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.
In defense of our Catholic friends, I haven't seen much debating, if any.Bruce S said:Forum rules FORBID Catholics from debating here. Of course, the rules apply to US elsewhere, but not to them here.
My suggestion is to IMMEDIATELY move any thread that a Catholic begins DEBATING in to the IDD, of course, that would leave this forum empty.
Lotar said:Why I'm Protestant?
[EDITED BY KENNY]
KennySe said:It seems that this list is not answering "Why am I Protestant?" but is instead "Some gripes I have with the Catholic Church that I can post at PRE without any refution allowed by Catholics".
Am I wrong in what this list seems like?
KennySe said:It seems that this list is not answering "Why am I Protestant?" but is instead "Some gripes I have with the Catholic Church that I can post at PRE without any refution allowed by Catholics".
Am I wrong in what this list seems like?
Defens0rFidei said:In another thread on this forum, I read this...
If I saw these practices during my time, I would be upset as well, and I would want to clean up the Church as well.
But assuming the claim that the reformers wanted to stay in the Church is true...what do you make of the counter-reformation, which the RCC did itself in response to the reformation, to clean up its admittedly bad practices?
We do not tolerate the sale of indulgences anymore...the Papacy is not abused anymore...etc.
In other words, if the Church was good enough for the Reformers to try and clean up, and if it is now cleaned up, why are you a protestant today?
Thanks!
What it "seems" like can be anything. It could "seem" like a grocery list to some people. It's clearly answering the OP, so I have no idea why you're even asking this question. It just looks like you're making Lotar out to be a coward who needs to discuss Roman Catholicism "without any refutation allowed by Catholics." To me what you've posted "seems like" nothing but a cheap shot.KennySe said:It seems that this list is not answering "Why am I Protestant?" but is instead "Some gripes I have with the Catholic Church that I can post at PRE without any refution allowed by Catholics".
Am I wrong in what this list seems like?
InquisitorKind said:What it "seems" like can be anything. It could "seem" like a grocery list to some people. It's clearly answering the OP, so I have no idea why you're even asking this question. It just looks like you're making Lotar out to be a coward who needs to discuss Roman Catholicism "without any refutation allowed by Catholics." To me what you've posted "seems like" nothing but a cheap shot.
~Matt
hi BlackhawkBlackhawk said:maybe because I understand much of it and yet I do not believe it. Also I think many others in church history have understood it and rejected it. Am I right or wrong? Well i think I am right and you probably think I am wrong. But many have understood RCC doctrine and have rejected it.
true many misunderstandings abound. But there are some who do understand RCC doctrine and reject it. I think your statement was an overgeneralization. I can't go into why I think the RCC is wrong because I have a paper to write. But many understand the RCC yet do not believe.
So, if I understand where you are coming from, you see the Catholic Church as being in existance from the beginning.InquisitorKind said:Hello.
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been changing throughout history. When I read what the catholic church believed in the 200's,
Thank you for sharing your view on this. Do you find a point at which the church shifted away from what you view as legitimate development to illegitimate development of doctrine? In other words, where did the Catholic Church, in your opinion, start to go wrong?I can't square it away with what it believed in the 1600's, or even the 1900's. The differences are too great to consider the current Roman Catholic Church the same catholic body of believers that existed at the beginning. Part of this has to do with my take on how doctrine develops--I think it would be sufficient to say that I don't believe Rome's development has been legitimate.
Do you think or believe that any one denomination contains more of the truth than others doctrinally?Part of our differences spring from the fact that I don't think the Christian body is to be found within the confindes of one institution. I know that Roman Catholics also believe this to some extent, but not in the same way that some Protestants, such as myself, do. The body of Christ is located inside and out of denominational boundaries, and as a consequence, I don't think any one church organization can claim "One True Church" status.
thereselittleflower said:I would like to make a comment about what I have read in this thread . . I know this is a protestant forum .. at the beginning of this thread, a question was asked by a Catholic to help understanding of why all of you are still Protestant . .of course it made some assumptions, but it was still a Catholic's attempt to better understand they "why" of Protestantism today.So far so good...especially the part about this being a "Protestant Forum
'
You do as most of us PRE's do when the same situation develops over in OBOB, you IGNORE it. Slowly here, I-G-N-O-R-E it.But what often times happens is one question leads to a response that leads to more questions . . an this is why I am posting, as the responses I have read lead to more questions .
Now in the IDD, go at it, that is where these things are to be hashed out, and tweaking is done.
No, we are going to Mass this Sunday and converting all of us.Do you think or believe that any one denomination contains more of the truth than others doctrinally?
See, that way we get our forum back....
Sheesh.
I wouldn't worry about defending your posting methods in the P/R/E forum. They seem just fine to me.thereselittleflower said:But what often times happens is one question leads to a response that leads to more questions . . an this is why I am posting, as the responses I have read lead to more questions . . Sometimes I think the poster of a response truly thinks the response is clear, but I can read it, and coming from a varied background, can see several possibilities, and I then realize I don't know which of those possibilities is in the mind of the poster .. so I ask another question . .
In a way, yes, although I often find it hard to understand what is meant by one church/denomination being in existence from the beginning. Each and every generation of church "goers" is different from its previous one.So, if I understand where you are coming from, you see the Catholic Church as being in existance from the beginning.
Although I haven't given much thought to this, I would have to say things started to develop "incorrectly," if you will allow for such a word, during the fourth century, when early church fathers started to move away from the Sola Scriptura principle and begin to view Tradition as another authoritative source on the level of Scripture.Do you find a point at which the church shifted away from what you view as legitimate development to illegitimate development of doctrine?
I couldn't say that the entire church started to "go wrong" at some point. I would have to say that some people who identified themselves as members of Catholic/Christians churches began distorting the apostolic faith. I think that there has been a catholic church (note lower case) that has been inexistence for all time. Sometimes its members have been inside and outside of the body that calls itself the Catholic Church.In other words, where did the Catholic Church, in your opinion, start to go wrong?
I would say two things:Do you think or believe that any one denomination contains more of the truth than others doctrinally?
Thank you so much InquisitorKind - I know some people become suspicious of questions wondering when the "debate' portion is going to start and are suspicious, but i really have no desire to debate any of this right now, or to prove one is right and the other is wrong . . When I started posting my questions here, I did not have enough posts to post in the IDD yet, but now that I do, if I want to debate anything anyone is saying here, that would be the place to do it. it is nice to be able to ask questions and get answers without the emotional element that surfaces in debates. I think the rules here are wise ones.InquisitorKind said:I wouldn't worry about defending your posting methods in the P/R/E forum. They seem just fine to me.
Thank you for clarifying where your thoughts are on this. If I understand you correctly, it sounds something like how I used to see things at one point too . . so I think I undersand where you are coming from.In a way, yes, although I often find it hard to understand what is meant by one church/denomination being in existence from the beginning. Each and every generation of church "goers" is different from its previous one.
Although I haven't given much thought to this, I would have to say things started to develop "incorrectly," if you will allow for such a word, during the fourth century, when early church fathers started to move away from the Sola Scriptura principle and begin to view Tradition as another authoritative source on the level of Scripture.
I couldn't say that the entire church started to "go wrong" at some point. I would have to say that some people who identified themselves as members of Catholic/Christians churches began distorting the apostolic faith. I think that there has been a catholic church (note lower case) that has been inexistence for all time. Sometimes its members have been inside and outside of the body that calls itself the Catholic Church.
(Oh man...it's hard to think clearly with throbbing headaches...)
Simply put, it's hard to answer your question because I'm not sure how we're defining the Catholic Church.
I would say two things:
1) That I look at it more like certain people have recognized more truth than others, and sometimes these people don't necessarily represent the denomiations that they are members of.
2) But, granted, yes I would believe that some denominational groups profess doctrines that are closer to, or in your words, contain more of the truth than others.
~Matt
You're welcome.thereselittleflower said:Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions and understanding where I am coming from in my intentions.
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?