Protestants; why won't you be CATHOLIC!?

[estesbob]

Ah…so spamming across two pages, with nothing else than references, to make effective rebuttal impossible for anyone who also has other things to do with his time is called discussion nowadays…
Gee, I wonder if that works both ways? Methinks it doesn’t.

Do yourself a favor and drop the arrogant attitude. It p…es people off needlessly.

if you are not comfortable and/or unable to defend your beliefs perhaps this is not the place to be.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I can has your signature?

Personally, I find his signature to be a little disingenuous. It’s only part of the etymology of the word, “protestant.” Standing as a witness to what? To a murder? Or the breaking off of Christian’s from Christ’s church?

Protestant etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif 1539, from Ger. or Fr. protestant, from L. protestantem (nom. protestans), prp. of protestari (see protest). Originally used of Ger. princes and free cities who declared their dissent from the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529) denouncing the Reformation. The word was taken up by the Lutherans in Germany (Swiss and French preferred Reformed). It became the general word for “adherents of the Reformation in Germany,” then “member of any Western church outside the Roman communion;” a sense first attested in Eng. in 1553. “In the 17c., ‘protestant’ was primarily opposed to ‘papist,’ and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to ‘Roman Catholic,’ or … to ‘Catholic,’ … it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman.” [OED]Often contemptuous shortened form Prot is from 1725, in Irish English. Protestant (work) ethic (1926) is taken from Max Weber’s work “Die protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus” (1904).
Source: etymonline.com/index.php?term=protestant

Protestants are still protesting.

But then again, it does go along with the why a protestant is not Catholic.

 

[Janet1983]

Personally, I find his signature to be a little disingenuous. It’s only part of the etymology of the word, “protestant.” Standing as a witness to what? To a murder? Or the breaking off of Christian’s from Christ’s church?

Protestant etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif 1539, from Ger. or Fr. protestant, from L. protestantem (nom. protestans), prp. of protestari (see protest). Originally used of Ger. princes and free cities who declared their dissent from the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529) denouncing the Reformation. The word was taken up by the Lutherans in Germany (Swiss and French preferred Reformed). It became the general word for “adherents of the Reformation in Germany,” then “member of any Western church outside the Roman communion;” a sense first attested in Eng. in 1553. “In the 17c., ‘protestant’ was primarily opposed to ‘papist,’ and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to ‘Roman Catholic,’ or … to ‘Catholic,’ … it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman.” [OED]Often contemptuous shortened form Prot is from 1725, in Irish English. Protestant (work) ethic (1926) is taken from Max Weber’s work “Die protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus” (1904).
Source: etymonline.com/index.php?term=protestant

Protestants are still protesting.

But then again, it does go along with the why a protestant is not Catholic.

Protestant is the present participle of protestari “declare publicly, testify, protest”
Protestari from pro- “forth, before” + testari “testify,” from testis “witness”
A Protestant is someone who bears witness…
(Well a protester is bearing witness to… for his or her cause.)

 

[Spooksam]

Welcome. The Mass is not about a “message” It is about worhshipping the Lord and following his admonition to eat his body and drink his blood.

Marian Doctrines seem to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for protestants looking into the catholic Faith. Once you get past the misconception that Catholics worship Mary but instead but revere her as the Mother of Jesus it gets a lot easier to grasp.

The Doctine of her perpetual Virginity has been a belief of the Church since the 1st century. It is based on the need for the “tabernacle”(her womb) to remain ritually clean, as the original tabenacle that held the ark of the covenat was. It would follow that if God rewuired such purity for a tabenacle yhat held the ark would he not want at least as much fo the Tabernacle that held his son?

St Aquinas said for Mary to have had relations after the Birth of Jeus would have been an afron to the Holy Spirit.

Well, if I could just recount observations from the last time I went into the Catholic Church I was raised in - at a family funeral. The ceiling is a massive painting of Mary holding baby Jesus. There were more paintings of Mary than Jesus. During the Mass, whenever the priest made mention of Jesus, he would do a “half bow.” Whenever he mentioned Mary, he would do a full bow. Who is the focus there - Mary or Jesus? Is Mary being worshipped there or just revered? I’ll let everyone here decide for themselves, I’m sure you can guess my answer.

 

[estesbob]

Well, if I could just recount observations from the last time I went into the Catholic Church I was raised in - at a family funeral. The ceiling is a massive painting of Mary holding baby Jesus. There were more paintings of Mary than Jesus. During the Mass, whenever the priest made mention of Jesus, he would do a “half bow.” Whenever he mentioned Mary, he would do a full bow. Who is the focus there - Mary or Jesus? Is Mary being worshipped there or just revered? I’ll let everyone here decide for themselves, I’m sure you can guess my answer.

Im sorry but ancedotal evidence proves nothing. There is nothing in the Rubrics about a Priest bwoing when he mentions the name Mary. Rather than let everyone here dedcide can you post a link to where the Church has now or ever has taught we should worship Mary?

 

[E.E.N.S]

You are incorrect that baptism is needed for salvation In John 3:5 baptism here refers to our natural birth. The in 3 :15-18 Jesus tells us how to be saved and baptism is never mentioned. Jesus did say that faith saves us and not believing condemns us. Jesus never said water baptism saves us. If He did were did He?

Can you show me one verse that says if we are not baptized we are lost?

DLClark, you really need to stop being dishonest is nearly every post you make.

John 3: 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So you’re telling me that this refers to our natural birth? Unless we are naturally born again? LOL, give me a break, any Christian knows that this is referring to baptism! NOBODY can be born again naturally! If what you say is true this is very bad news indeed, as who can go back into their mother to be born again naturally?? LOL…

St. Peter also says, “baptism now saves you…” (cf. 1 Peter 3:21)

Nobody can take you seriously as a Christian when you say such erroneous things!

 

[Publisher]

DLClark, you really need to stop being dishonest is nearly every post you make.

John 3: 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So you’re telling me that this refers to our natural birth? Unless we are naturally born again? LOL, give me a break, any Christian knows that this is referring to baptism! NOBODY can be born again naturally! ** If what you say is true this is very bad news indeed, as who can go back into their mother to be born again naturally?? LOL…**

St. Peter also says, “baptism now saves you…” (cf. 1 Peter 3:21)

Nobody can take you seriously as a Christian when you say such erroneous things!

Didn’t Nicodemus ask the same question?

While as a Friend I have never been baptized with water…I have been born naturally and from above through the Spirit. Not all Christians have your belefs but they still are Christians.

 

[Janet1983]

Im sorry but ancedotal evidence proves nothing. There is nothing in the Rubrics about a Priest bwoing when he mentions the name Mary. Rather than let everyone here dedcide can you post a link to where the Church has now or ever has taught we should worship Mary?

A reason to be not Catholic is a reason to be not Catholic… It does not matter whether this is in official teaching or in the practical living… wrong is wrong and reasons for someone not to accept a heresy, whether officially taught or just practically lived is up to the personal decision and up to the conscience of the individual.
These things are as important to the individual as official doctrine… I would never venerate a relic for example even though it is an official teaching… it actually disgusts me…

By the way… the fact that nobody tells Catholics to worship Mary is just a formalia considering the fact that she is supposed to be all-holy, an example of holiness, , Queen over all things, bringing us the gifts of eternal salvation, and being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…

 

[estesbob]

A reason to be not Catholic is a reason to be not Catholic… It does not matter whether this is in official teaching or in the practical living… wrong is wrong and reasons for someone not to accept a heresy, whether officially taught or just practically lived is up to the personal decision and up to the conscience of the individual.
These things are as important to the individual as official doctrine… I would never venerate a relic for example even though it is an official teaching… it actually disgusts me…

By the way… the fact that nobody tells Catholics to worship Mary is just a formalia considering the fact that she is supposed to be all-holy, an example of holiness, , Queen over all things, bringing us the gifts of eternal salvation, and being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…

I assume this means you can not post a link to where the Church has ever taught we should Worship Mary.

