Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[drblank1]

Dr., are you really a Dr? If so of what type?

Dr., if not St. Ignatius, I can quote many other Early Church Fathers who refer to the Catholic Church, singular. Its consistent with Scripture itself whereby Jesus Christ established A Church, built upon St. Peter and promises to send the Holy Spirit to lead this Church to all Truth. Here’s a short article on St. Ignatius. That later Church Fathers quote him gives credence to his testimony.

Depend on what you mean by working. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion and per Christ’s words is calling all to the fullness of Truth. The fact that Protestantism is so divided even within itself on faith and morals points to the fullness of Truth being elsewhere.

On doctrine yes. On other teachings we are to give the assent of faith. Why? Because we believe firmly that Christ established the Church, leading it to all Truth on faith and morals. To disobey the Church Christ established is to disobey Christ. Best to find the Church Christ established and conform our lives to its teachings.

One of the beautiful things about Catholicism is we are the original “Bible Christians”. The bible itself was written, by for and about the Catholic Church, in part to have a universal set of readings at Mass. That said, we are not a Church that comes from the Book. Rather, the Church holds fast to both Tradition and Scripture, just as scripture says that we ought to do. The Magisterium has protected both, the Deposit of Faith since the death of Christ. At the same time, Christ protects his Church from all error. That is why Catholics turn to the authority of the Church for discerning questions related to the faith. And for sure, heresy was an issue already in St Peter’s day as it is today.

2 Peter 2
2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

We see this today with teachings that tear down the Body of Christ, denying the authority of His Church, saying that the Lord’s Supper is only “Symbolic”, that Baptism is non-salvific, that infants should not be baptized, that the Sacraments that Christ gave us to receive his grace are not needed as OSAS teaches.

Similar, Paul in writing to the Galatians says the same thing. There are many contrary gospels floating around today, completely separated from the apostolic faith.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

And exacly my point. When ideas are taught that are BEYOND the gospels, you are to test them against the Word of God. Certainly, you do not believe that the sale of indulgences were inspired of the Holy Spirit yet it was sactioned by the Catholic church. But to questions the leadership of the Catholic church at that time was to face excommunication or worse. Yet 2 Peter instructs us (the laypeople of the church) to guard against such things.

And certainly, salvation is freely given to us from God through faith in Jesus Christ. The very definition of sacrament is when grace flows freely from God to a Christian. Do you agree that grace does not flow to a non-beliver and baptism is a sacrament? Baptism does not cause you to become a Christian. Baptism is in outward sign of inner faith.

And regarding communion, the Bible clearly describes every miracle in detail when Jesus preformed them, yet at the last supper, the wine and bread were not described as such.

 

[josie_L]

And exacly my point. When ideas are taught that are BEYOND the gospels, you are to test them against the Word of God. Certainly, you do not believe that the sale of indulgences were inspired of the Holy Spirit yet it was sactioned by the Catholic church. But to questions the leadership of the Catholic church at that time was to face excommunication or worse. Yet 2 Peter instructs us (the laypeople of the church) to guard against such things.

The SALE of indulgences was NEVER sanctioned by the Catholic Church, i.e., individual Catholics have abused the practice of issuing indulgences, much like simony abused the role and dignity of the bishopric (neither was an acceptable form of practice in the Church). Here is what the authoritative voice of Trent (1545-1564) had to say about the sale of Indulgences:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

 

[Porknpie]

And exacly my point. When ideas are taught that are BEYOND the gospels, you are to test them against the Word of God. Certainly, you do not believe that the sale of indulgences were inspired of the Holy Spirit yet it was sactioned by the Catholic church. But to questions the leadership of the Catholic church at that time was to face excommunication or worse. Yet 2 Peter instructs us (the laypeople of the church) to guard against such things.Dr. , the Church has now and in the past and will in the future, sinners. Do not confuse sinners with the protection Christ gives the Church on faith and morals.

And certainly, salvation is freely given to us from God through faith in Jesus Christ. The very definition of sacrament is when grace flows freely from God to a Christian. Do you agree that grace does not flow to a non-beliver and baptism is a sacrament? Baptism does not cause you to become a Christian. Baptism is in outward sign of inner faith.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Another thing to reflect on regarding the Eucharist. If you believe that Christ taught his apostles without error, then how do you explain that wherever the apostles went to evangelize, they set up Church’s with the belief in the Real Presence. No where in the early Church was there a belief…anywhere mind you…in a symbolic Lord’s Supper. This is an invention of man some 1,500+ years later that tears at the One Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that if my faith is wholy based on God’s Word, then I cannot go wrong.

