-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
Here's the thing. Just frankly, your thread is irritating. I don't expect many to agree, but, okay, you don't like sola scriptura, the "Bible believing" wing of the Protestant community lives by nothing else than the inspired word of God. Infant baptism, okay, you think it's efficacious, when Christian baptism of the first century church is always of a repentant believer. The apostles all go to sleep, to be with the Lord, He already gone home, and Roman Catholics, the primary Catholic type in this neck of the woods, are, as if, changing the rules written on the barn of Animal Farm.
The point is, anybody can Google any of this. Just speaking for myself, I have no need to daily refight the Reformation, a done deal, well over four centuries ago. What Roman Catholics are always doing, and not just you, but Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, spawn of Herbert Armstrong, the list goes on and on, what you're really doing is trying to sell your exclusive group, when some of us know exclusive groups, with extra-Biblical so-called revelations, that contradict inspired scripture truths in the Holy Bible, or create large new doctrines never once mentioned by the Lord Jesus or the apostles: there are those of us who just have no room at the spiritual inn for those things not strictly of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostles, a gospel which ends at Revelation 22:21, until the Lord deems to add any information. Scripture is not uninspired fiat of a Pope who is, in fact, an appointment of man, creating doctrines of men, yes, sola scriptura where we part company, to us parting company with the doctrines of men and theological corruption, which the fruits of history prove.
Again, the point? It's a dead horse, millions of times over, for almost 500 years. I've heard it all, anyway. Can you Catholics ever just graciously take "no thanks" as the answer, from anybody but Muslims, anymore, and get on with discussing Bible truth, if you seek conversation with a Protestant? I've had the Reformation, on a mobius strip, up to my ears! It becomes like another sabbath thread. Anti-rapture thread. Works salvation thread. Anti-Trinity thread. Is it even possible for the collective to get to "been there, done that" on message boards? Am I the only one that gets bored?
The point is, anybody can Google any of this. Just speaking for myself, I have no need to daily refight the Reformation, a done deal, well over four centuries ago. What Roman Catholics are always doing, and not just you, but Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, spawn of Herbert Armstrong, the list goes on and on, what you're really doing is trying to sell your exclusive group, when some of us know exclusive groups, with extra-Biblical so-called revelations, that contradict inspired scripture truths in the Holy Bible, or create large new doctrines never once mentioned by the Lord Jesus or the apostles: there are those of us who just have no room at the spiritual inn for those things not strictly of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostles, a gospel which ends at Revelation 22:21, until the Lord deems to add any information. Scripture is not uninspired fiat of a Pope who is, in fact, an appointment of man, creating doctrines of men, yes, sola scriptura where we part company, to us parting company with the doctrines of men and theological corruption, which the fruits of history prove.
Again, the point? It's a dead horse, millions of times over, for almost 500 years. I've heard it all, anyway. Can you Catholics ever just graciously take "no thanks" as the answer, from anybody but Muslims, anymore, and get on with discussing Bible truth, if you seek conversation with a Protestant? I've had the Reformation, on a mobius strip, up to my ears! It becomes like another sabbath thread. Anti-rapture thread. Works salvation thread. Anti-Trinity thread. Is it even possible for the collective to get to "been there, done that" on message boards? Am I the only one that gets bored?
Can you Protestants ever just graciously stop bashing Catholics with phony histories and gross misrepresentation of our beliefs? I didn't say "blatant lies", I'm trying to be polite.
Can you please, please, pleeeeze find one good Catholic on line source that does that to any Protestant community?
Guess how many Protestant Catholic-bashing sites there are. And Catholic bashing forums.
Try a Catholic forum. They are charitable and you haven't seen it all yet.
Can you please, please, pleeeeze find one good Catholic on line source that does that to any Protestant community?
Guess how many Protestant Catholic-bashing sites there are. And Catholic bashing forums.
Try a Catholic forum. They are charitable and you haven't seen it all yet.
J
Thank you! It comments like yours that bring hope to civilization and may help spare me madness.
Hebrews 6:1-3 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.
Please don't get me wrong, we are, many, at different places, and there are those younger in Christ. Basic doctrine has an important place. So, it's not my intent to criticize this. It's just that, the forum is called Bible Discussion. A lot of us aren't exactly Spring chickens. You advance in years, and there comes a time when sucking on a bottle, filled with warm Enfamil, isn't becoming a certain group. I once tried an Ezekiel's temple thread, seeking a little nuanced, deeper insight, and learned why it's sometimes spelled, "Whut?!" (I could perhaps enjoy a Fastest Dead Thread competition, if nobody has a good blonde joke, all things being equal.) Anyway, sometimes you wish you had a double cheeseburger, instead of Enfamil. And it saddens me to have to reduce standards, on a sliding scale. "Okay, single cheeseburger? Grilled chicken, then? Tofu?"
It's especially disheartening, if you're a person who tends to hear things the first time. Sometimes it gets to page 50, and some guy's still saying the same thing he said on page 2, this before creating another thread that says the same thing. That movie Groundhog Day was all of that I could stand, for one lifetime!
Can you Protestants ever just graciously stop bashing Catholics with phony histories and gross misrepresentation of our beliefs? I didn't say "blatant lies", I'm trying to be polite.
Can you please, please, pleeeeze find one good Catholic on line source that does that to any Protestant community?
Guess how many Protestant Catholic-bashing sites there are. And Catholic bashing forums.
Try a Catholic forum. They are charitable and you haven't seen it all yet.
Can you please, please, pleeeeze find one good Catholic on line source that does that to any Protestant community?
Guess how many Protestant Catholic-bashing sites there are. And Catholic bashing forums.
Try a Catholic forum. They are charitable and you haven't seen it all yet.
Can you Catholics stop bashing the Bible with man-made traditions that directly contradict the word of God?
I would be glad to defend Sacred Tradition that you know nothing about, or worse, misrepresent them, and they are not man made. Can you name at least one? It rarely happens. Just lazy generalizations. Go ahead. Name one. And then we can discuss the false man made unworkable unbiblical tradition of sola scriptura. Then we can discuss the false tradition of Bible origins invented by uneducated ministers, too afraid to admit the Bible came from the Church, or dumb enough to think the church came from the bible.
Find a good Catholic on line source that misrepresents your church the way its done to us. The point is, there aren't any. At least none that I am aware of.
That's why you ran from my challenge with a red herring reply.
Scripture and Tradition | Catholic Answers
That is not what I said and that is not the Iraqi custom. The Pope was showing respect FOR THE GIVER, NOT THE GIFT. The Pope made the first move, leading Muslims to return the same respect in future discussions TO END VIOLENCE. You are re-inventing the wheel.
It was thoroughly explained, you dismissed the answer because it doesn't fit your overly simplistic view of diplomacy, cultural considerations, political complications and the whole purpose of the meeting. If the Pope were to behave like a typical arrogant white Anglo-Saxon American fundamentalist, how would that lead to peaceful negotiations? How many more Christians would end up killed??? The bottom line is envy. You have no leaders to negotiate with anybody. So you have to tear down the Church due to her social doctrine that you sorely lack.
It's plagiarism if the source is not given. There is a rule about it but it's not enforced. If I am not mistaken, fordman does post the source, it looks like this: Catholicanswers.com Look hard. It's just not linked. So what. Very few check the source anyway.
Your problem is you can't refute the content. Answers can be long because Catholicism is for people who think, who want the truth of the Catholic Church, not funnymentalist myths. It's not bumper sticker theology. If you don't like it, or can't refute it, or it's too much text for tiny minds to read through, then ignore it and stop crying about cut'n'pastes.
It was thoroughly explained, you dismissed the answer because it doesn't fit your overly simplistic view of diplomacy, cultural considerations, political complications and the whole purpose of the meeting. If the Pope were to behave like a typical arrogant white Anglo-Saxon American fundamentalist, how would that lead to peaceful negotiations? How many more Christians would end up killed??? The bottom line is envy. You have no leaders to negotiate with anybody. So you have to tear down the Church due to her social doctrine that you sorely lack.
It's plagiarism if the source is not given. There is a rule about it but it's not enforced. If I am not mistaken, fordman does post the source, it looks like this: Catholicanswers.com Look hard. It's just not linked. So what. Very few check the source anyway.
Your problem is you can't refute the content. Answers can be long because Catholicism is for people who think, who want the truth of the Catholic Church, not funnymentalist myths. It's not bumper sticker theology. If you don't like it, or can't refute it, or it's too much text for tiny minds to read through, then ignore it and stop crying about cut'n'pastes.
What is the standard of truth? What do we test all things to?
If Catholics test all things by teachings and traditions of the church and the protestants test all things by the Bible. This debate is useless.
From my account History is a good place to research this subject. History teaches that every major protestant reformer and their followers left the Catholic Church believing that it was the Mother of harlots or the Antichrist in revelation.
If Catholics test all things by teachings and traditions of the church and the protestants test all things by the Bible. This debate is useless.
From my account History is a good place to research this subject. History teaches that every major protestant reformer and their followers left the Catholic Church believing that it was the Mother of harlots or the Antichrist in revelation.
Anointing of the Sick and the Sacrament of Reconciliation are two separate sacraments, but if one is dying they can get a two-for-one deal. It's important to have a baseline understanding of the sacramental principle or most discussions of the sacraments won't make much sense.
The anointing of the sick conveys several graces and imparts gifts of strengthening in the Holy Spirit against anxiety, discouragement, and temptation, and conveys peace and fortitude. These graces flow from the atoning death of Jesus Christ, for "this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’" (Matt. 8:17).
