Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don't really know it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is only one Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a misleading term; it confounds separated communities as well as different rites within full communion. It is also used by Protestants and Orthodox as a mild perjorative. The Catholic Church is global, is not subject to secular rule (the head of the Catholic Church is the Supreme Pontiff; not the Queen of England, nor the Prime Minister of Italy, or some such thing), and The Vatican is recognized as a country in its own right in diplomatic circles. There are one billion Catholics (about half of Christendom today). In much of the world, the notion of “Roman Catholic” would be met by quizzical stares.
I know where I live some Catholic Chirches call themselves Roman Catholic and others don’t. The largetst Catholic Church in our community is St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church and the only one to offer a Latin Mass is St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church. I think it must be hard to blame Protestants for saying Roman Catholic when Catholics themselves do.
 
I know where I live some Catholic Chirches call themselves Roman Catholic and others don’t. The largetst Catholic Church in our community is St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church and the only one to offer a Latin Mass is St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church. I think it must be hard to blame Protestants for saying Roman Catholic when Catholics themselves do.
If you speak about Catholics as a whole, we should be universally called Catholics. If we just call ourselves merely* Roman Catholic*, we would be neglecting our Eastern Rite Catholic (Byzantine) brethrens. They never refer to themselves as Roman Catholic. They do often address themselves as Byzantine Catholic.
 
If you speak about Catholics as a whole, we should be universally called Catholics. If we just call ourselves merely* Roman Catholic*, we would be neglecting our Eastern Rite Catholic (Byzantine) brethrens. They never refer to themselves as Roman Catholic. They do often address themselves as Byzantine Catholic.
how about merely in communion with the Roman Catholic church? If you only say catholic, in actuality it means universal and it describes (adjective) and therefore is not a proper noun. Roman Catholic would tell me that the church is in Rome and that it is indeed universal. Just a thought.
 
I know where I live some Catholic Chirches call themselves Roman Catholic and others don’t. The largetst Catholic Church in our community is St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church and the only one to offer a Latin Mass is St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church. I think it must be hard to blame Protestants for saying Roman Catholic when Catholics themselves do.
I do not blame all Protestants for anything—there is no such thing as “all Protestants” believing much of anything, as we see in the thread on the subject.

There are Protestants, however, who use Roman Catholic as a perjorative specifically to distort the history of the Catholic Church. They imply that the original Catholic Church fell away at some point (they never say when), after which it was merely the Roman Catholic Church. It is this context in which they use the term, which is both a monument to ignorance and untruth. (There is also a significant minority who like to use Roman to insinuate the Whore of Babylon calumny, but since these are as unChristian a people as one may be I would hesitate to call them Protestants for fear of associating true Christians with them).

To the extent that it is used synonymously with Catholic Church, there is no such intent, but our brothers and sisters not of the Latin Rite might find it offensive. They are as orthodox a Catholic as one can be; they simply follow a different rite than many of us do.

Catholic Church is therefore the most accurate and least offensive term. So why don’t you use it?
 
I know where I live some Catholic Chirches call themselves Roman Catholic and others don’t. The largetst Catholic Church in our community is St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church and the only one to offer a Latin Mass is St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church. I think it must be hard to blame Protestants for saying Roman Catholic when Catholics themselves do.
This is true, and it is also a mistake made by many Roman Catholics, who do not know about the other rites in the Catholic Communion. There are even some senior and very grounded Catholics on this board who post regularly with the mindset that Roman = Catholic. The Roman Rite is the most common in the West, and especially in the US.
 
I do not blame all Protestants for anything—there is no such thing as “all Protestants” believing much of anything, as we see in the thread on the subject.

There are Protestants, however, who use Roman Catholic as a perjorative specifically to distort the history of the Catholic Church. They imply that the original Catholic Church fell away at some point (they never say when), after which it was merely the Roman Catholic Church. It is this context in which they use the term, which is both a monument to ignorance and untruth. (There is also a significant minority who like to use Roman to insinuate the Whore of Babylon calumny, but since these are as unChristian a people as one may be I would hesitate to call them Protestants for fear of associating true Christians with them).

