Which denominations are most hostile to Catholicism?

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 1

Maybe for those who believe in the SDA’s beliefs. The VAST majority of Christians do not believe like the SDA. Conservatively, 29,999 other Christian denominations disagree with the SDA over various doctrines. There is no way to tell which of them is correct, since none of them has the God-given authority to interpret scripture. Why is the SDA right and the rest of Christendom wrong? The Baptists think you are wrong on many things. Same with the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Anglicans, the Pentecostals, ad nauseam. Are they all a bunch of lost souls? Why do you pick the Catholic Church? Why not swing other Protestants over, since it would be easier?

There is also much that we do agree upon. I don’t know how familiar you are with HOW the SDAs developed. But I assure you it spilt from an already existing denomination, but rather a joining together of men and women of a multitude of denominations looking for common ground and the truth. And it didn’t develop in a day nor in a year. It took years of hard study and searching the scriptures. Yes, there was EGW as well. Whether or not she was a true prophet, who am I or you to judge, all I know is that what I have read of her writings, and I have read much and am still reading, has yet to refute what is wrtten in the Scriptures.

Have to strongly disagree. This exact activity has produced the 30,000+ disagreeing denominations! Each of them uses the exact same bible. How can this be true, if scripture interprets itself? No one has even shown where the bible interprets itself, or how. Why has bible interpretation produced so much division?

So you’re telling me that if Paul teaches something in his letters and Peter repeats that samething we are not to use that to reinforce what we believe concerning that particular issue? If reference is made in the New Testament to something in the Old Testament we are to ignore it? Is that what you are saying? I ask again this question I have asked over and over and over, yet NEVER get a response too. Would the Apostles ever taught anything verbally in contradiction to anything they wrote?

It’s what the SDA has added with their own opinion of scripture that can be misleading, or flat out wrong.

Please show me where the SDA has added anything to the scriptures that are designed to mislead or is flat out wrong. If it is supported by the Scriptures than the SDA follows it. And, for my part, if I find that the SDA is wrong on a point or cannot support a view through scripture that I’m gone.

Au contraire! The reformers, for a short time, all held similar beliefs. Very soon, they split up and the splitting is occurring even as we speak. This is not God doing this! This is not truth.

No, it wasn’t for a short time. This view was held by many even before the Lutherian split. Luther himself held that the Pope was the anti-christ. His aim was to change the Church from with-in but found this was not possible. And this belief carried into the other denominations as well and was a popular belief up until the mid to late 20th century.

First: Where did any pope say anything about the title (meaning papa) being of the antichrist. In one sense, even if this was said, it was true. ONLY in the fact that for a man to DESIRE the name would serve the ego. Methinks you have fallen prey to A-C info. Compared to the history of Christianity, the SDA is actually quite new (1844), and introduced many new concepts - most stemming from the error of sola scriptura. BTW, where does the bible teach sola scriptura? It does not. Paul said to maintain both the oral Apostolic teaching tradition and the letters. The RCC and Orthodox Churches have done that. The SDA has discarded the oral teaching traditions of Paul, and relies solely on written words that, like forum posts, can be misinterpreted.

Length of existance does not constitute validity. Look how long the nation of Isreal existed. Was that a guarentee that God would be with them forever, remember there were conditions. They failed these conditions, however, God did not abandon them, he sent his Son, their Messiah, as promised, but he was refused. You ask me by what authority SDAs interepret Scripture. It is done at the instruction of Paul when he tells us to compare what we are told to what has been written in both the Old and the New Testament. After all, verbal communication can and has been distorted and perverted, no matter how much of a claim there is to deny this, the written word, however, has been miraculously preserved by God.

If you have a love of the truth, and I know you do, why not read the conversion stories of those who have come to the CC? Their stories would mean much more, since their reasoning is given. I do not expect your opinion to be swayed -so virulent is the SDA opposition to the CC, but studying the reason of others is always helpful.

