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.
Everybody, our server must be politically because it bleeped a synonym for "cheap" in Scrooge's sense that sounds like the N-word and a phrase meaning "racial insult." I didn't intend to insult anyone. I wrote about a word that some misinterpret.In the U.S., many liberals use the word "hate" often enough that I don't know what they mean by it. Maybe that's because I almost obsess my need to write precisely. I even know of some people who thought the word "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]rdly" was a racial slur. But it means "cheap" or "miserly."
This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant?"
To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be. R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.
If a "Protestant" quotes a Bible verse(s) to a R.C. member --- they either clam-up/shut-up ( because 90% do not know the Bible ) , or if they are on the internet ( such as the R.C. members on this website ) --- they will quote from some "Church Father" (( just as the E.O. folks do to "prove" their point(s). )).
They avoid the B I B L E , and thus they get upset when "Protestants" quote/recite/Post Bible verses. The "Protestant" believer trusts alone in Christ Jesus for eternal salvation , but the R.C. member has been taught that they must be a member of a group founded in Rome.
Here in the U.S. and Canada the R.C.'s are not the majority. I other places such as Central & South America the R.C.'s are the majority and often Protestant/Bible chapels have been burnt down and ruined by order of the R.C. officials.
That is the short answer to the O.P..
Not so. The Church believes salvation is generally not available outside the Church. Thus if a non-Catholic Christian goes to heaven, it is because they've been counted as a member of the Church... their actual membership notwithstanding.To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be. R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.
Generalize much?If a "Protestant" quotes a Bible verse(s) to a R.C. member --- they either clam-up/shut-up ( because 90% do not know the Bible ) , or if they are on the internet ( such as the R.C. members on this website ) --- they will quote from some "Church Father" (( just as the E.O. folks do to "prove" their point(s). )).
To tie this in with what you wrote earlier, Protestants tend to avoid the Church Fathers... I think because they tend to write from decidedly Catholic viewpoints. It's tough to read much from any of major names from the 1st and 2nd centuries without tripping over a ton of things the Catholic Church teaches to this day.They avoid the B I B L E ,
I can't speak for all Catholics everywhere but I at least get annoyed by it because Protestants insist on bizarre double standards in these sorts of discussions. I'm supposed to adhere to a rigidly sola Scriptura viewpoint... and thus my pointing out that the early Church manifestly didn't believe in that doctrine is, of course, a contravention of sola Scriptura, which somehow "invalidates" my point.and thus they get upset when "Protestants" quote/recite/Post Bible verses.
Whaa?The "Protestant" believer trusts alone in Christ Jesus for eternal salvation , but the R.C. member has been taught that they must be a member of a group founded in Rome.
Not so. The Church believes salvation is generally not available outside the Church. Thus if a non-Catholic Christian goes to heaven, it is because they've been counted as a member of the Church... their actual membership notwithstanding.
And I don't claim to be an expert on this teaching. Even so, my understanding is that it's not necessarily written in stone. It's more of the Church's educated guess. But ultimately God will make that decision.
Generalize much?
Besides that, what I surmise from your comment there is that you believe in sola Scriptura. And that's fine but don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect a Catholic or EO to discuss topics exclusively on your terms?
To tie this in with what you wrote earlier, Protestants tend to avoid the Church Fathers... I think because they tend to write from decidedly Catholic viewpoints. It's tough to read much from any of major names from the 1st and 2nd centuries without tripping over a ton of things the Catholic Church teaches to this day.
Very bluntly I think the onus is and has always been on Protestants to justify their ahistorical doctrines rather than on Catholics. But even there, we can point to writings of people trained and taught by St. John himself as evidence of this or that doctrine to establish the historicity of Catholic beliefs.
I can't speak for all Catholics everywhere but I at least get annoyed by it because Protestants insist on bizarre double standards in these sorts of discussions. I'm supposed to adhere to a rigidly sola Scriptura viewpoint... and thus my pointing out that the early Church manifestly didn't believe in that doctrine is, of course, a contravention of sola Scriptura, which somehow "invalidates" my point.
Meanwhile, the Protestant is, of course, free to cite writings from Luther, Calvin, Wesley or whoever else when it bolsters the argument in favor of sola Scriptura.
That's just one example, mind you.
Whaa?
Incidentally, the primacy of Rome is an ancient belief. Of course, to convince you of that (if such is possible), I'd have to quote from the early Church Fathers... which is apparently a no-no.
There probably are many factors that contribute, but I agree that this one ^ is most likely the leading cause.To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be.
Yes. It's only a technicality that permits some others to be saved. They are deemed to be Catholics without knowing it, and that makes their salvation square with RC theology.R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.
Exodus20 along with Albion are both wrong. The Church teaches this: " Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Unlike the reasoned & cordial discourse of Christian Forums, there is another Catholic forum of anti-Protestant/ anti-Luther.
Otherwise I don't see much anti-protestant/ anti-catholic rhoretic.
I believe just what Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible. He did call Apostles and commissioned them to spread the faith, and he did appoint Peter to reveal the new church to the world--which he did, in a miraculous way, on Pentecost Sunday. Yes, that's fact. The idea that you added to this--that some men hundreds of years later were somehow the inheritors of what Jesus said to Peter and to Peter alone is clearly NOT Scriptural. So I don't accept it. Just as you said, I believe the Bible. I do not believe man's theories when they take liberties with the Bible.Albion, I know you believe what the bible says, so why is it that you do not believe Jesus Christ selected certain men whom he personally trained to govern his Church under one whom He appointed as the "rock'' and with Himself as its Head.
What if that "rock" that was the foundation of the church was the revelation that He was the Messiah, the son of the Living God? That is the truth and He called Peter a rock because God gave Peter the revelation to declare first. The Greek Orthodox, Coptics, and some other groups were never submitted to Rome as the only legitimate worldwide church. It was always simply "the church at Rome." There are many such myths surrounding the Catholic church that continue to propagate division between various sects within the christian community. There is only one true church, but it is a spiritual entity and the saints are the subjects of God's kingdom of heaven on earth. The divisions seen among christendom are carnal created by men and are not part of the true. Thus the dissention.Albion, I know you believe what the bible says, so why is it that you do not believe Jesus Christ selected certain men whom he personally trained to govern his Church under one whom He appointed as the "rock'' and with Himself as its Head. He told them what they were to aim at, to make sure they select replacements/successors and how they were to do it, with His help. Years passed and that simple society grew; His organization became more challenged from both inside and outside but weathered all storms regardless of the severity, we have always been able to trace its history through the centuries. To-day only the Catholic Church claims, and is able to prove her claim, to be that society.
Whoa. I was following your thinking up to that point. But what is the logic in simply proclaiming that the man was acting solely on his own opinion (as though you do not do the same)? You haven't indicated any reason why anyone would think that.Let's suppose for a moment, there is a Presbyterian, who reads his Bible. From the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. Now, you know this is the most essential of all Christian doctrines, the foundation of all Christianity. From the reading of his Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. And the Presbyterian is a sensible man, an intelligent man, and not a presumptuous man. And he says, "Here is my JW neighbor, who is just as reasonable and intelligent as I am, as honest, as learned, and as prayerful as I am. And from the reading of the Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Christ is not God at all. Now, he says, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and my JW neighbor is wrong. But after all, he says, I may be mistaken! Perhaps I have not the right meaning of the text, and if I am wrong, perhaps he is right after all. But, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and he is wrong."
On what does he believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgment.
This is perfect Gospel truth. And this should be sufficient.Outside of Christ there is no salvation
This is perfect RCC truth but NOT Gospel truth.... and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.
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?