What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[jmcrae]

Does this mean the Catholic Church is infallible–incapable of speaking, at any point in history, that which is not truth?

In its formal teachings, yes. When people (even the Pope) are expressing their personal opinions, they could be wrong, but the formal teachings of the Church can never be wrong.

In 2000, POPE JOHN PAUL II gave, what appears to be, an unprecedented apology to the Jewish people. If I have this quote right, Pope John Paul II said, " We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant."

It appears that Pope John Paul II is acknowledging fallibility of the Catholic Church.

Actually, no, he was apologizing for the BEHAVIOUR of people who WERE NOT FOLLOWING the formal teachings of the Church. The Church has never taught that it’s okay to be mean to the Jews (or to anyone else, for that matter).

You say, “the Church has made many mistakes.” You also say, “when it comes to dogma, the Church can’t make a mistake.” I do want to understand what you are saying. This sounds as if the “Catholic Church” and “Catholic Dogma” are not necessarily the same.

Members of the Church can do stupid things. But the Church itself, which is the body of Christ, cannot.

 

[jmcrae]

We are not saved by works, Eph 2:8-9. Holy communion is a work man does hoping to make himself right with God.

Holy Communion is Christ’s work on the Cross in giving us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity for our sins. That’s what we receive in Holy Communion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

We can do nothing without God? There needs to be an adjective after nothing and that is “Good”. We can do evil without God, if I’m not mistaken. love to all! bobmck

I think this was just an error in typing. I think we would all agree that we can do nothing good without God.

You are right, plenty of evil is done without God.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

In its formal teachings, yes. When people (even the Pope) are expressing their personal opinions, they could be wrong, but the formal teachings of the Church can never be wrong.

Actually, no, he was apologizing for the BEHAVIOUR of people who WERE NOT FOLLOWING the formal teachings of the Church. The Church has never taught that it’s okay to be mean to the Jews (or to anyone else, for that matter).

Members of the Church can do stupid things. But the Church itself, which is the body of Christ, cannot.

jmcrae: I appreciate your comments. Though I am a non-Catholic Christian, we do share the same history of Christianity up to the Protestant Reformation (which had its own issues-I am no fan of Luther or Calvin.)

The violence and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are very disturbing to me-both those committed before and after the Protestant Reformation. I have written in other posts about the role Luther’s writing played in Hitler’s justification for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and others.

At this point, I do not understand how to reconcile Papal infallibility with the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.

Please shed some light on this.

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae: I appreciate your comments. Though I am a non-Catholic Christian, we do share the same history of Christianity up to the Protestant Reformation (which had its own issues-I am no fan of Luther or Calvin.)

The violence and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are very disturbing to me-both those committed before and after the Protestant Reformation. I have written in other posts about the role Luther’s writing played in Hitler’s justification for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and others.

At this point, I do not understand how to reconcile Papal infallibility with the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.

Please shed some light on this.

Anna

Okay. The infallible teachings of the Church are things like “Love one another as Christ has loved you,” “God is a Trinity,” “Jesus Christ is True God and True Man,” the basic right to human dignity because human beings are created in God’s image - stuff like that. It’s the body of teachings that has been handed on from generation to generation ever since the time of the Apostles.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, various wars, etc., are the actions of human beings, which may or may not have anything to do with the teachings of the Church. (For example, certain actions of the Crusades can be defended on the grounds of the human right to self-defense - if someone is burning down your house with your children in it, you have the right to stop him, up to and including deadly force, because you and your children are created in the image and likeness of God, and it is, therefore, a sin to try to harm you. But an unprovoked attack would go totally against that, so those actions of the Crusades that involved unprovoked attacks are definitely sinful, even if they were being committed by Christians. Again, the same with the Inquisition - insofar as it was seeking out the truth, no problem, but when it starts violating human dignity, then it is no longer working in harmony with Church teachings.)

The teachings of the Church are also completely separate from the opinions of particular individuals. Thi sis unlike many Protestant churches, where when they are asked what they believe, they poll the membership and ask them what they believe - they don’t really have a standardized statement of faith.

In the Catholic Church, by contrast, the entire population, including the Pope, could believe something that is contrary to the Catholic faith (this body of information that came to us from the Apostles) and even in that case, it would never attain the status of a “Catholic teaching” - no, not even if 100% of Catholics believed it. God would protect the Pope from ever proclaiming it as a Dogma.

