Protestants, how can this be possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So when, in your understanding, did it become Catholic (or Orthodox), with the theology of the Eucharist, priests, liturgy, etc?
That is not the way I look at it.

It is sort of like asking the United Methodist at what point they became United Methodist.

The early Methodist church is common to the United Methodist, Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, etc. churches. It does not belong exclusively to one branch of Methodism.

In the same vein the early Christian church is common to the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. It does not belong exclusively to one branch of Christianity.
 
The rest of the Church obeyed them and believed whatever they taught them. St. Clement was even telling people in the Diocese of Corinth how to behave themselves - surely, he was well out of his jurisdiction as Bishop of Rome in so doing, and yet, they obeyed him without question, almost as if he were the man in charge - even above their own local Bishops.

The people of the Church considered them, at the very least, worthy of obedience.
There is a difference between believing that God placed you in a position of authority in the church (which certainly Clement and Peter believed concerning themselves) and believing you are incapable of being incorrect when teaching.
 
I guess I wonder what you are here for, NTS? As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to engage but are you genuinely interested in Catholicism? Has ANYthing clicked with what any of us have said? Or do you think that our Church is so defective, and you being so convicted in your beliefs, that we need you here to save us?

IF you are trying to save us, then I am flattered but you won’t find very many weak links around these parts anyway needing saved - we’re well on our way. I will continue to provide what I know to you in high hopes that perhaps you will see us as not needing saved, but instaed see that just maybe - the Church Christ started 2000 years ago is the one Christ intended and since Christ was perfect then so should be His Church. A splintered Church is imperfect. It’s not logical that Christ wanted a splintered Church.

God bless you - and God bless that wedding!
luke1_28
What have I done to make you go into “attack NTS” mode?

If I have done or written anything that leads you to believe my motive here is to “convert poor lost Catholics” please post it so that I may explain it. Perhaps I have worded something poorly.

Otherwise, please don’t imply stuff that is not true.
 
What have I done to make you go into “attack NTS” mode?

If I have done or written anything that leads you to believe my motive here is to “convert poor lost Catholics” please post it so that I may explain it. Perhaps I have worded something poorly.

Otherwise, please don’t imply stuff that is not true.
NTS, you of all people, who kept a written list of “compliments” you’ve received on the CAF, should be able to recognize an attack. Luke’s post was most definitely NOT an attack. It simply posed some questions–why are you here? Has anything any Catholic has posted provided you with some pause in your objections to the CC?

Perhaps you missed the big, capitalized “IF” when he asked about whether you were trying to convert Catholics here.

🤷
 
That is not the way I look at it.

It is sort of like asking the United Methodist at what point they became United Methodist.

The early Methodist church is common to the United Methodist, Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, etc. churches. It does not belong exclusively to one branch of Methodism.

In the same vein the early Christian church is common to the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. It does not belong exclusively to one branch of Christianity.
But, NTS, you posted this:

**1)**Yes…as far as the metric of lineage goes…it either starts with the Orthodox or Catholic.

Then you posted:

**2)**The men that God chose to use were a part of the apostolic church.

So, do you agree that this “apostolic church” was the Catholic or Orthodox church?

Or, since you don’t like using the term "apostolic church" you posted this:

**3)**Maybe apostolic is not the best word. Early Christian church close to the time of the apostles is what I meant to convey.

Would you agree that the “early Christian church close to the time of the apostles” was the Catholic or Orthodox church?

I mean, really, NTS, when you look at your postings 1-3, it does seem that you’ve admitted as much. I’d just like to see you acknowledge it. 😛
 
But, NTS, you posted this:

**1)**Yes…as far as the metric of lineage goes…it either starts with the Orthodox or Catholic.

Then you posted:

**2)**The men that God chose to use were a part of the apostolic church.

So, do you agree that this “apostolic church” was the Catholic or Orthodox church?

Or, since you don’t like using the term "apostolic church" you posted this:

**3)**Maybe apostolic is not the best word. Early Christian church close to the time of the apostles is what I meant to convey.

Would you agree that the “early Christian church close to the time of the apostles” was the Catholic or Orthodox church?

