My religion is better than your religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter DelScorcho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then whey don’t all men agree on central doctrines of the faith?

Is the fault with God or with men?

How could we be united in doctrine and truth without a central source or authority for receiving the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

If all Christians agreed, then your position would make sense.

However, since they don’t agree, your position does not make sense.

We must be careful to distinguish between promises Jesus made to his disciples versus promises made to all believers.
Men and women make and comprise all churches… and men and women disagree.

Not a big deal to me. I am protestant and will not change.

You are Catholic and will not change. I have no issue with either of our positions.
 
Men and women make and comprise all churches… and men and women disagree.

Not a big deal to me. I am protestant and will not change.

You are Catholic and will not change. I have no issue with either of our positions.
I was once an anti-Catholic protestant like you. I did change.

Never say never!

Have you read the writings of the early Christians?

They were clearly practicing the Catholic faith in both doctrine and hierarachy.

The majority of Christians in the world today are Catholic.

Don’t you think you should at the very least investigate the early Church to determine what they believed?
 
I was once an anti-Catholic protestant like you. I did change.

Never say never!

Have you read the writings of the early Christians?

They were clearly practicing the Catholic faith in both doctrine and hierarachy.

The majority of Christians in the world today are Catholic.

Don’t you think you should at the very least investigate the early Church to determine what they believed?
I’m planning on researching all major religions on a scholastic level.

I’m curious, how do you define “anti-Catholic”?
 
I’m planning on researching all major religions on a scholastic level.

I’m curious, how do you define “anti-Catholic”?
I thought Catholics were unbiblical and wrong.

I thought Catholicism was a distortion of Christianity rather than the source of Christianity.
 
I thought Catholics were unbiblical and wrong.

I thought Catholicism was a distortion of Christianity rather than the source of Christianity.
Wrong for me personally… yes (like many other religions are wrong for me). Wrong for everyone, absolutely not.

So is it “you are either with us or against us”???

Is that how do you define “anti-Catholic”?
 
Wrong for me personally… yes (like many other religions are wrong for me). Wrong for everyone, absolutely not.

So is it “you are either with us or against us”???

Is that how do you define “anti-Catholic”?
Catholics believe that all Christians are part of the one true Church.

However, not all Christians are in full communion. Catholics want all Christians to be in full communion with the Church Jesus founded.

Anti-Catholics regard the Church as a threat and they often don’t understand Catholic doctrine or practices.

If a Church is true, then it is true for everyone, even those who don’t belong.

Your opinion, right or wrong, is not related to the truth.

You feel offended that a Church claims to contain the fullness of truth.
 
Catholics believe that all Christians are part of the one true Church.

However, not all Christians are in full communion. Catholics want all Christians to be in full communion with the Church Jesus founded.

Anti-Catholics regard the Church as a threat and they often don’t understand Catholic doctrine or practices.

If a Church is true, then it is true for everyone, even those who don’t belong.

Your opinion, right or wrong, is not related to the truth.

You feel offended that a Church claims to contain the fullness of truth.
I’m not offended, I just don’t believe it. And it really does not matter what Catholics want others to do because people have the right to choose what religion they want to be a part of.

I’ve answered your queries, please answer mine:

Do you define “anti-Catholic” as “you are either with us or against us”?
 
I’m not offended, I just don’t believe it. And it really does not matter what Catholics want others to do because people have the right to choose what religion they want to be a part of.

I’ve answered your queries, please answer mine:

Do you define “anti-Catholic” as “you are either with us or against us”?
I answered your question.

Catholics want others to find the truth. Catholics aren’t challenging your right to disagree, just your judgment.
 
I answered your question.

Catholics want others to find the truth. Catholics aren’t challenging your right to disagree, just your judgment.
Sorry, but you did not answer my question.

I asked a direct question and you answered around it.

You can try again if you like… it is a yes or no question.
 
Sorry, but you did not answer my question.

I asked a direct question and you answered around it.