We know this for a fact, because in the time of the Arian Heresy, all Catholics except two - St. Athanasius, and the Pope of that time - believed in the Arian heresy. And yet, it never, ever became Church teaching, and when the Pope was asked to proclaim it as a Dogma, he refused, and then after some time had passed, and after St. Athanasius had written a great many things about it, the other Bishops realized their error, and much was said and done, and ultimately the Arian Heresy was driven out of the Church. So, we know from past events that we can trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

jmcrae: I appreciate your comments. Though I am a non-Catholic Christian, we do share the same history of Christianity up to the Protestant Reformation (which had its own issues-I am no fan of Luther or Calvin.)

The violence and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are very disturbing to me-both those committed before and after the Protestant Reformation. I have written in other posts about the role Luther’s writing played in Hitler’s justification for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and others.

At this point, I do not understand how to reconcile Papal infallibility with the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.

Please shed some light on this.

Anna

Dear Anna: I gave you a little advice on EWTN. You will find that Frs, Greoschel, Corapi, Apostli, Rutler are excellent preachers. The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, a former Pres. minister, is very interesting. It’s on Monday nights at 7 pm central time and Saturday night at 10pm ct. Hope this helps. bobmck

P.S. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith and morals from the Cathadra, the Chair of Peter, and is teaching the whole Church. He can say it going to rain tomorrow and can be dead wrong or commit mortal sins which he must ask forgiveness as any other baptized Catholic must do. In other words, the Pope has more limits on his infallibility than a protestant who is infallible when reading the Bible while being lead by the Holy Spirit.
To sum up: The Pope is infallible when:

1. he speaks on matters of faith and morals
2. he speaks ex chathadra, from the Chair of Peter
3. he is speaking to the whole Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay. The infallible teachings of the Church are things like “Love one another as Christ has loved you,” “God is a Trinity,” “Jesus Christ is True God and True Man,” the basic right to human dignity because human beings are created in God’s image - stuff like that. It’s the body of teachings that has been handed on from generation to generation ever since the time of the Apostles.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, various wars, etc., are the actions of human beings, which may or may not have anything to do with the teachings of the Church. (For example, certain actions of the Crusades can be defended on the grounds of the human right to self-defense - if someone is burning down your house with your children in it, you have the right to stop him, up to and including deadly force, because you and your children are created in the image and likeness of God, and it is, therefore, a sin to try to harm you. But an unprovoked attack would go totally against that, so those actions of the Crusades that involved unprovoked attacks are definitely sinful, even if they were being committed by Christians. Again, the same with the Inquisition - insofar as it was seeking out the truth, no problem, but when it starts violating human dignity, then it is no longer working in harmony with Church teachings.)

The teachings of the Church are also completely separate from the opinions of particular individuals. Thi sis unlike many Protestant churches, where when they are asked what they believe, they poll the membership and ask them what they believe - they don’t really have a standardized statement of faith.

In the Catholic Church, by contrast, the entire population, including the Pope, could believe something that is contrary to the Catholic faith (this body of information that came to us from the Apostles) and even in that case, it would never attain the status of a “Catholic teaching” - no, not even if 100% of Catholics believed it. God would protect the Pope from ever proclaiming it as a Dogma.

We know this for a fact, because in the time of the Arian Heresy, all Catholics except two - St. Athanasius, and the Pope of that time - believed in the Arian heresy. And yet, it never, ever became Church teaching, and when the Pope was asked to proclaim it as a Dogma, he refused, and then after some time had passed, and after St. Athanasius had written a great many things about it, the other Bishops realized their error, and much was said and done, and ultimately the Arian Heresy was driven out of the Church. So, we know from past events that we can trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error.

jmcrae:

I appreciate your response. I know that I am asking difficult questions. Please know that I mean no disrespect to the Catholic Church.

I think if we are to have any hope of unity, we need to respectfully ask the tough questions.

Personally, the main barrier to unity with the Catholic Church is “Papal Infallibility.” That is why I am asking questions about what this means and how this belief is justified.

The issue of violence committed by those who claimed to be Christian, both Catholics and Protestants, is a very important issue. It was certainly important to Pope John Paul II. I have great respect for Pope John Paul II. His accomplishments leave an undeniable legacy of compassion and hope for forgiveness and unity among all human beings.

