P
Philothea53
Guest
That kind of doublespeak sounds like former President Clinton’s response on the stand about how one would define the definition of 'is".
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
I am not angry at anyone. I fell great sorrow and pity for our Seperated Bretheren. I am a cradle Catholic
Now how about adressing the substance of my post intead of questioning my motives.?
P
Philothea53
Guest
“A man was stranded on the roof of his home after heavy rains flooded his hometown. A man swam up with a life jacket and said, “Put this on, I’ll take you to safety.” The stranded man replied, “No, God will save me.” A few minutes later, a woman in a boat came by and said, “Get in, I’ll take you to safety.” Again, the stranded man refused saying, “God will save me.” Hours passed, and finally a helicopter flew overhead. A voice from a loudspeaker said, “Grab the rope, we’ll take you to safety.” The stranded man waved them off shouting, “God will save me!” More rain fell, finally covering the house, and drowning the stranded man. He arrived at the pearly gates, and demanded to see God. After gaining an audience with God, he said, “Why didn’t you save me?” God answered, “I sent a swimmer, a boat and a helicopter … what more did you want?””
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
What substance?
You make an assertion that is not true. Protestant don’t claim to have “discovered” anything. Luther wasn’t seeking to take the church in new directions. Like St. Francis of Assisi before him, he saw a church that needed to be rebuilt. Unlike in the case of St. Francis he wasn’t allowed to do it from within because the church had no desire to return to the holy ground she had once occupied and preferred to continue in her errors. Because she was in error and she decided to persist in those errors, it is not the Protestant who left the faith, but the Catholic Church that abandoned her call. Fortunately, God raised up a Martin Luther and the Church of Jesus Christ was still preserved and the Gates of Hell have not been able to prevail against it. But without a Luther, jsut as without a St. Francis before him, that surely would have happened.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
I knew I should have left you so fast when you rejected that lifejacket.
A
Antwill
Guest
If this is true, how do you explain all the contradictory teachings that have sprung out of protestantism over the past 500 years?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Hard-headedness.
A
Antwill
Guest
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Former Protestant (Evangelical Lutheran, to be exact) and former RABID anti-Catholic.
Present Orthodox convert.
As to the definition of “leaving”:
In 1054 the pope of Rome, Leo IX contradicted his predecessor Pope Leo III, and insisted on the filioque. The Eastern Patriarchs, holding to the Ecumenical Councils, and Pope Leo III (who inscribed the original, sans filioque, on St. Peter “out of zeal for the Orthodox faith”), resisted the innovation. Who left whom?
On all other issues (leaven bread, mandatory celebacy of clergy, etc…) history shows that the Latin had moved from the common practices of the whole (i.e. Catholic) Church, and was trying to impose innovations that had cropped up in its midst on the whole Chruch. Who left whom?
To the Protestant objection to history. The point is that the Orthodox (and the Latins) can point to someone in all the generations from Christ to now who would be accepted as a Church member now. For example, there were Christians who denied the Real Presence early (c. 107) (see Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans): the same also denied that Christ had a real body (dito). Do the Protestants want to claim this interpretation for John 1.14? It amuses be that the ones who speak the most of the Blood of Jesus, and love to pit John 1.13, 3.6 and 6.63 against John 6.53 do not see themselves in the Holy Scripture in John 6.66 (note the number!
f) Sola Scriptura!
Only Christ possess infallibility, the Church possess it from being His Body. Just like it is not a question of a communicant being flawless (noone is), it is not that every word of a Father is infallible (no Father has such a record). It is a question of whether one’s faith is rooted on the Rock, despite personal failings.
Present Orthodox convert.
As to the definition of “leaving”:
In 1054 the pope of Rome, Leo IX contradicted his predecessor Pope Leo III, and insisted on the filioque. The Eastern Patriarchs, holding to the Ecumenical Councils, and Pope Leo III (who inscribed the original, sans filioque, on St. Peter “out of zeal for the Orthodox faith”), resisted the innovation. Who left whom?
On all other issues (leaven bread, mandatory celebacy of clergy, etc…) history shows that the Latin had moved from the common practices of the whole (i.e. Catholic) Church, and was trying to impose innovations that had cropped up in its midst on the whole Chruch. Who left whom?
