Maybe I should stay Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_in_Dallas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sorry to say, that at EVERY catholic church I have been to on Sunday, the doors blow open as soon as communion has been received by the “faithful”. ANY catholic church, I don’t care where it is. “Count”, as in “getting 'er done” (as I have heard it before) you know? Fullfilling the Sunday obligation. The church that I mentioned in this thread, or perhaps another, heck, the priest even tells the folks they don’t have to be there for the whole “bit”. Nothing to do with folks with other duties, doctors or the like, it’s folks with other things they HAVE to do, which, obviously, is not the worship of our Lord.

I went to pick up my folks from mass one day and asked folks leaving the church early, why they were leaving. Answers? “It’s all over”, “I have more important things to do”, “I have a dinner engagement”, “I really needed a smoke”, “You don’t have to stay for the whole thing” and “I got it done for the week”.

Great, eh?
Look to your own soul; Heaven isn’t won by means of a popularity contest - Mary is already there, and God has already won the battle with her - He doesn’t need us, so if we thoughtlessly throw ourselves into Hell by the very few moments between Holy Communion and the final blessing, that is surely not God’s problem.

If “everyone” is leaving early from Mass (before the final blessing) then “everyone” is not fulfilling their Sunday obligation (unless there is a grave reason to leave before the final blessing, of course) - but then, if “everyone” were actually doing that, then the priest would be blessing an empty Church, and we know that that isn’t happening - yes, there are people who leave early, but it’s hardly the entire congregation, or even most of it - my personal experience is that the majority of people (more than three quarters) stay until the end of the final hymn, and there are quite a few who stay for about half an hour afterwards for prayers and fellowship.
 
I have been to mass and always stay to the end. I have had people PUSH me out of the way, if I am on my knees praying, or standing, singing the final hymns. I have to move because they refuse to stay for the entire service.

It’s not confined to just one church in one small city. It is everywhere.
I am sorry to hear that incident happened to you. I must have been lucky. Most people avoid leaving the pew on my side while I was praying. Most of them are quiet until they reach the holy water font.

Although occasionally, I have to exit and move to the pew in front of me to pray; then I don’t have to worry about people waiting for me to leave. That’s because once a couple next to me wanted to leave so bad, but I was praying and they were trapped because the other end was also praying as well, so they waited until I finished my Angelus. (The other side prayed a Rosary, I think).
 
If “everyone” is leaving early from Mass (before the final blessing) then “everyone” is not fulfilling their Sunday obligation (unless there is a grave reason to leave before the final blessing, of course) - but then, if “everyone” were actually doing that, then the priest would be blessing an empty Church, and we know that that isn’t happening - yes, there are people who leave early, but it’s hardly the entire congregation, or even most of it - my personal experience is that the majority of people (more than three quarters) stay until the end of the final hymn, and there are quite a few who stay for about half an hour afterwards for prayers and fellowship.
There are books about mass out there actually discussing this issue. The one I really like is “The How-to Book of the Mass” by Michael Dubruiel. It gives a walk-through from the moment you enter the Church until after people leave it. Another one is “The Mass” by Rev. Guy Oury. My friend likes Mass for Dummies. All seem to have something to talk about leaving early after communion.
 
