We are different, there’s no doubt about that but we are very similar in many ways too. I think we should build on the things we agree on and not ridicule others where we don’t. Love and understanding is sooo important. Christ prayed for unity, not division. I hope you and AJthe man, learned enough to show you we do NOT worship Mary, or statues and clear up other false notions about the Catholic Faith. God Bless, Memaw
I’m not suggesting anything other than it seems, on this thread, that both Catholics and non-Catholics alike are attacking each other for generalizations that aren’t usually true.
Cardinal John Newman was reported as saying, " To be steep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Firstly, this is a very peculiar way to argue against the Catholic Church. “Our music is better than your music, therefore our doctrine trumps yours?”
Actually, he said, “To be DEEP in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Show me one. Just one. And I will show you the extra biblical tradition it holds.
Ok.
Well, since I’ve been on this forum I’ve encountered several very well versed Protestants in RC’ism. They’ve done their research and in many cases know RC’ism better than many RCs on this forum - and can debate Christianity from a pure Biblical basis. But often when backed into a corner, theologically, the RC responds with “you misunderstand the Catholic faith.” And that simply is not the case.
They may be ‘well versed’ in what they think Catholicism is all about but believe me they really don’t. If they did, they would cease to be protestant and come home to the fullness of the true faith in the Catholic Church. I agree that to many Catholics are not as knowledgeable in their Catholic faith as they should be but that doesn’t make the teachings of the Catholic Church any less true. If one studied Catholicism from a Biblical’ viewpoint, in its entirety, one would defiantly become Catholic, that is if they truly want to follow Jesus Christ and HIS Church. I have one question for you. Where was the Bible for the first 400 years of Christianity and how were the people taught about Christ and His Church? They were taught by Sacred Tradition and that’s in the Bible too. And that’s Catholic. The Bible was put into it present form by the Catholic Church. It cannot be seperated from Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church. We can see in all the divisions of protestantism today the harm that has done. The Bible only just doesn’t work.
Hi moondweller,
The statement in bold is a non-sequitur. You could study and come to a different conclusion than the CC. For instance Tertullian often quoted by Catholics and some of his writings are in the office did not agree with Orthodox Catholics on certian points but with Montanus. Surely, he understood the early Church and the ECF writings. Nestorius Also well versed in Catholic theology could not assimilate Theotokos but remained with Christokos. Yet both of these men (though heretics) disagreed though they had the same material to work with as the other ECF. And note Sacred Tradition, though alluded to in the early church, was not as clearly defined then as it is now. Surely, an ECF may be confused by some of the language defining certain issues from Sacred tradition.
See what I mean? :coffeeread:
“Bac” = “born again Christian.”Hi moondweller,
I think a lot of what you said is right-on-the-money. However, your last paragraph seems rather suspicious – why don’t you recommend “a good book” right here for all of us? Very suspicious, if you ask me.
P.S. What does “bac” mean? Just curious.
I see what you mean. Hows your coffee?:coffeeread:
Very good post. Also, many of those early church writers were Premillennial in their eschatology, while the CC, after the fourth century evolved into Augustinian Amillennialism which spiritualized the Messianic Kingdom which was literally anticipated by the ancient Hebrew prophets of the O.T.
Yes such as Ireneaus.
Are you claiming they were Historic Premil or Dispy Premil?
: