Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old Feb 21, '12, 10:29 pm
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical View Post
from over here I seem to be doing quite well...I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Clearly


Quote:
could be...it isn't as if I am infallible...but then again, it wouldn't count anyway, b/c it wasn't an official teaching of mine
Can you recognize infallibility? Or an infallible teaching? When you disagree with Catholic dogma, are you not giving your own private teaching by saying things contrary to the Dogma?

Quote:
not even close...but hey, it is good to see that you are trying to figure things out.
no it's that their ability to shepherd is negated. Someone might ask, if they can't run their own household properly or keep themselves in line, then how can one expect that they would be able to run God's household or keep God's children in line?
So you recognize that the sinning Catholic Bishop's have been entrusted in running God's household then, good

If only the holiest of men can be entrusted to truth, then where must one go? To some pious guy with no authority? There are some very pious Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. There are also some pious trinitarian Christians that teach all sorts of nonsense as well, do we follow them? They have the Scriptures, The Holy Spirit, and they are pious, so why not follow a guy like Joel Olsteen, or Greg Laurie? They seem pious to me!

Quote:
IMHO a minister (aka priest and/or bishop) ain't needed at all for a valid baptism or valid Lord's Supper....Now, does that sound like a Donatist position to you?
Quote:
agreed, men aren't needed at all
Sure, I agree with the baptism part in regards to a priest or bishop, but the Eucharist, no, I disagree. I would not go as far to say that men are not needed, why would Christ have disciples baptize, or do anything, if men are not part of His plan? Is each man his own Island in the household of God? So why not let people baptize themselves, or administer the Eucharist to themselves? If the Eucharist is just reduced to a meal with bread and wine to remember Christ passion, then how is it any different than saying grace before a meal. I do that when I'm with a couple of friends, or if I'm alone. Is there any required words to read from when commemorating the Lords supper? Why, can't we just remember Him in our own way? Just me and Jesus!

Maybe you can point us Catholics towards some pious guy that has a bible, and is full of the Holy Spirit, because it seems many of us Catholics fall short of your standard if piety!
  #47  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:21 pm
Radical Radical is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,975
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by onemangang View Post
Can you recognize infallibility?
only fallibly
Quote:
When you disagree with Catholic dogma, are you not giving your own private teaching by saying things contrary to the Dogma?
possibly...though at times my view is the majority view w/i Christianity...so it would seem inappropriate to call it my private teaching

Quote:
So you recognize that the sinning Catholic Bishop's have been entrusted in running God's household then, good :
a portion of it, yes...but did God do the entrusting?...did he condone something in blatant violation of his requirements?

Quote:
If only the holiest of men can be entrusted to truth, then where must one go? To some pious guy with no authority?
give the pious guy the authority...take it from the unrighteous

Quote:
There are some very pious Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. There are also some pious trinitarian Christians that teach all sorts of nonsense as well, do we follow them?
are things that bad w/i the CC that you would have to go outside the CC to find a pious fellow?
Quote:
They have the Scriptures, The Holy Spirit, and they are pious, so why not follow a guy like Joel Olsteen, or Greg Laurie? They seem pious to me!
are they w/i your congregation? 1 Tim and Titus clearly contemplate appointing someone from w/i the local congregation...that should be do-able.


Quote:
Sure, I agree with the baptism part in regards to a priest or bishop, but the Eucharist, no, I disagree. I would not go as far to say that men are not needed, why would Christ have disciples baptize, or do anything, if men are not part of His plan?
b/c it pleases him to allow men to contribute.

Quote:
Is each man his own Island in the household of God?
nope

Quote:
So why not let people baptize themselves, or administer the Eucharist to themselves?
such could be done...but it is called communion for a reason

Quote:
If the Eucharist is just reduced to a meal with bread and wine to remember Christ passion, then how is it any different than saying grace before a meal. I do that when I'm with a couple of friends, or if I'm alone.
b/c it is a special sort of remembrance

Quote:
Is there any required words to read from when commemorating the Lords supper?
no formula is required, but utilizing the words of Christ can only help.

Quote:
Maybe you can point us Catholics towards some pious guy that has a bible, and is full of the Holy Spirit, because it seems many of us Catholics fall short of your standard if piety!
the standard that I have pointed to is the standard set out in 1 Tim and Titus....it isn't my standard. Why do you struggle with submitting to that standard?
  #48  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:34 pm
Radical Radical is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,975
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebor135 View Post
I'll restate the question: what do you regard the uncorrupted doctrine of communion to be?
Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in...the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

Quote:
What I meant was that Arius negated the Trinitarian notion that Christ was uncreated. Do you believe that members of the body of Christ in good standing may be either Arian or Trinitarian?
it is a possibility that I wouldn't deny


Quote:
I understand. Do the three churches you attend follow what you see as the pure doctrine/practice of communion?
no, they have taken much away from it.

Quote:
And this is what Muslims/JW's might argue about the trinity.
and?

Quote:
Do you believe in regenerative/symbolic, infant/adult baptism?
infant - no

Quote:
Private judgment and invisible church came about in the sixteenth century, yet do you not accept those doctrines?
private judgement has always existed....it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement
  #49  
Old Feb 22, '12, 6:38 pm
Sufjon Sufjon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 1,466
Religion: Learning about Christianity
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by malu2u View Post
I'm shocked to see an incredible ignorance and confusion among some "Christian" groups who claim to "love" Catholics yet set up websites that are only promoting hatred and anger towards anything Catholic.

