Who's on First?

[Contarini]

• One anomaly that comes to mind between the Catholic vs Protestant situation comes
  down to one question for me: Who Is In Control Here? According to Protestantism, as
  far as I am aware, the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, but curiously, the Protestant
  Movement didn’t start until the 15th Century, right?

Sixteenth. 1517 and so on.
.

• Now the Apostles all lived up until around the end of the 1st Century, Protestants are okay
  with the first few centuries after, then somehow the Protestant position is that the Church
  somehow went wrong. Again: The Protestant Movement started around 15th Century. So
  that would mean that for ten to fifteen thousand years,

You mean 1000-1500 years.

Christ’s Church was in some way
lost to the Earth.

No. This is one of the most common Catholic mistakes in responding to Protestantism. That isn’t a position most Protestants would hold. There are a bunch of different Protestant positions on this, but the basic point you need to understand is that Protestants don’t assume that if the Church gets stuff wrong, therefore it’s not the true Church any more.

The classic Protestant view, insofar as there is one, is that the Church gradually admitted more and more error and corruption as time went on, but that didn’t mean there was no true Church. The most conservative "classic Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) would argue that when the Council of Trent rejected Protestantism, then and only then did the “Roman” Church cease to be a true Christian Church.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

No. This is one of the most common Catholic mistakes in responding to Protestantism. That isn’t a position most Protestants would hold. There are a bunch of different Protestant positions on this, but the basic point you need to understand is that Protestants don’t assume that if the Church gets stuff wrong, therefore it’s not the true Church any more.

Edwin

I agree. It would be helpful if the Catholics who start these sorts of threads would identify who they mean to address, and who they believe holds the views they’re trying to refute.

 

[concretecamper]

Sixteenth. 1517 and so on.
.

You mean 1000-1500 years.

No. This is one of the most common Catholic mistakes in responding to Protestantism. That isn’t a position most Protestants would hold. There are a bunch of different Protestant positions on this, but the basic point you need to understand is that Protestants don’t assume that if the Church gets stuff wrong, therefore it’s not the true Church any more.

The classic Protestant view, insofar as there is one, is that the Church gradually admitted more and more error and corruption as time went on, but that didn’t mean there was no true Church. The most conservative "classic Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) would argue that when the Council of Trent rejected Protestantism, then and only then did the “Roman” Church cease to be a true Christian Church.

Edwin

Why would you say Trent was the point the RCC ceased to be a true Christian Church?

 

[PRmerger]

The death penalty, hands down. I go against my whole family, my whole political view, most other protestants etc… by being against the death penalty as it is in the US. Trust me, I was drug kicking and screaming to that conclusion.

So you believe that God is against the death penalty, even though you personally are for it?

 

[Kliska]

So you believe that God is against the death penalty, even though you personally are for it?

How 'bout this: I believe that God is against the death penalty, even though I WAS personally for it. Now I’m not for it as God lead me to that idea. If you want details, my view now lines up pretty closely with a section in the RCC’s catechism gasp

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

 

[concretecamper]

Kliska:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

So you believe that God is against the death penalty, even though you personally are for it?

How 'bout this: I believe that God is against the death penalty, even though I WAS personally for it. Now I’m not for it as God lead me to that idea. If you want details, my view now lines up pretty closely with a section in the RCC’s catechism gasp

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

God Bless JPII

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[PRmerger]

It is a bit judgmental in general (not you) for people to judge someone for trying to seek out a church that they believe is speaking true.

Well, we are all called to judge, are we not? (see John 7:24)

And, if you find being judgmental to be such a…negative…are you not being judgmental in your comment above?

I’ve heard many converts to the RCC say that is the way it was for them, so why should protestants be judged for doing the same thing that have lead many to the RCC?

What the Catholic paradigm is is this: find the Church that Christ established, and the conform your views to this Church’s.

NOT: find a church that conforms to your own views.

 

[Kliska]

What the Catholic paradigm is is this: find the Church that Christ established, and the conform your views to this Church’s.

How do you find it and know that it is the Church that Christ established? You’ve got to make a personal decision somehow and with something.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know about Steve but what resonates with me is “Truth”. As I said, there are and were many hard teaching in the CC I would love to not have to conform to, but to where shall I go?

If we can’t say that there is a belief or practice that makes us squirm, and that we say, “God revealed it, therefore I change my belief/practice”, then we are not following God, but rather ourselves.

For reason demands that if there is a God, He is going to reveal some things which we find unpalatable, or not to our particular tastes.

It seems that the paradigm of today’s Christian world is this: I want to [insert Behavior A]. So I have decided that “God wouldn’t care if I did [Behavior A]”. Or “God agrees with me and commands me to do [Behavior A]” Where’s a church that permits [Behavior A]?