I am still waiting for you to explin why one should reject 2,000 years of teachings and traditions to accpet your or anyone elses personal interpreation of Scripture.

 

[LutheranDK]

if you are not comfortable and/or unable to defend your beliefs perhaps this is not the place to be.

And if you’re only able to repeat yourself like some parrot, perhaps this is not the place to be.

 

[Janet1983]

Didn’t Nicodemus ask the same question?

While as a Friend I have never been baptized with water…I have been born naturally and from above through the Spirit. Not all Christians have your belefs but they still are Christians.

Friend, I know that you believe that you do not need to be baptised and I know that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is however an act of obedience towards the Lord and an outward sign for everybody to see. He Himself was baptised and after Acts 2 we see that those who believed unto salvation were baptised too. I was born and raised in Europe (and on top of that as a Catholic). Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that baptism is not necessary at all?

 

[Janet1983]

I assume this means you can not post a link to where the Church has ever taught we should Worship Mary.

I am still waiting for you to explin why one should reject 2,000 years of teachings and traditions to accpet your or anyone elses personal interpreation of Scripture.

I do not need to explain myself when I reject a church that teaches heresies… I simply reject it.

 

[Carlan]

hello DK, what good do polemics achieve? (Quote from Janet)God does give us a new heart and makes us capable to follow Him and to please Him. He will put a new heart within us and we will be clean.
That is being born again.
I do not see much evidence of that in this forum from the protesters,Carlan

 

[GodIsGracious]

I do not need to explain myself when I reject a church that teaches heresies… I simply reject it.

Ok, well now, you’re making a bold claim here. And yes, you do need to explain yourself. Especially when you’re a website that is geared towards those who belong to that Church.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Friend, I know that you believe that you do not need to be baptised and I know that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is however an act of obedience towards the Lord and an outward sign for everybody to see. He Himself was baptised and after Acts 2 we see that those who believed unto salvation were baptised too. I was born and raised in Europe (and on top of that as a Catholic). Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that baptism is not necessary at all?

Excuse me but… if you don’t feel the need to explain yourself, how can you ask someone else to explain themselves? Would not your standard of, “I do not need to explain myself when I reject a church that teaches heresies… I simply reject it.” also apply to the person you are asking to explain themselves?

Or is this … hypocrisy on your part?

 

[Carlan]

A reason to be not Catholic is a reason to be not Catholic… It does not matter whether this is in official teaching or in the practical living… wrong is wrong and reasons for someone not to accept a heresy, whether officially taught or just practically lived is up to the personal decision and up to the conscience of the individual.
These things are as important to the individual as official doctrine… I would never venerate a relic for example even though it is an official teaching… it actually disgusts me…

By the way… the fact that nobody tells Catholics to worship Mary is just a formalia considering the fact that she is supposed to be all-holy, an example of holiness, , Queen over all things, bringing us the gifts of eternal salvation, and being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…

C’on Janice, as a fallen away Catholic I can not believe you wrote all that and actually believe it Catholics only worship the TRinity Father Son and Holy Spirit. Sounds like you have been brained washed good and proper. Heresy., The mother of our Lord Jesus Christ? Your mind is closed to the whole truth Carlan

 

[Janet1983]

hello DK, what good do polemics achieve? (Quote from Janet)God does give us a new heart and makes us capable to follow Him and to please Him. He will put a new heart within us and we will be clean.
That is being born again.
I do not see much evidence of that in this forum from the protesters,Carlan

