A
AndrewJMason
Guest
I don’t SLAM them, but I highly disagree with them. I believe they’re teachings are HIGHLY false.
I’ve never seen anyone on here SLAM anyone…
I’ve never seen anyone on here SLAM anyone…
- Status
F
FAB
Guest
Neither recognize that the Eucharist in the real body and blood of Christ. The term real presence is sometime misleading.
Just because they use the same reading, doesn’t mean it has the same effect based on apostolic succession.
Protestants get lump together, since the root of the word is protest, and those who broke away were in protest against the teaching of the Church and recognizing the pope as the head of the church, and still are.
We as Catholics thou, do pray for the reunification of all christian church’s and pray for our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Christ.
S
steve_b
Guest
Howdy Brother :tiphat:The pope have asked us to drop the labels: heretics, apostates, and whatever other labels we had for Protestants. Pope John Paul made it clear that there is a difference between a heresy and a heretic. Canon law applies the term only to Catholics who obstinately deny truth. Canon Law was written only for Latin Catholics. Even the Oriental Catholics follow a different Code of Canon Law.
The Church recognizes the primacy of Catholicism and teaches that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. However, she does not deny that there are parts of the truth to be found among the Reformation communities. To ignore that is to become blind to the transcendence of truth.
The Church does not ask Catholics to roll over and play dead when under attack by other people, including Catholics. But she does remind us that Christ, in some mysterious way that we don’t understand, uses these communities to save. She acknowledges that she can be found in the Reformation communities, even as a shadow.
If we’re reading what the Church is saying and what she’s asking us to do in order to further the cause of Christian unity, we should not be slamming Protestants. To do so is sabotaging the work of the Church, the plans of the popes and their hopes.
I truly believe that it’s part of the human condition, maybe a product of Original Sin, to sabotage ourselves before we begin an enterprise. We have to be very aware of this tendency and try to exercise restraint.
In dealing with people of other faiths I always ask myself a very simple question. “What would Pope John Paul do in this case? How would Pope Benedict say this?” OK, I’m biased. They are my heroes when it comes to dealing with people of other faiths. They have been the most enthusiastic in the area of interfaith dialog. They are great role models of men of faith, men who are faithful to the Church and men who are very good in dealing with non-Catholics in a manner that is gentle, clear and creates trust rather than antagonism.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Blessed JPII the Great, is my hero as well.
I have just a couple of comments.
- Yes canon law only applies to Catholics, but heresy applies to any validly baptized person, who embraces heresy or has an obstinate resistance to a truth of faith.
- Re: other religions and truth they have, the grace they receive will dispose them to the gospel and to conversion. If they fully respond to this grace and conversion, it will lead them to unity with the Catholic Church. #2089 and #819 CCC]
J
JReducation
Guest
Heresay and heretic are not the same thing. Canon law is talking about those Catholics who subcribe to heresy. That’s the differemce.
Those, who through no fault of their own are born outiside of the Catholic Church are not included in the population described in Canon Law.
This is upsetting to many Catholics, because for a long time we were taught to think of Protestants as heretics. Today, the popes are telling us to disance ourselves from that kind of language. The easy part about this is that these are canonical terms, not dogmas or moral laws. The Holy See can say, “we’re no longer going to use these terms.”
As I read in one of Pope John Paul’s writings, his displeasure with Catholics who use thee terms is that they fail to recognize or do not know that Catholics of that time were equally guilty of the separation. It was not all Luther, Calvin and Henry. The hierarchy of the time was too secure, too involved in political affairs and too arrogant and at times mean. They were not good role models of Catholic living. That did not help the Catholic case with the common man who did not know theology. All that he knew was what he saw. Just look at the infamous Cardnal Wosey in England. The man had the opportunity to set Henry straight very early. Instead, he fed Henry’s ego and promised him what he could not deliver, this just reinforced the dysfunctional thinking of the young Henry. Then there was a ripple effect. Both John Paul and Benedict call Catholics to admit these failures too. It makes no difference if the Protestants don’t want to admit any failure. What is important is that we’re honest and humble before God and man. Let others figure out what they’re going to do.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
Kat127
Guest
I’m trying to figure out what you are really asking. You can’t be asking why Catholics have a distaste for protestantism. It is fairly well known that Catholics view protestantism as a corruption of their teachings.
Think of it this way. Say you met a man from another land that did not believe in free speech, did not believe every person was equal before the law, did not believe most adults had the right to vote. Say he is a very polite, nice man that gives to charity and works hard. You can still like him while finding his views abhorrent.
