T
tweetymom
Guest
Yes indeed we may all be wrong. But I am putting my trust in the God of my salvation, Jesus Christ.
I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Jesus had full authority from heaven above. He granted that authority to men of the Church, that He chose and appointed. They appointed others, who appointed others. That’s Apostolic succession. Those men of the Church wrote the scriptures and through the oral tradition they passed the interpretations along. That’s God’s truth, as told through the words and actions of Christ. Those scriptures tell us to obey our prelates, just as Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever those that sat upon the chair of Moses said to them, but do not do as they do. This shows Christ’s confidence to protect God’s truth, even through sinful men. So, even though we accept God’s truth, we don’t look at the ‘people’, we look to Christ, who can protect God’s truth, even through ‘people’ of Apostolic succession.
If you can’t understand that, I’m sorry I can’t explain it any better for you.
I’ve got a 48 hour shift starting in the morning and have to go. Maybe someone else will have the patience to try and help you understand.
T
tweetymom
Guest
I have no limitations as to what the Holy Spirit can and has and will do I believe in the trinity, have never been to a church that didn’t. Jesus said I and the Father are one and the HS was sent by Jesus so why would I not believe ?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I don’t know of any other and I’m not avoiding, even though it’s tempting to just ignore you and your condescending tone. You have something, but require more, but then it’s a Catholic explanation.
The word is derived from the Greek I provided you in scriptures. St. Ignatius wrote his letter about the same time as John wrote Revelation. The New Testament hadn’t even come together to be a complete book yet. Why do you require more? Why isn’t it important for ALL Christians to explain their belief in ‘Trinity’ to you? Because, you’ve, seemingly, only have Catholicism in your ‘sights’.
G
guanophore
Guest
Individual believers are able to experience Church in their hearts and souls to then extent that they remain in unity with her. However, Church also exists outside of this space time continuum,and outside of each of the individual members which are members of her.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
But the term ‘Catholic’ is required, by you, to be in scriptures or we can’t believe it. Trinity is not in scriptures, but it is to be strictly believed? I showed you the Greek the term ‘Catholic’ was derived from. Can you really not see the double standard you’re presenting. Also, it would have been nice if you had responded to the entire post, with the scriptures, St. Ignatius’ writings and my explanations.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I can show you my view with scriptures, can you?
In the verses that speak of the pillar and ground of truth and the manifold wisdom of God, it doesn’t meantion the hearts and souls of believers. In fact, when the pillar and ground of truth is written about, Paul is telling them how to conduct themselves in ‘Church’. It would be a stretch to say that’s the hearts and soul of believers.
T
tweetymom
Guest
No double standard here I do not believe Catholic is in the Bible and you read Larkins explaination of the word. St Ignasus is not in the Bible or if he is Ive never seen it. I do not agree with your explanations.
R
Roy5
Guest
Let me sum up why millions of ‘big tent’ Protestants do not become Catholic. I am referring to mainline Protestants who are not dogmatic when it comes to dogma. Their attitude, as summed up by John Wesley, is ‘think and let think’ and ‘if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together.’
Code:
These Protestants are not sola scriptura. They are likely to reject significant stories in the Bible, like Noah and the Flood and God ordering Saul to slaughter every last Amalekite. They are skeptical of certain New Testament miracles, such as Jesus turning a few loaves and fishes into enough food to feed 5000 and Christ putting demons in pigs. They are likely to emphasize reason, usually have a deep faith in God, but tend to think of strict-believing Christians, Catholics or Protestants, as unwittingly embracing superstitions.
For example, these Protestants honor Mary but are alienated by what many view as the Mary cult - veneration, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, sinless life, etc. They certainly don't believe in transubstantiation but treasure communion as a fellowship meal in loving memory of Christ. They don't pray to saints and consider many of these as hold-overs from paganism, and they feel that stories of saints levitating, bilocating and such are fantasies. Their main emphasis is likely to be on Christ's two great commandments: love God and love one another. When it comes to heaven, they probably believe in an afterlife but confess little or no knowledge of what it will be like. Thye are sure that God's mercy will permit most people of whatever faith to get there.
Most 'big tent' Christians are very tolerant, even friendly, toward other faiths, except those (like Muslim extremists) who embrace a form of their religion that is hostile toward them. They value freedom of thought, differ amiably among one another, participate in Bible studies where all sorts of views are expressed without animus, like to learn of other religions and appreciate the wisdom they find in other scriptures. They are Christians in that they seek to follow Christ, but they appreciate the good they find elsewhere.
Much more to say, but that's a start. These folks are numerous in such denominations as Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians, etc. They switch denominations easily if they move and find that another mainline denominational church offers a better Sunday School, better preaching, a more convenient location, etc. In places like Canada and Australia and parts of India several of these denominations have merged - e. g., Canada = United Church of Canada. The main noticeable difference at worship might be liturgy - heavier among Episcopalians, less among Methodists, least perhaps in the American Baptost Convention churches, a 'big tent' branch of the Baptists.
Most of these churches have attracted Catholics who like their freedom of thought and their lack of any central theological or tight ecclesiastical authority. At the same time, they are losing membership to the more evangelical churches or to 'no church'.
As you can tell, I am attracted to this form of Protestantism, though I have an ecumenical (Catholic/Protestant) family background and often find myself conflicted.
May God bless good people of every faith.