I believe it is important to look at history and examine it from different perspectives. I would urge all Christians to spend some time researching history from a different viewpoint. I have read a number of books by Jewish authors. It didn’t take long to realize why so few Jews convert to Christianity.

I began to realize that it is important to know why people reject Christianity. I have certainly heard the “whys” in Church, but it became important for me to hear the “whys” from the people rejecting Christianity.

It is easy to forget that many of those outside Christianity lump us all together-Catholics and non-Catholics. Ironically, they point out the fact that none of us are in agreement. Many people see Christianity as a whole (Christendom,) and impose accountability, of past deeds, upon us all–regardless of whether we are Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, etc.

Our history, as Christians, is very important; our disagreements are important, and the way in which we resolve those disagreements is important. The world is watching us, whether or not we realize it. Our behavior to one another, within Christendom, affects our testimony of Salvation through Christ.

As I look through forums on this website, I see countless negative comments about Protestants. I see comments again and again saying that Protestants can’t agree on anything.

Even in this response to me, you stated,

by jmcrae: “The teachings of the Church are also completely separate from the opinions of particular individuals. This is unlike many Protestant churches, where when they are asked what they believe, they poll the membership and ask them what they believe - they don’t really have a standardized statement of faith.”

If by “standardized statement of faith,” you mean that Protestants are not told how we can and cannot interpret every Scripture in the Bible; then your accusation is true. I rely upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation of Scripture.

I will write more later. I welcome all comments.

In Pursuit of God’s Truth,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna: I gave you a little advice on EWTN. You will find that Frs, Greoschel, Corapi, Apostli, Rutler are excellent preachers. The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, a former Pres. minister, is very interesting. It’s on Monday nights at 7 pm central time and Saturday night at 10pm ct. Hope this helps. bobmck

P.S. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith and morals from the Cathadra, the Chair of Peter, and is teaching the whole Church. He can say it going to rain tomorrow and can be dead wrong or commit mortal sins which he must ask forgiveness as any other baptized Catholic must do. In other words, the Pope has more limits on his infallibility than a protestant who is infallible when reading the Bible while being lead by the Holy Spirit.
To sum up: The Pope is infallible when:

1. he speaks on matters of faith and morals
2. he speaks ex chathadra, from the Chair of Peter
3. he is speaking to the whole Church.

Bob McKissick:

Thank you for your suggestions on EWTN. Much appreciated.

And, Bob, thank you for your kind response in answering my questions about Papal Infallibility.

This is starting to make sense to me now. I cannot say that I understand this fully; or that I am in agreement with Papal Infallibility.

However, I am beginning to understand your viewpoint. So, we are making some progress here.

I just posted a reply to jmcrae, just moments before reading this post. I welcome your comments on my reply to jmcrae.

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

If by “standardized statement of faith,” you mean that Protestants are not told how we can and cannot interpret every Scripture in the Bible; then your accusation is true.

We Catholics also have a great deal of freedom in reading and understanding the Bible.

I was referring more to the fact that in many Protestant denominations, they don’t adhere to doctrines such as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, and they go according to the majority of personal opinions of whoever happens to be attending Church that Sunday as to what they consider themselves to believe, rather than according to an outside standard that the members are expected to conform to.

For example, there was a headline some years back that “The United Church of Canada no longer believes in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ,” and how they arrived at that was that they took a poll of the membership and realized that more than half of the members of the United Church of Canada don’t believe in the Virgin Birth. Instead of working on a plan to educate those members, they simply struck that line out of their statement of faith, because they consider the actual beliefs of the members to be their standard, rather than the statement of faith itself.

In the Catholic Church, more than half of the members don’t believe in the Real Presence, but we aren’t striking that out of our list of things we have to believe as if the Church were a democracy, and as if we had taken a vote on the issue - rather, we are seeking to educate people about it, because we already know that this teaching isn’t going to change.

That’s what I mean by not having a standardized statement of faith that tells them what they are supposed to believe in, in the same way that Catholics do.

 

[Anna_Scott]

We Catholics also have a great deal of freedom in reading and understanding the Bible.