Would my conversion story be any less valid than those you suggest I read, or those of anybodyelse’s outside the RCC. As I have stated before, God has his people in many different denominations. Many in the SDA do not believe that we are the only ones to be saved, as do other denominations, but that God knows who his people are and, when the time comes, will be calling them all home.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 2

Thank you. Please consider: A lie will not stand for 1,975 years. Christ founded one Church and placed the Apostles in charge. The gates of hell did not and never will prevail over it. That church still exists and will for as long as time lasts. I chose that church and I am home. I have a responsibility before God to lead others to His revealed Truth.

I find this a puzzlement. A lie will last as long as there is someone to believe it. Remember also Christ said that many would be decieved and a deciever would be sent to do this task. How are we to know when we are decieved? How do we know that we are walking in his way? “If you love me KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.” “He that says he love God and keeps not his commandments is a liar.” " These are they that KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS and HAVE THE TESTAMONY OF CHRIST"

Read, for the RCC, first commandment (second commandment for protestants) completely through and find this same exortation. Thank God we have God’s Grace through Jesus the Christ that protects us from the consequences of sin (the transgression of the Law), but this Grace does not abolish the Law, by which we will be judged on the Day of Judgement.

 

[benedictus2]

My point, sir, is that if the only thing you do is yell about how unstable the other house is, you won’t have time to talk about how strong and good YOURS is.

Quite the contrary. You have to expose the lie for what is, a lie, first before people will see the truth. That is how most people have come to know the truth. By finally finding out that what they have believed all those years were lies.

The reason conversion takes a long time is because of the stranglehold of the lie.

That’s a pretty telling statement; 'aside from telling them that their tents are shabby, we also tell them about the Castle?" That’s my point; you have the order wrong. You SHOULD be talking about the Castle only. Trust me, the folks in the tents know precisely what those tents are. If they stay there, it’s because they don’t know anything better. So–just show them the castle. They can do their own comparing.

Actually no. You have to show them first how shabby it is. You have to yell that the Emperor has no clothes or they will keep going about deluded in their nakedness. Then you give them the clothes. If they continue in their delusion of being dressed, they would not take the clothes being offered since in their opinion they are already fully clothed.

Well, y’see, let’s not forget that this is a parable; a metaphor–and remember also that those in the tents actually think that they are the ones living in the castle, and you are in the lesser dwelling. Defending the beauty of your own home is wonderful; your lights should shine.

Exactly my point! That is why you have to destroy that delusion first. The lie has to go first before the truth can abide.

But you know what happens when the dwellers in one ‘castle’ start telling the dwellers of another that theirs in inferior? Nothing good.

Only in your opinion. Truth is objective and the lie must be exposed. It is not charity to leave people mired in the lie.

 

[dianaiad]

Quite the contrary. You have to expose the lie for what is, a lie, first before people will see the truth. That is how most people have come to know the truth. By finally finding out that what they have believed all those years were lies.

I disagree. If someone sees truth, and knows truth for what it is, then does it matter what ‘lie’ they were believing before?

It doesn’t.

To reuse an already used metaphor, if you have a yacht cruising through the ocean rescuing people from a shipwreck, do you have to make the victims admit that they are floating on a red board or a polka dot deck chair before you will let them on board?

Don’t you think that, having seen your beautiful yacht, they can figure out for themselves that yours is better than whatever it is that they had…making whatever it is that they had irrelevant?

The reason conversion takes a long time is because of the stranglehold of the lie.

The reason it may take a long time is that there is nothing given to take the place of the lie. Better to believe in something that is partially true than to dive off into nothing.

 

[Catholicc]

…The word “hostile” denotes violence…

Not always

 

[benedictus2]

I disagree. If someone sees truth, and knows truth for what it is, then does it matter what ‘lie’ they were believing before?

But in this case, most of the time the lie is the flipside of the truth. Expose the lie and you also reveal the truth. Case in point: If you expose the lie of a symbolic view of the Eucharist, you come to the truth that it is indeed the Body of Christ.

Most of the time it is a case of either/or. Deny one and you affirm the other.

To reuse an already used metaphor, if you have a yacht cruising through the ocean rescuing people from a shipwreck, do you have to make the victims admit that they are floating on a red board or a polka dot deck chair before you will let them on board?

