D
dennisknapp
Guest
I have no doubt you will.I want to find the truth too. I’m trying…and occasionally I’ll try to say something here. Then I just confuse myself.
But yes. I am also seeking the truth.
God bless you
Peace
- Status
God bless you
Peace
T
Timothy888
Guest
I believe according to your Church you have to “evangelise” all protestants, therefore the Christians among them as well as the Christians in your own church who don’t follow the complete dogma.Of course it depends what you mean by evangelise.The evangelists are more likely to be read by a protestant than a Roman catholic and followed, so i don’t know how you could “evangelise” a protestant, though anyone who protests against the teachings of your church is a protestant, so the ones who don’t follow Jesus Christ our Lord and so aren’t Christians should be evangelized by all Christians of course.
L
Louis_Mazar
Guest
No Protestants do not have to be evangelized because Protestants believe the historic Christian doctrines of belief that the Bible is the Word of God, belief in the Holy Trinity(Deity of Christ also), belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ and belief that Christ is the only way of salvation.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Louis Mazar:
Peace
But they lack the fullness of truth. Should we not share that with them?
Peace
F
flameburns623
Guest
In response to the title of your thread;
Speaking as a Protestant;
The answer is that you already are.
That’s what the forum exists to do.
It is what the Catholic Answers radio program is designed to do.
And God knows there are about as many uncoverted nominal Christians in Protestant pews as in Catholic.
I think we all need to be evangelized.
It is true there is plenty to do in the wider world and that the Christian faith ought not to become like the snake swallowing it’s own tail.
But how will any of us ever manage to evangelize the world-at-large with churches full of unevangelized nominal Christians?
How, with Christians-In-Name-Only of whichever denomination, bringing forth bad examples and bringing scandal to the faith?
A former Methodist-turned-Catholic with a lively faith and a vibrant witness is better than an empty-souled Anglican with neither.
Speaking as a Protestant;
The answer is that you already are.
That’s what the forum exists to do.
It is what the Catholic Answers radio program is designed to do.
And God knows there are about as many uncoverted nominal Christians in Protestant pews as in Catholic.
I think we all need to be evangelized.
It is true there is plenty to do in the wider world and that the Christian faith ought not to become like the snake swallowing it’s own tail.
But how will any of us ever manage to evangelize the world-at-large with churches full of unevangelized nominal Christians?
How, with Christians-In-Name-Only of whichever denomination, bringing forth bad examples and bringing scandal to the faith?
A former Methodist-turned-Catholic with a lively faith and a vibrant witness is better than an empty-souled Anglican with neither.
L
Louis_Mazar
Guest
dennisknapp,
It makes no difference if Protestants do not believe like Catholics do. Because the Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity(Deity of Christ also) then they are Christians just as much as Catholics are.
It makes no difference if Protestants do not believe like Catholics do. Because the Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity(Deity of Christ also) then they are Christians just as much as Catholics are.
U
UBERROGO
Guest
what is the difference between evangelism and proselyzation?
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Louis Mazar:
Peace
It does if Truth makes a difference. Why be 80% Christian when you can be 100% Christian?
Peace
S
Shlemele
Guest
I’m sorry but topics like this get on my nerves. I was a substitute teacher for 2 years and in that time I became painfully aware that the youth of our nation are being subjected to a violent and sex-driven culture that is ultimately unfulfilling. Knowing that what are we doing arguing over dogma? I think pretty much everyone here will agree that most denominations are fundamentally Christian in their doctrines (there are exceptions but we won’t go into that).