Mark 6:13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.
The apostles anointed the sick with oil and cured them. This is a sacrament of the Catholic Church instituted by Christ which heals us physically and spiritually. There are lots of documented cases of physical miracles but that's getting off topic.
James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders (priests) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Notice James says, "...let them pray over him". He is not issuing an ordinance, he is saying, to paraphrase, let the priests do what has been done since Jesus told them to do it. (Mark 6:13) The Tradition predates James letter, or James would have ordered, "they shall pray over him". James is writing about a Tradition that was in place before he wrote about it.
see more information here:Anointing of the Sick | Catholic Answers
The Catholic Church acknowledges what Scripture unequivocally declares: it is God who forgives our sins. But that is not the end of the story. Leviticus 19:20-22 is equally unequivocal:
If a man lies carnally with a woman… they shall not be put to death… But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord… And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.
Apparently, a priest being used as God’s instrument of forgiveness did not somehow take away from the fact that it was God who did the forgiving. God was the first cause of the forgiveness; the priest was the secondary, or instrumental cause. Thus, God being the forgiver of sins in Isaiah 43:25 and Psalm 103:3 in no way eliminates the possibility of there being a ministerial priesthood established by God to communicate his forgiveness.
read more here: Is Confession in Scripture? | Catholic Answers
I hope I've answered your question.
The anointing of the sick conveys several graces and imparts gifts of strengthening in the Holy Spirit against anxiety, discouragement, and temptation, and conveys peace and fortitude. These graces flow from the atoning death of Jesus Christ, for "this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’" (Matt. 8:17).
Mark 6:13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.
The apostles anointed the sick with oil and cured them. This is a sacrament of the Catholic Church instituted by Christ which heals us physically and spiritually. There are lots of documented cases of physical miracles but that's getting off topic.
James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders (priests) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Notice James says, "...let them pray over him". He is not issuing an ordinance, he is saying, to paraphrase, let the priests do what has been done since Jesus told them to do it. (Mark 6:13) The Tradition predates James letter, or James would have ordered, "they shall pray over him". James is writing about a Tradition that was in place before he wrote about it.
see more information here:Anointing of the Sick | Catholic Answers
The Catholic Church acknowledges what Scripture unequivocally declares: it is God who forgives our sins. But that is not the end of the story. Leviticus 19:20-22 is equally unequivocal:
If a man lies carnally with a woman… they shall not be put to death… But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord… And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.
Apparently, a priest being used as God’s instrument of forgiveness did not somehow take away from the fact that it was God who did the forgiving. God was the first cause of the forgiveness; the priest was the secondary, or instrumental cause. Thus, God being the forgiver of sins in Isaiah 43:25 and Psalm 103:3 in no way eliminates the possibility of there being a ministerial priesthood established by God to communicate his forgiveness.
read more here: Is Confession in Scripture? | Catholic Answers
I hope I've answered your question.
It's useless because some Protestants refuse to admit that Tradition was used to test Scripture to see if it was truly inspired. That's why you have to have your own version of early church history, which cannot stand up to scrutiny. You also have an off-the-wall definition of Tradition that is not scriptural. Double useless. The Bible does not say test all things against scripture alone. That is a tradition of men. Triple useless.
What the reformers believed does not make it fact.
Keep researching.
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (Cardinal Newman (convert)
What the reformers believed does not make it fact.
Keep researching.
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (Cardinal Newman (convert)
where does the Scripture say this?
lol you are the ones who have made up your own version of church history, fairy stories from the beginning,
. what does it say then? test them by the traditions of men? LOL LOL
lol a 'convert' from high Anglicanism who were just as bad as Roman Catholics in errant teaching
Where are sacraments mentioned in scripture?
when carried out by godly men
All Christians did this. The elders of the church are one example.
,
it is not a sacrament of any church, never mind the Roman Catholic church. God healed when carried out by worthy men,
GOD FORBID, they were NOT priests. They were elders of the church.
these were NOT priests they were men of God,
How convenient of an answer for you. You still haven't answerd the first question. all you did was post a Scripture passage, (Rom.10:9-10) then I counterd them by bringing up Matt.7:21; Lk. 6:46.
"Where is the Sinners Prayer located in Scripture?
As it is typical among Protestants/non-Catholics, I found differnt versions of the 'Sinner's Prayer', maybe you can educate me which one is right, and which is wrong, or maybe you have your own version.
"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name. Amen."
"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Amen."
"Heavenly Father, I know that I am a sinner and that I deserve to go to hell. I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I do now receive him as my Lord and personal Savior. I promise to serve you to the best of my ability. Please save me. In Jesus’ name, Amen."
