One True Church

[SouthernSister]

I’m questioning CCC: 836 - 838:

836 – “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God…And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 – “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 – “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”​

Okay, now here’s my question! Aren’t my Baptist friends already part of the Church? Methodist, Presbyterian? What I’m understanding from this is that they ARE part of the Church, just in an imperfect communion.

Just as Baptists and Episcopalians are in an imperfect communion.

I have a few Catholic friends who have caused a ruckus by telling several non-Catholics on an Internet forum that these non-Catholic Christians lack the “fullness of the Truth” and that now that they’ve been told (filled in on the Church’s teachings, etc), they’re in jeapardy of going to H-E-double hockey sticks because they won’t convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

I must say, I have never heard Pope JPII or Pope Benedict XVI state, during the various ecumenical dialogues that these separated bretheren need to just come on Home or they’re going to feel the heat!

I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this kind of situation, for I truly do believe that a lot of damage is done in presenting the Church teaching in this manner. But am concerned that my thoughts could be soft-pedaling the issue.

I’d appreciate your thoughts!

SouthernSister

 

[scylla]

We cannot say for sure who is going to Hell.

That being said, if someone does not convert or even look into the Church which if they are honest, then they will convert to the Catholic Church they are in grave danger if truth matters.
Since Jesus did found the Catholic Church if you don’t even look into it then you are ignoring the possibility of following Jesus faithfully for your own convenience.
If they can go to Heaven believing contradictory beliefs and not even look into the possiblity of resolving those contradictions with other faiths then what you believe doesn’t matter.
So if you can go to Heaven believing whatever you want then I might as well believe that cheating on my wife, leading a life of debachery and never going to Church is ok and since I define it as ok, then I go to Heaven.
Either truth matters and is necessary for Salvation or it doesn’t matter.
This is ignoring complete ignorance of truth, which is very rare as most people are informed of truth, they just choose to ignore it as investigating it might require change, and that is inconvenient.

There you go, not much advice but hopefully that clears some things up. As for approach we must lovingly speak the truth and not cause others to fall. Jesus mentioned the millstone around our neck if we cause others to fall. It is delicate and requires sometimes a different approach with each person.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[SouthernSister]

There you go, not much advice but hopefully that clears some things up. As for approach we must lovingly speak the truth and not cause others to fall. Jesus mentioned the millstone around our neck if we cause others to fall. It is delicate and requires sometimes a different approach with each person.

I agree with everything you’ve said! But the problem, as I see it, is that this approach is not working! I’m not seeing them looking to find common ground but beating others up over their wrong doctrine. That’s what I meant by it becoming a contentious situation.

Whenever discussions happen now, some of the rabid anti-Catholics come out with derrogatory remarks, “Yeah, I’m going to hell because I refuse to convert” and “I guess I’m just in the dark since I don’t have the fullness of the truth.”

My point, I think, is that we’ve wound up in a battleground and I really don’t see that as the best opportunity for good witness.

And then to clarify – my Baptist and Methodist and Evangelical brothers and sisters ARE part of the One True Church, right? But it’s just an imperfect communion, just as the CCC says?

SouthernSister

 

[jemfinch]

Okay, now here’s my question! Aren’t my Baptist friends already part of the Church? Methodist, Presbyterian? What I’m understanding from this is that they ARE part of the Church, just in an imperfect communion.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and anyone who is baptized into Christ by a valid Trinitarian baptism is baptized into the Church. So, yes, they are members in imperfect communion with the Church.

Just as Baptists and Episcopalians are in an imperfect communion.

A little different, only because the difference between Catholics and Protestants is usually much larger than the difference between individual denominations within Protestantism.

I have a few Catholic friends who have caused a ruckus by telling several non-Catholics on an Internet forum that these non-Catholic Christians lack the “fullness of the Truth”

That’s true; they’ve rejected a portion of the truth.

and that now that they’ve been told (filled in on the Church’s teachings, etc), they’re in jeapardy of going to H-E-double hockey sticks because they won’t convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

And that’s true as well. They’re “in jeopardy” because they may have culpably rejected the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Christ said to the Apostles, “He who rejects you rejects me, and he who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the Father.” The Catholic Church is the truly Apostolic Church, and those people who reject the Church and its teachings are rejecting the Apostles and their teachings, and in that rejecting Christ and His teachings.

