Catholics can't attend Protestant services?

[bartimaeus]

Thank You for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it is quite the same fire-power that I encounter when I discuss the RCC with Devout Members of the RCC that are in my immediate family.
I was raised in a Catholic family, and my mother and sister are very well grounded in their catholic faith. My sister’s husband is not sure of what the Catholic Church teaches from day to day, and is unsure therefore of what he believes in, such as the existence of Limbo or Purgatory. This leaves my sister as the spiritual ‘head’ of her household, which is unbiblical.
My sister does not accept the doctrine of Purgatory (which is commendable,) but the pope would pronounce her anathema for this and I am unsure if she knows that.
My mother loves Jesus very much and is committed to walking in her faith on a daily basis. Yet she stands on what she is taught by the RCC, not because it is the truth, but because it is from the Catholic Church.
That is where my whole problem begins, and why I left the RCC.
There were instances where the teaching of the RCC was contrary to what was taught in God’s Word, the Holy Bible. And whenever this happens, the RCC stands upon their tradition and causes the Word of God to play back-up.
What I am finding on this forum, wonderful as it is, is that Protestants are being attacked for believing other beliefs than what the RCC espouses.
I am not against any Catholic adherents, but I am against many of the teachings of the RCC.
There are sacraments that were simply not present in the early church, but were instituted by the RCC, which causes me to say the pope is preaching a different Gospel than what the Apostles were preaching. The pope denies justification by faith alone and requires works done through the Roman Catholic sacramental system in order for a person to be justified before God.
To wit:
A
“Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,” (CCC 2010).
B
"As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . . (The Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. i)

My point here is, this is in contradiction to Scripture. This forces all followers of the fallable pope to make a choice, the Word of God or the word of man. I will let you all make your choice on your own, Here is God’s Word:

Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”

That IS the teaching of St. Paul. AND it is different than what the pope is teaching. There are many other instances of a straying from God’s Word. I studied them, I discussed them with priests and seminarians at a Catholic Church (in a non-formal setting designed to answer questions of faith) and all they did was set up a smokescreen to obscure my commitments.

I will let you ponder upon this, having brought some truth to light. If you were to know the blasphemous history of the papacy and its magisteium, you would think twice before attending certain churches also.

Blessings to you and yours,

Tim

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Which is why I am of the following mind:
It would be better for a Catholic Christian to attend a Protestant service, than for a Protestant to attend the man-made gospel that is present in the RCC. Which gospel do you follow: that of Luther, Calvin, Smyth or some other? Those all seem to be man made. Because Christ is the head of the Catholic Church no other gospel can be preached other that what is of Christ.

Sorry, but what is being taught in the RCC pulpit is a different Gospel and not what St. Peter and St. Paul were teaching. According to what infallible source?

Gal 1:8-9 " But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

The Sacraments are a ‘Works-Based’ doctrine. Faith is a work!

God’s Word tells us that all our works of righteousness are but filthy rags to Him
He also relates earlier to us that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8) See the first comment, Whom do you follow?

Tim

 

[jmcrae]

My mother loves Jesus very much and is committed to walking in her faith on a daily basis. Yet she stands on what she is taught by the RCC, not because it is the truth, but because it is from the Catholic Church.

If it’s from the Catholic Church, Jesus guarantees us that it is His Truth. (Matthew 16:18-19)

There are sacraments that were simply not present in the early church, but were instituted by the RCC, which causes me to say the pope is preaching a different Gospel than what the Apostles were preaching.

Which Sacraments were not present in the New Testament Church?

 

[bartimaeus]

Sean_Boyle:
The ‘gospel’ that I strictly adhere to is the infallible Word of our Lord and God, as related in the Old testament, all four Gospels, and New Testament, Not to include the deutero-canonical apocrypha, which is of dubious authenticity.

Luther is interesting, BUT he is a man, like the pope, as well as others. The Gospel of Luther however, is not man-made,
(can you say, ‘Sola Scriptura’) ?

Christ is more than the head of the catholic church. The catholic church seems to feel that Protestants are not part of Christ’s Church, which is His Body. This is judgemental and smacks of gnosticism.

what is being taught in the RCC pulpit is a different Gospel and not what St. Peter and St. Paul were teaching.
“According to what infallible source?” According to God’s infallible Word, No Less.

 

[bartimaeus]

If it’s from the Catholic Church, Jesus guarantees us that it is His Truth. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Sorry, Christian.
Jesus does not differentiate between denominations in that verse or anywhere. I feel that true believers are disciples and therefore are able to be called Christians.
Disciple is a derivative of the word discipline, which is to contain ones self to Christ’s teachings.