But this metaphor does not apply in this case. It is clear from that example that they are floating on a red board. In fact, the reality is more like they are in a swanky looking ship but they have no idea that it is un-seaworthy and will not withstand the waves. It looks tough on the outside but iniside its foundations are rotting and those on it have no idea at all how unsafe it is.

Don’t you think that, having seen your beautiful yacht, they can figure out for themselves that yours is better than whatever it is that they had…making whatever it is that they had irrelevant?

As I’ve said above, the yacths look almost similar on the outside but completely different story in the inside. They are oblivious to the perilous state of their yacht because the rot is not on the surface.

As someone said regarding the protestant theology, it looks good but where’s the meat.

The reason it may take a long time is that there is nothing given to take the place of the lie. Better to believe in something that is partially true than to dive off into nothing.

But one is not being asked to dive off into nothing. One is being asked to let go and free fall into a great something. Something that is infinitely glorious.

A partial truth is still a lie. Even more pernicious because it is hard to see that it is indeed a lie. And the devil is the father of lies.

 

[po18guy]

I find this a puzzlement. A lie will last as long as there is someone to believe it. Remember also Christ said that many would be decieved and a deciever would be sent to do this task. How are we to know when we are decieved?

You will not like this, but it is done out of love and respect for the truth, as well as for a brother in Christ. Frankly, we know we are deceived when a church is founded 1,844 years after the event. We know when it is founded by the remnants of a movement that falsely claimed to know the exact moment when Christ would return (the “Great disappointment”). We know when a person who has survived a life-threatening head injury and coma, as well as possible mercury poisoning suddenly receives “visions” and is regarded as a prophet - subjecting the WORD (which is Jesus Christ, by the way) to individual human interpretation. We know when a church is founded on the confusion and error of sola scriptura, which is not taught by the bible. We know when a church was founded by man and not Jesus Christ. We know when many major beliefs of a church have never been: taught by the prophets or by Jesus Christ, and have not been predicted, written of or fulfilled anywhere on earth in recorded history. We know we are deceived when a church is not Apostolic, as is the Church that Christ founded. That’s how we know.

I am well aware that this is a bitter pill for those who may never have been exposed to the fulness of God’s revealed truth.

How do we know that we are walking in his way? “If you love me KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.” “He that says he love God and keeps not his commandments is a liar.”

Well then, the Apostles are all liars, because they broke the sabbath. But, they were not condemned.

Does the SDA believe that Christ is “Lord of even the Sabbath” or not? I have never received an answer from any SDA member as to why God chose Sunday to raise His Son from the Dead. No answer as to why the SDA do NOTHING to honor the day of the Lord’s resurrection, even though God and the Apostles did.

Read, for the RCC, first commandment (second commandment for protestants) completely through and find this same exortation. Thank God we have God’s Grace through Jesus the Christ that protects us from the consequences of sin (the transgression of the Law), but this Grace does not abolish the Law, by which we will be judged on the Day of Judgement.

Let’s say Catholics agree with you on the Sabbath. Only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, so what are you really concerned with?

You will also be judged on whether or not you have life within you. If you do not eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ (SDA do not), you have no life within you. This is the Word of Christ. Catholics believe it and follow it.

Now, you can accuse me of being harsh, hostile, violent, xenophobic or whatever adjective you care to name, but for me to allow the SDA heresy to go unchallenged by God’s revealed truth is a sin that I will not commit.

You asked. I answered.

 

[dianaiad]

But in this case, most of the time the lie is the flipside of the truth. Expose the lie and you also reveal the truth. Case in point: If you expose the lie of a symbolic view of the Eucharist, you come to the truth that it is indeed the Body of Christ.

That is very seldom true. Destroying someone’s faith in the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and there is nothing left for him to believe; the Eucharist will then mean–nothing at all. However, if you demonstrate why you believe in transubstantiation, and your listener comes to believe that you are right about that, that alone ‘exposes the lie,’ and you didn’t have to do a thing; your hearer will dispose of his own old beliefs without you having to do anything about it–and, by the way, having made some mistake about what he believes that he will be able to defend.

