Here is your chance Protestants!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not write to offend or create further splits between Catholics and non-catholics. It is the purpose of these and other threads to comment on the differences between our beliefs. I do not intend to offend, but to point out what I see as a contradiction in the way the papacy was hailed by others and the way they disparage the church and reject her doctrines. It is not only my desire that all Christians should worship as one, that desire is explicitly stated in the NT by Jesus. One faith, one church in one Lord.

I don’t feel my post was divisive. I agree with Dennis, you can’t have it both ways. Either what we believe as Catholics is Truth or any old thing is as good as every other old thing. That is relativism, and individualism.

I am pleased that John Paul II was so admired around the world. I am also proud of his tenure as our chief pastor. What I found amusing was not the personal admiration for JPII, it was that all of them were remarking on the history of the church as 2000 years old. As Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.” How does one recognize the history of the church and still reject her?

It all comes down to authority. What the Catholics believe is often called heresy by other Christians and many believe that Catholics are doomed to hell for following our beliefs. Whose authority do we admit? The pope claims authority as the successor of Peter.
You misquoted the passage where Jesus gives that authority to Peter. He did not say, on this rock,which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. He said You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. It makes absolutely no sense for Jesus to have named Peter the rock and then say that the rock is the confession of Peter. It doesn’t follow. You omitted the You are Peter and added the which thou has confessed. It is not there.

Yes, Christ is the rock and the cornerstone of the church. But, Jesus understood that people need a visible leader to turn to in times of doubt and when under attack. Peter was the first leader chosen by Jesus, and the Holy Spirit has led the choosing of his successors. If you undermine the authority of Peter, you have weakened the foundation of the whole Catholic church. If Peter was not the first head of Christ’s church on earth, then all of the protestants are right, the Catholic church has no authority. No one does, we can all just decide for ourselves what is Truth.
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
This is a good question. However, because you have not gotten an answer to your question, you have to assume that there is not an answer due to the answer NOT existing. Therefore, YOU have to list an assessment of Catholic church history along with evidence that backs up THAT assessment. This paints a picture of “true” history. No help from others and no links or referrals. Without a detailed review from your own point of view, there are two possibilities. You do not know the history of your faith or the history you want to exist isn’t there. In either case, someone, on either side, is assuming something is there that isn’t or more informed education in Christianity is needed. Let’s here from you!
Click to expand...
What are you asking? That I defend what is already historical fact? What the Catholic Church teaches about Church history anyone can read in any history book, in any bookstore, in any university.

What I am asking is for a Protestant understanding on this information.

The historical record states that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established (included in this are the Eastern Churches). They have a succession straight back to Christ and the Apostles, have seven Sacraments, etc. The early Church was Catholic; the early record shows this.

But what is the Protestant interpretation of this record? How do they account for a historical record that is in favor of Catholicism?

This is all I am asking.

Peace
 
Dennis,

Even saying the first 200 years of Christianity is way too broad; you will not get any takers. You need to specify a topic upon which there is disagreement (e.g. apostolic succession, free will, holy orders, intrumental cause of salvation, baptism, etc). Otherwise, to provide the type of evidence you are looking for, for either side, would require a dissertation without any specific purpose but to outline 200 years of Christianity.

Michael
 
I really don’t think any of you are understanding what Dennis is trying to get protestants to do. It is not a question of the history of the CC but the history of protestantism. We can trace its beginning to the 1500’s but there doesn’t seem to be anything prior to that time. What I think Dennis is looking for is something that says that protestants were around from the beginning. Afterall, so many of them claim to be the church that Jesus founded. They say that they have lain dormant or been suppressed for all of these years. If that is true, then they must have something that proves these claims.

Documents, letters, official church teachings passed down, writings left behind by early proponents of their beliefs, writings from historians. Anything that shows them to have history other than that known to us today, which is only a few hundred years old and shows that their “churches” are founded by men.

I for one believe it is a legitimate question to put forth to them.

Catholics have that history. Some may dispute the facts, that doesn’t make them less true.
 
40.png
reggie:
I really don’t think any of you are understanding what Dennis is trying to get protestants to do. It is not a question of the history of the CC but the history of protestantism. We can trace its beginning to the 1500’s but there doesn’t seem to be anything prior to that time. What I think Dennis is looking for is something that says that protestants were around from the beginning. Afterall, so many of them claim to be the church that Jesus founded. They say that they have lain dormant or been suppressed for all of these years. If that is true, then they must have something that proves these claims.