I do, however study Greek and I know the differences between Peter (Petros) in Greek which refers to a foundational rock such as a cliff or a ledge, and the word rock, (petra) which means a stone that could be picked up and thrown. after which Jesus states, “I will build MY Church”,
Then, there is the gender of the wording in Greek.
Please consider,
It would be translated into our english as an actor and actress.
If I were to say, thou art actor and upon this actress I will build my church, would that make me some sort of head upon all behind are to follow me?
Teaching the truth in love,
Tim
Which Sacraments were not present in the New Testament Church?

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, Christian.
Jesus does not differentiate between denominations in that verse or anywhere.

He founds the Catholic Church in that verse, and places Peter at its head.

I feel that true believers are disciples and therefore are able to be called Christians.
Disciple is a derivative of the word discipline, which is to contain ones self to Christ’s teachings.

All of which are what Catholics do. The rest of them follow the traditions of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, the Wesley brothers, John Smythe, etc., and last I looked, none of these were the Son of God.

I do, however study Greek and I know the differences between Peter (Petros) in Greek which refers to a foundational rock such as a cliff or a ledge, and the word rock, (petra) which means a stone that could be picked up and thrown. after which Jesus states, “I will build MY Church”,
Then, there is the gender of the wording in Greek.

First, I think you got it reversed, and second, Jesus was not speaking Greek to Simon Peter, but Aramaic. What Jesus actually said to him was, “Thou art Kephas (a foundation stone), and upon this kephas (foundation stone) I will build my Church.”

How it comes out in the Greek, therefore, has nothing at all to do with it - and even if it did, the form of Greek being used by St. Matthew uses “lithos” to signify a small stone; not “petros” - the word “Petros” is simply a masculinization of the word Petra, to turn it into a name for Simon Peter (since he is a man, and you don’t give men feminine names - not then, and not now).

It’s exactly the same thing in reverse as what’s happening when we name a little girl after St. Peter - you can’t name a girl “Peter” because that’s a boy’s name, so we name her “Petra” because that’s the feminine form of the same word - and by the time she is three years old, she understands that she is named after St. Peter, and that her name is “Petra” because that’s the feminine way of saying the name “Peter.”

 

[bartimaeus]

wisdomseeker:
peace onto you.

I pray for blessings, and peace to you to, Christian.

The only two Sacraments, also called ordinances, that were in place were mentioned by Jesus Himself and they were the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism.

The RCC morphed these into the Eucharist, often contained in a Monstrance. This is against our Lord’s commandment pertaining to the worship of relics.
Infant Baptism is useless, because an infant has no need to repent of anything, nor is it even capable of placing its faith in anything. I repeat, Useless.

Roman Catholic doctrine was largely developed during the mid-eviel period, often referred to as the dark ages because of ecclesiastical corruption. This is what prompted the Great Reformation in the 1500’s. It is called the Great reformation, because Bible believers existed all along, refusing to follow the teachings of a prideful and greedy pope, (not reformed, but never tainted) but they chose to remain underground for obvious reasons.

Following is a brief summation of RCC history, dates are necessarily approximate:

The doctrine of purgatory was formed into dogma by man in the year- 593.AD

Prayers to Mary and Saints, 600 AD

Kissing popes foot 709

canonizing saints 995

celibacy of priests 1079

praying the rosary 1090

Transubstantiation 1215

Confessing sins to priests 1215

There is only one universal church, outside of which none may be saved: Pope Boniface VIII Bull, Unam Sanctum, 1302

Seven Sacraments 1439

Council of Trent proclaiming Apocryphal books authoritative:
1439, this was sort of an anti-reformation initiative.

Pope Pius declared mary to be free from sin for her entire life in 1854. If this were true, …well, nevermind.

Finally, The meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy mother the church has once declared: First Vatican council, 1870 -Once again, can you say, ‘gnosticism’?

History proves itself, the RCC has formed and dogmatized an absolutely new religion that is not under subjection to Jesus, but to one or another of many popes.
Veneration of relics as well as many other sins run rampant.

This is addition to other false teachings held near and dear by those without discernment, such as, ‘Mary, Mother of God’ (-Really, as if God ever actually had a mother). Or, Mary Co-Redemptorist, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

When the Last words spoken by Mary were in the New Testament, she said “Do as He says” But catholics refuse to follow her words as well as Scripture.

Blessings, Peace and Joy, in that particular order my friend.

Tim

 

[jmcrae]

Tim;

Just curious, you wouldn’t be using a book called “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner as your resource, would you?