To the Protestant objection to history. The point is that the Orthodox (and the Latins) can point to someone in all the generations from Christ to now who would be accepted as a Church member now. For example, there were Christians who denied the Real Presence early (c. 107) (see Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans): the same also denied that Christ had a real body (dito). Do the Protestants want to claim this interpretation for John 1.14? It amuses be that the ones who speak the most of the Blood of Jesus, and love to pit John 1.13, 3.6 and 6.63 against John 6.53 do not see themselves in the Holy Scripture in John 6.66 (note the number!
f) Sola Scriptura!Only Christ possess infallibility, the Church possess it from being His Body. Just like it is not a question of a communicant being flawless (noone is), it is not that every word of a Father is infallible (no Father has such a record). It is a question of whether one’s faith is rooted on the Rock, despite personal failings.
E
estesbob
Guest
So God was so inept he waited 1,500 years to raise up Martin Luther to come up with previously unknow doctrines that were supported neither by Scripture, Tradition or 1,500 years of teachings? I think not. I suggets you -spend a little time studying the History of the Church between the time Pual died and Luther started inventing Doctrine. For a Protetstant it appears there is a 1,500 year gapn they never can account for.
C
Contarini
Guest
This is not an argument, just a slur.
I repeat: what are your criteria for what constitutes “leaving”? Don’t they assume that the pre-Schism Church was the same as the Catholic Church today?
Edwin
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
[/SIGN]
The promises of Matthew 16.18 and 28.20 will not fail. To assert otherwise makes Our Lord a liar or a fool.
C
Contarini
Guest
I know you would say that. But to someone else, the papacy (bearing in mind that we probably disagree on just what degree of authority was ascribed to the papacy before the schism) is not necessarily more decisive as a criterion than other points on which the West “moved”–the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, for instance. There is simply no way to determine (without assuming the truth of one position from the start) which of the points at issue count most decisively.
You are overly suspicious. Many Anglicans are far more in agreement with Orthodoxy theologically than with any generalized Protestant theology (certainly the theology of Luther and/or Calvin). For Anglicans, at least, it’s a real issue and not a “rabbit hole.” The witness of the historic Church appears to be divided among two quite credible modern representatives (assuming that we don’t find either of the other Eastern Christian traditions credible). We can agree that Protestantism was wrong in those many points on which it contradicts both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and still be left with a number of important issues–chiefly having to do with papal authority, but also including things like a rejection of certain ways of speaking about grace and merit, a refusal to dogmatize too much about the Blessed Virgin, an unwillingness to speak of a saved soul undergoing any form of legal punishment after death, etc.–on which Protestants (broadly defined) and the Orthodox agree.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
[/sign]
The promises of Matthew 16.18 and 28.20 will not fail. To assert otherwise makes Our Lord a liar or a fool.
But of course no one asserts otherwise. They are simply interpreting the passages differently. Confusing your interpretation of the passage with the passage itself is a basic fundamentalist mistake–Catholics should be above it!
In Christ,
Edwin
E
estesbob
Guest
But for Catholics there is no such thing as personal interpertation. We know these things to be true because they are supportred by scripture, tradtition and 2,000 years of teachings.
C
Contarini
Guest
To me that appears to be a delusion, and I have argued against it many times. However, that’s really not the point. Whether it’s your personal interpretation or not, it is an interpretation. Disagreeing with it is not the same thing as disagreeing with the text.
Edwin
E
estesbob
Guest
No deulusion at all. We have the weight of Scripture, Tradition and 2,000 years of Teachings behind all of out beleifs . If you interpert them differently then you have to show us why all who who went before Luther interperted it differently. The usual way that proestants approach this is to ignore all Church Hisotry from the End of Acts to Luther.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Again you keep making statements that assume facts that simply aren’t true. NOT ALL who went before Luther interpreted it differently. And Catholics have no more access to scripture and tradition than anyone else does.
E
estesbob
Guest
Then show where Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidelis was taught prior to the Reformation. And of course we acess to tradition more than anyone else does-1500 years more to be exact.
P
Philothea53
Guest
That swimmer was God’s grace in action. When you reject the Catholic Church you reject the help He sends just as the drowning man rejected the lifejacket, the boat and the helicopter. You drown when you reject His Bride, the Church.
- Status