S
save_me_Jesus
Guest
This just about sums it up.
- Status
S
save_me_Jesus
Guest
I agree with you, and that’s why I am Catholic, because my faith began with Christ, and not someone’s interpretation of Scipture. I cannot agree however with your comparison above of Catholic and Protestant Church’s. Catholic Church’s are all in agreement with Doctrine and Dogma. It is not dependant on the Church, and if stories like you’ve told above are what is keeping you away, then you really don’t understand the spiritual protection the Church has. I am praying for you Skattas.
Protestant churches are seperated by doctrine, and not only on secondary things. All protestant Churchs trace their beginnings to the Catholic Church, however the Catholic Church can trace its beginnings to Christ.
Somewhere above you noted how there is freedom in your Church to interpret scripture as you please, and that it is encouraged to question the pastors interpretations. My experience and study in this is quite the opposite. I got this from Catholic.com, however it highlights the differences on “core” doctrines that seperate and continue to splinter into thousands of new Protestant denominations.
"Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials”.
For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.
Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura)."
The rest you can find here: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp
I think you get my point dear. I know, that previously in my Protestant upbringing, we had 3 church splits due to differences in belief. The pastor began defending infant baptism, at which point he was excommunicated, thus he took half the congregation with him. 2 years later, the new Pastor and elders held different views on what it means exactly to be saved (their study on scripture yeilding different interpretations), and of course, with this being a huge issue, it fragmented the group of elders and we had another split. I know of one guest speaker, who was not allowed to speak again at another worship service, after his sermon sounded too “Catholic” because he mentioned Mary’s role in Jesus’ life, and Jesus’ prophetic words on the cross designating Mary the Spiritual mother of all Christians, not to mention the title “Mother of God” which many Protestant denominations (including all the Protestant reformers) hold as true.
Lastly, holding on to truth, protecting it, espousing it, etc, is not “self-righteousness and ignorance” as you said. It is holding fast to what the Apostles taught with the Authority of Christ. As Catholics, we know what she teaches is truth, and we have assurance from Christ that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to truth. This should tell you something. God Bless You.
C
Contarini
Guest
Speaking for the Wesleyan tradition from which I come, I think our problem is not so much that we confuse the two (in the sense of thinking that you mean the one when you really mean the other) as that we have trouble distinguishing between right doctrine and a holy life in such a manner as to make that distinction. One of the points where we tend to agree with the Orthodox is in the belief that you can’t understand the truth rightly without being inwardly transformed by the sanctifying power of the Spirit.
The point that infallibility is negative (being prevented from erring) rather than positive (as in Scripture) is a good one and I have always found it helpful. But the problem is that Catholic practice, at least among conservative, orthodox Catholics, doesn’t really bear this distinction out. In practice, when Catholics make a sharp distinction between infallible and non-infallible Papal teachings and take a critical attitude toward the latter they are usually accused of having an un-Catholic attitude and being dissenters (at least in circles like these boards). In other words, orthodox Catholics generally seem to have a trust in their leaders that goes beyond simply thinking that they won’t make errors in highly limited circumstances. And it’s at that point that a Protestant (at least a Wesleyan) wants to say: “Time out! How do you know that these people are holy enough to be trusted in the way you trust them!”
That being said, both the previous Pope and this one do appear (for the little that’s worth) very holy to me. And that’s one of the main reasons I’m so drawn to Catholicism.
I also have reasons to be rather suspicious of the link between holiness and authority with which I was raised. So for quite a while I was very drawn to the more objective approach of Catholicism, and still am to some extent. But I’m less sure about it now (the clergy abuse scandals didn’t help).
Edwin
L
LSK
Guest
Mine too!
Shoot - maybe we aren’t so different…?
You had made a comment about the Catholic emphasis on Apostolic Succession and why, if it is so important, did The Lord allow flawed human beings to become Pope. Well, I think we can look to Holy Scripture for examples of flawed human beings being allowed access to Our Lord Himself! St. Peter denied Him three times. St. Paul was a murderer! In fact, if we want to be really honest, the only PERFECT CHRISTIAN so FAR has been THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY…that’s it, we need a female pope…oh, wait! There’s not a word in Holy Scripture that would support THAT - so, back to being an Obedient Daughter!:dancing:
Stop laughing, all of you!
L
LSK
Guest
Mine too!
Shoot - maybe we aren’t so different…?
You had made a comment about the Catholic emphasis on Apostolic Succession and why, if it is so important, did The Lord allow flawed human beings to become Pope. Well, I think we can look to Holy Scripture for examples of flawed human beings being allowed access to Our Lord Himself! St. Peter denied Him three times. St. Paul was a murderer! In fact, if we want to be really honest, the only PERFECT CHRISTIAN so FAR has been THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY…that’s it, we need a female pope…oh, wait! There’s not a word in Holy Scripture that would support THAT - so, back to being an Obedient Daughter!:dancing:
Stop laughing, all of you!
- Status