Catholic way

Yarddog said:

Evidently, you don't get the point and show that you just don't know what the Catholic Church has taught. Vatican II did not change Church dogma.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not, but many believe that the Vatican II statements on Ecumenism and Freedom of Religion are not in accord with the Church's past teachings.

Antig said:

Yes, I see that but, many many years ago the Catholic Church did proclaim one had to be a Catholic to be saved. Yes?

Click to expand...

What it said, rather, was that all salvation came from the Catholic Church. Salvation didn't come from Lutheranism, or Islam, or any other faith tradition. In other words, no faith can save but the Catholic faith. An imperfect understanding of and relationship with God can't save one.

Antig said:

I am searching, yes. Thing is, the more I search, the more I feel closer to the Catholic Church!

I thank you for your posts.

Jesus told us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked. These are works. One has to have faith in God though. To do works without faith is worthless. I have seen others post that even the devil has faith in God! True faith surely emits good works. Faith alone is nothing. One cannot say I believe and then that's it.

Many will say Lord, Lord. But, were they true believers? Did they do as Jesus taught?

I can see that you do indeed see the Catholic Church differently. For me, it has been such a MASSIVE eye opener researching my faith. I can see the Biblical side better now. But, it's early days. I am learning daily.

Thank you

Click to expand...

Antig - If you believe that there is any realistic chance that the Catholic Church is correct, that it is the Church founded by Jesus for the salvation of mankind, then you might want to check out the Church's current interpretation of the ancient EENS salvation doctrine, aka Outside the Church There is no Salvation. Why? The Church does not extend the "invincible ignorance" exception to ex-Catholics, but as a possibility, not a certainty, only to those who have never been Catholic. Hence, especially if you received the Sacrament of Confirmation and then left the Church, but also if you received your first Communion and then left, perhaps you might wish to be reconciled to Holy Mother Church and what better time to do it than at Christmas? How is that for an invitation to return to Mother Church and from a Protestant no less?

Basil the Great said:

Perhaps, perhaps not, but many believe that the Vatican II statements on Ecumenism and Freedom of Religion are not in accord with the Church's past teachings.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a conservative faction which considers Vatican II heresy.

St. Joseph's intercession is said to be never known to fail.
I suppose I'll pray for your conversion now, OP, to the Catholic faith.

Yarddog said:

Why did you mention lumen gentium if you didn't apparently read it? Chapter 2 paragraph 15 wipes out your claim.

Within this document, the Catholic Church means more than the Roman Catholic Church. All those United to Christ through his story Spirit are included.

Click to expand...

However once you are aware of the claims of the Catholic Church, it becomes sin to resist the Holy Spirit whom is leading you into full communion with the Catholic Church as a Catholic Christian. This would also be a sin of pride I'd say.

Albion said:

I was a Roman Catholic and well-schooled in its teachings. Most of them are fine. But much of Catholic theology is connected by the Church's own claims to historical developments, so when you learn enough to understand that a lot of that history isn't real history, but instead that the Church has had to spin an alternate history in order to have an explanation for why it teaches dogmas that are extra-Biblical and not Apostolic, you naturally think about alternatives.

Ideally, that would be a church with Apostolic roots that represents a "reformed Catholicism" of some sort. You--or I--then seek a church that rejects the errors and corrupt practices that crept into the historic church at one time or another while, at the same time, you retain the teachings and practices that are valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in other words, is an impulse that anyone might have under these circumstances, but that would be to trade one mistake for another.

Click to expand...

What were your reasons for choosing Anglican and not Orthodox?

Major1 said:

I think that if you read and listen to people as they answer your question, you will se that ne of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the source of God’s special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

You will see I think that Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. That being the case, they have then ADDED to the Word of God which in it self is not Biblical.



The Apostolic Fathers viewed oral tradition between 30 - 100 AD as a duplicate of scripture. They also stated that scripture replaced oral tradition. In other words, there was nothing in oral tradition that was lacking in scripture which is the opposite of Catholic teaching today.

Click to expand...

I have always been sola scriptura but now that I am delving into church history I find that the early church did not have the New testament as we know it .. for nearly 400 years therefore they did go by oral tradition which is mentioned in the NT. We have trusted that the church at that time was guided by the Holy Spirit to put together the Bible.
I am reading the Apostolic Fathers writings now and have not found where it said scripture replaced oral tradition and how could it between 30-100AD since not all was written and all was not certainly canonized until over 300 years later. Also most back then could not read.

FireDragon76 said:

I'll be blunt, aside from no Pope and a professed love for Jesus and a general belief in the Trinity, there is precious little that Protestants hold in common as far as doctrine.

