Which denominations are most hostile to Catholicism?

[dianaiad]

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

Trust me on this.

No, you aren’t.

Look, I’m an expert on this. I mean, truly an expert. I’ve been ‘bible bashed’ by pretty much every anti sort there is; fundamentalist, Catholic, atheist…you name it and they’ve had their turn at me–for 45 freakin’ years, beginning with that incident in high school involving the girl with the cross and the fleet feet.

I have never once had anybody simply tell me what they thought the truth was about THEIR beliefs. Not once.

The little I do know about other beliefs I know because I go and ask one of their leaders–and I have to very carefully *not *mention that I am LDS even with them. It’s a knee-jerk response; “oh, you believe this and that and we don’t.” Well, I don’t think it’s enough to know that someone doesn’t believe what they think we do, do you?

After all, more often than not we don’t believe what they think we do, either, so how helpful is that?

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.

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.

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.

You are quite right. I do not lean on the Catholic church. I lean on the scriptures and the church that I believe is right. If we both find comfort therein, it is because Jesus gives comfort wherever He is found.

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.

(grin) I think that’s what we say about evolution, come to think of it…

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

part 1

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.

And thus your hypocrocy shows through, for to say this you need also condemn those that came up out of the Protestant Reformation. But now the RCC is not condemning them but embracing them, “calling it’s daughters” back to the fold. Giving them recognitions as to having validity to Christ.

The only reason you object to the SDA is because it holds to the prophetic revelation of the RCC. I would remind you that prophecies are never recognized properly until after they have been fulfilled, and history proves the validity of prophetic interpretation concerning the RCC whether you want to face the facts or not.

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”).

For which they repented and apologized and reevaluated what they had learned. Even the RCC has made mistakes in the past but to bring those up brings only ridicule to those that do. Do you deny that God reveal truth to any the would recieve it? Or is it only the RCC that holds that blessing? I asked that you show me where in EGW or any of the other “founders” expounded on anything other then what was supported by Scripture.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

part 1

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.

And thus your hypocrocy shows through, for to say this you need also condemn those that came up out of the Protestant Reformation. But now the RCC is not condemning them but embracing them, “calling it’s daughters” back to the fold. Giving them recognitions as to having validity to Christ.

The only reason you object to the SDA is because it holds to the prophetic revelation of the RCC. I would remind you that prophecies are never recognized properly until after they have been fulfilled, and history proves the validity of prophetic interpretation concerning the RCC whether you want to face the facts or not.

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”).

For which they repented and apologized and reevaluated what they had learned. Even the RCC has made mistakes in the past but to bring those up brings only ridicule to those that do. Do you deny that God reveal truth to any the would recieve it? Or is it only the RCC that holds that blessing? I asked that you show me where in EGW or any of the other “founders” expounded on anything other then what was supported by Scripture.

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.

Is she any less valid than those who lead the Chruch in drunkenness and debauchery, for there have been those in the RCC, or do you not read Church history? Again, show me where she has deviated from the Word? Not only did she not, but she profusely exorted others to compare what she taught to the Scriptures submitting herself to the authority of the Word.

We know when a church is founded on the confusion and error of sola scriptura, which is not taught by the bible.

Ahh, again I see that my question is once again being ignored and bypassed. What are you afraid to answer it? Or is it that you have no answer for it? Shall I repeat it? "WOULD THE APOSTLES HAVE SPOKEN ANYTHING CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY HAD WRITTEN?"

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.

I suggest you research some of the RCC’s doctrines more thuroughly, with out prejudice or bias (if that is at all possible), I think you will be surprised as to how many things the RCC does or teaches that was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles.

We know we are deceived when a church is not Apostolic, as is the Church that Christ founded. That’s how we know.

The Holy Spirit is the driving force behind our belief, and I don’t mean just the SDA but all faiths. We submit ourselves to his guidance in obedience to God and the Word. The Word was given by the Apostles through their writings. So if we adhere to those writings, which are the Word, then that is what is Apostolic.

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.

This is laughable, don’t you know that not even the Apostles were exposed to the fulness of God’s revealed truth. See 1 Cor. 13:9-10 "For we know in part, and we prohesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." Christ did not reveal the whole truth to the Apostles and they knew it. Paul is telling us that when Christ returns then all truth will be revealed. So it is folly to think that we can be exposed to “ALL” the fulness of God’s truth. What we do have is what he has given us in scripture and what he has revealed in prophecy throughout history.