Now did Suzie loose her salvation? Of course not! Same would be true if the situation is reversed and to be honest I know many people who have gone either way. But in this case she did go from being a luke-warm Catholic to an on fire Protestant. Better for one to be on fire than luke-warm in whatever church you go to. Now I tell this story to bring a point, what good are you doing telling someone that Suzie is headed in the wrong direction. If you say this to me it sounds as though you believe that a luke-warm Catholic is better than an on fire Protestant, and that I will not believe. I grew up in a town that was heavily Hispanic and many that I talked to knew less about their own church than I did. One reason I know I can never be a Catholic is that the largest church in the city did little to educate their parishioners. One priest did do quite a bit to get the church more active in the community and was the first priest to accept a position on the cities church counsel (all had been offered, this was the first to accept since it’s founding). When that priest moved on the next one reverted back to the ingrown church practices we had seen in the past (and ironically checked himself into a rehab clinic not too long after I left the city). Thing is nobody has a perfect church because every church is made up of sinners whose only redeeming grace is their relationship with Christ.
The point of my post is that there are way too many that are 0% Christian. Before we start getting into spiritual peeing matches let’s worry about them. You aren’t going to convince me that the Catholic Church is 100% right and I’m not gong to convince you that the Protestant church is 100% right. Instead of arguing about it why don’t we just agree that we will never see eye to eye on a few things. If someone is saved in my church or yours they are still going to the same place so why are we spending so much time on the ones already in the pews when there are so many on the outside. Once we have saved the rest of the world we can figure out who the mostest correctest was. Until then this business of saving those who are already saved is just stupid.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Our Lord said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Is it important to us whether or not this is true? How much truth must we believe in order to be a faithful Christian?
If I have more of the truth then you, should I not desire to share it with you? Of course. Why? Because it matters what we believe as much as it matters in Whom we believe, for they are the same, i.e., the Truth.
If you were wrong would you want to know it? I would. Why believe in half-truths when the fullness of truth is out there? Or do you think truth is unimportant, and all that matters is what makes you feel “spiritual” and “on fire?”
The reason I ask this is that we need to be aware of what we are “on fire” about, so as not to fall into error and be “on fire” about what is false.
Peace
S
Shlemele
Guest
dennisknapp,
You say you find your church to be full, I say I find it cold and hollow. The fact is that I have gone to Mass, learned about the Catholic church and I haven’t seen this “truth” you seem to find so different form Protestantism. My wife was raised in the Catholic church, went to Catholic school and still doesn’t know why she believes half the things she believes. If you ask me the “fullness of truth” she got at my school when she took a few bible courses and started grow in her understanding of the Bible (she loved the book of Ruth).
You say you have the truth, well then who did Jesus spend his time with, those who already knew the truth or those who needed him?
Let me use an analogy to my logic and see if it will make my point clear;
You say you find your church to be full, I say I find it cold and hollow. The fact is that I have gone to Mass, learned about the Catholic church and I haven’t seen this “truth” you seem to find so different form Protestantism. My wife was raised in the Catholic church, went to Catholic school and still doesn’t know why she believes half the things she believes. If you ask me the “fullness of truth” she got at my school when she took a few bible courses and started grow in her understanding of the Bible (she loved the book of Ruth).
You say you have the truth, well then who did Jesus spend his time with, those who already knew the truth or those who needed him?
Sure is, and we believe that too. Guess what, we believe in baptism and biblical laws too. Things we don’t believe in are mainly traditions. Personally I put more truth in scripture than tradition but I’m not about to tell someone that just because they believe more in tradition that they are missing out of Gods grace.
Let me use an analogy to my logic and see if it will make my point clear;
Nobody has the perfect church, nobody. But if we quit working against each other maybe we can make the world a better place.
C
Catholic29
Guest
With Protestant churches putting up signs like this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to start evangelizing them.
The above message rubs sand in the eyes of faithful Catholics. I never thought Methodists, in our day in particular, could be so overtly anti-Catholic. This church must have fetched many of our fallen-aways.
Because many left the Catholic Church for their’s, they make the assumption we must “not” have Christ in our masses. While in reality the true culprits for the wide phemonenon of fallen-aways are poor catechesis and bad example from other Catholics.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to start evangelizing them.