Click to expand...

Well said! I am totally disillusioned with the chaos among the Protestants. I think Lutheran (maybe) and Anglican are the only 2 Protestant churches I would feel good about being in. The Episcopal church has also deviated from the Bible which I understand has caused a split.

What bothers me is Luther wanting to ban 4 books of the bible and that he hated Jews. And the Anglican replaced the Pope with the king/queen of England which is not scriptural either.

DRobert said:

However once you are aware of the claims of the Catholic Church, it becomes sin to resist the Holy Spirit whom is leading you into full communion with the Catholic Church as a Catholic Christian. This would also be a sin of pride I'd say.

Click to expand...

Mind showing exactly where you got that one.

Mary7 said:

Well said! I am totally disillusioned with the chaos among the Protestants. I think Lutheran (maybe) and Anglican are the only 2 Protestant churches I would feel good about being in. The Episcopal church has also deviated from the Bible which I understand has caused a split.

What bothers me is Luther wanting to ban 4 books of the bible and that he hated Jews. And the Anglican replaced the Pope with the king/queen of England which is not scriptural either.

Click to expand...

Luther didn't really want to ban books in the Bible, he just questioned their apostolicity, which was nothing new, really.

Luther did not always hate Jews, one of the earliest works he did after the Reformation was a book about Jesus as a Jew. Though he certainly had hateful things to say later in his life about them and for that we can only express deep regret: we can only reckon that came from frustration and deteroriating physical and mental health more than the scientific racism that characterized later thinking about the Jews in Germany.

Much of what Luther wrote was akin to off-the-cuff coments that were not always well thought out. We don't focus on the negative aspects of his life in our church. Our tradition is made of many different voices, we just recognize Luther as an important "prophetic" figure in returning to the doctrine of justification as central to Christian practice and ethics.

Anglicanism has a history of Caesaropapism, especially early on, but I wouldn't say that's the only thing that Anglicanism in about. There are Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic streams in that tradition that have reasserted an identity that is more than merely the whims of a monarch.

Mary7 said:

What were your reasons for choosing Anglican and not Orthodox?

Click to expand...

Anglicanism is reformed, and the church needed reform. The thirty-nine articles sum that up well--Communion is a spiritual change of the bread and wine, not a literal one; there are two sacraments of the Gospel that Christ instituted; the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, and nothing more can be required of the people by the Church; we are justified by Faith in the Savior, and not by our own works; Purgatory, Indulgences, Invocations of the Saints, etc. are unscriptural.

There is more of course, but as to your question, while Eastern Orthodoxy departs from Roman Catholicism in important ways (No Pope, no Purgatory or Indulgences, for example), it does accept much of what Catholicism does, just without all the micromanaging and hair-splitting technicalities that Rome specializes in.

Orthodox Christians often point to the fact that their church leaves as a mystery and undefined many beliefs that the RCC has made into highly-detailed dogmas (Transubstantiation or the nature of the afterlife, for instance)...but they still do believe many of them.

AND THEN, I do very much appreciate the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican liturgy.

DRobert said:

However once you are aware of the claims of the Catholic Church, it becomes sin to resist the Holy Spirit whom is leading you into full communion with the Catholic Church as a Catholic Christian. This would also be a sin of pride I'd say.

Click to expand...

I believe you meant to say "once you are aware of the claims of the Catholic Church and are convinced that they are true...." That is the stance taken by the church.

Mary7 said:

I have always been sola scriptura but now that I am delving into church history I find that the early church did not have the New testament as we know it .. for nearly 400 years therefore they did go by oral tradition which is mentioned in the NT.

Click to expand...

Be careful about that one, Mary. The NT does not mention what the RCC calls Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition--allegedly a second source of divine revelation alongside the Bible.

In one verse, "traditions" are referred to, which could be anything from continuing to go to worship in the synagogue to looking after the poor. That is not an authorization for making dogmas out of anything that isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible. But that is what has happened.

Basil the Great said:

Absolutely they did. You can look at many things regarding this, but the two Papal Bulls of the Middle Ages, Unam Sanctam and especially Cantate Domino, is all one really needs to know what the Church did teach and mind you, ex cathedra, with the authority of Papal Infallibility.

Click to expand...

Why would this surprise you? For the audience's sake, please quote the sections that are relevant and the dates the bulls were promulgated. Then we can wrap this thing up.

Mary7 said:

Well said! I am totally disillusioned with the chaos among the Protestants. I think Lutheran (maybe) and Anglican are the only 2 Protestant churches I would feel good about being in. The Episcopal church has also deviated from the Bible which I understand has caused a split.

Click to expand...

