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.
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.
I'm just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts or arguments for or against.
You haven't given us much to judge by in your own case, but if you want my thinking, I'd say "Don't do it." Everything that is positive about Catholicism is to be found in Anglicanism, and the add-ons of Catholic doctrine and practice are all negatives. The old saying about the "grass is greener" applies in the case of potential conversions to the Roman Catholic Church probably more than to any other church.
The history, the size, the publicity, the wealth, the ceremonies, and the apparent doctrinal certainty...these are all illusions. At the least, I suggest you take a long, long, up-close look before you leap.
The bible says were saved by the blood of Christ which is Gods grace
and Our Faith in Christ. Eph 2:8
the rcc has a totally different salvation they rely on, they certainly Both can't be correct
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.
I'm just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts or arguments for or against.
Mostly, I don't like the Protestant idea of sola scriptura.
What you'll find (or at least what many have found, myself included) is that instead of any particular "sola" with respect to defending doctrine, the church has historically made use of whatever was best suited to win the argument and defend the truth at any given time. Sometimes it was an appeal to Scripture, sometimes an appeal to a previous council, sometimes an appeal to a statement by a prominent bishop, and sometimes an appeal to "this is the catholic faith handed down from the Apostles." Any definition of "sola scriptura" is reading a bias back into history.
Hi Knee-V, I know you're not RC, but if what you say above is true, why has it always been of the upmost importance to the RCC to find and show BIBLICAL support for every one of their doctrines, no matter how difficult it is to do so ..
In this they act as if Sola Scriptura (as taught and understood by the Reformers) is true.
Yours and His,
David
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 never knew they cared much about what we thought or believed when it came down to defining what they believe. Interesting!
Also, are you saying that prior to the Reformation, the RCC was not concerned if they had Biblical support when they defined certain doctrines or a dogmas? I find that very hard to believe. Do you know of even a single example of this ..
Thanks!
--David
What I would say is that it didn't feel the need to have a Bible verse for every nuance of its beliefs.
Then again, I'm not RC, and I could be misrepresenting them.
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.
I'm just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts or arguments for or against.