Why is the pope considered the anti christ by the protestants?

[Springkeeper]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

Since you are writing from the Philippines, I will guess that the Protestants of which you speak are in fact likely fundamentalist Baptists. Be very careful when they say things like “history backs us up.” I have researched many of their so-called histories and the errors and misquotes are absolutely appalling. I was a fundamentalist for twenty plus years and I know anti-Catholic bigotry can run rife in some of those churches. If the Pope is supposed to be the anti-Christ (the adversary of the Messiah), he would have to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh for at least one important qualification for that role (1 John 4:1-3). Given what he has written so far, that is just not going to happen.

Did you ever wonder why so many who are really into end times theory ignore a lot of what Jesus Christ actually said? Like what He said to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19? Or virtually the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount? etc. etc.

 

[inkaneer]

A couple of thoughts

 I haven't read and/or digested all the postings on this subject, so some of this may be repetition.

 1. The question is incorrectly stated. Few Protestants consider the Pope the anti-Christ, and many fewer today than a century ago. My paternal grandmother, for example, who came from an ex-Catholic family, probably believed that. As I recall, she may have even thought that the Pope had the numbers 666 under his vestments! But that was in earlier times, well before Vatican II and the thawing of relations between Catholicism and Protestantism. A few fundamentalists may still view the Pope as the anti-Christ - that's it.

 2. Most Protestants respect some Popes and may not admire others. For example, Pius IX helped alienate Protestants. He was the one who issued the 'The Syllabus of Errors' that sharply condemned all non-Catholic religions in the most dogmatic language, who rejected democracy, who assailed the separation of church and state, etc. I find among Protestants I know a deep appreciation for John XXIII and Paul VI. There is some suspicion of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because they seem to have been tougher when it comes to dissent within the church. JPII, for example - as I recall - silenced - hm - the name slips my mind - one of the most creative theologians of the church. Hans Kung, was it? BXVI has said things demeaning of Protestant clergy and their churches - e. g., that Protestant clergy do not administer a valid communion and their churches are not really churches but 'ecclesial communities'. I'm sure he believes that - understandably so -but why insult fellow Christians by saying it?.

Because it is the truth. Look. Don’t for even one second think that Catholicism will compromise truth and meet protestantism halfway. Never gonna happen. You left us for man made traditions. If you want unity you come back to us. The Lutheran idea of consubstantiation will never replace Transubstantiation. Protestant ministers will not automatically administer Catholic sacraments. Pope Benedict XVI stated protestant denominations are not churches because they lack the marks of a true church. They lack Apostolicity . Why that should infuriate protestants is beyond me. Protestants have never claimed Apostolicity. They denied church authority from the get go.

As for the *‘The Syllabus of Errors’ * of Pope Pius IX this was a listing of errors and with it were references to prior papal writings contesting the error. But it is probably error no 18 that disturbs you. The error is stated as follows:

“18 Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church”.

The Encyclical *“Noscitis,” *Dec. 8, 1849 is the reference contesting this error. Specifically paragraph 6 which states:

“6. You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.” [Nostis Et Nobiscum (On the Church in the Pontifical States) December 8, 1849]

Protestantism has long told itself that protestantism was just as good as Catholicism. The fact is protestantism is not. The deposit of truth that Jesus left with His Apostles resides in the one church He established. That church is not any protestant denomination, it is the Catholic Church. Not one protestant denomination claims a history that goes back to the first century AD. Of the deposit of truth Protestant denominations have a share of this truth and that share consists of those Catholic doctrines that protestantism has retained. But while they have a share they do not possess the entire deposit of truth. Only the Catholic Church has that. Pope Pius IX was correct as was Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[inkaneer]

3. Historians disagree on whether the Catholic Church goes back to Jesus. There seems to be plenty of evidence that early Christians soon were divided into different camps, as various books not included in the Biblical canon indicate. It seems that everybody agrees only on the fact that by the medieval period the Roman Pontiff was the generally-acknowledged head of the Christian church in western Europe. Did he ever head the church in the East? Not likely, though he claimed to. Many Protestants, of course, believed that the church lost its way during the Middle Ages and became so corrupt on a variety of levels that it no longer reflected the central message of Christ but detoured into power politics, deviant doctrines, many superstitions, and various other byways that contradicted with scripture. .

