Protestants who call themselves "Catholic"...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Graehame
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I move around a lot (work related) so I have been a member of several different baptist church that have belonged to several different conventions including Southern Baptist, American baptist, Progressive baptist, and National Baptists. Of course I can’t speak for all, but I do have a wide range of experience with Baptist churches.

I have never met a Baptist that had a “problem” with Catholics. Do Baptists and Catholics disagree on some things? Absolutely, we do. Nevertheless, **I was always taught that if you have confess Christ as your savior, if you believe it in your heart, and if you try to walk in his example and according to his requirements of us, you are saved. **Unlike many other protestant groups, Baptists do not believe that only Baptists are saved.

To this point, my great aunt passed away a few years back. Although she was raised Baptist, she converted to Catholicism some time in the 60s. Upon her death, she was memorialized by her Catholic Pastor and a Baptist minister. Both shared the same pulpit. Both expressed how much my aunt walked the walk, and how she was surely on her way to heaven.

Further, I want to a Catholic school when I was in grade school. We had no issues with it. My mother, to this day, goes to a Catholic masses if she cannot make it to her Baptist church (which is far away). She has been a dyed in the wool Baptist her whole life.
DizzyMrs,

Your experience does not translate to what is taught and believed by anyone group. I agree you cannot speak for them all. The question might be why are there so many divisions and why do you see past them? This makes you unique.

Their are a variety of ways to gain knowledge and I am sure that you know that there has been and will be a dichotomy between those that believe in empiricism and rationalism.

I confess Christ, I believe, and try to walk in the example and try to follow requirements then I am saved means I save myself. You have to believe in being saved vs saved to accept this. This also leaves the door open to Mormons that claim to confess, believe, walk and try. Do you believe that?

That is very generous that Baptists are not excusivists and are inclusive in their Protestant notion of being saved.

The example of your aunt is what is called an appeal to my emotion and relates more to courtesy than anything else. My condolences for your aunt.

Your experience in Catholic School and your mother attending Mass and Baptist services as she does may not be the rule.

There are Baptists that I have encountered on this thread and in person that do not exemplify what you speak of. I will admit that there may be Catholic Christians that you have met that do not exemplify what I speak of or have spoken of and when we reason this way we reach an impasse.

It would be my opinion based on what you write that in answer to the question as to what type of Baptist you are the best that can be said is that you are an eclectic Baptist.
 
DizzyMrs,

Your experience does not translate to what is taught and believed by anyone group. I agree you cannot speak for them all. The question might be why are there so many divisions and why do you see past them? This makes you unique.

Their are a variety of ways to gain knowledge and I am sure that you know that there has been and will be a dichotomy between those that believe in empiricism and rationalism.

I confess Christ, I believe, and try to walk in the example and try to follow requirements then I am saved means I save myself. You have to believe in being saved vs saved to accept this. This also leaves the door open to Mormons that claim to confess, believe, walk and try. Do you believe that?

That is very generous that Baptists are not excusivists and are inclusive in their Protestant notion of being saved.

The example of your aunt is what is called an appeal to my emotion and relates more to courtesy than anything else. My condolences for your aunt.

Your experience in Catholic School and your mother attending Mass and Baptist services as she does may not be the rule.

There are Baptists that I have encountered on this thread and in person that do not exemplify what you speak of. I will admit that there may be Catholic Christians that you have met that do not exemplify what I speak of or have spoken of and when we reason this way we reach an impasse.

It would be my opinion based on what you write that in answer to the question as to what type of Baptist you are the best that can be said is that you are an eclectic Baptist.
An impasse indeed. I can only speak to my experiences. I can’t speak to anyone else’s.

As to the rest about Mormons and such… it is not my place to judge. In the end, God will separate the wheat from the chaff (Matt. 3:12). What I know and believe is Romans 10: 9-10.

Romans 10:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10:9-10
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

I’ll let God do the splitting of hairs so to speak.
 
An impasse indeed. I can only speak to my experiences. I can’t speak to anyone else’s.

