Magazine: Growing Trend--Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism

TheSacredPage.com ^ | August 6, 2010 | Michael Barber

[papertyger]

The more I study the RCC, the more I witness a grouping of people devoted to “anything but Christ” in their thinking, tradition, and object of devotion.

I never cease to be impressed by the number of protestant comments that are empty of any message beyond the writer's expression of antipathy and hatred for those of us that will not share in their rebellious fruit.

I have yet to see a single theological accusation made against the RCC that was not completely dependant on the accuser's selective, private interpretation of scripture for validity.

Just like their forefathers, I have no doubt such people will go to their graves still believing in their own righteousness when they accused apostles of harvesting on the Sabbath.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“There were “Rabbis” in Judaism, and there were also those considered to be “Masters” in Judaism - but the position of “father” is not within the historic Judaic context.”

The Holy Spirit taught differently: as in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

And someone should tell St. Paul he wasn’t supposed to call anyone “teacher” because he said this:

“For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7).

And

“For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11).

And

“God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28)

And

“his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11).

So was Paul violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring to others as “teachers”? Clearly - according to your interpretation - he must have been. And that’s how we know you’re wrong.

Also, St. Paul referred to others whom he brought into the faith as his children or sons:

“Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17)

and

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2)

“To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

“This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1)

“But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4)

“I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10).

Imagine that - St. Paul is actually daring to violate your interpretation of Jesus’ words. Who should I believe - you (presenting a view no one believed in until practically a moment ago) of a great Apostle?

But wait, there’s more. Look what St. Paul said here:

“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

I BECAME YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL. Clearly St. Paul was violating your interpretation. Who am I to believe? He was an inspired author. You’re just someone on the internet posting a view no historic Christian believed in before a short time ago. I’ll stick with St. Paul and all orthodox Christianity.

And what would dare say about John too (1 John 2:13–14).

I don’t think you know the scriptures nearly as well as you believe.

You wrote:

“And THAT alone, brings hierarchical churches down in a heap.”

No, Christ created a hierarchy. He created the office of Apostle and yet there were disciples clearly lesser in authority. That’s a hierarchy right there.

[Iscool]

This is why you see in Protestantism, only say preaching or only singing. This is unlike at mass where we have preaching, singing, the offering, etc. where we read from the OT, Gospels, psalms, epistles etc.

That's right...I attended a Protestant church for a while that did nothing but take an offering...Wasn't even a preacher...Didn't need one...

[TheStickman]

It’s Sacred Scripture, the Inspired Word of God. It says what it says.

[metmom]

When all else fails, resort to ridicule.

Have you so lost the debate that this is the best you can do?

[metmom]

Godwin’s Law.

The white flag has been shown.

[metmom]

Godwin’s Law.

The white flag has been shown.

[metmom]

This is why you see in Protestantism, only say preaching or only singing. This is unlike at mass where we have preaching, singing, the offering, etc. where we read from the OT, Gospels, psalms, epistles etc.

God is not limited as those outside The Church seem to think, but is unlimited

God is NOT limited? Just sacrificed each and every mass in a liturgy so rigidly adhered to that I could still go in a mass decades later and recite along with it.

Besides, you show with that comment, that you really don't know what many Protestant worship services are like.

[Iscool]

And, you can experience a personal relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, a personal one on one relationship

Nope...The cracker can't get beyond that barrier that separates the body and the bones from the soul and the spirit...

The cracker only goes into the flesh...Jesus goes into the soul...You can't put a cracker into your soul and you can't put Jesus into your flesh...

[metmom]

You left out the empty cross for an empty religion. Isn't taht all the prots really do have?

Yeah, because in our religion, Jesus died once for all and rose from the grave conquering death, once for all.

Ain't it great?

You can join us any time when you realize that Jesus' work on the cross is finished, just like He said.

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The EMPTY cross is what is so significant. He's not still hanging there suffering and dying.

[Iscool]

Got any idea what his point is? Why doesn't he ask, "Do you preach Christ and Him crucified?"

There is nothing beyond eating the cracker...

[Iscool]

You left out the empty cross for an empty religion.

Well you got that wrong as well as everything else...

The Cross is empty because Jesus is not there...You guys like to keep Jesus on the Cross, suffering, in immense pain and you won't let him die...

The blood is not still running out onto the ground...Jesus is not shedding blood...It has been shed...

Jesus is risen...His time on the Cross is 'finished'...

[papertyger]

There is nothing beyond eating the cracker...

Pray tell, where does the NT advocate mockery and insult toward those who say "Jesus is LORD?"

[bronx2]

Jesus suffers each time one commits sin and He commands us to take up out cross and follow Him. Your ilk demand an antiseptic Jesus so you don't need to share in His suffering. Don't be surprised if you don't share in His redemption. Your flawed interpretation of scripture only serves to assuage your pride. Without apostolic guidance you might as well be a pagan.

[Cronos]

They don’t talk to ‘fringe evangelical’ groups because they HAVE NOTHING to offer.

Yes, that's right -- all these fringe Pentecostal (except Assemblies of God), Baptist etc. groups have NOTHING to offer.

Even the fire-worshippers from which you should escape, they have nothing to offer Christianity so we in Christ's One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church won't waste time with them when we can talk to the Traditional Lutherans, Anglicans etc.

[Cronos]

Oh, no ones asking you to have crackers. We're telling you to come, experience a personal relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, in the True Presence of Christ. And hear the Word of God, the entire word.

And, very interesting you brought out the OPC --> you mean the group that in it's Sunday readings only reads a bit from the OT and then from the Pauline Epistles and NEVER reads from the Gospels? The same group that is included here?

[Cronos]

Oh, no ones asking you to have crackers. We're telling you to come, experience a personal relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, in the True Presence of Christ. And hear the Word of God, the entire word.

And, very interesting you brought out the OPC --> you mean the group that in it's Sunday readings only reads a bit from the OT and then from the Pauline Epistles and NEVER reads from the Gospels? The same group that is included here?


You can still reject the OPC's pagan syncretism and come to Christ in Christ's Church

[Al Hitan]

You guys like to keep Jesus on the Cross, suffering, in immense pain and you won't let him die...

This has to be one of the silliest statements I have ever heard.

[Cronos]

If you check this link to one example you will see that for Sunday, June 20th, 2010 (the only worship bulletin on the site), they only read Old Covenant Reading: Zechariah 8:1-23, New Covenant Reading: Ephesians 4:17-32



Why exactly is it just excerpts? I guess the OPC thinking is why have all the nasty stuff like the letter of James or the Gospels or the OT.

In contrast, you can come to Christ's One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and read the entire Bible, in the fullness of Christ

[Cronos]

And, pray tell, exactly where are you “studying” this from? Are you reading through the Church’s description of itself as in the Catechism? Are you reading through Church History? Are you reading from the Encyclopedia Britannica for impartial history? Or are you reading from some pastor who is telling you his opinion?