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

[guanophore]

I think historic Protestant theology on the doctrine of justification brings out the finished work of Christ differently than Catholic theology on the doctrine of justification. So, yes in practical life, one view gives greater assurance and rest in the finished work of Christ than the other… IMO.

It looks like Reformed/2nd Adam/ OinC may not benefit from a response to this, but for those who are lurking and reading I would like to say that I think this observation is true. The Reformers departed from the Apostolic Teaching on justification,a nd therefore only retain part of the Truth on this doctrine, so they perceive it differently.

Maybe God’s moral law is a reflection of God’s holiness which cannot change. So, we are always accountable to God’s holiness in His law which demands punishment when we break it. God’s moral law shows us our sinfulness, driving us to Jesus Christ as Christians. It was never meant to be a means of salvation by keeping it. So, what do you mean by being bound by the moral law, and in what sense… since when we break a moral law we are in sin?

It is true that the moral law is a reflection of God’s holiness, and that breaking it is a sin. This is also an excellent illustration of the differences between many Protestant understandings of justification, and the Apostolic teaching. Those who have departed from Apostolic teaching on justification believe that one is no longer accountable for keeping the moral law, or that breaking it will no longer affect their “salvation” because they are eternally justified.

For unity between two churches claiming to be the One True Church, would one group give up the claim as being the One True Church? Will the Orthodox Church break with tradition and submit to the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession?

Again for the lurkers, the Catholic Church believes that there is only one valid apostolic succession, and that the Orthodox share in it with Catholics.

I don’t believe the Protestant Reformation was evil, rather it was the will of God. If it wasn’t the will of God, then how did it come to pass?

This statement is another good example of a deficient theology that emanates from the Reformation. Those who depart from the Apostolic succession end up with a deficient understanding of God, the Church, and salvation. The suggestion that God wills division, protest, rebellion, abuse, violence and bigotry in His One Body demonstrates a serious theological shortcoming.

we live in a fallen world which is in rebellion and sin against God.  The day of wrath and judgement is getting near in which the world and its inhabitants will give an account.

I think this is an accurate observation that answers your question about the Reformation. God allows evil to come to pass. Those choosing to be involved in it will give an account, not only for their own souls, but for those they lead astray.

I just don’t see that really being called for. One in Christ has not in anyway denigrated Catholicism. As a matter of fact…all his/her posts have been in the interest of unity…not arguing.

I agree that he did not call us “dirty” Cathlolics, but he is not interested in unity, either. One who is interested in unity does not pit brothers and sisters against one another by opening a thread about who is 'better". This kind of competitive mindset is what Jesus strongly reprimanded.

Christians are all equal in the eyes of God.

This statement is a reflection of the gross relativism of the 70’s that has contaminated the Church. It is clear from the book of Revelation that Jesus is addressing Christians. It is also clear that they are not all “equal” in His eyes. He will spew some out of His mouth, and punish and cut off others, all because of their behavior.

That’s not good for Christian unity. Should Catholics and Protestants go back 500 years and kill each other in the name of God?

You are right again 2nd. Protesting against the authority appointed by Christ is not good for Christian unity, neither is violence.

I love the historic Protestant view of the atonement because I believe it to be true. If Christ did not pay the price for my sins in full, then it would be impossible for me to know if God has reconciled Himself to me the sinner.

Actually, this is the Apostolic Teaching on atonement, which our separated brethren, for the most part, have retained. It is true because it is Catholic(from Jesus through the Aposltes).

All Christians sin in this life. So which sin did Christ not pay for from a Catholic perspective and why?

This is one of those accusatory questions like “so, when did you stop beating your wife”?

It poses a disingenuous question based upon a false premise. How can such actions be construed as being in the quest of unity?

 

[Loboto-Me]

Oh dear, I just realized that One In Christ has been banned. I was really enjoying this thread because of the answers given back. I seem to learn my faith alot on the Non-Catholic forum because of the wonderful Catholics who are teaching me while they are teaching non-catholics. Also, this part of the forum makes me do my own research LOL!

I hope this thread continues even without One In Christ.

 

[tweetymom]

Oh dear, I just realized that One In Christ has been banned. I was really enjoying this thread because of the answers given back. I seem to learn my faith alot on the Non-Catholic forum because of the wonderful Catholics who are teaching me while they are teaching non-catholics. Also, this part of the forum makes me do my own research LOL!

I hope this thread continues even without One In Christ.

It is sad I never saw anything he did or said to be banned for.

 

[spn82756]

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.

There’s telling the truth charitably and rudely. You have been quite rude at times. Have you thought of sharing your vigor on the non-Catholic part of the forum where muslims bash Christianity all the time? That might be better than bashing other Christians.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

6 - Repeat Offenders
Some individuals, after being suspended, sign up under new usernames. (Circumventing a suspension is a bannable offense). When such a situation is detected, the new account will be summarily banned. No explanatory e-mail is sent.

A review of recent public activity by the new account will not reveal the reasons for the ban because the reasons for the original suspension are associated with a different account.

