Catholics are so sure they are right and I'm questioning now

[endtimewarrior]

Lutherans do, why would you not give them the nod over Catholics, since you claim to be an ex-Catholic, and seem to give Eucharist belief primacy over many other doctrines (like the Five Solas) which the Reformers broke away from the RC over?

I attend the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

But the OP was not asking about Lutheranism she was asking about Catholicism versus Presbyterianism.

 

[Fulcrum]

Pardon me but I think that you are giving an opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Catholics partake of communion regularly. They would not do so if they did not have faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

You put words in my mouth in an earlier post about my opinion, my opinion is completely irrelevant as is any mans, but scripture and Christ's all sufficient sacrifice isn't. Gods plan of salvation isn't irrelevant. I gave you scripture to back up anything said, scripture is not my opinion. The whole New Testament is the Gospel and in it plainly recorded is Gods plan of salvation, not the Popes or Magisteriums, no Co Redemtrix needed. Many will prefer the doctrines of men. I don't. The five Solas are enough for me.

 

[AMR]

I attend the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

But the OP was not asking about Lutheranism she was asking about Catholicism versus Presbyterianism.

She was also asking Presbyterians for an answer, no?

 

[endtimewarrior]

She was also asking Presbyterians for an answer, no?

Seeking an answer is usually the point in asking a question.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I attend the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

But the OP was not asking about Lutheranism she was asking about Catholicism versus Presbyterianism.

WWMLD?

Martin Luther would be the last person to recommend anyone to go back to the RC Church....the irony here is great indeed.

 

[hedrick]

I guess I feel like I still kind of belong to the Catholic Church -- for example I have some friends that are fundamentalist christians and even though I no longer attend mass I still feel offended when someone criticizes the Catholic Church, as I would feel offended if someone talked bad about my sister even if I was in a fight with her at the time

I don't blame you. Christians shouldn't treat each other that way.

The thing is its not just my soul here it's that of my husband and baby, I want to follow the true path of Christ. A lot of what I'm reading in the library book goes a long way to explaining and making sense of what I didn't understand about th Catholic Church, but one doubt that keeps nagging me is the many Protestants who say the pope is of the devil and the bible where it says you will know them by their works, since the church has had such bad things in t lately

Those claims mostly come from the 16th Cent, when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other. And it's not that the Pope personally is of Satan. Rather, the concern is that the office is, not exactly Satanic (in my view) but inherently subject to abuse.

What do I mean by that?
* Over history, power slowly moved to Rome, such as the right to appoint bishops, which originally was local
* Over history the Pope's authority became greater and greater, until by the 16th Cent, the doctrine he endorsed was considered "irreformable." By the 19th Cent this extended to certain of his individual pronouncements.

As a result we have a church that has no controls. It considers its tradition unchallengeable. Its leader can make pronouncements that are considered infallible. Protestant Churches, including Presbyterians ones, have their problems. But at least we don't as a matter of principle prevent them from being dealt with.

I miss the church, the liturgy and tradition but how can I be sure it is true way of Christ?

Many Presbyterian churches have decent liturgy. If you want more, probably the closest to Presbyterianism would be Lutheranism. However in most PCUSA churches, the communion liturgy is based on ancient forms. The lack isn't liturgy, but (1) Prebyterian communion is typically monthly, not every Sunday,and (2) the lack of pageantry, what I've heard called "smells and bells." That was done as part of cleaning up worship that had accumulated many superstitious elements. But it's certainly possible to have very formal liturgy and good Protestant theology. If you really can't live with Presbyterian liturgy, Lutherans and certain Episcopal congregations are possible alternatives. I prefer our slightly less formal liturgy.

Mostly I worry of my baby -- will she be ok with a Protestant baptism or will she go to a bad place if something God forbid happened to her

If that's a concern, you should study Catholic theology as well as Protestant. There's a tendency for people to develop a superstitious attitude towards baptism. Catholics recognize Presbyterian baptism. Indeed there was recently a formal agreement to that effect between the PCUSA and the Catholic Church. (Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - News & Announcements - Catholic, Reformed churches agree on baptism -- note that the PCUSA is the biggest Presbyterian denomination, but not one well regarded by most of those who post here. However I don't know of any reason why Catholics would fail to recognize baptisms done by the more conservative Presbyterian bodies either.) Baptism is important. It's a formal way for God to place his claim on us. It's a visible sign of a spiritual reality. But even Catholic no longer believe that if a child dies before being baptized there will be some problem. It's the spiritual reality that counts.

Most Catholics I know like my sister do not follow the church I e live in sim take birth control no confession but they insist the church is right so why they not follow it?