I think you should be let in on the secret - it is a work of fiction, most likely written as a joke, along the same lines as The da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I pray for blessings, and peace to you to, Christian.

The only two Sacraments, also called ordinances, that were in place were mentioned by Jesus Himself and they were the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism.

The RCC morphed these into the Eucharist, often contained in a Monstrance. This is against our Lord’s commandment pertaining to the worship of relics.
Infant Baptism is useless, because an infant has no need to repent of anything, nor is it even capable of placing its faith in anything. I repeat, Useless.

Roman Catholic doctrine was largely developed during the mid-eviel period, often referred to as the dark ages because of ecclesiastical corruption. This is what prompted the Great Reformation in the 1500’s. It is called the Great reformation, because Bible believers existed all along, refusing to follow the teachings of a prideful and greedy pope, (not reformed, but never tainted) but they chose to remain underground for obvious reasons.

Following is a brief summation of RCC history, dates are necessarily approximate:

The doctrine of purgatory was formed into dogma by man in the year- 593.AD

Prayers to Mary and Saints, 600 AD

Kissing popes foot 709

canonizing saints 995

celibacy of priests 1079

praying the rosary 1090

Transubstantiation 1215

Confessing sins to priests 1215

There is only one universal church, outside of which none may be saved: Pope Boniface VIII Bull, Unam Sanctum, 1302

Seven Sacraments 1439

Council of Trent proclaiming Apocryphal books authoritative:
1439, this was sort of an anti-reformation initiative.

Pope Pius declared mary to be free from sin for her entire life in 1854. If this were true, …well, nevermind.

Finally, The meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy mother the church has once declared: First Vatican council, 1870 -Once again, can you say, ‘gnosticism’?

History proves itself, the RCC has formed and dogmatized an absolutely new religion that is not under subjection to Jesus, but to one or another of many popes.
Veneration of relics as well as many other sins run rampant.

This is addition to other false teachings held near and dear by those without discernment, such as, ‘Mary, Mother of God’ (-Really, as if God ever actually had a mother). Or, Mary Co-Redemptorist, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

When the Last words spoken by Mary were in the New Testament, she said “Do as He says” But catholics refuse to follow her words as well as Scripture.

Blessings, Peace and Joy, in that particular order my friend.

Tim

I know you want to understand everything, it can be frustrating many times trying to comprehend the ways of Our Lord. but dont worry, Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and it hasnt.
Jesus left us a Church and not a book. remember that.

dont try to understand everything about the CC you can’t. she is a mistery to the world. only by the grace of God one is able to see this Church.

you can quote all that the Bible have, you will not find one thing taht contradicts the CC or find anything in the CC that contradicts the Bible for they are inseparable.
the Three Pillars: SS, Magisteriun, ST. you cannot separate them. if you do , you will ended up in great confusion.

peace.

 

[bobzills]

God’s Word tells us that all our works of righteousness are but filthy rags to Him

Absolutely wrong.
Please read Matthew 25: 31-46.

 

[LilyM]

Following is a brief summation of RCC history, dates are necessarily approximate:

Prayers to Mary and Saints, 600 AD

Tim

What a load of rot! There are prayers to the saints carved on the very walls of the Roman catacombs - well before 600 AD, of course.

The earliest known prayer to Mary, which begins ‘We fly to your protection, most holy Mother of God …’ dates from AD 250 and was used in Coptic LITURGIES (worship) in the same century, so it was a widely accepted practice (churches don’t introduce doctrinal novelties into their public worship overnight, you know).

So not only is your timing way off for prayers to the saints, but Mary is called Mother of God in that very same prayer, which is used in worship that makes clear that the idea of prayer to the saints and Mary as Mother of God were ALREADY well-established belief by 250.

 

[FCEGM]

Tim;

Just curious, you wouldn’t be using a book called “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner as your resource, would you?

I think you should be let in on the secret - it is a work of fiction, most likely written as a joke, along the same lines as The da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

It certainly appears that he is using Boettner’s book as his source, or at least someone else’s work that depends on Boettner for the “facts”. (I’ve even seen him quoted in the LDS “Missionary Pal”.) It’s rather like reading “The Communist Manifesto” to understand the founding of the United States. Perhaps we can hope that he will be willing to read rebuttals to Boettner’s bilge:

catholic.com/library/the_anti_catholic_bible.asp

catholic.com/library/catholic_inventions.asp

 

[Mach1Man]

=David B;3483529]I don’t think I know of any resources where I can look up magisterial or usccb material contradicting Father, but I think a major factor is why would someone be attending a non-catholic service? Is this a family situation where a Catholic has a non-Catholic spouse or family member? Or does someone attend a Protestant service because they aren’t being “fed” by worship in the Holy Mother church, perhaps they’re attracted by the more cohesive community? Or how about an organist who made their livelihood playing in Protestant churches?