Once upon a time there were seven young girls; they all came to a party where they played a game involving crayons and a very large piece of paper on the floor. They all had different crayon colors…and each one claimed that HER color was blue.

Until Mom came in with seven crayons that really were true blue. She offered those crayons to the girls, and each one dropped her own and reached for the new, blue, crayon.

Oddly enough, Mom didn’t have to tell Mira that her crayon was really orange, not blue. She didn’t have to tell Janice that her crayon was yellow-green. She didn’t have to tell Shaniqua that she was holding a purple one, or that Dot was holding a brown one. They all knew, from seeing the true blue, that what they had was NOT blue. It didn’t matter what they were holding, all that matters is that what they were holding wasn’t blue; so they dropped their crayons and reached for the blue ones.

Most of the time it is a case of either/or. Deny one and you affirm the other.

That is very seldom true. For one thing, it is VERY seldom that an anti actually gets the belief he is attacking right–and what is the opposite of a strawman? Straw truth?

But this metaphor does not apply in this case. It is clear from that example that they are floating on a red board. In fact, the reality is more like they are in a swanky looking ship but they have no idea that it is un-seaworthy and will not withstand the waves. It looks tough on the outside but iniside its foundations are rotting and those on it have no idea at all how unsafe it is.

And neither do you, except that you have your boat. So invite the other guys over; trust them; they will be able to see the difference and move.

If they can’t, there isn’t anything you could tell them about their boat that would cause them to change their minds, and if you try–and in your complaints about their boat get anything wrong (like for instance…you tell them that their rudder is purple when it is actually orange) then they will use that as a reason to ignore anything else you have to say.

As I’ve said above, the yacths look almost similar on the outside but completely different story in the inside. They are oblivious to the perilous state of their yacht because the rot is not on the surface.

As someone said regarding the protestant theology, it looks good but where’s the meat.

But one is not being asked to dive off into nothing. One is being asked to let go and free fall into a great something. Something that is infinitely glorious.

And they would know this, how, exactly? You ARENT TELLING THEM THAT!

A partial truth is still a lie. Even more pernicious because it is hard to see that it is indeed a lie. And the devil is the father of lies.

But a partial truth is also still a truth, and preferable to nothing at all. You’d better hope so, anyway, because if you ask your priest I know quite well that he will tell you that we don’t know everything, and some of the things that most Catholics believe may simply not be so.

Like, oh…limbo?

Some still believe in that. Some don’t. For those who do (or don’t,) and they turn out to be wrong, were they believing in a partial lie?

 

[Psalm4]

Note from OP – Please Read

I think that all of these metaphors have somewhat derailed the conversation. If those involved in that conversation could start a different thread… that’d be great. Perhaps you’ll consider posting a link from this thread to the new one, so those that wish to follow the conversation can do so.

Also, to anyone who finds this thread offensive, I’d ask that you please go back and read my original post. The purpose of this thread is not to condemn other denominations or ‘prove’ them wrong. It was intended as a place where people could say, “I’ve noticed anti-Catholic sentiments in such-and-such denomination,” so that Catholics can be aware of who thinks we’re going to hell.

 

[po18guy]

Note from OP – Please Read

I think that all of these metaphors have somewhat derailed the conversation. If those involved in that conversation could start a different thread… that’d be great. Perhaps you’ll consider posting a link from this thread to the new one, so those that wish to follow the conversation can do so.

Also, to anyone who finds this thread offensive, I’d ask that you please go back and read my original post. The purpose of this thread is not to condemn other denominations or ‘prove’ them wrong. It was intended as a place where people could say, “I’ve noticed anti-Catholic sentiments in such-and-such denomination,” so that Catholics can be aware of who thinks we’re going to hell.

Of course, you are absolutely right! Wrong thread to bare our passion. There does appear to be a consensus here, though.

 

[benedictus2]

That is very seldom true. Destroying someone’s faith in the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and there is nothing left for him to believe; the Eucharist will then mean–nothing at all.

