Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeadingBackHome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
Sorry,but my intentions were not meant to be rude.
Click to expand...
Ok, in that case I apologise too! Hard to judge someone’s tone over the internet!
I mean one reason the reformation happened was due to abuses in the church-right? That is what I asked you what does reform mean? Evidently reformed was much needed and at times God needs to clean house.
Click to expand...
Indeed theology is always one area of concern or disagreement. However, I disagree with Sola fide because I find it unbiblically incorrect.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think we might have to agree to disagree. :o
 
aidanbradypop said:
You are exactly correct. I am Catholic…just not Roman Catholic. I Venerate the Blessed Mother…I believe in the communion of saints…the RP…I just do not need the pope to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that is how the other 11 felt about Peter?
 
JonNC said:
Luther didn’t “add” alone. His was a translation, not a transliteration. People can disagree with the use of alone in helping the text reflect in German what was said in the Greek, but that is different than “adding”.
Click to expand...
How in the world is it different? The word he added to Romans 3:28: “allein” (alone in English), is not in the original Greek

It makes St. Paul say something different than he really said. Further, it makes St. Paul’s letter conflict with St. James. The obvious solution, then, is to relegate St. James to “apocryphical” status. :rolleyes:
 
JonNC said:
I suspect if one translated Greek into English without “adding” words, it would be incomprehensible. Translation is not word for word from one language into another.

Jon
Click to expand...
True. But “translators” should avoid changing meanings.
Luther added the word to eisegete.
 
Novocastrian said:
Ok, in that case I apologise too! Hard to judge someone’s tone over the internet!

Fair enough. I think we might have to agree to disagree. :o
Click to expand...
I just find Sola fide as an escapist maneuver. It is more than just faith alone.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
True. But “translators” should avoid changing meanings.
Luther added the word to eisegete.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I am constantly writing from English to Spanish and one has to be very careful.Yes, it is true at times exact words cannot be used,but as you said, the meaning should remain the same for both languages.
 
JonNC said:
Luther didn’t “add” alone. His was a translation, not a transliteration. People can disagree with the use of alone in helping the text reflect in German what was said in the Greek, but that is different than “adding”. The proof of this is what you have discovered; the word alone isn’t in the English because it isn’t necessary in the English for the text to make sense to the English speaker.

I suspect their canons were rather early on as well. There has never been a universally accepted canon in the Church. There have always been disputed books, long before the Reformation era. Luther’s Bible includes 74 books, and the Lutheran confessions to not identify a specific canon by books.

My guess would be that few Lutherans are Lutheran and not Catholic simply because of the disputed books of the Deuterocanon.

Jon
Click to expand...
The East (Orthodox) and West (Catholics) both agree that the deutorocanonical books were/are scriptural, i.e., they never were disputed prior or post reformation (that should tell you something) by either Church. However, since, the reformation, said books are now considered apocrypha by Protestants, my question to you is where did this idea come from, i.e., it’s not from the Catholics or Orthodox? Moreover, there is a difference between some people opining that certain books were questionable as opposed to a whole Church decreeing it as such, i.e., Trent settled the matter that these books were scriptural (there were always dissenting voices about all manner of things but issues got settled). The Orthodox have not held an ecumenical council on such matters because they haven’t had to, i.e., unless a movement within their church begins to put in question these books they hold sacred, i.e., something equivalent to what happened in the West.

It’s unfortunate that the Orthodox and Catholics are in schism, but that should not stop Protestants from seeing the beliefs we hold in similarity (because of Sacred Tradition), but which Protestants forsook.
 
I’ll answer this at the risk of being flamed. I am a Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I had intended to join the RCC at one point, but, upon further study, I found that there are too many similarities between the RCC and the Mormon “church” for my liking, e.g. Both claim they are “The One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ, both claim that there is NO salvation outside of their churches, and the big one for me: Both teach for doctrine the commands of men. This is my reason (alone) why I will not be Roman Catholic.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
True. But “translators” should avoid changing meanings.
Luther added the word to eisegete.
Click to expand...
I would obviously disagree. Again, if the intent was to eisegete, then Lutheran English Bibles would also contain alone. They would have to in order to maintain the alteration in meaning.

Jon
 
batman1973 said:
I’ll answer this at the risk of being flamed. I am a Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I had intended to join the RCC at one point, but, upon further study, I found that there are too many similarities between the RCC and the Mormon “church” for my liking, e.g. Both claim they are “The One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ, both claim that there is NO salvation outside of their churches, and the big one for me: Both teach for doctrine the commands of men. This is my reason (alone) why I will not be Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
Everyone claims to be the one true church. What does your church claim it is not a true church? It is one of many which might be true? You’ll have to further elaborate. The Mormon parallel is obviously a false analogy.

No Salvation Outside the Church is an infallible apostolic teaching from antiquity…St Cyprian -250 AD
 
GaryTaylor said:
Everyone claims to be the one true church. What does your church claim it is not a true church? It is one of many which might be true? You’ll have to further elaborate. The Mormon parallel is obviously a false analogy.

No Salvation Outside the Church is an infallible apostolic teaching from antiquity…St Cyprian -250 AD
Click to expand...
From a Lutheran POV the church is the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. From that one can see where the church is. It is harder to tell where it is not

Jon
 
JonNC said:
From a Lutheran POV the church is the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. From that one can see where the church is. It is harder to tell where it is not

Jon
Click to expand...
I follow Jon, that affirms no salvation outside the church, it would be in line Bishop Wares elaboration on No Salvation. I concede there are further implications of the doctrine but not in the regard we are speaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top