C
Catholicnow
Guest
Christians believe that it is Christ only that saves us, not works to as Catholics believe
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Please. Show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that says that. I happen to know that you cannot because no such exists, though a great many a-Cs dearly wish it did in order to validate their specious case for trying to proselytize us way from our most holy faith.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It’s semantic differences.
Think of works as our response to God’s love. Works is reading scriptures, praying, going to Church, loving one another as He loves us, etc. etc.
No Catholic believes they can work their way into heaven alone and we realize that faith without works is dead.
L
larkin31
Guest
Again, you are being too defensive. I don’t “require more” nor do I reject the CC’s use of the term. I LIKE the word. I was simply interested in the answer to Tweety’s question, and it took a long time for you to answer my follow up question of whether there was more than Acts 9 as a reference for the word (and “catholic” is not the word used there, but rather two words, that are later conflated to make a Greek word for “universal”). Tweety stated that “Catholic” was not used in the Bible. Turns out she was right. The point was no more, no less, than this, despite all your defensiveness.I don’t know of any other and I’m not avoiding, even though it’s tempting to just ignore you and your condescending tone. You have something, but require more, but then it’s a Catholic explanation.
The word is derived from the Greek I provided you in scriptures. St. Ignatius wrote his letter about the same time as John wrote Revelation. The New Testament hadn’t even come together to be a complete book yet. Why do you require more? Why isn’t it important for ALL Christians to explain their belief in ‘Trinity’ to you? Because, you’ve, seemingly, only have Catholicism in your ‘sights’.
L
larkin31
Guest
very well put
B
BrianH
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
See, you go to great lengths to maintain the word ‘Catholic’ itself is not in scriptures. No one has said that it was. But if we look in depth we’ll see that no names used for Churches today is found in scriptures. What I provided was the Greek terms that Catholic was derived from. Some have so casually brushed off St. Ignatius’ writing, where he used the term, without introduction. That in itself is a ‘pick and choose’ supporting evidence, for what seemingly is to support a specific theology, or to reject a specific theology. In my honest opinion, it’s not being honest, or open minded. St. Ignatius is accepted as one of the early Church fathers, by more than just Catholics. To me, his insights into Christianity has way more to offer than any ‘modern’ day thinker, or one who professes to be a ‘theologian’ while rejecting all writings from Christians of that era.
The double standard is clear to see when one readily accepts the ‘Trinity’ and yets reject ‘Catholic’, simply because it’s not in scriptures. The Church was ‘new’. It had to grow and become more established, which included taking a name for itself. The name was in use prior to the New Testament canon being defined, which by the way was defined by the Catholic Church. Those scriptures were preserved by the Catholic Church for centuries, for Protestants to claim to know better than those they received them from. Where is the logic in that thinking? How can one honestly say they are not ‘anti-Catholic’ as they twist, not only the scriptures, but history itself?
L
larkin31
Guest
Who was “rejecting ‘Catholic’”? You seem to be misreading questions asked of you. AS I STATED, I fully accept the term “Catholic”. I just wanted to know, like Tweety asked, where it was from the Bible. Turns out it isn’t. That’s all. No one is denying the term or denying the CC.
1
1beleevr
Guest
I know that pedophiles are not limited to the catholic church; but when you trashmost people who are not catholic, your comments are void of charity! It is good that you used the word “many” and not all, when referring to noncatholic religions. But, there is priest/pastor misconduct in many churches. Unfortunately for the catholic church, being a high profile religion, it brings out all the headline hunters! And it cost the church a lot, not only in money, but bad publicity. And after reading your post about noncatholic churches allowing remarriage, abortion and not confessing sins, it made me think of many of the catholics I know! Last night, at Relay for Life, I ran into an old friend, whose wedding I had attended 5 years ago(a catholic wedding). She was having an affair with another man while engaged to her husband, married him anyway, had a child with her lover, divorced her husband and is now living with her lover, who sired another baby with her. And this is just one of many stories like this! So, whose right about marriage, and is divorce allowed; it seems like a lot of catholics I know are doing it!
1
1beleevr
Guest
Except for possibly “The Way”.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I’ll agree the earliest Christians referred to themselves as the ‘Way’. But it changed, as documented by St. Ignatius and continued to be documented to present day, by secular historians, as well as Church historians. Of course we know the ‘Way’ cannot be documented other than those earliest Christians.
People act as if it’s proof of some kind because the term ‘Catholic’ itself is not in the Bible. The term ‘Catholic’ is derived from the Greek, as shown and used in scriptures. The Church, like any establishment, had to go through a growth period. St. Ignatius called it the ‘Catholic Church’, specifically, around the year 110AD. This was sometime before the letters and epistles came together to form the New Testament and the canon of the New Testament had not yet been defined. The authoritative Church came first and through it, God inspired the scriptures be written by the authoritative men of the Church. That’s what this whole discussion is about, in my opinion; the authority of the Church. It’s scripturally supported, even if some want to dispute the interpretation. That’s more than can be said of those who preach ‘scripture authority’. That’s just not supported by scriptures.
There are points raised that support the authoritative Church, such as the pillar and ground of truth. One particular poster tried to make that the ‘mind and soul’ of the believers. When it was pointed out that through the context of the verse, we see Paul is telling people how to conduct themselves in the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, we see no more discussion. This is why so many of us find there is no open mind, or honesty applied to the discussion. It’s simply to reject Catholicism, at all costs, even if it means ignoring scriptures, or so it seems.
- Status