Completely wrong. It is not very seldomo true. It is most of the time true. When you cease to believe it is symbolic, then you believe that it indeed the Body of Christ. That is so much more glorious than the symbolic interpretation.

If you look at all the doctrines in contention, it is most of the time an either /or.

Eucharist: Either it is indeed Jesus or it is not.
Mary: either she is Immaculately Conceived or she is not.
Infallibility: Either the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible or they are not.
Purgatory: Either it exists or it does not

However, if you demonstrate why you believe in transubstantiation, and your listener comes to believe that you are right about that, that alone ‘exposes the lie,’ and you didn’t have to do a thing; your hearer will dispose of his own old beliefs without you having to do anything about it–and, by the way, having made some mistake about what he believes that he will be able to defend.

But when you explain why that symbolic is a lie, then the converse is true. What you fail to get is that when you explain that they are wrong, you also have to explain why you are right. If we say that the pope is infallible, we have to explain why he is indeed infallible.

Once upon a time there were seven young girls; they all came to a party where they played a game involving crayons and a very large piece of paper on the floor. They all had different crayon colors…and each one claimed that HER color was blue.

Until Mom came in with seven crayons that really were true blue. She offered those crayons to the girls, and each one dropped her own and reached for the new, blue, crayon.

Oddly enough, Mom didn’t have to tell Mira that her crayon was really orange, not blue. She didn’t have to tell Janice that her crayon was yellow-green. She didn’t have to tell Shaniqua that she was holding a purple one, or that Dot was holding a brown one. They all knew, from seeing the true blue, that what they had was NOT blue. It didn’t matter what they were holding, all that matters is that what they were holding wasn’t blue; so they dropped their crayons and reached for the blue ones.

But like your parable of being on a red board, this does not even come close to explaining the lie. A more apt explanation is that they were all colour blind and no amount of telling them that something is blue will convince them because they truly belive that what they are seeing is the true colour. Only if you can convince them that they are actually colour blind will you even get close to convincing them that the colour is indeed blue.

That is very seldom true. For one thing, it is VERY seldom that an anti actually gets the belief he is attacking right–and what is the opposite of a strawman? Straw truth?

Precisely. Once you have convinced them that what they believe is a lie about you and about their faith, then and only then can they embrace your truth.

If I am convinced that being scantily dressed is okay, unless you can convince me that it is wrong, no amount of saying that I should cover myself up will convince me to be more appropriately dressed.

If a person believes that contraception is okay, unless you can show them the evil that it is, telling them that allowing God to decide how many children they should have will not make an iota of difference to them. Only if you can show that self determination in this case goes against God’s will can you convince them to abandon this practice.

And neither do you, except that you have your boat. So invite the other guys over; trust them; they will be able to see the difference and move.

Not unless you can show that their boat is unstable and sinking. You have to realize, they have grown to love their boat and will cling to it for dear life. Only if you can show there is something wrong with their boat will they abandon it.

If they can’t, there isn’t anything you could tell them about their boat that would cause them to change their minds, and if you try–and in your complaints about their boat get anything wrong (like for instance…you tell them that their rudder is purple when it is actually orange) then they will use that as a reason to ignore anything else you have to say.

They will abandon it if they know it is sinking. And you are ready with your boat to haul them into yours.

 

[chrisse]

Oh really??

I am an Evanglical / Born Again.

You know, one characteristic of a bigoted person is to take characteristics of a few and to ascribe them to the whole group.

Protestants do not have a corner on bigoted people.

Well, I can only go by my experience. And I find them jumping off the topic of discussion to attack my faith and call me names. And heaven forbid if they make a claim about what Christians believe, and I point out that not all Christians agree with them

I am disgusted at the way they are now attempting to claim the word “Christianity” as exclusive to themselves, like it’s the name of their “church” or “denomination”.

They should at least say, as an Evangelical/Born Again Christian, I believe. I’m yet to hear one clarify in that way.

 

[chrisse]

Hello fellow friend from down under Good to see another one from Melbourne on this thread.

