Every lie is rooted in truth.
True. And every truth, expressed by humans [leaving divine inspiration out of it], is imperfect.
The only solution is to affirm what is true and reject the deformation of the truth that constitutes the lie. That will result in different practical decisions in different contexts.
Praying with those of another faith, which was founded on errors, can lead to faith comparisons and debates and even conversion from the one, true church.
That’s a pretty unworthy sort of argument. You profess to be interested in truth. So be interested in truth. Anything may lead to anything else. Why don’t we consider what things are in themselves? Isn’t that what really matters?
If you reject anything that may lead to something bad, you will have to reject absolutely everything.
Also, no Christian tradition (which is what we are talking about in this thread) is “founded on errors.” No Protestant church is or professes to be its own “faith.” Protestantism is a broad category comprising many variants of Christianity. Christianity is founded in the truth of Jesus.
This is not to deny that there is much error in Protestantism–in fact, any Protestant would agree with you on that!
Whether we should speak of non-Christian religions as “founded on errors” is another issue.
Our Lord established one church and gave us everything we need in order to achieve Heaven.
Sure, if *that’s *all you are interested in.
But aren’t you interested in glorifying God to the maximum extent possible? Aren’t you interested in loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? If so, why neglect any possible way in which God may be glorified?
Brothers and sisters in Christ, but not the children of the BVM, apparently.
Are you suggesting that people are only what they know themselves to be?
All who believe in Jesus are children of the BVM, whether they admit it or not
A lot of the times Liberals are very fast to say YOU ARE GOING AGAINST WHAT THE HIPPY, ECUMENICAL, THUMBS UP BUDDY JESUS WANTS. GO TO HELL NOW.
I repeat: the liberals you know actually talk about hell? Or are you metaphorically ascribing your own forms of condemnation to them?
Well, thank you for saying that I’m not going to hell. However, I do feel that belonging to the Catholic church is having everything we need, and that does entail a healthy spiritual attitude.
Did people who belonged to the Catholic Church in 100 have everything they needed?
If so, why bother defining the Trinity or the limits of the canon? Why bother developing the wonderful liturgical prayers of the Church?
Did people in 1000 have everything they needed?
If so, was the Rosary a bad thing?
We may be speaking past each other. But my use of “everything needed” is the one relevant in this discussion. I’m not suggesting that not learning from Protestants makes you unorthodox. I’m saying that it involves rejecting some ways in which the expression and understanding and development of orthodoxy may be furthered.
Edwin