But even if you are too polite to say “You are off your rocker!” that conflict of fundamental beliefs is going to crop up in conversations sometimes.
Catholics are in a hard position. Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers and at times our family. We would never wish them harm. But their teachings- shudders
There is a belief in the Catholic Church that the Protestants are a bit of form over substance. They do the fellowship thing well, they do the singing well but when it comes down to the harder parts of religion they tend to decided that it really isn’t that important.
Every time I have heard someone complain something is too Protestant it is because they feel the practice is putting the form before the substance. Also Catholics believe you can’t just start changing the Mass around because you feel like it (but that’s kinda what the Protestants did.)
M
Monica4316
Guest
I don’t hate Protestants at all…
however I disagree with Protestantism and I don’t want the Mass or any part of our faith being “Protestantised” - that is, being changed to fit Protestantism better. I think we should keep our traditions.
A
Alix1912
Guest
Sorry but Lutherans and Anglicans actually do recognize that communion is the body and blood of Christ. Please refer to the post I posted on this thread with the ACTUAL doctrine of the LCMS. It’s pretty clear. You may not believe that we believe this, but we do.
Also what does Apostolic Succession have to do with reading the Word of God.
The readings each Sunday is only valid and meaningful if read by a priest??? Odd, because lay people do the Old and New Testament readings and the psalm and the Deacon reads the Gospel most Sundays at my husband’s parrish. And we read the daily readings published in his bulletin everyday. WHY would a Catholic Church publish daily scripture readings if only someone with Apostolic Succession can read the scripture. What you are claiming makes no sense at all within the teachings and practices of your own church.The idea that the right to read scripture and study scripture was reserved for only the ordained clergy was one of the HUGE issues in the Reformation. Why bother to print and sell individual Bibles if only clergy are allowed to do readings.
Just because a bunch of people are all protesting one particular intitution doesn’t mean they have the same ideas, or purpose, or doctrine. Look at any revolution, not every person faighting the status quo is doing so for the same reason. Just because someone is not a Democrat doesn’t mean they are automatically a Republican and vs versa. Seriously justifying lumping hundreds of vastly different denominations and individual churches together simply because they all share the feature of not being Catholic is like me lumping all Non LCMS churchs together and assuming they are the same. Pretty sure you wouldn’t want to be lumped in with the baptists or fundamentalists and told you believe the same thing would you?
H
hazcompat
Guest
Methodists have the best strawberries.
peace
peace
A
ajpirc
Guest
I agree.
It drives me crazy that you can’t tell the difference between Catholic and Protestant churches.
S
steve_b
Guest
Can we agree that a heretic is a baptised person (a Christian, Catholic or non Catholic) who won’t believe a Divine truth or has an obstinate doubt about the same truth?
JR:
Aside from canon law, are those born outside the Catholic Church (but validly baptised) incapable of heresy?
JR:
do you have a reference?
JR:
Sins were committed on both sides, that’s true.
**817 **In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin: Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
F
FAB
Guest
I grant that this is your belief
Apostilic Succession is not reading the scripture, it is the understanding that the pope, Benidict XVI is a director successor to St. Peter and as a result is the representative of The Lord on earth as Jesus directed.Also what does Apostolic Succession have to do with reading the Word of God.
Since women in the Church have been allowed to read the scriptures in Mass, with the exception of the Gospel, which is read by the Deacon of Priest, for the past 50 years, your information is behind the times. Every Catholic is encoraged to read and study the bible.The idea that the right to read scripture and study scripture was reserved for only the ordained clergy was one of the HUGE issues in the Reformation. Why bother to print and sell individual Bibles if only clergy are allowed to do readings.
The institution that is being protested in the Church started by the Lord. As you know, the origin of this protest was a king who wanted a divorce and annulment to which the Church disagreed, so the king set himself up as the head in his country, because he refused to submit to the Church’s authority.
The Anglican Church does share a great deal with the Catholic Church. It is why the Church has invited and many communities of Anglicans have accepted to reunite with the Church.
M
markomalley
Guest
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7
Those who have never had the benefit of effective catechesis will be judged based upon what they know, not what they have never had a chance to know.
The Code of Canon Law does not apply to those who are not in the Latin Church:
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.
Can. 205 Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.
Those who are not in ecclesiastical communion and who have never been are not subject to the Code of Canon Law. Including the canonical definition of heresy.
Yes, their beliefs are heretical. But they cannot be held liable for that heresy, unless they have been baptized into the Catholic Church and catechized or received into that Church.