Hey Benedictus, it’s hot - the tennis must be on

 

[benedictus2]

And they would know this, how, exactly? You ARENT TELLING THEM THAT!

Sorry but we are telling them that. In the process of disabusing them of the lie, we show them the truth.

Back to the example of the Eucharist, when we say that it is not just a memorial we explain that it is Jesus. And we explain that his life does indeed give us eternal life.

You ought to look around this forum more. Especially in the apologetics area. You will se that at the same time we show them that their beliefs are lies, we also explain why our belief is the truth.

But a partial truth is also still a truth, and preferable to nothing at all.

No. A partial truth is a lie. Truth is either the whole truth or it is no longer truth. And as I have said before, it is more pernicious. Because with outright lies, they are easy to spot. Not so with half truths. And I think that is how the devil works these days. Not with outright lies, but with half truths. You get more people that way.

You’d better hope so, anyway, because if you ask your priest I know quite well that he will tell you that we don’t know everything, and some of the things that most Catholics believe may simply not be so.

I don’t know everything. And you don’t know everything. But the difference between you and me is that I have the Church who I know I can trust because Christ gave it the promise to lead into all truth. I do not lean on my own understanding. I lean on the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Like, oh…limbo?
Some still believe in that. Some don’t. For those who do (or don’t,) and they turn out to be wrong, were they believing in a partial lie?

In all truth I cannot answer that because I do not know the answer. I should read up more on it.

But I think the question of limbo is not something that has any repercussions on salvation. So to believe in it or not is a not all that material. Although that is my opinion at this stage as I do not know much about it.

 

[benedictus2]

Hey Benedictus, it’s hot - the tennis must be on

I am actually loving this 26 degree day. What a glorious weather.

 

[benedictus2]

I am disgusted at the way they are now attempting to claim the word “Christianity” as exclusive to themselves, like it’s the name of their “church” or “denomination”

How true. I have a friend who asked me if I was Christian and I said I was Catholic. And she said, is that Christian?

I had to explain to her that we were the first Christians.

 

[benedictus2]

Note from OP – Please Read

I think that all of these metaphors have somewhat derailed the conversation. If those involved in that conversation could start a different thread… that’d be great. Perhaps you’ll consider posting a link from this thread to the new one, so those that wish to follow the conversation can do so.

Also, to anyone who finds this thread offensive, I’d ask that you please go back and read my original post. The purpose of this thread is not to condemn other denominations or ‘prove’ them wrong. It was intended as a place where people could say, “I’ve noticed anti-Catholic sentiments in such-and-such denomination,” so that Catholics can be aware of who thinks we’re going to hell.

Sorry will desist from metaphors as of this moment.

 

[Catholicc]

…I am disgusted at the way they are now attempting to claim the word “Christianity” as exclusive to themselves, like it’s the name of their “church” or “denomination”…

Whenever I see a Christian bookstore I walk in and say “Where’s the Catholic section.” When the say that there isn’t one, which they usually do, I say “but I thought this was a Christian bookstore. You mean its just a protestant bookstore?”

LOL. I always have big fun with that shtick.

 

[KLIBERA]

Evangelicals In The U.s. They Take The Bible Literally. They Are Very Pro-life But Also Very Pro-death Penalty. The 2 Are Inconsistent For A Church. The Vatican Is At Least Consistent On These 2 Issues. They Tend To Judge Everyone Else & Do Not Understand The Mystery Of All God’s Purposes. This Is Not To Say That I Understand God Completely But I Believe Their Intolerance Is Horrific.

 

[dianaiad]

Completely wrong. It is not very seldomo true. It is most of the time true. When you cease to believe it is symbolic, then you believe that it indeed the Body of Christ. That is so much more glorious than the symbolic interpretation.

Perhaps, but—not if you haven’t mentioned the idea. Trust me, unless someone has mentioned the idea of transubstantiation, the concept is not something that is going to automatically occur to someone who has just had his faith in the symbolic nature of the bread and wa…er, wine, destroyed.

<snip to end, for space only>