The above message rubs sand in the eyes of faithful Catholics. I never thought Methodists, in our day in particular, could be so overtly anti-Catholic. This church must have fetched many of our fallen-aways.
Because many left the Catholic Church for their’s, they make the assumption we must “not” have Christ in our masses. While in reality the true culprits for the wide phemonenon of fallen-aways are poor catechesis and bad example from other Catholics.
S
Shlemele
Guest
Catholic29,
Whoever put that sign up is an idiot plain and simple. I believe that it is ignorance that makes us want to save those that are already saved. I as a protestant have had some of the same things thrown at me (in RL as well as on this board, but I have thick skin or I wouldn’t be around here).
Whoever put that sign up is an idiot plain and simple. I believe that it is ignorance that makes us want to save those that are already saved. I as a protestant have had some of the same things thrown at me (in RL as well as on this board, but I have thick skin or I wouldn’t be around here).
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I am sorry to read about your experience in visiting your local Catholic Church, but what I am talking about is the truth in the belief system, not the people who attend Mass.
I think we are talking about two different things here. I am concerned with the fullness of Truth and you are talking about evangelizing non-Christians… We both agree that evangelizing non-Christians is of utmost importants, but what are we evagelizing them to?
Would you feel comfortable leading a fallen away Catholic back to the Catholic Church or encouraging a non-Christian friend, who is interested in Catholicism, in his pursuit?
My faith is true because it can be traced back to the Apostles, how about yours? This is the real issue at hand… Who has the true expression of the Christian faith? Is this not important?
Peace
S
Shlemele
Guest
dennisknapp,
OK to answer your question if I have a friend that is falling away and is asking me about churches I’ll sure direct them to whatever church will keep them in the faith. If the is the RC church to me it is all the same.
Let me use another analogy to answer the line of apostles thing, but before that I would like to reiterate that I don’t believe that it is as straight a line as you would have me believe. At one time you had 3 Popes, each believing that he was the next in line (one in Paris, one in Rome and I’ll have to do some research on the last location, I believe though it may have been in Constantinople). The line may be but because the Catholic church was essentially the largest government during the dark ages there is really no way to prove or refute the evidence the Catholic church presents. It is like me announcing on these boards that I am a member of some popular band. I can say it until I’m blue in the face but unless I bring in a 3rd party to verify my claims don’t carry too much weight.
On the issue of the Protestant churches being 500 years old vs. 2000. Well what helps me is the fact that I am adopted, my family I was raised in was not the family I was conceived in. Biologically I have nothing in common with my parents, but I carry their name, love them and am a full part of their family. I believe Christ has done the same thing for Protestant churches. He loves us and cares for us just as he does your church and the amount of time we have been around in no way dictates his involvement in our respective faiths. I don’t expect you to relate to this but maybe it can give you some insight into why I’m ok with my church being “only” 500 years old. Incidentally 500 is still a pretty darn respectable amount of time.
OK to answer your question if I have a friend that is falling away and is asking me about churches I’ll sure direct them to whatever church will keep them in the faith. If the is the RC church to me it is all the same.
Let me use another analogy to answer the line of apostles thing, but before that I would like to reiterate that I don’t believe that it is as straight a line as you would have me believe. At one time you had 3 Popes, each believing that he was the next in line (one in Paris, one in Rome and I’ll have to do some research on the last location, I believe though it may have been in Constantinople). The line may be but because the Catholic church was essentially the largest government during the dark ages there is really no way to prove or refute the evidence the Catholic church presents. It is like me announcing on these boards that I am a member of some popular band. I can say it until I’m blue in the face but unless I bring in a 3rd party to verify my claims don’t carry too much weight.
On the issue of the Protestant churches being 500 years old vs. 2000. Well what helps me is the fact that I am adopted, my family I was raised in was not the family I was conceived in. Biologically I have nothing in common with my parents, but I carry their name, love them and am a full part of their family. I believe Christ has done the same thing for Protestant churches. He loves us and cares for us just as he does your church and the amount of time we have been around in no way dictates his involvement in our respective faiths. I don’t expect you to relate to this but maybe it can give you some insight into why I’m ok with my church being “only” 500 years old. Incidentally 500 is still a pretty darn respectable amount of time.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Third party? All one would have to do is take a basic history course at any State College to get the truth of what I am saying. The facts of history are facts, whether taught by a Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu.