I don’t know what historians you refer to but the history is quite clear that the papacy was well established before the end of the Apostolic age. You no doubt are familiar with the account in Acts 15 of the problem in the church at Antioch and their appeal to the Apostles for guidance. But are you familiar with the problem in Corinth approximately 30 years later? The year is 80 AD and at least one Apostle is still alive. A problem arises in Corinth which the local church is unable to resolve. What do they do? They do the same as the church in Antioch. They appeal for guidance from beyond Corinth. Do they go to the Apostle John in Ephesus? No, they go to Clement. Who is Clement? He is the Bishop of Rome and the third successor to Peter. In 80 AD the church knew who was boss and it wasn’t the Apostle John. It was the successor to Peter. Whether you call him Pope or Successor to Peter or Bishop of Rome is immaterial. As for whether the pope ever headed the church in the East the answer is he still does. Apparently you are unaware that within the Catholic Church there are 22 Rites each one claiming succession for one of the Apostles. Most of these Rites are Eastern and include the Byzantine Catholic otherwise known as the Greek Catholic Church. As for the Orthodox who you apparently refer to as the “Eastern Church” the date of their schism is 1054 AD. So for over a millenium the Orthodox looked to the pope as the leader of the church. In fact at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD it is recorded in the Acts of the Council:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

Also recorded is this:

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

As for what many protestants think about the Church somehow losing its way in the Middle Ages, did it ever occur to you that what you stated is contrary to what scripture records. How can the church teach “deviant doctrines” when Jesus said that hell would not prevail over the church? How can the church teach “deviant doctrines” when Jesus said He would remain with His church till the end of the age and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth? How can you or any protestant say this? Do you realize that you are calling Jesus a liar?

Having said all this, God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and everybody else, and may they follow the commandment of Christ and love one another, as Christ loved us.

Your patronizing attempt aside, a little love would necessarily entail a lot of truth which I find to be lacking in your post. We luv ya but we would luv ya more if you were more truthful.

 

[kepha1]

Can anybody make a list of Catholic organizations or web sites that misrepresent Protestant teachings? How about one?

How about a formal Catholic teaching that declares Luther and/or Calvin and/or Knox and/or Zwingli to be the anti-Christ?

 

[inkaneer]

Can anybody make a list of Catholic organizations or web sites that misrepresent Protestant teachings? How about one?

How about a formal Catholic teaching that declares Luther and/or Calvin and/or Knox and/or Zwingli to be the anti-Christ?

Yeah, I know. Protestants are always attacking the Catholic Church. It’s just one of the forces of hell that Jesus spoke about. Their whole reason for existence is the fraudulent claim that somehow the Church did something Jesus said would never happen. That was to teach error or “deviant doctrine” as one protestant put it. For people who claim to be “sola scripturists” they sure don’t know their scripture too well.

 

[Chi_Rho_Joe]

Yeah, I know. Protestants are always attacking the Catholic Church. It’s just one of the forces of hell that Jesus spoke about. Their whole reason for existence is the fraudulent claim that somehow the Church did something Jesus said would never happen. That was to teach error or “deviant doctrine” as one protestant put it. For people who claim to be “sola scripturists” they sure don’t know their scripture too well.

You’re right on the money, inkaneer! :clapping: I equate this “battle” in military terms: ask anyone in the military if they would ever use up valuable resources in attacking a non-value target. I’m sure the forces of darkness use the same strategies for evil. “Attacks” are always one-sided: against Mother Church. She doesn’t attack back. So who’s living the words of Jesus (“turn the other cheek”) here? …Yea, it’s like that!

And Kepha1, you’ve done a keen (and dare I say, deep) analysis of these paranoid-, borderline schizo-types attacking the Papacy. You’ve got a good take on it my brutha! :bluelite:I think people like myfavoritemartin should check into theological rehab…stat! There’s an RCIA for that!

CRJ

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you want unity you come back to us.

