Catholicism wrong?

[Vedant]

*pops in* I lied... I didn't leave. I want to, because this thread is now beyond me, but I can't because I am trying to fully undertsatnd Protestant vs. Catholic so I can make a sound decision.

Well, maybe the first thing is to help look at things more clearly is to stop thinking about Protestants and Catholics as opponents.

Figure out what disagreements that you actually have with the Catholic church and figure out what disagreements the Catholic church has with Protestant churches.

Then, after some time, figure out why you agree or disagree, with each.

 

[GraceInHim]

Me too . . . I'm tired. Going to bed. Nite all.

me too

nite nite all

 

[dragos_adrian]

[/B][/I]

He does. It's worship given by the sacrifice of his Only Son, Jesus Christ, Our Lord. It's that very worship that is participated in by Catholics and Orthodox at every Mass or Divine Liturgy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the praise & worship music that you mentioned. I like listening to it sometimes when I'm in the car driving. But worship CDs do not make the Lord present sacramentally. My songs are pleasing to him, but His Son is most pleasing. It is that worship that he desires - the worship that my soul makes when it is joined to the whole company of heaven, to the whole Church, through His Son and His sacrifice.

One thing is not the other, and never can be. Song is directed toward the fullness of worship - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We as catholics should never forget tough that Christ is equaly present both in the Eucharist or when two or tree are gathered in his name, as He said. He is not more or less present in the Eucharist. So in a protestant praise and worship service, if those people are truley gathered in His name , Jesus is indeed present as he promised

 

[Ave Maria]

But worship isn't for us - it's something due (owed) to God because he is our Creator and we are his creatures. Worship is something we give, not something we get.

Exactly and unfortunately many Protestant churches (at least many of the ones I've been to) are way to "me focused" when it comes to worship. For example, you have churches that will say that the service will always be 50 minutes long or whatever and never longer. Then you have these other churches that seem like they're all about emotionalism.

 

[Ave Maria]

We as catholics should never forget tough that Christ is equaly present both in the Eucharist or when two or tree are gathered in his name, as He said. He is not more or less present in the Eucharist. So in a protestant praise and worship service, if those people are truley gathered in His name , Jesus is indeed present as he promised

Yes but isn't there a difference? In the former God is spiritually present in the form of the Holy Spirit but in the latter God is present physically as Jesus, the Eucharist. Of course in the latter He is also present spiritually but in the former He is only present spiritually right?

 

[a_ntv]

Exactly and unfortunately many Protestant churches (at least many of the ones I've been to) are way to "me focused" when it comes to worship.

If you are "me focused" you will stay only at the first step.

If you are "Christ focused" you can go on.

Emotions are the worse enemies of a true prayer

 

[Asimis]

We as catholics should never forget tough that Christ is equaly present both in the Eucharist or when two or tree are gathered in his name, as He said. He is not more or less present in the Eucharist. So in a protestant praise and worship service, if those people are truley gathered in His name , Jesus is indeed present as he promised

That begs the question as to what "in his name" means. As Jesus himself said, many will come in my name and lead many astray. So, just because they talk about Jesus it doesn't means that it is really Jesus they are talking about. Know what I mean?


As.

 

[Skripper]

The problem with this discussion is that you as a Catholic believe in the infallibility of your doctrine. I do not believe in the infallibility of anything except God. For me to say that I am without error is ridiculous. For me to say that my church, my pastor, or any person except Jesus Christ was infallible is ridiculous. So, again, this is where we part ways. I am not calling you or your belief ridiculous. I am saying that for me, emphasis on me, it is ridiculous. I cannot even imagine believing that ALL doctrine is correct. I don't believe that any of us have it ALL right, but you do believe that, so what can I say?