Catholic ethics, particularly in the sexual area, tends to be legalistic. A number of members of my congregation are former Catholics. That's the biggest reason they left. If you disagree with official Presbyterian policy on a few matters, that may be OK. But Catholics claim an authority that we don't claim. I don't see what sense it makes to be a Catholic if you don't follow all official policies. If you really believe that the Church speaks with God's authority, I would think you would obey. If you don't, you've got a fundamental disagreement with it.

I don't think Presbyterians believe in the real presence. That is another reason I would choose the Catholic Church over the Presbyterian.

Depends upon what you mean by the real presence. If you mean that Christ is actually present, and that we commune on Christ's body and blood, yes, we believe in that. Many Protestants don't, but Presbyterians and Lutherans do (though details differ between us). Where we disagree most seriously with Catholics is what I call the Real Absence: the Catholic idea that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood in such a way that they are no longer bread and wine. I think that's carrying things further than there is any justification for, into nonsense. Interestingly, because they don't want to say that we excrete Christ, it turns back into bread and wine as we digest it. Why not just say that the bread and wine are pointers to the spiritual reality, which is present in and through them.

 

[AMR]

Seeking an answer is usually the point in asking a question.

Sir, I may be wrong, but you seem to want the last word when the plain facts are that you are a guest in this particular forum. You are not a Presbyterian. This is a forum for Presbyterians firstly. Others may participate to seek to understand Presbyterianism. Participation is not open to others who just chime in to answer questions made clearly to Presbyterians. While we may wink at those that do so when their answers are in accordance with our views, when others take it upon themselves to teach or advocate views contary to those we have affirmed as members of confessional churches, that just will not do.

I am trying to avoid escalating this matter and am asking you once more to take a step back and review the rules of this forum to comply with them in your future posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Don Maurer]

Mostly I worry of my baby -- will she be ok with a Protestant baptism or will she go to a bad place if something God forbid happened to her

If that's a concern, you should study Catholic theology as well as Protestant. There's a tendency for people to develop a superstitious attitude towards baptism. Catholics recognize Presbyterian baptism. Indeed there was recently a formal agreement to that effect between the PCUSA and the Catholic Church. (Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - News & Announcements - Catholic, Reformed churches agree on baptism -- note that the PCUSA is the biggest Presbyterian denomination, but not one well regarded by most of those who post here. However I don't know of any reason why Catholics would fail to recognize baptisms done by the more conservative Presbyterian bodies either.) Baptism is important. It's a formal way for God to place his claim on us. It's a visible sign of a spiritual reality. But even Catholic no longer believe that if a child dies before being baptized there will be some problem. It's the spiritual reality that counts.

Do you think this the woman in the OP has merely a "superstitious attitude" or does she believe in "initial justification." Does she see Baptism as bringing her child under the covenant, or does she see baptism as beginning her child's salvation?

 

[hedrick]

Do you think this the woman in the OP has merely a "superstitious attitude" or does she believe in "initial justification." Does she see Baptism as bringing her child under the covenant, or does she see baptism as beginning her child's salvation?

There's a cultural Catholic attitude towards baptism says until an infant is properly baptized they are in danger. There are the folks who won't take an infant out of the house until they're baptized, for fear that some kind of accident might result in its death and it will end up in limbo. That's the attitude I detected.

Theology isn't the issue. Someone with a proper understanding of Catholic theology will know, even if they believe in baptismal regeneration, that Presbyterian baptisms count. There was an ancient controversy, called the Donatist controversy, whether the baptism of heretics is valid. The answer was that they are. Thus it is heretical (Donatism) for Catholics to deny the validity of Protestant baptisms. In the pre-Vatican II days it was common for Catholics to raise various doubts, and thus conditionally rebaptize converts. For the arguments used, see CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism. Here's their comment on Presbyterians: "the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it." I have never seen a Protestant baptism in which the pastor didn't actually put water on the baby. (When you look at the whole list, it seems pretty clear that the intent is to raise doubt about every non-Catholic baptism.)

However this sort of thing is less common today among Catholics. And in the joint declaration referred to above, the PCUSA agrees to conduct baptisms properly according to Catholic rules. The restrictions agreed to there are obvious: baptism by water in the name of the Trinity. The conservative Presbyterian churches would also follow those procedures.

Here's the text of the agreement: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...an-Catholic-Reformed-Church-Dialogue-2011.pdf. The text is interesting, because it uses language in the Protestant way. It treats Protestant and Catholic churches as communions within a single Body of Christ. It's obvious that this is the case, but the Vatican has normally gone to great lengths to avoid saying so. (This agreement is with the America college of bishops.)

 

[Don Maurer]

Theology isn't the issue.

