Free Republic

Marysecretary wrote: My sins are cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

The Pope, I and all Catholics say "Amen" with you Sister. We (Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians) actually have more in common with each other than many on this forum think we do.

I am the original (and first time) poster, and I have read most of the comments. As a former Protestant and now Catholic, my conviction is, now more than ever, that we are for the most part utterly ignorant of each other. Protestants don't know what Catholics really believe, and Catholics don't know why Protestants think the way they do. But we both love, worship and serve the same Triune God, although I'm not sure everybody here would even agree on that statement.

Blessings and Peace. KB

Marysecretary wrote: If you need to go to purgatory, go for it. As a born again believer and follower of Jesus Christ, we know He has already forgiven us our sins when we confess them to Him and repent of them.

Forgiveness of sins (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with Catholic teaching on Purgatory. You are perhaps confused about what the Church (and Paul) teach about Purgatory.

Blessings and Peace. KB

blasater1960 said: I was cool with the pope until he called for an enemy arab state in Judea and Samaria.

The Pope is very concerned about Arab Christians, who are for the most part are totally ignored by the same Western Christians who are very concerned about Israel's well being. It's not just wild-eyed terrorists and Jews living over there, you know. Our brother and sister Christians are suffering, and the Pope knows that very well.

National Geographic - Pope to Arab Christians: Keep the faith

This was their moment. For native Christians in the Holy Land—that small, beleaguered Arab community whose ancestors, on this very soil, were among the first to follow Jesus of Nazareth—the visit of Pope Benedict XVI was nothing less than a godsend. Finally, here was a western Christian who understood their predicament. Like envoys of a forgotten world, Arab Christians embody the fierce and hunted spirit of the early Church. They worship in simple, ancient churches, some dating to the fourth and fifth centuries, and they preserve, in their rituals and liturgy, the earliest expressions of what it means to be a Christian. Relatively wealthy, well educated, and politically moderate, they are the people Middle Eastern societies can least afford to lose. Yet today they are abandoning their homelands as never before, exhausted by political turmoil, robbed of hope and opportunity, and alarmed by the rise in Islamist violence in places like Iraq and Egypt, where they make a convenient target for those who hate the West. In the Holy Land, caught in the crossfire between Israel and all Palestinians, including Christians, their numbers have plummeted from perhaps 25 percent of the population a century ago to single digits today. Having covered these brave, close-knit communities for decades, most recently for this month’s National Geographic, I consider their exit a tragic loss, and so does Pope Benedict XVI, who picked his way through the political minefields of Jordan, Israel, and Palestine this week to deliver a message of hope to Arab Christians: Keep the faith. It’s important for all of us that they do. In a land of bitter conflict, Arab Christians have always been the go-betweens, the human bridge between the Islamic world and the Christian West. Their exodus now would leave a huge void—not only in the ancient stone churches where they worship, but also in the Middle East’s depleted reservoir of hope that so urgently needs replenishing. If the Pope’s vision of Middle East peace were to be realized—Muslims and Christians living together in a just, viable, prosperous Palestinian state at peace with Israel—many of the reasons Arab Christians leave would disappear. But in the meantime, just having their 2,000-year history celebrated by the world’s most prominent Christian is an answered prayer. According to my Palestinian friend Mark, from Bethlehem, most tourists to the Holy Land have never even heard of Arab Christians. “They think Christianity was invented in Italy or something. I had one lady ask me, ‘What does your family think about you being a Christian? I suppose they must have been very upset!’” —Don Belt

Fr Leslie Rumble - This guy had to be a boxer. I love him. Radio Replies volumes are worth their weight in gold. KB

It is a wonder, given the “extravagance”, that the Catholic Church has either the resources left, or even the love necessary, to be the most effective and largest provider of charitable services all over the world. I guess we must attribute it to God’s grace in spite of all the awful stuff you see in the Church.