Documents, letters, official church teachings passed down, writings left behind by early proponents of their beliefs, writings from historians. Anything that shows them to have history other than that known to us today, which is only a few hundred years old and shows that their “churches” are founded by men.

I for one believe it is a legitimate question to put forth to them.

Catholics have that history. Some may dispute the facts, that doesn’t make them less true.
Click to expand...
Oh for goodness sake,if you want to excuse the baiting go ahead but the re is always an option be to productive in healing the split with fellow Christians.

Why don’t you take a leaf from the early Christians in knowing what was doctrinaly superfluous or at least flexible and what is really important.The early Christians could write of anti-Christians comfortably because of important departures from doctrine and while most of the Catholic/Protestant split is a superfluous distraction,the real rotten presence of undermining of Apostolic tradition goes on by people who talk Christianity but think differently

ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm

Up the standards rather than accept the fables and conveniences of history and keep Jesus in the center.
 
40.png
reggie:
I really don’t think any of you are understanding what Dennis is trying to get protestants to do. It is not a question of the history of the CC but the history of protestantism. We can trace its beginning to the 1500’s but there doesn’t seem to be anything prior to that time. What I think Dennis is looking for is something that says that protestants were around from the beginning. Afterall, so many of them claim to be the church that Jesus founded. They say that they have lain dormant or been suppressed for all of these years. If that is true, then they must have something that proves these claims.

Documents, letters, official church teachings passed down, writings left behind by early proponents of their beliefs, writings from historians. Anything that shows them to have history other than that known to us today, which is only a few hundred years old and shows that their “churches” are founded by men.

I for one believe it is a legitimate question to put forth to them.

Catholics have that history. Some may dispute the facts, that doesn’t make them less true.
Click to expand...
This is what I am looking for. There seems to be a difference in understanding between Catholics and Protestants regarding this era in history.

Are Protestants saying that this time in history was dynamic, therefore their form of Christianity is just as valid as Catholicism?

If so, where is the evidence of this?

Peace
 
40.png
oriel36:
Oh for goodness sake,if you want to excuse the baiting go ahead but the re is always an option be to productive in healing the split with fellow Christians.

Why don’t you take a leaf from the early Christians in knowing what was doctrinaly superfluous or at least flexible and what is really important.The early Christians could write of anti-Christians comfortably because of important departures from doctrine and while most of the Catholic/Protestant split is a superfluous distraction,the real rotten presence of undermining of Apostolic tradition goes on by people who talk Christianity but think differently

ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm

Up the standards rather than accept the fables and conveniences of history and keep Jesus in the center.
Click to expand...
Do Protestant agree with this? Are our differences superfluous?

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Do Protestant agree with this? Are our differences superfluous?

Peace
Click to expand...
There was a time when one Catholic I know could say that the one way he knew he was Catholic was that he woke up every day hating Protestants and I’m sure the same could be said from the other side.

The enemy now is no longer denominational differences but the growing secularism and the split accelerates it for what attraction is there in watching bickering and fighting over things which are flexible to more discerning Christians.

23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

"This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
24“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.”a] So this is what the soldiers did. "

biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=john%2019&version1=31

You will believe in miracles if you believe John and come to love the Word even at its most enigmatic,truly !.
 
40.png
oriel36:
There was a time when one Catholic I know could say that the one way he knew he was Catholic was that he woke up every day hating Protestants and I’m sure the same could be said from the other side.

The enemy now is no longer denominational differences but the growing secularism and the split accelerates it for what attraction is there in watching bickering and fighting over things which are flexible to more discerning Christians.

23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

"This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
24“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.”a] So this is what the soldiers did. "

biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=john%2019&version1=31

You will believe in miracles if you believe John and come to love the Word even at its most enigmatic,truly !.
Click to expand...
As I have stated before:

If I as a Catholic believe that Mary was sinless and my Protestants brothers and sisters say she was not then we have a problem, correct? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.

If I as a Catholic believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and my Protestant brothers and sisters do not, and think it only a symbol or just vaguely spiritual–is this not a problem? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.

I for one have a problem with accepting contradictions. The issues that divide are not merely political, that would be lessening what many have lived and died defending for over 2000 years.

Truth is important. It was important to those given to the lions in Rome, it is important to those Chinese Catholics unjustly imprisoned for their faith in China, and it is important to me.