As to the rest about Mormons and such… it is not my place to judge. In the end, God will separate the wheat from the chaff (Matt. 3:12). What I know and believe is Romans 10: 9-10.

Romans 10:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10:9-10
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

I’ll let God do the splitting of hairs so to speak.
This is one of my favorite passages that Paul uses in his dialogue with the Judaizing Christians in Rome. I suggest you look at the letter that Paul wrote and see what I see.

Paul is writing this letter to Christians with a purpose. He points out that they are all Christians and in your belief system that means that they must all be “saved”. There is however in Rome a stumbling block, an irregularity that needs clarification.
7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Code:
  8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ **for you all,** because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.
Before he addresses them as Christians he points out the reason he wants to write to them by saying this…
5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,
He points this same point out at the end of the letter by repeating why he was writing…
25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to **obedience of faith; **
Ok? Obedient Faith. In other words Faith requires action a la James.

Now look at Romans 3…
1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Now I have read this letter 100 times and listened to it more. It started gnawing at me that Paul says “first”…well every time I see that I say well then what is the second point, the third point etc…look for it…you won’t find it…but you will find this in Romans 11, Paul has a diatribe, dialogue from Romans 3-11 that includes Romans 7 to let the Judaizing Christian know that the Old Covenant is dead and that the New Covenant is like a marriage.
Code:
 1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
If you spend some time reading Romans 3-11 you will see what I am talking about. So what Paul is saying here is that this is not how you get saved. Paul is saying to those that are Christian, recall in the introduction Paul makes it clear that they are all Christians, that you don’t have to be circumcised and enter the Old Covenant to be Christian. When he says confess with your lips he is saying to the Judaizing Christians the same thing that Moses told the Isrealites, that it was on their lips, on their hearts, that they did not have to go to heaven and retrieve it…all they had to do was admit that all they need is the New Covenant and abandon the old.

This passage to Christians could never have been written to be a forumla for salvation or conversion.

I suggest you read the letter to the Romans a bit more and see what I say is true. Hey, I am just a Catholic Christian in the pew that goes to Church but I do know this…when I was a child, I spoke as a child talked as a child and understood as a child and now that I am a man I understand the letter to the Romans not as a child but as a grown man.
 
DizzyMrs,

The question might be why are there so many divisions and why do you see past them? This makes you unique.

It would be my opinion based on what you write that in answer to the question as to what type of Baptist you are the best that can be said is that you are an eclectic Baptist.
CopticChristian,

I’d like to address the above two lines from your post.

I am not as “unique” as you think. I has raised in a church that is a part of the National Baptist Convention of the USA. Here is a link to their page which lays out what they believe: nationalbaptist.com/about-us/what-we-believe.html . You will find that nowhere therein does it distinguish between which denominations are acceptable and which are not. It only lists the things we believe are true. If you fit within those things you are all right with us.

It’s not a question of what group you belong to. It is a question of whether or not you believe that Christ is your savior within your own heart and whether you walk in his example and live according to what he as called us to do/believe. This is what I have been saying all along. The website outlines some specifics.

I’d argue that any Baptist that speaks against any particular group solely because of their denomination or designation as Catholic is in error.
 
This is one of my favorite passages that Paul uses in his dialogue with the Judaizing Christians in Rome. I suggest you look at the letter that Paul wrote and see what I see.

Paul is writing this letter to Christians with a purpose. He points out that they are all Christians and in your belief system that means that they must all be “saved”. There is however in Rome a stumbling block, an irregularity that needs clarification.

Before he addresses them as Christians he points out the reason he wants to write to them by saying this…

He points this same point out at the end of the letter by repeating why he was writing…

Ok? Obedient Faith. In other words Faith requires action a la James.

Now look at Romans 3…

Now I have read this letter 100 times and listened to it more. It started gnawing at me that Paul says “first”…well every time I see that I say well then what is the second point, the third point etc…look for it…you won’t find it…but you will find this in Romans 11, Paul has a diatribe, dialogue from Romans 3-11 that includes Romans 7 to let the Judaizing Christian know that the Old Covenant is dead and that the New Covenant is like a marriage.