Dutchboy88 wrote: And from there we have proof of the monolithic giant in Rome that has a Swiss Army, an entirely separate country, gold dripping off the ceiling, relics of old dead guys, men that wear tall hats and bling that Hollywood would kill for, the popemobile, and...

Wow, it almost sounds and looks like a real Kingdom of God on Earth. Visible and everything. Reminds me of the Lord's prayer.

Blessings and Peace. KB

I really appreciate Peter Kreeft and his work. His observation of the upheaval that takes place in the life of the Catholic convert because of their new understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is spot on. Catholic life is anchored in the Eucharist. We can pray that the sad story of 500 years of denominational schism might someday end when non-Catholics come to terms with the Scriptural and apostolic teaching and the historic Church's belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist .

Let's presume for the sake of discussion that your basic facts are correct, (which I am not conceding, as all the churches did acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first thousand years of the Church's history, piror to the Great Schism, including the African churches.)

Pretending that your contention is true, tossing Rome out of the equation, what reason would we have for any assurance that the decision as to the writings "ACCEPTED by the CHURCHES as being scripture" should be regarded as an infallible list. Why should we believe the "churches" got it right way back when.

By the way, Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul admits that the best the Protestant can say is that the Canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books". The reason he has to say that is because he is at least consistent, and he will not concede the possibility that the Catholic Councils were led by the Holy Spirit, based on Christ's promise that He would lead the Church into all truth, that He would never leave her, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and let's not forget Christ's prayer for the unity of his Body, the Church (even that is so old fashioned).

So...and sorry for the rambling prelude...the question is, what reason does the Protestant have for any assurance in the declared collection of books known as the Canon, when other books could have been included, and the inclusion of some books was debated and considered questionable. Who's to say they got it right?

But if the Catholic Church got the Canon right, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when exactly did the Catholic Church go wrong, and when exactly did the Holy Spirit depart from the Catholic Church, despite Christ's promise that such a thing would never happen?

OK, I am trying to decide it you are bothered by the wording of the headline that the Catholic Herald put on their article, or the fact that I did not edit their headline one iota, or both. I was simply pointing out to you that I didn't slap a provocative title on the post of my own creation, and that the title is substantiated in the original article by a survey.

Please forgive me for not adding necessary caveats and full disclosure that the survey was only of left handed British citizens between 5 foot 3 and 6 foot 1 over the age of 43.

I had almost forgotten how much you guys thrive on arguing over which shade of blue the beautiful blue sky really is.

Just kidding :)

Blessings and Peace. KB

Lupie:

Again, as I already have replied, The headline was pulled directly from the article that appeared at Catholic Herald and was linked to directly in the body of the post. The contention of the headline is based on the survey their article discusses.

Not trying to be deceptive. My original post was linked to several categories, including Protestant, Catholic, and Ecumenism (as in Protestants and Catholics who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ actually talking to each other, and not past each other, so as to better understand each other).

As to me wanting to "get the Brothers talking", this is a forum, is it not. I thought that was the purpose of a forum, discussion.

And as for my content, approach, or attitude being annoying, please accept my apology.

Blessings and Peace. KB

kingpins10 wrote: Canon of Scripture did not come to us first by the catholic church. So please do not throw us into your beliefs. I, nor any other Protestant assumes it was “true in the 4th century.” You are approximately 250 years late.

Where did the "Table of Contents" in the front of your Bible come from? Who do you believe decided which books were in and which books were out? Do you really believe that the historic Councils I referenced are not universally acknowledged as having made this determination? Again, even Protestant theologians acknowledge this. It really is not conjecture, it is historic fact. I have given you the facts. Do you wish to provide conflicting facts to debunk what the rest of Protestant and Catholic theologians accept as true?

Blessings and Peace. KB

kingpins10 wrote: No Protestant I have ever talked to could ever accept that the pope is infallible. The pope is a man who sins. To say he doesn’t is blasphemy, plain and simple.

You apparently do not understand what Papal Infallibility, or Church Infallibility means.