I mean, really, NTS, when you look at your postings 1-3, it does seem that you’ve admitted as much. I’d just like to see you acknowledge it. 😛
I think sort of both are true.

It is a true statement that Protestants can not claim their lineage back to Christ. One of the Orthodox and Catholic probably can. I don’t know which one though.

I also believe that the early Christian church is common to all of us.

In the same say it is probably possible for one of the Methodist denominations to trace their lineage back to Wesley. I wouldn’t know which one though.

However the early Methodist church is common to all of the Methodist denominations.

I know to you it appears inconsistent. But that is what I believe anyway. I guess what that means is that I don’t believe that lineage is a governing metric.

Actually I thought of another analogy by which I can make sense of this. But I gotta run to my wedding (last nite was the rehearsal).
 
NTS, you of all people, who kept a written list of “compliments” you’ve received on the CAF, should be able to recognize an attack. Luke’s post was most definitely NOT an attack. It simply posed some questions–why are you here? Has anything any Catholic has posted provided you with some pause in your objections to the CC?

Perhaps you missed the big, capitalized “IF” when he asked about whether you were trying to convert Catholics here.

🤷
Perhaps it is a character flaw of mine that I am hyper sensitive. I dunno.
 
What have I done to make you go into “attack NTS” mode?

If I have done or written anything that leads you to believe my motive here is to “convert poor lost Catholics” please post it so that I may explain it. Perhaps I have worded something poorly.

Otherwise, please don’t imply stuff that is not true.
Attack mode? No way. If I went into attack mode with that post, I would have to check out to see if I had panties on because it was most certainly weak. :o The dude I was a year or so ago - that guy was an idiot. He is pretty famous for his ‘attack modes’ but not on this site. Other less dignified sites. So I don’t attack any more…much less on here where it might be counter-productive to the work of saving souls. I genuinely felt inspired to simply ask what you were doing here. Not to make you feel not welcome - or attacked.

So my question remains and I am still wondering if you really need help understanding our Catholic Faith, because some amazing logical points have been made by the folks here to show you our Faith in simple language and even then - backed by Scripture. I have learned a thing or two myself.

So accept my apologies if you felt attacked.

God bless,
luke1_28
 
Perhaps it is a character flaw of mine that I am hyper sensitive. I dunno.
Well, you may be hypersensitive (notice, I said “may”–I don’t know, esp. if you don’t know!) but you are humble in spirit, NTS for admitting such here.
 
Attack mode? No way. If I went into attack mode with that post, I would have to check out to see if I had panties on because it was most certainly weak. :o The dude I was a year or so ago - that guy was an idiot. He is pretty famous for his ‘attack modes’ but not on this site. Other less dignified sites. So I don’t attack any more…
That is a very significant point you’ve made, Luke, in light of NTS’ comment:

Originally Posted by NotTooSmart
I think that I should expect superior conduct in any branch of Christianity that claims a superior status for itself in respect to all of the remaining branches.

I responded that it’s impossible to judge the “superior conduct” of Catholics here unless you know what they were like before they starting following God’s commands.

Originally posted by me; What you would need to do, NTS, would be to compare conduct in these Catholics before they became Catholic with how they behave after they became Catholic (did they show the fruits of the Spirit after becoming Catholic?). Obviously, that is an impossible task on a venue like the CAFs, so your observation as to how Catholics behave here is truly an irrelevant one.

Your comment above, Luke, shows that we have no idea what a poster’s past is and how this branch of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) has influenced his conduct.
 
I think sort of both are true.

It is a true statement that Protestants can not claim their lineage back to Christ. One of the Orthodox and Catholic probably can. I don’t know which one though.
I admire you for saying that, NTS, and I think it’s gracious of you to acknowedge.
I also believe that the early Christian church is common to all of us.
Indeed.

You, again, have expressed agreement with the CC in your views.

You’re well on your way! 😉

Best wishes on your wedding, dear Brother!
 
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Is this from a catechism? Which one? I have the second edition , Pope John Paul. Where is this in my one?
 
