Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeadingBackHome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
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. 🤷
Click to expand...
Randy, I’m sure you are already aware of the Orthodox response to that and all that comes with it, just as I’m aware of the Catholic arguments. My point was against the view of “various Orthodox Churches” as though they aren’t one, when they are. Just as the Eastern Catholics are one with Rome. I disagree that Catholics have more compelling evidence and on that issue we will have to agree to disagree. It is something that I did look into before choosing between the two.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:
 
adrift said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is based on scripture. I’m glad you brought John 6 to light. John did say this was a hard thing for them to hear. But only because they didn’t understand Jesus’ symbolic language. Jesus let those disciples leave because 1. He knew from the beginnig they were not with him and 2. There were many examples when those Jesus preached to didn’t understand what he was saying and he let them go away without understanding.

Jesus was not only the perfect human, he was also a perfect Jew. Lev. 17:10,11 specifically forbade the consumption of human flesh and blood. He was not suggesting they must do this for salvation. He was being symbolic. Taking this scripture with the harmony of the rest of the gospels, it is easy to see he was speaking symbollically just as he was when he called himself a door, or light, or water, etc… You MUST take the Bible as a whole when considering scripture. Thanks.
 
drblank1 said:
It is based on scripture. I’m glad you brought John 6 to light. John did say this was a hard thing for them to hear. But only because they didn’t understand Jesus’ symbolic language. Jesus let those disciples leave because 1. He knew from the beginnig they were not with him and 2. There were many examples when those Jesus preached to didn’t understand what he was saying and he let them go away without understanding.
Click to expand...
Many examples that He let them go away? I only know of one. I know of none that He let them go without explanation. You really have to try hard to see symbol especially since Jesus says “this IS” hardly the language of symbolism nor is "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in me and I in Him. "
Jesus was not only the perfect human, he was also a perfect Jew. Lev. 17:10,11 specifically forbade the consumption of human flesh and blood. He was not suggesting they must do this for salvation. He was being symbolic. Taking this scripture with the harmony of the rest of the gospels, it is easy to see he was speaking symbollically just as he was when he called himself a door, or light, or water, etc… You MUST take the Bible as a whole when considering scripture. Thanks. ]
Click to expand...
You can say four things. First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.
Click to expand...
Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).
more
Click to expand...
 
I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. I believe, after much study, that the KJV is the most accurate version. By the KJV, catholicism has many conflicts of doctrine.
 
MommaduckofMany said:
Randy, I’m sure you are already aware of the Orthodox response to that and all that comes with it, just as I’m aware of the Catholic arguments. My point was against the view of “various Orthodox Churches” as though they aren’t one, when they are. Just as the Eastern Catholics are one with Rome. I disagree that Catholics have more compelling evidence and on that issue we will have to agree to disagree. It is something that I did look into before choosing between the two.
Click to expand...
Got pope? All the rest are lesser apostles.

But yes, I am familiar with the arguments as well as their flaws.
 
drblank1 said:
It is based on scripture. I’m glad you brought John 6 to light. John did say this was a hard thing for them to hear. But only because they didn’t understand Jesus’ symbolic language. Dr. this doesn’t make any sense at all. That Jesus would confuse the crowds with symbolic language and not help them understand what he was actually saying. And then say that you MUST eat his symbolic body and eat his symbolic blood to have everlasting life. Quite the opposite. The crowds left because they took him literally, and he was speaking literally. Jesus taught the apostles. The apostles taught their descendants. The descendants of the apostles taught their descendants. At this point there still was not a bible and all the Catholic Church’s everywhere, taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No where was The Church teaching a symbolic Last Supper. No where. I highlighted St Ignatius and Justin Martyr earlier. Here’s Clement of Alexandria.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
Jesus let those disciples leave because 1. He knew from the beginnig they were not with him and
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Randy_Carson said:
Got pope? All the rest are lesser apostles.

But yes, I am familiar with the arguments as well as their flaws.
Click to expand...
Have Patriarchs that are equal to yours 😉

Just as I’m familiar with Catholic arguments as well as their flaws 🙂

Again…my intent was directed towards a Protestant misunderstanding of what the EOC consists of. Might not want to shoot someone that has taken time to defend things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common when Protestants are attacking Catholics on those grounds 🙂
 
MommaduckofMany said:
Have Patriarchs that are equal to yours ;)

Just as I’m familiar with Catholic arguments as well as their flaws 🙂

Again…my intent was directed towards a Protestant misunderstanding of what the EOC consists of. Might not want to shoot someone that has taken time to defend things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common when Protestants are attacking Catholics on those grounds 🙂
Click to expand...
All arguments aside, I agree that we should work together, thank you, for helping us.

p.s. The primacy still belongs to the successor of Peter. 😃
 
MommaduckofMany said:
Have Patriarchs that are equal to yours 😉

Just as I’m familiar with Catholic arguments as well as their flaws 🙂

Again…my intent was directed towards a Protestant misunderstanding of what the EOC consists of. Might not want to shoot someone that has taken time to defend things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common when Protestants are attacking Catholics on those grounds 🙂
Click to expand...
To clarify, Jesus Himself in Revelation uses terms of multiple churches; "to the seven churches.’ We also recite the Apostles creed and believe in one holy and apostolic church but it apparently was indeed the custom of Jesus and John to call them multiple churches, as that is their organization. The different churches in the Orthodox branch do have different canon from what I can see; is that not true?
 
Porknpie said:
The OT is fulfilled by the NT and the dietary laws no longer apply. And he clearly, explicity said you must eat his body and drink his blood for salvation. How could the words of Jesus Christ be any clearer? 🤷
Click to expand...
You need to make sure of what you are teaching, as James the head of the church issues guidelines after the gathering in Jerusalem for converts and one of those guidelines is to not imbibe in blood. That is in the NT.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
You should learn more about Protestant worship my friend. We worship through prayer, song, being reverent of God, communion, baptism, study of God’s Word, sacrificial living and many others. Protestants consider all worship in of the higest form because all worship is for the glorification of the Lord.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Epistles from the Apostles.
 
drblank1 said:
You should learn more about Protestant worship my friend. We worship through prayer, song, being reverent of God, communion, baptism, study of God’s Word, sacrificial living and many others. Protestants consider all worship in of the higest form because all worship is for the glorification of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Then you can see that conversing with someone, and asking for their intercession, does not equal worship.
 
drblank1 said:
You should learn more about Protestant worship my friend. We worship through prayer, song, being reverent of God, communion, baptism, study of God’s Word, sacrificial living and many others. Protestants consider all worship in of the higest form because all worship is for the glorification of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Many posters here are former Catholics and evangelicals, do not make assumptions.
As to worship, which Protestant denomination are you talking about? Lutheran and Episcopal worship very much resembles Catholic liturgy.
While “The Rock” church down the road has CCM concerts with thier “million dollar sound system”…and occasional preaching (if they have time).
How exactly does one worship sitting a chair and staring? How does that line up with worship in the Scripture, which you claim to follow.
 
Kliska said:
You need to make sure of what you are teaching, as James the head of the church issues guidelines after the gathering in Jerusalem for converts and one of those guidelines is to not imbibe in blood. That is in the NT.
Click to expand...
Could you please offer us a book, chapter and verse for this?
 
drblank1 said:
The Epistles from the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Freshen up on your history.
Most people in NT times did not know how to read. Their oral skills and memory are what they relied on. Scripture was read, out loud, in public, during the liturgy. There wasn’t a KJV Bible in every pew. So how they measured truth was not each Christian flipping through a Bible. It didn’t work like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top