That church = The Church of the Almighty Self

Examples of Behavior A:
-divorce and re-marry
-marry someone of my own gender
-hate homosexuals
-contracept
-abort
-be a priestess
-spend all my money on material things

 

[PRmerger]

How 'bout this: I believe that God is against the death penalty, even though I WAS personally for it. Now I’m not for it as God lead me to that idea. If you want details, my view now lines up pretty closely with a section in the RCC’s catechism gasp

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The most conservative "classic Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) would argue that when the Council of Trent rejected Protestantism, then and only then did the “Roman” Church cease to be a true Christian Church.

Edwin

The only thing I’m reading from this is “They stopped being
a true Christian Church because they don’t like us.” (Child-
-Tantrum voice OPTIONAL).

I mean seriously, if a Church is one, the belief of everyone within it must also be one.
God is One, therefore the Truth must also be One. What? The Catholic Church stop-
ped being a true Christian Church once they announced how gone astray Protestant-
ism was? *
That’s a mature defense*. http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj557/Miss__Priss/emotions/RollingEyesSmiley5.gif

 

[PRmerger]

How do you find it and know that it is the Church that Christ established? You’ve got to make a personal decision somehow and with something.

I can trace all of my spiritual leaders back to Christ. Each of my shepherds has been anointed by someone who was anointed who was anointed by <snip 2000 years> the Apostles who were anointed by Christ.

It’s either my Church or the EO, and both believe essentially the same thing, save for the primacy of the chair of Peter, so it’s really one of these 2 that can claim to be Christ’s church.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The only thing I’m reading from this is “They stopped being
a true Christian Church because they don’t like us.” (Child-
-Tantrum voice OPTIONAL).

Then, Judas, you might try reading it without any thought of it being a bratty tantrum, but instead, if it doesn’t make sense to you, totally reserve judgment until someone can clarify the meaning for you.

 

[PRmerger]

And actually, the CC*** depends ***on non-Catholics doing this exact thing to “come home”. It seems the whole thrust of the Coming Home Network (they’re good at it, too).

Jon

This is the first misrepresentation I’ve ever seen regarding Catholicism from you, Jon. disappointed :sad_yes:

The CC does not advise a seeker come to the Table of Plenty because it “resonates” with him. She declares that all who join must be in communion with all of her teachings. That’s exactly why she states that even those seekers who have a belief in the Real Presence that “resonates” with them ought not receive until they are in, well, communion, with all her beliefs.

She asks that the seeker say, “Yes, I will believe and give my religious assent of the will!”

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of itCCC892.

I don’t know if that’s what your church advises, but it’s certainly what the CC demands.

 

[Kliska]

I can trace all of my spiritual leaders back to Christ. Each of my shepherds has been anointed by someone who was anointed who was anointed by <snip 2000 years> the Apostles who were anointed by Christ.

It’s either my Church or the EO, and both believe essentially the same thing, save for the primacy of the chair of Peter, so it’s really one of these 2 that can claim to be Christ’s church.

You then decided that the historical evidence provided to you was true and accurate and that was your benchmark for joining the RCC, or staying in the RCC. The other answer would be that you believed that simply because you were told and didn’t give it any thought at all… which I don’t believe.

 

[Kliska]

She asks that the seeker say, "Yes, I will believe and give my religious assent of the will!"

bingo

 

[AbideWithMe]

I can trace all of my spiritual leaders back to Christ. Each of my shepherds has been anointed by someone who was anointed who was anointed by <snip 2000 years> the Apostles who were anointed by Christ.

It’s either my Church or the EO, and both believe essentially the same thing, save for the primacy of the chair of Peter, so it’s really one of these 2 that can claim to be Christ’s church.

Okay, so is it fair to say that you decided, from your own research, that mechanical apostolic succession was the only necessary qualifier for the title “One True Church”?

 

[AbideWithMe]

This is the first misrepresentation I’ve ever seen regarding Catholicism from you, Jon. disappointed :sad_yes:

The CC does not advise a seeker come to the Table of Plenty because it “resonates” with him. She declares that all who join must be in communion with all of her teachings. That’s exactly why she states that even those seekers who have a belief in the Real Presence that “resonates” with them ought not receive until they are in, well, communion, with all her beliefs.

I’m not speaking for Jon, but as for myself, I didn’t read his post, taken together with Kliska’s, to be saying that mere “resonating” was the important thing to the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

You then decided that the historical evidence provided to you was true and accurate and that was your benchmark for joining the RCC, or staying in the RCC. The other answer would be that you believed that simply because you were told and didn’t give it any thought at all… which I don’t believe.

Right. I used history, logic and reason to find the Church Jesus established. Not theology. And then I conformed my views to Christ’s.

NOT: Find a church that agrees with your theology and then join it.

 

[Kliska]

Right. I used history, logic and reason to find the Church Jesus established. Not theology. And then I conformed my views to Christ’s.

NOT: Find a church that agrees with your theology and then join it.

History, logic, and reason are a part of how we form our theology. It isn’t formed in a vacuum. Further, history, logic and reason play a large role in why I’m a protestant… so… yeah.

I guess my point, and what I believe others are saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander.