Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most of the problem is illustrated in your ideas about what is being taught. You show that you don't understand Catholic teaching and make false claims. The same occurs when Catholics try to state what other Churches teach. Not many seem to want to listen without letting their biases corrupt the conversation.IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.
There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.
It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.
However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!
How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.
Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.
Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."
Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.
Agreed, except I would say “Satan produces disunity, where Scripture is used as the sole source of authority.”
Catholics simply recognize that, no matter how one cuts it, the Protestant emperor has no clothes. Scripture produces disunity where its used as the sole source of authority. This is because, in actuality, the individual interpreter becomes his own authority, his own little pope if you will, even as he'd vehemently deny his infallibility in his interpretations.
But the Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the new Testament was even written. And there can only be "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Even logically the necessity for a visible entity, established by God for the purpose of preserving, clarifying, and teaching the faith, having a continuously traceable historical link to the beginnings of Christianity, proves itself to be evident over time.
Most of the problem is illustrated in your ideas about what is being taught. You show that you don't understand Catholic teaching and make false claims. The same occurs when Catholics try to state what other Churches teach. Not many seem to want to listen without letting their biases corrupt the conversation.
Catholics simply recognize that, no matter how one cuts it, the Protestant emperor has no clothes. Scripture produces disunity where its used as the sole source of authority. This is because, in actuality, the individual interpreter becomes his own authority, his own little pope if you will, even as he'd vehemently deny his infallibility in his interpretations.
But the Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the new Testament was even written. And there can only be "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Even logically the necessity for a visible entity, established by God for the purpose of preserving, clarifying, and teaching the faith, having a continuously traceable historical link to the beginnings of Christianity, proves itself to be evident over time.
Gee, if I were a Catholic I'd be offended by all the anti-Catholic statements in your post.
I think there's a fair amount of truth to that. In fairness, there were a several scriptures I was never really able to make sense out of when filtering them through a Protestant tradition. Filtering them through Catholicism did the trick, however.
But even that speaks to the issue of authority. I'm satisfied with my Church's authority as the Magisterium is a living authority which can (and does) respond to advancements in technology, society, etc.
That's the ultimate root of the rift. But other issues have emerged which aren't helping matters. I think a lot of Catholics view Protestants with a bit of suspicion as innovators and interlopers, and potentially gravely mistaken on top of those things. Protestants, for their part, seem to view Catholics as stuffy, unwilling to consider other points of view.
Actually the pop-mythological lie that many have swallowed is that the RCC is is not the same Church as the early one.Many Catholic believers such as yourself live under the delusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the original church established by the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not blame you for that because you are just parroting what you have had told day in and day out. It is easier to accept what you have been taught that to reach out and dig for the truth. I understand that.
However, a proper and complete study of the Scriptures reveals a much more complex issue that that.
The beginning of the early church is found in the greatest recourse of all time.....The Scriptures.
Every Catholic believer I know believers that the message of the early church and the Catholic Church
are the same. They all do that and probably you as well because that is what they/you are told. Again, since it is easier to accept that than to dig into the Bible, it becomes doctrine over time.
However, with only a little study we see that the salvation message by the Apostles Peter, Paul, John and the early church believers was that of grace through faith. It was never ever salvation in any church but in the person of ONLY the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Roman church has created, in her definitions of papal supremacy, an authority that is above/cut off from/separate from the Church: the papacy. Holy Tradition is the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. There is no higher authority than this Holy Tradition.
It would seem like 1,000 years would be enough for the Christian Church to determine the truth of everything, with the possible exception of things dealing with modern science, like artificial birth control and IV fertilization. For those dogmas proclaimed after 1054 A.D., one can rightfully ask, why were they not proclaimed as truth within the first 1,000 or so years? Now this does not mean that these dogmas are false, but it does seem strange that it would take 1,800+ years for some of them to be proclaimed as truth and necessary to the faith.I have a general question, though. Should there be no more dogmas proclaimed by the Church after, say, the Great Schism or some alternative time for that matter?
Now there is a post worth praising, seeking.IAM.Thank you for your response which pretty much emphasizes my point. Can we not all agree on the essentials that Jesus Christ is Lord and embrace each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, while being more charitable over our differences?
No, this is not what I meant.Do you mean like when the inquisition was carried out to numerous deaths all under the guise of authority?
No actually what was parroted to me day in and out was what you believed. When I took a look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches, compared it with Sacred Scripture, and prayed about with an open heart, I became Catholic.Many Catholic believers such as yourself live under the delusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the original church established by the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not blame you for that because you are just parroting what you have had told day in and day out. It is easier to accept what you have been taught that to reach out and dig for the truth. I understand that.
However, a proper and complete study of the Scriptures reveals a much more complex issue that that.
The beginning of the early church is found in the greatest recourse of all time.....The Scriptures.
Every Catholic believer I know believers that the message of the early church and the Catholic Church
are the same. They all do that and probably you as well because that is what they/you are told. Again, since it is easier to accept that than to dig into the Bible, it becomes doctrine over time.
Actually the pop-mythological lie that many have swallowed is that the RCC is is not the same Church as the early one.
No, this is not what I meant.
No, this is not what I meant.
No actually what was parroted to me day in and out was what you believed. When I took a look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches, compared it with Sacred Scripture, and prayed about with an open heart, I became Catholic.
There are plenty of former Protestants who have just as much knowledge of the Scriptures as you or anyone else, who had the same experience.
You really seem to have trouble accepting the idea that others can read Scripture and come to a different conclusion than you, which goes back to the point that the other poster raised about certain people believing that their interpretation of Scripture is infallible and that in effect they are their own pope. You simply cannot accept the fact that your understanding of Scripture could be wrong (because in your own mind you believe that you are infallible) and therefore when we disagree with you, you must jump to the conclusion that we have not studied Scripture seriously and are just puppets regurgitating what we have been told without thinking for ourselves.
Do I have it wrong, St. Pope Major1?
Well this seems like a rather weak argument. A Jehovah’s Witness may as well ask why did it take several hundred years for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined? If this were such a central part of Christianity surely it would have been defined as dogma within the first few decades of the Church, therefore we must reject it.It would seem like 1,000 years would be enough for the Christian Church to determine the truth of everything, with the possible exception of things dealing with modern science, like artificial birth control and IV fertilization. For those dogmas proclaimed after 1054 A.D., one can rightfully ask, why were they not proclaimed as truth within the first 1,000 or so years? Now this does not mean that these dogmas are false, but it does seem strange that it would take 1,800+ years for some of them to be proclaimed as truth and necessary to the faith.
I do not blame you for that because you are just parroting what you have had told day in and day out. It is easier to accept what you have been taught that to reach out and dig for the truth. I understand that.
I am sure it isn't what you meant but at the same time how is that over looked?
Well this seems like a rather weak argument. A Jehovah’s Witness may as well ask why did it take several hundred years for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined? If this were such a central part of Christianity surely it would have been defined as dogma within the first few decades of the Church, therefore we must reject it.
It is essentially the same argument, except that the time periods are different (I suppose the same should also be said of Luther’s doctrines).
Which is what Catholicism does... at least for the last 50 years.We continue to cite the teachings of the Church fathers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?