IMO... It's better to be Protestant, but tell me why it's better to be Catholic

[spn82756]

This pic, printed with no or misleading context, is a favorite of anti-Catholics on both extreme ends of the spectrum, from frothing-at-the-mouth funnymentalistis to rad-trad “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” heretics.

When the pope kissed the Quran, he did it as a diplomatic gesture to the giver, not as an affirmation of agreement with its contents. He had three choices:

1. Hand it back and rebuff the gift, offending the giver;
2. throw it on the floor, spit on it and yell Heresy!, after which all chaos most likely would’ve broken out;
3. accept it with a polite kiss and bow to the giver, then hand it off to an assistant to put somewhere later (possibly even the circular file), thereby maintaining some sort of rapport of mutual respect for the persons involved, not the religion.

Which one of those reactions would be the most conducive to continued dialogue?

The late John Paul II traveled extensively and tried to reach out to divergent groups caught in error. He respected the Moslem people without respecting their religion’s errors. Insofar in its very limited amount of what it has in common with Christianity, Islam does contain a few elements of truth, since the Christian faith is fully true. Perhaps the pope shouldn’t have kissed the Quran; however, even if he did, it should be recalled that he also kissed the ground of the places he visited, even communist countries. Nobody would accuse him of agreeing with those governments, only that he was showing diplomatic courtesy. Europeans should know that a kiss is more common as a polite gesture than it is here in N. America, where it is treated as a more intimate gesture. People projected their own meaning into John Paul II’s gesture rather than believe that he might have just been showing courtesy to the giver, not agreement with the contents of the gift.

Here are the messages that JP2 delivered at the World Day of Peace from 1979 to 2005
None of it bears any resemblance to the lies of traditionalist radicals or our “separated brethren” who have blown this incident way out of proportion.

The correct response should have been to accept it. But not kiss it!

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

This pic, printed with no or misleading context, is a favorite of anti-Catholics on both extreme ends of the spectrum, from frothing-at-the-mouth funnymentalistis to rad-trad “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” heretics.

When the pope kissed the Quran, he did it as a diplomatic gesture to the giver, not as an affirmation of agreement with its contents. He had three choices:

1. Hand it back and rebuff the gift, offending the giver;
2. throw it on the floor, spit on it and yell Heresy!, after which all chaos most likely would’ve broken out;
3. accept it with a polite kiss and bow to the giver, then hand it off to an assistant to put somewhere later (possibly even the circular file), thereby maintaining some sort of rapport of mutual respect for the persons involved, not the religion.

Which one of those reactions would be the most conducive to continued dialogue?

The late John Paul II traveled extensively and tried to reach out to divergent groups caught in error. He respected the Moslem people without respecting their religion’s errors. Insofar in its very limited amount of what it has in common with Christianity, Islam does contain a few elements of truth, since the Christian faith is fully true. Perhaps the pope shouldn’t have kissed the Quran; however, even if he did, it should be recalled that he also kissed the ground of the places he visited, even communist countries. Nobody would accuse him of agreeing with those governments, only that he was showing diplomatic courtesy. Europeans should know that a kiss is more common as a polite gesture than it is here in N. America, where it is treated as a more intimate gesture. People projected their own meaning into John Paul II’s gesture rather than believe that he might have just been showing courtesy to the giver, not agreement with the contents of the gift.

Here are the messages that JP2 delivered at the World Day of Peace from 1979 to 2005
None of it bears any resemblance to the lies of traditionalist radicals or our “separated brethren” who have blown this incident way out of proportion.

Kissing the Quran together with the Catholic Catechism on the possibility of salvation for Muslims and Jews apart from faith in the historic Jesus Christ… appears to go against the tradition of the church. Did the Church Fathers believe Muslims and Jews can be saved apart from faith in Christ? I know Jesus called unbelieving Jews as children of the devil. That’s just from a non-Catholic Christian perspective who still calls for unity, in-spite of our essential differences on this particular issue. Hey, a very nice Catholic brother mentioned kissing the Quran and posted the picture of it too. I had no knowledge of this until joining Catholic Answers.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Can you explain this with your own words? I’m not ready to read links.

