Catholic View toward Protestants

[jpelham]

Would that be because you wouldn’t think a person would remain a protestant if they had an accurate understanding of the Catholic belief?

They would at least justify their doctrinal commitments differently, certainly those who left the Catholic Church for such ostensible reasons as “re-crucifying Christ at every Mass.”

I attended a conservative Presbyterian church for about 8 years before making an objective study of Catholic belief. The elders and other members of that church who grew up in Catholic families, of which there were several, all presented as the experts best suited to disabuse me of my interest in Catholicism, invariably harbored the most deformed understandings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Hounchell1945]

Would that be because you wouldn’t think a person would remain a protestant if they had an accurate understanding of the Catholic belief?

The major issue I find in the differences between the Catholic and non-catholic churches
isn’t so much…“What they do Teach, but rather more towards what they do not teach”.

It is not so much on what they feel towards certain scriptures, but what scriptures they seem to ignore or make light of.

If you are a true seeker of the Truths of God and you should be, as it can make quite a difference towards, your eternal destiny. And you are going to rest that on the “bible alone.”

Then it only makes sense that one would study each and every scripture contained in the same infallible word of God contained in The bible.

One does not have to become a Catholic in order to be accepted by God.

Unlike the many other churches the Catholic church leaves Salvation to God.

Jesus gave the Apostles and those they ordained the power to deal with sin here on earth.
But He did not give to them the power to save anyone’s soul. That is God’s part.
That will be between God and you.

God gave the Church His truths. The Catholic Church preserves and proclaims those truths. It is up to you to have an encounter with those truths and react as you feel lead.

From my own point of view, I picture a large table covered with a great selection of foods.
Beef, Pork, Chicken, and fish prepared in hundreds of different sauces, spices and herbs.
Potatoes, Rice, and Pasta with hundreds of different sauces. Breads and butters from around the world…

and next to this table is a small table with a bowl of plain vegetable soup and a glass of one per cent milk… plus two small crackers…

I find the Catholic church to offer the complete spiritual nourishment of the soul at the first table…

And the non-catholic churches offer the same from the little table…

As I said in the beginning, I am not so concerned as to what you accept as the truths of God but what you do not…

You might be concerned too… There just might be a bit more to what love God offers you within the same faith that you have now from what you have now…

If I was you, I would look into it… No obligations required…

Would it surprise you to know, that we are not ignorant of the scriptures and that there is ample scriptures to base our doctrines on?

You might focus on the scripture which reads: “Seek and Ye may find”…

 

[GLam8833]

They would at least justify their doctrinal commitments differently, certainly those who left the Catholic Church for such ostensible reasons as “re-crucifying Christ at every Mass.”

I attended a conservative Presbyterian church for about 8 years before making an objective study of Catholic belief. The elders and other members of that church who grew up in Catholic families, of which there were several, all presented as the experts best suited to disabuse me of my interest in Catholicism, invariably harbored the most deformed understandings of the Catholic Church.

“disabuse”? What kind of thinking would generate that kind
of hostility agianst your former elders? They might be
misinformed or misguided, but “deformed”?

As for my post about giving the body of Christ to non-
catholics, my priest didn’t think that I should receive communion
and the only reason I mentioned about the RCIA
leader’s openess to giving the body of Chirst to
“other denominations” is that he respected other’s
right to pick up “sraps that have fallen from the table
(of the Lord)”

Music anyone? please see my member’s profile for more.

 

[JonNC]

I do not know your education background, and I certainly do not want to belittle you if you have not been exposed to the basic forms of “Theology and Philosophy”…

However rest assured that I am not correcting you per say… but to merely attempt to put some new forms of thought forward too you so that this mystery might appear a bit clearer and lead you closer to how many other Catholics, who have had a better opportunity to form other aspects of this fantastic subject.

But it is interesting that you have formed the view of the “mystery” of the Eucharist…
but it might not have to be a complete mystery for you. Though no one can take the total mystery out of it…

Theology is primary the study of that which God has revealed… Period!!

A person goes to theology to find out what God has told us… no more, no less.

We know that God spake to man through many different means, though we mainly know of these communications from the written history of those actual events…

The Written word… The bible and the writings of the early fathers, and historians of those times of God’s communication to man…

We believe that Jesus was and is God… St. John makes that very plain in his writings.