I fail to see what that has to do with the permitted discussion of this thread…

The Lutheran idea of consubstantiation will never replace Transubstantiation.

There is no Lutheran “idea” of consubstantiation; that’s a CATHOLIC idea out of Catholic Scholasticism. Lutherans affirm REAL PRESENCE, which is (in the words of your Catechism # 1374 “In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with with soul and divinity, of our LOrd Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really, and substantially contained. This presence is called “rea” - by which is not intended to exlude the other types of presence as if they could not be “real” too but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” Lutherans fully, totally and passionately agree. We agree on the ancient, ecumenical doctrine of Real Presence - fully and completely. But The Catholic Church - alone, uniquely, exclusively and dogmatically - embraced another doctrine in 1551 which it called “Transubstantiation.” This no other embraces as such, it is unique to The Catholic Church. But this has NOTHING to do with why some regard the Pope or Papacy to be an antichrist and thus is off-topic to this thread.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Off topic, but I don’t see this as a promise to The Catholic Church (singularly, specificly, exclusively), I see it as a promise to the church. We disagree on that point. But, of course, that has nothing to do with whether the papacy is an anti-Christ.

.

But the Catholic Church is “the church”. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only church for the first 1500 years of christianity was the Catholic Church.

It remains off topic.

I’m not a “rocket scientist,” I’m a physicist. But actually, there’s NOTHING that substantiates that The Catholic Church or indeed that ANY denomination by ANY name existed before the 4th Century. Now, The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church can argue until Jesus returns as to which church that was (although it was likely a proto to you all), but there’s ZERO evidence that Jesus founded any (or any Proto to any). And such is entirely and completely moot to any discussion here.

… an act of faith that is certainly one you may make. IMHO, the Holy Spirit leads the church, He never promised to lead The Catholic Church or Pope Benedict (nice as he is). And while God’s leading is always inerrant, I disagree that therefore all following is infallible. God ALWAYS leads inerrantly, but we know from Scripture (you didn’t get past the first 3 chapters for this point to be crystal clear) that has nothing whatsoever to do with an infallible following

.

.

The promise of the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth was made to only eleven men.

Then you agree that it was never made to The Catholic Church.

And where does it say that ergo those 11 men were and perpetually ever will be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming? Read what you quoted from me, and respond if you care to.

Just the sheer number of protestant denominations all claiming to have the truth but disagreeing on just what that truth is should be a clue to anyone that something was not right with protestantism.

We all realize that The Catholic Church is in formal, official and current agreement with just one: itself, and this only and exclusively in those areas that it itself alone currently views as necessary for which to be in agreement. The WORSE you can possibly say about any other is that it is as “bad” as The Catholic Church in this regard, that it is in doctrinal unity only and exclusely with it itself alone, a unity of ONE: self with self, agreeing exclusively and solely with the ONE it alone sees in the mirror (actually, most others are not nearly so “bad”). So, how does self alone agreeing with self alone - and that ONLY officially, formally and currently in those areas where self exclusively views as necessary for agreement - how does THAT indicate any sense of unity? Heck, most teachers agree with self, is THAT “unity” in your veiw?

Back to my question: Where does the text promise/authorize ANYTHING to The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively and perpetually? And where do you get the idea that students and followers are, by necessity, infallible and unaccountable?

Back to our discussion of whether any deny that Jesus is THE Savior and thus is an “anti-Christ.”

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[nordskoven]

As John states, denying Christ is to be an anti-christ, and denying Christ’s Church is to be an anti-christ, denoting not just the formal Antichrist pseudo-messiah but the system. Therefore, in denying Christ’s 2,000-year-old Church founded on Peter the Rock and reigning and ruling with Christ’s power in an unbroken succession from Christ’s laying on of hands and breathing the Holy Spirit upon His appointed to today is itself deadly dangerous. Are these preachers of Antichrist? Did the Gates of Hell prevail against Christ’s Church? What hatred for God’s clear rulership through men would one have to have to believe this? May God grant us loving obedience.