I think there are major distinctions between the three situations I just mentioned. Certainly for the one that is looking for fellowship and perhaps a worship style that appeals more to their personal tastes in a Protestant Church is in a more precarious situation than the musician for hire. I can imagine this could happen with both extremes in Protestantism; one might be attracted to charismatic pentecostal worship, or one might be attracted to High Church Anglican worship that makes your average Catholic parish look like a Congregational church.

God Bless

Hi
The bold words are one of the reasons my Wife decided to check out the Church where I went. It seemed to Her that most of the focus was on Mary and not on Christ. The church where she attended was call “Queen if Apostles Catholic Church”. After many Bible studies and visits to Christs Church she converted. They had a big fundraiser for a new fellowship hall, and they auctioned off bottles of wine and whiskey, they had a beer garden and many were getting drunk. They even had a big Budweiser sign over the bar in the new hall. People said hi, but nobody seemed to care if she missed a week. (She is from a smaller town about 90 minutes away and would go back home 5 or 6 times a year). I’m not saying that people weren’t nice, they were. It just seemed that they were afraid to get very close. We have a Prayer chain of about 15 Churches and some 4000 people. It is so cool to know that in a matter of minutes I could have so many people praying for me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi
The bold words are one of the reasons my Wife decided to check out the Church where I went. It seemed to Her that most of the focus was on Mary and not on Christ.

That is a total misconception for those Catholics who leave the Catholic Church. Jesus is the center of the our faith. In fact, in Catholicism, the source, summit of our faith is the Eucharist, which is Jesus Christ himself. We partake in the Christ’s sacrifice which transcends time.

If the Church focus on Mary then what we sacrifice at the altar should be Mary. I don’t think any Catholic Church practices this. She also lack the truth understanding of the Catholic faith.

The church where she attended was call “Queen if Apostles Catholic Church”. After many Bible studies and visits to Christs Church she converted. They had a big fundraiser for a new fellowship hall, and they auctioned off bottles of wine and whiskey, they had a beer garden and many were getting drunk. They even had a big Budweiser sign over the bar in the new hall. People said hi, but nobody seemed to care if she missed a week. (She is from a smaller town about 90 minutes away and would go back home 5 or 6 times a year). I’m not saying that people weren’t nice, they were. It just seemed that they were afraid to get very close. We have a Prayer chain of about 15 Churches and some 4000 people. It is so cool to know that in a matter of minutes I could have so many people praying for me.

That sure sounds like a lot of Anti-Catholic retortic and if they are indeed practiced, they are not in full obedience to the Catholic Church.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

We have a Prayer chain of about 15 Churches and some 4000 people. It is so cool to know that in a matter of minutes I could have so many people praying for me.

We have one of those pray chains too, bit more extensive though. We call it the communion of saints in heaven. The praying starts before the request leaves your mind.

 

[bstcy]

I asked our pastoral associate who also heads up the RCIA program at the parish I will be attending through a college community that is Catholic.

She informed me that it is perfectly fine to attend as long as I fulfill the Sunday obligation as a Catholic (when I finally am Catholic) and as long as I do not partake in communion outside of the Catholic Church.

I also used to have a ministry (since I am partially deaf) where I would use sign language to interpret songs and to use interpretative dance. She (the pastoral associate) informed me that I could still partake in that ministry as long as I follow the rules (Sunday obligation, no non-Catholic communion).

 

[bartimaeus]

What a load of rot! There are prayers to the saints carved on the very walls of the Roman catacombs - well before 600 AD, of course.

The earliest known prayer to Mary, which begins ‘We fly to your protection, most holy Mother of God …’ dates from AD 250 and was used in Coptic LITURGIES (worship) in the same century, so it was a widely accepted practice (churches don’t introduce doctrinal novelties into their public worship overnight, you know).

So not only is your timing way off for prayers to the saints, but Mary is called Mother of God in that very same prayer, which is used in worship that makes clear that the idea of prayer to the saints and Mary as Mother of God were ALREADY well-established belief by 250.

Yes, thank you for engraving all my suspicions into granite. I will now know that whenever I attempt to expound upon God’s Truth, I will be attacked through the deception of The “holy mother church” who claims dedication to the mother of God… Come on really now, do you really think that God had a mother? If so, who was … nevermind, I see the pointlessness.