Jesus was the word, and the word was with and was God… nothing which was made was not made without him…

And God said, “let US make man in OUR imgage…”

Thus we have revelation from the old and the new testaments of the fact that Jesus was God and he created with God from their “mere word”…

The spoken Word of God created… out of nothing came something… and this happened because the word was spoken… A sound and with it, Power that the world has never seen the likes before and since…

Jesus, became a man, and he spoke words… and his words created… his words created forgiveness of sin, when he said, “thy sins are forgiven”… his words brough life to the dead.
when he said:" Arise little girl" Lazarus come forth!! and though they were dead, the word broke their death and they became alive again… thus we have the "Power of God’s spoken word to create that which no other person’s word has done or can do…

Now after supper had ended… he said some more words, words of creation, life and power.

"He said…"take this bread, take this cup as it IS my body and blood… and the power of his word made it so… The creation power in his word created a new essencence for the bread and wine…

Our normal senses, can only observe and deduct the objective of that which we perceive…
(this is the philosophy of the subject) We can look, touch tasete, etc… use our knowledge or education and attempt to understand the essensence of an object but we can not.
We can only perceive the object… However not the total essensence as the essenses in truth is that which God makes it.

An example would say more than I can…

God has sent Angels to our world many times… but they have always came to us, as the object of a “human Man”… Our perception would be merely what we see and observe within in our senses… and it would always be " A Man as the object but… his true essensce is that of an Angel…

We are not able to perceive an Angel as his essensce is hidden from obvious view…

Therefore, making a long reply shorter… you can look at the Eucharist in the same light.
The bread and wine become the body and blood through the power of the word of God…

And as Jesus prepared to leave this world he bestoyed that power to the apostles who passed that same power from generation to generation to our very own priests…

He instructed the Apostles at the last supper… “Do this” and thus we have been given a wonderful gift of his life… which flows in our souls… so that we too, can claim as St. Peter claimed… “For we are partakers of the divine nature”… Or call out “It is not I who lives but christ who lives within me” As St. Paul stated…

and never forget that God in the form of Jesus said:

He who does NOT eat my body and drink my BLOOD will NOT have my LIFE in them…

I hope this might help and comfort you in your faith walk…

PAX…

Thank you. I found nothing here to disagree with.

His peace also with you.

Jon

 

[hastanoviembre]

While not specifically addressing this question, I believe the letter entitled “RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH” addresses protestant faith communities and why they are not “‘Churches’” in the proper sense."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[fhansen]

That’s interesting, because that’s pretty much how protestants describe Catholics, but without the fancy terms.

I find a huge range of attitudes in Protestantism towards the CC-anywhere from seeing her as a fellow Christian Church to maintaining she’s the “Whore of Babylon” with the Pope being the Antichrist, as was written in some of the early confessions, and which is still taught today by various preachers and held by many believers.

 

[jpelham]

“disabuse”? What kind of thinking would generate that kind
of hostility agianst your former elders? They might be
misinformed or misguided, but “deformed”?

My former elders, and pastor, were concerned for my soul, and for this I remain grateful. They sincerely believed that I should be disabused of my growing interest in Catholcisim, a belief that was profoundly, ironically misinformed. The sentiment nearest to hostility in all of this was their feeling toward what they conceived to be the Catholic Church.

I observed that their conception of Catholic belief is deformed, not that they are. Many are better prepared to stand before God than I am. I too would reject a church that holds the beliefs they identify with Catholicism. The obstinacy of this misunderstanding is something of a mystery, and I am far from the first one to observe it.

 

[jncarlos007]

They would at least justify their doctrinal commitments differently, certainly those who left the Catholic Church for such ostensible reasons as “re-crucifying Christ at every Mass.”

I attended a conservative Presbyterian church for about 8 years before making an objective study of Catholic belief. The elders and other members of that church who grew up in Catholic families, of which there were several, all presented as the experts best suited to disabuse me of my interest in Catholicism, invariably harbored the most deformed understandings of the Catholic Church.

Why do you think that those people left the church in the first place? And that they were unable to articulate an objective reason? Was it poor teaching, mystical misunderstanding, lead stray by evil forces?

