Condemnation of fellow Christians

[JGC]

>>
In terms of other institutions and how we view other Christian traditions, I think we often take a zero-sum approach, as in “we are right and they are wrong.” I think one thing that may be better is to thiink in terms of a rating of 1-10. If Catholicism is true, that is, Catholic doctrine corresponds to God’s will, then Catholicism gets a 10. In my opinion, lots of other Christian traditions would get 8’s and 9’s. If you are right about what God intends, and we are wrong, then you would have the 10 and we would have a lesser number. We should strive for a 10 though, because that way we can be closest to God as possible (though of course knowledge does not always equal faith).

Jeff

Yes regretably there are still Catholic’s out there who hold the ‘Not a card carrying Catholic? Then you cannot be saved.’ position. Ignore them. Listen to the Pope, the Bishops and the Church. I’m sure you have read the thread where I and others have pointed out why these EENS ‘traditionalists’ are simply plain wrong.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[JGC]

>>

Frank I appreciate your view here and don’t disagree with it however, I don’t think this is the view of the catholic church. Based on what I have been reading and what others have said there appears to be two irreconcilable views taken by the RC. One says there is no salvation outside the RC, the other says there is. As a matter of fact there was a recent debate by RCs on this forum regarding what is what.

Well if this is the case then don’t you think that the RC has made a long leap from its original position.

anyone?

Jeff

The teaching has never changed, some people at various times have decided to give it their own personal slant and some indeed, such as Fr Feeney have had to be disciplined by the Church for it.

‘And so it is with the theological slogan, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Latin for “outside the Church, no salvation”). This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, one that’s found in every age of Catholic history, and it’s held to by the Church’s best and most influential minds. Understood properly, its dogmatic truth is beyond question. The problem arises, however, when this slogan is given a life of its own. And so it was in the 1940s with Fr. Leonard Feeney.’

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

LOL. You cant steer someone to Jesus if they are already completely surrendered to HIM.

I undoubtly approach RC with an open mind and an open heart, but I can assure you that to date I am not impressed with the evidence.
When I look at the evidence I have to ask myself what is it all about?
So far all I see is lots of emphasis on rituals and institutions. I do believe that Jesus is and always should be supreme therefore getting ALL the emphasis. not the pope, the instution or the rituals. Isn’t the what Paul did? For he said:

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Jeff

Jeff:

The evidence is 1. The PLAIN MEANING of Scripture as quoted from the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, and 2.The Practice and Teaching of the Church for nearly 2,000 years, “In all Places, To all Men, At all Times.” (That was true before the Protestant Reformation when the Protestants tossed out that Practice and Teaching)

I’m sorry that you don’t consider that to be compelling. Only someone whose mind and heart weren’t entirely open could have that much difficulty.

I’m NOT saying that you can’t experience the presence of Christ in any assembly of Believing Christians or that you can’t receive God’s grace in such an assmbly, Jesus assured us, “When 2 or 3 are gather together in My name, I will be there…” I’m only saying that we KNOW the grace, the intimacy and the life confered by Eating and Drinking Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist goes well beyond that. At some point, it becomes an issue of whether or not you’re willing to obey Our Lord on this issue.

I haven’t heard one person refer to any ritual except those described in Scripture, and, with the exception of those who’ve referred to the Institution of the Church itself, NO one has referred to any “Institution”.

Regarding the Pope and the Papacy, I can only say what Jesus said to Peter, “Simon, I call you ‘Cephas/Peter/Rock’, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) And later, “Whatsover You hold bound is bound. Whatsoever you hold loosed is loosed.” (Matt: 18:18) Remember, I’m the Anglican, but I can’t argue with those.

As I said, there’s always space in front of the alter. If you don’t want to pray the Rosary, the Psalms were the first prayers, or you could borrow a breviary.

I believe that if you ask God to show you the truth of what we’re saying, He will.

Sooner or later, whether you decide to accept the body and blood of Our Lord is an issue of the heart, not of the head.

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

JGC:

The teaching has never changed, some people at various times have decided to give it their own personal slant and some indeed, such as Fr Feeney have had to be disciplined by the Church for it.