So your friends may be tactless, but they’re not inaccurate, as far as I can tell

I must say, I have never heard Pope JPII or Pope Benedict XVI state, during the various ecumenical dialogues that these separated bretheren need to just come on Home or they’re going to feel the heat!

No, but extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still a doctrine of the Church. Consider CCC #846, which quotes Lumen Gentium, “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this kind of situation, for I truly do believe that a lot of damage is done in presenting the Church teaching in this manner. But I am concerned that my thoughts could be soft-pedaling the issue.

It may not be the best approach, but it’s an important note to make. To my mind, even when I was Protestant, it seemed to me that the One True Church should definitively claim to be the One True Church, and any Church which failed to make such a claim was automatically disqualified from the running. One aspect of being the One True Church, I think, is rejecting (to some degree) all other alternatives as inferior, at least in part.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Whenever discussions happen now, some of the rabid anti-Catholics come out with derrogatory remarks, “Yeah, I’m going to hell because I refuse to convert” and “I guess I’m just in the dark since I don’t have the fullness of the truth.”

They’re rabid anti-Catholics, what do you expect? To be honest, they’re the ones most in danger of being guilty of the sin of rejecting Christ’s Church (and thus of rejecting Christ Himself) – they scoff at the claims of the Church without even investigating them.

My point, I think, is that we’ve wound up in a battleground and I really don’t see that as the best opportunity for good witness.

That’s true, and that’s why extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not generally part of my evangelism with Protestants.

And then to clarify – my Baptist and Methodist and Evangelical brothers and sisters ARE part of the One True Church, right? But it’s just an imperfect communion, just as the CCC says?

But again, it’s very important whether they’ve innocently rejected full communion with the Church or whether they’ve culpably rejected it.

In either case, the simple fact is that they don’t have full access to the Sacraments of the Church or the grace of God until they’ve been received into full communion with the Church, and so we must continue to make the effort.

It’s worth noting here that “You’re already part of the Catholic Church, just in imperfect communion” is pretty much just as bad a method with rabid anti-Catholics as “You’re going to hell for rejecting the Catholic Church” is. Anti-Catholics will simply deny vehemently even their imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, and perhaps even increase their sin. Depending on how “rabid” they really are, sometimes the best (and only) thing to do is to pray.

Jeremy

 

[SouthernSister]

The Church is the Body of Christ, and anyone who is baptized into Christ by a valid Trinitarian baptism is baptized into the Church. So, yes, they are members in imperfect communion with the Church.

Thanks for this! I needed to clarify that I was reading it correctly.

A little different, only because the difference between Catholics and Protestants is usually much larger than the difference between individual denominations within Protestantism.

Regardless of the differences, most Protestants are in imperfect communion with one another, too. For example, numerous Protestants do not have “open” communion – thereby witnessing to the imperfect communion of those who are not joined with them, yes?

That’s true; they’ve rejected a portion of the truth.

But don’t you think there’s a difference between “hearing” the Truth and “knowing” the Truth? If I’m a heathen and watch a Billy Graham Crusade on TV, doesn’t mean I’ve received a valid witness, kwim? Just providing CCC paragraphs doesn’t mean a Protestant has received a valid witness. So in essence, I’m contending that they don’t “know”. For if one would KNOW, truly KNOW, how could one help but enter the Church?

**And that’s true as well. They’re “in jeopardy” because they may have culpably rejected the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. ** Christ said to the Apostles, “He who rejects you rejects me, and he who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the Father.” The Catholic Church is the truly Apostolic Church, and those people who reject the Church and its teachings are rejecting the Apostles and their teachings, and in that rejecting Christ and His teachings.

I do believe that some of these people ARE culpable and are willfully ignorant. Their pride will not allow them to consider the Catholic Church. And for that, I’m sure, they will be judged.