There is a difference between believing that God placed you in a position of authority in the church (which certainly Clement and Peter believed concerning themselves) and believing you are incapable of being incorrect when teaching.
Do you believe that those who wrote the books of the Bible were protected by God from making mistakes with that work?

In the same way, God protects the leaders of His Church from leading the Church astray. This is what is meant by “infallibility.” It does not mean that they will always be right about absolutely everything. Only that, God will not allow them to teach in such a way that it leads the Church astray. There are also certain specific circumstances (“I declare and define …”) when the Pope can make infallible statements, but in general, the idea of it is that the Church cannot be pushed off-course to go off in a different direction than what God wants it to go.
 
That is a very significant point you’ve made, Luke, in light of NTS’ comment:

Originally posted by me; What you would need to do, NTS, would be to compare conduct in these Catholics before they became Catholic with how they behave after they became Catholic (did they show the fruits of the Spirit after becoming Catholic?). Obviously, that is an impossible task on a venue like the CAFs, so your observation as to how Catholics behave here is truly an irrelevant one.

Your comment above, Luke, shows that we have no idea what a poster’s past is and how this branch of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) has influenced his conduct.
I’ve been beaten up and left for dead by the princes and principalities of this world. I’ve lived in dark places. I was about ready to throw in the towel on my Catholic faith. However deep prayer and personal reflection has revealed things to me about my personal relationship with God as Father because of who I am…a child of God who is also a recovering alcoholic. I stopped going to AA meetings daily and replaced it with weekly counseling, frequent confession, but most importantly - daily Mass. This formula, I would guarantee would work for anyone struggling with ANYTHING. Have I been saved? NO. I am BEING saved. Christ saves me daily…through the Sacrifice of the Mass…and not just once. There’s only one Church where I can be GUARANTEED salvation if I follow Christ in that Church…and there IS JUST ONE!

That True Church exists - identified by 4 marks - One, Holy, Catholic a.k.a. Universal, and Apostolic. Google One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - and you will see Catholic Church. But more striking to me is the visual evidence because it has some amazing characteristics too that clearly identify it as being undeniably the Church that Christ founded and is the fulfillment of the faith of Our Father. You can see the continuity of the faith practices of the Chosen People from the Old Testament being fulfilled in the New Testament by the adopted children of God in Christ. The altar did not just disappear - the priesthood did not vanish - the sacrifice didn’t stop - the tabernacle wasn’t removed. Why not? Because Jesus was a Jew - most of the disciples were Jewish and all the Apostles were. He came to make all things new NOT DIFFERENT. He came to fulfil the Law, NOT ABOLISH it. Therefore, being that everything Jesus says is True, Jesus fulfils the Law and does not abolish it because He threaded the faith of His Father into the New Testament Church and that Church is the Church that you can see at any Catholic Mass today. The altar is there, the priest, the Sacrifice, the tabernacle. It is the Old Testament faith in God the Father fulfilled and perfected by the Son. Because Christ Himself said “I come to make all things new.” The Old Testament faith had become worn and heartless. Christ didn’t intend to make it different - He gave Life where there was death. He gave Life to the Altar of Sacrifice because He is the Living Sacrifice that we consume. The Old Testament altar of dead bloody sacrifice was renewed by the altar of living spotless sacrifice in the New Testament. Jesus did what He said He would do and it’s visible in His True Church.