"As a result, as a man of his generation, John Paul II–for the best of motives–may have overestimated both the need for and the utility of gestures such as the one exhibited in the Quran-kissing event.

If the former pontiff did understand that the gift was a Quran and if he wasn’t under the impression that kissing a gift was a standard response in Iraqi culture then I would suppose that he did so out of a desire to foster peace and interreligious harmony, but it would still have been a mistake to my mind.

The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.

John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.

Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.

It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ."

• Jimmy Akin

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I unable to follow your line of thinking. Do you believe that Muslims can enter Heaven apart from faith in the Christian Christ or the Christian gospel?

God condemns us for rebellion, not lack of knowledge. If a person is invincibly ignorant, he will judged by that. Even then, an invincibly ignorant person still has to answer for the willful sins committed in his life because every person is given a conscience to decide what is right and wrong based on God’s laws. I cannot say who is in Heaven or Hell. As another Catholic has said, we believe it is God’s job–whom being All-Knowing and Perfectly Just is better equipped to decree that.

Christ and Him crucified for forgiveness and reconciliation with God. The only hope for any non-Christian is repentance and faith in the Christian Christ and Christian gospel. God provided a single way to Himself, and that is the historic position of the church

.

My line of thinking is that since you believe that repentance and reconciliation is the heart of the Gospel, how do you, as a historic Protestant, believe the heart is expressed in the views of the hyper-Calvinists since the non-elect are incapable of repentance from the beginning and by God’s own decree?

I find this position unique, especially since some Protestants, such as the hyper-Calvinists (in comparison that follow Joseph Arminius’ teaching) do not believe that God died to save all; He only saved believers. The rest are the unsaved reprobates whom weren’t saved to begin with and without God’s grace regenerating their hearts. They are incapable of repentance and slaves to sin. How do you think that this matches up with the heart of the Gospel?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Before I answer the dilemma, I have a follow up question: How is this better than the Catholic version? Please share your views about the Catholic justification version.

I’m not an expert of Catholic doctrine, so please correct me. It is my understanding that through baptism, and person receives initial justification and is right with God. Through the reality of this life, we sin as Christians. Therefore, the initial justification can be lost depending of the kind of sin committed (venial or mortal). Through the various sacraments dispense by the church, a Christian can be strengthened, forgiven, etc regaining the initial justification that could be lost. How do you know if you lost your initial justification? I believe final justification is conditional of becoming righteous or sins have been purged from the Christian. Therefore, purgatory is needed to purge sins that have not been removed in this life. The biggest difference IMO between our understanding of justification is being justified by the righeousness of Christ alone (alien righteousness) verse being justified by being made completly righteous (personal righteousness gained through the merits of Christ applied - transformation). My goal is to be able to understand and post the Catholic way of salvation with complete accuracy. Could you please try to answer my question now?

God is a Holy God in which sinners cannot approach Him because sinners are tainted with sin (rebels against God)? How can Christians approach Him, or approach the throne of grace as being a sinner-saint since no Christian achieves sinlessness in this life? We can only approach God being clothed with the righteousness of Christ since our personal righteousness has yet to be perfected in this life. If Christians are not imputed (credited) with the righteousness of Christ upon conversion, how are we able to approach a perfectly holy God as a sinner-saint? I’m all ears to hear the Catholic answer to this dilemma.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

"As a result, as a man of his generation, John Paul II–for the best of motives–may have overestimated both the need for and the utility of gestures such as the one exhibited in the Quran-kissing event.

If the former pontiff did understand that the gift was a Quran and if he wasn’t under the impression that kissing a gift was a standard response in Iraqi culture then I would suppose that he did so out of a desire to foster peace and interreligious harmony, but it would still have been a mistake to my mind.

The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.

John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.

Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.

It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ."

• Jimmy Akin

Jimmy Akins is an Apologist, right?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

God condemns us for rebellion, not lack of knowledge. If a person is invincibly ignorant, he will judged by that. Even then, an invincibly ignorant person still has to answer for the willful sins committed in his life because every person is given a conscience to decide what is right and wrong based on God’s laws. I cannot say who is in Heaven or Hell. As another Catholic has said, we believe it is God’s job–whom being All-Knowing and Perfectly Just is better equipped to decree that.

.

My line of thinking is that since you believe that repentance and reconciliation is the heart of the Gospel, how do you, as a historic Protestant, believe the heart is expressed in the views of the hyper-Calvinists since the non-elect are incapable of repentance from the beginning and by God’s own decree?

There is no lack of knowledge salvation according to the Scriptures (Romans 1, 2, 3). Ignorance is not a way of salvation. If it was, then God should have left us in the dark, and not send the light of Christ to save us since it appears you are saying ignorance can save some. I also read by other Catholic poster that non-Christians can be saved by their obedience to natural law (general revelation, conscience, law). Romans 1, 2, and 3 addresses natural law as condemning revelation and not saving revelation. The only way to the Father is through saving revelation in Christ. Our brown bag happy face unity is found in Christ and Him crucified for sinners like me and you.

 

[lynnreis]

i loved your response!!!

 

[Dancelittleewok]

There is no lack of knowledge salvation according to the Scriptures (Romans 1, 2, 3). Ignorance is not a way of salvation. If it was, then God should have left us in the dark, and not send the light of Christ to save us since it appears you are saying ignorance can save some. I also read by other Catholic poster that non-Christians can be saved by their obedience to natural law (general revelation, conscience, law). Romans 1, 2, and 3 addresses natural law as condemning revelation and not saving revelation. The only way to the Father is through saving revelation in Christ. Our brown bag happy face unity is found in Christ and Him crucified for sinners like me and you.

The Catholics don’t believe that ignorance is a way of salvation: Catholics believe it is the individual’s responsibility to have his conscience conformed to Christ and the Church. We believe that God desires all men, not believers, to be saved. He may then send actual graces to compel the will to repentance and seek the truth of the Gospel. The emphasis is not on ignorance but invincibly, such a tribal man in the hills of Africa whom has never heard of Jesus in his whole life. Even then knowledge of Christ revelation doesn’t entail salvation as seen in Romans 1: 27: “They knew Him but didn’t glorify Him.”

P.S. Still waiting on the Calvinist and heart of the Gospel. I’m still working on a response to your justification question.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

i loved your response!!!

Which posting are you adressing? If you agree with my posts, would you consider wearing the brown bag happy face avatar, representing Christian unity between Catholic Answers. If that’s your view, then go to Profile tab above, then Control Panel, then edit Avatar.

 

[Roy5]

Let’s see, now, is it better to be a Protestant or a Catholic?

Okay, I confess to being an ecumaniac. That means, of course, that I am for harmony and unity among Protestants and Catholics. Not necessarily union, but an amicable spirit. I suspect that God doesn’t take note of our church affiliation. God’s concern certainly must be our hearts - whether we have done our best to follow the two great commandments: Love the Lord and love our neighbors. Who is our neighbor? Christ defined that when he made the Good Samaritan our example. Samaritans, remember, were despised by the Jews because they had intermarried and followed a different religion.

 The attraction of Catholicism is its unity, although - quite frankly - there seems to be considerable disunity behind the scenes during these days. I read everything from Our Sunday Visitor to Commonweal and am amazed that they both claim to represent the same faith. OSV seems to echo the pre-Vatican II religion with its triumphalism, its hyper-Catholicism. Commonweal is more self-critical, pointing to the strengths and weaknesses of the faith. The specific beliefs of Catholicism, so carefully defined, can be attractive to those who want and/or need such clarity in the realm of doctrine. 