This is, indeed, very Catholic.

Where you have gone wrong, however, is to exclude a whole other channel of God’s Word: Sacred Tradition.

And remember, it was Sacred Tradition which gave you the 27 book canon of the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

But back to the subject, you cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is working in other denominations as well. What concerns me is the Catholic church says to believe everything that is taught by the church without question.

There is a problem here, drblank, when you promote something as “the Catholic Church says”, when you have been sorely misinformed.

The CC has never said that we must "believe everything that is taught by the church without question.’

If that were true, then Catholic Answers, which serves to provide answers to…

er…

Catholic QUESTIONS

would not exist.

Nor would our saints be telling us things like: Fides quaeren intellectum.

Nor would our popes be writing encyclicals called: Faith and REASON.

So I suggest you learn a little be better what the faith is that you are objecting to here, before you dialogue further.

 

[adrift]

And exacly my point. When ideas are taught that are BEYOND the gospels, you are to test them against the Word of God. Certainly, you do not believe that the sale of indulgences were inspired of the Holy Spirit yet it was sactioned by the Catholic church.
This is a myth that has been spread because of anti-Catholicism and ignorance.

But to questions the leadership of the Catholic church at that time was to face excommunication or worse. Yet 2 Peter instructs us (the laypeople of the church) to guard against such things.

Your opinion but not based on scripture. The disciples left because it was to hard a saying. Jesus was clear at the last supper THIS IS couldn’t be clearer.

 

[PRmerger]

That is why anyone who uses RC to describe the Catholic Church displays an uninformed provincialism.

It is like calling everyone who looks Asian “Chinese”, since Chinese people are the most populous.

 

[PRmerger]

The word “catholic” was defined by the Church way before any dictionary came into use, in other words, if you want a true definition of the meaning then you’re going to have to rely on the Church fathers.

p.s. I am of the latin rite, therefore, Roman Catholic, but there were/are other rites which comprise the Catholic Church, i.e., Byzantine rite, therefore, Eastern Catholic . . .etc., the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Catholic (universal) Church. Those who have left the CC are regarded as such:

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

Yes. It appears that everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic church?” we all know to which church he is referring (paraphrasing St. Augustine).

 

[PRmerger]

1. God sent Moses and Elijah(who was raptured in the OT). Jesus did not pray to them but verbally spoke with them.

That is what Catholics are doing, as well. We are speaking with those who are alive in Christ.

Prayer does not equal worship, necessarily, in the Catholic world.

That is because the highest form of worship, the Divine Liturgy, surpasses all other forms of prayer.

Your prayer is your worship, because you have no other way to worship God.

Catholic worship, however, is encompassed in the Mass, and therefore, our prayers are not necessarily restricted to worship.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, now PR, you are not only adding to my words, but moving the goalpost outward, that’s unbecoming. If you are going to study something, how do you do it? If I set you a task of studying “cognitive dissonance” how would you do it? If I set you a task of studying the book of Genesis from a Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspective, how would you do it?

I do it the way every other person does it: I read the words of those I trust and believe what they say.

You, however, say that we ought not do this. That you must come up with ideas independently, without deferring to anyone else’s authority…which is why you say that you don’t rely on the CC, but rather have studied the 27 book canon of the NT on your own.

I don’t believe that you could possibly do this, except through deferring to the authority of some other entity.

You deny this.

And I respond: even if you deny that you defer to the authority of the CC, you actually do.

Each and every time you quote from Hebrews as the inspired Word of God, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

Just like each and every time I do.

 

[PRmerger]

You are making something mystical and unknowable that is actually extremely accessible and has been accessed by me and others, including Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan.

Absolutely.

And that is because they all deferred to Sacred Tradition.

Which is exactly what everyone does who quotes from the 27 book canon of the NT.

It was studied and promulgated in the early church.

Yep. And that is what is called: Sacred Tradition.

You have to make the claim that the modern RCC is responsible for giving the rest of Christendom the Bible because you think it proves something.

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever said “that the modern RCC is responsible for giving the rest of Christendom the Bible.”

But I have said that it is indeed the CC that gave you and all of Christendom the 27 book canon of the NT.

This is indisputable.

I’m sorry, but we owe the Bible to God, not to the modern RCC.

