… often, I wonder, … What is it in particular you choose this one and not another, what defines it specifically, how knowledgeable are you about it, compared to another and this being the very reason you stick to just this one?
I also wonder, how many of the members have given the Catholic church a second thought, … and truly know what it means to be a Catholic? …, are the same things that were in place during the reformation, the same now? … is there a reason to remain outside of it still to this day? …
I was baptised Lutheran within the month I was born. I became confirmed as a Catholic after three yrs. of being educated in the faith, at the age of eleven, in 1981. I was initiated by a guru, Gurinder Singh Ji of Rahdha Soami Satsang Beas, or Science of the Soul, or Sat Mat, in 1996, both my mother and grandmother were initiated by his predecessor, Charan Singh Ji, and after myself, my sister was initiated, too. In 2001, I was granted absolution; rejoined the church, and last month, I left and now am considering becoming a member at a Lutheran Church.
I regard myself to be Catholic, though, I understand: the Roman Rite perspective extant today is this–I was baptised with a valid formula, and have the document to prove it; however, as a Lutheran I am regarded to be a heretic, materially, I believe. The issues, which appear to make me a heretic, primarily, is grace vs. faith. There are lesser issues: indulgences, the communion of saints, sola scriptura, etc. However, those issues involve morality moreso than anything theological–they are mostly philosophical issues. The reform involved with indulgences, involved “taxing” the poor to build St. Peter’s Bascilica with the promise of salvation, written on paper; somewhat akin to theft, and bearing false witness, essentially. The communion of saints, is put forward to be a hegemony, more than anything along the line of exemplifying the first commandment. Jesus came to losers, failures, the rot of civilization. He did not send forward inferiors, and ask them to return with a report about how well they did prophesying, healing, teaching, and forgiving the scum of the earth. When I have been failing: I have gone directly to the teacher. I did not entirely avoid the “A” student, but … .
The issue does boil down in my opinion, to being saved by faith, or grace. To love and serve God must be an act of freewill. To conquer in the name of the holy Roman Empire, and enslave people to the convent, or seminary, is less than an act of freewill, people in America are granted asylum, if in fear, they may lose their life on the basis of violent casualties and tragedies. Nonetheless, God grant’s salvation. My faith and works are insufficient to warrant salvation–can I love and serve God enough? Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica, and concluded before death, that it served no real purpose outside the epiphany he experienced; perhaps a consequent of his writing, reasoning, etc. Undoubtedly the Summa Theologica is a great work; nonetheless, was it sufficient enough as an act of faith, and work, to warrant his entrance into heaven? Probably not, but had he campaigned for office, it might have worked.
What makes me a Protestant? God’s grace. It was Rome that rejected Martin Luther, not the other way around, but there are many schisms, and many heretics, and many of them are rites within the Catholic Church. I am Catholic by way of history. Call me a Lutheran, or even a Christian–I may call you a papist: have we sinned through name-calling, or is a precise descriptor? I follow Martin Luther, and Jesus. You follow the pope, and Jesus. That we follow Jesus perhaps corrects our own freewill, and the pope’s, and I regard Martin Luther to be a saint; I trust, that he is in heaven. I’m not so sure about Leo X, but as a matter of faith, what was judgement about God’s grace?
It may be quite well, that your church is lacking Protestant visitors; though, after Vatican II this might be a grave admission of failure, or a joyous pronouncement of success, Protestants reformed themselves well enough, and are satisfied both with their theology and our history.
Sola Scriptura was a very Germanic, and understood at the time, way of being compliant with scripture, that it is sufficient for teaching, correction, and proof. Is it in error? Must it be taken literally? For the sake of an arguement, wouldn’t it be awkward to interpret history in figurative terms, rather than literal terms?
Why should any man be excommunicated for acting in accord with his conscience, well formed, and imparted understanding by the Holy Spirit?
A question about what stood in the 1500’s, and what stands now: Vatican II has done much to look like it is reformed without laying claim to having been in error and therefore, what reform exists? Is it grace, or is it faith. It is grace, God’s grace. Can both be right? If it is an act of man’s freewill, to choose God on the basis of trust, faith, then what is God’s will? It is God’s will that he be chosen. May God’s grace allow such a choice.
They are very much Christ-follwers, but they are no different than a protestant).