 The attraction of Protestantism is complex. I find very little attractiveness in its fundamentalist form with its narrow-mindedness and even anti-intellectualism. Yes, there is something to be said for the vibrant spirit of pentecostalism with is enthusiasm. What really is attractive, however, is the thrust of much of modern mainline Protestantism with its emphasis upon freedom - freedom to believe or disbelieve such traditional Christian concepts as hell punishment, the existence of the Devil, original sin, guardian angels, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, yes, even the Virgin Birth. I find that most of my Protestant friends discuss such issues without any sense or fear of 'heresy'. There is no Vatican or no sola scriptura to enforce specific dogmas. 

  God bless Catholics and Protestants - and add to them the Eastern Orthodox. Oh, and let me also include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and all God's children of every faith, color, nation, occupation, age, and gender.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

The Catholics don’t believe that ignorance is a way of salvation: Catholics believe it is the individual’s responsibility to have his conscience conformed to Christ and the Christ. We believe that God desires all men, not believers, to be saved. He may then send actual graces to compel the will to repentance and seek the truth of the Gospel. The emphasis is not on ignorant but invincibly, such a tribal man in the hills of Africa whom has never heard of Jesus in his whole life. Even then knowledge of Christ revelation doesn’t entail salvation as seen in Romans 1: 27: “They knew Him but didn’t glorify Him.”

Thanks for the clarification. Can you now please answer this dilemma to help me understand the Catholic Faith. It appears you want to compare and contrast views of justification, right?

Originally Posted by One in Christ
God is a Holy God in which sinners cannot approach Him because sinners are tainted with sin (rebels against God)? How can Christians approach Him, or approach the throne of grace as being a sinner-saint since no Christian achieves sinlessness in this life? We can only approach God being clothed with the righteousness of Christ since our personal righteousness has yet to be perfected in this life. If Christians are not imputed (credited) with the righteousness of Christ upon conversion, how are we able to approach a perfectly holy God as a sinner-saint? I’m all ears to hear the Catholic answer to this dilemma.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Let’s see, now, is it better to be a Protestant or a Catholic?

Okay, I confess to being an ecumaniac. That means, of course, that I am for harmony and unity among Protestants and Catholics. Not necessarily union, but an amicable spirit. I suspect that God doesn’t take note of our church affiliation. God’s concern certainly must be our hearts - whether we have done our best to follow the two great commandments: Love the Lord and love our neighbors. Who is our neighbor? Christ defined that when he made the Good Samaritan our example. Samaritans, remember, were despised by the Jews because they had intermarried and followed a different religion.

 The attraction of Catholicism is its unity, although - quite frankly - there seems to be considerable disunity behind the scenes during these days. I read everything from Our Sunday Visitor to Commonweal and am amazed that they both claim to represent the same faith. OSV seems to echo the pre-Vatican II religion with its triumphalism, its hyper-Catholicism. Commonweal is more self-critical, pointing to the strengths and weaknesses of the faith. The specific beliefs of Catholicism, so carefully defined, can be attractive to those who want and/or need such clarity in the realm of doctrine. 

 The attraction of Protestantism is complex. I find very little attractiveness in its fundamentalist form with its narrow-mindedness and even anti-intellectualism. Yes, there is something to be said for the vibrant spirit of pentecostalism with is enthusiasm. What really is attractive, however, is the thrust of much of modern mainline Protestantism with its emphasis upon freedom - freedom to believe or disbelieve such traditional Christian concepts as hell punishment, the existence of the Devil, original sin, guardian angels, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, yes, even the Virgin Birth. I find that most of my Protestant friends discuss such issues without any sense or fear of 'heresy'. There is no Vatican or no sola scriptura to enforce specific dogmas. 

  God bless Catholics and Protestants - and add to them the Eastern Orthodox. Oh, and let me also include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and all God's children of every faith, color, nation, occupation, age, and gender.

