O
omgriley
Guest
That you’re mistaken about Catholics?
- Status
G
goout
Guest
The sweeping generalization of relativism. The only thing evil is to stand for something, anything.
I want your money and your house and your spouse.
Don’t lay any dogmatic rules on me. It’s right for me to have em.
O
omgriley
Guest
If only you would use that time praying before the Blessed Sacrament or attending Mass, instead of “interacting” with people.
I offer no self-righteousness. I’m just as guilty a sinner as you are, arguable worse. I offer you my prayers in Christian charity as commanded by Our Lord.
Peace.
W
Wannano
Guest
That my view might not always be accurate!Wannano:
That you’re mistaken about Catholics?
G
goout
Guest
What do you mean by “wrong”?
Immoral? Evil? Disordered?
Are you talking about the individuals or the general doctrines?
O
omgriley
Guest
Throw me in that boat too!
S
steve-b
Guest
A valid question and a great one at that.
Let’s consider a purely clinical response. All links to scripture and ECF’s (early Church Fathers) i.e. Church history. Please open all links
- Jesus prayer for oneness Jn 17: 20-26 not just a squishy oneness but perfectly one
Jn17:20-26 RSVCE - “I do not pray for these only, but - Bible Gateway - [ διχοστασίαι ] = http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart, forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects. All THAT is
condemned in scripture and tradition. Meaning so are those who do it and remain in it. That word is used in the following passages- Rom 16:17-20, & Galatians 5:19-21 , depending on one’s translation they use, the same word in Greek διχοστασίας for [dissension / division / schism ] Gal 5:21, shows the consequences for that. One won’t inherit heaven. Gal5:19-21 RSVCE - Now the works of the flesh are plain: - Bible Gateway
- ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ) http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm Used in Titus 3:10-11
Titus 3:10-11 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway consequence for one who won’t change after receiving knowlege of the truth, they are already self condemned.
The Great heresies in history The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers
In 3 links, due to space requirements per post, here is a condensed history of the 1st 4 centuries from Jesus and His apostles, and Early Church Fathers, all properly referenced, that I gave on another thread.
"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #60 by steve-b link 1
"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #61 by steve-b link 2
"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #62 by steve-b link 3
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
The core of Christianity is to serve, obey and love the Triune God, who sent His Son into the world to redeem at the Cross out His love, with all of one’s mind, heart and soul. ‘God loves you’ isn’t sufficient to make a church or denomination Christian.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Please open the links I gave.
How did Jesus qualify love for Him?
It’s a conditional statement. If one doesn’t do it, they can’t claim they love Him.
John 14:15
“ If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
open the links I gave. Protestantism came along 1500 years after Our Lord established His Church on Peter and those in union with Peter.
Protestantism is the antithesis of what Our Lord commands. Open the links
Last edited:
S
seeker7
Guest
I don’t think the claim is that God has not led into truth, but that there may times when a only a small remnant escape empty tradition and hold fast to the truth. Also, since the issues were doctrinal its unclear how they would be rooted in merely personal qualms.
There is error to think the leading into all truth is individually, apart from the Church. The question dividing Christendom is about the nature of the church, and how we are led into all truth.
There is error to think the leading into all truth is individually, apart from the Church. The question dividing Christendom is about the nature of the church, and how we are led into all truth.
C
commenter
Guest
If every Protestant accepted the Catholic Faith on Jan 1, that means they would be following the Magisterium completely and explicitly, instead of incompletely and implicitly, as they did while Protestant.Tis_Bearself:
I can see that I might not be clear in what I am saying. Maybe should reask it this way: is the CC really sure it wants all of us back enmasse on Jan 1, 2018. After all, we have a history of individual thinking and a lot of baggage. We would undoubtedly expand the numbers that currently do not profess belief in Transubstantiation, do not go to confession or keep the Mass obligations.Wannano:
The reliability of the Magisterium, like the Bible, is unaffected by how many, or how few, accept it. If every American fully accepted the Magisterium tomorrow, that would not make it more any more reliable.