Wanner (in particular)
Code:
A few points.
  1. In an earlier posting I was responding mainly to Aramis (#143) who implied that only certain Christians were praying to the real God, and that did not include Protestants. He also suggested that it would be rare for Protestants to get to heaven - like a ‘camel going through the eye of a needle’. This quote from Jesus, of course, referred to rich people and noy to Protestants.
  2. A main difference between traditional Catholics and me is that I do not believe that whatever the church says is necessarily the last word. Paul said that “we see through a glass darkly” - and I agree with that. So many of the Church Fathers and other early Christians simply did not have the advantages of modern knowledge and made some colossal mistakes in their works. Even the creeds can sound archaic. Does Jesus really sit at “the right hand of God the Father almighty?” The medieval mindm with its kingly thrones and idea of heaven up above somewhere, might have envisioned that but nobody who is up-to-date on science believes in the 3-tier universe anymore.
  3. Just so it’s clear, as I indicated before, I come from a mixed family - which is one reason why I push so hard for religious understanding and mutual respect. Fine church folks on both sides. In fact, one of those in my paternal ancestry was the Archbishop of Canada! I am put off by religious exclusivism, whether voiced by Catholics or Protestants. I simply don’t believe that Christ is a hard-line dictator when it comes to doctrine or church identification. The scriptures aren’t clear on many matters, and I am not a Bible-thumper anyway. I don’t believe a variety of Biblical accounts. For example, Eve created from Adam’s rib, Noah and his three sons building an ark sufficient to hold two of every species, God creating languages as a punishment for building the Tower of Babel, Moses turning a rod into a snake, Jonah surviving three days in the belly of a big fish, and we could go on. I disagree with Paul when, for example, he says that women should remain quiet in churches, that their heads must be covered, that slaves should obey their masters, and on and on.
  4. Pius IX did condemn democracy in his 'Syllabus of Errror". Let me find the reference and include it next posting.
  5. Yes, Elizabeth I killed Catholics, after ‘Bloody Mary’ killed Protestants. Who can justify either. Earlier, of course, the Catholic Church tried its best exterminate all the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Hussites, the Lollards, and other pre-Reformation dissenters. This is the kind of religion, Catholic or Protestant, that should make us read such violent history with shame and a sense of repentance. It reflects very poorly on people who thought they were doing Christ’s work. Consider Thomas Aquinas, who said that heretics should be turned over to the civil authorities to be executed. Who can defend such outrageous views? This history, of course, was used to frighten Protestants and promote fear of Catholic supremacy. My mother’s Protestant forebearers were quite convinced that a Catholic majority would mean that Protestants again would confront persecution. Catholic acceptance of separation of church and state is something quite modern.
That’s all for now. May religion become a positive force for harmony instead of a source of suspicion, bitterness, and arrogance.
 
Syllabus of Errors
Code:
 You may read the 'Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX on-line. I won't attempt to cover the 80 points here except as follows:

 15. Condemns the notion that people people have the right to choose their own religion.

 19. Condemns those who might suggest that "the church is not a true and perfect society".

 54. Condemns those who suggests that kings and princes are exempt from the jurisdiction of the church.

 55. Condemns the separation of the church from the state - and vice versa.

 see also 18 which specifically assails Protestantism, and read on such other ones as 77, 78, and 80 which demonstrated Pius IX's hostility to freedom and democracy.

  Can you understand why many Protestants and others were led to fear the intentions of Roman Catholicism? Remember that the Syllabus was released not long before the beginning of the 20th century and was seen by Protestants and others as a virtual declaration of war against American democracy and its tradition of religious freedom?
 
