Protestants who call themselves "Catholic"...

[mrsdizzyd]

I must conclude that you do not get out much.



Your experience is definitely NOT typical. A Baptist going to a Catholic Mass?

Oh really? Well then, I suppose the hundreds of Baptists I’ve met and the many churches I’ve attended across the USA are also not typical?

What’s more, you conveniently ignored the following sentence where I noted that there are difference between the two religious systems. These are doctrinal differences, however, Catholics are no less Christian than we are.

 

[GKC]

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.

I haven’t copyrighted it, but the phrase is mine.

I do permit its use, freely, though. So far, I’ve seen two other Anglicans employ it.

I generally accompany it with a resigned sigh.

GKC

 

[CopticChristian]

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

The only way to know is to ask that person that calls themselves Catholic and does not acknowledge the fact that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church otherwise you are speculating.

Help me understand you. How is it you call yourself Catholic and do not acknowedge the Pope as head of the Catholic Church?

A direct question should yield a direct answer.

 

[CopticChristian]

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!

Dizzy,

I would ask you what is the purpose of Scripture as you understand it as you state here. Are we all not to exhort each other? Am I too ignorant to be taught?

My reading of Romans differs with yours. I would not say that your difference is nothing but a difference and I would interject it probably forms the basis of your belief and for that reason is difficult to entertain. Read it a few times and compare and contrast what you know with what I have written. The worst that will happen is that you will consider that there is a difference.

I completely understand that my position is totally illogical to you. You have to admit that the letter is written to Christians. You will have to admit that Paul begins and ends his letter with “Obedience of Faith”. You will have to admit that Paul uses the word Circumcision interchangeably with works of the Law. You will have to admit that Paul says in Romans 3 “first”. You will have to admit that Paul uses examples of Faith like Abraham and David. You will have to admit that Paul mentions Baptism in Romans 6. You will have to admit that in Romans 7 Paul compares the Old Covenant to a dead spouse. You will have to admit that Paul mentions the Holy Spirit in Romans 8. You will have to admit that Paul does not mention reference to Deuterotomy “confess with your lips” until Romans 10 and that you will then have to admit that Paul never in any other episle references Deuterotomy “confess with your lips…”

Now beyond that I can understand how you might see what I write as illogical.

 

[BrJuniper]

I think the official doctrine of Holy Mother Church is that is is only one Church. This church is Holy, apostolic and catholic. Thus, it is the position of the Roman Rite, and all other apostolic Rites, that the universality of the one Church is not the question, but rather Full Participation. Faith is a gift from God.

 

[couponfit]

This is a question that is primarily for Catholics who dialogue with Protestants.

Thoughts?

Hi, I don’t try! I think it’s best not to demonstrate anything. Make no effort to give instruction or advice or justification or repudiation. If you are sincerely asked, answer. But do so not to disprove the protestant faith but to show your faith and love for the Trinity. Be the witness by your actions and conversion will occur through the holy spirit.

 

[Graehame]

The only non-Catholics who use the word Catholic are some of the wanna-be’s (Polish National Catholic, etc.) and maybe some of the over-the-top catholics such as SSPX.

The SSPX is as catholic (or “Catholic”) as the pope is. For its entire existence the SSPX has held itself to be subject to the pontiff, but in disobedience to some of his commands because of defects in the way in which they were promulgated. At various times SSPX bishops have been excommunicated members of the Church, & at other times the SSPX has verged on schism (as when Archbishop Levebvre consecrated 4 bishops without papal approval), but there’s a huge difference between verging on schism & actually being in schism. Rome has always stopped short of declaring the SSPX to be in schism (a policy that may now, with the breakdown of current negotiations, be coming to an end).

I’d be delighted to debate the entire SSPX situation in a separate thread.

 

[David]

The only way to know is to ask that person that calls themselves Catholic and does not acknowledge the fact that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church otherwise you are speculating.

Help me understand you. How is it you call yourself Catholic and do not acknowedge the Pope as head of the Catholic Church?

A direct question should yield a direct answer.