No, but extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still a doctrine of the Church. Consider CCC #846, which quotes Lumen Gentium, “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

Yes, I see. But there again, they are ALREADY part of the Church, yes? Just not in full Communion with Rome. In this passage of the Catechism, it doesn’t say, “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the ROMAN Catholic Church was founded necessary…”

It may not be the best approach, but it’s an important note to make. To my mind, even when I was Protestant, it seemed to me that the One True Church should definitively claim to be the One True Church, and any Church which failed to make such a claim was automatically disqualified from the running. One aspect of being the One True Church, I think, is rejecting (to some degree) all other alternatives as inferior, at least in part.

So Jeremy – as a Protestant, were you attracted to the Roman Catholic Church because someone told you you were involved in a heresy or that you were going to hell because you wouldn’t convert? I would suspect that you were attracted by a witness of love, not a witness of contention, as I was!

SouthernSister

 

[SouthernSister]

They’re rabid anti-Catholics, what do you expect? To be honest, they’re the ones most in danger of being guilty of the sin of rejecting Christ’s Church (and thus of rejecting Christ Himself) – they scoff at the claims of the Church without even investigating them.

Yes, and I pray for them. Unfortunately, I suspect that some of their rabid reactions come from being pushed into a corner by well-meaning Catholic apologists who forget to speak the truth in love.

That’s true, and that’s why extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not generally part of my evangelism with Protestants.

Amen! Amen!

But again, it’s very important whether they’ve innocently rejected full communion with the Church or whether they’ve culpably rejected it.

Agreed.

In either case, the simple fact is that they don’t have full access to the Sacraments of the Church or the grace of God until they’ve been received into full communion with the Church, and so we must continue to make the effort.

Yes, I agree with you here, too. We have a responsibility to defend the Faith when we see it misrepresented and to share the reason for our hope, when asked.

It’s worth noting here that “You’re already part of the Catholic Church, just in imperfect communion” is pretty much just as bad a method with rabid anti-Catholics as “You’re going to hell for rejecting the Catholic Church” is. Anti-Catholics will simply deny vehemently even their imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, and perhaps even increase their sin. Depending on how “rabid” they really are, sometimes the best (and only) thing to do is to pray.

No, I’m just looking for a way to diffuse the situation! I’m trying to find a way to get past this issue because we can’t seem to find the common ground we need to really look at the issues which divide us.

SouthernSister

 

[starling]

There is really nothing to prove that the Catholic Church has any more “fullness of truth” than any other Church, Christian or otherwise. The early origins of Christianity are pretty nebulous, and probably lost to the ages forever. We don’t know much before the second century, and not much at all really until the 4th century. I was raised a Catholic but all I hear from apologists are rationalizations that suit their purposes. I don’t buy the idea of apostolic succession for one minute. Some of that succession could easily have been made up after the fact after a few centuries had passed.

The Catholic Church’s apologists needs a lot better arguments than that if they are to claim other Christians do not have the fullness of truth. Even if there were true, genuine and unbroken apostolic succession, so what? Why is a laying of hands necessarily any more valid than a spiritual succession? Besides this, even the Reformed Churches were part of this apostolic succession until the Reformation. What if the Reformation is what carried on Christianity more than what was at the time a fairly corrupt Catholic Church.

I think this idea is mostly driven by adult converts from other Churches who always seem to have to have absolutes to cling to in their lives, no matter what Church they happen to be following at the time.

 

[jemfinch]

Thanks for this! I needed to clarify that I was reading it correctly.

No problem

Regardless of the differences, most Protestants are in imperfect communion with one another, too. For example, numerous Protestants do not have “open” communion – thereby witnessing to the imperfect communion of those who are not joined with them, yes?

Yep.

Just providing CCC paragraphs doesn’t mean a Protestant has received a valid witness. So in essence, I’m contending that they don’t “know”. For if one would KNOW, truly KNOW, how could one help but enter the Church?