If you spend some time reading Romans 3-11 you will see what I am talking about. So what Paul is saying here is that this is not how you get saved. Paul is saying to those that are Christian, recall in the introduction Paul makes it clear that they are all Christians, that you don’t have to be circumcised and enter the Old Covenant to be Christian. When he says confess with your lips he is saying to the Judaizing Christians the same thing that Moses told the Isrealites, that it was on their lips, on their hearts, that they did not have to go to heaven and retrieve it…all they had to do was admit that all they need is the New Covenant and abandon the old.

**This passage to Christians could never have been written to be a forumla for salvation or conversion.
**
I suggest you read the letter to the Romans a bit more and see what I say is true. Hey, I am just a Catholic Christian in the pew that goes to Church but I do know this…when I was a child, I spoke as a child talked as a child and understood as a child and now that I am a man I understand the letter to the Romans not as a child but as a grown man.
CopticChristian,

Thank you for that. I have read Romans many times. I agree with your interpretation up to the bold section. It’s not that it’s a formula but rather that it is a statement of fact. That Paul was talking to the Church at Rome with regard to the Jewish Covenant does not mediate its truth. The fact still remains that if you confess Christ and believe it in your heart you are saved. That is a statement of fact that is true for all Christians. That’s why Paul wrote to remind the church at Rome of that.

If you look at 1 John the 4th chapter you see why this is so. In 1 John we are told that you cannot confess Christ without being of God. What’s more, we are told that God is love and a believer holds that love/God within our hearts. Again, you can’t have that love in your heart without being saved. If you are not saved you cannot confess Christ. This doesn’t change.
 
CopticChristian,

Thank you for that. I have read Romans many times. I agree with your interpretation up to the bold section. It’s not that it’s a formula but rather that it is a statement of fact. That Paul was talking to the Church at Rome with regard to the Jewish Covenant does not mediate its truth. The fact still remains that if you confess Christ and believe it in your heart you are saved. That is a statement of fact that is true for all Christians. That’s why Paul wrote to remind the church at Rome of that.

If you look at 1 John the 4th chapter you see why this is so. In 1 John we are told that you cannot confess Christ without being of God. What’s more, we are told that God is love and a believer holds that love/God within our hearts. Again, you can’t have that love in your heart without being saved. If you are not saved you cannot confess Christ. This doesn’t change.
You want to believe and others to believe that Paul wrote 11 chapters of a letter about obedience of Faith and you want to pluck one verse out and believe that it is a formula for conversion. I don’t believe that. You can. It makes no sense to take it out of context. Paul is addressing the Judaizing Christians and quoting throughout the letter, Genesis, Deuterotonmy, Isaaih, Psalms

He appeals to the Judaizing Christians by rreminding them of the song of Moses at the end of Deuterotonmy and even mentions Moses in the beginning of 10…
5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say?/
QUOTE]

What does what say??? Deuterotonmy.
11“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12“It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13“Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14“But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
Code:
  15“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17“But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

Paul is saying, you did not listen to Moses. You did not obey then and after all these generations you are not listening to me, I am a type of Moses. You can’t save yourself through the Old Covenant as I pointed out in Chapter 7, you need to get Baptized as I pointed out in Chapter 6. Your notion of Circumcision and the Covenant is not what you need as I pointed out in Chapter 2 and 3…and all who come through the Church through Baptism, not cirucmcision will be saved if you believe it.

Now this is how I see it.
 
You want to believe and others to believe that Paul wrote 11 chapters of a letter about obedience of Faith and you want to pluck one verse out and believe that it is a formula for conversion. I don’t believe that. You can. It makes no sense to take it out of context. Paul is addressing the Judaizing Christians and quoting throughout the letter, Genesis, Deuterotonmy, Isaaih, Psalms

He appeals to the Judaizing Christians by rreminding them of the song of Moses at the end of Deuterotonmy and even mentions Moses in the beginning of 10…
CopticChristian,

I hear what you are saying, but I ardently disagree. In order to agree with you I’d have to believe that the scriptures, as the inspired word of God, lay out different ways to salvation for different groups of people. For former Jews they can speak and believe, but for us gentiles it is something else entirely. To me, this is an illogical position. If it is a fact for former jews it is a fact for all followers of Christ.

