Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[PRmerger]

So far as formal church structures, my allegiance is to both the TEC and ELCA, since my parish has both formal affiliations and is under a bishop from each. I can’t think of any major doctrines of either that I have a problem with. But since both are pretty broad and tolerant, and generally in agreement with each other, that’s not surprising.

That’s what I find troubling.

The above does seem to represent a type of church-shopping for one’s own ideologies, rather than finding the Church God established, and then conforming one’s views to this.

 

[Izdaari]

That’s what I find troubling.

The above does seem to represent a type of church-shopping for one’s own ideologies, rather than finding the Church God established, and then conforming one’s views to this.

It’s possible. I certainly do not claim infallibility for myself and I’m open to learning new things.

But I also don’t think something is necessarily good for you just because it tastes bad. I happen to like spinach, and brussels sprouts too… but even if I didn’t, I would still acknowledge that they’re nutritious.

And likewise, if I thought another church more divinely correct, more in line with the will of God, I would be willing to swallow some disagreeable doctrine for the sake of spiritual nutrition… but so far I’m not seeing that.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s possible. I certainly do not claim infallibility for myself and I’m open to learning new things.

But I also don’t think something is necessarily good for you just because it tastes bad. I happen to like spinach, and brussels sprouts too… but even if I didn’t, I would still acknowledge that they’re nutritious.

And likewise, if I thought another church more divinely correct, more in line with the will of God, I would be willing to swallow some disagreeable doctrine for the sake of spiritual nutrition… but so far I’m not seeing that.

I understand that.

I just want to put this idea into your head: God is going to give us some disagreeable doctrines.

And it follows then that if one is in a church that happens to agree with all of our own personal views, then chances are we’ve created a god after the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty.

 

[Izdaari]

I hear ya, PR. I’ll bear that in mind.

 

[simpleas]

I did not say God is offended, you did, I said, “he who rejects the Son rejects the Father who sent Him” (that’s scripture), i.e., I don’t know the reasons why people choose to reject Christ, only God knows.

p.s. Jews and Muslims do the best they can to serve God even if their understanding of who He is is incomplete or even wrong.

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you said “offended”. But by rejecting the son, the father is also rejected, so who could the none believers in christ be praying to? Are they still praying to the one true God, the one before he relieved himself in christ?

I’m a crazy confused cookie!

 

[PeopleB4Things]

I don’t think you would hear the fear at the parish level that you hear on CAF. I live in a what might be called by some as a “red-neck” county of Florida and I do not hear that kind of fear at my local parish or elsewhere in the community. Most of the people I know are serious about their religions but I never hear them argue the fine points of religion other than Jesus was our Savoir who instructed us to love God and love our neighbors. I have a theory why that they don’t argue religion is because they haven’t been taught to or told to by their clergy.

I find this to be true as well. No single person follows every rule exactly. Any time you meet someone who thinks they are sinless, beware. If someone is judging you, telling you that you’re going to hell because you’re not following the rules or traditions, you know you are talking to a sinner filled with arrogance and hubris. No one is perfect. No one is sinless. God does not give anyone the right to put the fear into others.

"But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, ‘He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.’ " John 8:7

 

[1rocky1]

Simpleas…the problem with “Baptism” is it is often misunderstood for the context in which it is used. I’m not saying it doesn’t mean “immersion” however there is more than one definition for the word. Study it out for yourself. You’re trying to make a subjective point instead of an objective one based on an inductive word study

Shalom
Walt

 

[josie_L]

I have no access to primary sources regarding him, but then neither are the sources you site primary sources. My understanding is he felt consub was more scripturally sound, but accepted Transub as a Church teaching.
Apparently, the use of Aristotelian metaphysics, even from your sources, seems to arrive on the seen in either the late first millennium or into the second.

Jon

But you’re the one who stated that he was a proponent of consubstantiation, therefore, the onus is on you to provide the material to prove this, i.e., where in his writings does he indicate this heretical view?

 

[josie_L]

Again, there is no “Lutheran” position in the Confessions. A canon is not proscribed. It is simply the practice on how we use the books related to norming doctrine.

Luther broke with Catholic Tradition when he wrote a bible translation which relegated the deuterocanonical books as apocrypha.

Curiously, St. Jerome states his opinion in one of his prefaces:

The preface was not written in the Bible which he translated into Latin, i.e., the deuterocanonicals were included and considered scriptural in his translation of the Bible.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]

As a result, I’m not sure your claim that no Bible prior to the Reformation did not contain the DC’s as canon is entirely accurate.