Well, sort of. I, too, only believe in the infallibility of God . . . same as you claim. But, in reality and in practice, where we truly part ways is what we are actually willing to adimt to, insofar as how we think God manifests this. I, as a Catholic, am willing to admit, specifically, that I believe that God manifests this through the teachings of His Church, through infalllible teachings/doctrine . . . and not through me personally, not through any personal "feelings" I may have. I admit this freely. On the other hand . . . you merely say, in a very general way, that God is infallible, without any specifics. And in fact claim that there is no such thing as (ALL) infallible doctrine. Yet, at the same time, you also claim that you attend the church you do because it is "the closest" thing. Another way of saying that same thing is to say that you attend that particular church because you "agree," more so, with that church than others, which is to say that that particular church is more to your liking because it "agrees" with you and whatever you believe, more so than others. Yet, at the same time, you claim that no church, not even the one you attend, has it completely right. This is simply another way of saying that each church, even your own, is only "right," insofar as it agrees with whatever you believe (unless you are willing to admit to, and offer an example of, something your church has "right" and you have "wrong"). And what that means, although you are unwilling to just come out and say it out loud, is that you actually do believe that there is a specific way in which God manifests His infallibility . . . it is through you, personally. Because everyone else has it "wrong," to some extent, to the extent that they/it disagrees with what you personally believe. Of course, you will not explicitily say it like that. It's much easier to say vague things like "I know my Master's voice," etc, implying that anything and anyone that disagrees with what you believe "the Master's voice" is telling you, is wrong . . . even if they also believe it is "the Master's voice" guiding them. You seem unwilling to entertain that in any areas of disagreement, you may be wrong, personally.

So, in reality, while we both admit to belief in an infallible God, we actually part ways on how, in practice, we believe He manifests this. As a Catholic, I believe He manifests this through the infallible teachings of His Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. And I freely admit this. I claim no personal infallibility for myself, either explicitly or tacitly. In areas of disagreement, I do not claim to rely on "feelings," nor do I imply that I must be right because "I know my Master's Voice" . . . implying that my "Master's Voice" is telling me that I am "right" and others "wrong," or that it isn't really "me" affirming that I am right, it is really "the Master's Voice" making this affirmation. You, on the other hand, based upon what you have written in this thread, seem to believe God manifests His infallibility only through yourself, personally, through "feelings," and what you believe to be "the Master's voice" guiding you. And everyone else who disagrees with you, even your own denomination and even your own church, has it "wrong," at least to some extent, insofar as they disagree with you personally. This boils down to (at least tacitly) believing that you, personally, have it right. And that is, basically, a belief in the infallibility of the self. A tacit belief that God manifests His infallibility through you . . . and not through any denomination or church. So, that is where we truly part ways on the infallibility issue. I believe He does so through His Church and not me, personally. You seem to believe He does so through you, personally, through various "feelings."

 

[AureateDawn]

Is there any sort of a Prostestant/Catholic mix? Because both present valid points...

 

[Carrye]

He is not more or less present in the Eucharist. So in a protestant praise and worship service, if those people are truley gathered in His name , Jesus is indeed present as he promised

He is present in a different way. The two are not the same.

 

[Carrye]

Emotions are the worse enemies of a true prayer

Absolutely! I'm tired this morning, and definitely didn't feel like getting up, much less going to Mass and being actively engaged. But my emotions don't rule my actions - that's what my will is for. My Creator gets my worship today. My bed does not get my head.

 

[Vedant]

Is there any sort of a Prostestant/Catholic mix? Because both present valid points...

Anglicans are probably the closest protestant denomination to the look and feel of Roman Catholics.

 

[Catholic Wife]

For him in a way that is more pleasing to us.... though I guess that isn't entirely what God would want... but it's hard for me to stay awake in "formal" and "boring" sermons and song. I don't feel the spirit unless I sing vibrantly and clap, etc. with a shouting preacher.

We have three masses each Sunday. The early mass is more quiet and reserved, and there are usually more older people at this mass. The middle mass is usually full of families and young people and the music is more contemporary and upbest (definitely not "formal" or "boring"!). The last mass on Sunday is more "traditional" and "formal" but not exactly boring. This difference in worship style allows most people to find a mass time at which they are most comfortable.


We also have two priests and two deacons who give the homily. Each one has his own strength and style in "preaching". A couple are more "reserved", but our pastor is so "filled with the Spirit" that you can see it and feel it.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

We had a retreat once, where the Priest gave the Catholic Church as having the full truth, the whole pizza....everything on it.....so why would you not want the whole truth, but just bits & pieces?

 

[Carrye]

Anglicans are probably the closest protestant denomination to the look and feel of Roman Catholics.

And yet they are in error as well. We do not find the church that fits us. We find the Church in which subsists the Fullness of Truth - which is most pleasing to God.

 

[AureateDawn]

And yet they are in error as well. We do not find the church that fits us. We find the Church in which subsists the Fullness of Truth - which is most pleasing to God.

And what, from an unbiased opinion, would that be?


My thread has been kinda hijacked, but I am still trying to learn all I can.

 

[Carrye]

And what, from an unbiased opinion, would that be?

Unbiased opinion is an oxymoron. Every opinion is biased, or it would be factual. In the same way, every individual interpretation of scripture is biased. That is problematic, and that is the "truth" to which many Protestants attach themselves.

The fullness of Truth subsists within Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It is the Church he created, and which he has promised to be with until the end of time. That is the Catholic Church who has Christ as her head, and to which the Lord gave Peter the keys.

 

[Lisa0315]

Well, sort of. I, too, only believe in the infallibility of God . . . same as you claim. But, in reality and in practice, where we truly part ways is what we are actually willing to adimt to, insofar as how we think God manifests this. I, as a Catholic, am willing to admit, specifically, that I believe that God manifests this through the teachings of His Church, through infalllible teachings/doctrine . . . and not through me personally, not through any personal "feelings" I may have. I admit this freely. On the other hand . . . you merely say, in a very general way, that God is infallible, without any specifics. And in fact claim that there is no such thing as infallible doctrine. Yet, at the same time, you also claim that you attend the church you do because it is "the closest" thing. Another way of saying that same thing is to say that you attend that particular church because you "agree," more so, with that church than others, which is to say that that particular church is more to your liking because it "agrees" with you and whatever you believe, more so than others. Yet, at the same time, you claim that no church, not even the one you attend, has it completely right. This is simply another way of saying that each church, even your own, is only "right," insofar as it agrees with whatever you believe (unless you are willing to admit to, and offer an example of, something your church has "right" and you have "wrong"). And what that means, although you are unwilling to just come out and say it out loud, is that you actually do believe that there is a specific way in which God manifests His infallibility . . . it is through you, personally. Because everyone else has it "wrong," to some extent, to the extent that they/it disagrees with what you personally believe. Of course, you will not explicitily say it like that. It's much easier to say vague things like "I know my Master's voice," etc, implying that anything and anyone that disagrees with what you believe "the Master's voice" is telling you, is wrong . . . even if they also believe it is "the Master's voice" guiding them. You seem unwilling to entertain that in any areas of disagreement, you may be wrong, personally.

So, in reality, while we both admit to belief in an infallible God, we actually part ways on how, in practice, we believe He manifests this. As a Catholic, I believe He manifests this through the infallible teachings of His Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. And I freely admit this. I claim no personal infallibility for myself, either explicitly or tacitly. In areas of disagreement, I do not claim to rely on "feelings," nor do I imply that I must be right because "I know my Master's Voice" . . . implying that my "Master's Voice" is telling me that I am "right" and others "wrong," or that it isn't really "me" affirming that I am right, it is really "the Master's Voice" making this affirmation. You, on the other hand, based upon what you have written in this thread, seem to believe God manifests His infallibility only through yourself, personally, through "feelings," and what you believe to be "the Master's voice" guiding you. And everyone else who disagrees with you, even your own denomination and even your own church, has it "wrong," at least to some extent, insofar as they disagree with you personally. This boils down to (at least tacitly) believing that you, personally, have it right. And that is, basically, a belief in the infallibility of the self. A tacit belief that God manifests His infallibility through you . . . and not through any denomination or church. So, that is where we truly part ways on the infallibility issue. I believe He does so through His Church and not me, personally. You seem to believe He does so through you, personally, through various "feelings."

I didn't say any of this, nor did I imply it. I believe you have imputed your own bias into my words here. I told you that the Holy Spirit gives me discernment in interpetation of scripture in APPLICATION TO MY OWN DAILY WALK. Second, you are confusing feelings with the manifestation of God that I describe and associate with a feeling of peace. There is a difference between feeling peaceful and describing the manifestation of God in the only way possible.

Also, from other posts, I keep hearing that emotions are bad. hmm...Emotionless prayer? How do you do that? God responds to sincerity. A sincere heart CRYING out to God receives a response. An insincere rote type of prayer does not. Using prayer beads to concentrate, I have no problem with that. Using prayer beads to de-emotionalize the prayer is something else altogether.