Wanner (in particular)
Code:
A few points.
  1. In an earlier posting I was responding mainly to Aramis (#143) who implied that only certain Christians were praying to the real God, and that did not include Protestants. He also suggested that it would be rare for Protestants to get to heaven - like a ‘camel going through the eye of a needle’. This quote from Jesus, of course, referred to rich people and noy to Protestants.
Thank you for clarifying.
  1. A main difference between traditional Catholics and me is that I do not believe that whatever the church says is necessarily the last word.
Luckily, Catholics don’t believe this either. 🙂 You see, we believe that the Church speaks for God, and we believe that whatever God says THROUGH THE CHURCH is the last word. 🙂 God also gave the Church authority to teach in His name.
  1. Just so it’s clear, as I indicated before, I come from a mixed family - which is one reason why I push so hard for religious understanding and mutual respect. Fine church folks on both sides. In fact, one of those in my paternal ancestry was the Archbishop of Canada! I am put off by religious exclusivism, whether voiced by Catholics or Protestants. I simply don’t believe that Christ is a hard-line dictator when it comes to doctrine or church identification.
I was Protestant for 22 years, so I understand where you are coming from. However, I believe that Christ is a hard-line dictator when it comes to TRUTH. If one denomination teaches the truth, and another denomination doesn’t, don’t you think Jesus would want us to belong to the denomination that teaches the truth?
The scriptures aren’t clear on many matters, and I am not a Bible-thumper anyway. I don’t believe a variety of Biblical accounts. For example, Eve created from Adam’s rib, Noah and his three sons building an ark sufficient to hold two of every species, God creating languages as a punishment for building the Tower of Babel, Moses turning a rod into a snake, Jonah surviving three days in the belly of a big fish, and we could go on. I disagree with Paul when, for example, he says that women should remain quiet in churches, that their heads must be covered, that slaves should obey their masters, and on and on.
So you do not believe that Scripture has any authority?
  1. Pius IX did condemn democracy in his 'Syllabus of Errror". Let me find the reference and include it next posting.
Yes, please do, and then I can show you how, when read in context, Pius IX did not condemn democracy but rather the MISUSE of democracy based on specific situations. Or, better yet, you could just read this article. An excerpt:
That last proposition would be greeted with hilarity and satire in the Syllabus’ era. Even condemning the separation of church and state seems archaic to us. But again, we must understand the context of the statements and how such separation was defined at the time in Europe. In many countries, such as Bismarck’s Prussia, it meant that the Church was absolutely subservient to the state and must be divorced entirely from civil life. What was being condemned was how those ideas were used to attack the Church.
We must also consider the question of historical context. The propositions concerning church and state were intended to defend the laws of Spain, which established the rights of the Church. The pope was defending Spain’s right to do so. Though it strikes us as not in keeping with an espousal of religious liberty, to the Church it meant that Spain was entitled to maintain its Catholic identity.
The condemned propositions applied to specific circumstances in Europe at that time. Most of the propositions had been taken almost directly from earlier papal documents. Only by referring to the original context can we make sense of the Syllabus.
  1. Yes, Elizabeth I killed Catholics, after ‘Bloody Mary’ killed Protestants. Who can justify either.
I wasn’t debating if it was right or wrong to kill heretics. You seemed to be under the impression that ONLY Catholics have killed heretics, and I wanted to clear up that misconception. I’m glad you understand that Protestants, as well as those of other religions and denominations, have killed heretics as well and that you’d be hard-pressed to find any one that hasn’t at some point in its history.
That’s all for now. May religion become a positive force for harmony instead of a source of suspicion, bitterness, and arrogance.
Well, what might help with that is if you consider the facts involved, as well as historical context, instead of making baseless accusations against a specific denomination. 🤷
 
Wanner47
Code:
  I am aware of the context of the "Syllabus of Errors". Then Pius IX should have been careful to put it in context. Instead, it was interpreted by the world at the time (and still) as a condemnation of democracy and freedom of religion. Frankly, I think scholars will overwhelmingly agree that Catholicism's endorsement of religious freedom is a modern phenomenon. It had little alternative in this democratic era.

  Some years ago I was in Spain, when Franco was dictator. Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, by the way, all were baptized Catholic - which doesn't mean that much, because there have been bad leaders among Protestants, too. Anyway, while there I did a little study of religious conditions (something I continue to go when I visit places). Protestantism was not permitted freedom of religion, except in a couple places like Madrid where nations like England and Sweden had their embassies and an Anglican and Lutheran church were tied to those embassies. Elsewhere, Protestants had to worship furtively. In visiting a pastor I found in Barcelona, he told me how he could not have any sort of outside sign to identify his church. He ran a small seminary - four students - and these were studying secretly and he brought me to their hidden classroom. Now, of course, Spain is wildly secular - even permitting same-sex marriage. In fact I rather think that Catholics may be, on the whole, more liberal than Protestants. One recent US poll showed that all three US Protestant demographics opposed same-sex marriage: mainline Protestant by a couple % points, evangelical and Black Protestants by wide margins. Catholic Americans, however, endorsed same-sex marriage, though also by a close margin. Suggests the lack of influence of the hierarchy these days among Catholics. 

  I am a senior citizen, vitally interested in religion, hopeful that it can be a bridge instead of a barrier. There are bigots among Protestants, especially fundamentalist Protestants, who regard Catholicism as a pagan cult. But most Protestants I know are ready to respect Catholicism as a different expression of the same Christian faith. The major problem is that traditional Catholicism doesn't see Protestantism that way. The hierarchy preaches that that church alone is the one true church and thereby promotes prejudice against Protestantism. Sad.

