C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” Blessed John Henry Newman
- Status
N
Norm_The_Robot
Guest
Why does honoring her as the Earthly mother of Jesus have to mean worshipping her as some sort of co-deity on equal footing with God/Jesus/Holy Ghost?
S
slh3016
Guest
Hmmm……Not sure I can pick just one but I’ll tell you the books my husband and I have read and different ones resonated with each of us.
*Catholicism and Fundamentalism * by Karl Keating
Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray
If Protestantism is True by Devin Rose (However, his revised version of this is called The Protestant’s Dilemma)
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie
There have also been several audio presentations that we’ve listened to from Steve Ray and Scott Hahn that helped us realized the truth in Catholicism.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Who worships her as equal to the Trinity?
S
slh3016
Guest
I’ll ditto these exact words….saves me a lot of typing
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I’d say the greatest distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism is that former places much greater emphasis on Scripture.
I am Roman Catholic, and I don’t believe that anything will occur that could cause me to cease being a Catholic.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
That Christ said to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church.”
A probable reply might be something along the lines that a direct link through the centuries doesn’t exist and/or that the teachings became distorted.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Right. But the teachings could not have been distorted since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. The Protestant view would have to be that they did prevail because the Church disappeared until the 15th century, when Luther brought it back. Even then, most Protestants have to argue that Luther also was wrong until the founder of their own denomination got it right.
Matthew 16:13-20
P
Protestor
Guest
Who has authority and/or how much authority do groups have?
God would have to have to reveal it to me. I do not know what exactly would convince me but God should know what it would take. I do identify as a Catholic but as most catholics would no identify me as one I thought it was appropriate to answer this ?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Why do you identify as Catholic? Why do others not identify you as Catholic?
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
I could give many reasons: it seems clear to me that Roman Catholicism follows from the Bible, especially the “upon this rock” passage; it seems necessary for Christianity to have a “rock of unity” to keep the doctrine pure; it seems clear that Tradition and the Magisterium must precede Scripture, because Scripture was compiled and written by the Magisterium (therefore infallibility of the scriptures follows from those who wrote the Scriptures); the long intellectual tradition, especially aristotelean-thomism; and so on.
But to be perfectly honest, the biggest reason for me is the witness of the Saints. Even when I was an agnostic, the lives of the saints seemed extremely interesting to me. I want to follow people like Saint Padre Pio, Saint Joan of Arc, Saint Therese of Lisieux, Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Thomas More, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Pius X, Saint Anthony the Great, Saint Felipe Neri, Saint Ignatius of Loyola… and so on. There is something real about these people.
But to be perfectly honest, the biggest reason for me is the witness of the Saints. Even when I was an agnostic, the lives of the saints seemed extremely interesting to me. I want to follow people like Saint Padre Pio, Saint Joan of Arc, Saint Therese of Lisieux, Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Thomas More, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Pius X, Saint Anthony the Great, Saint Felipe Neri, Saint Ignatius of Loyola… and so on. There is something real about these people.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
History. Newman said it this way:
[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .
“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)
F
fred_conty
Guest
This is our argument, not theirs. For they have popes,councils,fathers, as well as us (whether they admit or not). And if a comparison is made between ours and theirs, where do we find the most differences and changes? 32,000 denoms is a big change from what their fathers had in mind.
J
john_ennis
Guest
When I first was confronted, as an adult, with the princpal Protestant claims about Catholicism’s errors, my immediate question was, “How is it that it was only after 15 centuries that someone (Luther) finally figured out what Scripture really meant?”
The answer I got was logical: Protestants weren’t figuring things out for the first time; they were going back to the right interpretation, which the early Church had followed centuries before.
As I checked this out, I found that the opposite was true. So I am now more Catholic than ever.
