I think we miss an important chance for our Lord when we let pride determine who and how we should spread the Gospel. I believe that we are charged to spread the Gospel to everyone to get them into that first contact with Jesus and get their faith going.
I am, as I have mentioned before, I life-long Catholic and very happy with my faith. But I also believe that attacking or annoying other persons of Christian faith is wrong and counterproductive. At this point in time, I am very happy to have Protestant compatriots who love Jesus and live their faith. If I can get a nonbeliever to is not open to the Catholic Church to become a good Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian, then we have another fine Christian on the way to Heaven.
I am a descendant of no less than the Mathers of New England and the German Dunkers of the Palatinate - so the Christian faith in all its form has blessed my family.
I don't debate with anyone unless it's friendly and if they are fellow Christians I will never attack your path to Christ. Would I love to have everybody come to Mass and the Sacraments with me? Absolutely. But I'll never consider myself a better Christian than you are.
From your posts here my initial impression is that you were a good commanding officer for whom it would have been an honor to serve. My old outfit, the 174th AIB of the NYARNG was also "Semper Fideles" although not with such an glorious and illustrious history as the USMC.
That's a long stretch. I would like to hear what you see has changed.
I think we miss an important chance for our Lord when we let pride determine who and how we should spread the Gospel.
So it is pride that compels us to witness to Catholics?
I believe that we are charged to spread the Gospel to everyone to get them into that first contact with Jesus and get their faith going.
But Mormons as well as liberal Prots and not just typical Catyhs will profess faith in Jesus, but never had a manifest transformational day of salvation/conversion with it5s basic profound changes.
I am, as I have mentioned before, I life-long Catholic and very happy with my faith. But I also believe that attacking or annoying other persons of Christian faith is wrong and counterproductive.
But which means that you are either a modern liberal Catholic who does not believe that former practicing RCs/now practicing evangelical believers as myself will (or likely will) be lost if I die opposed to Catholicism's distinctive binding beliefs, yet trusting Christ with penitent faith, and that Prot churches are not worthy to be properly called churches," or you are a traditional RC who censors liberal ecumenical Catholics and believes we will (or likely will) be lost unless as evangelicals opposed to Rome we repent of this and convert to Rome.
In either case you have make yourself an object of warranted reproof by us, and by traditional RCs in the former case.
At this point in time, I am very happy to have Protestant compatriots who love Jesus and live their faith. If I can get a nonbeliever to is not open to the Catholic Church to become a good Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian, then we have another fine Christian on the way to Heaven.
Then you implicitly condemn even canonized RC "saints" such as
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.
As well as popes toward "resisters" as myself, even infallibly speaking,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff... there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. "” - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
More recently,
He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. - CCC 336; Lumen Gentium
...the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”62 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
Which is it? Do not play the game "only God knows," for this is a doctrinal question, whether one who knows the claims of Rome but resists, even opposes her distinctive binding believers, though trusting Christ with penitent faith. Or in other words, are you a "cafeteria Catholic" or a faithful one?
I am a descendant of no less than the Mathers of New England and the German Dunkers of the Palatinate - so the Christian faith in all its form has blessed my family.
Both objects of RC censure and wrath in the past, but since her unholy sword of men was removed then now such may be merely separated brethren (rather than having limbs separated), yet Rome excludes those who know "that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," but "refuse either to enter it or to remain in it".
The only interpretation i can see that would allow you to consider a former RC such as myself, who contends against Catholic distinctives yet had gladly helped many, to be on my "way to Heaven," is if you understood "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ" to mean I do not know this as being True, but simply know this is what she claims while being honestly convinced in the light of Scripture.
Try to see how well that floats with the traditional RCs we contend with here. Meanwhile, the very fact that Vatican 2 is open to variant interpretations even on this cardinal issue is contrary to the RC position that we need a pope and infallible magisterium to submit to in order to effectively deal with divisions.
As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html