Catholic Converts to Protestantism

[Wannano]

Wannano:

rightness:

Wannano:

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

That actually has no relation to HopkinsReb’s point.

Baptism is available for all, and whatever the parents’ sin may be has no bearing on the child’s baptism.
In fact, no one knows if the child will grow up rejecting the parents’ teachings on same-sex marriage and embraces the Catholic teaching instead, and that can only be achieved by at least baptizing the child.

God will work in supernatural ways if the child grows up and cooperates with Him.

I thought it would apply because I would expect that the CC would expect the parents askin for a child’s baptism to be married.

I’m pretty sure the rule in the CC is that you’re only supposed to baptize a child if you have a reasonable hope that he’ll be raised in the faith. This baptism, while valid, would be considered illicit, as I understand it.

I don’t want to try your patience or go off course…but I do want to state that I cannot comprehend how a Catholic parish like the one in the link, is ever allowed to exist, at least for longer than a week. What in the world is going on?

 

[HopkinsReb]

I don’t want to try your patience or go off course…but I do want to state that I cannot comprehend how a Catholic parish like the one in the link, is ever allowed to exist, at least for longer than a week. What in the world is going on?

It’s a travesty.

That said, we’re talking about this because it’s so rare. This kind of thing happens every week in Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist churches across the country. This is a breakdown of discipline within a Church – the only Church – that has still managed to maintain an institutional orthodox position on this matter.

 

[Wannano]

But isn’t the hierarchy set up in such a fashion that this would never be allowed to get off the ground if it is working properly?

 

[HopkinsReb]

But isn’t the hierarchy set up in such a fashion that this would never be allowed to get off the ground if it is working properly?

Well, yeah. But the Catholic Church, for all its many virtues, is still run by humans. Any institution run by humans will make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones. No human system ever works perfectly, and a perfectly-functioning hierarchy is not one of the claims the Catholic Church makes for itself.

 

[rose321]

I think you should reflect on what Jesus said in John 17:21: “that they

Respectfully not to offend stating kindly questioning and examining…pondering on his word in

St Paul is speaking to each one one of us?
Do you not know you are the living Temple of the Lord?
…Each one of us is the …Living Breathing Temple of the Lord whom our Heavenly Father…where he seeks to be Worshiped, Glorified, rest within, throughout our daily walk in life, would this be true?

I do not dwell in that which is made of hands

John 17:21 that they may all be one. As you Father are in me and I am in you may they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me… Not talking about a physical church, but about each one of us
Do you not know you are the temple of the Lord?

The Popes declaration, first time I read this is all.

Peace toward in

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

But isn’t the hierarchy set up in such a fashion that this would never be allowed to get off the ground if it is working properly?

Well, yeah. But the Catholic Church, for all its many virtues, is still run by humans. Any institution run by humans will make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones. No human system ever works perfectly, and a perfectly-functioning hierarchy is not one of the claims the Catholic Church makes for itself.

I think I may be starting to lose faith in any of them.

 

[chrisjb]

Matthew 18:18, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. In other words, the Church has the power to do these things.

 

[rightness]

Uh, I don’t know if you are writing in a way to be confusing, but I’ll just point out that the Catholic Church isn’t a physical church. The Catholic Church is the Living Church built on Peter, the Living Rock, as declared by Jesus, the Son of the Living God.

The rest of what you’re writing is too hard to understand about what you’re replying to.

 

[rose321]

Uh, I don’t know if you are writing in a way to be confusing, but I’ll just point out that the Catholic Church isn’t a physical church. The Catholic Church is the Living Church built on Peter, the Living Rock, as declared by Jesus, the Son of the Living God.

Respectfully At times I have a very poor way of communicating and forgive me for being so confusing.

Guess I got very confused my self for what I read by another poster about early church Fathers…which I never read or heard about before, and maybe now I clearly misunderstood also, I poorly misunderstood and having to seek out teaching on…

Thank you… rightness… for pointing this out to me and doing it in a very kind way!!

 

[Mboo]

that’s not what I said exactly. I said that if we take the sacraments and we do not show a charity more ardent than those who do not take them then we are not in a better situation.

 

[Mboo]

I find your speech too long and that it moves away from the goal.
I do not deny the importance of the sacraments, nor of the mass, but I affirm that they are means to increase our charity, and not ends in itself! If by taking sacraments, and reciting the rosary every day, by participating in the Mass every day, our charity does not increase, so all this is useless.

 

[MiserereMei]

If I may add my voice here, I will say a few words.

I was baptized in a Baptust church at age 10, confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at 17, and then confirmed Lutheran, with my then-fiancee at age 22.

I left the RCC over doctrinal reasons. I do not think I understood what I was getting myself into then. The Real Presence was the reason I chose the Lutherans over every other group; I refused to be a part of a communion that did not believe or have the Real Presence in their Sacrament.