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
As I have stated before:

If I as a Catholic believe that Mary was sinless and my Protestants brothers and sisters say she was not then we have a problem, correct? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace
Click to expand...
Within the limited perspective of denominational differences it may appear a burning issue but Spiritually it is not. The Spiritual standard for Sin is undisciplined will and you are stepping into dangerous territory in attributing something Catholics traditionally reserved for Jesus alone.

Least I be accused of conjuring up this belief,I appeal to Apostolic tradition just before Christianity split.
Code: 
                                     CHAPTER II
Of what Sin is, and how we must not take unto ourselves any good Thing, seeing that it belongeth unto the true Good alone.

The Scripture and the Faith and the Truth say, Sin is nought else, but that the creature turneth away from the unchangeable Good and betaketh itself to the changeable; that is to say, that it turneth away from the Perfect to “that which is in part” and imperfect, and most often to itself. Now mark: when the creature claimeth for its own anything good, such as Substance, Life, Knowledge, Power, and in short whatever we should call good, as if it were that, or possessed that, or that were itself, or that proceeded from it,—as often as this cometh to pass, the creature goeth astray. What did the devil do else, or what was his going astray and his fall else, but that he claimed for himself to be also somewhat, and would have it that somewhat was his, and somewhat was due to him? This setting up of a claim and his I and Me and Mine, these were his going astray, and his fall. And thus it is to this day.

ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/theologia.v.II.html
 
40.png
oriel36:
Within the limited perspective of denominational differences it may appear a burning issue but Spiritually it is not. The Spiritual standard for Sin is undisciplined will and you are stepping into dangerous territory in attributing something Catholics traditionally reserved for Jesus alone.

Least I be accused of conjuring up this belief,I appeal to Apostolic tradition just before Christianity split.

CHAPTER II
Of what Sin is, and how we must not take unto ourselves any good Thing, seeing that it belongeth unto the true Good alone.

The Scripture and the Faith and the Truth say, Sin is nought else, but that the creature turneth away from the unchangeable Good and betaketh itself to the changeable; that is to say, that it turneth away from the Perfect to “that which is in part” and imperfect, and most often to itself. Now mark: when the creature claimeth for its own anything good, such as Substance, Life, Knowledge, Power, and in short whatever we should call good, as if it were that, or possessed that, or that were itself, or that proceeded from it,—as often as this cometh to pass, the creature goeth astray. What did the devil do else, or what was his going astray and his fall else, but that he claimed for himself to be also somewhat, and would have it that somewhat was his, and somewhat was due to him? This setting up of a claim and his I and Me and Mine, these were his going astray, and his fall. And thus it is to this day.

ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/theologia.v.II.html
Click to expand...
“you are stepping into dangerous territory in attributing something Catholics traditionally reserved for Jesus alone.”

In what way am I doing this?

“Within the limited perspective of denominational differences it may appear a burning issue but Spiritually it is not.”

Please clarify? In what way is it ok to accept contradictions-- Spiritually speaking?

Is there any such thing as truth to you?

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
As I have stated before:

If I as a Catholic believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and my Protestant brothers and sisters do not, and think it only a symbol or just vaguely spiritual–is this not a problem? For we both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace
Click to expand...
Only devils see right and wrong but they cannot see the depth of meaning behind the reminder Jesus left for us.Would you ask me to see the Eucharist in any way less than what it is so I can be justified in being ‘right’ before another Christian for surely the Evil one would have his way.

If the commandment is to love one another above all else then why ask me to be at variance with fellow Christians over matters of the importance of the Bible or the Eucharist when almost all of my time is living the body and blood or Jesus in daily existence.

Paul was near distraught in seeing a community lapse back from the Christian Way to basically rote belief and obligations and his symbolism is striking.

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&version=31
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
As I have stated before:

I for one have a problem with accepting contradictions. The issues that divide are not merely political, that would be lessening what many have lived and died defending for over 2000 years.

Truth is important. It was important to those given to the lions in Rome, it is important to those Chinese Catholics unjustly imprisoned for their faith in China, and it is important to me.

Peace
Click to expand...
Ah ‘Truth’,what a wonderful word that is,Pilate asked it and the Johannine author left the answer hanging as should all good Christians.

What is truth?” Pilate asked.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2018;&version=31;
 
40.png
oriel36:
Only devils see right and wrong but they cannot see the depth of meaning behind the reminder Jesus left for us.Would you ask me to see the Eucharist in any way less than what it is so I can be justified in being ‘right’ before another Christian for surely the Evil one would have his way.

