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

[Loboto-Me]

Like I said I do not believe in purgayory. I believe we will all have the reward of heave. We will be questioned by God and have to answer for things we have not asked forgiveness for and that will be enough punishment for me to have to look in Christs eyes and see disappointment. Now if you believe in purgatory well good enough!

Wow so that means that Hitler HAS gone to heaven!

That also means that the eternal fires the bible mentions is untrue. Geez I wish I hadn’t taken the hard way to heaven!

 

[tweetymom]

Wow so that means that Hitler HAS gone to heaven!

That also means that the eternal fires the bible mentions is untrue. Geez I wish I hadn’t taken the hard way to heaven!

WOW I didn’t know that. Too bad if you think you have.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

What do you guys mean by redemption or the redeemned ones. I understand that redemption only applies to those who are in Christ (believers).

See post 634 for a critique of this. What about Jesus dying “once and for ALL” according to Scripture (emphasis mine)?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

And 630 as well.

 

[jpk1313]

IMO…it’s better to be Protestant, but tell me why it’s better to be Catholic. But remember, Catholics and Protestants are one in Christ for those who actually are known by God through Christ. Please try to keep your responses grounded in official Catholic teaching. I’ll start:

1. It’s better to be Protestant because historic Protestant theology rest in the finished work of Christ for our eternal standing before God, We are justified by the person and work of Jesus Christ who earned our complete forgiveness and reconciliation for us, We are saved from God to God, and for God on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, historic Protestant theology teaches that we have eternal peace with God because of the merit of Jesus Christ.

Well it is better to be a catholic christian becuse we get everything you just said plus the seven sacraments and a stable church that is devoted to God and not entertainment. I left the protestant sects becuse they kept trying to entertain me and I find their theology watered down and lazy when compared to Catholic theology. Just my two cents

 

[Loboto-Me]

To Catholics here, I’m still young in my faith and just now learned about the Didache!

I just learned that the Didache in greek means “that which is taught” or " teachings" I just found out that it’s the teachings of the Apostles and was written between 65 and 80 AD.

Reading through it, I see that there are tons of works and tradition that they taught. for example:

1:3 And the doctrine of these maxims is as follows. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy.

4:3 thou shalt not desire schism, but shalt set at peace them that contend; thou shalt judge righteously; thou shalt not accept the person of any one to convict him of transgression

4:6 If thou hast, give by means of thy hands a redemption for thy sins.

4:13 thou shalt not abandon the commandments of the Lord, but shalt guard that which thou hast received, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom;

This is just a taste of the document. I’m astounded that I never knew of these writtings before… seek and you shall find.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Think about it. “I am Catholic” sounds a lot better than “I am Protestant”. Also, Catholic starts with a “C”, which comes first in the alphabet.

Also, take into consideration the fact that guy’s like Martin Luther actually removed books from the bible. When you get that fact out there, it looks bad.

Also, throw in “Roman” in front of the word “Catholic” and you get “Roman Catholic”. That signifies some sort of association with the Roman Empire, who were these awesome guy’s with awesome armies, gladiators, and amazing contributions to humanity.

Also, Catholic’s have all sorts of awesome practices with all sorts of awesome words for practices and such. We have all sorts of holy days to. Holy this, good that, it sounds awesome. When you get into all the “The Bible is the only source of truth one would ever need. No one needs anything else” and all that “sola scriptura” stuff things get watered down and lame. You turn Christianity into a plain ham sandwhich. Catholicism is a ham sandwhich with lettuce, mustard, mayo, cheese, etc.

Thanks,
Snakemauler

 

[Carlan]

What do you guys mean by redemption or the redeemed ones. I understand that redemption only applies to those who are in Christ (believers).

No, Christ’s redemption was for every human being created by God,Jews, Muslims,atheist,Christians,all. However,the individual, being drawn by God’s actual grace, must accept that redemption,Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, to receive salvation. Again people must say yes to the grace God offers us before we are saved, and redeemed by his blood. We are saved by God Grace, and by Faith working in love.Yes.Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wouldn’t the admission, though, that the Reformers created a new doctrine in sola fide and sola scriptura and that the Fathers were by no means protestant imply that the Protestants weren’t keeping to the Deposit of Faith but rather adding to it? Shouldn’t Protestantism reinforce or bolster what the Fathers had already taught? Most Protestants take that angle–that the Reformation was an extension of the early church and the real intent of the fathers; you’re the first honest guy I’ve spoken to that shows this to be an innovation to some degree, if I read you right.