I’m not sure if I completely understand your post, but I am not calling for unity with non-Christian religions. I am calling for unity between Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc) who share Christ and Him crucified within ecumenical creeds.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I’m not an expert of Catholic doctrine, so please correct me. It is my understanding that through baptism, and person receives initial justification and is right with God. Through the reality of this life, we sin as Christians. Therefore, the initial justification can be lost depending of the kind of sin committed (venial or mortal). Through the various sacraments dispense by the church, a Christian can be strengthened, forgiven, etc regaining the initial justification that could be lost. How do you know if you lost your initial justification? I believe final justification is conditional of becoming righteous or sins have been purged from the Christian. Therefore, purgatory is needed to purge sins that have not been removed in this life. The biggest difference IMO between our understanding of justification is being justified by the righeousness of Christ alone (alien righteousness) verse being justified by being made completly righteous (personal righteousness gained through the merits of Christ applied - transformation). My goal is to be able to understand and post the Catholic way of salvation with complete accuracy. Could you please try to answer my question now?

(All quotes come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Catholics are saved by Jesus, just like the Protestants are. We don’t believe that we can become righteous with God through own works alone or that we can make ourselves righteous by own means; that is Pelagism which is condemned by the Church as heresy.
Our redemption comes through Jesus.

By baptism (which is supernatural graces working through ordinary means like Jesus healing the blind man with mud), we are buried, died and rise with Christ:

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

And:

537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father’s beloved son in the Son and “walk in newness of life”:

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.
Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father’s voice, we become sons of God.

If we commit actual sins post-baptism, we can go to Confession and confess our sins to God. The priest is acting in a persona Christi–it’s not like we confess our sins to a priest other and it’s not forgiven. Confession isn’t an AA meeting but an encounter with God Himself whom forgives my sins. The justification is lost due to mortal sins, not venial. (Keep in mind, Catholics don’t have a two-part system–justification and sanctification are one life-long process).
Continued next post…

 

[tweetymom]

(All quotes come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Catholics are saved by Jesus, just like the Protestants are. We don’t believe that we can become righteous with God through own works alone or that we can make ourselves righteous by own means; that is Pelagism which is condemned by the Church as heresy.
Our redemption comes through Jesus.

By baptism (which is supernatural graces working through ordinary means like Jesus healing the blind man with mud), we are buried, died and rise with Christ:

And:

If we commit actual sins post-baptism, we can go to Confession and confess our sins to God. The priest is acting in a persona Christi–it’s not like we confess our sins to a priest other and it’s not forgiven. Confession isn’t an AA meeting but an encounter with God Himself whom forgives my sins. The justification is lost due to mortal sins, not venial. (Keep in mind, Catholics don’t have a two-part system–justification and sanctification are one life-long process).
Continued next post…

Don’t have a problem but why not face God on your own. Works for me.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

How do I know I’m not right with God? I’ve heard Protestant say they are convicted by the Holy Spirit. God has also given us a conscience to tell us from right and wrong. Mortal sins are those done with full knowledge (killing is wrong, violates the Ten Commandments), grave matter (like murder) and full consent (I will kill you!!!). If one of these requirement isn’t met, the sin is venial and not requiring Confession but an act of contrition is encouraged. Mortal sins deprive us of sanctifying grace (grace that is infused into our souls, partaking in the divine nature) and without grace, we cannot enter Heaven. Nothing unclean can enter Heaven. God can send actual graces to compel the will to seek His forgiveness, but the individual must choose, responding to God’s graces, to go to Confession:

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a “confession” - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.”

It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: “Be reconciled to God.” He who lives by God’s merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord’s call: “Go; first be reconciled to your brother.”

That’s all I can write for now since I’ve errands to do. Write more when I have the time.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Don’t have a problem but why not face God on your own. Works for me.

How I am not facing God on my own???

 

[tweetymom]

How I am not facing God on my own???

Confession with a Priest.IMHO

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Confession with a Priest.IMHO

I’m still confessing my sins to God. The priest is acting in a persona Christi.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I’m still confessing my sins to God. The priest is acting in a persona Christi.

Do Catholic confess their sins directly to God and through the Priest? Do you have two ways to confess your sins since Catholics sin more (just kidding)?