Did not Jesus warn us to avoid “traditons of men?” I would argue that the Protestant Reformation was the greatest influx of man-made innovations the Church has ever seen. The legitimate authority established by Christ was overthrown in over 30% of Europe, the Church in the West was horribly damaged, and is still in need of repair.
I can relate to what you are saying, for I was once a Protestant. What turned me was the fact that I could not find my Protestant beliefs (those beliefs I held contrary to RCism) in the early Church. How could this be? The answer? My Protestant beliefs did not exist in the early Church and therefore were innovations of men during the 16th century. Once I discovered this I became Catholic and have not looked back since.
Peace
S
Shlemele
Guest
OK been gone for a couple days and didn’t get a chance to get to a computer so sorry for the late post.
First thing we need to address here is that you see the Catholic church as 100% true and as you stated earlier Protestant churches as 85% true. To be honest I think it’s a mistake to see anything as 100% true. Do I think my church is 100% accurate on every subject, of course not but I don’t see the Catholic church as any better. I’m sure you have done your research but I have done mine as well. I graduated from a Mennonite university and the account of the Protestant Reformation and the Anabaptist movement is different I’m sure from what you found. My texts reflected a corrupt papacy and a Luther reluctant to leave the church. Many on the boards state that Luther wanted to divide the church when my sources say he only decided to after writing a letter to the pope and holding out hope for a reformation within the Catholic church that came 50 years too late.
As far as the “traditions of men” aspect you commented on goes. I see no difference between of the various Protestant churches traditions and those of the Catholic church. Confession, the ceremony involved in the Eucharist, infallibility of the pope (yes I know it’s only happened a few times but it is still a very scary thing for me that a man can be seen as speaking infallible truth), and the many prayers are just a few traditions that I seriously doubt are as old as the church. In 2000 years the Catholic church has picked up many laws and traditions, in fact the Catholic church holds tradition on almost the same level as scripture. The fact is that someone made up the traditions in every church. Backing up traditions with scripture can be problematic as there are many interpretations so I support a more streamlined faith, free of as many traditions as cannot be found explicitly (not hinted towards) in the gospels.
As for your protestant beliefs I don’t really know what they were. The bottom line though is I will never see the Catholic church as 100% right so you basing your argument on the idea that it is tends to make for a circular argument, same as if I were to start taking my church as being 100% truth.
First thing we need to address here is that you see the Catholic church as 100% true and as you stated earlier Protestant churches as 85% true. To be honest I think it’s a mistake to see anything as 100% true. Do I think my church is 100% accurate on every subject, of course not but I don’t see the Catholic church as any better. I’m sure you have done your research but I have done mine as well. I graduated from a Mennonite university and the account of the Protestant Reformation and the Anabaptist movement is different I’m sure from what you found. My texts reflected a corrupt papacy and a Luther reluctant to leave the church. Many on the boards state that Luther wanted to divide the church when my sources say he only decided to after writing a letter to the pope and holding out hope for a reformation within the Catholic church that came 50 years too late.
As far as the “traditions of men” aspect you commented on goes. I see no difference between of the various Protestant churches traditions and those of the Catholic church. Confession, the ceremony involved in the Eucharist, infallibility of the pope (yes I know it’s only happened a few times but it is still a very scary thing for me that a man can be seen as speaking infallible truth), and the many prayers are just a few traditions that I seriously doubt are as old as the church. In 2000 years the Catholic church has picked up many laws and traditions, in fact the Catholic church holds tradition on almost the same level as scripture. The fact is that someone made up the traditions in every church. Backing up traditions with scripture can be problematic as there are many interpretations so I support a more streamlined faith, free of as many traditions as cannot be found explicitly (not hinted towards) in the gospels.