I was referring more to the fact that in many Protestant denominations, they don’t adhere to doctrines such as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, and they go according to the majority of personal opinions of whoever happens to be attending Church that Sunday as to what they consider themselves to believe, rather than according to an outside standard that the members are expected to conform to.

For example, there was a headline some years back that “The United Church of Canada no longer believes in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ,” and how they arrived at that was that they took a poll of the membership and realized that more than half of the members of the United Church of Canada don’t believe in the Virgin Birth. Instead of working on a plan to educate those members, they simply struck that line out of their statement of faith, because they consider the actual beliefs of the members to be their standard, rather than the statement of faith itself.

In the Catholic Church, more than half of the members don’t believe in the Real Presence, but we aren’t striking that out of our list of things we have to believe as if the Church were a democracy, and as if we had taken a vote on the issue - rather, we are seeking to educate people about it, because we already know that this teaching isn’t going to change.

That’s what I mean by not having a standardized statement of faith that tells them what they are supposed to believe in, in the same way that Catholics do.

jmcrae:

In my 54 years, I have never attended or even heard of a Protestant church changing their statement of faith or beliefs based on a poll of what their members believe. I am rather startled that you would assume this is typical of Protestant religions.

So, are you assuming that the majority of Protestants decide statements of faith in the same way as this Church in Canada?

Really, you could have knocked me over with a feather on this one.

We really do need this Thread to address such misconceptions.

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

Well, my personal experience is that when I ask a Protestant what his church teaches, he doesn’t understand the question, and when I rephrase it to say “What do you (all) believe?” he responds with a list of his own personal beliefs.

The idea of a “set of beliefs” outside of one’s own personal opinions is an unknown concept to most of the Protestants that I interact with here at home. They attend a wide variety of churches, but church-going is a fellowship activity - they don’t go to Church to discover what they believe in; they come up with what they believe in by reading the Bible at home and coming up with their own ideas of what it means privately, by themselves. They might go to a Bible Study to ask questions about what other people think it means if they are confused about something, but the Bible Study they go to for these answers might not be of the same denomination as the church they go to for fellowship, and the idea that one should look to one’s own denominational teachings for these answers always gets me puzzled looks - it doesn’t occur to them that the answers given by one group ought to be different than the answers given by another, based on how they arrived at becoming that denomination, in the first place.

 

[Disciple96]

I know that when I became a new Catholic, I also became interested to know what other Christian communions believed. I wanted to see what exactly the Methodist church of my youth really taught to clear up any misunderstandings I might have held onto. And I was getting attacked so much by people who saw me reading my catechism or my Catholic Bible that I wanted to understand their positions better than they were able to explain them to me. So I went to various Protestant bookstores to get books or booklets on what their churches believe. Here’s some of what I found.

1. At a small Methodist bookstore, I found a silver booklet called This We Believe. Very concise and very clear presentation of the major Methodist beliefs. Also includes what they don’t believe, as in, that Holy Communion is more than a symbol, etc.
2. At the Southern Baptist store, I couldn’t find such a book or booklet. When I asked for help at the counter, the young man and the young woman there looked at me like I had two heads and had spoken to them in Martian. When I finally made them understand (soft of) what I wanted, the young man led me to a corner in the back of the very large store and put a slim paperback in my hands, all the while giving me a look that said loud and clear that he thought I was some kind of nut for wanting such a thing. The book is What Baptists Believe and it made it clear at the outset (as I remember, it was many years ago that I read it) that there is not actually a consensus on what Baptists believe or are expected to believe, but that there are some things that most Baptists mostly do accept…or maybe not, but he had to start somewhere. So the book is more a clear statement about what the author believes as a Baptist than it can really claim to be what all Baptists believe.

I found various booklets and pamphlets about Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and other groups. I’d like to start that up again and gather some more material, but I haven’t added anything in a while. (I also have a few books on Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

Now on the subject of polling or voting on beliefs… I know the Methodist Conference and the Southern Baptist Convention do make certain decisions and I imagine they publish curricula. I can’t say I understand the workings of these groups as I’ve never spent any time finding out. But I do note that there seems to be a changing of belief in the matter of abortion over the years. That and the ordination of women and the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle might be other areas that seem to have undergone a lot of change over the years too.