Again, there was no bible written (by a Catholic) prior to the Reformation that did not contain the DCs as part of the canon. In fact, St. Jerome even utilized those books which he once referred to as non-canonical as being scriptural, in his defense of the faith against heresies:

Nonetheless, we will see in practice that St. Jerome quoted from these books as Scripture, and held them at the same level of inspiration as other Scriptures. If one goes to the index of Quotations from Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, volume 6 (which does not contain all of St. Jerome’s writings), you will see that he refers to and quotes from the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. In my perusal of the index, I found him quoting/referring to passages in the Deuterocanonicals approximately 55 times: Here is a sampling of his quotes:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome,
To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God’s Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes’ assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God’s Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]

But, after all, I consider the DC’s part of the canon of the Bible, because. as Cardinal Cajetan said, *…they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. *Jon

I’m glad that you do, but again, Luther broke with Catholic Tradition by relegating the DCs to apocrypha, in fact, quoting individual Catholics to promote Luther’s “catholicity” and/or exonerate him suggests you have an erroneous view of what Tradition means, in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins (of the 5th century):

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

**"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike. **

 

[josie_L]

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you said “offended”. But by rejecting the son, the father is also rejected, so who could the none believers in christ be praying to? Are they still praying to the one true God, the one before he relieved himself in christ?

I’m a crazy confused cookie!

I believe that the Jews are praying to the one true God but their rejection of Christ means their understanding of who God is is incomplete, also, the catechism states that Muslims profess to worship the same God (but this does not mean that they actually do).

 

[1rocky1]

Millie…the contradiction in what you stated.is two fold. one…purgatory does not exist. If it did it would make the death & resurrection of Christ a vain attempt to redeem mankind, it would make null & void Chrst’s work upon the cross…,the bible is very clear, absent from the body , present with the Lord. Two…Christ died only once…the Catholic tradition of the eucharist is not supported/represented by the passover/Lord’s supper. i would only ask that you provide biblical/scriptural support for those stated positions & i would be glad to do likewise as i already have done so in another post.

Shalom
Walt

 

[cmodrmac]

Birth control-I work as a Physician with the poor and drug addicted-birth control is a blessing

Jesus Christ died for my sins-faith in the Christ offers me salvation

 

[PRmerger]

Birth control-I work as a Physician with the poor and drug addicted-birth control is a blessing

Jesus Christ died for my sins-faith in the Christ offers me salvation

Are you against abortion?

 

[Franklin33]

If God lead myself and my wife to the Catholic Church to feed the homeless, do missions trips, discuss God with passer by’s at local shops, hand out Gospel of Johns, etc, etc. I would probably be a Catholic.

I don’t care about myself. I want others to come to know Christ and so many are because of our mission. If I stand before God and He says that I did not do His will and cannot be in Heaven due to my own incompetence then I’ll take full blame. Perhaps it was my fault, but in the meantime I will continue to preach Christ to all the world as a member of His Church. I will continue to love Him and pray, refraining from sin. He’s doing great things with Evangelicals as well as Catholics, and if I was to be a Catholic and do all the things I’m doing now, I would be fine with that.

It’s in His hands.

SO, why is it you feel you cant lead people to Christ by being a catholic?

 

[Franklin33]

After you show us where mere men were authorized to create their own churches?

@ Nicea…Love your response!!

 

[dronald]

SO, why is it you feel you cant lead people to Christ by being a catholic?

Because I’ve already gotten to know a group who are passionate about Evangelism and all the Catholic Church’s around me are either filled with old people or families. It’s hard to find a group of young adults who want to change lives.

 

[Franklin33]

Come again? The universal church founded by: Christ

All others: Do not have the time to post them all.

 

[cmodrmac]

quote - " Are you against abortion? " -that was not the question right - it was why are you not Catholic?

No I am against abortion - it is a great tragedy however you look at it

If people use birth control they will not feel the need for an abortion

 

[PRmerger]

quote - " Are you against abortion? " -that was not the question right - it was why are you not Catholic?

No I am against abortion - it is a great tragedy however you look at it

If people use birth control they will not feel the need for an abortion

At what point do you think that the human life begins? At conception?

For you are aware, yes, that most artificial contraceptives do not prevent conception?

 

[PRmerger]

For you are aware, yes, that most artificial contraceptives do not prevent conception?

Incidentally, the only non-surgical method of preventing conception (besides, of course, abstinence), is the condom.

If one is truly anti-abortion and pro-birth control, and one believes that life begins at conception, then the health care provider ought to ONLY be recommending condoms (or, abstinence).

From the package insert of the Nuva-ring:
“Combination hormonal contraceptives act by suppression of
gonadotropins. Although the primary effect of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)”