I have been to 4 different Catholic churches and I have always found the “coldness” to be in the ceremony of the Mass. The Jesus I read about in the Bible as a God of the every day. He was in the lives of his people and not locked away in a book or a building. Sitting in the pew I felt like the “pomp and circumstance” (pardon the expression, it’s not meant to offend just to convey how I felt) of the Mass got in the way of that relationship between God and man. In the Old Testament God dwelt in the temple and the New Testament abolished the idea that God dwells anywhere but in us. I’m sure your experience on mass is very different but felt I needed to clarify that the coldness I felt was not always as a result of the parishioners.
As for your protestant beliefs I don’t really know what they were. The bottom line though is I will never see the Catholic church as 100% right so you basing your argument on the idea that it is tends to make for a circular argument, same as if I were to start taking my church as being 100% truth.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Is math 100% true? There are things that are true no matter how we think or feel, they just are. Luther had his own problems, and in my opinion if he were given the chance today, he would be Catholic.
There is nothing wrong with doctrinal development. My issue is with doctrinal development that contradicts what has come before. For example, sola fide (faith alone), sola scriptura (scripture alone), and the merely symbolic nature of baptism and communion. These new doctrines do not exist in the early Church and were never, ever taught in the early Church.
This is the reason I became Catholic, I could not find my Protestant beliefs in the early Church. Do you have another theory as to why they are not there and why I should except them?
Also, the Church equates Tradition with Scripture, not tradition. I know it may seem like semantics, but the difference is huge in Catholic theology. Tradition is the oral teachings of the Apostles passed down to us. With Sacred Scripture they make up the Word of God or the Deposit of Faith. If any development in doctrine contradicts this deposit it is false, and should not be followed.
to be cont…
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Did you listen to what was being said during the Mass? The whole litergy is centered in Christ’s death and resurrection, from the prayers, to the celebration of the Eucharist. I have been to many churches and they dont hold a candle to the Christocentric nature of the Catholic Mass. If you go again, please listen to the prayers and pay attention to the litergy of the Eucharist, but before you go, pick up a copy of Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. It is a great intro to what is going on during the Mass.
I was a Reformed Protestant before I became Catholic. I would considered myself a high church Anglican just before my conversion to Catholicism, but I was first introducted to Christianity through a Fundementalist/Evangelical friend of mine.
Never say never. I was the most anti-Catholic person I knew (even had a Catholic friendly Evangelical friend of mine almost sick his Pitbull on me during an argument we were having).
I hope we all are open to the Truth and are willing to follow it were ever it leads us, even into places we never thought possible.
This is why I post on these boards and create threads like this one. I could be wrong, and I am open to being shown my error and to change if need be. Are you?
Peace
S
Shlemele
Guest
Throw humans in the mix and pure truth goes out the window. I don’t care what church you attend or what doctrines the fact is that 2000 years of human interaction will detract from truth. Also being that the Catholic church was the only church for 1500 years I believe that the transfer of political power to the papacy was a corrupting influence and makes the likelihood that the 100% pure tradition of the early church were followed. The thing is there is no way to prove or disprove this. All the records would have been handled by the Catholic church of that time. Again this is not based on feeling but a logical assumption that could be made of a church/government system of the time.
I agree, but as I said the Catholic church replied with too little too late. In letters written by Luther it is evident that a split was not what he desired and only did so when it was evident that the Church would not be reforming in his lifetime. The thing is that the Catholic church of today is in many ways influenced by the reformation. Man does not change unless prompted to and the church is no exception.
[continued] I am open to change my opinions as well, otherwise I would not be here but just like you I have been working on my faith for a while. My father is a pastor so church has always been a big part of my life and I have always asked questions. Over time those questions have changed but in my experiance the protestant traditions are the most compatible with the way I understand the truth to be.
- Status