Yes, that’s what I was asking Anna when you responded to my question for her.

Peace
David

 

[GKC]

Yes, that’s what I was asking Anna when you responded to my question for her.

Peace
David

Let me try it, from an Anglican posture not necessarily that of Anna.

In your taxonomy, the sine qua non of Catholicism is being in communion with the See of Rome, and affirming some Papal dogma, relative to that See. This defines “Catholic” for you, and I would not argue against your affirmation of it.

But Anglicans, and perhaps others, might see the word differently (and I don’t mean merely in the “universal” sense).

For such, Catholic might certainly include those in communion with Rome, as the largest group. But the essential definition is (for such folk) not that factor, but a constellation of qualifications: apostolic succession, validity of orders and sacraments, deriving from such succession, a certain structure of liturgy, full acceptance of the historic Creeds, and an affirmation of the teaching (generally) of the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church.

All these points can be argued, as to who would qualify, or what they might mean, even if they were accepted as compromising Catholicity, in a slightly broader sense. But, theoretically, it might open the word to include the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (in decreasing numbers), the PNCC, some Lutherans, and a vanishing number of Anglicans.

No one expects you to agree with this. Heck, Anna might not. You know the variability of Anglicans.

GKC

 

[Sparrowhawk1161]

Protestants and Catholics have had a giant scism since the time of Luther… where all he wanted was to address some stuff about petitions and the selling of them for money to the church. He felt that salvation through payment was a sin, and petitions to the people in pergatory by buying it was a sin. When the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to his thesis, where he only wanted an audience to discuss his ideas, which the church just turned a blind eye to the discussions, he decided to create his own church… Lutherans.

Lutherans believe that there are no intermediates… You need no advocates. No saints to go to… just go directly to The Lord and your sins are forgiven. That means the magestarium, and the Holy Orders are no longer important. Plus, just because Paul decided to be celebit and have no sexual relations, he told us that by doing this you can ignore the best you can those feelings of procreation and turn your attrention to God completely, yet, saying that it wasn’t necessary for ALL Disciples showed that it was just for him. Not all disciples. Luther said, no there. You don’t have to be celebate because he never said that it had to absolute. But, the most important thing Luther wanted was to allow the Bible to be translated into German!

At this time, People were aliterate, having no abilty to read or write. For the longest time did monarches, even kings went without knowlerdge to read or write thinking it was not important. The Church were the literate ones and had to convey everything.

Protestants have trouble with the idea of saints as advocates, saying that we worship thm. We don’t We ask them to pray for us! to hand over what we want to Jesus. The Magestarium saw this in the dark ages when pagan polytheism was everywhere and, instead of just tagging our God onto a list of all other gods, so they made sure that they covered all the bases, so to speak, the Magestarium found crucial areas of Apostles and Marters who told us WE WILL BE THERE FOR YOU IN HEAVEN. Thus, the advocates pray for you and you can address them to relay your prayers or heart felt conversations to them. Only God, Jesus can answer a prayer, but we know that an advocate can talk to us, relay our feelings. This helps with the idea that God is just up there never caring, an idea of pagan beliefs that never went away. If someone believes that they are just not good enough for salvation, the saints are there to pray for you. “Holy Mother of God, pray for us sinners…”

Protestant… Holy. They see that God the Father and Son and Holyspirit is only worthy of the word Holy. In catholism, Holy has to meanings. A title to God and a reverant person… “reverant saint.”

Everything you do as a Catholic has a root somewhere. The Magisterium, the laying down of hands to the most lowly of persons has a spiritual connection… not erasing sin, but, giving that person significance.

How many times has a protestant asked my why do you do this Catholic? Being a born and trued protestant, I love to tell them Catholism within history and protestant understanding!

The rosary. Why do you pray to a bunch of beads. I love that one. It’s a counting tool. Once I tell them the prayers they say, OK. But what about this “Mother Mary” stuff. “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you amoung women…” wait wait, wait… that’s not…"

“Not what”

“You are giving homage to Mary like she is God!”

“I was just quoting scipture.”

“OH.”

“Blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus”

“What”

“Is not Jesus not blessed coming into the world?”

“Holy Mary.”

“Wait a minute! Holy?”

“In the Catholic church… which means universal church, a church were we all worship the lord togerther is Mary, HOLY.”

“No she can’t. Only God is Holy!”

“From what definition?”

“Hey?”

“There is two definitions of the word “holy.” In ancient times…it was, but if you see it in the dictionary, you will see to meanings. Holy as a title to God. Holy as an adjective… like “Holy man!” This person is holy for what he has done. So, there are two defintions. “Holy Mary.” It descibes a very reverent person. Someone who will not fail us ever… Thus all people of the majestarium, who have a title with “Holy” in it a revetent people worthy of extreme respect. So. Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY… That’s right PRAY for us sinner now and until death. Amen”

See? An advocate. Protestants see a person kneely infront of a saint with there heads bowed never knowing that, the kneeling is out of respect for a great reverent person, the promise that he/she will carry his/ her prayers to God… thinking that they are worshiping that statue. There is a far cry from worshipping a statue and what we do. That staue will never come to life…it will never do anything… and we know that.

St. Paul II. A great Pope and representative of Christ, formed by the laying of hands of the pyramid scheme of the majestarium… was great. I think he was one of the best Popes ever… coming from a born prtestant, for he said that protestants are our brothers and sisters… they have sacraments. They have the necessary elements to inherit the kingdom of God. Even though her believed there where a number of sacrements that he believed should be within the protestant movement, he never swayed from the conviction that Protestants and Catholics were closer than we thought. We are all going to heaven. All he wanted was to merge the two.

That tells me God has realised that the protestant movement and the Catholic, meaning “universal” movement can someday be together… working together as a giant church. How many Popes has even tried this?

 

[Sparrowhawk1161]

To me, I think this is great! One church for everyone recognised completely. The ironing out, a great task, yes, but still there can happen… where there is no admonishing or hatred or anything… just a great church doing what it’s supposed to do… tell the world and nuture those who fallow always.

Protestants who call themselves Catholics? It’s a step in a direction where reconsilation is at hand for both areas to work together in ministry

 

[Anna_Scott]

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,
We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Our use of the word Catholic does not imply submission to the Pope. We use the word Catholic in the ancient universal sense of "all Christians, in all times, and all places, with Christ as head of the Church.

We do have an historical Episcopate through Apostolic Succession, though your Catholic Church has declared our Holy Orders invalid–Of course we disagree. We are not required to “submit religious mind and will” to our Episcopate. This is one of the major differences between Anglican Catholics in the Anglican Communion, and Catholics in Communion with Rome.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Let me try it, from an Anglican posture not necessarily that of Anna.

In your taxonomy, the sine qua non of Catholicism is being in communion with the See of Rome, and affirming some Papal dogma, relative to that See. This defines “Catholic” for you, and I would not argue against your affirmation of it.

But Anglicans, and perhaps others, might see the word differently (and I don’t mean merely in the “universal” sense).

For such, Catholic might certainly include those in communion with Rome, as the largest group. But the essential definition is (for such folk) not that factor, but a constellation of qualifications: apostolic succession, validity of orders and sacraments, deriving from such succession, a certain structure of liturgy, full acceptance of the historic Creeds, and an affirmation of the teaching (generally) of the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church.

All these points can be argued, as to who would qualify, or what they might mean, even if they were accepted as compromising Catholicity, in a slightly broader sense. But, theoretically, it might open the word to include the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (in decreasing numbers), the PNCC, some Lutherans, and a vanishing number of Anglicans.

No one expects you to agree with this. Heck, Anna might not. You know the variability of Anglicans.

GKC

GKC,
I see nothing with which I would disagree. You gave a much more detailed and historical definition of the Anglican use of the word “Catholic.”

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Let me try it, from an Anglican posture not necessarily that of Anna.

In your taxonomy, the sine qua non of Catholicism is being in communion with the See of Rome, and affirming some Papal dogma, relative to that See. This defines “Catholic” for you, and I would not argue against your affirmation of it.

