Protestants, why?

[KathleenGee]

To understand the disciplines of the Church, you have to go back to Exodus.

We cannot treat God commonly.

If any unauthorized person touched the Ark of the Covenant, he would immediately drop dead. Only the High Priest was allowed into the inner sanctuary once a year to sprinkle sacrificial blood on the Mercy Seat.

Finally, of all His many followers, Christ only personally picked 12 apostles…in part to represent the 12 tribes of Israel now coming to universal perfection in His Church.

Christ Himself is the life of our Church. He consecrates His ministers in Spirit and truth. They are set aside as intercessors just as the Levites were in ancient times. Christ is the One High Priest, and the priest acts in person of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Eucharist is the Body, Soul, Blood, and Divinity of the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ and no lay person is authorized to make Christ physically present to us except those of whom Christ has chosen.

St. Catherine of Siena writes powerfully of the sacred priesthood,in her Dialogues on the Church. The priesthood is anointed by Christ. We can never ‘pay back’ a priest for giving us Christ…Word and Flesh. We are called to pray and do penance for them as they are Satan’s first target…the sights we see in scandalous clergy, the same that existed in her times…same problems…and she goes so far as to say such inspirations to commit scandal are no other sourced than demons themselves.

The Sacred Species, the Eucharistic wafers and wine, are not thrown out as garbage. That would be a great sacrilege against Christ Himself.

You have to go back to Exodus and see that not only did God have to teach us right from wrong in the 10 Commandments, but He is the Author of how He wants to be worshipped, not how we choose to worship Him.

Even the vestments of the ancient Jewish priests are described in detail, as well as how the Lord wished His temple to be built.

You need to understand the practice of faith in the Old Testament to see how it is fulfilled in worship of the Covenant of the Blood. Not any lay person can just go up on the altar and read the Mass prayers and then make Christ present in the gifts of bread and wine.

 

[Prosmith]

This question could have been asked already, but I’ll ask it anyway. Why are you Protestant? What about the Catholic Church do you not agree with and why?

I am an ex cradle Catholic turned Anglican several years ago. I do not believe nor have I ever that the pope is supreme, primal and infallible and therefore many things that Catholics must believe, I reject. This is not to say that I don’t share many many other beliefs that are common with Roman Catholics. I share many more with you than I do with most Evangelicals.

 

[PRmerger]

I am an ex cradle Catholic turned Anglican several years ago. I do not believe nor have I ever that the pope is supreme, primal and infallible and therefore many things that Catholics must believe, I reject. This is not to say that I don’t share many many other beliefs that are common with Roman Catholics. I share many more with you than I do with most Evangelicals.

Well, just to be clear, the Catholic position is not really that the Pope is “supreme, primal and infallible” (not sure what you mean by “primal” but anyway…).

The Church holds that the Pope, in his office, has been given the charism of infallibility.

And, clearly, you do believe that men can be infallible, for you claim so each and every time you quote the first encyclical of Peter in the bible as inspired. Or Paul’s writings. Or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…

 

[Nicea325]

I am an ex cradle Catholic turned Anglican several years ago. I do not believe nor have I ever that the pope is supreme, primal and infallible and therefore many things that Catholics must believe, I reject.

Your rejection or profound misunderstandings has no bearing on doctrinal Truth. The Arians rejected Christ divinity-church did not cater to them or their own wills.

This is not to say that I don’t share many many other beliefs that are common with Roman Catholics. I share many more with you than I do with most Evangelicals.

Precisely why Christianity has become a cafeteria: Pick and choose what suits me and discard what I dislike.

 

[SteveVH]

Because the Eucharist, being Jesus’ body/blood/soul/and divinity, is so sacred that only ordained hands can do this?

I think it has to do with the nature of the sacrament. They are all channels of grace, but different channels of grace. The sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Last Rites must be administered by an ordained priest or bishop. Confirmation and Holy Orders can only be performed by a bishop (except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only Confirmation). The sacrament of Matrimony is administered by the two spouses, each to the other, with the Church acting as a sacred withness. Baptism is so fundamental to salvation that it makes sense that it could be performed by anyone in a pinch. In any event, it is the nature of the sacrament which determines who may administer it as far as I can see.