‘And so it is with the theological slogan, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Latin for “outside the Church, no salvation”). This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, one that’s found in every age of Catholic history, and it’s held to by the Church’s best and most influential minds. Understood properly, its dogmatic truth is beyond question. The problem arises, however, when this slogan is given a life of its own. And so it was in the 1940s with Fr. Leonard Feeney.’

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

I believe that a LOT of people are going to be surprised at whom God decided to include in The Church, and, therefore, at who’s going to make it into the Kingdom of God.

That’s one reason we’re supposed to pray for the dead and dying, esp. for those who aren’t Catholics.

In Him, Michael

 

[JGC]

Traditional Ang:

I believe that a LOT of people are going to be surprised at whom God decided to include in The Church, and, therefore, at who’s going to make it into the Kingdom of God.

That’s one reason we’re supposed to pray for the dead and dying, esp. for those who aren’t Catholics.

In Him, Michael

I agree, but would probably say MOST people are going to be surprised…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Traditional Ang:

I believe that a LOT of people are going to be surprised at whom God decided to include in The Church, and, therefore, at who’s going to make it into the Kingdom of God.

That’s one reason we’re supposed to pray for the dead and dying, esp. for those who aren’t Catholics.

In Him, Michael

It was time for Saint Peter’s Annual Performance Appraisal. Jesus said, “I can’t give you top marks – you’ve been falling down on the job.” He pointed to a man walking down the golden street – “That man was a crook and a cheat.” He pointed at a woman, “And you know what SHE did for a living!”

Saint Peter shook his head, "It’s not my fault, Lord. Your mother keeps opening the windows."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

I’m sorry that you don’t consider that to be compelling. Only someone whose mind and heart weren’t entirely open could have that much difficulty.

Actually that isn’t true. I see plenty of reasons why not to believe many of the catholic teachings. However I am open minded and open hearted enough that I don’t just except those reasons at face value but I examine them intensely. I post them here to see if they hold water in discussion and I consider the RC and Prot. as well as the EO views on things.

And your appeal to the plain sense of scripture is inaccurate too. Peter himself said that many things Paul wrote are difficult to understand and Peter said "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. "

Also many passages in scripture are obscure, and the only way to make any real sense of them is to cross-reference them and compare them in light of other scripture. For example it is impossible for anyone reading John 6 to even develop an interpretation of Jesus words to mean that he would turn bread into flesh without cross referencing the passage with 1 Cor. 10-11. And even then that doesn’t mean anything. I have seen many doctrines that look right on the surface but are in error. For example the predestination of Calvin looks really accurate according to scripture until you scrutinize every detail. When you do that you see that Calvin was only seeing a part of the picture. Of course a Calvinist could easliy say what you and others here have said to me. Why not just have faith and believe? Well I know why, because the teaching can be wrong even though it may appear to be right. And I can assure you the argument for Calvins teaching on predestination looks more convincing than the arguments for some of the Catholic doctrine. Yet it was in error.

And protestants in general use the plain sense of scripture argument all the time to argue for their points. For example the argument of we are saved by faith and not by some ritual appears to be the plain sense of galatians, however catholics argue against that. I need to scrutinize to find out what Paul actually means and if his position does disagree with the RC position.

And your suggestion about praying to God and he will show me. I agree that God will and does guide me. However this is the same thing that Mormons and Protestants and JW tell people who don’t believe in them. Basically it is a leaning toward subjectivism, so I have to ask, what makes a burning in the stomach, or a feeling of peace valid without some sort of objective verification? God will guide me in my studies. BTW that is how the pope comes to a infallible descision, he doesn’t just have faith, he actually does the study.

I think that being diligent in determining what is the truth just as the Bereans who examined the scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true, is a commendable thing.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

jphilapy:

Actually that isn’t true. I see plenty of reasons why not to believe many of the catholic teachings. However I am open minded and open hearted enough that I don’t just except those reasons at face value but I examine them intensely. I post them here to see if they hold water in discussion and I consider the RC and Prot. as well as the EO views on things.