Currently, I am a seminarian at a Lutheran institution, and could never go back to the RCC, again, purely for doctrinal disagreements. I cannot honestly submit to a church that does not at least tolerate what I, as a theologian and Christian, view to be true.

Will I be saved? All I can say is this: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[Hodos]

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

No, because as we both recognize, the purpose of government is to act as an agent to implement rule and God’s justice. Where the state departs from God’s justice, obviously we are not bound to obey or agree with that rule (similar to Peter and John continuing to proclaim the gospel when the high priest ordered them to stop). So in this case, God defined marriage as the union between man and woman, he did so materially through biological design, and by establishing it with his word. That being said, that doesn’t de-legitimize the act of the civil authorities in recognizing a marriage as valid where it is in accord with God’s establishment, and both the OT and NT indicate that God views those as valid where the state does so in accord with his word. Very good question though touching upon the right and left hand realms.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Thanks. I could have been a bit more clear in explaining myself, but I thought it better to let the Church’s teaching (via the 3 popes cited) speak for itself.

A better way to put it would be “this, if it were for nothing else, would keep me in the Catholic Church”. The fullness of truth, the Real Presence, the seven sacraments, the guarantee of unity, all of these things keep me in the Church as well. This and more.

As a practical matter, I don’t even entertain in my mind the option of leaving the Church.

 

[steve-b]

My question in a nutshell is, can Catholics who become Protestants still be saved?

It may have already been asked and answered

What do they do with the statement from Vat II, an ecumenical council,

“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
From: Lumen Gentium

 

[steve-b]

If I may add my voice here, I will say a few words.

I was baptized in a Baptust church at age 10, [/u]confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at 17[/u], and then confirmed Lutheran, with my then-fiancee at age 22.

I left the RCC over doctrinal reasons.I do not think I understood what I was getting myself into then. The Real Presence was the reason I chose the Lutherans over every other group; I refused to be a part of a communion that did not believe or have the Real Presence in their Sacrament.

Currently, I am a seminarian at a Lutheran institution, and could never go back to the RCC, again, purely for doctrinal disagreements. I cannot honestly submit to a church that does not at least tolerate what I, as a theologian and Christian, view to be true.

Will I be saved? All I can say is this: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

How could you be confirmed in the Catholic Church at 17, and not know what the Church teaches on the Eucharist? I will save the other points for later

 

[MiserereMei]

Steve, good morning.

Perhaps I was unclear. I apologize. The Eucharist is NOT one of my theological issues with Rome (I will not get into a debate about differing philosophical explanations for the Sacrament here), hence, why I refused to join a communion that did not confess the Real Presence. My theological disagreement was and is on other points.

Have a nice day.

 

[Justin_Mary]

And yet, the doctrine contradicts what was revealed in scripture, hence it isn’t valid doctrine. The argument here isn’t just that it cannot be found in scripture (it can’t), its that it actually violates what is revealed in scripture (1 Corinthians 11).

Well… scripture says Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of men’s hearts. God honored Moses’ decision.

Scripture says in the beginning it was not so. God didn’t like it, but honored Moses’ decision.

Scripture says, “You are Peter…” that Jesus will build His Church on Peter. He conferred the keys to the Kingdom of God to Peter. What Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. What Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Therefore, if the chair of Peter says it wasn’t a marriage, it wasn’t a marriage.

 

[steve-b]

Steve, good morning.

Perhaps I was unclear. I apologize.

No problem

MiserereMei:

The Eucharist is NOT one of my theological issues with Rome (I will not get into a debate about differing philosophical explanations for the Sacrament here), hence, why I refused to join a communion that did not confess the Real Presence.

when you said

" Currently, I am a seminarian at a Lutheran institution, and could never go back to the RCC, again, purely for doctrinal disagreements … I, as a theologian and Christian, view to be true."

AND

"My theological disagreement was and is on other points".

SO

as a theologian, what doctrinal points do you have disagreements on with the Catholic Church?

 

[MiserereMei]

as a theologian, what doctrinal points do you have disagreements on with the Catholic Church?

Currently? Where do I begin? Below is a list, from earliest known disagreement to latest. I am sorry, but I neither have time nor space for anything else. My window of time for posting is very limited, and each would require their own detailed conversation, which I am not willing to do on this thread.

1. The dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception;
2. Papal infalliability;
3. Papal supremacy (I would have no issue with this if all it meant was that the Pope is the Patriarch of the West);
4. Indulgences;
5. Contraception;
6. Some aspects of ecclesiology relating to the function, powers, and sacramental identity of priests and bishops;
7. The definition of sacrament and the number of sacraments;
8. The function and definition of faith, and consequently the definition and role of good works; (My official break with Rome happened here, though everything above has also been further developed since that time.)
9. The role, powers, and legitimate forms of governmental and economic systems;
10. The issue of the ordination of women and the role of women in the church;
11. The definition and purpose of marriage and who has proper authority over it;
12. Some issues relating to [theological] anthropology.