Posted on 01/23/2014 9:29:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourcatholicfaith.org ...
21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine’s conversion) to 1517 (Luther’s arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of “reinventing the wheel.”
22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn’t, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.
23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).
24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.
25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.
26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a “Johnny-come-lately” in the history of Christianity. Therefore it cannot possibly be the “restoration” of “pure”, “primitive” Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a “parasite” of Catholicism, historically and doctrinally speaking.
27. The Protestant notion of the “invisible church” is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; Mt 16:18), therefore untrue.
28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting “cults”), they say “the Church taught . . .” (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.
29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (esp. in Protestant America) in which (invariably) man-centered “cults” such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can “start” a new, or “the true” Church is Protestant to the core.
30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a “Bible, Holy Spirit and me” mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed “infallible” statements about the nature of Christianity.
Re: Mark 2:7
Jesus didn’t tell them they were wrong.
We are all sinners.
I would amend Evelyn’s words a bit and say:
You have no idea how much nastier I would be if I was not in Christ Jesus.
Read “Raggamuffin Gospels by Brennen Manning, a former Catholic Priest.
The theological interpretation of “no salvation outside the catholic church” is that people may be saved based on a partial connection to the Catholic Church. A baptized Protestant has a connection to Christ (and the body of Christ - which includes his church) through baptism and may be saved. Even a pagan who does not know Christ MAY be saved if they cooperate with the grace God has given them (e.g. following the last 7 commandments) and do not know Christ through no fault of their own. But this is also a form of a connection to the Catholic Church (i.e. following 7 commandments).
The bible discusses that many righteous Jews, who did not know Christ, achieving salvation.
Your views on salvation are an “enlightened” view in the eyes of mankind but have no foundation in His Holy written Words. It is true God is the Judge, but He did give us the command to love and believe in His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. And if the Beatitudes save us then why was there a need for the Cross and Empty Tomb? We are told without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins.
I am not flaming here but conversing. We see in Matthew 5 Jesus tells that we must be as perfect as The Father in order to attain salvation according to the Law, which includes the Beatitudes. A Muslim following that and following fully without fail or fall the entire Law, will enter the Kingdom of God. Find me one person in all of human history who can claim this and we will conclude no one. Only the Son of God Jesus Christ truly God and truly man can claim this Perfection. Therefore the need for this spotless Lamb of God to go to the Cross.
Salvation is at the foot of the cross and the empty tomb. Not on Mt Sinai, but on Mt Zion.
ROTFLOL!
I guess sometimes their Augustinian roots come out!
Notice he is the only “church father” they really don’t want to talk about?
Evidence that the early church fathers believed the doctrine of Mary as it is believed by the church today?
OK.
Those are weasel words. If they don’t know Christ and put their faith in Him they will NOT be saved.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Does that mean God condemns the billions of people that ....through no fault of their own...were born on a part of the planet, or at a time that had no knowledge of Jesus? Or am I misunderstanding?
Calvin and Luther cannot in any real sense be compared to Augustine, Aquinas, or Benedict. Their theology is now in ashes.
Yes I was getting at #3 evangelism. On the pages of FR RF the catechism is sometimes presented as the Gospel.
Of course I have and also investigated the meaning of the Greek words used. Those sins were forgiven by God and only proclaimed forgiven by the knowledge that God forgives the sins of those who confess and repent. Scripture is clear that only God can forgive sins. We can proclaim that forgiveness through the understanding of scripture.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
The arrogance of the RCC in claiming to have that ability is heresy.
Oh give me a break. Both they and Jesus understood fully that by asking that question they were trying to accuse Him of claiming to be God which Jesus did not deny but only confirmed.
To the contrary.
ST. AUGUSTINE: “The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit”.
Did you miss this, CB? God DOES forgive our sins!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3115093/posts?page=196#196
I believe that is called a "red-herring" argument. The pope speaks with the voice of men. James spake as he was moved by the Holy Spirit he received on the day of Pentecost. Big difference!
What is the Holy Ghost? The Words and Power of the real Holy Father: Christ! Modern men and ministers may claim to speak with the Holy Ghost, but it is most doubtful. Generally, if not exclusively, they speak with the voice of the "fathers" (founders) of their particular indoctrination (e.g., their creed.)
I would recommend these verses by James as good instructions in righteousness (but it is all God's Word:)
". . . if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2:9)
Would you show favouritism to the pope, cardinal or bishop over a poor, ragged man? If so, you commit sin.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." (James 1:5-6)
Was James asking them to ask James for wisdom? No.
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17)
James said, himself, that the good gifts do not come from James. How about this next one?
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)
Like I said, there is no chain of command in the Church. We don't need to confess our sins to a priest. Any Christian will do.
Philip
So the translations are all grossly inaccurate? I.e., they clearly have Jesus saying that he is giving the Apostles the power to forgive sins, not “proclaim that sins have been forgiven.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.