What would get me to change? If I discovered that Christian consensus of the first thousand years stated:
1) that the papacy was a great big heresy, and,
2) that works of love have no effect on our salvation, and,
3) that Scripture need not be understood in a way that agrees with consistent Christian beliefs
Of course, if such things WERE the Christian consensus of the first millennium, there would be direct and loud refutations against Chrysostom, Iranaeus, Augustine, et al, as they implied that Peter was the Rock, our salvation depends on following Christ’s teachings, and the Church herself teaches the Word just as dependably as Scripture does.
But such direct refutations don’t occur until Luther makes them. Thus we’re right back to the question, How is it that Jesus isn’t properly understood until the sixteenth century?
The answer I got was logical: Protestants weren’t figuring things out for the first time; they were going back to the right interpretation, which the early Church had followed centuries before.
As I checked this out, I found that the opposite was true. So I am now more Catholic than ever.
What would get me to change? If I discovered that Christian consensus of the first thousand years stated:
1) that the papacy was a great big heresy, and,
2) that works of love have no effect on our salvation, and,
3) that Scripture need not be understood in a way that agrees with consistent Christian beliefs
Of course, if such things WERE the Christian consensus of the first millennium, there would be direct and loud refutations against Chrysostom, Iranaeus, Augustine, et al, as they implied that Peter was the Rock, our salvation depends on following Christ’s teachings, and the Church herself teaches the Word just as dependably as Scripture does.
But such direct refutations don’t occur until Luther makes them. Thus we’re right back to the question, How is it that Jesus isn’t properly understood until the sixteenth century?
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
I’m not puzzled. Protestantism is a bunch of segmented sects of Christianity that could never agree on too much theologically because the protestant leaders that “splintered” from the Church were those who came in their own name, after their own ambitions.
It’s a theological divide of why protestants don’t accept Mary and Catholics do. In Catholicism, we basically see Mary, Our Mother, for the gift that she brings, Our Lord Jesus. Who would not put great honor upon the very Mother that bears God? We honor the Father by honoring the Son, should we not also honor the Mother?
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
A Catholic version of the Holy Bible. Anything that needs to be said about the Sacraments of the Church is contained within those pages. It’s just that Protestants refuse to see the Light of Catholicism.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
First a Protestant needs to see themselves in True Light. They’re unrepentant because they hold the Eucharist as something, they do within their Church, whenever they feel like it. Lutheran’s use unleavened bread for Heaven’s sake! A Protestant needs to examine his/her relationship with the Eucharist and simply ask themselves: Is the presence of the Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus, truly within bread and wine?
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
Protestants believe if we exalt the Holy Virgin then we are declaring her a God. Even if it is an inadvertent belief.Who worships her as equal to the Trinity?
A
Arandur
Guest
What if He HAS revealed it to you? God’s has revealed much in many ways that we are supposed to explore and listen to on our own. In fact, Paul even said that the Gentiles are “without excuse” as to the worship of God and following basic moral law, just on the basis of God’s Revelation through nature and reason (natural law, logic and reason).
We also have Salvation History as another objective source of God’s revelation. He has revealed that to you.
We also have Scripture and Tradition.
Do we not have responsibility to listen and respond to God’s revelation? To how He is speaking to us?
This is not some passive thing devoid of free will. We do not just sit here and expect God to change us – and then suggest that whatever we are doing right now must be the “right” thing because otherwise “God should know what it would take” to change us and convince us otherwise.
I run into this passivity fairly frequently, and it strikes me as self-assured pride masquerading as trust in God or confidence in one’s current path. As if it’s all God’s responsibility to get you to do what He wants you to do, and He would make you do something different if He wanted it so.
But there goes free will, and love with it. God is a gentleman. He will not force Himself upon you. He has shown you His Bride, the Church. If you don’t want to be His Bride, He won’t force you to marry Him.
In what sense are you “Catholic” (most people who make a distinction do it on the “small c” “catholic” basis, making the case about universal Christian and some sort of apostolicity)?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Luke 1:48 “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. …” from the King James Bible
When Mary exalted herself thusly, do Protestants think of her as deifying herself?
- Status