Question for all protestants

[chero23]

Politics informs modern heresies seen in every one of the points you raised save for the two I highlighted. As it concerns the Eucharist, it depends on your interpretation of symbolism vs. presence, and as for Mary, that’s a firm no. Even a few decades ago, Catholics and Protestants were essentially as one on the other subjects, until societal progressivism started to corrupt the latter. That said, I’m seeing plenty of pro-abortion/contraception/homosexuality rhetoric out of grassroots Catholics these days, which the Church is doing very little to combat, so Protestants don’t have a monopoly on defying scripture in that sense.

Exactly, I get the idea that many Protestant churches in this country think they’ll attract congregants and sympathy by appearing as the “reasonable”, “tolerant” alternative to the more dogmatic Catholic Church in the milieu of Canadian liberalism. Consider the monstrosity that is the United Church, for example.

But Jesus made it Clear in John 6, he said at least 5 times I am the Bread, remember God is everywhere. If we look at the last supper he grabbed bread and wine and said this is my body and this is my blood. It cannot be anymore clear.

With the Blessed Mother, think about it about your mom. If I wanted to be your friend and I told you in your face, your mom is a bad woman, and put her down wouldn’t that be disrespectful to you? I know if somebody offended my mom, you better be assured that I would stop talking to that person.

 

[rinnie]

I disagree, it was modest for a woman to cover her head and that’s what Paul is saying.

Also
1corin 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

I think women are no longer looked at as a shame to speak up in Church; do you believe it’s shameful for a woman to speak in Church still?

When I went to a Catholic service last month a woman was reading and singing for the Church.

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I truly don’t think you are understanding the scripture as it is given in context.

It does not say a women could be a Priest or a Priest can be a nun.

Jesus picked 12 Apostles to be Priests. The women who dedicated their life to Christ became Nuns.

Do I beleive a woman can play a role in the Church? Of course I am Catholic. Nuns were everwhere in the Church when I was small.

Do I believe a Nun can take over the role of a Priest? No. I am sorry I don’t!

 

[chero23]

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I truly don’t think you are understanding the scripture as it is given in context.

It does not say a women could be a Priest or a Priest can be a nun.

Jesus picked 12 Apostles to be Priests. The women who dedicated their life to Christ became Nuns.

Do I beleive a woman can play a role in the Church? Of course I am Catholic. Nuns were everwhere in the Church when I was small.

Do I believe a Nun can take over the role of a Priest? No. I am sorry I don’t!

Jesus could of picked 6 men and 6 women but he chose 12 men. Why try to change the rules. I totally agree with what you said about this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My answer is that most of the disagreements between Protestant Churches are not worth arguing over.

Ah. Well, so much for complete unity and the testimony that unity bears to non-believers.

John 17:20-23
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

[Atheling]

It has to be. Earlier you said that Catholics didn’t understand the whole infant baptism concept. I responded to your post by saying, how can you sir, Say that you know the answer when the Church has 2,000 yrs of history, tradition, and writings of baptizing infants.
W/o going to far, the Early Church Fathers who were taught and trained by the Apostles, with what they taught, preached and wrote down, they have the same beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church. Is that simple, that is the reason why a lot of ppl who are true to God’s word are becoming Catholic, b/c when they see that the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 yrs and the Early Church Fathers support the Catholic Church then you really have no other option but to come into the Church that Jesus established.

Why is it that the Catholic case for which is the more legitimate of the two Christian bodies always comes back to “…this is the 2,000 year old church…”, “…the church founded by Christ…”, “…apostolic legacy…”, and so on. Heavy on rhetoric, but lacking in substance. That the Roman Church is old is a superficial and erroneous argument in favour of some infallibility. I’ve noticed with great interest that many on this forum have acknowledged that Luther, Calvin, and others exposed legitimate problems within the Church that needed addressing, so that point alone demonstrates imperfections within a body whose claim to be the True Church rests on its alleged inherent perfection. That, and Protestants don’t reject the term Catholic, but rather, ours is a repudiation of the errors of Rome.

 

[rinnie]

The argument for which the foundation is being laid by the OP is that Protestants (and, yes, I am aware of the challenges of trying herd that group of cats) generally claim to go by the Bible alone and that they are led by the Spirit into all truth, etc.