  The one true church rests in our hearts and souls. I know you don't believe this but I find that most Catholics, certainly those I know, reject the bigotry and exclusivism of the past. We have so many intermarriages and such these days (as in my family) that our churches can no longer rally us against one another. I am alarmed that there is so much resentment - plus misinformation - evident here on CAF. I feel like starting a new forum, a new blog, or whatever, inviting people of goodwill, regardless of their faith, to discuss ways and means of leaving behind bitterness and prejudice from the past. As I have said, my heritage is in 'both camps' - Protestant and Catholic.  One key figure on my family tree was Archbishop of Canada 200 years ago. 

 But some people apparently seem to need self-esteem, so they believe they are part of the one true church or the one true political faction or the best of all nations in the world. Well, I tend to believe the latter, too, though I'm sure that God doesn't have any preference when it comes to the diverse peoples of the world. 

  God bless you and everybody out there.
 
Wanner47
Code:
  I am aware of the context of the "Syllabus of Errors". Then Pius IX should have been careful to put it in context. Instead, it was interpreted by the world at the time (and still) as a condemnation of democracy and freedom of religion. Frankly, I think scholars will overwhelmingly agree that Catholicism's endorsement of religious freedom is a modern phenomenon. It had little alternative in this democratic era.
Thank you for admitting that your statement about Piux IX “condemning democracy” was incorrect. I’m glad you understand that now, and I hope you will stop touting that misinformed opinion as fact, now that you know better. 🙂
Code:
  I am a senior citizen, vitally interested in religion, hopeful that it can be a bridge instead of a barrier. There are bigots among Protestants, especially fundamentalist Protestants, who regard Catholicism as a pagan cult. But most Protestants I know are ready to respect Catholicism **as a different expression of the same Christian faith**. The major problem is that traditional Catholicism doesn't see Protestantism that way. The hierarchy preaches that that church alone is the one true church and thereby promotes prejudice against Protestantism. Sad.
How is promoting truth promoting prejudice? The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants should be abused, mocked, vilified, tortured, etc. It merely teaches that Protestantism, while containing SOME truth, does not have ALL the truth. I don’t understand your logic. Can you provide evidence that this teaching causes prejudice among Catholics?

As for what I bolded above, if Catholicism is merely a different expression of faith, then why the separation? Seems if they’re two sides of the same coin, there shouldn’t be any schism.
Code:
  The one true church rests in our hearts and souls.
No, the one true church rests in Jesus Christ.
I know you don’t believe this but I find that most Catholics, certainly those I know, reject the bigotry and exclusivism of the past. We have so many intermarriages and such these days (as in my family) that our churches can no longer rally us against one another. I am alarmed that there is so much resentment - plus misinformation - evident here on CAF. I feel like starting a new forum, a new blog, or whatever, inviting people of goodwill, regardless of their faith, to discuss ways and means of leaving behind bitterness and prejudice from the past. As I have said, my heritage is in ‘both camps’ - Protestant and Catholic. One key figure on my family tree was Archbishop of Canada 200 years ago.
As you’ve mentioned. But I think the bitterness stems from the growing resentment against the Church, because She is standing for truth when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, etc. The resentment comes from Protestants who want to take the easy way out (“everyone should be able to follow their heart, do what they want, etc.”) and don’t appreciate having their consciences pricked.
Code:
 But some people apparently seem to need self-esteem, so they believe they are part of the one true church or the one true political faction or the best of all nations in the world. Well, I tend to believe the latter, too, though I'm sure that God doesn't have any preference when it comes to the diverse peoples of the world.
I’m sure He doesn’t. But I think He does prefer that people find and follow the Truth, which would not be in Protestant factions. It has nothing to do with being the “best.” It has everything to do with being right.
 
Wanner47
Code:
I don't care to continue, as I have deadlines to meet in other areas of life. But I certainly have not 'admitted' that Pius IX did not condemn democracy. When a Pope indicts religious freedom, says that the church should not be separate from the state, says that Kings and princes should be under the jurisdiction of the church, claims that the church is the 'true and perfect society', and at many other places in the "Syllabus of Errors" assails democratic practices and principles - well, he clearly was opposed to the emerging democratic societies of the late 19th century. It was the same Pope, of course, who declared his own infallibility in faith and morals -mand also declared the Immaculate Conception.