As far as the Eucharist, in particular, we also have to remember that the priest stands in persona Christi during the concecration so that it is no longer Fr. Joe, but rather Jesus Christ who changes the bread and wine into his own body and blood. He can stand in the person of Christ because he has been ordained. One does not need to stand in the person of Christ to administer baptism.

 

[KathleenGee]

Some simple but good clarification, Steve.

Again, I see those who have difficulty understanding the nature of Catholicism, is that because they are look at the Church, man to man. We see the Church as that providing us the fullness of Christ and His life that we cannot find elsewhere.

The Holy Father’s position affirms and finalizes that, not in symbolic understandings, including bishops with each other, but that we also are intended to have one, supreme head over all the bishops. But likewise, this supremacy in headship in communion with manifested in communion with the bishops.

If we look at faith as something symbolic or given to personal interpretation, then can we say that Protestantism’s perspective is a form of subjective relativism vs the objective and concrete truth of Christ and His nature found in the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

I think it has to do with the nature of the sacrament. They are all channels of grace, but different channels of grace. The sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Last Rites must be administered by an ordained priest or bishop. Confirmation and Holy Orders can only be performed by a bishop (except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only Confirmation). The sacrament of Matrimony is administered by the two spouses, each to the other, with the Church acting as a sacred withness. Baptism is so fundamental to salvation that it makes sense that it could be performed by anyone in a pinch. In any event, it is the nature of the sacrament which determines who may administer it as far as I can see.

As far as the Eucharist, in particular, we also have to remember that the priest stands in persona Christi during the concecration so that it is no longer Fr. Joe, but rather Jesus Christ who changes the bread and wine into his own body and blood. He can stand in the person of Christ because he has been ordained. One does not need to stand in the person of Christ to administer baptism.

Yeah. What he ^^ said.

 

[joe370]

Well, just to be clear, the Catholic position is not really that the Pope is “supreme, primal and infallible” (not sure what you mean by “primal” but anyway…).

The Church holds that the Pope, in his office, has been given the charism of infallibility.

And, clearly, you do believe that men can be infallible, for you claim so each and every time you quote the first encyclical of Peter in the bible as inspired. Or Paul’s writings. Or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…

Good point. :thumbsup:The charism of infallibility is specifically connected with the Petrine office, as opposed to the man himself holding the Petrine office. I personally feel that doctrinal unity and the oneness of the catholic church is due to the Petrine office.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[joe370]

I think it has to do with the nature of the sacrament. They are all channels of grace, but different channels of grace. The sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Last Rites must be administered by an ordained priest or bishop. Confirmation and Holy Orders can only be performed by a bishop (except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only Confirmation). The sacrament of Matrimony is administered by the two spouses, each to the other, with the Church acting as a sacred withness. Baptism is so fundamental to salvation that it makes sense that it could be performed by anyone in a pinch. In any event, it is the nature of the sacrament which determines who may administer it as far as I can see.

As far as the Eucharist, in particular, we also have to remember that the priest stands in persona Christi during the concecration so that it is no longer Fr. Joe, but rather Jesus Christ who changes the bread and wine into his own body and blood. He can stand in the person of Christ because he has been ordained. One does not need to stand in the person of Christ to administer baptism.

Nice post.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…the Petrine office binds and loosens, and is the office of unity.

A former Anglican priest who converted said in time, that he sensed the spirit of schism in his soul.

As we grow in understanding of our Catholic faith, and I am a cradle Catholic, it is the fullness of the Catholic faith that leads us into communion with the Holy Trinity…the source of the Church’s presence and power and authority.

Without the Holy Trinity, we are a mere organization of men.

 

[Prosmith]

I am an ex cradle Catholic turned Anglican several years ago. I do not believe nor have I ever that the pope is supreme, primal and infallible and therefore many things that Catholics must believe, I reject.