Then they arrive at conflicting and contradictory doctrines as a result.

This leaves them in the unenviable position that either A) Doctrine doesn’t really matter or B) conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the Body of Christ.

Ah thank you Randy. Maybe now we can get on topic!

 

[deeds]

Sorry scripture contradicts you. On the day of Pentecost remember he told the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit.

Go out and Preach and teach the good news.

Your turn. Help me see your opinion better Now Christ told us that there is only one truth. Not many only One.

Well…ok…So there is only one truth and that is the Holy Spirit…Maybe the truth is a journey instead of a destination…
For instance…Lets take the gay issue…And the original sin…sex…Jesus said it’s better we do not have sex at all…Because when we do, we have to submit to one another as opposed to submitting to the Lord. Sex is not holy no matter who performs it…Is it then less holy when two people of the same sex perform it? is that any more of an abomination? I have been searching for many years to find the answer to the truth to all this.Here is what i have found so far…When we try to convince someone the truth as we know it, then, we impede upon the work of the Holy spirit. Because, The truth is the Holy Spirit as he comes to you on your journey.
For me to say sex is a sin for me but it is ok for you, may or may not be the truth…But, it is the Holy spirit’s answer to me up to this time, But for me , as a non-practicing homosexual, it would be a sin for me to condemn anyone having sex…My job is not to speak truth but to live the truth as i see it…Otherwise, how would we ever carry our cross, or walk through the fire if the Holy Spirit dont quide us with truth as we see it?

 

[chero23]

Why is it that the Catholic case for which is the more legitimate of the two Christian bodies always comes back to “…this is the 2,000 year old church…”, “…the church founded by Christ…”, “…apostolic legacy…”, and so on. Heavy on rhetoric, but lacking in substance. That the Roman Church is old is a superficial and erroneous argument in favour of some infallibility. I’ve noticed with great interest that many on this forum have acknowledged that Luther, Calvin, and others exposed legitimate problems within the Church that needed addressing, so that point alone demonstrates imperfections within a body whose claim to be the True Church rests on its alleged perfection. That, and Protestants don’t reject the term Catholic, but rather, ours is a repudiation of the errors of Rome.

Have you read the Bible? Jesus picked 12 men to be his apostles. He picked men, Peter was a fishermen. Fishermen are known to having a dirty mouth. Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Thomas didn’t believe Jesus had resurrected, Judas betrayed Jesus, and all 12 apostles left Jesus hanging while he was carrying the cross and he was going through his passion. According to you, does that mean these men are liars, not trustworthy men? The answer should be no, b/c they are humans.

Look, the CC has made mistakes no Catholic here on the forums will cover that up. But having said that. But you have to understand that when Jesus told the apostles I will be with you til the end of times (last time I checked, times are still going). So if you believe in what scriptures says you follow it.

 

[dronald]

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I truly don’t think you are understanding the scripture as it is given in context.

It does not say a women could be a Priest or a Priest can be a nun.

Jesus picked 12 Apostles to be Priests. The women who dedicated their life to Christ became Nuns.

Do I beleive a woman can play a role in the Church? Of course I am Catholic. Nuns were everwhere in the Church when I was small.

Do I believe a Nun can take over the role of a Priest? No. I am sorry I don’t!

But Paul says they can’t even speak up in Church. Why?

 

[rinnie]

Why is it that the Catholic case for which is the more legitimate of the two Christian bodies always comes back to “…this is the 2,000 year old church…”, “…the church founded by Christ…”, “…apostolic legacy…”, and so on. Heavy on rhetoric, but lacking in substance. That the Roman Church is old is a superficial and erroneous argument in favour of some infallibility. I’ve noticed with great interest that many on this forum have acknowledged that Luther, Calvin, and others exposed legitimate problems within the Church that needed addressing, so that point alone demonstrates imperfections within a body whose claim to be the True Church rests on its alleged inherent perfection. That, and Protestants don’t reject the term Catholic, but rather, ours is a repudiation of the errors of Rome.

But please can we get to what I am asking. Not what Rome may or may have not done.

What Protestant Church has authority over another. If as stated NUMEROUS times same sex marriage is wrong. No disagrement from me. My Church teaches it, ITS NOT the point though.

