Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[aidanbradypop]

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.

Willy is an Episcopalian isn’t he lol

 

[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, 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."

Again, most Protestants would agree with that. They’d just say that less is required to be held de fide, and that communion with Rome isn’t the essence of the Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Willy is an Episcopalian isn’t he lol

I

am

not

typing

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

So it has been the scapegoat since?

Must have been throwing candy at my buddy’s hair during this part of class…

Does this make it better to ignore the big elephant in the middle of the room?

 

[frobert]

I suppose at it’s very simplest, I am unconvinced that I must do so in order to be saved. Perhaps I am wrong.

I receive the Grace of God through our Word and Sacraments, forgiveness of sins through Baptism and absolution and the Holy Spirit works through me to do works of mercy and love. Yet we are told we lack the fullness of truth. For me, and with great love and respect for my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, it seems quite sufficient.

 

[josie_L]

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.

I’ve read it as well so I think you are mistaken in saying that he represents particular churches as branches of the Universal Church. Here is a quote from his chapter on “Universal Church and Particular Church”:

The Church is communion, she is the communion of the Word and Body of Christ and is thus communion among men, who by means of this communion that brings them together from above and from within are made one people, indeed, one Body."

p.s. Please look at my last post which you responded to as I edited it.

 

[josie_L]

Again, most Protestants would agree with that. They’d just say that less is required to be held de fide, and that communion with Rome isn’t the essence of the Church.

How can most Protestants agree with this if they don’t agree with each other on major issues, I think you’re missing the point, i.e., there was (still is) ONE TRUE Church of Christ which held to the same beliefs (not less than not more than), and were all in visible communion with each other (Christians actually carried papers with them specifying that they were in communion with so and so, so that when they traveled to different parts of the Church it was understood that they were part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church).

 

[Publisher]

I am not Catholic because I simply do not find it’s historical claims and doctrinal claims compelling enough to “jump in”.

I find some of it’s more “esoteric” teachings not compatible with the world view I have come to embrace.

I am not Catholic because I do not find it’s claims compelling.

 

[Nicea325]

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

Oh but it is whether you care to admit it or not. Please provide one early church father who agrees with your position?

The Orthodox of today? Of course. Again, provide one easterner prior to 1054 who agrees with you?

 

[Nicea325]

I am not Catholic because I simply do not find it’s historical claims and doctrinal claims compelling enough to “jump in”.

I find some of it’s more “esoteric” teachings not compatible with the world view I have come to embrace.

I am not Catholic because I do not find it’s claims compelling.

Not compelling enough? Perhaps you have access to “other” documents which are more compelling? Funny how as a History major I never came these “other” documents which are more compelling? Proof based on pure silence? Weak to say the least.

 

[Nicea325]

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

But here he sure left a new trend: “My way”…and the never ending results 500 years later? No further comments required…

 

[Novocastrian]

But here he sure left a new trend: “My way”…and the never ending results 500 years later? No further comments required…

Yeah, why let facts and more rigorous history get in the way of a good story?

 

[Novocastrian]

The Orthodox of today? Of course. Again, provide one easterner prior to 1054 who agrees with you?

Photios clearly thought Rome could err.

But what exactly are you asking? You’re asking me to show that the Orthodox thought that Rome was not the Church in an age when (they believe) Rome was Orthodox?

 

[Nicea325]

Yeah, why let facts and more rigorous history get in the way of a good story?

Dividing and splitting up Christ Church into scores of denominations is a good story? Perhaps in the eyes of reformers.

 

[Novocastrian]

Dividing and splitting up Christ Church into scores of denominations is a good story? Perhaps in the eyes of reformers.

If you believe your last sentence then you’ve abandoned all claim to be a historian, given that all the evidence is against you. The reformers were as upset about the division of the Church as you are. They wouldn’t have tried to repair the breach otherwise.

 

[Nicea325]

Photios clearly thought Rome could err.

But what exactly are you asking? You’re asking me to show that the Orthodox thought that Rome was not the Church in an age when (they believe) Rome was Orthodox?

We are not talking about comitting errors but your comment that Rome is not the true church. You are forgetting the church is full of sinners and yet Christ promised to guide her into all Truths. Now…I am asking you to provide one eastern church father prior to the 1054 split who believes what you just said:

Rome is a true church,but not true church.

I’ll wait for your sources…

 

[Nicea325]

If you believe your last sentence then you’ve abandoned all claim to be a historian, given that all the evidence is against you. The reformers were as upset about the division of the Church as you are. They wouldn’t have tried to repair the breach otherwise.

Upset at divisions or abuses? Evidence does support abuses,but history does prove the Reformation has reformed squat to keep Christ Church as one.

 

[Novocastrian]

We are not talking about comitting errors but your comment that Rome is not the true church. You are forgetting the church is full of sinners and yet Christ promised to guide her into all Truths. Now…I am asking you to provide one eastern church father prior to the 1054 split who believes what you just said:

Rome is a true church,but not true church.

I’ll wait for your sources…

Why would they say that prior to the schism? Before the schism they’d say that Rome was the true Church, precisely because it was the Orthodox Church!

 

[Novocastrian]

Upset at divisions or abuses? Evidence does support abuses,but history does prove the Reformation has reformed squat to keep Christ Church as one.

I’m curious as to what you mean by this. Could you explain?

 

[Nicea325]

I’m curious as to what you mean by this. Could you explain?

Yes. What is the definition of reform,reformed,reformation? What needed to be reformed?

BTW: Many believe the CC had never reformed prior to Luther.