Why is it better to be Catholic?

[nogames]

I don’t think you REQUIRE Catholicism for salvation.

Hi SuperLuigi, Did you know that in the past, the CC officially declared that it was altogether necessary to be Catholic in order to be saved? But the infallible authorities have walked that one back…I guess they realized their error, and it was a serious error.

 

[RKS89]

That’s fair. Regardless of your objective or subjective reasons for belief, how do you know the teaching your Pastor pulls from a verse or passage is objectively true? I mean when my Baptist wife says infant baptism is useless and we should do a dedication ceremony instead, how do you objectively say who’s doctrine or interpretation is correct and what Christ is intended?

 

[Arbovirus]

I didn’t claim that my reason for trusting in Scripture is based on objective knowledge. You trust in the Traditions of the authorities in Rome, while I trust in the bible.

Incorrect. We trust in Sacred Scripture, compiled by Holy Church, and taught and explained by Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit. You cannot claim the Bible as your own because it was the Catholic Church who was given the authority by God to define as public revelation.

You can’t steal from our banquet and claim you cooked the food yourself.

 

[Arbovirus]

Salvation is still only through the Catholic Church. But one need not be in the Catholic Church for salvation. There is only one Church Jesus started. He didn’t scrap His plan and start another salvific plan, despite numerous human failures.

 

[pablope]

Lutherans Should Reconsider the Papacy – The Jagged Word

This doesn’t even make any sense. If we (protestants) need the papacy, we could just stop being protestant and start being Catholic. It’s not rocket science.

Well…how about an explanation from AD 300 or so…from St. Optatus…St. Optatus on Schism and the Bishop of Rome | Called to Communion

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a s__inner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

Don’t you see the parallel need in Ad 300 to today?

And how about from a protestant who studied the early Church…Does the Center Hold? The Story of Fr. Albert Scharbach’s Journey from Westminster Theological Seminary to Catholic Priest | Called to Communion

This was first true for the Early Church. Back to that moment when the papacy made sense in the Westminster library. …this happens to be at the same time that ecclesiology became more defined through the strengthening of the papacy. The broad parallels suggest that this is no mere coincidence. In order to define the faith in the early Church, the center had to hold. That was found through the papacy in the Catholic Church. The need today is no different–both for the broader Church and in our individual lives.

The real question is, did Jesus think that we need a papacy? If so, why didn’t He say something about that.

Does not Matthew 16 ring a bell? How about the name change…do you see the significance of Simon being changed to Cephas…or Peter?

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

 

[pablope]

How do you know your interpretation of Scripture accurately represents Christ’s intentions?

This question assumes that Scripture might be insufficient in certain ways. But ultimately, Scripture contains exactly what God intends for His church; no more, and no less.

And where is the chapter and verse is this in the Bible?

As to the interpretation of it, I’m not claiming that every person who reads the bible will understand it correctly.

so you are saying here…there has to be some guidance provided. So the question then is…who shall provide that guidance?

But that is why the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for His people to understand what they need to understand.

So…why has this resulted in each Protestant congregation having their own interpretation? How can you tell which is valid and which is the truth?
By what standard will you use?

And second question…does the Holy Spirit guide the Church or the individual?

Jesus promised His people that He wouldn’t leave them as orphans.
Jesus promised a Church…so is this church still existing today?

He would send the “helper” (the Holy Spirit) to the church to serve God’s purposes in guiding it. So, even if I don’t correctly understand any of the important parts in the bible, God’s purpose isn’t diminished in any way. God will save ALL of those whom the Father has given to Him.

Well…how do you know this?

 

[pablope]

As to the interpretation of it, I’m not claiming that every person who reads the bible will understand it correctly. But that is why the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for His people to understand what they need to understand.

I’m curious how you see Objective Truth fitting into this statement.

I didn’t claim that my reason for trusting in Scripture is based on objective knowledge. You trust in the Traditions of the authorities in Rome, while I trust in the bible.

If you really come to think of it…you also view and interpret the Bible…by the tradition you learned from your protestant congregation.The Bible does not teach on its own…it needsa voice.

Ecclesial Deism | Called to Communion

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, [COLOR=“Blue”]tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.[/COLOR]

My opening post was not a denial of my own presuppositions regarding my ultimate authority. My church isn’t infallible… period!

So…when the Holy Spirit guides…mistakes or errors can still occur?

I believe that Scripture is infallible,

Correction here…infallibility refers to actions…not Scriptures. Scripture is inerrant, not infallible.

and that the Holy Spirit is willing and able to guide His people to understand God’s word.

Can you provide chapter and verse for this one…where the HS guides the people to understand God’s word?

 

[pablope]

straykat:
I have no objection to church traditions as long as they don’t conflict with Scripture.

But who determines what is in conflict and what is not?

 

[TheOldColonel]

When you own a Harley, who wants to ride a tricycle?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Too bad for the RCC. They haven’t always gotten it right. And what’s really funny is that those who go out of their way to defend Islam and Martin Luther will be angry at me for saying so. More to the point:

All you need to do to know that is read what the USCCB says about half the issues it talks about.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you look at history, the Orthodox breakaways were just plain angry about a lot of things. The Muslims just wanted economic convenience for Arab tribes and the Protestants are running on fumes from an appeal to authority that atheists enjoy picking apart.

Atheists loft themselves on their skepticism, until it comes to inconvenient things like gay “marriage” or climate change. Then they’re just as bad as the SJW feminists, who are now their own religion.