Babylon the Whore suggests a marriage-denying (“gay marriage” for example) slave system (like rulership by the Freemasonic DaVinci Code’s genetic elite) of all that God has revealed about Himself and His will. A Babylonian Mystery religion simply contradicts everything of God: elitism instead of the elect; whore-dom instead of marriage, the first sacrament; human sacrifice to slave-master gods (like the Hindu Kali cult or abortion) instead of Christ offering Himself; secret doctrines instead of the Good News freely distributed; altered states like drug use instead of a cogent “awake and watching” state; profane economics like Solomon’s 666 levy versus tithing to God’s Church; gods of slavery instead of the providential, loving Creator Who gave us the Way, Truth & Life and the Comforter to guide us.

Babylon the Whore as a Mark of the Beast economic system–no mark, no buying and selling–is nicely fulfilled per Jack Van Impe in the European Union’s proto-organization, the Club of Rome, with the logo of a naked Europa the goddess riding Zeus as the red bull-beast. So there’s one protestant who disagrees with the antichrist preachers. And you, if a self-shepherding sheep rejecting the Good Shepherd’s guidance, are in danger.

Vatican City is an independent entity and is NOT of Rome per se. The seven hills of Rome were within the old city limits. Vatican Hill was explicitly NOT one of the seven hills of Rome proper as it was a graveyard, where Peter held his secret Mass on a high shelf-altar in a mausoleum upon a stool kicked down to hide viewing access in case of danger; and Baptism services in a pool in a nearby mausoleum; all this on the one security-gated road in the Vatican Hill city of the dead. Peter himself is now buried underneath the high altar of St. Peter’s complete with graffiti of the balding apostle and the note scratched in plaster outside his red niche, “PETER IS INSIDE.” Graveyards were never in the city limits. Christ was crucified outside the city gates of Jerusalem on Golgotha for this reason. And many cities, including Jerusalem, including Rome, were founded on seven hills, including Lisbon, Portugal.

Most Holy Trinity, help us; grant us wholesome appetites for truth; and send Your Holy Angels to encamp about us, and grant us Your every blessing of mercy and grace that we may prevail against the crack troops of the Father of Lies & Murder and his minions, bringing swift victory in assaulting the Gates of Hell; all for Your honor and glory and received in humblest thanks and highest praise by us, Your children. AMEN

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Can anybody make a list of Catholic organizations or web sites that misrepresent Protestant teachings? How about one?

How about a formal Catholic teaching that declares Luther and/or Calvin and/or Knox and/or Zwingli to be the anti-Christ?

Sure i could but i’d be banned so i’ll turn the cheek

 

[myfavoritmartin]

On another post I wrote:
myfavoritmartin, that Satanic anti-Catholic hate you are mainlining is a form of spiritual pornography, and it is addictive. You are treading on very thin ice and I am very concerned for your spiritual and mental health.

Well, this is curious…Accusations of spiritual pornography?? I quoted a ROMAN CATHOLIC canonical encyclopedia to answer the OP as to some reasons why protestants think the pope be thee anti-christ.

Psychological assessments aside, please refrain from making mental health judgments on people unless you are able to fully comprehend from what point of view they ascribe.
I never once said that these were my views, only that this is how and why many view the city on 7 hills to be the home of the anti-christ.

 

[Michael_Francis]

***This thread has been pruned of topic posts.

Please get back on topic and stay there or expect me to intervene again.http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Emoticon-emot-purge1.gif***

 

[Roy5]

I find it interesting how harsh Catholics can be when someone tries to put in a word for tolerance and religious reeconciliation. A couple examples above.

It is not my mission to defend Protestantism. But one has to understand that there are different ways of reading history. Many Protestants find it difficult to believe that Christ, who had no place to lay his head, who doubtless walked in a pair of worn sandals, is well represented today by lengthy processions of men (Bishops, mostly elderly) processing in ornate vestments in massive cathedrals. Somehow that can seem to contradict the image that I have of Jesus or of the church Jesus would have founded. 