Your rejection or profound misunderstandings has no bearing on doctrinal Truth. The Arians rejected Christ divinity-church did not cater to them or their own wills.

Just to be clear, my rejection doesn’t come from misunderstanding, but rather deeper understanding of Scripture, the Reformers and the doctrine and dogmas of the Roman Catholic church. I see no more support from the ECFs for Catholicism than I see for most of Lutheranism as well. There is no profound misunderstanding as you would call it.

 

[Prosmith]

Well, just to be clear, the Catholic position is not really that the Pope is “supreme, primal and infallible” (not sure what you mean by “primal” but anyway…).

The Church holds that the Pope, in his office, has been given the charism of infallibility.

And, clearly, you do believe that men can be infallible, for you claim so each and every time you quote the first encyclical of Peter in the bible as inspired. Or Paul’s writings. Or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…

As many times as I have read the Gospels, I never once saw anything that showed anyone to be infallible, but rather the contrary.

 

[PRmerger]

As many times as I have read the Gospels, I never once saw anything that showed anyone to be infallible, but rather the contrary.

Then could you please tell us where Matthew, or Mark or Luke or John made an error in their writings?

 

[XianThinker]

Let me assure that I and Catholics here are everybit as Christian as yourself.

If the protestants invented Christianity that would mean that there were no Christians until the 16th century.

The first 5 objections you have are addressesed in the bible, the others in holy tradition. It’s all there.

Honestly it’s more than a little insulting when you imply that Catholics are not Christian. If it weren’t for Catholics there would be no other Christians.

I’m a Christian but I’m not a Protestant. I believe everyone who followed Jesus was a Christian. I think the Catholic Church came along later, changed a few beliefs and added some others. Once Catholics got the support of the Roman empire, they forced their beliefs on everyone else, made membership in the Catholic Church mandatory, cursed everyone who didn’t believe and condemned them all as heretics.

 

[stewstew03]

As many times as I have read the Gospels, I never once saw anything that showed anyone to be infallible, but rather the contrary.

Then could you please tell us where Matthew, or Mark or Luke or John made an error in their writings?

Or, can you tell us where the Church made a mistake in developing the canon of scripture? Which books were mistakenly included; which were mistakenly excluded?

 

[Prosmith]

Then could you please tell us where Matthew, or Mark or Luke or John made an error in their writings?

To my knowledge, none of the Gospel writers ever claimed to be infallible or supreme. And none of them surely ever claimed to speak in ex cathedra. They were eye witnesses, not teachers.

 

[XianThinker]

Seriously? Please tell me the year and who invented purgatory? Names please… If you are 100% certain the above were added,then kindly provide me the sources showing when purpgatory was invented?

I think Origen invented it in the 3rd century. He liked to read beyond what the Bible said to find hidden, spiritual meanings. He read one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and figured if one has faith but adds some bad works to his faith he wouldn’t be good enough to get into Heaven but wouldn’t be bad enough to deserve Hell.

Do you have any evidence that Jesus or the apostles taught there was a purgatory?

 

[Prosmith]

Or, can you tell us where the Church made a mistake in developing the canon of scripture? Which books were mistakenly included; which were mistakenly excluded?

The canon was compiled by the councils of Carthage and Hippo which actually became part of the Orthodox church to be precise.

 

[XianThinker]

Hi Xian -

Share your perspective. Which church is referred to in Matthew 18:17 and what authority is determining what constitutes a “sin”?

15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

The local congregation.

 

[XianThinker]

Well, just to be clear, the Catholic position is not really that the Pope is “supreme, primal and infallible” (not sure what you mean by “primal” but anyway…).

The Church holds that the Pope, in his office, has been given the charism of infallibility.

And, clearly, you do believe that men can be infallible, for you claim so each and every time you quote the first encyclical of Peter in the bible as inspired. Or Paul’s writings. Or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…

I believe God wrote the Bible, not man. Peter, Paul, and the others wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write. The apostles were mere men and not gods. I’m sure all of them said or wrote some things (outside of the Bible), probably many things that were wrong. No one is perfect except God.