To the extent that it is used synonymously with Catholic Church, there is no such intent, but our brothers and sisters not of the Latin Rite might find it offensive. They are as orthodox a Catholic as one can be; they simply follow a different rite than many of us do.

Catholic Church is therefore the most accurate and least offensive term. So why don’t you use it?
I did except when citing the name of the churches and the confusion they can cause.
 
guanophore;2734858]Clearly you are an excellent example of the title of this thread! You think you understand Catholic doctrine when you do not!
Thats why its good for me to be here.
A married person is not nullified from leadership because he is married.
He is not disqualified because he is married.
So if a married catholic man wants to be a priest he can be?
If he wants to be a Jesuit priest, can he be married?
Most of the leaders in the Catholic Church are married persons. Only a very small minority of leaders are clergy, and are celibate. Most of the clergy (deacons) are married.
I’m referring to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Are any of them married?
You are not correct.
Your response to my previous quesition will help clear this up.
When there is a church council, documents are comprised from many sources. Once they are proclaimed, it is done so by the council. Prior to that, (name removed by moderator)ut may come from married persons, and all manner of clergy and laity. You are in error that any pronouncements or declarations are made from any person at all, single, celibate, or married.
When a church document is finally signed by those in authority, are any of these men married?
 
how about merely in communion with the Roman Catholic church? If you only say catholic, in actuality it means universal and it describes (adjective) and therefore is not a proper noun. Roman Catholic would tell me that the church is in Rome and that it is indeed universal. Just a thought.
For a church to be considered roman catholic, must it have the pope as its ultimate head?
 
For a church to be considered roman catholic, must it have the pope as its ultimate head?
Christ is the head of the Body, that is His Church. The pope is the successor of Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom. The pope becomes the human representative of Christ on earth. It is Christ himself who entrusted the keys to a human.
 
Christ is the head of the Body, that is His Church. The pope is the successor of Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom. The pope becomes the human representative of Christ on earth. It is Christ himself who entrusted the keys to a human.
So there must at least be a pope if you are to be considered roman catholic?
 
So there must at least be a pope if you are to be considered roman catholic?
Peter was the first pope. Read Acts 2:14, 14
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.
in addition to

Matt 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Reflect on these readings with all your heart. I realize this looks like I am cherry-picking verses. I am not afraid of the entire context, but it’s too big to put here.

Then, realize there are different Rites, or ways of worshipping according to culture. Roman means we are Latin Rite.
There are other Rites. But the doctrines are the same.
newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the pope. He is our spiritual leader, the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Some Rites (Eastern) place a much greater emphasis on Mary than the Western or Roman Rite Church does.

But the doctrins are the same.
 
Peter was the first pope. Read Acts 2:14, 14
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.
in addition to

Matt 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Reflect on these readings with all your heart. I realize this looks like I am cherry-picking verses. I am not afraid of the entire context, but it’s too big to put here.

Then, realize there are different Rites, or ways of worshipping according to culture. Roman means we are Latin Rite.
There are other Rites. But the doctrines are the same.
newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the pope. He is our spiritual leader, the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Some Rites (Eastern) place a much greater emphasis on Mary than the Western or Roman Rite Church does.

But the doctrins are the same.
Can a person claim to be catholic as in Roman, Eastern etc and not believe the pope is the head of the church?
 
Can a person claim to be catholic as in Roman, Eastern etc and not believe the pope is the head of the church?
Part of being Catholic is recognizing the authority of the Pope. Maybe a better term is “Leader of the Church on Earth” rather than “head”, but more or less, yeah.
 
how about merely in communion with the Roman Catholic church? If you only say catholic, in actuality it means universal and it describes (adjective) and therefore is not a proper noun. Roman Catholic would tell me that the church is in Rome and that it is indeed universal. Just a thought.
Those in the West are commonly referred to as Latin Rites. Many of Byzantine Catholics call us Latins or Roman. In all, both Byzantine and Latin Rite (Roman) are members of One Church, the Catholic Church.
 