This is also evidence to me that IT MATTERS. Can they not understand that in the True Church will be elements of faith practices found from the Old Testament? It can’t possibly be just preaching from scripture and prayer and songs and meditative pictures from an LCD Projector. There MUST be a PRIEST from the line of the Levitical priesthood. There MUST be an ALTAR for sacrifice. And there MUST be a VICTIM for the sacrifice. Not just once a month, four times a year, or at Easter. The true worship of God - because our Church didn’t just start in the New Testament, will be marked by those elements EVERY day. Because from the “Rising of the Sun, to the setting thereof, a spotless sacrifice is offered” as the prophet proclaims. At every single Catholic Mass, the true worship of God found in the Old Testament is fulfilled and perfected in its celebration. Protestants claim the fact that they know the Bible better than Catholics. If they would stoop to set foot in Catholic Mass, they would see the continuity and if they understood scripture like they say they do, there would be enough VISUAL evidence to know that Christ indeed did begin just ONE CHURCH! …IF they were given the eyes of Faith through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The ancient traditions from the God given faith of the Old Testament are made new and fulfilled in the New Testament. Even some of the prayers of the Old Testament are uttered by the priest and perfected by the Sacrifice on the Altar as our prayers rise like incense before the Father. It isn’t about how it makes you feel - it’s about what it does. It saves man by the Sacrifice offered. It gives man Life by consuming the Sacrifice. No other Church follows the directive uttered 2000 years ago “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life within you” more completely than the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I hear that all the time from the pastor across the street about how the service made him feel. “You could feel the Presence there today.” Wait? You don’t KNOW the Presence was there? What about days where you didn’t feel the Presence? ITS NOT ABOUT HOW IT MAKES YOU FEEL. ITS ABOUT WHAT IT DOES. When ANY Catholic hears the words Christ spoke coming from the lips of the priest: “Take this and eat, this is My Body…Take this and drink, this is the cup of My Blood” then they KNOW that Christ is perfectly present in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We don’t have to feel anything - or use our feelings to monitor anything. We have faith - faith in the power of the priest given to him by Christ through apostolic succession and priests have the power to bring Christ down on the altar to become that Living Sacrifice…

And the concrete evidence is there in that Mass and in the words of Christ Himself, of a True Church that HE - not some MAN - started. It is scattered through the whole Bible. Because when you read the Bible in context - and consume it as the whole that it is…it stands out like a sore thumb in Scripture and in the evidence that every Catholic Mass presents to the world every day…The Living Sacrifice.

God bless you,
luke1_28
 
That True Church exists - identified by 4 marks - One, Holy, Catholic a.k.a. Universal, and Apostolic. Google One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - and you will see Catholic Church.
Since you correctly recognized the meaning of the term “catholic” to in today’s vernacular be also known as universal, I tried that Googling experiment you suggested and came up with all sorts of things and interesting enough, leading the list was not the Catholic church, but the Armenian Apostic church. Of course the Catholic church was also listed, as it should be. Nevertheless, it is good to note that when thinking of Christ’s universal Church, that at least Google recognizes that there is more to it than just the Catholic church as it thinks of itself today.
 
Since you correctly recognized the meaning of the term “catholic” to in today’s vernacular be also known as universal, I tried that Googling experiment you suggested and came up with all sorts of things and interesting enough, leading the list was not the Catholic church, but the Armenian Apostic church. Of course the Catholic church was also listed, as it should be. Nevertheless, it is good to note that when thinking of Christ’s universal Church, that at least Google recognizes that there is more to it than just the Catholic church as it thinks of itself today.
There are four marks; not just one. Also, just calling yourself “Catholic” does not mean that you have a presence in every populated region of the world (which is what “Catholic” refers to - “to the ends of the earth”). Some of these “Catholic” churches serve only one language group; never mind all of them. I think the RC Church is the only one with a Diocese on the Moon. (It is served by the Bishop of Florida.)
 
There are four marks; not just one. Also, just calling yourself “Catholic” does not mean that you have a presence in every populated region of the world (which is what “Catholic” refers to - “to the ends of the earth”). Some of these “Catholic” churches serve only one language group; never mind all of them. I think the RC Church is the only one with a Diocese on the Moon. (It is served by the Bishop of Florida.)
I did use the four marks: one, holy, universal, and apostolic. And the way you just defined “catholic” as having a presence in every populated region of the world is NOT the way it was used when the term was coined and first applied to the Church. It is strange that you, one who is indeed very knowledgable and a convert to Catholicism, would not be aware of its proper usage.

Or maybe, you’ve just identified how it is that the meaning of being “catholic” has changed over time so that now the Catholic church is no longer the catholic Church.
 
I guess I wonder what you are here for, NTS? As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to engage but are you genuinely interested in Catholicism? Has ANYthing clicked with what any of us have said? Or do you think that our Church is so defective, and you being so convicted in your beliefs, that we need you here to save us?