If you will read my original post you will see that I myself volunteer that the Pope is a sinner, just like you and me. He can and does sin. The Catholic Church does not teach and never has taught otherwise. If you would like to know what the Church really teaches about Papal Infallibility this link is helpful.

Blessings and Peace. KB

Kingpins10, have you given thought to why Protestants should believe that the New Testament Canon of Scripture is complete and correct, given that it came to us by way of the Catholic Church councils, as they claim they were led by the Holy Spirit? Why would Protestantism accept this? Was the Catholic Church true then? If so, when did it cease to be true? If it ceased to be true at some point, why would you assume it was true in the 4th century when it ruled on the Canon of the New Testament. Was it also true when, at the Council of Nicea, the doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed? How do you know? How can you trust anything that the Catholic Church gave the world?

Blessings and Peace. KB

chs68 wrote: Neither your post here nor your blog (which your link points to) provides any evdience to back up your statement that "Most believers say that the Pope is 'not a true Christian leader'".

Did you actually read the blog post? The headline was pulled directly from the article that appeared at Catholic Herald and was linked to directly in the body of the blog post. They said it, well, actually the survey they reported on said it...not me.

Blessings and Peace. KB

Thanks.

Not bent out of shape at all. Not offended by the disdain that Protestantism has for the Catholic Church. Heck, I used to be one of 'em. And I hope I'm not self-righteous, even if I came across that way. Sorry about that. I didn't make this stuff up, so what is there to be self-righteous about. I didn't even believe the Catholic Church to be true for the first 47 years of my life, so again, nothing for me to be self-righteous about. I drag my sorry backside into the confessional on a regular basis...so definitely nothing for me to be self-righteous about. :)

But, the truth is what it is.

And, I just like to get all the Brothers talking, and thinking...well, maybe hoping for real thinking is a stretch. Most minds are made up. And that is why we are a fractured "body" of believers.

Oh well. I'll shut up now.

Blessings and Peace. KB

BuckeyeTexan wrote: ("This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ, and Him who sent Christ.?") The Council teaches that - the Bible doesn’t teach that.

I asked: Do you believe that the Canon of Scripture fell out of heaven?

kingpins10 wrote: No one believes Scripture fell from heaven. It was written by Godly men who were led by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, preserved by God’s protection through the ages. If the Bible just ‘appeared’, who would believe it ?

I asked, relevant to both men's comments: Who decided what books were inspired, inerrant, and infallible and deemed them, therefore, the Word of God and worthy to be included in the Canon of Scripture?

kingpins10 answered: There are many Godly men responsible for the Scriptural Canon. Peter and Paul were 2 of the originators. I’m interested in who you think decided Scriptural Canon.

Okay. There is no thinking about who decided Scriptural Canon. It is a matter of historical record. Councils comprised of the Bishops of the Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture. It is not a secret. Even Protestant theologians acknowledge this fact, although they are unwilling or unable to grasp the implications of the fact that Protestantism has to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church councils (and the Papacy) as regards what books comprise the Canon of Scripture.

Of course, at the time of the Reformation, Luther et al were compelled to throw out seven of the Old Testament Books. And if Luther had his way, the NT book of James would have been excluded as well, as Luther cared not for what James had to say about faith being dead apart from good works, and stated that "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove". He was overruled by others, however, so he begrudgingly had to put James back in "his Bible".

Here is an excerpt from Catholic.com:

"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon."

"The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others."

"Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!"

One other question. From whence came the declared, authoritative and final doctrine on the Trinity?

Who decided what books were inspired, inerrant, and infallible and deemed them, therefore, the Word of God and worthy to be included in the Canon of Scripture?

Do you believe that the Canon of Scripture fell out of heaven?

So your Dad’s “Circle of Trust” is pretty small? Sounds like the Presbyterian crowd I used to run with. The headline was pulled verbatim from one of the Catholic news services, by the way. Yeah, kind of like saying “Sun rose in the East this morning”.