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

You have no solid evidence that the Apostles ever broke the Sabbath. In fact I’ve been reading again Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in which he tells them the neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters; 1 Cor. 7:18-19 “Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. I any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, but the KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.”

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

part 2

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.

Study the ceremonial laws of Moses and you will find your answer. The ceremonies were a type of Christ. Each sacrificial celebration was a celebration of the coming messiah. The resurrection of Jesus on the third day, a study will show the eighth day of the passover, is in these laws.

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?

What I am saying is that when the time comes we, all of us, will be judged according to the Law. Though we are under Grace the law has not been done away with. My concern is salvation of a lost race. Our relationship to God under the conditions that God has laid out, not under our conditions. The Law condemns us, and as long as we have no advocate to stand in our stead we remain condemned. Christ is that advocate and it is only through him are we protected from this condemnation. But even after we have excepted that protection we are still under the obligation to hold to the law. “Shall we sin so Grace may abound? Heaven forbid!.” paraphrased quote of Paul.

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.

This is a harsh accusation and unfounded. Just because the SDA view the Lord’s supper differently doesn’t not mean we hold it any less sacred. I would be careful what accusations you make against fellow christians as to may well come back to bite you in the rear.

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.

Actually you didn’t really answer anything, you went on a diatrabe of accusations for which you presented no subtantial subsistance. You left the main question unanswered, go back and find it, it’s been bolded, italicised, underlined and capitalized for you.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;4706535:

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>

Transubstantiatoin is something most people even Catholics do not grasp. Explaning it will not make sense to them. What we do explain is that all you need to do is read John 6 and you will know that Christ never meant it symbolically.

You should go to other threads in this forum. Then you will know how well Catholics explaint the faith.

 

[grampben]

dianaiad;4711223:

Transubstantiatoin is something most people even Catholics do not grasp. Explaning it will not make sense to them. What we do explain is that all you need to do is read John 6 and you will know that Christ never meant it symbolically.

You should go to other threads in this forum. Then you will know how well Catholics explaint the faith.

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.
It isn’t symbols vs transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is just a way of describing Christ’s presence in the eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.
It isn’t symbols vs transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is just a way of describing Christ’s presence in the eucharist.

That is correct! Some believe in con-substantiation.

 

[pathurr19]

Iglesia ni Cristo…it’s from here (Philippines)…very straightforward in hating us catholics…read their “beliefs” over at Wikipedia…it says most about catholics being fake and all…not even a mention of other sects such as muslims…etc…or other at all…they just attack and attack us…

 

[grampben]

That is correct! Some believe in con-substantiation.

And the lutheran view of sacramental union.

 

[jmcrcia]

If you look at any of the new “Emergent Churches” they are very Catholic friendly as they seek to have a form of the ancient faith as they call it, but aren’t willing to make the jump across the Tiber.

Many criticize the “Emergent Churches” for being “too catholic”. I heard a whole sermon on this one (with a PowerPoint and all!) When I hear this now, I laugh. “Emergent Churches” on the exterior, seem to be very symbolic and have more artistry in their worship (candles, pictures, they unofficially observe Lent, etc). They also claim to be getting back to the “original” church or ancient faith, with an emphasis on small group ministry, home based churches, community service, et cetera. The reality is that this is skin deep, and there actually is a strong vein of anti-religion in their veins. One even told me once that doctrine is the Anti-Christ. That’s not to criticize their faith or their devotion to God (please don’t get me wrong, I have met some of the most faithful, devout followers of Christ amongst these groups)… but “Emergent Churches” are specifically anti-religion in nature, that’s for sure. As being non-denomination/or inter-denominational, they avoid any type of dogma or doctrine and generally refer to themselves as “spiritual, not religious” (is this anti-Catholic?). Some don’t even like labeling themselves as Christian, but as “the seekers” or “the believers”. Some don’t even like meeting in Churches, but instead choose to hold “worship” by doing various community service projects instead of a Sunday Service. I’ve got to hand it to them, they are definitely involved in community service and are very in to Social Justice. In reality, They are more un-Catholic (not to be confused with Anti-Catholic, which most are not), which is why they won’t swim the Tiber any time soon.

Don’t define us man! As they might say.

Funny, as my wife and I are in the process of becoming Catholic, many of our “Emergent Church” friends have had no problem expressing their dissatisfaction. Traditional Protestant friends of ours seem to be the most indifferent. Go figure, but I wasn’t surprised.