Theology is not the issue? Well, I am a new here and a guest here. As a guest i do not want to get out of line, but don't you think there are aspects of theological issues worth pursuing in the OP? There is nothing in the OP related to theology at all?

The conservative Presbyterian churches would also follow those procedures.

What is the reason conservative Presbyterian Churches are following "those procedures?" Also, what do you think the reason is that there are no signatures that represent the PCA or OPC? Does the OPC and PCA follow the procedures so that they can accommodate Roman Catholics and their understanding of Baptism?

 

[hedrick]

Theology is not the issue? Well, I am a new here and a guest here. As a guest i do not want to get out of line, but don't you think there are aspects of theological issues worth pursuing in the OP? There is nothing in the OP related to theology at all?

There was a very specific context to that phrase -- baptism. Catholic theology does not have an issue with Presbyterian baptisms. There are very great issues between Catholic and Presbyterian theology otherwise.

What is the reason conservative Presbyterian Churches are following "those procedures?" Also, what do you think the reason is that there are no signatures that represent the PCA or OPC? Does the OPC and PCA follow the procedures so that they can accommodate Roman Catholics and their understanding of Baptism?

To my knowledge, conservative Presbyterian churches baptize with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Some PCUSA pastors have used idiosyncratic wording. This agreement commits us not to do that. I was assuming that this doesn't happen in the more conservative denominations. Am I wrong? Do PCA permit baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer?

The reason that the agreement does not commit us to specifics of theology is the long-standing Catholic tradition that baptisms by heretics are still valid. That's why sacramental theology isn't an issue for this particular purpose.

-----

Incidentally, the OP's concern was that the Catholic Church would not accept Presbyterian baptism. This is a separate issue from whether Presbyterian churches accept Catholic baptisms. I believe the conservative Presbyterian churches typically do not.

 

[hedrick]

The OP is located in Canada. If she is going to a Presbyterian Church it is probably the Presbyterian Church in Canada. In 1975, the United, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic churches recognized each other's baptisms. My sense is that the PC Canada is closer to the PCUSA than to the PCA and other conservative US churches, though may not be quite as liberal. Thus US conservative answers may not be applicable to her.

The fact that we're talking about the Presbyterian Church in Canada affects some other responses in this thread, some of which assumed a PCA view. Based on information from their web site about the confessional nature of the Church, they cite the PCUSA but not the more conservative American churches, and seem to have a view of confessions that is similar to, though perhaps a bit more conservative than, the PCUSA. They also accept several confessions, and have added modern statements to their list of confession.

 

[Don Maurer]

There was a very specific context to that phrase -- baptism. Catholic theology does not have an issue with Presbyterian baptisms. There are very great issues between Catholic and Presbyterian theology otherwise.

To my knowledge, conservative Presbyterian churches baptize with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Some PCUSA pastors have used idiosyncratic wording. This agreement commits us not to do that. I was assuming that this doesn't happen in the more conservative denominations. Am I wrong? Do PCA permit baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer?

The reason that the agreement does not commit us to specifics of theology is the long-standing Catholic tradition that baptisms by heretics are still valid. That's why sacramental theology isn't an issue for this particular purpose.

-----

Incidentally, the OP's concern was that the Catholic Church would not accept Presbyterian baptism. This is a separate issue from whether Presbyterian churches accept Catholic baptisms. I believe the conservative Presbyterian churches typically do not.

Hedrick, I do not think I should reply at this point because I am a member of a Reformed Baptist Church and just a guest here. I can see that you assume that I am a conservative Presbyterian like my brethren in the PCA or OPC.

There were stimulating parts to your conversation and I thank you for them. I am not going to reply here because I fear being drawn into a conversation where I step over rules. Please do not take this as disrespect or disinterest in any way.

I noticed your pronouns and you are PCUSA. I will say this, the new pastor of the local PCUSA Church in our neighborhood dropped in and visited about 2 months ago in an evening service at our church. I felt very flattered (and I am merely just one of those bench sitting members in our Church).

You feel that OP was just an issue of a "cultural Catholic attitude." I am inclined to raise theological differences between Presbyterian and Catholic theologies as the major issue, but I think I should back off here. In thinking about her post, she said she wants to be a truth seeker. A truth seeker should be dealt doctrine and theology. Unfortunately, blogs like this are not good places for such instruction. But when she talked about her motives for leaving Presbyterianism, she spoke like it was an issue of personal preferences. Maybe a "cultural Catholic attitude" needs some Presbyterian reinforcement and encouragement there.

Since I am a guest, I will leave it to you and the others in the forum. I hope she gets both, the encouragement, and the truth (theology).

 

[hedrick]

You feel that OP was just an issue of a "cultural Catholic attitude."

Let me be clear. I do not consider either Catholic theology or practice acceptable. In that context I was trying to deal with the OP's concern about being Presbyterian.

