Jumping off the Ark of Salvation (the Catholic Church with its headquarters in Rome) in any direction - Protestant, EO, SDA, Mormon, Islam, Pagan, etc., all leads to the “DOWN” button.
If one knows that the Catholic Church is the True Church, then they know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Body, and of course they would know that they were rejecting Christ - wouldn’t they?
Of course, because rejecting Christ’s Body is rejecting Christ. You can’t have one without the other.
For me, of course I can’t convert, I know too much already and that I can’t turn my back on Christ in the Eucharist. As what Peter said in John 6:58-59 “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
But if one knows that Catholic Church is the True Church, but decided that it’s not for them and they choose other religion. Does it mean that they reject Christ?
After all, we have freewill to decide whether we want to love Him or not. He won’t force us to be with Him if we don’t want to.
Nice fairy tale, but alas, not the truth. Christ Himself said that Hell is eternal and an unquenchable fire. God loves us and does not send anyone to Hell. The people who end up there sent themselves there.
Well for one thing the Orthodox don’t have a Pope.
They still have head Bishops, though. Each different Orthodox Church still has to obey its own Bishop.
Some Church Fathers did not believe in an eternal Hell and instead believed in the apokatastasis. You can read about it here:
What about you Contarini? Why don’t you convert to Orthodoxy? Wouldn’t that be better than Episcopalian? You wrote in one of your posts that the main reason you haven’t converted to Catholicism is because you don’t believe in having a pope. If that is your main objection to Catholicism than why not Orthodoxy? There are few differences between the two unless you believe the Catholic Church is the “true Church” and the Orthodox is not.
Why are you attacking Contarini?
:yup: [This would be a perfect place for that “sad nodding of the head” smiley that I keep wanting!!!]
Because she can…:nope: :nope: [also perfect for, as above note…]Methinks, as an attack, that post is severely deficient. There is no name-calling, no foul language, and not even the slightest bit of sarcasm makes its way through the virtual universe to my ears. Why, there’s not even and “editted by mod” tag on there!!
Unquestionably. But it really isn’t about what is “better.” I don’t accept the claims of the Orthodox Church to be the true Church.
I have given many such reasons at different times, but I’m sure I did not say that I did not believe in having a Pope. I have problems with the way the Papacy has been exercised in the past 1000 years, but I believe firmly in Roman primacy.That’s why I remain an ecumenical Anglican.
You neglect another possibility–that the claims of the two Churches basically cancel each other out. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a reasonable claim to be the true Church. If they did not “split the vote,” I could not justify remaining Protestant (and yes, I consider Anglicanism Protestant, though it’s as Catholic a form of Protestantism as I could find). If I had to pick one of them, it would be Catholicism. But on the other hand I think Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to the teachings of early Christianity than Catholicism–its doctrinal developments have generally been more modest and more authentic (as it seems to me) than those of Catholicism (not to mention Protestantism which has clearly gone astray in many ways–Anglicanism less so than other forms). That is, in my book, an argument for Protestant ecclesiology–i.e., that all Trinitarian churches are expressions of the One Church and that the Church does not perfectly “subsist” in any of them.
No that doesn’t follow. It only means that one can’t deduce from the use of the word “eternal” that the blessedness of the saints cannot end. One may have other passages or other reasons to believe that the blessedness of the saints cannot end.
Are you claiming that the wrath of God is an attribute or activity of God distinct from his Love? God is not a being who has internal strife with his love pushing him one way and his wrath pushing him another. He is supreme love – there is nothing in him that competes with his character as love itself.
Would you please elaborate more on what you mean by Orthodoxy being more authentic? Are you saying that Catholicism has changed its doctrine over the years? If so would the reason for that be because of the papacy?
I should have said “less dubiously authentic.” I am in no position to say that the doctrinal developments of Catholicism are not authentic. But by and large the way the Orthodox think and act seems closer to the way the early Church (particularly in its later, conciliar stages) thought and acted.
About Liturgy, you’re adopting unfair characterization.