Please understand that I am not being sarcastic or antagonistic. I am actually interested in the answers. Although many of my friends are expressely anti-catholic (continuing a historical trend of mutual animosity) I do not share their opinions. To be honest, however, there are any number of things about Catholicism that I disagree with that equal those that I agree with. There is a lot about the faith that I find beautiful and profound (both as a Christian and as an artist). If I felt that Catholicism provided me with a better path to closeness with God I would be first in line.

 

[Jehannette]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines heresy and schism as follows:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The 1983 Code of Canon Law defines the above as:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Of course, “anyone whatsoever” (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can baptize:

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Schism and heresy result in excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Conclusions:

1. Everyone who has been validly baptized is bound to believe in all that the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church professes, believes, and teaches, as well as submit to the Roman Pontiff.
2. Failure in #1 results in an automatic excommunication from the Church of Christ:

Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
§2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

 

[Wretched_Man]

The CC recognizes varying degrees of truth in Protestant beliefs/theology-knowing that they lack the “fullness of truth” to be found only in the Catholic Church. She calls them “separated brethren” who profess a belief in the Trinity and Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Could someone please explain what the CC view is on the trinity ?,
I use the term “trinity” as an inclusive term to denote the godhead and active role of the the father, son and Holy Spirit upon the earth today, but why is this term
so “taboo” amongst CC?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Could someone please explain what the CC view is on the trinity ?,
I use the term “trinity” as an inclusive term to denote the godhead and active role of the the father, son and Holy Spirit upon the earth today, but why is this term
so “taboo” amongst CC?

Well, the Catholic Church received the deposit of Faith in regards to the Holy Trinity and it was declared in the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.:

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

Soon after the Nicene Creed was formed. Here it is in its present form:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

And here is the Catechism about it:

II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY

The Father revealed by the Son

238 Many religions invoke God as “Father”. The deity is often considered the “father of gods and of men”. In Israel, God is called “Father” inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, “his first-born son”.60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is “the Father of the poor”, of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”.65

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

More information included on the links provided.

Now why do you say that the subject is taboo by the CC?

Peace,

Jose

 

[Wretched_Man]

I find a huge range of attitudes in Protestantism towards the CC-anywhere from seeing her as a fellow Christian Church to maintaining she’s the “Whore of Babylon” with the Pope being the Antichrist, as was written in some of the early confessions, and which is still taught today by various preachers and held by many believers.

What is the primary difference between the protestant and CC ?
‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ is to broad and not so user friendly.

CC has not had a pretty history from it’s beginnings to it’s present, but what one thing would constitute it being the one true church that so many CC propagate???.. I hear alot of CC proclaiming this and yet not really hearing alot of protestant churches making this claim, it just seems that it is heralded louder from the CC standpoint…wonder why that is???

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What is the primary difference between the protestant and CC ?
‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ is to broad and not so user friendly.

CC has not had a pretty history from it’s beginnings to it’s present, but what one thing would constitute it being the one true church that so many CC propagate???.. I hear alot of CC proclaiming this and yet not really hearing alot of protestant churches making this claim, it just seems that it is heralded louder from the CC standpoint…wonder why that is???

Well, originally, Protestants were dissenting Catholics. They disagreed with certain practices of the CC in the 1500s and separated from the CC. From that schism, several different denominations were born. Today, Protestants don’t know (for the most part) what the protest is about and are the children of those dissenting Catholics. While we are separated we are still a family under Christ. Some denominations over the course of years have completely separated from practices that the Church has done for over 1500 years. Eucharist, Ordination, Baptism, etc. to name a few.

I suspect you have not read the “pretty” history of the first members of the Catholic Church… the ones that were persecuted, tortured, and killed for professing their Christian beliefs. While you don’t think the history is pretty, it is because you are looking at the human side of it and not at our Lord’s side, Who through all the blood and sacrifice has kept His promise to us. We are not perfect, but God is. We look for Him every day and humbly accept His sacrifice and His commandments under our capabilities.

I found out, the hard way, that the best way to learn the truth is to leave all my prejudices and predispositions at the door and come with an open mind in obedience to the Lord.

Feel free to ask questions but please know that you must be prepared to defend you accusations or allegations. After all: We shall not bear false witnesses.

In Him,

Jose

 

[fhansen]

What is the primary difference between the protestant and CC ?
‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ is to broad and not so user friendly.

