Should "Cafeteria Catholics" just become Protestant?

[rinnie]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

I do not understand. How can Christ reform the CHurch if the Church is led by the Holy Spirit as promised by CHrist himself? Would that not be contradiction of scripture.

Rather leaders of the Church need to be called on their actions or not, what does that have to do with the Church?

SO are you saying that when Jesus said I am sending the Avocate the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth and I am with you until the end of age, those words were not true? My apology if I am misunderstand this statement. Please clarify.

 

[rinnie]

Actually the trouble began when Luther rejected the authority of the Church and relied instead on his own personal interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly. But here is where I am finding a big problem.

We as Catholic’s have been accused time after time as putting the Pope above God or the Pope as God. Which we agree we never have.

But yet they refuse to see that by saying that The Roman Catholic Church has been reformed or needs reformed they are actually saying that the Pope overpowered the Holy Spirit and hades took over. Amd they can’t even SEE IT!

 

[estesbob]

Exactly. But here is where I am finding a big problem.

We as Catholic’s have been accused time after time as putting the Pope above God or the Pope as God. Which we agree we never have.

But yet they refuse to see that by saying that The Roman Catholic Church has been reformed or needs reformed they are actually saying that the Pope overpowered the Holy Spirit and hades took over. Amd they can’t even SEE IT!

Every Protestant denomination operates under the assumption that an inept God allowed his people to live in ignorance and sin for at least 1500 years. I am always somewhat amused when I hear Protestants rail after Jehovah witnesses and Mormons about their belief in the great apostasy when their denomination spring from the exact same belief.

 

[Radical]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

I believe that you might have just about nailed it here. When (name removed by moderator) also said:

Indeed if you steep yourself in wrong head and revisionist history you will come to this conclusion…

…I expect that what “wrong head history” comes down to (from his POV) is an approach to the study of history that allows for the possibility that the historical evidence may not validate the CC’s claims WRT itself…you know, allowing the evidence to lead where it may even if it contradicts those claims.

…and I then expect “revisionist history” to be any history that is presented that does not support (and maybe even goes so far as denies) the CC’s claims about itself.

Then, of course, if one eliminates that “wrong head and revisionist history” we only have left what validates the CC…and if only those cafeteria Catholics did that, they would become good conservative catholics b/c it would then be the reasonable thing to do.

 

[estesbob]

Then, of course, if one eliminates that “wrong head and revisionist history” we only have left what validates the CC…and if only those cafeteria Catholics did that, they would become good conservative catholics b/c it would then be the reasonable thing to do.

I am curious as to what exactly a “conservative” Catholic is? Being a cradle Catholic I don’t recall ever running across this creature. In fact about the only time I see it used is as a pejorative by non-Catholics(and disident Catholics) who know little of the Catholic faith. If they understood the Catholic faith they would never use such a term.

 

[rinnie]

I am curious as to what exactly a “conservative” Catholic is? Being a cradle Catholic I don’t recall ever running across this creature. In fact about the only time I see it used is as a pejorative by non-Catholics(and disident Catholics) who know little of the Catholic faith. If they understood the Catholic faith they would never use such a term.

Exactly Christ said it himself. You are either hot or cold there is no lukewarm. You accept all of the teaching’s of the RCC or you don’t.

If you accept all of the teachings of the RCC you are hot.
If you reject SOME you are cold. No lukewarm!

 

[rinnie]

Every Protestant denomination operates under the assumption that an inept God allowed his people to live in ignorance and sin for at least 1500 years. I am always somewhat amused when I hear Protestants rail after Jehovah witnesses and Mormons about their belief in the great apostasy when their denomination spring from the exact same belief.

:sad_yes:

 

[rinnie]

I believe that you might have just about nailed it here. When (name removed by moderator) also said:

Indeed if you steep yourself in wrong head and revisionist history you will come to this conclusion…

…I expect that what “wrong head history” comes down to (from his POV) is an approach to the study of history that allows for the possibility that the historical evidence may not validate the CC’s claims WRT itself…you know, allowing the evidence to lead where it may even if it contradicts those claims.

…and I then expect “revisionist history” to be any history that is presented that does not support (and maybe even goes so far as denies) the CC’s claims about itself.

Then, of course, if one eliminates that “wrong head and revisionist history” we only have left what validates the CC…and if only those cafeteria Catholics did that, they would become good conservative catholics b/c it would then be the reasonable thing to do.

And what is ironic about this one is you cannot show us proof of anything that the CC claims to not be the truth. You can’t do it. Sure you can deny Tradition, but the bible which you claim to be your only source of truth even shoots you down.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

Matt, do you really believe that it’s only the Church’s ‘interpretation’ and not the real truth?