 Why don't you simply admit that Pius IX was anti-democratic, but that the church later changed its position? That clearly is what has happened. Or, at least I hope it's what has happened. The church itself, of course, is undemocratic, hierarchal in structure, operating in an authoritarian manner. Most CAF posters seem to like that. Fine. Freedom of religion. There are an increasing number of Catholics, however, who want their church to reflect more democracy. Baby steps were taken following Vatican II, with Church Councils and such. The Church is far improved over when I was a child and the faithful were forbidden to even enter a Protestant church. Other changes are on the way. Watch and see. If there had been a more open church I doubt if we would have had to face the sexual crisis that has now spread to Europe. There seems to be a widespread backlash against the authoritarianism of the past. The church in my Grandmother's hometown, up in a small Quebec town, is up for sale. Mass attendance in the province is very low - 10% or so. Protestant attendance is bad, too, so it's time for all Christians to work together against the demise of the 'one true church' - the church of Christ, not one segment of that church.
 
Wanner47
Code:
I don't care to continue, as I have deadlines to meet in other areas of life.
Yet, you continue! Guess you found time. 🙂
But I certainly have not ‘admitted’ that Pius IX did not condemn democracy. When a Pope indicts religious freedom, says that the church should not be separate from the state, says that Kings and princes should be under the jurisdiction of the church, claims that the church is the ‘true and perfect society’, and at many other places in the “Syllabus of Errors” assails democratic practices and principles - well, he clearly was opposed to the emerging democratic societies of the late 19th century. It was the same Pope, of course, who declared his own infallibility in faith and morals -mand also declared the Immaculate Conception.
I guess you better go back and read this article again. Clearly you didn’t understand it at all the first time around.

Furthermore, take what you said above and replace “the church” with “God’s laws.” Would you disagree, then, with anything you said above?
Code:
 Why don't you simply admit that Pius IX was anti-democratic, but that the church later changed its position?
Because that would be stating a falsehood, and I don’t like lying.
That clearly is what has happened. Or, at least I hope it’s what has happened. The church itself, of course, is undemocratic, hierarchal in structure, operating in an authoritarian manner.
How very ecumenical and non-judgmental of you. Oh, wait…
Watch and see. If there had been a more open church I doubt if we would have had to face the sexual crisis that has now spread to Europe.
Tell that to the folks over at www.reformation.com and www.stopbaptistpredators.org.
There seems to be a widespread backlash against the authoritarianism of the past. The church in my Grandmother’s hometown, up in a small Quebec town, is up for sale. Mass attendance in the province is very low - 10% or so. Protestant attendance is bad, too, so it’s time for all Christians to work together against the demise of the ‘one true church’ - the church of Christ, not one segment of that church.
We can agree on that – although realize that the church is growing very fast in other parts of the world.
 
Wanner47
Code:
I don't care to continue, as I have deadlines to meet in other areas of life. But I certainly have not 'admitted' that Pius IX did not condemn democracy. When a Pope indicts religious freedom, says that the church should not be separate from the state, says that Kings and princes should be under the jurisdiction of the church, claims that the church is the 'true and perfect society', and at many other places in the "Syllabus of Errors" assails democratic practices and principles - well, he clearly was opposed to the emerging democratic societies of the late 19th century. It was the same Pope, of course, who declared his own infallibility in faith and morals -mand also declared the Immaculate Conception.