Well, that’s like saying, “Babies come from God and not from their parents!”

Why create a dichotomy?

It’s God who gave us the Bible, but unless you think it floated down from the heavens, leather-bound and in KJV, upon the wings of a dove, then God had to use someone…some entity*…to discern what books belong in it.

*here, read: the Catholic Church

 

[PRmerger]

I am 100% certain that you do not reserve for yourself the right to declare, “I have studied the Epistles of Paul and have determined that they are NOT inspired.”

I most certainly do reserve that right for myself.

:bigyikes:

Then you cannot tell those anti-Pauline folks that they are in error.

'nuff said.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you aren’t making sense. I’ve said from the beginning, you can do exactly what they did.

Excellent.

And what they did was…

wait for it…
wait for it…



discern which books were consonant with the kerygma…

and which books were not.

That is…

a testament to…

one’s submission to…

[SIGN]Sacred Tradition![/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Once more, SS doesn’t discount tradition UNLESS it conflicts with scripture.

But as there was no New Testament around to tell the early church leaders (here, read: bishops) how did they test whether something conflicted with the NT?

So the early Christians didn’t use the NT to test what belonged in the NT. That would be like using the ruler to measure the ruler.

They had to use something else.

What they used to measure whether something conflicted was…

Sacred
Tradition.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

I most certainly do reserve that right for myself. Have you ever seen a church leader rip a book out of a Bible? I have. That pastor reserved that right for himself and boy did he ever do what he said, literally. What book was it? James. Further, there is still no one accepted canon in all of Christendom. Not one. The different Orthodox churches have theirs, the RCC/ECC have theirs, the Protestants have theirs. That IS a comment on which books the different churches find are inspired and which are not.

We aren’t “the different Orthodox churches”. We are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We have various Jurisdictions, but all are under ONE Church. Unless you are counting the Oriental Orthodox/Coptics…that is another group unto themselves and even they are permitted to commune under us through cases of economia (my first parish had a large Eritrean congregation under it, simply because they were without their own parish and priest…they participated in EVERYTHING along with the rest AND had their own study and worship separately after Liturgy, but we were all welcomed to join them as well).

 

[Randy_Carson]

We aren’t “the different Orthodox churches”. We are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We have various Jurisdictions, but all are under ONE Church. Unless you are counting the Oriental Orthodox/Coptics…that is another group unto themselves and even they are permitted to commune under us through cases of economia (my first parish had a large Eritrean congregation under it, simply because they were without their own parish and priest…they participated in EVERYTHING along with the rest AND had their own study and worship separately after Liturgy, but we were all welcomed to join them as well).

MDoM-

I do understand the tradition behind your post, but I’m not sure it makes sense.

Jesus promised to build one Church (on this we agree) upon the rock, kepha, and the successor of Kepha, or Cephas (Peter in English), is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, while Orthodoxy claims to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, Catholicism has the Rock upon which the Church was built.

So, both Catholics and Orthodox claim to be the true Church, but Catholics seem to have the more compelling physical evidence, so to speak.

 

[Kliska]

PR, have a good New Years, the dead horse is begging me to stop. It is enough to know that we will each be proven right or wrong given enough time by the authority we both espouse; God. I expect to answer for my own beliefs and teachings, and to give an account as to why I believe what I do to God Himself. I seek answers from God Himself and His word. You believe you are doing the same through other men. So be it. If we agreed, either you’d be Protestant or I’d be RC.

Prayers for your 2014.

 

[aidanbradypop]

MDoM-

I do understand the tradition behind your post, but I’m not sure it makes sense.

Jesus promised to build one Church (on this we agree) upon the rock, kepha, and the successor of Kepha, or Cephas (Peter in English), is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, while Orthodoxy claims to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, Catholicism has the Rock upon which the Church was built.

So, both Catholics and Orthodox claim to be the true Church, but Catholics seem to have the more compelling physical evidence, so to speak.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, have a good New Years, the dead horse is begging me to stop. It is enough to know that we will each be proven right or wrong given enough time by the authority we both espouse; God. I expect to answer for my own beliefs and teachings, and to give an account as to why I believe what I do to God Himself. I seek answers from God Himself and His word. You believe you are doing the same through other men.

sigh!

That you believe that you receive answers from God Himself, without God using men, is amazingly and astonishingly and shockingly absurd to me.

You would not know that God sent His Son, and God gave us a Bible…except that men told you this.

Prayers for your 2014.

Right back at 'cha!