If the commandment is to love one another above all else then why ask me to be at variance with fellow Christians over matters of the importance of the Bible or the Eucharist when almost all of my time is living the body and blood or Jesus in daily existence.

Paul was near distraught in seeing a community lapse back from the Christian Way to basically rote belief and obligations and his symbolism is striking.

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&version=31
Click to expand...
How do you see the Eucharist? I didn’t get your point.

I, for one think the devil is a relativist. He would desire that all thing be true no matter how evil or profane.

If you think that contradictions are not important and truth does not matter then why stop at the Protestant/Catholic issue? Why not include other religions in the mix, I mean spiritually speaking is there any diffference between a Christian and a Buddhist or Muslim? Are we all not God’s children?

Why should worry about our differences? All that matters is that we have warm feelings in our hearts towards everyone.

All truth does is divide and bring unnecessary pain. I mean, people in the past have stood for the truth and it cost them their lives. We don’t want to see that happen again.

Don’t you see, without truth there is no meaning to anything we do. It all ends up being meanless emotionalism. Is this what you want?

Peace
 
I would ask you, how have I behaved unchristian in any way?
Heresies were not superflous nor was doctrine flexible. People were cast out because of preaching doctrinal falsehoods. The NT itself was written to clarify beliefs and because men were preaching what was not true. I do not disparage protestants, I have never done so, I have tried to point out contradiction and inconsistancy. Nothing else. This is a CATHOLIC forum, we are here to defend, promote and teach the CATHOLIC faith. The faith that we as CATHOLICS believe is the one true faith, founded upon the rock of Peter by none other that Jesus.

No one is baiting. It is a legitimate question to ask protestants the history and foundation of their beliefs. I do not claim to know the judgement due any. That belongs to Jesus. I do claim however that starting with Peter and continued unbroken to John Paul II and his soon to be named successor, the Catholic church has claimed the authority to determine the doctrines, dogma and discipline of the faith. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Protestants deny that authority, call blasphemy and heresy the CC doctrines with which they disagree. They make the Church and her members targets of hatefilled sermons, teachings and publications. It is we Catholics who have reached out to them.
It was John Paul who said that the law of God is written on the hearts of all men, and all who seek truth and goodness are pleasing to God. I agree with him. But, and this should not be forgotten, John Paul was never flexible regarding Truth. It was his fervent prayer, and should be the prayer of all Catholics, that we be united in faith; that all should come to the Truth of Jesus, and receive His graces through the Holy Mother Church.
Did John Paul expect everyone to be converted? OF course not, he understood that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not ours to finish the war, it is only ours to fight the good fight. Were some converted to Catholicism because of John Paul? Most likely, and just as the angels in heaven rejoice for the saving of one soul, so do we.

In these forums, and others like them, as Catholics, we are to “hold the feet of protestants to the fire” so to speak. We do not bait. We try to frame a discussion that forces them to look deeper than the skewed and hateful teachings they have been taught in regard to Catholicism. It is our hope that something we say here will create a seed of doubt about protestantism and foster a desire to know more about Catholicism. Will some be offended? Without a doubt, but we must trust the Holy Spirit will work in His own way and time.

Through the church we receive the Eucharist. We would be neglectful indeed if we did not exhort all to come home and receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus said to let our light shine. Disagreeing with protestants and asking them hard questions are not unchristian. I have not called anyone names, ridiculed or demeaned anyone’s position or post. I may at times be a little too zealous, and in a post may be critical or abrasive, but if trying to not cause further rifts means compromising, or watering down the Catholic faith, I will not do it.
 
dennisknapp said:
“you are stepping into dangerous territory in attributing something Catholics traditionally reserved for Jesus alone.”

In what way am I doing this?

“Within the limited perspective of denominational differences it may appear a burning issue but Spiritually it is not.”

Please clarify? In what way is it ok to accept contradictions-- Spiritually speaking?

Is there any such thing as truth to you?

Peace
Click to expand...

There is only one single Truth and only One way to find it.
 
One other thing, Jesus could be quite harsh and angry when He was not understood. He threw the money changers out of the temple, He let the disciples go from Him who could not accept His talk of eating His flesh and He admonished Peter, saying, “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

When you know the truth and do not declare it, you are guilty of not only your own sins, but those of the ones whom you did not teach the truth.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
The Johannine author left the answer hanging…?

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

Jesus–John 14:4-6

Peace
Click to expand...
Read on and understand.

I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&version=31

There are two types of Christian present,just as I said.

Do you understand this or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top