CC has not had a pretty history from it’s beginnings to it’s present, but what one thing would constitute it being the one true church that so many CC propagate???.. I hear alot of CC proclaiming this and yet not really hearing alot of protestant churches making this claim, it just seems that it is heralded louder from the CC standpoint…wonder why that is???

Given the fact that so many Protestant groups and individuals disagree with each other, generally based on their interpretation of scripture, it’s quite refreshing and appropriate IMO for someone to acknowledge the need for a unified voice called by God to proclaim the gospel correctly-and to assert that they, themselves,* are* that voice. Now this is nothing so new; there are many false prophets past and present, but none who can also rightfully trace their historical lineage back to the beginnings of Christianity. And the CC can also rightfully point to her good fruits, millions of hours of volunteer work and gazillions of dollars of donations, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, housing the homeless and the orphans, preserving education throughout he dark ages, building schools, developing the university system, hospitals, offering the gospel of hope and love to a lost and dying world. Can Protestants point to some of these, even though they didn’t exist throughout all the historical periods that the CC did? Yes, many can. So the Church asks, “Then why separate- why disunity? We’re all the Church, some more or some less perfectly joined to the one Church God originally established.”

You want to point to misdeeds by Church members? Were you or I around during most of those bygone times? How would’ve *we *behaved during less enlightened periods? The gospel has only just begun to be lived out in a more authentic way in the larger sphere, its light just beginning to really have its effect on human society. Should the Church always heed her own gospel? Yes, she should. But will people in a fallen world continue to express that falleness? Yes, the Church’s doctrine on Original Sin will continue to prove its truth and wisdom as time goes on-and as we hopefully begin to understand the full depth of it meaning-regarding just how fallen human nature is-just how far we have to grow-and just how much humankind, inside and outside the Church, really needs Jesus and His Father.

 

[jpelham]

Why do you think that those people left the church in the first place? And that they were unable to articulate an objective reason? Was it poor teaching, mystical misunderstanding, lead stray by evil forces?.

The first church any of us knows is our family, and even while sitting in the pews the atmosphere is formed largely by the parents who brought us to church and take us home. I would not say that an unloving, emotionally destructive “Christian” home life always turns one away from the faith of one’s parents, to an antithetical faith (e.g., Catholicism to Calvinism) or none, but of the former Catholics I knew there were no exceptions to this rule, Parents, the father primarily, are decisive. Above all, acts teach. And the lessons of love, or otherwise, learned by a child are inseparable from the ideal of love professed by one’s parents.

If you would like to know the salient features of Catholic belief, I would encourage you to approach this objectively. Foremost, while of course appreciating the love and sincerity of your Protestant brethren, corroborate their assessments of Catholic belief with canonical statements of Catholic belief such as the Catechism. You will surely notice a pattern of misunderstanding, the depth and stubbornness of which eventually pass over into mystery.

At the risk of saying too much too early, I will offer two observations, the first an answer to the question, “What is Catholicism?” The answer: Catholicism is proof that God still loves the world. The second is the kernel of the explanation of how this is so, how God can love all who seek Him, in every age, as intimately and completely as He did His disciples. As an artist you will in time discover this to be decisive: The origin of all goodness, truth, and beauty, and their perfection, is the Eucharist. Read what you can find on the relation between the sacramental outlook and art.

 

[jncarlos007]

One does not have to become a Catholic in order to be accepted by God.

Unlike the many other churches the Catholic church leaves Salvation to God.

God gave the Church His truths. The Catholic Church preserves and proclaims those truths.

As I said in the beginning, I am not so concerned as to what you accept as the truths of God but what you do not…

Would it surprise you to know, that we are not ignorant of the scriptures and that there is ample scriptures to base our doctrines on?

I hope you don’t mind me further questioning a few of these points

First, I understand that Catholics say you do not have to be Catholic to be accepted by God ( an interesting choice of words I note) I also understand that the church says you do not even have to be a Christian to be accepted by God? A kind of Natural Salvation if you will.

Second, I think it would be more appropriate to say that Unlike the many other *religions *
the Catholic church leaves Salvation to God. I have never been in a protestant church that did not teach that Salvation was God’s free and undeserved gift to us, and that only through repentance, acceptance, and belief do we attain His Grace. Only a few versions/denominations/factions seem to add that any other actions or works were necessary.