I think the relevant CCC paragraph is about doubt, #2088. Doubt can be voluntary or involuntary. Someone who has the evidence necessary but refuses to believe anyway gravely sins against faith.

Yes, I see. But there again, they are ALREADY part of the Church, yes? Just not in full Communion with Rome. In this passage of the Catechism, it doesn’t say, "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the ROMAN Catholic Church

First, there are some 21 different Churches that belong to the Catholic Church; the Romans just happen to be the largest one. But this passage does say “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” When the Catechism talks about “the Catholic Church,” it’s talking about the visible institution, not the “invisible church” hogwash Luther came up with

So Jeremy – as a Protestant, were you attracted to the Roman Catholic Church because someone told you you were involved in a heresy or that you were going to hell because you wouldn’t convert?

If I weren’t involved in a heresy, I wouldn’t have converted.

I would suspect that you were attracted by a witness of love, not a witness of contention, as I was!

I had plenty of love at the Vineyard I attended. I became Catholic because I wanted the truth.

Yes, and I pray for them. Unfortunately, I suspect that some of their rabid reactions come from being pushed into a corner by well-meaning Catholic apologists who forget to speak the truth in love.

Perhaps. Are the well-meaning Catholic apologists converts? I can certainly attest to the fact that we’re sometimes a little overzealous in our proclaiming of the truth.

No, I’m just looking for a way to diffuse the situation! I’m trying to find a way to get past this issue because we can’t seem to find the common ground we need to really look at the issues which divide us.

I still haven’t figured that one out. Still working on my own family

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

There is really nothing to prove that the Catholic Church has any more “fullness of truth” than any other Church, Christian or otherwise.

Ah, so you’re a religious indifferentist? “Christian or otherwise”?

The early origins of Christianity are pretty nebulous, and probably lost to the ages forever.

They’re nebulous in the way that own childhood is nebulous. They’re still enough to piece together from pictures, old drawings, and report cards to show that I’m the same person that existed back then; not to mention the living witness that both I and my friends and family provide.

We don’t know much before the second century,

Except, you know, the Bible…

and not much at all really until the 4th century.

I’ve seen a lot of sources prior to AD 300.

I was raised a Catholic but all I hear from apologists are rationalizations that suit their purposes.

The rationalization for my conversion to Catholicism certainly didn’t suit my purposes. I was totally comfortable as an evangelical.

I don’t buy the idea of apostolic succession for one minute.

Then what was the Church found on?

Do you buy Corporate succession? Or can anyone who has McDonalds’ recipe book go out, open a restaurant, and call it “McDonalds”? If not, why does that make sense, but Apostolic Succession not make sense?

Some of that succession could easily have been made up after the fact after a few centuries had passed.

Jesus Himself could have been made up just as easily. I guess with conspiracy theories, we don’t need to concern ourselves with history

The Catholic Church’s apologists needs a lot better arguments than that if they are to claim other Christians do not have the fullness of truth.

No, we don’t. Heck, that assertion is valid on the face of it: when we have hundreds or thousands of denominations, all teaching contradictory things, only one can even potentially have the fullness of the truth. One only needs to look at the broken, contradictory state of Protestantism today to see that at best, all but one Protestant denominations do not have the fullness of the truth.

Even if there were true, genuine and unbroken apostolic succession, so what?

The Church is and always has been an apostolic Church. It’s not a biblical Church (the last letter of the Bible wasn’t written until almost 70 years after Christ died, and the canons were not defined until hundreds of years later). It’s not a spiritual Church. It is a Church founded on the Apostles, themselves founded on Christ, and it requires the authority of the apostles to be the Church. Authority doesn’t hop, skip, or jump its way through history: it’s passed on.

Why is a laying of hands necessarily any more valid than a spiritual succession?

Spiritual succession? What’s that? The Apostles died 2,000 years ago, and you want to tell me that you (or someone you like) is their spiritual successor? Where’s your evidence? Why didn’t the apostles themselves inform us of such a spiritual succession? Why was the laying on of hands so important to Paul (when writing to Timothy) if spiritual succession is what really matters?