This is because I said Nothing about the ‘first’ prayers to Mary, but when marian prayers were dogmatized into the RCC! (by a pope who wears ten-thousand dollar hats and has his followers kiss his toes.)

The Truth is the RCC is way off the mark when it comes to God’s truth as delivered in Scripture.
Read this very carefully, please: Whenever you espouse one doctrine, you necessarily oppose any doctrine which is in contradiction to said doctrine.
Therefore, the RCC forces its adherents to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive word on the cross to save us from our sin which is the main point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, believe it fellow Christians, when you accept the doctrine of purgatory, as is contained in the apocrypha, you deny Jesus Christ’s sufficiency and the very reason He came to earth. Please read John 3:16

Amen,
Tim <: ))><

 

[bartimaeus]

It certainly appears that he is using Boettner’s book as his source, or at least someone else’s work that depends on Boettner for the “facts”. (I’ve even seen him quoted in the LDS “Missionary Pal”.) It’s rather like reading “The Communist Manifesto” to understand the founding of the United States. Perhaps we can hope that he will be willing to read rebuttals to Boettner’s bilge:

catholic.com/library/the_anti_catholic_bible.asp

catholic.com/library/catholic_inventions.asp

How Completely Wonderful!!

I am very happy for your joy, as I pray for your deliverance from the holy mother church.
I am a Son of El Elyon, the Most High God, and I accept His Word as the Final authority.

Tim, Son of God,
Brother of Jesus <: ))><

P.S. Please refrain from being judgemental as you refuse to partake in communion with lovers of Jesus who prefer to adhere strictly to His teachings

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, thank you for engraving all my suspicions into granite. I will now know that whenever I attempt to expound upon God’s Truth, I will be attacked through the deception of The “holy mother church” who claims dedication to the mother of God… Come on really now, do you really think that God had a mother? If so, who was … nevermind, I see the pointlessness.

Jesus is God. Jesus had a mother and she had a name; Mary. God, the Second Person of the Trinity. She is the Mother of the Word incarnate. To deny the Theotokos (God-Bearer) is heresy called Nestorianism. Read it up. This deacon denies Mary is the Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus in 432 AD defines Mary as the Mother of God.

This is because I said Nothing about the ‘first’ prayers to Mary, but when marian prayers were dogmatized into the RCC! (by a pope who wears ten-thousand dollar hats and has his followers kiss his toes.)

Since Marian prayers are Gospel Prayers. The Hail Mary came from Luke from Gabriel greeting. Hail full of grace. The Lord is with you (Luke 1:28). Blessed are you among woman is from Elizabeth’s own lips when the Holy Spirit dwell in her.

Well, there those Bible translation that say Hail highly favored on but that translation is weak. The Greek word Kecharitomene means “to bestow grace, to show favor to someone, Here it is the divine favor for a special vocation…” Don’t mock the Word of God. The Hail Mary prayer is very Biblical.

The Truth is the RCC is way off the mark when it comes to God’s truth as delivered in Scripture.
Read this very carefully, please: Whenever you espouse one doctrine, you necessarily *oppose any doctrine which is in contradiction to *said doctrine.

There are no doctrines that contradicts in Catholicism. Am I suppose to take your word, you aren’t even Catholic.

Therefore, the RCC* forces* its adherents to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive word on the cross to save us from our sin which is the main point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That is another misconception by many Non-Catholic Christians. The Catholic Church does not deny the sufficiency of Christ redemptive work. We become intimately involve with Christ’s suffering by part taking in the sacrifice when transcends time and space.

Yes, believe it fellow Christians, when you accept the doctrine of purgatory, as is contained in the apocrypha, you deny Jesus Christ’s sufficiency and the very reason He came to earth. Please read John 3:16

Amen,
Tim <: ))><

The existence of Purgatory exist only because God is merciful. Purgatory is God’s mercy in action. Since Purgatory cleanse our sins and made us perfect so we can attain heaven. Purgatory is not eternal. It will cease to exist when Judgment Day comes.

I also like to attest that in Philippians, that Jesus is worshipped on the earth, in heaven, and under the earth. This under the earth is Purgatory. Jesus is not praised in hell. So this third place is Purgatory. See Phil. 2:10.

 

[bartimaeus]

Jesus is God. Jesus had a mother and she had a name; Mary. God, the Second Person of the Trinity. She is the Mother of the Word incarnate. To deny the Theotokos (God-Bearer) is heresy called Nestorianism. Read it up. This deacon denies Mary is the Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus in 432 AD defines Mary as the Mother of God.

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title “Mother of God.” He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity.

Thank you for allowing me to speak truth once again,
Tim