Last but not least there is Judaism. The Jews may have been the Chosen People of God, but many of them were more interested in crumbs from the table of Rome than following God.

Pretty much any other major world religion other than the Catholic Church is now based mostly on personal selfishness, which is the arcane weapon of Satan himself.

 

[SuperLuigi]

People who want the safe, cool easy route.

Example 1: Defending Islam

Example 2: Defending Martin Luther (you won’t hear them talk about good’l Henry VII for OBVIOUS reasons)

Example 3: Defending universalism

 

[nogames]

so you are saying here…there has to be some guidance provided. So the question then is…who shall provide that guidance?

So…why has this resulted in each Protestant congregation having their own interpretation? How can you tell which is valid and which is the truth?
By what standard will you use?

And second question…does the Holy Spirit guide the Church or the individual?

Yes, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only available to those people who God chooses, and only at His timing.

The protestants churches disagree mostly over minor details, such as infant baptism, the degree of freedom of the will (in fallen sinners), predestination, the sequence of events leading to the return of Christ, etc. This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit leads people into error. It is, however, strong evidence that God is willing to save people who disagree on lots of small stuff.

The Holy Spirit guides both the individual and the church. By guiding many (but not all) of the individuals within the church, he guides the whole church.

 

[RKS89]

The protestants churches disagree mostly over minor details

Does the Bible list which practices are minor and which are not? Did Jesus differentiate between important and less important teaching? How do you know baptism is a minor detail?

 

[nogames]

Incorrect. We trust in Sacred Scripture, compiled by Holy Church, and taught and explained by Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit. You cannot claim the Bible as your own because it was the Catholic Church who was given the authority by God to define as public revelation.

You can’t steal from our banquet and claim you cooked the food yourself.

This is exactly the same attitude that often made Jesus feel sickened by the Pharisees. They lorded their religious traditions and their law over the commoners. They looked down on those who didn’t treat them (the Pharisees) with the high honor they felt they deserved. But the Jesus that I’ve come to know and love treats the lowest of criminals with compassion and respect! So I will humbly serve Him, and leave the infallible tradition stuff to better men (and women) than myself.

 

[PJM]

It a WORD: because even GOD can have only One True set of Faith beliefs which He as GOD; would not have; could not have and DID NOT wait some 1,500 years for the Protestant Reformation to make know to His Humanity [Gen 1:26-27}.

The Bible is a Catholic Book assembled {OT] and fully authored [NT} BY Catholics and originally for Catholics who could not have foreseen the Great Eastern Schism of 1064 Ad, not the 16th Century Protestant revolution.

There is room for old faction LOGIC in the OP’s Question.

Easter Blessings,
Patrick

 

[Pup7]

nogames:

The protestants churches disagree mostly over minor details

Does the Bible list which practices are minor and which are not? Did Jesus differentiate between important and less important teaching? How do you know baptism is a minor detail?

I’m with RKS89. I can’t say I’ve ever heard other Protestants - when they do talk about other Protestants (yes, that brought a chuckle) - say they disagree on “minor details”.

Putting a Fundamentalist Free Will Baptist and a Presbyterian in the same room is like watching an air conditioner and a humidifier battle for supremacy.

I don’t think either faith, to be fair, sees its tenets as something that should be seen as a minor detail by anyone else. And really, nor should it. Those are the tenets by which it defines itself.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

This is exactly the same attitude that often made Jesus feel sickened by the Pharisees. They lorded their religious traditions and their law over the commoners

Recorded history proves that The Catholic Church was early Christianity. When you read the ECFS you do not get protestant theology. You get Catholic Theology. I find it very interesting that all those claiming that The Catholic Church is like the pharisees do not see the plank in their own eye. For all its sins, how arrogant is it to claim to know better than The Church God gave us The Bible through? How arrogant to say that all the ECFS got it wrong until the 1500’s?

 

[nogames]

I’m with RKS89. I can’t say I’ve ever heard other Protestants - when they do talk about other Protestants (yes, that brought a chuckle) - say they disagree on “minor details”.

Putting a Fundamentalist Free Will Baptist and a Presbyterian in the same room is like watching an air conditioner and a humidifier battle for supremacy.

I don’t think either faith, to be fair, sees its tenets as something that should be seen as a minor detail by anyone else. And really, nor should it. Those are the tenets by which it defines itself.

By “minor” I was referring to doctrines that have no bearing on one’s salvation. You might think that being baptized is necessary for your salvation but the bible states in various places that we are saved by grace, through faith, and “not by our works.” The reason why boasting is “excluded” in our salvation is because no one has done, or could do, anything to save himself/herself from hell. If we are not saved by our own works, then it would be odd to think that we could be saved by our parents (or any other person’s) works in causing us to be baptized.

 

[Arbovirus]

This is exactly the same attitude that often made Jesus feel sickened by the Pharisees. They lorded their religious traditions and their law over the commoners. They looked down on those who didn’t treat them (the Pharisees) with the high honor they felt they deserved. But the Jesus that I’ve come to know and love treats the lowest of criminals with compassion and respect! So I will humbly serve Him, and leave the infallible tradition stuff to better men (and women) than myself.

Jesus was sickened by hypocrisy and arrogance, not tradition. He even said they hold the seat of Moses. He did not abolish tradition, just the attitude that tradition supersedes mercy, charity, and humility.