 

[Loboto-Me]

There’s telling the truth charitably and rudely. You have been quite rude at times. Have you thought of sharing your vigor on the non-Catholic part of the forum where muslims bash Christianity all the time? That might be better than bashing other Christians.

So it’s ok to be rude to one section of human beings but not to another section of human beings?

Carl, please don’t think I’m calling you rude, I was just reacting to what Steve’s comment Christians who try to convolute christianity and cause discord even one Catholic against another doesn’t deserve “bashing” whereas Muslims as much as I feel disdain for their belief system DO deserve “bashing”.

and Steve, if I had the fortitude I’d be there in the muslim threads guarding your back, but all I know about that faith is its violence and some of its lies… not enough to guard my OWN back… although I do like to read it (and fume)

 

[guanophore]

It is sad I never saw anything he did or said to be banned for.

When a person has already been banned, it is against the forum rules to reincarnate as a new user.

Outside of his usual disdain for the Catholic faith, as evidenced by the Thread topic and the OP, I did not observe anything either. However a lot happens that we don’t see. The mods really work with the members here if they are breaking rules, and banning is always a last resort.

CAF is here for such persons, and the observation made in the post above this one that participants such as this help us all to sharpen our faith is very accurate.

 

[tweetymom]

When a person has already been banned, it is against the forum rules to reincarnate as a new user.

Outside of his usual disdain for the Catholic faith, as evidenced by the Thread topic and the OP, I did not observe anything either. However a lot happens that we don’t see. The mods really work with the members here if they are breaking rules, and banning is always a last resort.

CAF is here for such persons, and the observation made in the post above this one that participants such as this help us all to sharpen our faith is very accurate.

They had already been bannes?

 

[CWBetts]

There’s telling the truth charitably and rudely. You have been quite rude at times. Have you thought of sharing your vigor on the non-Catholic part of the forum where muslims bash Christianity all the time? That might be better than bashing other Christians.

I have bashed no one. I have presented tr truth rather than coddled an enemy of the Gospel.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t see much of a difference. Saying someone is speaking traitorously implies they’re a traitor. Saying someone is speaking unpatriotically implies a certain level of unpatriotic behavior or thinking. Thinking people speak idiocy they must be somewhat idiotic?

I did not call him an idiot. The statement he made was idiotic. There is a difference

 

[spn82756]

So it’s ok to be rude to one section of human beings but not to another section of human beings?

Carl, please don’t think I’m calling you rude, I was just reacting to what Steve’s comment Christians who try to convolute christianity and cause discord even one Catholic against another doesn’t deserve “bashing” whereas Muslims as much as I feel disdain for their belief system DO deserve “bashing”.

and Steve, if I had the fortitude I’d be there in the muslim threads guarding your back, but all I know about that faith is its violence and some of its lies… not enough to guard my OWN back… although I do like to read it (and fume)

If you read my post…I never said to be rude…but to use his vigor in dealing with the muslims.

Now…why would you be concerned about fortitude in dealing with anti-Christians?

 

[spn82756]

I don’t see much of a difference. Saying someone is speaking traitorously implies they’re a traitor. Saying someone is speaking unpatriotically implies a certain level of unpatriotic behavior or thinking. Thinking people speak idiocy they must be somewhat idiotic?

CWBetts has displayed anything but charity in his posts. I think he has forgotten that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I’m not going to pursue the conversation with him…because he just doesn’t see it. God bless him in his new road…but I doubt that his theology classes would approve of his abrasive attitude. But who knows. Maybe that’s why he hasn’t reached One in Christ one iota.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Protestantism is an ideology; the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, this is biblical and is a Apostolic Catholic teaching.

The Catholic church came into existance before the bible. Protestants came into existance from the bible.

The Catholic church suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith to bring it into the 16th century when Protestantism began.

Jesus built his church upon Peter (Mt.16:14-19) present day Pope and his apostles with their successors in the Bishops today. Protestantism came from man who protested what Jesus built upon the unbroken line of apostolic successors in the Catholic Popes and Bishops.

The Catholic church has the “True presence of Jesus Christ” body, blood, soul and divinity.
Protestantism proclaims to have a symbolic Jesus presence.

For me I’ll place my salvation and trust on what Jesus built in his Catholic Church not protestantism which came from man made theologies.

 

[guanophore]

Protestantism is an ideology; the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, this is biblical and is a Apostolic Catholic teaching.

The Catholic church came into existance before the bible. Protestants came into existance from the bible.

The Catholic church suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith to bring it into the 16th century when Protestantism began.

Jesus built his church upon Peter (Mt.16:14-19) present day Pope and his apostles with their successors in the Bishops today. Protestantism came from man who protested what Jesus built upon the unbroken line of apostolic successors in the Catholic Popes and Bishops.

The Catholic church has the “True presence of Jesus Christ” body, blood, soul and divinity.
Protestantism proclaims to have a symbolic Jesus presence.

For me I’ll place my salvation and trust on what Jesus built in his Catholic Church not protestantism which came from man made theologies.