 Why don't you simply admit that Pius IX was anti-democratic, but that the church later changed its position? That clearly is what has happened. Or, at least I hope it's what has happened. The church itself, of course, is undemocratic, hierarchal in structure, operating in an authoritarian manner. Most CAF posters seem to like that. Fine. Freedom of religion. There are an increasing number of Catholics, however, who want their church to reflect more democracy. Baby steps were taken following Vatican II, with Church Councils and such. The Church is far improved over when I was a child and the faithful were forbidden to even enter a Protestant church. Other changes are on the way. Watch and see. If there had been a more open church I doubt if we would have had to face the sexual crisis that has now spread to Europe. There seems to be a widespread backlash against the authoritarianism of the past. The church in my Grandmother's hometown, up in a small Quebec town, is up for sale. Mass attendance in the province is very low - 10% or so. Protestant attendance is bad, too, so it's time for all Christians to work together against the demise of the 'one true church' - the church of Christ, not one segment of that church.
Sir…any organization worthy of the name has rules and a “chain of command”. If your gathering doesn’t have these then it is certainly like most denoms which are blowing in the wind over issues that our Church…the RCC has settled long ago. One of the reasons I am a convert is because I don’t want to blow in the wind…theologically speaking. The RCC is the oldest institution in the western world…with a long list of wonderful leaders…Popes…and a shorter list of those who were not so great…some even bad. Is this hot news?? They are human beings after all. That being said…I don’t know of a single decision by any of them regarding “Faith and Morals”…that was wrong.
I am the only Catholic in my family…and all of them are wonderful people…all believers…but there is no way I am going to say to any of them that there is another church with authority…let alone Apostolic succession outside the Church of Rome. The reason I would not acknowledge that is because it isn’t true and being ecumenical should not mean dishonesty. The growing number of Catholics who want the Church to be more “democratic” are hopefully going to be waiting for a long time for the Church to make decisions because “a lot of people” want them to.🤷
 
First, I need to apologize if my reply may sound offensive; it is not my intention. I simply enjoy talking about the teachings of Catholicism.
  1. A main difference between traditional Catholics and me is that I do not believe that whatever the church says is necessarily the last word. …]Does Jesus really sit at “the right hand of God the Father almighty?”
I think I know what you mean. In addition to what you said, this phrase simply implies the significance of Jeus, the Son, for the right hand is of immediate importance. The next important person at a banquet is seated at the right hand of the host. However, it becomes the Creed because it is drawn from Act 2: 32-33. It states that “This Jesus God raised up, …] being therefore exalted at the right hand of God”.
I come from a mixed family …] I simply don’t believe that Christ is a hard-line dictator …] The scriptures aren’t clear on many matters, and …] I don’t believe a variety of Biblical accounts.
I have to agree with you here too. It seems the authors of the books in the Bible were trying to explain things already present in their time. Our Society changes, so does the way we think. I used to grow up visiting various denominations and I like them all, so I simply understand what you mean about coming from a mixed family.

As a bottom line on the issues of how to interpret the Bible, I believe that in my case since I choose to be identified as a Catholic, most of my beliefs and faith are based on its teachings, although I do approach praying differently.

I like how you make peace with various denominations. I may misunderstanding what Paul II intended, but I don’t see denominations either. I see that we are all Christians. The difference is that we are simply a different part of the body. My analogy is that since Christ is the head–each denomination then is a different part of His body. We all bring glory to His name in our deeds. Let’s face it: if it’s not for many Protestant, Christianity would not have reached some remote countries like present. More and more people are hearing about Christ than ever before. I know Catholic has done, and been doing, her part, but the process is much slower than other denominations because we require the candidates to go through a year of catechisms.
 
I am a senior citizen, vitally interested in religion, hopeful that it can be a bridge instead of a barrier. There are bigots among Protestants, especially fundamentalist Protestants, who regard Catholicism as a pagan cult. But most Protestants I know are ready to respect Catholicism as a different expression of the same Christian faith.
Amen!
The major problem is that traditional Catholicism doesn’t see Protestantism that way. Sad.
True, but I think we are changing. This is the reason why people should take a class or join CCE to further their knowledge of the Church’s actual teaching. I enjoy your post.🙂
 
In my mind, there’s no doubt that most Protestants are better at connecting with other people in a church service. But then, if Jesus is not truly there, then who else can they connect with?

I only know that since I started ending the Catholic church (and praying and reading my new Catholic bible) in the last couple of months - and I’m not even up to taking communion yet! - I have had more peace than I have known for years.

But like everything, you get out of it what you put into it.