Heck, with that logic you could never believe anything. It would only be your ‘personal interpretation’. . .even when it came to God. You’d never be ‘allowed’ to believe anything except your ‘personal interpretation’ which could be 100% ‘different’ from somebody elses, yet you’d insist each was correct ‘for himself’. . .

Matt, either you have to take a leap of faith and say, "My goodness me, what if there is NOT just ‘X interpretation’ and “Y interpretation’ but that supposed interpretation is really what ‘is’” and I have to drop my bias of insisting that just because the Church says something it is ONLY the "Church’s’ say so and full of error, bias, and outright lies. . .

Or you are going to forever chase after a fantasy of ‘interpretation’ where you can never, ever, be assured of truth and thus never have to worry about making a choice, because if there is no absolute truth then simply making ANY choice with the requisite ‘mindfulness’ and ‘hope’ should result in getting the cosmic ticket to the pearly gates. . .a scenario which looks cool on paper but is so far from real Christian teaching that it is practically ‘anti-Christ’ itself. . .

 

[CMatt25]

I do not understand. How can Christ reform the CHurch if the Church is led by the Holy Spirit as promised by CHrist himself? Would that not be contradiction of scripture.

Rather leaders of the Church need to be called on their actions or not, what does that have to do with the Church?

SO are you saying that when Jesus said I am sending the Avocate the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth and I am with you until the end of age, those words were not true? My apology if I am misunderstand this statement. Please clarify.

Since I never said the Holy Spirit can not in faith lead and guide Christ’s body of believers, I’m sorry but I can’t make it any easier for you to understand than that. Peace and blessings to you at this Eastertime and always.

 

[CMatt25]

Every Protestant denomination operates under the assumption that an inept God allowed his people to live in ignorance and sin for at least 1500 years. I am always somewhat amused when I hear Protestants rail after Jehovah witnesses and Mormons about their belief in the great apostasy when their denomination spring from the exact same belief.

I’d be interested in knowing how many Protestants on the forum would say it is God who is inept.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’d be interested in knowing how many Protestants on the forum would say it is God who is inept.

Well, obviously if people got it wrong for 1600 years they would be ‘inept’, but seriously, to believe that the same God who promised that the Spirit would lead to ‘all truth’ would let men be so ‘inept’ that every single solitary Christian from AD 33 to AD 1520 (Luther) was taught ‘incorrectly’, taught others incorrectly, for that ENTIRE time with not a whisper of the correct teaching is just, well, unbelievable.

If, Matt, we had a consistent Church which taught a ‘symbolic Eucharist’ alongside the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) which taught the literal one, ‘all those years’, then we might indeed wonder which of the Churches was correct.

But when you have a Church that goes back as far as the Catholic AND the Orthodox who teach the ‘literal’ Eucharist, when you have even in the first people who thought the dogma had ‘gone off the rails’ who didn’t think the Catholics were wrong THEN but their ‘successors’ started changing every other word. . .and people are claiming that the ‘older’ Church is teaching a ‘different gospel’ from the ‘true one’. . .again, it seems pretty unbelievable to me.

But blessings on your Easter upcoming, Matt, and Christ be with you.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt, do you really believe that it’s only the Church’s ‘interpretation’ and not the real truth?

Heck, with that logic you could never believe anything. It would only be your ‘personal interpretation’. . .even when it came to God. You’d never be ‘allowed’ to believe anything except your ‘personal interpretation’ which could be 100% ‘different’ from somebody elses, yet you’d insist each was correct ‘for himself’. . .

Matt, either you have to take a leap of faith and say, "My goodness me, what if there is NOT just ‘X interpretation’ and “Y interpretation’ but that supposed interpretation is really what ‘is’” and I have to drop my bias of insisting that just because the Church says something it is ONLY the "Church’s’ say so and full of error, bias, and outright lies. . .

Or you are going to forever chase after a fantasy of ‘interpretation’ where you can never, ever, be assured of truth and thus never have to worry about making a choice, because if there is no absolute truth then simply making ANY choice with the requisite ‘mindfulness’ and ‘hope’ should result in getting the cosmic ticket to the pearly gates. . .a scenario which looks cool on paper but is so far from real Christian teaching that it is practically ‘anti-Christ’ itself. . .

Hi Tantum, people of faith including Cafeteria Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, and even those conservative Catholics who believe as Rinnie said that we must accept all the RCC teaches in order to be hot, believe in something and have taken a leap in faith. It’s just that some believe by faith that they are with absolute certainty correct as to what the one truth is. And others perhaps take more into account the human finite mind. Or some of us may need everything spelled out with every “i” dotted and “t” crossed. While others perhaps need that less so in their faith and belief. In any case may God bless you with a happy and joyous Easter. Peace.

 

[estesbob]

I’d be interested in knowing how many Protestants on the forum would say it is God who is inept.

How else does one explain god allowjng his people to live in ignorance of what is necessary for salvation for 1500 years?