For the sake of brevity, gurney, I would direct you here bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php as it addresses the question you ask from a confessional perspective. To say that the church always taught the Lutheran concept of justification would do a disservice to both the fathers and the reformers (in the sense that the reformers did develop the doctrine). However, one can see numerous references in the fathers that the works of the saints are not for the purpose of justification (see the writings of St. Ambrose on the subject here angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.ambrose.html)

As to what it means that for the first 1500 works were emphasized… One does not need to hold to the doctrine of sola fide to be justified. Faith in Christ justifies, not faith in sola fide. Therefore, the average Christian could lay his head down at night knowing that Christ was his savior from sin. I cannot deny that many practices of the church over the centuries let the doctrine of justification be confused by traditions that were never part of biblical revelation. In such instances, those traditions need to be compared to Scripture, as no father has greater authority on the subject than St. Paul.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Wouldn’t the admission, though, that the Reformers created a new doctrine in sola fide and sola scriptura and that the Fathers were by no means protestant imply that the Protestants weren’t keeping to the Deposit of Faith but rather adding to it? Shouldn’t Protestantism reinforce or bolster what the Fathers had already taught? Most Protestants take that angle–that the Reformation was an extension of the early church and the real intent of the fathers; you’re the first honest guy I’ve spoken to that shows this to be an innovation to some degree, if I read you right.

Both sides would acknowledge a development of doctrine in several areas, gurney. The early church fathers very rarely talked about the subject to the degree that later theologians did. This is evidenced by the fact that no church council even addressed it. About the only one that comes close is the 2nd Council of Orange in (I believe?) 529. The early church was focused almost entirely on Trinitarian dogma and the Person of Christ. Trent was the first major council to discuss justification to the degree that it needed. So, in the end you will have church fathers who stress faith, some who stress works, some who stress both faith and works. Most contradict themselves. However, the idea was present, just left largely unexplored. In that sense, the later biblical focus on justification was new ground (even among Catholics), especially given the rediscovery of the ad fontes.

I believe the average parish in the first several centuries merely proclaimed Christ crucified for sinners and exhorted the faithful to care for their neighbors. That is a marked difference from the hells of conscience that the medieval church put the faithful through.

By the way, speaking of justification, good show on Issues Etc (a Lutheran radio program) about Confession and Absolution. Scroll down to March 15 An Ad Campaign Urging Boston Catholics to Go to Confession issuesetc.org/archive/ worth a listen!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Most Protestants take that angle–that the Reformation was an extension of the early church and the real intent of the fathers; you’re the first honest guy I’ve spoken to that shows this to be an innovation to some degree, if I read you right.

Oh… you won’t find me arguing that Baptists, Calvinists, or Arminians reinforce the teachings of the early church

 

[Pixie_Dust]

That’s the truth of the matter. Not all Protestant churches are the same. Since the Catholic Church is so big, are the Parishes different too, but with less diversity than the Protestant churches?

Walk in to any Catholic Church and ask to see a Catechism. They’ll all give you the exact same book.

In practice there are differences from one parish to the next, but doctrinally and dogmatically they are all exactly the same. It’s not just “less diversity” in doctrine, but NO diversity in doctrine. Whether the music is played on an organ, piano, or guitar; whether the Mass is said in English, Latin, Spanish or Swahili; whether the congregation holds hands while praying the Our Father or not, the doctrine from one parish to another is exactly the same.

Click on Bible Christian Society and find a talk called One Church, available in MP3 format free of charge. Give it a listen. You’ll be glad you did.

 

[Roblox84]

There are several reasons why I like to be Catholic.

1. They are the biggest religion on earth, so who can say that Catholicism is wrong when the person saying it belongs to a Church of maybe a few hundred.
2. We have the power to pick holiday’s. Like Christmas that all protestants celebrate.
3. Aewsome Cathedrals
4. The priest doesn’t shout at you in Church.
5. I can go to a Church anywhere in the world and it won’t be different.
6. I don’t have to whip out a tithe to remain in good standing with my religion.
7. This is a negative in my religion. We don’t have comfy seating.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

No, Christ’s redemption was for every human being created by God,Jews, Muslims,atheist,Christians,all. However,the individual, being drawn by God’s actual grace, must accept that redemption,Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, to receive salvation. Again people must say yes to the grace God offers us before we are saved, and redeemed by his blood. We are saved by God Grace, and by Faith working in love.Yes.Carlan

Everyone is called by the gospel to come to Christ. However, when a Jew, Muslims, atheist, or other non-Christian obey the call of the gospel, what do they become?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

If Christ paid for our actual sins–past, present and future–then why did Christ Himself give the Apostles to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23) and St. James instruct his epistle to confess our sins to one another (James 5:15-16) if these actual sins are dealt with? How do you match up these Bible verses with your theology? Can you forgive a sin that hasn’t been committed yet?

Speaking of the Christ’s Sacrifice, was He too weak to redeem them all of humanity?

Are you saying that sins are forgiven only by the Catholic Church through apostolic succession? Are Protestants and Orthodox Christians still dead in their sins; therefore, dead to God? Since it was God who sent His Son into the world to save sinners, do you think God failed if it was His will to save All of humanity?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

See post 634 for a critique of this. What about Jesus dying “once and for ALL” according to Scripture (emphasis mine)?

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” - Matthew 1

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” - John 10

 

[guanophore]

The finished work of Christ as most know is related to the controversial phrase of Faith Alone. I guess those two words of Faith Alone are loaded words which can mean different things to different Christians. It seems that Catholics believe in the finished work of Christ too. Could you please post what you mean by believing in the finished work of Christ from a Catholic perspective?