The Church has never accepted these things and still doesn’t. That’s one way that we can see that doctrine seems to change over time in the separated churches. Catholic doctrine develops but not into the opposite of what it once was. The Holy Spirit leads us into deeper understanding, yes. But not into throwing over or changing those teachings. In matters of discipline, the Church can change things. We can fast on this day or that day. But the Church can not, now or ever, change the teachings she received from Christ.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, my personal experience is that when I ask a Protestant what his church teaches, he doesn’t understand the question, and when I rephrase it to say “What do you (all) believe?” he responds with a list of his own personal beliefs.

The idea of a “set of beliefs” outside of one’s own personal opinions is an unknown concept to most of the Protestants that I interact with here at home. They attend a wide variety of churches, but church-going is a fellowship activity - they don’t go to Church to discover what they believe in; they come up with what they believe in by reading the Bible at home and coming up with their own ideas of what it means privately, by themselves. They might go to a Bible Study to ask questions about what other people think it means if they are confused about something, but the Bible Study they go to for these answers might not be of the same denomination as the church they go to for fellowship, and the idea that one should look to one’s own denominational teachings for these answers always gets me puzzled looks - it doesn’t occur to them that the answers given by one group ought to be different than the answers given by another, based on how they arrived at becoming that denomination, in the first place.

jmcrae:

It saddens me that you have had these experiences with “Protestants.”

Unfortunately, in all religions there are some who are “Christian in name only”-and can tell you very little about what they believe or why they believe it.

There are also those who study Church History and study the Holy Scriptures–absorbing the Teachings of Christ, with a humble and repentant heart. I believe the truth of Scripture is unveiled by the Holy Spirit and revealed to Christians who seek God’s Truth with a humble and repentant heart.

So, lets sort out a few things.

As you know, this website has a Catholic Encyclopedia. I often use this Encyclopedia in my studies.

If you go to “N” for Nicene Creed, you will find the “Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed,” and a statement, which clearly says that this profession of Christian Faith is common, not just among Catholics, and Eastern Churches; but is also common among most of the Protestant denominations.

The profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations
Errata* for Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:
———————————

• Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
  Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.—The origin and history of the Nicene Creed are set forth in the articles: Councils of Nicaea; Arius; Arianism; Eusebius of Caesarea; Filioque. As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) q. v., it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations. The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

“We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen”.
J. WLHELM (Retrieved from “http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Nicene_and_Niceno-Constantinopolitan_Creed”)

When you look up the word Catholic (in this same Catholic Encyclopedia,) you will find a history of definition and usage that evolved to our current understanding–which primarily refers to a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree with the Statement of Faith (so beautifully expressed) in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is my Statement of Faith.

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

When you look up the word Catholic (in this same Catholic Encyclopedia,) you will find a history of definition and usage that evolved to our current understanding–which primarily refers to a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree with the Statement of Faith (so beautifully expressed) in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is my Statement of Faith.

Anna

Do you also believe that there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

You said “my”, rather than “our.” Does everyone in your whole Church look to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as the standard for their belief system, or is it just yourself who does this, or you and perhaps a few others, but it’s not required for everyone?

And if it is a requirement for everyone to believe in it, what is your church’s official interpretation of the phrase, “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know that when I became a new Catholic, I also became interested to know what other Christian communions believed. I wanted to see what exactly the Methodist church of my youth really taught to clear up any misunderstandings I might have held onto. And I was getting attacked so much by people who saw me reading my catechism or my Catholic Bible that I wanted to understand their positions better than they were able to explain them to me. So I went to various Protestant bookstores to get books or booklets on what their churches believe. Here’s some of what I found.

1. At a small Methodist bookstore, I found a silver booklet called This We Believe. Very concise and very clear presentation of the major Methodist beliefs. Also includes what they don’t believe, as in, that Holy Communion is more than a symbol, etc.
2. At the Southern Baptist store, I couldn’t find such a book or booklet. When I asked for help at the counter, the young man and the young woman there looked at me like I had two heads and had spoken to them in Martian. When I finally made them understand (soft of) what I wanted, the young man led me to a corner in the back of the very large store and put a slim paperback in my hands, all the while giving me a look that said loud and clear that he thought I was some kind of nut for wanting such a thing. The book is What Baptists Believe and it made it clear at the outset (as I remember, it was many years ago that I read it) that there is not actually a consensus on what Baptists believe or are expected to believe, but that there are some things that most Baptists mostly do accept…or maybe not, but he had to start somewhere. So the book is more a clear statement about what the author believes as a Baptist than it can really claim to be what all Baptists believe.