A
Alix1912
Guest
This was my original Statement and your response to it. Which would imply that because the person doing the readings on Sunday is not a Priest with Apostilic Sucession the readings are somehow less meaningful or valid. Which makes no sense. I then pointed out that Catholic Churchs today use lay people and deacons to do the readings on Sunday and encourage their members to actually do daily readings at home. Again not jiving with your implication that Apostolic Succession is required for reading the scripture. I do not think you above statement jives with the teachings and behavior of your own Church.
You responded to my questioning how Apostolic Succession with the above statement. I know what apostolic succession means with regard to the pope, and the clergy in the Catholic Church. You also confirmed that other people are allowed to read the scripture in a Catholic Church and at home which I also know as I have observed this several times. My original statement confirmed that I am aware of this. What you did not respond to is why you feel that Lay people and a pastor reading the exact same reading in a Lutheran Church on Sunday as are being read next door at a Catholic Church is not as meaningful, or how Apostolic Succession plays a role in the fact that both the RCC and LCMS use almost the same reading schedule.
As to the right to read scripture and not be clergy…that actually WAS a big deal to the protestants at the time of the reformation.
Again with the lumping us together, and the misinformation
if you are going to throw out history and make claims like that you should at least make ones that are correct. The reformation went down in the first half of the 1500’s. There were several movements all brewing at the same time, some sought originally to reform, other always had the intention to break away, others were using the turmoil as a way to get out of marriage. Henry the VIII DID not start the reformation. The actual thing that started it according to most historians was in 1517 when Luther wrote and sent his 95 theises. Shortly after this you have Zwingli in Switzerland, and Calvin in France both of whom wrote and taught extensively in the early 1520’s. Henry broke away over his marriage in 1529. His break was actually condemned by main reformation theologists and leaders as being completely for the WRONG reasons. Divorce was and is still condemned except in the most extreme cases in the Lutheran Faith. (seriously we just had sermon on this about a month ago…lots of squirming in the pews). You cannot in any seriousness make the claim that the Anglican’s lead the reformation. No respected Historian would agree with you. The seeds had been growing for the last century or two before it all broke out, and it is widely accepted and acknowledged that the reformation started in the Germanic areas of Europe.
F
FAB
Guest
Your complaint seems to be that as Lutheran or Anglican that you don’t want to be refered to as a protestant, Yet Henry’s break from the churchwas that he disagreed with the Church because he couldn’t get his own way.This was my original Statement and your response to it. Which would imply that because the person doing the readings on Sunday is not a Priest with Apostilic Sucession the readings are somehow less meaningful or valid. Which makes no sense. I then pointed out that Catholic Churchs today use lay people and deacons to do the readings on Sunday and encourage their members to actually do daily readings at home. Again not jiving with your implication that Apostolic Succession is required for reading the scripture. I do not think you above statement jives with the teachings and behavior of your own Church.
You responded to my questioning how Apostolic Succession with the above statement. I know what apostolic succession means with regard to the pope, and the clergy in the Catholic Church. You also confirmed that other people are allowed to read the scripture in a Catholic Church and at home which I also know as I have observed this several times. My original statement confirmed that I am aware of this. What you did not respond to is why you feel that Lay people and a pastor reading the exact same reading in a Lutheran Church on Sunday as are being read next door at a Catholic Church is not as meaningful, or how Apostolic Succession plays a role in the fact that both the RCC and LCMS use almost the same reading schedule.
As to the right to read scripture and not be clergy…that actually WAS a big deal to the protestants at the time of the reformation.
Again with the lumping us together, and the misinformation
As far as the effectivness of the readings, it is the word of God, I would agree that there is not a difference. The difference is in the Eucharistic prayer and it’s effect. Preist and bishops of the Lutheran or Anglican church’s do not share in apostolistic tradition.
The church’s also lack 5 sacraments recongizing only baptism and eucharist. When it comes to the Eucharist in the anglican church I will admit I am no expert, but the understand I believe of transubstantion is not accepted.
Form Wikapedia
It does continue
In this doctinal matter the Lutherans or Anglicans share more with protestants than Catholics.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
As a former protestant (at least “culturally” Lutheran - though to be honest, I spent more time in Buddhism overall), and among the only two people in my family to be Catholic, that I’m aware of, probably going back to the reformation, I hope I don’t ever “slam” protestants. (Isn’t the question itself kind of provocative, though?). This does not by any stretch of the imaginiation though, incline me to be overly concillatory. I think we should be loving, charitable, understanding, even ecumenical in it’s honest definition. Having said all that, it would be kind of a disservice to a visiting protestant if we didn’t defend the faith, give correction where correction is due, and tell the truth about the one Holy and Catholic, apostolic church. After all, as you said, it IS a Catholic apolgetics website, and we all have at least a pedestrian call to apologetics, or we wouldn’t lend our time to these forums to begin with.