As far as preserving and proclaiming, everyone says that, and most can use various verses, sets of verses, translations, and traditions to say that. Other religions can lay claim to such systems. It is only by the manifest truth in the Bible (and experiential understanding) that I, personally, can discern it to be true while other religious works can only contain partial truth since they do not proclaim Christ.

I appreciate the sentiment. The truths of God are what I aspire too, and that is why I seek and read and listen and visit forums like this one.

Lastly, I would hardly expect someone here, like you, to be ignorant of the scriptures. I am not *that * arrogant

 

[jncarlos007]

I find a huge range of attitudes in Protestantism towards the CC-anywhere from seeing her as a fellow Christian Church to maintaining she’s the “Whore of Babylon” with the Pope being the Antichrist, as was written in some of the early confessions, and which is still taught today by various preachers and held by many believers.

The range of attitudes always seems to be what keeps people apart doesn’t it

And I personally think the whole Babylon thing is a little excessive

 

[jncarlos007]

Given the fact that so many Protestant groups and individuals disagree with each other, generally based on their interpretation of scripture, it’s quite refreshing and appropriate IMO for someone to acknowledge the need for a unified voice called by God to proclaim the gospel correctly-and to assert that they, themselves,* are* that voice. Now this is nothing so new; there are many false prophets past and present, but none who can also rightfully trace their historical lineage back to the beginnings of Christianity. And the CC can also rightfully point to her good fruits, millions of hours of volunteer work and gazillions of dollars of donations, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, housing the homeless and the orphans, preserving education throughout he dark ages, building schools, developing the university system, hospitals, offering the gospel of hope and love to a lost and dying world. Can Protestants point to some of these, even though they didn’t exist throughout all the historical periods that the CC did? Yes, many can. So the Church asks, “Then why separate- why disunity? We’re all the Church, some more or some less perfectly joined to the one Church God originally established.”

You want to point to misdeeds by Church members? Were you or I around during most of those bygone times? How would’ve *we *behaved during less enlightened periods? The gospel has only just begun to be lived out in a more authentic way in the larger sphere, its light just beginning to really have its effect on human society. Should the Church always heed her own gospel? Yes, she should. But will people in a fallen world continue to express that falleness? Yes, the Church’s doctrine on Original Sin will continue to prove its truth and wisdom as time goes on-and as we hopefully begin to understand the full depth of it meaning-regarding just how fallen human nature is-just how far we have to grow-and just how much humankind, inside and outside the Church, really needs Jesus and His Father.

As to your first point, it should be obvious that the history of the CC is a far more positive influence than a negative one. But it should be noted that it will always be held to a higher standard than other institutions and that for this it will also be targeted.

Secondly, and this is just ticky tack and I am actually not sure if our opinions here are so different, but I do not consider my particular church/denomination to have sprung into existence out of the blue, like a separate religion, but to exist out of the CC and so to have a common history. I do not read the accounts of the Church in Acts and the Epistles and see that as anything foreign to the church I am a part of.

 

[jncarlos007]

If you would like to know the salient features of Catholic belief, I would encourage you to approach this objectively.

Foremost, while of course appreciating the love and sincerity of your Protestant brethren, corroborate their assessments of Catholic belief with canonical statements of Catholic belief such as the Catechism. You will surely notice a pattern of misunderstanding, the depth and stubbornness of which eventually pass over into mystery.

At the risk of saying too much too early

I try to encounter all things that may bring me closer to God with openness, so don’t worry on that front.

I don’t understand what you mean by too much too early. Should I be concerned?

 

[fhansen]

As to your first point, it should be obvious that the history of the CC is a far more positive influence than a negative one. But it should be noted that it will always be held to a higher standard than other institutions and that for this it will also be targeted.

Secondly, and this is just ticky tack and I am actually not sure if our opinions here are so different, but I do not consider my particular church/denomination to have sprung into existence out of the blue, like a separate religion, but to exist out of the CC and so to have a common history. I do not read the accounts of the Church in Acts and the Epistles and see that as anything foreign to the church I am a part of.

Some churches prefer to believe they’re history in some way bypasses the CC, or that Scripture is the sole historically significant authority. But I agree, Protestantism must trace its roots back through the CC.