Jesus gave an example: The sinner beating upon his breast crying out to God and the publican praying loudly, "I am glad I am not like this sinner". God likes emotion. Emotion is not bad and is recognized by God. The whole book of Psalms is about emotions. Israel was taken out of bondage because God heard their cries. Teaching people that emotions should be removed from prayer is not scriptural.

 

[Skripper]

I didn't say any of this, nor did I imply it.

Sure you did. Go back and read what you wrote, then consider its logical implications.

I believe you have imputed your own bias into my words here. I told you that the Holy Spirit gives me discernment in interpetation of scripture in APPLICATION TO MY OWN DAILY WALK.

See, you are still doing it, even now, though I truly believe you sincerely don't realize it. Becuse the above not only infers and implies, but in fact requires, if what you are saying is true (since you are stating it as though it were a fact, and not merely what it actually is, merely your own opinion that you think the Holy Spirit is doing this), that the infallible Holy Spirit works infallibly through you, personally, guiding you, personally, in scriptural interpretation. That is the meaning of what you are saying above, just using different words, that's all. Because if the Holy Spirit truly is guiding you, personally, when it comes to scriptural interpretations, then that's infallible, since the Holy Spirit is infallible. Unfortunately, I believe that this is not the case. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit has selected you, above all other creatures on the earth, to impart this infallible guidance in scriptural interpretation. I don't doubt that you believe He is doing this and, therefore, you believe your scriptural interpretations are correct.

Second, you are confusing feelings with the manifestation of God that I describe and associate with a feeling of peace. There is a difference between feeling peaceful and describing the manifestation of God in the only way possible.

Sorry, but no. You are the one that has brought "feelings," into this, not me. By claiming that the feelings you feel are "manifestations of God," it is only you who could, possibly, be mistaking "feelings" with God; not me. I don't rely on "feelings" (even though I do in fact have them). So I cannot be the one here that is possibly mistaking feelings for manifestations of God.

Also, from other posts, I keep hearing that emotions are bad. hmm...Emotionless prayer? How do you do that?

Not from me you haven't. I haven't said emotions are bad. What I will say, though, is that they are not reliable as infallible indicators of "God." All sorts of things elicit feelings and emotions in us, not just God.

God responds to sincerity. A sincere heart CRYING out to God receives a response. An insincere rote type of prayer does not. Using prayer beads to concentrate, I have no problem with that. Using prayer beads to de-emotionalize the prayer is something else altogether.

Yet none of this demonstrates that any "feelings" or emotions are acts of God which "prove" that what we believe is correct . . . sorry.

Jesus gave an example: The sinner beating upon his breast crying out to God and the publican praying loudly, "I am glad I am not like this sinner". God likes emotion. Emotion is not bad and is recognized by God.

Of course, I never said emotions are bad.

The whole book of Psalms is about emotions. Israel was taken out of bondage because God heard their cries. Teaching people that emotions should be removed from prayer is not scriptural.

Oh, I agree that teaching people that emotions should be removed from prayer isn't found in the Bible. Same as it isn't in the Bible that prayers must contain emotion. Of course, the Catholic Church has no teaching on this, one way or the other. The Catholic Church does not teach "Your prayers must be emotion-filled." Neither does the Catholic Church teach that, "Your prayers must be void of emotions." So none of this is an issue, with respect to Catholic teaching, anyway.

 

[a_ntv]

Oh, I agree that teaching people that emotions should be removed from prayer isn't found in the Bible. Same as it isn't in the Bible that prayers must contain emotion. Of course, the Catholic Church has no teaching on this, one way or the other. The Catholic Church does not teach "Your prayers must be emotion-filled." Neither does the Catholic Church teach that, "Your prayers must be void of emotions." So none of this is an issue, with respect to Catholic teaching, anyway.

I agree. Catholic Church do not have any dogma about the way of praying. On the contrary, there is wide fredom in it and the range of different spiritualities is huge. Same caths pray lke pentacostals, other like orthodox monks. All of them under our Mother Church.

Personally, in my experience, I think that emotions are enemies of the the prayer, because in the emotion you find a satisfaction for yourself (like the pharisee of Luke 18, 10), while in the prayer you shall look for someone else from yourself, so you have to forget about yourself, about your problems, your joys, feelings and emotions. Otherwise you do psychoanalysis of you and not true prayer. You dont have to "feel" God, but to "meet" God.
That's my experience, but the ways of the Lord are endless!!!