 I attend mass in a simpler sanctuary, and reforms certainly were made by Vatican II that helped. But more reforms need to be made to make the Church relevant to the world we live in. I have read the Church Fathers, for example, and they were brilliant men, but they also didn't have access to a decent telescope or any microscope, so much that they wrote sounds archaic and even false in our day. Too many militant Catholics seem to look backward for their inspiration - not all bad, of course - but the future of the church lies ahead of us. We cannot live in the past. We need to make a variety of changes, not touching doctrine. For example - the marriage of clergy who choose marriage, women deaconness, certainly a more loving attitude toward fellow Christians rather than the hostility so obvious among many posters here. I have relatives who are Catholic and who are Protestant and I'm sure that God won't consider their church affiliation when they go into eternity. 

 When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said love God and one one another. He said nothing about doctrine or any church. When he spelled out his view more fully he gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero, significantly, was of another religion and race - a person despised by pious Jews. Doesn't that tell us something? 

  All for now. God bless the whole worold - no exceptions. Yes, include the Muslims in that, too. They also are the children of the one Lord of us all.

 

[inkaneer]

I find it interesting how harsh Catholics can be when someone tries to put in a word for tolerance and religious reeconciliation. A couple examples above.

It is not my mission to defend Protestantism. But one has to understand that there are different ways of reading history. Many Protestants find it difficult to believe that Christ, who had no place to lay his head, who doubtless walked in a pair of worn sandals, is well represented today by lengthy processions of men (Bishops, mostly elderly) processing in ornate vestments in massive cathedrals. Somehow that can seem to contradict the image that I have of Jesus or of the church Jesus would have founded. 

 I attend mass in a simpler sanctuary, and reforms certainly were made by Vatican II that helped. But more reforms need to be made to make the Church relevant to the world we live in. I have read the Church Fathers, for example, and they were brilliant men, but they also didn't have access to a decent telescope or any microscope, so much that they wrote sounds archaic and even false in our day. Too many militant Catholics seem to look backward for their inspiration - not all bad, of course - but the future of the church lies ahead of us. We cannot live in the past. We need to make a variety of changes, not touching doctrine. For example - the marriage of clergy who choose marriage, women deaconness, certainly a more loving attitude toward fellow Christians rather than the hostility so obvious among many posters here. I have relatives who are Catholic and who are Protestant and I'm sure that God won't consider their church affiliation when they go into eternity. 

 When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said love God and one one another. He said nothing about doctrine or any church. When he spelled out his view more fully he gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero, significantly, was of another religion and race - a person despised by pious Jews. Doesn't that tell us something?

Oh WOW! Don’t look now but your anti Catholicism is showing. Your “lengthy processions of men (Bishops, mostly elderly) processing in ornate vestments in massive cathedrals” was the key. Then you launch into a tolerance and reconciliation kick. How can n anti Catholic talk of toleration let alone reconciliation? Its the old attempt to compromise, to give up the truth revealed in Christ’s only established Church for some sixteenth century man made devil inspired traditions. It will never happen. If there is to be any reconcilation in christianity then those who left Catholicism have to return to it , no matter if they left 500 years ago or last century or even last Tuesday.

As for those massive cathedrals go to Italy and hear what the guides have to say about those people who built those cathedrals. Those people who built St. Peter’s knew they would never live to see it completed. They knew their sons would never live long enough to see it completed. People who worked on it in the second and third generations knew the same thing. But they were not doing it for processions of old men in ornate vestments. They did it for the same reason Solomon built hthe Temple and lined it with gold. As for those elderly men in ornate vestments. John Paul II owned no property except his personal effects and he lived in an small apartment with no air conditioning and the barest of furnishings. Contrast that with protestant ministers who own country homes and drive around in Cadillacs, not to mention the Lexus’ and BMW’s.

You say you attend mass. I don’t think so. I think you attend a protestant service. As for more reforms the only reform needed is a return to the Latin Mass complete with Gregorian Chant. Let the protestants go their own way if they want. It won’t lead them to heaven.

You say you read the ECF’s, did you? If so who of them that was protestant or preached protestant theology? Who of them that believed in sola scriptura? Who of them was not a Catholic? You don’t need a microscope or a telescope to learn theology. As for married clergy and female deaconesses, I say get over it. I can not believe someone would throw away that pearl of great price over something as trivial as those two items. As for your statement, “I have relatives who are Catholic and who are Protestant and I’m sure that God won’t consider their church affiliation when they go into eternity.” I think you are wrong. Gods will judge people based on sin and protestants have a big problem in remitting sin. They can’t do it.