But Anglicans, and perhaps others, might see the word differently (and I don’t mean merely in the “universal” sense).

For such, Catholic might certainly include those in communion with Rome, as the largest group. But the essential definition is (for such folk) not that factor, but a constellation of qualifications: apostolic succession, validity of orders and sacraments, deriving from such succession, a certain structure of liturgy, full acceptance of the historic Creeds, and an affirmation of the teaching (generally) of the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church.

All these points can be argued, as to who would qualify, or what they might mean, even if they were accepted as compromising Catholicity, in a slightly broader sense. But, theoretically, it might open the word to include the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (in decreasing numbers), the PNCC, some Lutherans, and a vanishing number of Anglicans.

No one expects you to agree with this. Heck, Anna might not. You know the variability of Anglicans.

GKC

David,
We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Our use of the word Catholic does not imply submission to the Pope. We use the word Catholic in the ancient universal sense of "all Christians, in all times, and all places, with Christ as head of the Church.

We do have an historical Episcopate through Apostolic Succession, though your Catholic Church has declared our Holy Orders invalid–Of course we disagree. We are not required to “submit religious mind and will” to our Episcopate. This is one of the major differences between Anglican Catholics in the Anglican Communion, and Catholics in Communion with Rome.

Peace,
Anna

The only way to know is to ask that person that calls themselves Catholic and does not acknowledge the fact that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church otherwise you are speculating.

Help me understand you. How is it you call yourself Catholic and do not acknowedge the Pope as head of the Catholic Church?

A direct question should yield a direct answer.

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

See two direct answers above.

The irony in all of this is that the CC acknowledges that Anglicans (and other Christians) are part of the Mystical Body of Christ; and I have seen arguments here that we, outside Communion with Rome, are Catholics and we just don’t realize it. Yet, you are offended by our use of the word Catholic.

Peace,
Anna

Edited to add rinnie’s quote from another thread. Rinnie is Catholic. I applied blue bold color:

There is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The CC is of course Jesus Christ.

With that said, Can you be saved without Baptism? The bible tells us that all must be Baptised in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Did you guys know that ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church??

It is a true fact.

Although they are not Perfectly united they are united to the Catholic Church.

No one can be Baptised in the name of the Trinity and NOT be tied to the RCC.

Hows that for the truth.

Anyone who is baptised in the name of the Trinity is considered a part of his Church. So sorry, if you are Baptised in the name of the Trinity you are indeed part of the CC and welcome to the family

 

[logicone]

In this year of 2012, I would like to know exactly what Protest-ants are Protesting. If one breaks down the the word Protestant and defines it in a neutral background, the term appears to define an entity, person or group that “objects” to something.

There are Christian and non-Christian denominations that define themselves as “Protestant”. In todays world, have these denominations officially defined their role as “protesting” something? I asked a Methodist if he was a Protestant. He said so. Then I asked what is his “protest”, and he had no answer. I also asked what a Methodist is? He could only say it was a church founded by Wesley. I asked again, what is the role of the word Method in his church. He was puzzled. Again, he had no idea if the word Catholic had a specific, accepted and conventional dictionary definition. I replied: Catholic means Universal. I do know there are Anglo-Catholic churches who do not use the term Protestant and actually object to its use. The term Protestant orginated in the 1500-1600’s to define their separation from Roman Catholicism. But, going back to the beginning of my query, is the term Protestant relevant today, and if so, and if a defining precept in certain denominations, is there a spokesman that define the objects of protest?
Thank you for listening.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

GaryTaylor,

Well said, my friend.

Peace,
Anna

 

[PumpkinSeed]

But if you are a protestant, you are not a Catholic. Their beliefs conflict with eachother. (well some of them).

Funny enough I know someone who calls himself a Catholic and a Pentecostal protestant.

I tried to explain to him that its just not possible as they practice/believe different things, but he chose to ignore that.

 

[Anna_Scott]

In this year of 2012, I would like to know exactly what Protest-ants are Protesting. If one breaks down the the word Protestant and defines it in a neutral background, the term appears to define an entity, person or group that “objects” to something.