And your appeal to the plain sense of scripture is inaccurate too. Peter himself said that many things Paul wrote are difficult to understand and Peter said "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. "

Also many passages in scripture are obscure, and the only way to make any real sense of them is to cross-reference them and compare them in light of other scripture. For example it is impossible for anyone reading John 6 to even develop an interpretation of Jesus words to mean that he would turn bread into flesh without cross referencing the passage with 1 Cor. 10-11. And even then that doesn’t mean anything. I have seen many doctrines that look right on the surface but are in error. For example the predestination of Calvin looks really accurate according to scripture until you scrutinize every detail. When you do that you see that Calvin was only seeing a part of the picture. Of course a Calvinist could easliy say what you and others here have said to me. Why not just have faith and believe? Well I know why, because the teaching can be wrong even though it may appear to be right. And I can assure you the argument for Calvins teaching on predestination looks more convincing than the arguments for some of the Catholic doctrine. Yet it was in error.

And protestants in general use the plain sense of scripture argument all the time to argue for their points. For example the argument of we are saved by faith and not by some ritual appears to be the plain sense of galatians, however catholics argue against that. I need to scrutinize to find out what Paul actually means and if his position does disagree with the RC position.

In essence the “plain sense of scripture” is a moot argument because how plain it is will be dependent on several factors such as how well you know the scriptures and wether your heart is truly seeking God and on how capable you are at scrutinizing and analyzing scripture and of course on your seeking God for direction and wisdom.

And your suggestion about praying to God and he will show me. I agree that God will and does guide me. However this is the same thing that Mormons and Protestants and JW tell people who don’t believe in them. Basically it is a leaning toward subjectivism, so I have to ask, what makes a burning in the stomach, or a feeling of peace valid without some sort of objective verification? God will guide me in my studies. BTW that is how the pope comes to a infallible descision, he doesn’t just have faith, he actually does the study.

I think that being diligent in determining what is the truth just as the Bereans who examined the scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true, is a commendable thing.

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

. . . the only way to make any real sense of them is to cross-reference them and compare them in light of other scripture.

Of course, in addition to that, Catholics include a serious review of the early Church Fathers and Tradition because we understand that what the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church was DOING and thinking, liturgically, and in their communities, reflects the teaching the Apostles received from Christ.

For example it is impossible for anyone reading John 6 to even develop an interpretation of Jesus words to mean that he would turn bread into flesh without cross referencing the passage with 1 Cor. 10-11. And even then that doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn’t mean anything? Taken together, these passages are a heavy scale-tipper. But this is an example of how Apostolic practice and belief come together with Scripture to make sense of an enigmatic passage. This is a GOOD example because notiwthstanding a lot of both Catholic and Protestant vehemence about how John 6 CLEARLY means that Christ is or is not physically present in the Eucharist, using Scripture alone, it is possible to argue the case either way.

For example the argument of we are saved by faith and not by some ritual appears to be the plain sense of galatians, however catholics argue against that.

:bigyikes: Good thing you’re looking into it. The doctrine by which Catholics believe in the efficacy of Sacraments is definitely NOT an argument that we are saved “by some ritual.” Faith in the power of Christ is the heart of all sacramental theology, as you will see when you explore this further.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

And protestants in general use the plain sense of scripture argument all the time to argue for their points. For example the argument of we are saved by faith and not by some ritual appears to be the plain sense of galatians, however catholics argue against that. I need to scrutinize to find out what Paul actually means and if his position does disagree with the RC position.

Jeff,

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans do not believe that the Sacraments are just some “Rituals”. We believe that they are outward and visable signs of inward and invisable graces that God gives to us in them.

And, they aren’t “Works of the Law” in the Pauline sense. They are ways that God has quaranteed to us that He will give us the grace to enable us live lives worthy of Him and His sacrifice for us, and that Christ will share himself with us in the most intimate way possible this side of the Beautific Vision.

I, and the others in the forum, have been quoting scripture to you on the assumption that you were a Protestant and that you did not accept the teaching of the Undivided Church. It also doesn’t help that I’ve only very recently come back to the Church and that my knowledge of the Church Fathers is corroded at best.

But, what I do know is this, the Early and Undivided Church taught that when they met together for the Holy Eucharist and received the bread and wine, they believed they partook of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus, and equated that bread and wine with Our Lord’s Body and Blood. They didn’t have the debates that we are having here, and were grateful that Our lord made himself present to them in that manner.