When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said love God and one one another. He said nothing about doctrine or any church. When he spelled out his view more fully he gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero, significantly, was of another religion and race - a person despised by pious Jews. Doesn’t that tell us something?

But in those two statements Jesus summed up all the doctrines for allof the doctrines concern love of God and love of our fellow man. As for the Good samaritan here was a man who did good works whereas the others did not. So who does good works, Catholics or protestants? Just the mention of good works almost invokes an anathema from protestants. Faith alone, remember?

 

[crazzeto]

inkaneer,

Not that there haven’t been fustrations and all, and not that you don’t have some good points. But that said, I think you’re starting to cross the line in your posting, particularly “let the protistants have their way, it won’t lead them to heaven”. Beleive it or not, the CC doesn’t teach protestants are “just damned”, they can get to heaven. do they have a harder time of it? Perhaps, but they’re certainly validly baptised Christians, they have a chance if they can find the way.

heck, we even hope for the mercy of God for the unbaptised, those completely ignorant of Christ. Obviously the Church can’t make definate statements about which of the ignorant make it to heaven or don’t (or anyone for that matter other than the few cannonized Saints and Judas, perhaps a few others in scripture), but we certainly don’t teach that even these, are just damned.

 

[Roy5]

inkaneer

I suspect you're a good person, but it is Catholics who are so defensive and dogmatic that turn so many people away from Catholicism. They say that the second largest 'denomination' in the USA is/are ex-Catholics. Most of my Catholic friends, like most of my Protestant friends, don't fight the battles that are long past. John XXIII - God bless him - showed us a better way. Frankly, I suspect that heaven will have millions of Protestants along with Catholics of all nations, languages, and colors, and probably millions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. My God is a loving God, and I hope we worship the same one. One can believe that Catholicism is the one true church without indulging in pious hostility directed at other faiths.

crazzeto

 You represent the finer side of Catholicism. I detect a major split among Catholics when it comes to attitude toward non-Catholics. Most Catholics I know agree with me, that God looks at the heart and takes little interest in our religious label. 

  A couple other comments. I am an ecumenical Christian who is committed to doing what little I can to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier. I come from a mixed family background and learned early on to appreciate sincere religious devotion whether Catholic or Protestant. My interest is not so much in doctrine - whether that taught by Catholicism or the sola scriptura of some Protestants. Remember: most mainline Protestants, like most of my Protestant kinfolk (not all) are much more 'big tent' minded than those fundamentalists who think they alone are true followers of Christ. In all honesty, I am turned off by anti-Catholicism or anti-Protestantism. We are all children of the same God, with Christ as our one Redeemer. 

   Yes, I attend mass, though not every Sunday. I visit different traditions to learn more about them. The Mormons have a house of worship down the street, and now and then I have been there on a Sunday morning. I do not agree with them - not at all - when it comes to their wild tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. On the other hand, they have high moral standards and are very welcoming. 

 Two of my favorite groups are the Quakers and the Salvation Army. It's true that I can be put off a bit by what I see as an undue emphasis upon the proper liturgical forms that are so important to some worshipers. I see the humble Jesus, and I see the ornateness of many churches (many of them Protestant, by the way), and it raises questions in my mind. This is not to disparage the beauty of great cathedrals nor those who built them.  I presume this is somehow a contradiction - or a conflict - within me. However, I regard worship as primarily serving God by serving humankind. Deeds, in my view, eclipse rituals any day of the week. But I don't expect everyone to agree with that. Fine. There is room in Christianity for a variety of viewpoints.

  I could go on, but some posters already will dismiss what I say as anti-Catholic or judgmental or whatever. So be it. I pray for the day when all this animosity that still seems to exist is gone and people of every faith will walk, work and even worship together. 

  God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims - etc.