What Protestant Church has the right to correct the others and if so how. Easy question. But not one response yet!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Why is it that the Catholic case for which is the more legitimate of the two Christian bodies always comes back to “…this is the 2,000 year old church…”, “…the church founded by Christ…”, “…apostolic legacy…”, and so on. Heavy on rhetoric, but lacking in substance. That the Roman Church is old is a superficial and erroneous argument in favour of some infallibility. I’ve noticed with great interest that many on this forum have acknowledged that Luther, Calvin, and others exposed legitimate problems within the Church that needed addressing, so that point alone demonstrates imperfections within a body whose claim to be the True Church rests on its alleged inherent perfection. That, and Protestants don’t reject the term Catholic, but rather, ours is a repudiation of the errors of Rome.

I think more than just a repudiation of what I do agree are the errors are rome but an entirely different take on the Christian religion as a whole, neglecting as it were the sacraments and the neccessity of church instead opting for a religion based solely on the interpretation of the bible with virulent neglect for the past and tradition. Not all protestants are like this, Lutherans and anglicans have a healthy respect for church and tradition but even they go beyond what those before them ever invisioned. I don’t understand the need for this infallibility myself but I do understand the need to have a tradition which works things out until they become the universal and standard practice, or else we believe God allowed his church to come to such a point that the reformation was needed.

 

[dronald]

The argument for which the foundation is being laid by the OP is that Protestants (and, yes, I am aware of the challenges of trying herd that group of cats) generally claim to go by the Bible alone and that they are led by the Spirit into all truth, etc.

Then they arrive at conflicting and contradictory doctrines as a result.

This leaves them in the unenviable position that either A) Doctrine doesn’t really matter or B) conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the Body of Christ.

Not every Priest agrees with every Priest, and when they consult the Church there isn’t always a definitive answer. How is this different from Protestants?

 

[dronald]

Catholics don’t differ on answers as well?

I know… that’s what I said but I was “off topic”

 

[rinnie]

But Paul says they can’t even speak up in Church. Why?

Shoot me!! Just kidding. I would be very happy to discuss this with you. I PROMISE.

Buy make it a new thread and I will join in. Okay? We cant keep getting off thread.

 

[chero23]

But Paul says they can’t even speak up in Church. Why?

If we look in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

then in 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I think 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is more explicit to why women cannot teach at church and that is b/c woman was who deceived by the transgressor. I know women will say and they will have credibility that men have been worse of than woman but,when it comes to God his word is not to be argued against.

 

[rinnie]

I know… that’s what I said but I was “off topic”

No that is not what you asked but I will answer it.

Randy reads the scripture and says this is what it means. I read it, say it means this.

2 totally different answers.

You go to the Church. If the Church says he’s right I am indeed wrong. Or vice-versa.

Or maybe both. For us the Church has the authroity given to them by God to define scripture not us.

 

[dronald]

Shoot me!! Just kidding. I would be very happy to discuss this with you. I PROMISE.

Buy make it a new thread and I will join in. Okay? We cant keep getting off thread.

I understand your frustration and it’s not like I’m not getting you. What I’m saying is beliefs in the CC have developed many times and the same can be said about a women’s role in the Church.

But yes, we’re off topic.

 

[rinnie]

Now please lets be on track. Who corrects Protestant Church’s.

 

[dronald]

No that is not what you asked but I will answer it.

Randy reads the scripture and says this is what it means. I read it, say it means this.

2 totally different answers.

You go to the Church. If the Church says he’s right I am indeed wrong. Or vice-versa.

Or maybe both. For us the Church has the authroity given to them by God to define scripture not us.

So, I go back in time and talk to the Church Father’s about miscarriages and many say that there could be a limbo. Fast forward to now, it’s “maybe limbo, maybe Heaven.” which one do I believe?

 

[dronald]

If we look in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

then in 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I think 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is more explicit to why women cannot teach at church and that is b/c woman was who deceived by the transgressor. I know women will say and they will have credibility that men have been worse of than woman but,when it comes to God his word is not to be argued against.

Yup! But women speak up in Church and teach others all the time. Look at Priscilla and Apollos even back then. It wasn’t an understood concept for a woman to teach a man… still off topic but I don’t see the problem. Women’s roles in society have drastically changed.