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

  • Thread starter Thread starter One_in_Christ_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Code:
Frankly, I'm rather fond of the Quakers myself. They try to live their creedless and simple religion by pushing for peace and goodwill. Sounds a lot like Jesus to me.
The Church of Jesus Christ the Really Nice Guy.
 
Steve, I just peeked at your thread and I don’t really care about what opinion is on celibacy. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with celibacy. You see my friend, married or unmarried priests are not doctrine in the Catholic Church. That is something that CAN be changed should it be decided by the Pope.

I have no idea why you’d even dirty the water with this stuff… it just has nothing to do with our conversation here.
Peter was married. It seems if Peter was the first Catholic Pope, the succeeding Popes should follow the lead of Peter and get married too.
 
Peter was married. It seems if Peter was the first Catholic Pope, the succeeding Popes should follow the lead of Peter and get married too.
Really? Would it also follow that no successive Pope should wear trousers, since Peter certainly didn’t? Or have indoor running water?
 
There is?
There is a HUGE difference. I know many very intelligent people who say phenomenally stupid things, or do stupid things. I was not questioning the man himself, just the nature of his statement.
 
Peter was married. It seems if Peter was the first Catholic Pope, the succeeding Popes should follow the lead of Peter and get married too.
or they could be following the advice of both Jesus and Paul. You mind keeping this to the original topic, instead of derailing it?
 
I don’t wast my time with that level of inanity.
Don’t staunch Catholics have a sense of humor? Lighten up brother… therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus! :whacky:
 
Don’t staunch Catholics have a sense of humor? Lighten up brother… therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus! :whacky:
Frankly when souls are in the balance I don’t have a sense of humor. Eternity is not a laughing matter.
 
irrelevant
Dear Carl…

As you continue your studies…perhaps you can decide whether the lack of Christian charity you have displayed in your arrogance in this thread is something that Stuebenville teaches. Ah…I’m sure you could correct them.
 
Dear Carl…

As you continue your studies…perhaps you can decide whether the lack of Christian charity you have displayed in your arrogance in this thread is something that Stuebenville teaches. Ah…I’m sure you could correct them.
What arrogance? Is it arrogant to know the truth, state it, and not back down from it? Perhaps you are content to “compromise” on the Truth. I, on the other hand, am not.
 
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. - John 6

If you take this literally, then only Catholics and Orthodox Christians have life in Christ. Since Protestants do not believe that the elements are actual flesh and blood, they cannot have life in them or will receive eternal life according to Jesus with the Catholic view. Do you see the dilemma since Protestants are considered separated brothers and sisters by the Catholic Church. The only way around it is to acknowledge that Protestants do actually have life in Christ and will have eternal life with their view of communion.
No, actually, there are many alternatives. The most salient being that they have life in them through the Eucharist as it is cherished by those who take Christ at His word. Through our faith in Him, others will also be saved.

Invincible ignorance is another.
 
Nice point, and yes Protestants trace back to the Catholic Church. I guess you have to determine if the 16th Century Catholic Church was similar to the 1st century church. What actually needed to be changed or reformed in the 16th century? I think the Protestant Reformers called for reform first and not splintering.
Men are always in need of reform. It is always right to call for that, especially when such abuses are occurring. The Doctrine of Christ, preserved inerrantly by, in, and through the Church, does not need to be reformed. Doing that is what created the splintering that exists today.
 
To make us One in Christ, and to help heal the division of Christendom.
Unity automatically occurs through adherance to the Truth. To the extent that any one of us departs from the Truth, we present a wound to unity. What divides Christendom is separation from the Apostolic faith.

Our separated brethren have retained many of the Teachings of the Apostles. To the extent those Teachings are held, unity exists.
 
Reformed Churches and Lutheran churches, and probably other Protestant churches believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
In a manner that has been redefined by the children of the Reformers. It falls short of that taught by the Apostles.
 
This is simply a thread for us to discuss and understand each other… so we can see that we are really “One in Christ”. 🙂
This seems somewhat disingenuous, given the very accurate observation of reteeks21 that you are making slanderous innuendos about the Catholic faith.

It is exactly those kind of divisive and denigrating remarks that foster the disunity among us. 🤷
 
I think what we are trying to accomplish is to open our minds that other Christian communities and traditions than the one that we attend are not evil. We are One in Christ with much tension between our traditions, yet we are still one because there is only one body of Christ.
I am not sure who the royal “we” is that you are speaking on behalf of here, 2nd, but it seems to me that you want Catholics to approve the fact that you cling to your position of disobedience to the successor of Peter, and to accept that, in reveling in such a state, you are not contributing to disunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top