Not all signs of charity are lubby dubby… Did you know that my mother loves me even though she did punish me as a child? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not calling anybody a child… I am just saying, that in a heated discussion about the truth not every word will be superficially loving. The truth can sometimes be painful and we are standing up for it with Biblical proof and knowledge of Catholic teaching.
Here is my point: I’d rather have everybody hate me because I tell a truth they do not like than having everybody love me because I am oh so tolerant and not doing anything about people literally going to hell. It is heartbreaking and I will debate and preach as long as my breath lasts, because the Catholic church does not. Hell has long since been vanished from the pulpits and true salvation is not preached anymore. Who will stand up and give their whole life to Jesus? 100%? Even within the Catholic church this is possible, I am sure, but who preaches about it and who then reacts to sound teaching?
Who silenced the warnings about hell and introduced a universal salvation and universalism? Why should we help a Hindu to become a better Hindu (according to Mother Theresa) instead of helping him to get saved?
Tough love is not an oxymoron… it should be a reality. Just telling people what they want to hear is not going to lead anybody to true repentance and salvation. Instead of getting saved we have thousands of people sitting in Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Calvinist, Charismatic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Presbyterian and Reformed churches with a warm fuzzy feeling while on their way to hell because the preacher is not preaching about it anymore! Look at Joel Olsteen! He has thousands in his church every Sunday and he doesn’t even preach sound doctrine! This man is God’s judgement upon all of these people who do not want to hear the truth and who would rather have their ears tickled living their carnal life and not being bothered in it. Broad is the path and without hard words more and more people got down it and exit this live entering through the broad gate.

 

[Janet1983]

Excuse me but… if you don’t feel the need to explain yourself, how can you ask someone else to explain themselves?

I was just asking a question that was not at all directed at you. I never had any contact to someone who was a Quaker and even the term was just something I did see somewhere in a book. Asking is free of charge.
Thanks.

By the way, I may get an answer or I may not and that still doesn’t have to be a problem of yours.

 

[Publisher]

Friend, I know that you believe that you do not need to be baptised and I know that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is however an act of obedience towards the Lord and an outward sign for everybody to see. He Himself was baptised and after Acts 2 we see that those who believed unto salvation were baptised too. I was born and raised in Europe (and on top of that as a Catholic). Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that baptism is not necessary at all?

Friend Janet,

While Friends do not practice water baptism we do believe in obedience to the Lord. You made the statement, which I agree with, that water baptism is not necessary to salvation. In those first decades of the Christian church, the apostles and Jewish believers not only practiced water baptism…but they also engaged in other Jewish rituals. These believers who resided in Jerusalem continued worshiping in the Temple and followed some of the dietary requirements of the Law. Paul, whom none would call a “Judaiser” also practiced Jewish rituals, including circumcision. Water baptism has it’s roots in Jewish ritual which we are not obligated to practice or participate in.

I realize Jesus was baptized by John, a Jewish prophet. Jesus also participated in the whole Jewish schema or washings and rituals…he was after all a Jewish man. Just becasue he participated in Jewish ritual is no indication that we as believers in him need to.

Friends do not accept “outward signs” or rituals as proof of our obedience. Our lives are the “outward sign” of our faith. We do not begrudge those who wish to practice such ordinances or rituals, but since they only “point to the reality”…we’d rather have the Reality.

One Friend stated it like this…“A man may enter into the waters of baptism a dry sinner and exit a wet sinner and remain unchanged. But no one being baptized with the Fire of the Holy Spirit remains the same.” It is this Baptism…this One Baptism of the Spirit that cleanses from sin and joins us to the Body of Christ. No other baptism is needed but this One True Baptism from Christ Himself.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Protestant is the present participle of protestari “declare publicly, testify, protest”
Protestari from pro- “forth, before” + testari “testify,” from testis “witness”
A Protestant is someone who bears witness…
(Well a protester is bearing witness to… for his or her cause.)

I get that. Do you think you’re correcting me?

I also included the ENTYMOLOGY for the word “protestant.” Which also means to protest and go against the Catholic church. You gotta take it all in context.