You can try again if you like… it is a yes or no question.
The answer is obviously no.

Here’s a question for you:

What makes you think that your understanding is superior to that of 2000 years of Christianity?
 
The answer is obviously no.

Here’s a question for you:

What makes you think that your understanding is superior to that of 2000 years of Christianity?
Since my religion is also based on 2000 years of Christianity, I don’t.
 
Since my religion is also based on 2000 years of Christianity, I don’t.
Yet you reject the beliefs of the early Church.

Apparently you do.

Do you agree with St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 106 AD?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
 
Yet you reject the beliefs of the early Church.

Apparently you do.

Do you agree with St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 106 AD?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
No, I do not agree with that statement.
 
No, I do not agree with that statement.
St. Ignatius met the apostle John before he died and was a disciple of John’s disciple, Polycarp.

Why would you assume to know more than Ignatius about Christianity?
 
St. Ignatius met the apostle John before he died and was a disciple of John’s disciple, Polycarp.

Why would you assume to know more than Ignatius about Christianity?
You used that quote because many protestants do not have bishops…

Do you believe that a church, any church can become corrupt over time, that even the Pope is not infallible?

I do.
 
You used that quote because many protestants do not have bishops…

Do you believe that a church, any church can become corrupt over time, that even the Pope is not infallible?

I do.
I used the quote to demonstrate that the early Church was already very Catholic in structure and practice.

There are many more that are instructive. Do you agree that it would make sense that the early Church would follow the model given them by the apostles?

Here’s a quote from St. Clement, who was the fourth pope. He was ordained as a priest by St. Peter. It was written in approximately 96 AD in his letter to the Corinthians.

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
 
No… in fact I could care less if no one agrees with me, I just don’t want them to try to change my opinions and convert me.
Then why come here, and put yourself in “harm’s” way?

If you had kept your hands off the keyboard, we would have never even known that you existed - no one would have ever felt the need to convince you of anything.

We’re Catholics, for heaven’s sake - nobody’s coming over to your house, or looking for you at your place of business. We only ever try to convert those who come to us. (We figure, if they’re here and asking questions, the Holy Spirit must have brought them.)

If you leave, no one will try to follow you home. A month from now, no one will even remember you.
 
I used the quote to demonstrate that the early Church was already very Catholic in structure and practice.

There are many more that are instructive. Do you agree that it would make sense that the early Church would follow the model given them by the apostles?

Here’s a quote from St. Clement, who was the fourth pope. He was ordained as a priest by St. Peter. It was written in approximately 96 AD in his letter to the Corinthians.

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
Thanks…

Do you believe that a church, any church can become corrupt over time, that even the Pope is not infallible?

I do.
 
Thanks…

Do you believe that a church, any church can become corrupt over time, that even the Pope is not infallible?

I do.
Of course it is possible.

Remember, the Church teaches that all people, including the pope, are fallible and are sinners.

However, we believe that in matters of faith and morals Jesus has promised to lead his Church into all truth.

Individual Catholics can’t be trusted more than anyone else, but the doctrines have remained true.

If we can demonstrate that the early Church believed the same things as modern Catholics, that’s a big deal, right?
 
Of course it is possible.

Remember, the Church teaches that all people, including the pope, are fallible and are sinners.

However, we believe that in matters of faith and morals Jesus has promised to lead his Church into all truth.

Individual Catholics can’t be trusted more than anyone else, but the doctrines have remained true.

If we can demonstrate that the early Church believed the same things as modern Catholics, that’s a big deal, right?
What do you mean by the “early church”…

Also I find this interesting:

The Protestant Reformation was a reform movement in Europe that began in 1517, though its roots lie further back in time. It began with Martin Luther and may be considered to have ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1] The movement began as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church. Many western Catholics were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions (simony) and what was seen at the time as considerable corruption within the Church’s hierarchy. This corruption was seen by many at the time as systemic, even reaching the position of the Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top