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.
While we wait for a proper question from the OP, I would like to add that the reason the recent trend of the Catholic Church deciding to justify all of her dogmas and doctrines through scripture is not because it wants to proselytize individual Protestants back into its folds, but rather to have understanding between them so that we can have a proper dialogue. The Catholic Church has always cared about non-Catholics Christians and for that reason wanted them back into their fold though the means were questionable at times...
The fact is that there are several different levels of looking at this phenomenon.
One concerns the motivation on the RCC's part for engaging in such dialogue. The idea that this was done as an act of collegiality with reformed Christians may be what you'd like to believe, but that's not what religious professionals have said about it.
Then too, there is that other matter that is related to the first. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church adopting a slew of Protestant practices that it had condemned since the Reformation. The experts have reported that this was done in order to keep down the drift of Catholics over to Protestant churches. That's not to say that it was done in order to attract Protestants to convert to the Roman church, you understand, but to stem its own losses.
In any case, I'd rather that she did all of this for any reason rather than remain the church she was prior to Vatican II.
The fact is that there are several different levels of looking at this phenomenon.
One concerns the motivation on the RCC's part for engaging in such dialogue. The idea that this was done as an act of collegiality with reformed Christians may be what you'd like to believe, but that's not what religious professionals have said about it.
Then too, there is that other matter that is related to the first. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church adopting a slew of Protestant practices that it had condemned since the Reformation. The experts have reported that this was done in order to keep down the drift of Catholics over to Protestant churches. That's not to say that it was done in order to attract Protestants to convert to the Roman church, you understand, but to stem its own losses.
In any case, I'd rather that she did all of this for any reason rather than remain the church she was prior to Vatican II.
Drink more coffee or Chai tea? Good to see your alert, ie, antenna's up
Just ol' old Jack have to depart for a little
Well "religious professionals say" is about the same as a TV interviewer saying "I has been said that you beat your wife, when did you stop?"
And "experts observe" has about the same weight.
It's like opinions, everybody's got some and most are not worth much, right?
I currently identify as either a Methodist or an Anglican. Someone convinced me that there is a lot to be said for Catholic doctrine. I'm still not sure, though.
The fact is that there are several different levels of looking at this phenomenon.
One concerns the motivation on the RCC's part for engaging in such dialogue. The idea that this was done as an act of collegiality with reformed Christians may be what you'd like to believe, but that's not what religious professionals have said about it.
Then too, there is that other matter that is related to the first. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church adopting a slew of Protestant practices that it had condemned since the Reformation. The experts have reported that this was done in order to keep down the drift of Catholics over to Protestant churches. That's not to say that it was done in order to attract Protestants to convert to the Roman church, you understand, but to stem its own losses.
In any case, I'd rather that she did all of this for any reason rather than remain the church she was prior to Vatican II.
Scriptures aren't the problem, but the interpretation thereof!
Does one core-base one's interpretation upon "Holy Tradition," or "Scriptures" or "Holy Tradition" + "Scriptures" or ?
If such an absurdity existed, it would only be accessible via the subjective, rendering it functionally subjective.factual objective core-base
I'm too tired to argue for Catholicism and too new here to post the link I hope to post. For now, I'm going to suggest a source that astounded a Greek Orthodox acquaintance of mine when I quoted it. In Calvin College's online Christian Classics Etherial Library, you'll find Protestant historian Philip Schaff's 38-volume set of writings from the Early Church. Hendrickson Publishing Company, a Protestant firm, sells a printed edition of it, too, thank God.I'm just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts or arguments for or against.
I think much of that which has gone on recently (last couple centuries or so, especially post-Vatican II) has been an effort to make the Catholic church more palatable for Protestants/Evangelicals.
I used to think that way. Its application in the US and Europe has certainly taken it that way. But many of the changes, diversity of liturgies and so on and so forth, are perhaps more focused on the hope of unity with the east. In the end its not "either or" its "and".
To the OP "come on in the waters fine". I converted to the Catholicism a couple years ago.
I find it interesting that you would feel that way. I haven't seen much that would convince me that the Vatican is all that interested in ties with the eastern churches. Perhaps you have more details?
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?