Besides this, even the Reformed Churches were part of this apostolic succession until the Reformation.

Um, prior to the Reformation, there were no Reformed Churches. I hate to be tautological, but that’s a fact.

What if the Reformation is what carried on Christianity more than what was at the time a fairly corrupt Catholic Church.

Then it would have preserved the Apostolic Succession, and remained a true Church, rather than an ecclesial community. It wouldn’t have denied 1,500 year old doctrines taught by the Apostles. It wouldn’t have drastically modified its theology and warped its interpretation of the Bible to suit the prejudices of its leaders.

I think this idea is mostly driven by adult converts from other Churches who always seem to have to have absolutes to cling to in their lives, no matter what Church they happen to be following at the time.

I find that your idea of a nebulous, unknowable, unauthoritative Church is mostly driven by a gnostic worldview and an anti-authority culture

Jeremy

 

[SouthernSister]

Besides this, even the Reformed Churches were part of this apostolic succession until the Reformation. What if the Reformation is what carried on Christianity more than what was at the time a fairly corrupt Catholic Church.

I think the problem with the Reformation is that it can be clearly proven through the witness of the earliest Christians, that they totally changed the teachings of the Apostles that had been in place since the beginning.

I don’t think that the teachings of Christ could’ve been lost/missing/wrong for some 1600 years, and then Luther and Calvin came on the scene to set us all straight!

Sorry! It’s not working for me! But I respect your right to believe that. Individual Soul Liberty, you know!

SouthernSister

 

[SouthernSister]

I think the relevant CCC paragraph is about doubt, #2088. Doubt can be voluntary or involuntary. Someone who has the evidence necessary but refuses to believe anyway gravely sins against faith.

I’ll check that, Jeremy, thanks!

First, there are some 21 different Churches that belong to the Catholic Church; the Romans just happen to be the largest one. But this passage does say “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” When the Catechism talks about “the Catholic Church,” it’s talking about the visible institution, not the “invisible church” hogwash Luther came up with

Okay, that makes sense.

I had plenty of love at the Vineyard I attended. I became Catholic because I wanted the truth.

Well, of course. But I think my point is how were you introduced to the Catholic Faith? I’m doubting it was from someone beating you over the head and calling you a heretic?!

Perhaps. Are the well-meaning Catholic apologists converts? I can certainly attest to the fact that we’re sometimes a little overzealous in our proclaiming of the truth.

Of course!

I still haven’t figured that one out. Still working on my own family

Me, too!

SouthernSister

 

[scylla]

Something I have thought of as I was reading this thread is that there are technically Protestants within the Catholic Church, in this way. They are just either dissidents or Cafeteria Catholics.

They are not in perfect communion either as they do not accept all the beliefs of the Catholic Church and so if they are honest shouldn’t accept the Eucharist at Mass.

They are just a culpable as the Protestants who pick and choose what to believe or not believe.
Now as to a solution I still don’t have one after reading all the posts, yet tact is very important.

Being tactless just alienates people and puts them on the defensive, where they never will listen to reason. This is like me telling my wife I want to marry her before we finish our first date. I knew she was special the first date, but of course I wouldn’t scare her by saying something that sounds extreme, even though it is true.

Now agreeing with them that Jesus is Lord and sharing a little bit about our common beliefs can help on the way to have them accept that Jesus actually taught truth; and that we can know here on earth what it is, since God wants us to we just have to be open to it.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[starling]

If you were to subtract all the so-called “cafeteria Catholics”, there might not be much of a Church left. The Catholic Church has always had cafeteria Catholics, right from the beginning. Not even all the Apostles interpreted what Jesus had said the same way. Everybody is a protestant to at least some small extent. You are one, for example, every time you read scripture, because I’ve never heard of anyone doing so without superimposing their own interpretation in some way. Protestants did not forget 1600 years of teaching. They were Catholics, after all. They just thought a little of it had been misinterpreted or corrupted over time and they set out to *reform *the Church, not necessarily to found new churches. They were forced into doing that by a Catholic Church which refused to accommodate them in any way. I’m not a Protestant, though.