Thats why its good for me to be here.
😃
So if a married catholic man wants to be a priest he can be?
It depends upon which Rite he is in, but generally, the Catholic Church recognizes that marriage is a full time vocation, and those called to it are not also called to the priesthood.
If he wants to be a Jesuit priest, can he be married?
It is my understanding that the Jesuit order is very strict about celibacy for priests. I think they will accept a widower, but the order does not want to be responsible for supporting the priest’s family, or his offspring, so generally I think no.
I’m referring to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Are any of them married?
There are some priests who are married. Very few in the Latin Rite. Bishops and Popes are usually called from celibate priests.
In the past, especially in the Latin Rite, married clergy have presented more problems than they solved, so the preference is to choose priests from celibate orders.
Your response to my previous quesition will help clear this up.
It is not that they are “dis” qualified. they are differently qualified. The Catholic Church considers marriage to be a Holy Sacrament, on the same level as the Holy Priesthood. those called to it are given the special graces and gifts to succeed in their vocation, just as priests are given the special graces and gifts to succeed their vocation. God has a calling for each person, and we are all responsible to fulfill the special calling or vocation that is made for us.
When a church document is finally signed by those in authority, are any of these men married?
No, I think not. Most of the authorities are celibate bishops, cardinals, and the pope of course, all of whom have taken vows of celibacy. Are you thinking that they are not fit to administer the Church?
For a church to be considered roman catholic, must it have the pope as its ultimate head?
there are 22 Rites in the Catholic Church, only one of them is Latin (Roman). yes, all churches, to be Catholic, will be united with the Pope. He is the visible point of unity for us all.
 
😃

It depends upon which Rite he is in, but generally, the Catholic Church recognizes that marriage is a full time vocation, and those called to it are not also called to the priesthood.

It is my understanding that the Jesuit order is very strict about celibacy for priests. I think they will accept a widower, but the order does not want to be responsible for supporting the priest’s family, or his offspring, so generally I think no.

There are some priests who are married. Very few in the Latin Rite. Bishops and Popes are usually called from celibate priests.
In the past, especially in the Latin Rite, married clergy have presented more problems than they solved, so the preference is to choose priests from celibate orders.

It is not that they are “dis” qualified. they are differently qualified. The Catholic Church considers marriage to be a Holy Sacrament, on the same level as the Holy Priesthood. those called to it are given the special graces and gifts to succeed in their vocation, just as priests are given the special graces and gifts to succeed their vocation. God has a calling for each person, and we are all responsible to fulfill the special calling or vocation that is made for us.

No, I think not. Most of the authorities are celibate bishops, cardinals, and the pope of course, all of whom have taken vows of celibacy. Are you thinking that they are not fit to administer the Church?
No. Probably in many cases they are fit to serve. They do in protestant churches. To say a married man in the catholic church is not qualified becasue he is married and cannot truly be devoted to his minstry is not only unbiblical but has been proven false by protestant churches who have for the most part married men serving the church.
 
No. Probably in many cases they are fit to serve. They do in protestant churches. To say a married man in the catholic church is not qualified becasue he is married and cannot truly be devoted to his minstry is not only unbiblical but has been proven false by protestant churches who have for the most part married men serving the church.
Married men serve the church, and in fact, provide most of the leadership in the parishes. The Priests’ duties are very specific, and are sacramental primarily. Priests are welcome to provide leadership in other areas, but most times, they are so busy with sacramental duties they don’t have time to run all the parish programs.

I think you are mistakely equating priesthood with leadership. The church recognizes that there are many leadership abilities that exist in the married and single laypeople.
 
No. Probably in many cases they are fit to serve. They do in protestant churches. To say a married man in the catholic church is not qualified becasue he is married and cannot truly be devoted to his minstry is not only unbiblical but has been proven false by protestant churches who have for the most part married men serving the church.
According to whose authority? The Bible doesn’t say it is unbiblical. If the Bible did, surely Paul would not recommend celibate life like he did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top