The finished work of Christ on the cross is an Apostolic Teaching that pre-dated the Protestant Reformation. It is one of the theological elements that was retained by our separated brethren.

I agree, it has become contaminated with the “five sola’s” so that some of the original meaning has become lost among those who have departed from the Apostolic faith.

The finished work of Christ on the cross, the eternal payment for the sins of humanity, and his taking upon Himself our punishment, does not mean that faith is ‘alone’. On the contrary, the Apostles taught that faith, hope and love abide together, and they are never separated from one another, so as to be 'alone". This is why our saving faith works constantly through love, in hope of eternity with Him.

 

[Roy5]

Two quick reminders.

1. Luther did not remove six books from the Old Testament. He adopted the Old Testament in the form that you will find in your neighborhood synagogue. There are sound arguments for both versions. Some Protestant Bibles carry the six books as the Apocrypha. They are not dismissed as unimportant, but simply not included in the canon.
2. Bear in mind, too, that millions of Protestants (and, I daresay, Catholics) are ‘liberal’ in their views, neither sola scriptura (in the case of Protestants) and not always following church teachings (as with millions of Catholics). A recent poll, for example, had Catholics favoring same-sex marriage by a small margin. All major Protestant groups - evangelical, mainsteam, and Black - oppose it, the evangelicals and Blacks by large majorities. Polls also show that artificial birth control, divorce and abortions are as common among Catholics as Protestants. They even say that the second largest denomination in the USA are ex-Catholics, about 30 millions. In today’s paper there is an article indicating that if illegal immigrants weren’t flooding us from Latin America the RC Church in the USA would be losing members at a rather fast pace.

But God bless people of every faith, and may we all learn to live in an atmosphere of humility and mutual respect. God knows the truth, Christ showed us the way, and the Holy Spirit is alive and active - and that’s enough for me.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Two quick reminders.

1. Luther did not remove six books from the Old Testament. He adopted the Old Testament in the form that you will find in your neighborhood synagogue. There are sound arguments for both versions. Some Protestant Bibles carry the six books as the Apocrypha. They are not dismissed as unimportant, but simply not included in the canon.
2. Bear in mind, too, that millions of Protestants (and, I daresay, Catholics) are ‘liberal’ in their views, neither sola scriptura (in the case of Protestants) and not always following church teachings (as with millions of Catholics). A recent poll, for example, had Catholics favoring same-sex marriage by a small margin. All major Protestant groups - evangelical, mainsteam, and Black - oppose it, the evangelicals and Blacks by large majorities. Polls also show that artificial birth control, divorce and abortions are as common among Catholics as Protestants. They even say that the second largest denomination in the USA are ex-Catholics, about 30 millions. In today’s paper there is an article indicating that if illegal immigrants weren’t flooding us from Latin America the RC Church in the USA would be losing members at a rather fast pace.

But God bless people of every faith, and may we all learn to live in an atmosphere of humility and mutual respect. God knows the truth, Christ showed us the way, and the Holy Spirit is alive and active - and that’s enough for me.

I agree with the second part of your statement fully, it’s unfortunate that so many Catholics use Catholicism as a title rather than a statement and guide to faith .

As for the first part of your statement, I can’t say whether a true statement or not because I haven’t bothered going there. I do know that there was a word added to the bible that changed the whole meaning of a scripture paragraph “ALONE” . Whether he took away from the bible or not… he did add to the bible to change the context of something.

As for your last statement, I agree with that too, and I pray that some day your faith brings you further in and into the fullness of the truth

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

The finished work of Christ on the cross is an Apostolic Teaching that pre-dated the Protestant Reformation. It is one of the theological elements that was retained by our separated brethren.

I agree, it has become contaminated with the “five sola’s” so that some of the original meaning has become lost among those who have departed from the Apostolic faith.

The finished work of Christ on the cross, the eternal payment for the sins of humanity, and his taking upon Himself our punishment, does not mean that faith is ‘alone’. On the contrary, the Apostles taught that faith, hope and love abide together, and they are never separated from one another, so as to be 'alone". This is why our saving faith works constantly through love, in hope of eternity with Him.

That’s a very nice post! How can someone have over 17,300 postings? I seem to agree with much that you posted. Many Protestants have tried to re-invent the wheel, and totally disregard church history, creeds, confessions, and tradition that is true. I’m glad you able to call Protestants as seperated brethren, because we are really One in Christ when we are able to get by the theological distinctives that separate the various traditions. I am not trying to say that our theological distinctives are not important, because they are within the balance of Christian unity.

The biggest issues of division between Catholics are Protestants is how we understand the doctrine of justification and authoritative final authority in regards to Christianity. I don’t think those two differences will ever merge to one unifying view in our generation. However if we acknowledge that apparent fact, can there be unity (imperfect) between those who know God through our Christ? John 17 unity is about a witness to the unbelieving world. We are called for unity for the unbeliever’s sake. I am only promoting unity within Christendom defined by shared ecumenical creeds.