 

[scylla]

Your right, real Catholics make up a much smaller percentage of the Church than its professed number.

There are many people who just say Lord Lord without believing or living the belief out. There are then others who are actually more honest, as they openly admit they don’t believe and live like they profess. Then there is many in between.

Our faith is not based on interpretation or majority rule it is based on truth. That is not opinion or negotiable. Our faith should be based on Jesus and what He taught, and the Bible is based on that faith.

It is silly to think that our faith comes from the Bible as the Bible came a few hundred years after Jesus who gave us our faith.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[SouthernSister]

They are not in perfect communion either as they do not accept all the beliefs of the Catholic Church and so if they are honest shouldn’t accept the Eucharist at Mass.

I think you are right!

Being tactless just alienates people and puts them on the defensive, where they never will listen to reason.

I agree here, too. And I’m afraid that the situation has deteriorated precisely because we have not shown our love.

I was reading Mark Brumley’s book today: How NOT to Share Your Faith – The Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelization and Apologetics.

I’m thinking that we’re dealing with every one of those seven!

SouthernSister

 

[SouthernSister]

If you were to subtract all the so-called “cafeteria Catholics”, there might not be much of a Church left. The Catholic Church has always had cafeteria Catholics, right from the beginning.

You could be right! We have a lot of work to do, evangelizing from within! Would you care to join us?

Not even all the Apostles interpreted what Jesus had said the same way

.

Can you substantiate this? Are you referring to the Gospels, where Matthew, Mark and Luke told slightly different versions of the happenings? I’m not certain where you’re heading here.

Everybody is a protestant to at least some small extent. You are one, for example, every time you read scripture, because I’ve never heard of anyone doing so without superimposing their own interpretation in some way.

I think you have been fed a bunch of bunk on how much in bondage we Catholics are. We have much freedom in reading and understanding scripture. What we have is the safeguard of the Magisterium, who makes sure we don’t fall off into some heresy, like believing that Jesus ISN’T God, or that he wasn’t 100% man and 100% God at the same time.

A faithful Catholic who reads his Bible on his own is not protesting. You really might want to read up on what the Catholic Church really teaches about the Bible!

Protestants did not forget 1600 years of teaching. They were Catholics, after all. **They just thought a little of it had been misinterpreted or corrupted over time and they set out to ***reform *the Church, not necessarily to found new churches.

Really? So, for example, you really have no problem with the fact that the Church has, from the beginning, taught of seven Sacraments. And at the Reformation, five of the seven were thrown out? That’s not exactly a little misinterpretation.

Speaking of interpretation, how do you know which interpretation is correct?

I’m not a Protestant, though.

No, it doesn’t sound like it. It sounds as if you hail from Baptistic Peoples, who’ve been around since the beginning, yes? Can you tell me which Baptistic Peoples were instrumental in codifying the Bible? I’d be interested in your take on it.

God bless!

SouthernSister

 

[starling]

It’s not me but most of the people on this forum who don’t sound like Catholics. Catholics have generally been among the most open-minded, free-thinking and cerebral of Christians. It’s the Protestants (not all but some) who all think and dress the same. People here like to use the buzzwords like “magisterium”, etc., but if it wasn’t that the forum has the word Catholic in its title, any real, lifelong Catholic coming here could easily be mistaken into thinking it’s a special forum for a previously unknown evangilistic literal Bible-only Protestant sect. Remove the references to the Virgin Mary and to Confession and you are left with a pretty stark Calvinism, not Catholicism. In my opinion, a large proportion of the Catholic community in America have been assimilitated into the wider Protestant/Calvinist culture without realizing it. This is probably attributable to the influence that the media has on culture.

 

[buffalo]

If they have a valid Baptism they are actually baptized into the one true church. What they do after is another story.

 

[kaycee]

It is silly to think that our faith comes from the Bible as the Bible came a few hundred years after Jesus who gave us our faith.

In Christ
Scylla

John wrote his last book around 90 AD. what do you mean?