And I must say, I’m very taking with ‘The How-To Book of the Mass’ by Michael Dubruiel. It’s got great stuff in it to make you think twice about things.
 
Interesting thread.

I was saved while very much in isolation, so I have no denominational background. I have attempted to find where I belong.

I have been to two EO churches, wishing to have questions answered. I walked into the one and their baptistry was broken. So I fixed it. I was hoping to chat with someone. No one bothered. No one wanted to answer questions. I have seen the pastor in town twice since then and he simply patronizes me.

At the one it was explained that they were primarily Greek.

God miraculously sent Philip to the Eunuch, and no one could bother to talk with a guy who was serving them on his own time and trying to ask questions. One might be tempted to think that these folks don’t know Philip’s God.

I am content with what God has provided for me, but one would be hard pressed to get me to have even the slightest interest in either one of them. If there is truth there, they certainly don’t act like it, and there are those on this thread with the same attitudes.

So I am sola scriptura because the behavior of Catholics makes me so. I was saved with only a Bible in hand, no Catholic invited me, no Catholic welcomed me. I am barely tolerated here. Don’t misunderstand me. It is a form of asceticism which is good for the soul.

So in my experience, not many Catholics really believe in grace being imparted by the church, or they don’t believe they are the church, either way, they are functional Protestants.
But don’t judge us all for the actions of others. I not only believe in the Grace that is being imparted in the RCC it is the whole being of my soul.

Please do not blame the human fault of us as an excuse to be SS. I thank you for your honesty and I see that we as Roman Catholics do have alot of work to do on a fellowship level.

But let me explain something from my level as being a RC. See to me when I enter the RCC it is me and God. ONE ON ONE. We are in our own world. That is my hour with God, my therapy session lets say. I am so intense with the excitement of the comming of the Eucharist that I forget everything and everyone else. My mind is so busy getting ready for him that I could be the only one in Church and never even know it anymore. It was never like that before but it is now. God has given me this special kind of grace that I cannot even begin to explain let alone share with you yet! But I want it for you. I want it for you so bad. And I hear what you are saying loud and clear. And I am going to fix it. Its going to start with my Church today!

I will talk to Father and address this issue. It will be taken care of trust me. We will do better:D
 
Lightbee
Code:
Just a clarification. Protestants believe that Christ is with us at worship as he promised that he would be with us always. 

 What Protestants do not believe is in transubstantiation, the doctrine that once consecrated by a priest the bread and wine are substantively changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. That strikes most Protestants as suspect, perhaps echoing competing mystery religions at the time, some of which taught that consuming the body and blood of a god provided that consumer various strengths obtained from that consumption. 

 There are Protestants - Episcopalians and Lutherans especially - who are somewhere in between. They believe that the spirit of Christ is in the communion elements in some special way. 

 If you can believe in transubstantiation, fine. Millions do. Millions of Catholics don't, including most Catholic relatives and friends of mine with whom I have discussed the issue. But they go along with the flow since they are cultural Catholics despite their doctrinal disagreements with their faith. My own heritage is a mixture of Catholic and Protestant, and I 'lobby' on behalf of an attitude of 'think and let think'. Meanwhile, Christians are brothers and sisters of one another and should discuss such matters in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Too many CAFers sound like religious zealots - extremists who have a deep resentment of Protestantism. I'm not quite sure why this is true as they live in a nation that has been mainly Protestant and Catholicism has thrived. Even today nine out of every ten Christian immigrants entering the US are Catholic, not counting the millions of illegal Hispanics from Latin America, also overwhelming Catholic. The hierarchy, of course, has fought attempts to deport illegals.

 God bless everybody - no exceptions!
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Lightbee
Code:
Just a clarification. Protestants believe that Christ is with us at worship as he promised that he would be with us always. 

 What Protestants do not believe is in transubstantiation, the doctrine that once consecrated by a priest the bread and wine are substantively changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. That strikes most Protestants as suspect, perhaps echoing competing mystery religions at the time, some of which taught that consuming the body and blood of a god provided that consumer various strengths obtained from that consumption. 

 There are Protestants - Episcopalians and Lutherans especially - who are somewhere in between. They believe that the spirit of Christ is in the communion elements in some special way. 