So…no slamming from me. Only loving well meaning and charitable correction, and a devotion to the truth.
Peace,
Steven
So…no slamming from me. Only loving well meaning and charitable correction, and a devotion to the truth.
Peace,
Steven
A
Alix1912
Guest
Again you failed to actually address what the daily or sunday reading in Church and their meaningfulness has to do with Apostolic Succession.
I have no issue being called protestant…I am. Luther essentially started the Protestant Reformation, so it would be silly to say I’m not Protestant. I have an issue with people assumeing that just because we are non Catholic we are all the same doctrinally. Doctrinally, the High Litergical Churches which trace their roots back to the 1500’s ARE much more similar today to the Catholics than they are to the non denominationals or fundamentalists.
I also take issue with the fact that you are continuing to attempt to make the entire 100 Year long Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s all about Henry VIII desire to do his own thing. It’s so much bigger than that, and the English Reformation was only a tiny piece of it. No one denys that Henry was acting like a dork…even his contemparies in the reformation didn’t take him seriously. He does not and has never represented the Protestant Reformation as a whole neither did he start it.
As to the doctrine of the Anglican Church they do believe that communion is the Body and Blood of our Lord just as the Lutheran (at least the MS) do as well. The entire transubstation (sp) vrs consubstantiaion (sp) is purely meta physical and really kind of silly in my mind. It’s his Body and Blood, it may look and taste like bread and wine, but he told us it’s his Body and Blood, he told us to continue the practice of communion…the actual process of it’s transformation is not important and part of the mystery in my mind. In this I would argue we are much closer to Catholics as communion is not just symbolic to us it is a vital part of worship and it is a sacrament, where as many other denominations do not believe in communion at all, or see it merely as a symbol and nothing more. As to whatever King Henry’s offspring said or did…not really applicable to Lutheran doctrine, but you do seem to be really hung up on him. He was an interesting character I’ll give him that.
Actually the Lutheran Church has 3 sacraments…Baptism, Confession, and Communion. Confirmation is regarded as a Sacramental Rite and the fulfillment of the Sacrament of Baptism. Holy Orders and Marriage are also Sacramental Rites as they existed prior to Christ and were not insituted by him. Also they are not something that all Christians are called to. Annointing of the sick…honestly no idea why this one was left out. Our pastors do visit the sick and shut ins, take them communion, and pray with them.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is correct. Canon Law only applies to Latin Catholics. It does not even apply to Catholics from the other Catholic Churches. They have their own code of law and their own theology, as well. There are points in which we overlap and other points on which we are very different. This point is one of them. The Oriental Churches do not use the term heresy the same way.
However, all of the Catholic Churches apply the label “heretic” only to those who are part of the physical Church, because they are the ones who are absconding from the Church.
There was a time when the Latin Church labeled all Protestants as heretics. That’s the way that the Canons of the Latin Church were written. They were changed in 1983. The Church has the authority to bind and unbind on this matter, since this is not a matter of revealed dogma, but a matter of discipline. The term originally meant those who knowingly espoused error. Today the term retains its definition, but it is only applied to Latin Catholics. The Oriental Code has a different set of rules on this matter. They had to have a different set of rules so as not to cause any more rifts between the Oriental Catholics and Orthodox Christians, after the excommunications and anathemas had been lifted.
In Ut Unum Sint and in the Directive of Ecumenism Pope John Paul asks Catholics to put aside the anger, the past, the derogatory terms and all the other things that hurt the unity of the Christian people. He is very emphatic that one of the missions of the Church is to unify and this is a primary apostolate of the papacy. Pope Benedict has alluded to the same thing on several occasions. He’s gone broader than Pope John Paul. He has gone on to say that the papacy has a moral duty to unify all people, even if we are not of the same belief. It’s a long explanation that he gives, but it sounds something like what Archbishop Sheen said about us not being able to meet each other in the Eucharist, but being able to be one on our knees. I think that’s how the good Archbishop said it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Outstanding point and nicely-stated, Theophorus!
