Protestants; why won't you be CATHOLIC!?

[estesbob]

Friend,

It is a weighty thing to take responsibility for one’s spiritual life…it is truly humbling.

I do not believe the things said about Polycarp are completely factual, as some scholars can best attest to…his story is one of pious legend. I leave Polycarp’s spiritual life to Polycarp. I take responsibility for mine. I’m sure Friend Polycarp had an abiding faith which he lived out before the world. His life as recorded by others who embellished his history to give him credibility is also the subject of some scholarly works…but I leave that to them…you of course will believe as you see fit concerning the man…if “his testimony” speaks to your condition I think that is a wonderful thing. While I enjoy reading the legends and myths of those early Christians, I do not take them as fact. I will not be judged by what others believe…nor what I did or did not believe said about them, even though said by good people who beleived the legends and myths.

I do not ascribe to “sola scriptura”…scripture points to the Source of our Being…it is not the Source itself. While I look to scripture for inspiration and understanding…I also look to the Eternal Word who dwells in our presence and is among us to teach us Himself.

I would rather be judged for keeping my own counsel, than one day provide that Great Judge the excuse…“But I beleived what I read about XYZ because I was told to…” If I meet judgement at the Hands of the One who knows me best and loves me most, I will accept that…as all things which stem from the Father’s Hands is right and good. I accept the Mercy and Grace which He freely gives…with Job I echo…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him…” I am not fearful to stand before Him…He will do what is right and just and good.

It appears you have embraced the doctrine of “Sola Publisher”/ ill bet that adherng to this doctrine creates a god who agrees with everything you do.

 

[Hisalone]

No problem!

Incarnational theology and the Church.

Church - assembly, meeting, convocation. The Kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority.

Jesus Christ, as is strinkingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of the kingdom of God, which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of the kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19 etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy of the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to the eyes of all, but with a non-political and religious end (cf. Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26,27, etc.), assigning it the functions of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

From this we clearly understand that the Church is the prolongation of the Incarnate Word, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-16; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the work of the Redemption, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the exercise of the triple ecclesiastical power - teaching, ministry, jurisdiction.

As its founder is a Person subsisting both in the human and in the divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men and women socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism. The Church is therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, the social synthesis of the human and the divine.

If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it has to be necessarily one, since Christ is one and the human race is race; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, i.e., universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces (in tendency) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostles and their successors, who constitute the hierarchy.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic: These are the four properties of the Spouse of Christ: its individual characteristics which become also marks of identification; when considered in historical reality they appear to the eyes of all as distinctive signs of the true institution of Jesus Christ.

Being human-divine, visible and invisible, the Church operates in a way corresponding to its nature: through a teaching body which transmits the divine thought in the clothing of human words; through a ministry which, by means of sensible rites, the sacraments, infuses supernatural life; through government which makes known the laws of the spirit in a form perceptible to the experience of the senses.

Since the Church is the prolongation of Christ in time and space, there is a very striking analogy between the Christological and the ecclesiological errors. Just as some erred with respect to Christ by denying His divinity (Jews, Gentiles, rationalists), His humanity (Docetae), or others by separating the two natures (Nestorians), or by absorbing one nature in the other (Monophtsites); so also with respect to the Church, some deny her divinity or divine mission in the world (Jews, pagans, rationalists), her humanity or visibility (Wyclife, Huss, Protestants), her social, external perfection hinged on the Roman Pontiff (Eastern Schismatics, Gallicans, Febronians, etc.); others separate her from the civil society (liberals).

Link?

As you can see the term means different things to different folks

 

[Hisalone]

As has been explained there is no contradiction-just your refusal to read the replies to the posts. Again when one tries to understand catholic Doctine by pulling out of context quotes from anti-catholic websites they are sure to fail.

What has changed is the Catholics definition of Catholic Church.
The period of time after the Reformation the Catholic Church had no love for Protestants and did not include them, learn your history.

 

[estesbob]

What has changed is the Catholics definition of Catholic Church.
The period of time after the Reformation the Catholic Church had no love for Protestants and did not include them, learn your history.

I know our History quite well. if you knew our History, OTH, you would be Catholic.

 

[Carlan]

Do you deny that the Catholic Church has changed her teaching on this over time?

Yes, Hisalone,

The following is a Quote by an early Pope before the reformation posted by Janet.

Originally Posted by Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino (1441)
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

This Quote from Vatican11

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
Again, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in itCarlan

Note the Bold and underlined. Now you know why you and Janet are missing the whole truth of these statements you make.

 

[Peter_J]

I can give you some links to my sources (at papalencyclicals.net), so you can read it for yourself…
If you are looking for a collection (which I did not use as I just found it) look at traditionalcatholic.net … they have a collection on this Link.