Now I did a search, and could not find in these words of the "Sinner's Prayer" in Scripture. So the question is....Can you? If not, your only answer can be......... "No, these words of the "Sinners Prayer" are not in the Bible, therefore they are just traditions of man." Thats all you have to admit. Whats so hard about that? Then we could move on the the rest of the "easy and laughable" questions,
Pax Christi
p.s. The three versions of the Sinners Prayer I posted. Well budman, I cut and pasted them from three differnt Protestant web-sites, do you want me to go back to find and post back here their web-sites names?
"Where is the Sinners Prayer located in Scripture?
As it is typical among Protestants/non-Catholics, I found differnt versions of the 'Sinner's Prayer', maybe you can educate me which one is right, and which is wrong, or maybe you have your own version.
"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name. Amen."
"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Amen."
"Heavenly Father, I know that I am a sinner and that I deserve to go to hell. I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I do now receive him as my Lord and personal Savior. I promise to serve you to the best of my ability. Please save me. In Jesus’ name, Amen."
Now I did a search, and could not find in these words of the "Sinner's Prayer" in Scripture. So the question is....Can you? If not, your only answer can be......... "No, these words of the "Sinners Prayer" are not in the Bible, therefore they are just traditions of man." Thats all you have to admit. Whats so hard about that? Then we could move on the the rest of the "easy and laughable" questions,
Pax Christi
p.s. The three versions of the Sinners Prayer I posted. Well budman, I cut and pasted them from three differnt Protestant web-sites, do you want me to go back to find and post back here their web-sites names?
My understanding is that the word translated as ELDERS is "presbuteros," which can also be translated as "presbyters", and it also is the root of the ENGLISH word PRIEST.
If this is true, then your reference to ELDERS could also be translated as PRIESTS.
The root of the issue is more about various sects interpret the role of a priest/pastor. Part of the issue that some non-Catholics have with sacraments is that they object to this kind of power being given to a priest (the leader of a church).
Which begs the question then, if pastors/priests do have spiritual authority and responsibility over their flocks (and most groups agree with this idea), what does this authority actually mean or entail?
If this is true, then your reference to ELDERS could also be translated as PRIESTS.
The root of the issue is more about various sects interpret the role of a priest/pastor. Part of the issue that some non-Catholics have with sacraments is that they object to this kind of power being given to a priest (the leader of a church).
Which begs the question then, if pastors/priests do have spiritual authority and responsibility over their flocks (and most groups agree with this idea), what does this authority actually mean or entail?
Hey Budman, this one's for you!
[SIZE=-1]1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]10. Catholicism formally prevents the theological relativism which leads to the uncertainties within the Protestant system among laypeople.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]11. Catholicism rejects the "State Church," which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., Catholicism).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]14. Catholicism retains the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the "public square" barren of Christian influence.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men (every denomination stems from one Founder's vision. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]18. Protestant churches (esp. evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, every pastor becomes a "pope," to varying degrees (some are "super-popes"). Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn't, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity. Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a "parasite" of Catholicism, historically and doctrinally speaking.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]27. The Protestant notion of the "invisible church" is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; Mt 16:18), therefore untrue.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting "cults"), they say "the Church taught . . ." (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (esp. in Protestant America) in which (invariably) man-centered "cults" such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can "start" a new, or "the true" Church is Protestant to the core.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]cut and paste from150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
I have previously complained about lists of unrelated, and unjustified topics that would take several pages to refute, but the purpose is not to introduce numerous topics for discussion. The list posted can be summarized into one sentence: Reasons why I am a Catholic, for those who may think I have none.
Budman, if you see a rule violation, use the report button. Thomist, fordman and myself will submit to the authority of the moderators, not your temper tantrums.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]10. Catholicism formally prevents the theological relativism which leads to the uncertainties within the Protestant system among laypeople.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]11. Catholicism rejects the "State Church," which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., Catholicism).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]14. Catholicism retains the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the "public square" barren of Christian influence.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men (every denomination stems from one Founder's vision. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present).
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]18. Protestant churches (esp. evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, every pastor becomes a "pope," to varying degrees (some are "super-popes"). Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn't, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity. Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a "parasite" of Catholicism, historically and doctrinally speaking.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]27. The Protestant notion of the "invisible church" is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; Mt 16:18), therefore untrue.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting "cults"), they say "the Church taught . . ." (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (esp. in Protestant America) in which (invariably) man-centered "cults" such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can "start" a new, or "the true" Church is Protestant to the core.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]cut and paste from150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
I have previously complained about lists of unrelated, and unjustified topics that would take several pages to refute, but the purpose is not to introduce numerous topics for discussion. The list posted can be summarized into one sentence: Reasons why I am a Catholic, for those who may think I have none.
Budman, if you see a rule violation, use the report button. Thomist, fordman and myself will submit to the authority of the moderators, not your temper tantrums.