Suppose you go to a doctor for your health advice. That does not prove you are healthier than the guy who consults with whatever buddy he happens to have lunch with that day. That also does not guarantee you will follow the doctor’s advice. You might leave his office, but ignore what he said and follow the insights of that lady on the Psychic Friends Network.
Even if 90% of Americans, or even 90% of priests, reject the Magisterium, or the Bible, that does not reduce the credibility of those. Decisions are made by individuals. If the Magisterium is reliable, that fact will guide my decision, not its popularity at the moment.
The Magisterium is like a lighthouse. It is not the only possible guide. The value of this guide is not affected by whether boats follow it or not.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
You’re better off with the Catholic Church than without it. There was a time when I fit into those categories, as well. But, within the Catholic Church, I began to avail myself of Catholic Teaching. Until, I now believe Catholic Doctrine with my whole heart, soul and being.
So, why should any one be Catholic rather than Protestant? Because Catholicism is a religion which was started by God. We have all the advantages. We have access to the fountains of grace, the Sacraments. We have infallible Teaching to guide us to salvation. We are taught to produce good fruit, good works unto salvation. We have the Saints praying for us. We have Mother Mary. We have Jesus. We have the Holy Trinity.
So, yeah. I think it would do you a world of good to come back to the Catholic Church on Jan 1 2018. You can continue to study and show yourself approved from a bench, on the Barque of Peter as she carries you to salvation.
E
Edward_H
Guest
It leads to ever increasing disunity…can’t help but do so, since there is no agreed upon authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
Catholics have the magesterium/connected back in time.
Catholics have the magesterium/connected back in time.
W
Wannano
Guest
I would like clarification of your second last pragraph. I am not following. Especially the first sentence.Wannano:
If every Protestant accepted the Catholic Faith on Jan 1, that means they would be following the Magisterium completely and explicitly, instead of incompletely and implicitly, as they did while Protestant.Tis_Bearself:
I can see that I might not be clear in what I am saying. Maybe should reask it this way: is the CC really sure it wants all of us back enmasse on Jan 1, 2018. After all, we have a history of individual thinking and a lot of baggage. We would undoubtedly expand the numbers that currently do not profess belief in Transubstantiation, do not go to confession or keep the Mass obligations.Wannano:
The reliability of the Magisterium, like the Bible, is unaffected by how many, or how few, accept it. If every American fully accepted the Magisterium tomorrow, that would not make it more any more reliable.
Suppose you go to a doctor for your health advice. That does not prove you are healthier than the guy who consults with whatever buddy he happens to have lunch with that day. That also does not guarantee you will follow the doctor’s advice. You might leave his office, but ignore what he said and follow the insights of that lady on the Psychic Friends Network.
Even if 90% of Americans, or even 90% of priests, reject the Magisterium, or the Bible, that does not reduce the credibility of those. Decisions are made by individuals. If the Magisterium is reliable, that fact will guide my decision, not its popularity at the moment.
The Magisterium is like a lighthouse. It is not the only possible guide. The value of this guide is not affected by whether boats follow it or not.
C
commenter
Guest
I added words in bold, to clarify what agent’s credibility is unaffected by popularity. In hindsight, it is unclear what “those” referred back to.commenter:
I would like clarification of your second last pragraph. I am not following. Especially the first sentence.Wannano:
Even if 90% of Americans, or even 90% of priests, reject the Magisterium, or the Bible, that does not reduce the credibility of those (Magisterium or Bible). Decisions are made by individuals. If the Magisterium is reliable, that fact will guide my decision, not its popularity at the moment.Tis_Bearself:
Wannano:
The Magisterium’s credibility has to be assessed on its own merits. Public opinion polls of Catholics, or anyone else, are largely determined by the media pressure at that point in time. Given that the secular culture is so fanatically secular at this time, the fact that the opinion polls are now often against the Catholic Magisterium is an argument that the Magisterium might be reliable.