Archeologists have found found markings of Fishes with cups and loaves over them, and others with priests lifting the cup and loaf while saying, “This is my body. This is my blood.” In fact, one of the charges levelled by Nero at the early Christians was that of cannabalism, because of, “Their practice of eating the body and drinking the blood of an infant they claim is their deity.”

As Catholics, we don’t just accept the authority of Scripture, we accept the Teaching Authority of the Church that declared which books were canonical and which ones weren’t.

And that Church had 7 Sacraments, one of which we call the Eucharist.

jphilapy:

And your suggestion about praying to God and he will show me. I agree that God will and does guide me. However this is the same thing that Mormons and Protestants and JW tell people who don’t believe in them. Basically it is a leaning toward subjectivism, so I have to ask, what makes a burning in the stomach, or a feeling of peace valid without some sort of objective verification? God will guide me in my studies. BTW that is how the pope comes to a infallible descision, he doesn’t just have faith, he actually does the study.

Jeff

Jeff, as I described previously, the Pope has invoked his infallibility only once. I believe that he did so after studying the issue intensely, consulting various theologians, and spending and “inordinate” amount of time on prayer to insure that he was doing the right thing.

The guarantee of Papal infallability apparently comes from God himself. I understand that, during the Middle Ages, one Pope was struck dead right before he could promulgate a heresy he seemed quite intent on. So I guess God takes the guarantee very seriously.

It is far more common for the Church to speak through ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. The Nicene Creed as we say it every week is the product of 2 such Councils. The Athanasian Creed is the product of the Council of Calcydon. Our New Testament was approved by those very same Councils (the two that produced the Nicene Creed, although Calcydon had to second the Book of Revelation). Vatican II, which set in motion a lot of reforms of the modern RC Church, was another Ecumenical Council.

Having not been in either situation, I can’t tell you how or when they know that “they have it right”. I can only tell by reading the paper.

I think you might want to read Matt: 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 22-24; Luke 22:19-20; John 6: 35-60; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-32.

While you’re reading those, please remember that early Christians didn’t need those Scriptures to tell them that want they were eating and drinking was the Body and Blood of Our Lord. They knew, accepted, and were grateful for the gift that God had given them.

The question is, can you accept what they accepted, or is it “Too hard for you”?

FYI, I believe that your need to use insulting language is a sign that, “You are kicking against the goads”. Try to stop kicking and just accept, and then see what happens,.

Meanwhile, there’s always space in front of the alter.

May God grant you Peace, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

FYI, I believe that your need to use insulting language is a sign that, “You are kicking against the goads”. Try to stop kicking and just accept, and then see what happens,.

Thanks for all your information. Now what do you mean by my insulting language? I only recall being insulting to one person and I apologized for it. And it was due to the fact that he called into question my intentions as trying to “entrapt” like the pharisees did Jesus. My intention for being here is so I can determine what to believe. Now I think accusing me of this as such was insulting considering that it isn’t true.

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

Traditional Ang:

Jeff,

FYI, I believe that your need to use insulting language is a sign that, “You are kicking against the goads”. Try to stop kicking and just accept, and then see what happens,
Peace, Michael

Michael, I dont’ think Jeff has been insulting – at least not since he got some serious and thoughtful answers to the basic questions Protestants have about what Catholics do and why. Maybe you came across an earlier post of his?

Certain catch-phrases have become part of the Protestant repertory: graven images; traditions of men; works of the law; vain repetitions . . . The list goes on. Protestants are fed on this until, to them, it doesn’t even sound offensive. It’s just “how Catholics are.”

For a deep-dyed Protestant even to IMAGINE that any Catholic answer might have integrity or depth is a huge step and a gift of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, great post on the Eucharist, Michael.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

Michael, I dont’ think Jeff has been insulting – at least not since he got some serious and thoughtful answers to the basic questions Protestants have about what Catholics do and why. Maybe you came across an earlier post of his?

Mercy, I appreciate your trying to clear me of the charges.

