Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[Stilldreamn]

Then Luther shouldn’t have messed with the translation/interpretation, i.e., there was no need to define “sola fide” if in fact we were both referring to faith as a living faith. And we too believe that all good deeds are due to the graces which we receive and ultimately cooperate with. I don’t believe that the Church defines it “as any righteousness on our part” as that sounds somewhat like Pelagianism.

Josie, maybe our misunderstanding is tied to the “graces which we receive” - specifically, how we get grace. Lutherans believe the Word and Eucharist, received often in the Divine Service are means of grace. Our works of mercy, devotion, etc are not. We don’t think of it as co-operating with grace, because how could we not respond with love and charity as we are filled with God’s love?

I know that the Catholic Church does not teach Pelagianism, and I apologize if it came across like that.

 

[Novocastrian]

I would think that their understanding of what faith was was closer to our understanding than how “indifferently” is I believe defining it, i.e., faith working in love as opposed to just faith alone. There are two ways in which the Bible defines faith: in James, he is referring to faith that is just a belief, i.e., accepted as truth but dead because he is not living out his faith. The faith which Paul writes of in Romans is referring to the faith that we Catholics define as “working in love/charity”, i.e., a living faith. I’ll quote St. Augustine:

Great. I think you’d struggle to find sola fide Protestants who’d disagree with you.

 

[Novocastrian]

Nope you referred that post to my but no worries.

Apocrypha

Depends what’s meant by (deutero-)canonical! They’re certainly canonical in the sense that they’re in the lectionary, the liturgical canon of scripture…

 

[aidanbradypop]

Depends what’s meant by (deutero-)canonical! They’re certainly canonical in the sense that they’re in the lectionary, the liturgical canon of scripture…

True but not in the way a Catholic would view them

 

[Novocastrian]

True but not in the way a Catholic would view them

Depends on whether we count Jerome as a Catholic or not

 

[Novocastrian]

Come again? The universal church founded by: Christ

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

My point is that there’s a huge difference between claiming to be the Church, exclusive of other Christians, and claiming to be part of the Church. Relatively few Protestants would take the former stance.

I take the Hooker line. Rome is *a *true Church, but not *the *true Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Depends on whether we count Jerome as a Catholic or not

I heard Jerome was a Methodist. Well according to Branch Rickey he was

 

[josie_L]

Josie, maybe our misunderstanding is tied to the “graces which we receive” - specifically, how we get grace. Lutherans believe the Word and Eucharist, received often in the Divine Service are means of grace. Our works of mercy, devotion, etc are not. We don’t think of it as co-operating with grace, because how could we not respond with love and charity as we are filled with God’s love?

I know that the Catholic Church does not teach Pelagianism, and I apologize if it came across like that.

But we are still cooperating with God’s grace in the sense that although grace impels us to do good, it is not against our will, thus the usage of the word “cooperation”.

 

[aidanbradypop]

My point is that there’s a huge difference between claiming to be the Church, exclusive of other Christians, and claiming to be part of the Church. Relatively few Protestants would take the former stance.

I take the Hooker line. Rome is *a *true Church, but not *the *true Church.

Awww I love Hooker!

And I would also agree!

 

[Nicea325]

My point is that there’s a huge difference between claiming to be the Church, exclusive of other Christians, and claiming to be part of the Church. Relatively few Protestants would take the former stance.

I take the Hooker line. Rome is *a *true Church, but not *the *true Church.

According to who? Non-Catholics? History speaks volumes over your last statement. The early church fathers also would disagree with your post-Reformation belief.

 

[josie_L]

Nope you referred that post to my but no worries.

Apocrypha

No, that post was not in reference to you, go back (I did), i.e., Isaiah was responding to “indifferently” and I was responding to Isaiah’s post about “Indifferently”.

p.s. Exactly, it is apocrypha, therefore not considered Scriptural, i.e., part of the canon.

 

[ProdigalSun]

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.

God Bless you for your work. How blessed you must be with the graces of God that you share.

May God bless your ministry for generations

Peace!

P.S. there is no reason you can’t continue to do this as a Catholic.

 

[aidanbradypop]

No, that post was not in reference to you, go back (I did), i.e., Isaiah was responding to “indifferently” and I was responding to Isaiah’s post about “Indifferently”.

p.s. Exactly, it is apocrypha, therefore not considered Scriptural, i.e., part of the canon.

Ok josie

 

[Novocastrian]

According to who? Non-Catholics? History speaks volumes over your last statement. The early church fathers also would disagree with your post-Reformation belief.

Not sure it’s post-reformation. I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox don’t think that Rome is the true Church.

 

[josie_L]

My point is that there’s a huge difference between claiming to be the Church, exclusive of other Christians, and claiming to be part of the Church. Relatively few Protestants would take the former stance.

I take the Hooker line. Rome is *a *true Church, but not *the *true Church.

The Bible uses as an analogy to describe the Church the image of a bride/body, i.e., the Church is therefore something cohesive/universal and singular in nature. This idea or understanding that we are just many branches on a tree that represents the Church is not scriptural or sound. Can I recommend a reading from Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI entitled “Called to Communion”. He could do more for you than I ever could in regards to a Catholic’s understanding of Church vis a vis Protestants and Orthodox.

 

[josie_L]

Not sure it’s post-reformation. I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox don’t think that Rome is the true Church.

They don’t have too, but the point is that our understanding of Church is similar in that there is one true Church of Christ, which teaches one baptism, one faith. . . etc. Here is a wonderful quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

"Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with the unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth."

 

[Novocastrian]

The Bible uses as an analogy to describe the Church the image of a bride/body, i.e., the Church is therefore something cohesive/universal and singular in nature. This idea or understanding that we are just many branches on a tree that represents the Church is not scriptural or sound. Can I recommend a reading from Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI entitled “Called to Communion”. He could do more for you than I ever could in regards to a Catholic’s understanding of Church vis a vis Protestants and Orthodox.

I’ve read it, and I think that most of it is great. In fact, it teaches that there are many branches, i.e. the particular churches (dioceses) of the Catholic Church; it simply denies that any communion other than that of Rome can claim to be the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic church in its fullness.

 

[Novocastrian]

They don’t have too, but the point is that our understanding of Church is similar in that there is one true Church of Christ.

I don’t think anybody denies that. We just deny that the essence of the one Church is communion with Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure it’s post-reformation. I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox don’t think that Rome is the true Church.

Has anyone else notice the new Protestant trend in bringing up the Orthodox, without being Orthodox.

Billy, Jimmy and Willy walk into the living room… uhm… I better not, lol.

 

[Novocastrian]

Has anyone else notice the new Protestant trend in bringing up the Orthodox, without being Orthodox.

Billy, Jimmy and Willy walk into the living room… uhm… I better not, lol.

It’s not a new trend. Luther did it, re: married clergy and communion under both kinds.