Her concern with baptism was one that I thought was unfounded. It was that Presbyterian baptisms might somehow not be acceptable. I pointed out that Presbyterians and Catholics accept each other's baptisms. In addition, I sensed in her wording some concerns that would not be appropriate even from a Catholic point of view.

There are, as you know, significant differences in how we understand baptism from how Catholics understand it. I consider these real, and not just cultural differences. However they do not affect our recognition of each other's baptisms, either for the PCUSA or the church she is most likely attending. We also have differences of a different kind with Baptist churches, which I also consider significant.

Many of her other concerns were also not theological. E.g. she expressed a desire for a more formal worship. I I would not want to see her go back to the Catholic Church because of style preference. Hence I suggested a couple of Protestant alternatives whose worship she might find more familiar. Neither Lutheran nor Episcopal are Presbyterian, of course, but many of us consider Lutheran theology acceptable, and there are Reformed Episcopal churches (though by no means all are).

 

[stray bullet]

We should never lose sight of the fact that Rome has anathematized the doctrines of grace clearly taught in Scripture.

I'm confused - Doctrines are the product of reason and revelation. You cannot find doctrines in scripture, can you?

[FONT=&quot]

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…let him be anathema

(Canons of Trent, 43). In effect Rome sets one down a sacramental treadmill of works based righteousness, see here.

Hmm- some would argue that's not how Trent is cited.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] How do you translate "Canons of Trent 43" into the way that scholars, historians, and academics cite Trent? Otherwise that quote might be made up.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Rome teaches that Scripture is not the highest authority in faith and life. Rome says “both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (Catechism, p. 31[/FONT])

If the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority, then how can you say scripture isn't the highest authority?

[FONT=&quot]

We are taught from Scripture that the saints will persevere to the end. Rome's Council of Trent said that true faith can be lost and one can forfeit the grace of justification (Canons of Trent, 38-40).[/FONT]

Furthermore, from Scripture we are taught that there is but one infallible rule of faith and life, the Scriptures.

It is true that the Catholic Church believes in free will, as does the overwhelming majority of Christians now and throughout time. Where does scripture say it is the 'one infallible rule of faith and life'?

Yet Rome declares that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra ([FONT=&quot]Vatican I in 1870, and later confirmed in Lumen Gentium at Vatican II).

What's the issue there?[/FONT]

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm confused - Doctrines are the product of reason and revelation. You cannot find doctrines in scripture, can you?

I am always amazed by negativity concerning doctrine in general. Not only are the Scriptures full of doctrine, Christ Jesus Himself endorsed doctrine or have you never read...

John 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

John 18:19 The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. 20 Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

1 Tim 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia–remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Tim 4:6 If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.

And so on and so forth. Certainly not a complete list, but there should be no need for any commentary, as the meaning from these verses is plain.

 

[stray bullet]

I am always amazed by negativity concerning doctrine in general. Not only are the Scriptures full of doctrine, Christ Jesus Himself endorsed doctrine or have you never read...

I'm not negative against doctrine. I was just pointing out that doctrine is the application of reason to scripture. Doctrine and revelation are different things, which is why they are different words.

John 7:16

Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

What translation is that? I don't know of any translations that go that way.

 

[hedrick]

Hmm- some would argue that's not how Trent is cited.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] How do you translate "Canons of Trent 43" into the way that scholars, historians, and academics cite Trent? Otherwise that quote might be made up.

6th Session (justification), canon 9.

 

[stray bullet]

6th Session (justification), canon 9.

Hmm, I don't see how they got 43 or what academic institution or journal would cite it that way. The biggest issue is how it changed the quote improperly. If you cut out part of a quote, you need to put [...] and it can only be done if [...] is irrelevant. In this case, "..." is being used to change the meaning of the statement and deliberately leaves out important parts that clarify the opening clause.

In other words you can't turn:
"I enjoy sitting outside to eat dinner. It is funny to see the neighborhood dogs taunting all the kids in the area." to
"I enjoy sitting outside to eat ... all the kids in the area."

I'm not seeing what institution would call that permissible?

 

[hedrick]

Hmm, I don't see how they got 43 or what academic institution or journal would cite it that way. The biggest issue is how it changed the quote improperly. If you cut out part of a quote, you need to put [...] and it can only be done if [...] is irrelevant. In this case, "..." is being used to change the meaning of the statement and deliberately leaves out important parts that clarify the opening clause.

Here it is from a copy on EWTN:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

Here's AMR's quote: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…let him be anathema"

I think it's a legitimate ellipsis.

-----------------

This is all departing pretty seriously from providing help to the OP from a Presbyterian point of view. Could we return to that please?