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer,

Not that there haven’t been fustrations and all, and not that you don’t have some good points. But that said, I think you’re starting to cross the line in your posting, particularly “let the protistants have their way, it won’t lead them to heaven”. Beleive it or not, the CC doesn’t teach protestants are “just damned”, they can get to heaven. do they have a harder time of it? Perhaps, but they’re certainly validly baptised Christians, they have a chance if they can find the way.

heck, we even hope for the mercy of God for the unbaptised, those completely ignorant of Christ. Obviously the Church can’t make definate statements about which of the ignorant make it to heaven or don’t (or anyone for that matter other than the few cannonized Saints and Judas, perhaps a few others in scripture), but we certainly don’t teach that even these, are just damned.

First of all I never said protestants are damned so please don’t put words in my mouth. But I once posed a question to EWTN regarding the concept of “invinceable ignorance” and protestants. The answer I received is that while the church holds out the possibility that protestants will enter heaven probability is another matter. Again, as I believe I stated in my post, the problem is sin and the inability of any form of protestantism to remit it outside of baptism and a perfect act of contrition. So the answer is yes, salvation is possible for protestants but the probability is, as yet undetermined.

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer

I suspect you're a good person, but it is Catholics who are so defensive and dogmatic that turn so many people away from Catholicism. They say that the second largest 'denomination' in the USA is/are ex-Catholics. Most of my Catholic friends, like most of my Protestant friends, don't fight the battles that are long past. John XXIII - God bless him - showed us a better way. Frankly, I suspect that heaven will have millions of Protestants along with Catholics of all nations, languages, and colors, and probably millions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. My God is a loving God, and I hope we worship the same one. One can believe that Catholicism is the one true church without indulging in pious hostility directed at other faiths.

Yes, your God is a loving God and wants all men to be saved. That’s why He established A church. Notice I said A church and not churches. No protestant denomination claims to have the 2,000 year history to be that church. This idea of my way [church] is as good as HIS [God’s] way [church] may be popular but it is a lie. As for being defensive and dogmatic, isn’t ruth worth defending? I’m quite tired of hearing the same false accusations spewed by protestants in their attempt to justify their false doctrines. So yes, I am dogmatic because there is a difference in true doctrine and false. This is not a nice guy competition. I’m sure Jesus felt some pain when He watched His own disciples turned away from Him because He told them a truth they were not prepared for. But what did He do? Did he run after them and try to be a nice guy? No, He let them go. Anyone using me as their excuse for not joining the Catholic Church or not returning to it is using the absolute poorest excuse possible.

 

[crazzeto]

First of all I never said protestants are damned so please don’t put words in my mouth. But I once posed a question to EWTN regarding the concept of “invinceable ignorance” and protestants. The answer I received is that while the church holds out the possibility that protestants will enter heaven probability is another matter. Again, as I believe I stated in my post, the problem is sin and the inability of any form of protestantism to remit it outside of baptism and a perfect act of contrition. So the answer is yes, salvation is possible for protestants but the probability is, as yet undetermined.

The truth seeps through in your post, as you your self said. You bare the same kind of hatred for Protestants that you accuse this poster of having for Catholics. Putting aside whether or not that poster truely has this kind of hatred for Catholics, I would like to take an oppertunity to quote a relivent scripture:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=3&f=s#x

And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

 

[inkaneer]

The truth seeps through in your post, as you your self said. You bare the same kind of hatred for Protestants that you accuse this poster of having for Catholics. Putting aside whether or not that poster truely has this kind of hatred for Catholics, I would like to take an oppertunity to quote a relivent scripture:

Quote:
And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Oh wow! First of all, It was not me who went on the attack against protestantism. All I did was to show protestantism that the allegations they make against the Catholic Church were false [like the pope being the anti Christ] and in that process pointed out some of the major problems with protestantism. Protestantism has great theological problems and a lot more that what I pointed out. So who has the mote and who has the beam in their eyes here? Maybe protestantism should take the beam out their eye and deal with their theology rather than making false accusations against Catholicism. Now if you don’t agree with that then maybe you can tell us all how protestants can remit sin outside of Baptism and a perfect act of contrition so that they can attain heaven. I would like to hear it.