as though Scott Hahn has seen the weaknesses of the Protestant reformed dogmas, and then has seen the historicity of the practices in the catholic Church and made a decision.
I’ve read his book “Rome Sweet Home” and I just thought it was a very emotional experience for him and it is just not what I can sympathize with. I am someone who wants to serve Christ even if it does not feel good.
My main issues are the doctrine of justification, apostolic succession, and the marian devotion
Concerning justification, Paul clearly states that justification is by faith alone apart from works. I know the catholic perspective wants to shout “No! it does not say ‘alone’, in fact the only time that comes up is in james 2:24 where it is denied. The ‘works’ Paul is talking about are external jewish ceremonial observances” or “No Paul says that we are justified by faith apart from works in the sense that we are ‘made ontologically righteous’ apart from works”. However if you take these two premises and run it through the homily on Romans in St. John Chrysostom, you will see that he holds to neither of them. In fact he holds to what modern protestants teach. Was he catholic? Yes! But you realize that Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) call themselves part of the universal church as well, and follow what they think is apostolic succession, and practice the Eucharist (in some cases they believe in transubstantiation), etc,etc but just like the Orthodox, they do not submit to the Pope as the head and supreme authority of the universal church. Who is to say which side John Chrysostom would have taken today had he been here? I would say that if he didn’t change his mind, he would have ended up agreeing with the notion of justification by faith alone. Now he would definitely say that those people who received such a gift and did not live life worthy of this gift will go to hell, much like what the puritans believed.
With regard to Apostolic succession, what (i think) has to be proven is that there is an “office”, distinct from the human who fills it, that Christ intended to continue in the form of human to human succession (one person has the office and the next person takes the office afterward) in an unbroken pattern and that this succession of offices must equal the number 12, and that there are 12 lines now continuing unbrokenly in our world. Also, there has to be a way to vinidicate the existence of this office given the fact that there have been times when doctrine has been ill taught or that there were unqualified people sitting in it.
I am going off the responses. If that is not enough to respond to, what am I supposed to respond to?
And to think that my upbringing in the Catholic Church was one of Christ being continuously presented in front of me is the farthest thing I can think of from the truth.
If I have offended anyone in particular, I am sorry. I recognize the possibility of true Christians in the Catholic Church. Can you forgive me? I understand I have made generalizations where it was just not my place.
However, with the little light the Lord has given me through the Scriptures, I feel like I have been led away by God from the Roman Catholic Church. Why? I have given many reasons doctrinally but also the practice of Christianity.
I have seen many many people get miraculously converted and whose lives have been radically transformed into obedient children of God, and their fruit remains and perserveres.
I myself have fallen and have since greatly repented and I have many doubts about the protestant reformation.
Since I recognize I am in a sense lost in limbo because I not only severely doubt my protestant reformation experience, but also I am a bit afraid of the Catholic Church.
If the thread is over, please just respond with “it’s over”, but if not, can we start over?
My main concerns are that the doctrine of justification is very clearly stated in Chrysostom 's homilies on Romans. I am not reading these documents as a protestant finatic looking to find silly reasons to support protestantism, as Church Militant would say, but rather as someone who has a great desire to see the vindication of the Catholic claims that I am hearing. However, as I dig into the history of the early fathers, I find the exact oppossite affect happening to me that happened to Scott Hahn. It seems as though Scott Hahn has seen the weaknesses of the Protestant reformed dogmas, and then has seen the historicity of the practices in the catholic Church and made a decision.
I’ve read his book “Rome Sweet Home” and I just thought it was a very emotional experience for him and it is just not what I can sympathize with. I am someone who wants to serve Christ even if it does not feel good.
My main issues are the doctrine of justification, apostolic succession, and the marian devotion
Concerning justification, Paul clearly states that justification is by faith alone apart from works. I know the catholic perspective wants to shout “No! it does not say ‘alone’, in fact the only time that comes up is in james 2:24 where it is denied. The ‘works’ Paul is talking about are external jewish ceremonial observances” or “No Paul says that we are justified by faith apart from works in the sense that we are ‘made ontologically righteous’ apart from works”. However if you take these two premises and run it through the homily on Romans in St. John Chrysostom, you will see that he holds to neither of them. In fact he holds to what modern protestants teach. Was he catholic? Yes! But you realize that Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) call themselves part of the universal church as well, and follow what they think is apostolic succession, and practice the Eucharist (in some cases they believe in transubstantiation), etc,etc but just like the Orthodox, they do not submit to the Pope as the head and supreme authority of the universal church. Who is to say which side John Chrysostom would have taken today had he been here? I would say that if he didn’t change his mind, he would have ended up agreeing with the notion of justification by faith alone. Now he would definitely say that those people who received such a gift and did not live life worthy of this gift will go to hell, much like what the puritans believed.
With regard to Apostolic succession, what (i think) has to be proven is that there is an “office”, distinct from the human who fills it, that Christ intended to continue in the form of human to human succession (one person has the office and the next person takes the office afterward) in an unbroken pattern and that this succession of offices must equal the number 12, and that there are 12 lines now continuing unbrokenly in our world. Also, there has to be a way to vinidicate the existence of this office given the fact that there have been times when doctrine has been ill taught or that there were unqualified people sitting in it.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Departed from topic and
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status