Hi Janet. Far be it from to try to tell you that you shouldn’t post links to a “traditionalist Catholic” website. But I would like to point out to you that not every single Catholic poster on this forum is a “traditionalist Catholic”. Something to bear in mind.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J,

hello, and what denomination are you from, if you don’t mind me asking? (I’m methodist)

Hi Zundrah. I don’t mind in the slightest, but I think you would make it easier on yourself if you just read peoples’ profiles. For example, mine says:

Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: Roman Catholicism
Posts: 4,435
Religion: Christianity

As you can see, my religion is Christianity and I belong to the [Roman] Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

The Mormons and the JW’s make the same claim; so why should anyone believe any of it;

So I guess you would also say “Many men claimed to be the messiah, so why should anyone believe that Jesus was the messiah?”

 

[Carlan]

Hi Janet. Far be it from to try to tell you that you shouldn’t post links to a “traditionalist Catholic” website. But I would like to point out to you that not every single Catholic poster on this forum is a “traditionalist Catholic”. Something to bear in mind.

hello Peter, I wonder if you would kindly define both ‘traditional Catholic’ And other for us. Not all here understand. Thank you! Carlan

 

[estesbob]

hello Peter, I wonder if you would kindly define both ‘traditional Catholic’ And other for us. Not all here understand. Thank you! Carlan

Pretty meaningless terms. a person can set up a website, and call themselves anyhing they want but that does not make what they say in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Some of the most virulent anti-Catholics I have met have refered to themselves as “traditional catholics”-I have seen the same from self described “liberal catholics”

 

[jake23]

Breath…

Are you ok? I’m ok. I hope we are ok.

I am secure in my faith. Just letting you know why I’m not Catholic.

Yes, but your assumptions of the catholic faith are wrong and isnt God important enough to gain knowledge of the oldest christian faith to makes sure you do not belong? I also forgot to mention on my earlier post about the Catholic bishops successions. If you dont believe in it then why did the remaining 11 apostles replace Judas with Mathias? there is apostolic succession, it is written clearly in Acts Ch.1! Also The Pope is the head but also a Bishop, the Bishop of Rome where Peter lead last. What makes Peter the leader of the others besides the fact Christ said so? He was the first to proclaim Jesus as Christ, He was the only on to walk on water with Christ, he was the first inside Christs tomb, He lead the Israel counsel, He was the one to lead christians into the temples.

Isaiah 22:22 I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shutt, when he shuts, no one shall open. Sound pretty familiar to what Christ said about Peter! I am amazed how blind and lacking of knowledge non-catholics have! It is good to not just takes someones word, you should question things, but anyone with common sense, knowledge, and an open heart to Christ will find the holy church as the only church with authority!

If that it is not the case then I guess the Holy Spirit must be skitzafrenic giving different poeple different, contradicting interpretations of what they must do, to be close to God!

Replace your opinions with knowledge! The less poeple think correctly, the more opinionated they become!

 

[Tomster]

Link?

As you can see the term means different things to different folks

Not to Catholics.

No link necessary. Just plain ol’ Catholic Truth, the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Tomster]

Link?

As you can see the term means different things to different folks

The reason the terms have different meaning to different folks is that without Sacred Tradition these other folks do not have a sure guide as to what the Truth is.

 

[Tomster]

Link?

As you can see the term means different things to different folks

For a more exhaustive treatment of Incarnational theology and the Church I would suggest you read the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church. They are both masterpieces on the topic. What I gave you was a succinct synthesis on the topics. Again, Sacred Tradition at work.

 

[Peter_J]

hello Peter, I wonder if you would kindly define both ‘traditional Catholic’ And other for us. Not all here understand. Thank you! Carlan

I didn’t say ‘traditional Catholic’, so I’m not really sure why you want me to define it.

 

[Janet1983]

I didn’t say ‘traditional Catholic’, so I’m not really sure why you want me to define it.

Lol… You are right… you said “traditionalist Catholic” not “traditional Catholic” when you commented on my link…

But I would like to point out to you that not every single Catholic poster on this forum is a “traditionalist Catholic”. Something to bear in mind.

My link however did read “traditional Catholic”…

If you are looking for a collection (which I did not use as I just found it) look at traditionalcatholic.net … they have a collection on this Link.

 

[Zundrah]

Hi Zundrah. I don’t mind in the slightest, but I think you would make it easier on yourself if you just read peoples’ profiles. For example, mine says:

Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: Roman Catholicism
Posts: 4,435
Religion: Christianity

As you can see, my religion is Christianity and I belong to the [Roman] Catholic Church.

Oh sorry, it’s just that most people who have their title as “Christian” usually aren’t catholic, but that’s okay. Thanks anyway. God bless.

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[estesbob]

Lol… You are right… you said “traditionalist Catholic” not “traditional Catholic” when you commented on my link…

My link however did read “traditional Catholic”…

Appears to be a sedevantist site

 

[Peter_J]

Lol… You are right… you said “traditionalist Catholic” not “traditional Catholic” when you commented on my link…

My link however did read “traditional Catholic”…

No argument there. But from what I’ve seen of said website, I think “traditionalist Catholic” is a pretty accurate description.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh sorry,

No problem

it’s just that most people who have their title as “Christian” usually aren’t catholic, but that’s okay. Thanks anyway. God bless.

xxx zundrah xxx

Well it’s the truth: my religion is Christianity. (I don’t consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be two different religions – which I guess means that I can’t call myself a “traditionalist Catholic”. )