 

[CMatt25]

Well, obviously if people got it wrong for 1600 years they would be ‘inept’, but seriously, to believe that the same God who promised that the Spirit would lead to ‘all truth’ would let men be so ‘inept’ that every single solitary Christian from AD 33 to AD 1520 (Luther) was taught ‘incorrectly’, taught others incorrectly, for that ENTIRE time with not a whisper of the correct teaching is just, well, unbelievable.

If, Matt, we had a consistent Church which taught a ‘symbolic Eucharist’ alongside the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) which taught the literal one, ‘all those years’, then we might indeed wonder which of the Churches was correct.

But when you have a Church that goes back as far as the Catholic AND the Orthodox who teach the ‘literal’ Eucharist, when you have even in the first people who thought the dogma had ‘gone off the rails’ who didn’t think the Catholics were wrong THEN but their ‘successors’ started changing every other word. . .and people are claiming that the ‘older’ Church is teaching a ‘different gospel’ from the ‘true one’. . .again, it seems pretty unbelievable to me.

But blessings on your Easter upcoming, Matt, and Christ be with you.

Hi again Tantum, I honestly could understand your point better if I could actually confess I knew “every single solitary Christian from AD 33 to AD 1520” in and outside Rome. But I must walk by faith and not by sight. Thank you for your blessings and again to you as well.

 

[rinnie]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

Then explain this statement to me. SHow me where in scripture or Tradition that the Church needs reform. Why did Christ tell us the Opposite then. That is all I am asking.

You know the scripture quite well, the gates of hades will not prevail. How do you explain that?

Would reforming the CHurch mean that hades prevailed? What do you claim this means and where is your authority? Thats all I ask. Because the scripture states the CHurch is the Pilar of all truth and we accept the scripture. Now where is your authority and are you saying you are the pilar of all truth and scripture is not true?

 

[RyanBlack]

Then explain this statement to me. SHow me where in scripture or Tradition that the Church needs reform. Why did Christ tell us the Opposite then. That is all I am asking.

You know the scripture quite well, the gates of hades will not prevail. How do you explain that?

Would not reforming the CHurch mean that hades prevailed?

The verse about the gates of hell not prevailing does not work with Protestants with respect to refuting their belief that the Church fell into some errors and was in need of reform. They do not believe that the Church having fallen into error about some teachings means that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Every Protestant denomination operates under the assumption that an inept God allowed his people to live in ignorance and sin for at least 1500 years. I am always somewhat amused when I hear Protestants rail after Jehovah witnesses and Mormons about their belief in the great apostasy when their denomination spring from the exact same belief.

You know when I was Protestant…I didn’t seriously think about it that much. Which might explain the saying …to be knowledgable in History is to cease to be Protestant. Now…before some people attack me…there are some Protestants…and some Protestant faiths that are very knowledable in what they believe and why. I was not in those faiths. It’s just like watching the Passion of the Christ…I wonder…how could I have missed the connection with Mary…and just think of her as anyone else? Why would she not have a place of honor? And the Eucharist…no matter what you believe…why do some denominations have it only once a month? Even if you believe it is a symbol…the Bible did say “do this in memory of me”…so His memory is only worth once a month?

As far as Cafeteria Catholics…I would say no…they shouldn’t just become Protestant…because we are all on a faith walk…and maybe they just haven’t worked through somethings. That is what we are there for…to help them. The Church isn’t a place for saints…its a hospital for sinners…

 

[rinnie]

Hi again Tantum, I honestly could understand your point better if I could actually confess I knew “every single solitary Christian from AD 33 to AD 1520” in and outside Rome. But I must walk by faith and not by sight. Thank you for your blessings and again to you as well.

The scripture tells you its true. Where is believing and following the words of scripture not walking in faith?

And where does Christ make this demand on us? He just tells us to go to the Church for the Church is the Pilar of ALL TRUTH.

 

[rinnie]

You know when I was Protestant…I didn’t seriously think about it that much. Which might explain the saying …to be knowledgable in History is to cease to be Protestant. Now…before some people attack me…there are some Protestants…and some Protestant faiths that are very knowledable in what they believe and why. I was not in those faiths. It’s just like watching the Passion of the Christ…I wonder…how could I have missed the connection with Mary…and just think of her as anyone else? Why would she not have a place of honor? And the Eucharist…no matter what you believe…why do some denominations have it only once a month? Even if you believe it is a symbol…the Bible did say “do this in memory of me”…so His memory is only worth once a month?

As far as Cafeteria Catholics…I would say no…they shouldn’t just become Protestant…because we are all on a faith walk…and maybe they just haven’t worked through somethings. That is what we are there for…to help them. The Church isn’t a place for saints…its a hospital for sinners…

:yup: And why go to the Hospital for sinners. Because it has all of the Meds we need. The Sacraments! All 7 of them!