What’s more, it is in line with tradition to take lessons from events that occurred within different contexts. Christ himself taught this way through the use of parables. We don’t look at the woman with the issue of blood and say that when Christ said your faith has made you whole he was talking to her specifically, so faith will only make you whole if you have an issue of blood.
[/QUOTE]
 
Sorry, can’t help you out on these “technicalities” of faith, but to let you know that as a protestant that roamed through many, many protestant “faiths”, so many very true to Christ, I have now found through a 3 year study and prayer found the “missing piece of the puzzle”, the Catholic Church IS the Church He founded and you can trust to remain true. Although evil men were apart of the church HE REMAINED faithful to His promise to HIS CHURCH and is still there…oh, my , YES, YES, YES!!! I have prayed for HIs guidance and found Him in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. I didn’t even know what this was…but, oh the amazing power of His presence there!!! IF you don’t know this (as I didn’t) GO, pray there and if you know HIM you will KNOW HE IS THERE!!! Alleluia!! I challenge you to honestly ask Him to show you, then go to a Catholic “Adoration” hour and pray before the Blessed Sacrament in the “monstrance” and tell me if you don’t really know He is present…it was an “eye opener”…by the Holy Spirit. THEN, read the early Church Fathers (Augustine, etc.) and you will be in “awe” as to what you NEVER thought possible 🙂 I never ever thought I’d become Catholic but the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church, it is amazing…the last “piece of the puzzle” in my faith journey!! I’m so grateful to have found this and want the same for all those who truely seek Him as I did also to know.

My prayers,
mlz
You have now used up all the exclamation points in the universe and no one else can use any …

😃

Welcome Home to someone who obviously “gets it” and loves the Church. (see I would have put an exclamation point there but I have to wait until they are re-stocked…)
 
I move around a lot (work related) so I have been a member of several different baptist church that have belonged to several different conventions including Southern Baptist, American baptist, Progressive baptist, and National Baptists. Of course I can’t speak for all, but I do have a wide range of experience with Baptist churches.

I have never met a Baptist that had a “problem” with Catholics. Do Baptists and Catholics disagree on some things? Absolutely, we do. Nevertheless, I was always taught that if you have confess Christ as your savior, if you believe it in your heart, and if you try to walk in his example and according to his requirements of us, you are saved. Unlike many other protestant groups, Baptists do not believe that only Baptists are saved.

To this point, my great aunt passed away a few years back. Although she was raised Baptist, she converted to Catholicism some time in the 60s. Upon her death, she was memorialized by her Catholic Pastor and a Baptist minister. Both shared the same pulpit. Both expressed how much my aunt walked the walk, and how she was surely on her way to heaven.

Further, I want to a Catholic school when I was in grade school. We had no issues with it. My mother, to this day, goes to a Catholic masses if she cannot make it to her Baptist church (which is far away). She has been a dyed in the wool Baptist her whole life.
I must conclude that you do not get out much.

😃

Your experience is definitely NOT typical. A Baptist going to a Catholic Mass? :eek:
 
QUOTE=CopticChristian;9137193]
CopticChristian,

I hear what you are saying, but I ardently disagree. In order to agree with you I’d have to believe that the scriptures, as the inspired word of God, lay out different ways to salvation for different groups of people. For former Jews they can speak and believe, but for us gentiles it is something else entirely. To me, this is an illogical position. If it is a fact for former jews it is a fact for all followers of Christ.

What’s more, it is in line with tradition to take lessons from events that occurred within different contexts. Christ himself taught this way through the use of parables. We don’t look at the woman with the issue of blood and say that when Christ said your faith has made you whole he was talking to her specifically, so faith will only make you whole if you have an issue of blood.