 If you can believe in transubstantiation, fine. Millions do.[SIGN] Millions of Catholics don't[/SIGN], including most Catholic relatives and friends of mine with whom I have discussed the issue. But they go along with the flow since they are cultural Catholics despite their doctrinal disagreements with their faith. My own heritage is a mixture of Catholic and Protestant, and I 'lobby' on behalf of an attitude of 'think and let think'. Meanwhile, Christians are brothers and sisters of one another and should discuss such matters in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Too many CAFers sound like religious zealots - extremists who have a deep resentment of Protestantism. I'm not quite sure why this is true as they live in a nation that has been mainly Protestant and Catholicism has thrived. Even today nine out of every ten Christian immigrants entering the US are Catholic, not counting the millions of illegal Hispanics from Latin America, also overwhelming Catholic. The hierarchy, of course, has fought attempts to deport illegals.

 God bless everybody - no exceptions!
I find that hard to believe. But then again why should I. Was it not Judas who also betrayed Jesus and rejected the Eucharist right before he betrayed him?🤷

The Catholic Church can not be responsible for what people believe, The Catholic Church can only be responsible for teaching the truth. Did Jesus not say to his Apostles go and teach the truth to all? I do not recall him saying all will accept the truth.

Did Jesus not say of the Eucharist This is a hard saying not all can accept it?
 
I’m more than a little disappointed in my journey back to the RC church and my side curiosity in the EOC. I’ve been two EO churches, both VERY small, and obviously a visitor, little was done to evangelize me. There was a couple of nice folks there… but almost nothing done to want me to come back to that congregation…
At least RC parishes have a local radio station to evangelize, but the local parishes aren’t overly friendly either.
I am scheduled to get my marriage convalidated next month… but I figured now would be a good time to make sure that I want to get back into the RC. Whatever I choose… I want it to be the last time.
I like what I read about the EO approach to theology… but without instruction…
I kind of get a “you should feel priviledged to worship with us” from the EO & RC churches. The local Protestant churches do everything they can to get more members and follow-up with visitors, get their name, address, visit their home, give them an info packet, etc…
I came away thinking… they’re not friendly, a lot of non-english speaking folks, what do I have in common with them? Why investigate changing if they’re not really interested in converts…
The exact same thing happened to me and i left and went back to the Protestan t church for now. They never seem t be glad to see yolu and don’t seem to care if you are sick or miss mass. No hoime visit like the protestants do.Not to mention i feel dumb because i missed out on alot, that is not thewre fault but i need to study also and be of one mind like the rest.
 
I’m more than a little disappointed in my journey back to the RC church and my side curiosity in the EOC. I’ve been two EO churches, both VERY small, and obviously a visitor, little was done to evangelize me. There was a couple of nice folks there… but almost nothing done to want me to come back to that congregation…
At least RC parishes have a local radio station to evangelize, but the local parishes aren’t overly friendly either.
I am scheduled to get my marriage convalidated next month… but I figured now would be a good time to make sure that I want to get back into the RC. Whatever I choose… I want it to be the last time.
I like what I read about the EO approach to theology… but without instruction…
I kind of get a “you should feel priviledged to worship with us” from the EO & RC churches. The local Protestant churches do everything they can to get more members and follow-up with visitors, get their name, address, visit their home, give them an info packet, etc…
I came away thinking… they’re not friendly, a lot of non-english speaking folks, what do I have in common with them? Why investigate changing if they’re not really interested in converts…
I don’t see why that’s relevant. But mind you, my own attitude tends to be the other way round. I’m put off by aggressive evangelization, and I tend to be more impressed by churches that just are what they are.

Edwin
 
Code:
 There are Protestants - Episcopalians and Lutherans especially - who are somewhere in between. They believe that the spirit of Christ is in the communion elements in some special way.
Lutherans and most Anglicans believe in a good deal more than that. Lutherans historically insist in a bodily presence of Christ, and Anglicans tend to say “Jesus is really present and we don’t know how.” In practice, Anglicans usually treat the Eucharist much as Catholics and Orthodox do.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top