You must remember also, that to many "Protest"ants, the word Protestantant is perjoritive also. I think that it is unfortunate that Protestants are identified with what they are against rather than what they are for. Most Evangelical Protestants, as many on this website already know, see themselves as Catholic Christians as well, just not identifying with the same traditions as “Roman” Catholic Christians.
Gottle of Geer said:## By what means: massacre ? Inquisition ? giving the bishops the powers they used to have to try scases of heresy ? murder, perhaps ? imprisonment, exile, torture, confiscation of property ? All these have been tried, and all have hurt the Church far more than they have hurt others.
Protestantism has done a great deal of good, and Catholicism, a great deal of harm. Both have many faults, so an accusation meant for one, often applies as much to the other.
I know how enormous a debt I owe to my Protestant background, and I’m unspeakably grateful for all the good it did me. The CC can learn a great deal from Protestants - we are saved by the same all-gracious God, after all.
Protestantism exists because Catholicism is not as faithful to Christ as it needs to be; it’s a rebuke to the Church, in part. If Christians live like devils, who is going to be impressed by their Christ-like lives ? It is not enough to profess right doctrines - we need also to live Christ-like lives; then there would be no scandals or errors or abuses or cover-ups or evils of any kind. That there are Christians outside the Church, is in some degree the fault of Catholics. Vatican II admitted this, and to do so was one of the most important things the Church could have done. People would not leave the Church, if their spiritual hunger and thirst were being satisfied within it. If it is not, they will go elsewhere until it is. If bishops ignored their dioceses - except for the money they could get from it - and priests were barely even literate, no wonder people left the Church. And no wonder: at least they could get some nourishment from Calvin and Luther and others - which is a thousand times better than starving within the Church entirely unfed.
I don’t think some Catholics realise just what a chaotic mess the Church was in. ##
This “believe or be damned” attitude really gets to me - and it often goes hand-in-hand with three things: lack of attention to why the Church is necessary; neglect of Vatican II and teaching since then; and, most important of all, lack of attention to Christ. The Church is nothing at all without Christ: she is meaningless, irrelevant, and worthless without Him. A Muslim with charity - and is God too small or weak to grant such a grace ? - is nearer Christ than an orthodox Catholic without charity. Orthodoxy by itself is as deadening as any other legalism - until the Holy Spirit enlivens it within those who hold to it. There is far more to Christ than having the right label. What needs to be shown, is that EENS does not constitute a denial of the gracious character of the Gospel. The moment it becomes a mere legalism, it is deadly.
JGC , you have a very peaceable and constructive attitude##
josiah:
These teachings are what was handed down to the believers of the time. It was those teachings that were compiled into the bible. The bible is a compliation of Catholic Traditions to help teach the believers of the time.
Thank you for some clarity there. Where I disagree is over
"The beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church today are the same as the teachings taught by Jesus and His Apostles."
For starters I don’t see the practice of Infant Baptism and Purgatory in ACTS nor do I see it in the Gospels. Perhaps you can give an apologetic on this.
Thanks
Josiah http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
Another thing you don’t see in Scripture is the idea that all authentic Christian doctrine is contained in Scripture.
Scripture **AND ** Tradition, Mark!
The peace of Christ be with you.
If all authentic Christian doctrine isn’t contained in Scripture what becomes your source of Truth? Do you agree that Scripture is infallible?
DianJo:
I can’t give you an apologetic on it at this time–but I would point out that whole families were Baptized in Acts–and I would think it is a pretty good assumption that some of these families included infants.josiah:
Baptism is also the initiation rite into Christianity–much like Circumcision was/is to Judiaism and that was done at, I think, 8 days. So this would not have been strange or foreign for the earliest Christians to “initiate” their children into Christianity through Baptism–it would have been quite natural–to wait would have been strange.
Also–can you show me where the any of the books of the New Testament forbid infant Baptism? Baptismal practice was not a problem in the early Church and so the New Testament doesn’t really address it. The practice has come down from the earliest times–and if that had caused a problem–surely someone would have addressed it as they did other problematic beliefs and practices.
The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
I will try to address this.
From this we see that much truth about the life of Jesus exists that was not written down. So much so that St. John believed it impossible to write down.
Gottle of Geer said:
**Exactly **I love the understanding and intelligence you demonstrate: the “catho-fundies” --that’s awesome. Let’s make fun of the orthodox catholics to make ourselves (with our diverse ways) feel better. God bless you for inventing such a great word to make us intellectual snobs laugh at the catho-fundies.
Gottle of Geer said:
Ummm . . . was this serious or not?