I can’t say that it is because of your “serious and thoughtful answers” that I stopped insulting people. I never came here with the intent to insult, and I don’t rely on insulting or intimidating as methods of argument. I had one incident where someone insulted me first so I reacted and as far as I know that one time is the only time. Some people have given me serious and thoughtful answers on here, and I appreciate them, but some have also given me the typical protestant arguements as to why I should accept RC such as just have faith.

For the most part I don’t see the evidence for Roman Catholicism as being as clear as some folks would like me to think it is. And if I am an honest man then I will call it as I see it. I don’t think there is anything at all wrong with that.

But just because that is where I am does not mean that I am not seriously considering RC as being who they say they are. Maybe some folks here prefer I just accept without question. Sometimes that is the impression I get.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Another thing is, I am totally up for discussion, so I am hoping for challenges to my posts. This is how I learn and I find an enjoyment in thinking and analyzing, especially in the things of church history, practices, and how Jesus relates to us.

so hopefully that tells folks here where I am coming from. I just tend to be afraid that the folks I am interacting with are not really as open as I am. I know some here are open by the way they act.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

Mercy, I appreciate your trying to clear me of the charges.

I can’t say that it is because of your “serious and thoughtful answers” that I stopped insulting people. I never came here with the intent to insult, and I don’t rely on insulting or intimidating as methods of argument. I had one incident where someone insulted me first so I reacted and as far as I know that one time is the only time. Some people have given me serious and thoughtful answers on here, and I appreciate them, but some have also given me the typical protestant arguements as to why I should accept RC such as just have faith.

Jeff

Jeff:

There were three or four situations that I considered insulting - you’ll notice the “ouches” in my posts each time. I think you’ll also notice similar responses from other posters here, many of whom have left the discussion.

I think it best to accept that you didn’t know what you were saying and how most of us would react. I think it fair, however, to ask that that you remember that we are all Christians here, and that if you feel insulted by something someone says to say something about it instead of insulting the rest of the group. I know that you’d never accept it if I did that in your Church.

We are both here as guests at someone else’s house, and we both would do well to remember that. Remember, I’m not a Roman Catholic either.

Jeff, I didn’t expect you to automatically accept everything I and everyone said at face value. But I did hope that once you examined the claims for the hisotricity and the sheer length of time of existence, that theose claims would carry some more weight.

I had also hoped that you would begin to question some of you a priori assumptions and subject what the various Protestant Pastors and teachers have taught you to the same scrutiny as you have the Teachings of the Church. I believe that if you did, those Protestant Teachings would not bear nearly the same scrutiny as those of the Church.

May God grant you Peace and Grace,

In Him, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

I think it best to accept that you didn’t know what you were saying and how most of us would react. I think it fair, however, to ask that that you remember that we are all Christians here, and that if you feel insulted by something someone says to say something about it instead of insulting the rest of the group.

We are both here as guests at someone else’s house, and we both would do well to remember that. Remember, I’m not a Roman Catholic either.

I had also hoped that you would begin to question some of you a priori assumptions and subject what the various Protestant Pastors and teachers have taught you to the same scrutiny as you have the Teachings of the Church. I believe that if you did, those Protestant Teachings would not bear nearly the same scrutiny as those of the Church.

May God grant you Peace and Grace,

In Him, Michael

Thanks Mike I appreaciate your corrective post.

I didn’t realize and still don’t know what I might have said to offend others except the cracker comment. But I am not awfully familiar with much of what might offend people here.

However I will say that posting here I was a little uncomfortable and I believe that came through. I kind of felt like I picked up a very exclusive attitude from a few and I let that effect me. I mean coming here I got the real strong impression that folks like myself are considered heretics because we don’t except catholicisms requirements such as sacraments containing spiritual power. I am positive that I have a relationship with Jesus and it isn’t because of some blind faith. I have seen the evidence. As a matter of fact I got corrected several years ago in a AA meeting because they were saying to me that once an alcaholic always an alcaholic. But I replied to them saying, that I believe when you take a shower you are clean. Because Jesus has cleaned me I am free from alcahol. They told me to keep my God to myself. Thank God I was let out of the program 6 months early because my drug and alcahol counsler saw such a tremoundous change in my life he told me to go home and never come back. That was 14 years ago, I was set free from alcaholism, drugs, a foul and cursing mouth and fornication. Jesus indeed set me free. However coming to this forum I have heard many things about how I have to accept all the sacraments of the RC or I am condemend to hell. This is tough for me to accept considering that Jesus has set me free and continues to abide in me/me in him. Scripture is clear that you recognize a tree by its fruit. I in fact see the fruit of Christ bearing in my life. Not saying I am perfect, but I am going and growing up into Him. So you can see how frustrating it is to me to be made to feel like I have no salvation because I don’t accept the sacraments. It makes me think that folks are looking for you to follow all the religious rules but not caring about the fruit. In away it is like, you are ok as long as you keep the sacraments, even if you don’t have fruit. However if you do have fruit but don’t keep the sacraments then you are condemned. I can only think of the scripture where Paul ask what right do we have to judge another man’s servant. Since I am His then how can someone else condemn me?