M
MontChevalier
Guest
I don’t hate protestants, since it’s wrong to hate. I won’t lie however, I find them an annoying bunch. Specifically because I look at things politically, militarily and theologically.
A source: borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0895559064
Politically, Martin Luther’s upheaval created many messes which had divided an already conflicting Europe. With the Ottoman’s in the east massacring their way along the Balkans, many Austrians, Poles, Croats, Serbians, Wallachians, Germans and Lithuanians lost their lives because the aid the papacy offered was reduced. For this, I find it intolerable that those who did not have to die, died, because Luther had to have his way.
Militarily, the armies, the nobility, etc, was divided in Germany and France. Scandanavia and England(while creating some of its own) fell to the heresy and only Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Slovakia and Lithuania maintained their faith in the Roman Catholic church(God bless them). To some, it might not seem like the damage was that great, you’ll find that that’s not so. Whatever aid France, England and Germany could have offered in the future, would be difficult.
Theologically, it opened the way the gateway to all sorts of hell. Divisions upon divisions, nothing more. With literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different churches with their own interpretation of the Bible. What is division, other than another reason to disagree? Were they in communion with the Church, perhaps that would not be a problem.
I did think of this video, however.
youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo&feature=related
-MontChevalier
A source: borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0895559064
Politically, Martin Luther’s upheaval created many messes which had divided an already conflicting Europe. With the Ottoman’s in the east massacring their way along the Balkans, many Austrians, Poles, Croats, Serbians, Wallachians, Germans and Lithuanians lost their lives because the aid the papacy offered was reduced. For this, I find it intolerable that those who did not have to die, died, because Luther had to have his way.
Militarily, the armies, the nobility, etc, was divided in Germany and France. Scandanavia and England(while creating some of its own) fell to the heresy and only Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Slovakia and Lithuania maintained their faith in the Roman Catholic church(God bless them). To some, it might not seem like the damage was that great, you’ll find that that’s not so. Whatever aid France, England and Germany could have offered in the future, would be difficult.
Theologically, it opened the way the gateway to all sorts of hell. Divisions upon divisions, nothing more. With literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different churches with their own interpretation of the Bible. What is division, other than another reason to disagree? Were they in communion with the Church, perhaps that would not be a problem.
I did think of this video, however.
youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo&feature=related
-MontChevalier
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
The problem with discussing Protestantism is that there are 20,000 flavours of it. Some are near Catholicism, some are not. None have valid orders. These people are living a delusion.
It comes to something when you see a Roman Catholic priest standing in a photo line-up with a woman wearing the same collar and clothes as his. Have ye got the joke, yet? I think I hear the Devil laughing.
The Protestant mistake is a literary one, based on pride: to see religion as a set of rules to be debated, each man his own Pope, deciding what you’ll believe and what you won’t.
While setting up a minimalist church is at the discretion of a Catholic parish, tearing out sound ornament from an existing one is a crass thing to do, even diabolical. Smashing the altars, ripping out the altar rails, vernacularising the entire Mass, listen to the dictates of your conscience and saying the Mass on a table facing the people was tried before with terrible results - it was called the Reformation.
Protestantism is a spiritual trap if you keep to it, knowing the Catholic faith. Even Protestants are now starting to wake up, as a body, as to how diabolical their sects are becoming e.g. openly homosexual clergy, women priests, etc.
Our religion is not merely a set of written rules to be pored over - its a way of life directed towards pleasing our Master, Christ The King. Catholicism, kept to, fulfills this obligation perfectly.
It comes to something when you see a Roman Catholic priest standing in a photo line-up with a woman wearing the same collar and clothes as his. Have ye got the joke, yet? I think I hear the Devil laughing.
The Protestant mistake is a literary one, based on pride: to see religion as a set of rules to be debated, each man his own Pope, deciding what you’ll believe and what you won’t.
While setting up a minimalist church is at the discretion of a Catholic parish, tearing out sound ornament from an existing one is a crass thing to do, even diabolical. Smashing the altars, ripping out the altar rails, vernacularising the entire Mass, listen to the dictates of your conscience and saying the Mass on a table facing the people was tried before with terrible results - it was called the Reformation.
Protestantism is a spiritual trap if you keep to it, knowing the Catholic faith. Even Protestants are now starting to wake up, as a body, as to how diabolical their sects are becoming e.g. openly homosexual clergy, women priests, etc.
Our religion is not merely a set of written rules to be pored over - its a way of life directed towards pleasing our Master, Christ The King. Catholicism, kept to, fulfills this obligation perfectly.
- Status