IF you are trying to save us, then I am flattered but you won’t find very many weak links around these parts anyway needing saved - we’re well on our way. I will continue to provide what I know to you in high hopes that perhaps you will see us as not needing saved, but instaed see that just maybe - the Church Christ started 2000 years ago is the one Christ intended and since Christ was perfect then so should be His Church. A splintered Church is imperfect. It’s not logical that Christ wanted a splintered Church.

God bless you - and God bless that wedding!
luke1_28
I started to type a long narrative but it would have been boring reading so I killed it. Here is a much shorter version.

I am here because one day I plugged evangelical Catholic into google. This eventually got me on the web site of Dave Armstrong and later Jimy Akin and still later here. This introduced me to the concept of evangelicals turned Catholic turned Catholic apologist.

Oh and I have also watched a little EWTN. It is certainly superior to TBN, but that might be damning with faint praise.

And when encountering something new that challenges my thinking I like to approach it with an open mind but at the same time critically thinking.

Unlike some folks here who really need to take a relating to Protestants 101 course, these guys had an ability to present Catholicism in a light that while I still don’t believe that it is the one true church that it claims to be, I also do not believe that it is this evil false Christian religion some Protestants claim it is.

Why am I here. Oh probably because mostly I like to argue. But perhaps also because there is something good about your faith that can be a good influence to me. I’m really not open to changing churches (sorry to you evangelists out there) unless you can really convince me you are the one true church and the rest of us are inferior…which is a hardreal, , hard, sell…which I have deliberately made so. But at the same time, I am open to figuring out what it is in Catholicism that is good that I like which would be good for me.

BTW one thing that I do like is your Biblical moral theology that I agree with probably 95% (as opposed to liberal Protestants who took.400 years to devolve into gay marriage and pro abortion). One thing that is true for me anyway is that moral theology is perhaps … actually definitely … more important to me than the stuff that people argue about incessantly here.

There have been a few other areas where I think the positive influence of Catholicism has rubbed off on me. However this is getting to long as it is so I will end it. Maybe someday I will start a thread “What I like about Catholicism”.
 
Do you believe that those who wrote the books of the Bible were protected by God from making mistakes with that work?

In the same way, God protects the leaders of His Church from leading the Church astray. This is what is meant by “infallibility.” It does not mean that they will always be right about absolutely everything. Only that, God will not allow them to teach in such a way that it leads the Church astray. There are also certain specific circumstances (“I declare and define …”) when the Pope can make infallible statements, but in general, the idea of it is that the Church cannot be pushed off-course to go off in a different direction than what God wants it to go.
I believe there have been historical events in the church where God has graciously granted the grace for the church to get it right. Or to put another way prevented from getting it wrong.

What I do not believe is that there is a process that insures this;.

For example, I believe there have been church councils where God has granted the grace to insure that the church gets it right. Good grief, there is one in the Bible in Acts 15.

This does not mean however, that every time the church has a council that the same results will occur as occurred in Acts 15.

This is sort of like what happens if I get 100% on a test in college. This does not mean that I am guaranteed getting 100% every time I take a test.
 
I did use the four marks: one, holy, universal, and apostolic. And the way you just defined “catholic” as having a presence in every populated region of the world is NOT the way it was used when the term was coined and first applied to the Church. It is strange that you, one who is indeed very knowledgable and a convert to Catholicism, would not be aware of its proper usage.

Or maybe, you’ve just identified how it is that the meaning of being “catholic” has changed over time so that now the Catholic church is no longer the catholic Church.
It also has the meaning of being the organization that Jesus sent out into the world to convert it, yes. I am not denying that meaning; I am simply affirming that that goal has (at least for the most part) been reached - every living human being today has at least some form of access to a Catholic priest or Bishop (although, granted, there are regions where such access is quite difficult - nevertheless, it exists). The Universal (Catholic Church is Universal because it is open to all human beings; not because it already contains all human beings. (I don’t think that St. Ignatius of Antioch thought that the heretics of his own day were Catholics; otherwise, why exhort the people to avoid the heretics and to remain faithful to the Bishop?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top