DizzyMrs,

I understand you see things as you were taught. This is not my first rodeo. You are correct that there is one plan of salvation, the mystery hidden for all ages. I could click and paste however go to this link and view post #3 and you will see that I have explained this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615741

You are dodging the real issue by going to another topic. Stay with the letter to Romans. Yes Pauls speaks of Obedient Faith. He uses several different examples in the letter as those that manifested that Faith, Abraham, David…and he says that in Chapters 2 & 3 that works/circumcision and entry into the Old Covenant won’t do it and differentiates the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law by stating that the Gentiles who have not the Law are a law unto themselves and are circumcised of the heart. He also points out that the doer of the law will be “justified”…huh Protestant say I have Faith to be justified.
13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
Read Romans 2 and note the doing…and then when you get to 25 Paul uses the word circumcision…
25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Notice and count how many times Paul speaks of circumcision and uncircumcision. He is beating the Judaizing Christians over the head with the notion of Circumcision. He then goes on to develop the thought and then says…
27Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
Code:
  31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Paul then like a good teacher uses examples and then answers the question as to sin. Notice how he questions living in sin. Why would he say die in sin and living sin. Notice death and life and then folllows with what the entire Christian community, recall he wrote to Christisn, what the entire community will acknowledge. They have been baptized. For if you have been baptized, recall he preceeded this with die in sin and living in sin and then immediately says…"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized…that includeds Paul…Baptism.
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.
This is in the middle of the 11 page letter. I don’t know about you but if I write a thesis, a letter, something of importance I usually get to the point right in the middle, not at the end. When you understand this you will then see that when he gets to Romans 10 that he is doing a summary…

Recall that in Romans 7 he beats them over the head again and points out that the Old Covenant is like a dead spouse and then points out in Romans 8 that the Holy Spirit will aid them.

Peace.🙂
[/QUOTE]
 
This is a question that is primarily for Catholics who dialogue with Protestants.

I will parenthetically observe that I personally don’t refer to my Church as ‘Roman’ Catholic, since I believe that to do so is to concede this point to Protestants who have unjustifiably appropriated the term for themselves. My Church is the only Catholic Church that has ever existed, exclusive of their unfounded claims, identical with the Church of the Apostles.

?
I never though that the term “Roman” Catholic was a protestant construct, but rather a way of distinguishing from the five authentic Catholic Churches; Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome and Constantinople.
 
I never though that the term “Roman” Catholic was a protestant construct, but rather a way of distinguishing from the five authentic Catholic Churches; Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome and Constantinople.
It is a Protestant construct (in the same way that “Lutheran” was originally a Roman Catholic construct, coined by John Eck). I believe, and a studied Anglican may know more on this, that the term was first used in England, under Elizabeth, to separate into a category those Christians that were in communion with the Pope from those that were Anglican. You will never find it used prior to the 17th century.
 
It is a Protestant construct (in the same way that “Lutheran” was originally a Roman Catholic construct, coined by John Eck). I believe, and a studied Anglican may know more on this, that the term was first used in England, under Elizabeth, to separate into a category those Christians that were in communion with the Pope from those that were Anglican. You will never find it used prior to the 17th century.
According to my reading, this is correct, though I am not so sure the term was totally unknown before the early 1600s. It was coined as an alternative to the invidious “Romish” or “Romanist” terminology, generally not including “Catholic” (i.e., “Romanish Church/clergy”, etc).

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
I am an Anglican Catholic in the Anglican Communion—***Catholic ***is viewed as universal–all Christians, in all times, in all places. This is closer to the more ancient understanding of the word Catholic, as noted in The Original Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Catholic.—The word Catholic (katholikos from kath holou—throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. . . . .”
Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic
Hello Anna Scott, I can understand someone being Catholic (recognizing the Pope as the head of the Church) and someone being Anglican. But I am confused on how you can be both.
Most people realize the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.
Who is the visible head of your church?

Peace
David
 
Hello Anna Scott, I can understand someone being Catholic (recognizing the Pope as the head of the Church) and someone being Anglican. But I am confused on how you can be both.
Most people realize the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.
Who is the visible head of your church?

Peace
David
David,

Must someone acknowledge that the Pope to be head of the Church for the Pope to be head of the Church.

I acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church. Great that means he must be the head of the Church.