I found various booklets and pamphlets about Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and other groups. I’d like to start that up again and gather some more material, but I haven’t added anything in a while. (I also have a few books on Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

Now on the subject of polling or voting on beliefs… I know the Methodist Conference and the Southern Baptist Convention do make certain decisions and I imagine they publish curricula. I can’t say I understand the workings of these groups as I’ve never spent any time finding out. But I do note that there seems to be a changing of belief in the matter of abortion over the years. That and the ordination of women and the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle might be other areas that seem to have undergone a lot of change over the years too.

The Church has never accepted these things and still doesn’t. That’s one way that we can see that doctrine seems to change over time in the separated churches. Catholic doctrine develops but not into the opposite of what it once was. The Holy Spirit leads us into deeper understanding, yes. But not into throwing over or changing those teachings. In matters of discipline, the Church can change things. We can fast on this day or that day. But the Church can not, now or ever, change the teachings she received from Christ.

Disciple96: It is really very easy to find Statements of Faith for just about any religion. Here are a few links to get you started:

Confession of Faith of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
from the Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
archive.elca.org/communication/faith.html

The Baptist Faith and Message (Southern Baptist Convention)
sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

Methodist Beliefs: Wesleyan Essentials
student.sun.ac.za/methsoc/wes.htm

Presbyterian
The Brief Statement of Faith
pcusa.org/101/101-faith.htm

Resurrection
Statement of Faith; Nicene Creed
resurrectiontexas.com/beliefs.asp

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF OUR FAITH
By the Right Reverend Dean E. Wolfe
IX Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas
episcopal-ks.org/news/StatementofFaith.html

In Pursuit of God’s Truth,
Anna

 

[Disciple96]

Disciple96: It is really very easy to find Statements of Faith for just about any religion. Here are a few links to get you started:

Snipped for space

In Pursuit of God’s Truth,
Anna

Over the years I have found quite a lot of stuff on the internet. I was talking more about books that one could wander into a bookstore and buy and sit down with. Back then I didn’t have a computer or access to the internet except at the library.

These days I find that I am much more interested in going ever deeper into my Catholic faith. My curiosity about other traditions was long ago sated. My survey of other religions and traditions over and my decision made, now I’m interested in learning all I can about the path I have chosen and following that path as far as it will take me.

 

[NMHS]

Disciple 96 and Anna Scott,

I felt compelled to tell the both of you your dialogue is very interesting and I really appreciate how well the two of you handle your points. Its too often that we find hurtfull post in forums. I can tell by reading both of your post that you are educated and committed to following Christ. God bless both of you. NMHS

 

[Disciple96]

Disciple 96 and Anna Scott,

I felt compelled to tell the both of you your dialogue is very interesting and I really appreciate how well the two of you handle your points. Its too often that we find hurtfull post in forums. I can tell by reading both of your post that you are educated and committed to following Christ. God bless both of you. NMHS

Why, thank you, NMHS. I appreciate that. May the Lord bless you also. Peace be with you.

Disciple +JMJ+

 

[CatherineofA]

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?

Curiously,
Mick

Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process. The rest follow behind it.

I’m from an Evangelical background and what you should be discussing with them is CHRISTIAN HISTORY. Where you show Protestants you have a case is with THIS. THIS means more than any theological debate you could have over the items you mentioned. The earlier the better. Talk about Ignatius, Polycarp, Pliny the Younger, etc. Talkk about what was happening before the books were compiled to make up the Bible. Talk about the early counsels and who was involved. What were they like and what were they saying in their writings and to their churches?

 

[Peter_J]

jmcrae:

I appreciate your response. I know that I am asking difficult questions. Please know that I mean no disrespect to the Catholic Church.

I think if we are to have any hope of unity, we need to respectfully ask the tough questions.

Personally, the main barrier to unity with the Catholic Church is “Papal Infallibility.” That is why I am asking questions about what this means and how this belief is justified.

Hey Anna. I’m curious what you believe. I understand, of course, that you don’t agree with the Catholic teaching of Papal Infallibility; but, specifically, do you believe that the Pope cannot ever speak infallibly? Or do you believe that he can under some circumstances (but not the circumstances that we Catholics say)?