 

[dianaiad]

benedictus2;4716867:

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.
It isn’t symbols vs transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is just a way of describing Christ’s presence in the eucharist.

I didn’t write the quote to which this is a response.

 

[Tom_Edwards]

Which denominations are most hostile to Catholicism?

The Church of Christ denomination.

 

[eucharisteo]

Which denominations are most hostile to Catholicism?

The Church of Christ denomination.

Why do you say that Tom?

Never mind. I read your profile and first posts.

I sent you a link to a group of Church of Christ (COC) Christians that converted to Catholicism. I’ve spoken to a couple of well known coc converts as well. We have a huge coc family. Full of Elders, Preachers, deacons. Had an ACU scholarship lined up too before giving up on it. I reverted to Catholicism after my wife and I started doing some serious research.

 

[Trinityisgod]

I don’t know who made a comment about praying to Mary, but in the Bible is a suggestion of intercessions being made on behalf of all men. Read your Bible.

 

[reteeks21]

I don’t know who made a comment about praying to Mary, but in the Bible is a suggestion of intercessions being made on behalf of all men. Read your Bible.

I don’t think intercession is the “issue”. I think the “issue”, for some, is praying to dead people. At least that seems to be the consensus among my friends.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think intercession is the “issue”. I think the “issue”, for some, is praying to dead people. At least that seems to be the consensus among my friends.

I find that concept really funny especially when Christians say that.

What do they think, that once your dead that is the end of you? How do they view heaven then?

What is even more ridiculous is that people who believe in OSAS are probably one of the ones most vehement in their condemnation of prayer to dead people.

Why if you believe in OSAS therefore you would have plenty of friends who have died and are now saved.
In this instance, what does saved mean then? Does that not mean that these people are already in heaven?

And if they are in heaven, why can we not ask them to pray for us (which is what we do when we pray to dead people ). They are much more alive in heaven. They are face to face with God. Why can’t we ask for their intercession.

I think what this boils down to is that though they believe in salvation and heaven, they really just have no concept of what heaven is really like.

They just have no idea what communion of saints mean and yet some of them even recite the Creed.

Or else their view of heaven is like a Zen Buddhist’s oblivion to pain and suffering and of everyone else.

 

[mmmcounts]

I would guess Lutherans or Othodox. Their history includes nasty splits. They zigged when the RCC zagged. I would think they’d be more in touch with exactly why that is.

 

[brendankiwi]

I love talking to protestants and I’ve been doing it worldwide for 25 years. I have found the ones most hostile to be the London evangelical ANGLICANS… they operate like an army and are extremely persistent … they target weak catholics…many whom are church going catholics and ignorant of history. They are an extremely fanatical group who stop at nothing to convert you. They will invite you for dinner and then assail you with a group of protestant apologists… there life revolves around ‘rescuing Catholics’ … they don’t target Moslems, Baptists or JW… just Catholics… they believe only Catholics have the certainty of hell. they work in networks and I am convinced they are a network that is hell instructed.

The next group of protestants that is assuredly the most anti catholic… is the ‘traditionalists’ …more catholic than the pope is their belief. I LOVE the old rite and it’s doctrinal richness… but I wouldn’t make a new relgiion around it. They mimic Catholicism… a very dangerous thing and demand complete fidelity to…
there renegade bishops and priests (not to the pope) .

 

[Catholicc]

I don’t think intercession is the “issue”. I think the “issue”, for some, is praying to dead people. At least that seems to be the consensus among my friends.

Got a hot newsflash for you:
People in heaven are not dead. They are more alive than we are for they behold the face of God.

 

[RainDown]

I think Fundamentalists in general. Yesterday I was on Youtube and some elderly Fundamentalist was attacking the Catholic Church for using the term “God Bless”. He was like “You can’t say that! That sentence doesn’t have an object! It’s not even a real sentence! God Bless what? My foot?!” OK, maybe he didn’t actually say “my foot”…It sounds kinda funny though. Hearing him say that made me laugh. I was thinking “Anything to attack the Church, hm? Tons of people say God bless!” And throughout the time he was talking, the video repeatedly showed a picture of JP II laying in state after his death, and the maker of the vid gave him red eyes and wrote “EVIL” at the bottom of the screen.

I know this is totally unrelated, but, um, can somebody tell me what “IMO” means? I saw somebody else use it on this thread and still have no idea what it means.