There are Christian and non-Christian denominations that define themselves as “Protestant”. In todays world, have these denominations officially defined their role as “protesting” something? I asked a Methodist if he was a Protestant. He said so. Then I asked what is his “protest”, and he had no answer. I also asked what a Methodist is? He could only say it was a church founded by Wesley. I asked again, what is the role of the word Method in his church. He was puzzled. Again, he had no idea if the word Catholic had a specific, accepted and conventional dictionary definition. I replied: Catholic means Universal. I do know there are Anglo-Catholic churches who do not use the term Protestant and actually object to its use. The term Protestant orginated in the 1500-1600’s to define their separation from Roman Catholicism. But, going back to the beginning of my query, is the term Protestant relevant today, and if so, and if a defining precept in certain denominations, is there a spokesman that define the objects of protest?
Thank you for listening.

logicone,

Welcome to CAF!!! :flowers:

Yes, we Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Communion do not consider ourselves to be Protestants, though many Anglicans do.

There is no Protestant spokes person.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Izdaari]

Oh really? Well then, I suppose the hundreds of Baptists I’ve met and the many churches I’ve attended across the USA are also not typical?

What’s more, you conveniently ignored the following sentence where I noted that there are difference between the two religious systems. These are doctrinal differences, however, Catholics are no less Christian than we are.

I’m been in a few different Baptist churches too, and I agree that most Baptists don’t have any problem with Catholics. But I know some Independent Fundamental Baptists, and post on a forum frequented by them. On that forum, if I post “Catholics are no less Christian than we are” it’ll provoke a big argument, with at least half disagreeing with me, some very vehemently. But IFB’s are a little different than regular Baptists.

 

[Roy5]

To begin with, the word Protestant combines ‘for’ with ‘protest’. So, in a sense Protestants were speaking out for a reformed Christianity, a Christianity which they felt better reflected the early church. There is, after all, considerable contrast between Jesus, walking the sandy paths of the Holy Land, barely with a place to rest his head, and the Pope who lives amid huge, ornate, medieval structures, even with a summer palace outside of Rome. I don’t want to demean the Pope, by the way, as I admire his mental and physical energy, but often when I watch ceremonies at St. Peter’s on EWTN I have to wonder how Jesus would evaluate them. I’m not sure that he would smile upon all the pomp involved, including all those men (and no women) in their red hats.

  Now, what are Protestants protesting today - remembering that pro test combined testifying for? 

  They vary. The sort of Protestantism that appeals to me (I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage) doesn't focus all that much on precise doctrines and rituals. It is geared to what Jesus said when he was asked how to inherit eternal life. He said love God and love one another - which he then illustrated with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Catholicism, I fear, has crystallized over the centuries so that a 'good Catholic' must accept all those dogmas that have developed out of theology (rather than scripture),  whether transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1854), whether the infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals (defined in 1870) or the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (defined in 1950). Good Catholics will contest this, which is fine. I'm sure that God in his mercy forgives devout Catholics and devout Protestants despite their differences. Actually, I think that the Lord loves and likely forgives Hindus and Buddhists, Jews and Muslims, yes, even atheists and agnostics if they live quality lives according to their consciences.

  Then you have those fundamentalist sola scriptura Protestants, many of whom resemble zealous Catholics. They are convinced that there is only one true path and they are on it. Their beliefs are the only valid ones, and all other religions are at least wrong and maybe the gateway to eternal hell. I have trouble seeing this as valid Christianity - well, as a valid representation of Christ who shocked the ecclesiastical bigshots of his time by reaching out to prostitutes, publicans, Samaritans, lepers and other varieties of outcasts.  

  My main point would be that religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. Isn't it tragic that so much bitterness and bigotry has its roots in religion, even today? If people find comfort and strength in Catholicism, fine. In one or another form of Protestantism, fine. Yes, in Judaism or Buddhism or Sikhism - fine, also. God bless those of every creed, color, culture and country. May we learn to live in peace and with mutual respect.