I disavow that the Pope as head of the Church. Wow that means that I acknowedge and you disavow therefore the Pope is not head of the Church.
 
“For in the Catholic Church. . . . When a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” -St. Augustine

nuff said.

As someone who’s not joined to the Catholic Church I will no longer call myself under any circumstances “Catholic/catholic/Anglo-Catholic” it’s self delusion otherwise.

EDITED TO ADD…(the full sentence just so there’s no misunderstanding)

“The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”

Pretty clear eh?👍
 
David,

Must someone acknowledge that the Pope to be head of the Church for the Pope to be head of the Church.

I acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church. Great that means he must be the head of the Church.

I disavow that the Pope as head of the Church. Wow that means that I acknowedge and you disavow therefore the Pope is not head of the Church.
I am trying to understand why someone would call themselves Catholic, and not acknowledge the fact, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. I hope I was more clear this time.
Peace
David
 
I am trying to understand why someone would call themselves Catholic, and not acknowledge the fact, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.
Because they realize that the early Church called itself “Catholic”, so they separate out the meaning of the word “katholikos”-- universal-- from the designation of the Church that was called catholic. They then imagine the early Church to have been a sort of a generic “mother-church” for all Christian faiths that exist today, & they say to themselves, “Hey! I’m part of that too-- so I’m just as much a catholic as a member of the Catholic Church is.” This approach, of course, ignores issues like doctrine, the teachings of the old Church Fathers, the Apostolic Succession, & so forth-- but few Protestants even understand those issues, & those that do don’t embrace them as essential.
 
Right, IMHO the point was well spoken on in this thread. My Lord we act like TRIBES at war calling each other Cults and rebuking other Christians in condemnation. And a great deal resides in the leaders of these churchs.

What in the world good does it do to Unite Christianity by teaching a learned behavior of hate and lack of compassion? In fact its Non Christian.

The idea of not agreeing is simply that. Its a far stretch to extend into cults and hate from their. Its just unreal and we have little time for this in this period of social transition.

The Anglicans call themselves a Motley Crew, 😉 Christianity looks a like a Motley Crew as a whole. 😃

May God have Mercy on Us.
 
DizzyMrs,

I understand you see things as you were taught. This is not my first rodeo. You are correct that there is one plan of salvation, the mystery hidden for all ages. I could click and paste however go to this link and view post #3 and you will see that I have explained this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615741

You are dodging the real issue by going to another topic. Stay with the letter to Romans. Yes Pauls speaks of Obedient Faith. He uses several different examples in the letter as those that manifested that Faith, Abraham, David…and he says that in Chapters 2 & 3 that works/circumcision and entry into the Old Covenant won’t do it and differentiates the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law by stating that the Gentiles who have not the Law are a law unto themselves and are circumcised of the heart. He also points out that the doer of the law will be “justified”…huh Protestant say I have Faith to be justified.

Read Romans 2 and note the doing…and then when you get to 25 Paul uses the word circumcision…

Notice and count how many times Paul speaks of circumcision and uncircumcision. He is beating the Judaizing Christians over the head with the notion of Circumcision. He then goes on to develop the thought and then says…

Paul then like a good teacher uses examples and then answers the question as to sin. Notice how he questions living in sin. Why would he say die in sin and living sin. Notice death and life and then folllows with what the entire Christian community, recall he wrote to Christisn, what the entire community will acknowledge. They have been baptized. For if you have been baptized, recall he preceeded this with die in sin and living in sin and then immediately says…"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized…that includeds Paul…Baptism.

This is in the middle of the 11 page letter. I don’t know about you but if I write a thesis, a letter, something of importance I usually get to the point right in the middle, not at the end. When you understand this you will then see that when he gets to Romans 10 that he is doing a summary…

Recall that in Romans 7 he beats them over the head again and points out that the Old Covenant is like a dead spouse and then points out in Romans 8 that the Holy Spirit will aid them.

Peace.🙂
I was not dodging the question. I was pointing out how your reading of Romans is inconsistent with the purpose of scripture. Your position is wholly illogical to me. I’m not one for circular argumentation, so with that, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Have a Blessed day! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top