There have been splits in several mainline churches although they did not necessarily lead to significant losses. Most conservatives chose to stay in those denominations because they prefer unity despite disagreement.

You'ld probably find an Episcopal or Anglican church to go to where it would be to your liking. Episcopalians and Lutherans are much more congregationalist than Roman Catholics and the national leaderships direction does not always correspond directly to what happens in a local church. In the ELCA, contributions to the national headquarters can be easily waived, making them effecitvely voluntary. We are also free to use our own liturgical resources, hymnals, and so forth, though most of us value the fact our denomination creates resource materials for us.

Methodists tend to be more like Catholics in that they can get pastors that are very much at odds with the congregation, because they follow an older Catholic style order where bishops place priests or pastors in a congregation. But in Lutheran and Episcopalian churches, the churches themselves are involved in the calling of pastors to a great degree.

DRobert said:

St. Joseph's intercession is said to be never known to fail.
I suppose I'll pray for your conversion now, OP, to the Catholic faith.

Click to expand...

O St. Joseph whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the Throne of God, I place in you all my interests and desires. O St. Joseph do assist me by your powerful intercession and obtain for me from your Divine Son all spiritual blessings through Jesus Christ, Our Lord; so that having engaged here below your Heavenly power I may offer my Thanksgiving and Homage to the Most Loving of Fathers. O St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you and Jesus asleep in your arms. I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press him to my name and kiss His fine Head for me, and ask Him to return the Kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, Patron of departing souls, pray for us. Amen.

FireDragon76 said:

You'ld probably find an Episcopal or Anglican church to go to where it would be to your liking

Click to expand...

A community that changes its doctrines every 10 years or so to keep step with a secular society is not what the OP said they are looking for.

Mary7 said:

What bothers me is Luther wanting to ban 4 books of the bible and that he hated Jews. And the Anglican replaced the Pope with the king/queen of England which is not scriptural either.

Click to expand...

If that bothers you, you'd probably do well to reconsider Orthodoxy. She long considered the Eastern Emperor to have a place of authority over the church that never was paralleled in the Church of England (and, of course, never has applied to the Episcopal and Anglican churches in the USA anyway). Also, the Anglican Church did not "replace the Pope with the king" because the sovereign didn't have anywhere near the powers or prerogatives that the Pope did and does.

Mary7 said:

I have always been sola scriptura but now that I am delving into church history I find that the early church did not have the New testament as we know it .. for nearly 400 years therefore they did go by oral tradition which is mentioned in the NT. We have trusted that the church at that time was guided by the Holy Spirit to put together the Bible.
I am reading the Apostolic Fathers writings now and have not found where it said scripture replaced oral tradition and how could it between 30-100AD since not all was written and all was not certainly canonized until over 300 years later. Also most back then could not read.

Click to expand...

Good ideas all Mary. I would however like to remind you of the fact that Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the final authority in all things it addresses, but this does not mean that we should ignore councils, various traditions, or church history. That is a miss understanding by those who will tell you that Sola Scriptura does not apply.

It means that in everything the Bible addresses, Scripture is the final authority. So when we are asked how the early church practiced Sola Scriptura before the Bible was completed, we say that they judged spiritual truths the same way we Protestants do today--by Scripture.

In the case of those years before the completion of the New Testament, they used the Old Testament Scriptures. This practice is exactly what we find in the book of Acts.

Every single time when you do your studies and you see the words of Jesus who says......"It is written" He of course is referring to the Old Test. Scriptures.

Please take the time to read thoroughly Acts 17:1-11.

The context is that Paul and Silas had gone to a synagogue in Thessalonica, and he was reasoning "from the Scriptures" in verse # 2--not from tradition--in order to establish who Christ was. Now,
just as YOU said, this is important since the New Testament had not yet been completed.

Paul the apostle was using the Old Testament Scriptures to speak of Christ. In fact, he was so effective that "a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of leading women" were persuaded (v. 4). So, this means that the Scriptures were used in the defense of the Christian faith to both Jews and Gentiles. There was no appeal to tradition of any sort.

We clearly see that the concept of Sola Scriptura is affirmed in Scripture regardless of what YOU have been told by any Catholic blog site. The Jews used Scripture--not tradition--to validate what Paul the apostle was teaching--and in Acts 17:11 they are called noble-minded for doing so. This means that the idea of going to the word of God to judge spiritual truth was affirmed by the apostle Luke who wrote the book of Acts. Therefore, it makes sense to say that the early church did the same thing. They looked to the existing Scriptures to verify what was spiritually true since they would have followed the apostles' teachings.

1 Corth. 4:6 says.............
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."