I would not even go so far as to say that Protestantism came into existence from the Bible. Your last sentence here is a better descriptor. It was the faulty perceptions of man trying to extrapolate the truth of what Scripture says that produced the Reformation. This was a result of rejecting the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t see much of a difference. Saying someone is speaking traitorously implies they’re a traitor. Saying someone is speaking unpatriotically implies a certain level of unpatriotic behavior or thinking. Thinking people speak idiocy they must be somewhat idiotic?

It is you, my friend, who is being uncharitable. It in never charitable to put words in one’s mouth. What is your goal here, other than to accuse me of saying things that I did not say?

 

[CWBetts]

CWBetts has displayed anything but charity in his posts. I think he has forgotten that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I’m not going to pursue the conversation with him…because he just doesn’t see it. God bless him in his new road…but I doubt that his theology classes would approve of his abrasive attitude. But who knows. Maybe that’s why he hasn’t reached One in Christ one iota.

I never reached him because he was not interested in truth or true unity, and neither, apparently are you. Do yourself a favor. Read Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium. Maybe then you will learn what true ecumenism is, and not that watered-down hippie version you seem to espouse, which puts all Christan faiths on the seem level of truth, which is obviously NOT the case. Even the most basic knowledge of Catholic and Protestant doctrine will demonstrate that.

 

[spn82756]

I never reached him because he was not interested in truth or true unity, and neither, apparently are you. Do yourself a favor. Read Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium. Maybe then you will learn what true ecumenism is, and not that watered-down hippie version you seem to espouse, which puts all Christan faiths on the seem level of truth, which is obviously NOT the case. Even the most basic knowledge of Catholic and Protestant doctrine will demonstrate that.

There you go again. Telling me what I believe and you don’t even know me. Ya wanna know something?

I just happen to be a very conservative Catholic…with a strong Marion devotion…a great appreciation for the Eucharist…frequent the sacrament of reconciliation…100 % pro-life etc etc…

But my late grandmother taught me something that you apparently haven’t learned or don’t believe…You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You are arrogant and talk down to many on this forum. To be honest…for someone studying theology and claiming to be so "CATHOLIC" you should try reading the Gospel from time to time. If you’re studying to be a priest…may God have pity on your parishoners.

Now…please leave me ALONE to burn in hell…I’m sure it’s an easier punishment than listening to you.

 

[Loboto-Me]

If you read my post…I never said to be rude…but to use his vigor in dealing with the muslims.

Now…why would you be concerned about fortitude in dealing with anti-Christians?

your quote:
“There’s telling the truth charitably and rudely. You have been quite rude at times. Have you thought of sharing your vigor on the non-Catholic part of the forum where muslims bash Christianity all the time? That might be better than bashing other Christians. ”

I must say that when we first compare rude and charitable behaviour, then telling the poster that they have been rude at times, it does emphasize the action of RUDE.
The next sentence mentions the poster’s vigor which you did describe as “rude at times”

No, I think I read your original sentence correctly the first time. You had it in for anyone who was trying to explain that unity just wasn’t possible but that REUNITY was very possible. When a Catholic would to explain things to OIC you’d come in on their tail in such a way that you were being critical of the catholic comments more than once. It got to the point that you even donned on one of OIC’s silly paper bags?
Come on now, please don’t say that you didn’t mean what I thought you meant. Please tell me what your agenda in this thread really was.

Carl may have given OIC some “tough love” in some of the posts, but when a poster comes in with an agenda, sometimes that’s what it takes.

As for fortitude in the Muslim thread, sometimes it’s better to leave debates or apologetics to those who know more about the other side than someone like me who’s still yet learning the meaning of their own faith.

 

[spn82756]

your quote:
“There’s telling the truth charitably and rudely. You have been quite rude at times. Have you thought of sharing your vigor on the non-Catholic part of the forum where muslims bash Christianity all the time? That might be better than bashing other Christians. ”

I must say that when we first compare rude and charitable behaviour, then telling the poster that they have been rude at times, it does emphasize the action of RUDE.
The next sentence mentions the poster’s vigor which you did describe as “rude at times”

No, I think I read your original sentence correctly the first time. You had it in for anyone who was trying to explain that unity just wasn’t possible but that REUNITY was very possible. When a Catholic would to explain things to OIC you’d come in on their tail in such a way that you were being critical of the catholic comments more than once. It got to the point that you even donned on one of OIC’s silly paper bags?
Come on now, please don’t say that you didn’t mean what I thought you meant. Please tell me what your agenda in this thread really was.

Carl may have given OIC some “tough love” in some of the posts, but when a poster comes in with an agenda, sometimes that’s what it takes.

As for fortitude in the Muslim thread, sometimes it’s better to leave debates or apologetics to those who know more about the other side than someone like me who’s still yet learning the meaning of their own faith.

The word vigor was in a different sentence and referred to his decidedly robust defense of what he believes. If you choose to connect being rude and using his vigor…then fine. That’s not what was meant. But…the fact is he has been rude. And I stand by my post immediately before yours.

 

[CWBetts]

The word vigor was in a different sentence and referred to his decidedly robust defense of what he believes. If you choose to connect being rude and using his vigor…then fine. That’s not what was meant. But…the fact is he has been rude. And I stand by my post immediately before yours.

I find it interesting that you wish to talk about me, but do not wish to interact with me directly. Who is being rude?