Also I am a little blunt and straight forward so I wonder how much of that makes people uncomfortable?

Anyway as far as questioning the things my protestants teachers tell me… well here is the situation. I am not part of a protestant church, and only attended a couple for 4 years total. So I don’t have much indoctrination from protestant churches. I do however have some protestant influence. I am just saying that im not even sure I would call myself a protestant for any other reason than I hold to some of the tenants and am not catholic. I am sure you are aware of the ardent protestants… im not anywhere near that.

Since I became a christian it is always been my desire to discover the teaching of scripture in its most pure form so I have tried to avoid other folks theology as much as I can. But you know we are all impressionable to some degree. I can’t even begin to name half or even smaller percentage of the protestant theology. I just know some of the basics like sola fide and sola scriptura. How little I really know But I have spent a considerable amount of time reading scriptures and church history, particulary in the first 300 years. And now I am evaluating the claims of the two oldest churches in history.

Basically I don’t give a lot of weight to protestant arguments against catholicism, though I think a few are pretty good. I am essentially skeptical of any christian based religion due to the fact that there seems to be so much bad coming from christianity wether it be protestants or catholicism. So I say this so that you know I am not some protestant here set on refuting on catholcism. That’s not to say I won’t disagree or argue points against catholicism.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

so i think that is enough about me

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

. . . I mean coming here I got the real strong impression that folks like myself are considered heretics because we don’t except catholicisms requirements such as sacraments containing spiritual power. . . .
Jeff

1. Heretics. Even before I came into the Church I understood perfectly the Catholic theology of the Church. To Catholics, the Church IS the Body and the Bride of Christ; she is protected by the Holy Spirit; she is promised indefectibility from truth by Christ himself. So, from that standpoint, rejecting her defines “heretical.” It’s not name-calling, it is a simple description of fact.

That doesn’t mean that grace isn’t active and REAL in the lives of non-Catholics (even heretics!). The Church is the privileged place of grace but not the exclusive place of grace. The Church does not “own” the Holy Spirit. The Church is very humble towards him. He is bigger than all of us put together.

1. Sacraments. I think that the idea that Sacraments as conferring actual grace could be easily understood, even if one doesn’t quite accept it. Perhaps you share a common misconception that the Catholic Church believes Sacraments to be the only means of grace? Or that a Sacrament is just a ritual? The Church does not teach that. A Baptist who has a “born again” experience, and whose life is converted to Christ in that moment, has DEFINITELY received a real grace from God. I certainly did.

You speak of the experience of grace in your life as authenticating your knowledge of it. As a Catholic, I can share the same experience of receiving the sacraments. You cannot imagine, until you’ve done it, what a miracle of grace is released in the Sacrament of Confession. There are Three in that room!

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

We are both here as guests at someone else’s house, and we both would do well to remember that. Remember, I’m not a Roman Catholic either.

I am curious, what is the relationship the Anglican church has to the RC? How does the RC view them? I guess I am a little confused because Anglican apparently is considered protestant yet they maintain apostolic succession. Does the RC recognize this? Does the Anglican church recognize the RC?

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

I am curious, what is the relationship the Anglican church has to the RC? How does the RC view them? I guess I am a little confused because Anglican apparently is considered protestant yet they maintain apostolic succession. Does the RC recognize this? Does the Anglican church recognize the RC?

Thanks,
Jeff

As a former Anglican, I would say: WHOLE 'nother thread!