A template seems to exist among most Protestants. They all seem to have a “New Testament”, which they all regard as “inspired”. Oddly enough, they use the same 27 books for their NT. They all use Tradition as authoritative to some extent, some explicitly, some implicitly. They reject the majority of early-centuries Christianities, for some reason, to focus on ONE early Christianity, chosen by some human entity.
It looks an awful lot like they are following a template - not the New Testament, but a template consciously put in place by authority before the NT was canonized.
Protestants unconsciously follow the Magisterium incompletely.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
I have a little problem with the priests rejecting not reducing the credibility.Wannano:
I added words in bold, to clarify what agent’s credibility is unaffected by popularity. In hindsight, it is unclear what “those” referred back to.commenter:
I would like clarification of your second last pragraph. I am not following. Especially the first sentence.Wannano:
Even if 90% of Americans, or even 90% of priests, reject the Magisterium, or the Bible, that does not reduce the credibility of those (Magisterium or Bible). Decisions are made by individuals. If the Magisterium is reliable, that fact will guide my decision, not its popularity at the moment.Tis_Bearself:
Wannano:
The Magisterium’s credibility has to be assessed on its own merits. Public opinion polls of Catholics, or anyone else, are largely determined by the media pressure at that point in time. Given that the secular culture is so fanatically secular at this time, the fact that the opinion polls are now often against the Catholic Magisterium is an argument that the Magisterium might be reliable.
A template seems to exist among most Protestants. They all seem to have a “New Testament”, which they all regard as “inspired”. Oddly enough, they use the same 27 books for their NT. They all use Tradition as authoritative to some extent, some explicitly, some implicitly. They reject the majority of early-centuries Christianities, for some reason, to focus on ONE early Christianity, chosen by some human entity.
It looks an awful lot like they are following a template - not the New Testament, but a template consciously put in place by authority before the NT was canonized.
Protestants unconsciously follow the Magisterium incompletely.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
This comment lacks a fundamental understanding of the current culture.
M
Melodeonist
Guest
It was started by a heretic who broke away from the Ohe True Church because of his faulty views and the then corrupt papacy.
S
stpurl
Guest
You work for the Catholic Church?
You know, I find that sad.
I’m picturing an oncologist coming to his office every day thinking, “These people are just a waste of my time. They’ll never do all the things I tell them. My staff are a waste of my time; they never do everything perfectly right. In fact, the whole field of oncology that I work in is going off track, and only I practice it correctly. What a chore and a bore, but it’s a paycheck so I’ll come in and fake nice to all the people whom I despise because they’re not doing things my way, and I’ll complain about them not getting into the 21st century and being so convinced they’re ‘right’ in following the established oncology practices ‘to the letter’ or at least knowing them and trying to do so, instead of lockstepping with me and what I have selectively picked and chosen as 'the 21st century way”.
If you’re going to work for a group, the least you owe them is intellectual honesty instead of fakey fakey to them and running their beliefs and their members down in public because you’re ‘anonymous’. That’s hypocritical to the nth degree.
You know, I find that sad.
I’m picturing an oncologist coming to his office every day thinking, “These people are just a waste of my time. They’ll never do all the things I tell them. My staff are a waste of my time; they never do everything perfectly right. In fact, the whole field of oncology that I work in is going off track, and only I practice it correctly. What a chore and a bore, but it’s a paycheck so I’ll come in and fake nice to all the people whom I despise because they’re not doing things my way, and I’ll complain about them not getting into the 21st century and being so convinced they’re ‘right’ in following the established oncology practices ‘to the letter’ or at least knowing them and trying to do so, instead of lockstepping with me and what I have selectively picked and chosen as 'the 21st century way”.
If you’re going to work for a group, the least you owe them is intellectual honesty instead of fakey fakey to them and running their beliefs and their members down in public because you’re ‘anonymous’. That’s hypocritical to the nth degree.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Your posts suggest otherwise. I’m going to with what you write over your assurances. I’m sure you can understand that.
- Status