Has anyone seen the website by an ex-priest by last name Bennett? I understand that he has two sites dedicated to ministering to Catholics. One of these websites even carries the misleading title something like "What All Catholics Need to Know."

Normally, I would avoid giving publicity to these types of websites, but I'm wondering why there are people out there who seemingly mean well yet are really creating more division among Christians.
In and of itself, pride cannot exist without ignorance. To be proud is a sign that one is ignorant of the nature of our being.

Your friend,
Sufjon
  #50  
Old Feb 23, '12, 12:36 am
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical View Post
only fallibly
Ok, I think that this would be a long discussion on how infallibility is recognized and would spiral out into epistemology.

How revealed truth has been revealed to men, is where we differ, I guess.

A Catholic would say an infallible religious authority,like all authority operating in the human sphere, had to manifest itself through a visible social order to be effective in the world. Christ intentionally chose a visible social order rather than a text to mediate His infallible authority to the world.

If Christ appointed a Church to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

A Protestant response (Charles Hodge) would be Scripture confronts each person. "It is the experience of true Christians in all ages and nations that their faith is founded on the spiritual apprehension and experience of the power of the truth." They believe Scriptures to be the Word of God because of "the witness in themselves."

Quote:
possibly...though at times my view is the majority view w/i Christianity...so it would seem inappropriate to call it my private teaching
Are your views the majority view within Christianity on infant baptism?

Most Christians practice infant baptism The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, the Anglican churches, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Church of the Nazarene, the Reformed Church in America,[ the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Continental Reformed.

Lets see who doesn't
Groups within the Protestant tradition that reject infant baptism include the Baptists, Apostolic Christians, Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, most Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-day Adventists, and most non-denominational churches. Infant baptism is also excluded by Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Latter Day Saints.

Quote:
a portion of it, yes...but did God do the entrusting?...did he condone something in blatant violation of his requirements?
I don't understand what you mean by a portion and did God do the entrusting?
I would say yes God did the entrusting, but hasn't left the Church to herself. He guides Her.

Did he condone or allow something in violation to his requirements? Well, can God use a sinner to accomplish a goal. I would say He can, that doesn't mean that He's condoning the sin. So only, non-sinners can shepherd a flock, are your pastors sinnless?

Quote:
give the pious guy the authority...take it from the unrighteous
Hypothetically speaking, lets say two of the most pious people are a Buddhist, the other a J.W., so we give them authority? First of all we don't have the right to bestow or grant Authority, that is God ordained.

Protestants lack a ministerial priesthood role of authority given by God, the only authority a protestant pastor has as a "shepherd overseeing a flock" is secular, it is the consent of the willing to be governed. Each baptized person shares in the same authority as the pastor through their baptism, in the priesthood of all believers.

Quote:
are things that bad w/i the CC that you would have to go outside the CC to find a pious fellow?
Being that I don't think the authority of the bishop is contingent on his piousness, but on the words of Christ, and His ability, it doesn't matter where I go. I don't have Authority to elect who I think should be a shepherd. That's a protestant notion.

Quote:
are they w/i your congregation? 1 Tim and Titus clearly contemplate appointing someone from w/i the local congregation...that should be do-able.
Again I don't have the authority to appoint, but are those, that are members of my congregation, entrusted by divine mandate to shepherd the flock. Yes, I'm Catholic, the entire Church is One, and all, that are Catholic, are part of my congregation, or Ekklesia. So a member of the Catholic Church will receive Holy Orders, through Apostolic authority!

Quote:
such could be done...but it is called communion for a reason
Communion with who? We have communion with Christ who is truly present body, blood soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, do you?

Quote:
b/c it is a special sort of remembrance
Oh, just not substantial, in a real, and tangible way, rather than imaginary kind of way.

Quote:
no formula is required, but utilizing the words of Christ can only help.
The entire Liturgy throughout the history of Christianity, revolved around the Eucharist, and it has been reduced to nothing more than an elevated saying of grace before a meal. Bravo Protestantism, you've come a long way baby.

From the truth of Transubstantiation, to the Lutheran Consubstantiation, to the Presbyterian Receptionism, down to Memorialism, which seems like nothing more than a head nod of acknowledgement

Quote:
the standard that I have pointed to is the standard set out in 1 Tim and Titus....it isn't my standard. Why do you struggle with submitting to that standard?
I don't struggle with it. On the whole, throughout History there have been a small number of people, that were blatant sinners. I understand the Catholic teaching on Infallibility, which does not mean the impeccability of the person.

I think that it demonstrates Christ abillity to keep his Church from error and shows the Promise He made, by having sinful men, shepherd Her. That only bears witness to Him.

How was authority given and to whom?

I don't have the time or space to write it out so here is a link

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apo...uccession.html
  #51  
Old Feb 24, '12, 5:45 am
malu2u malu2u is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2012
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

[quote=Radical;8994234]Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in...the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

Interesting that you mention the Passover. I think that God took very seriously the Passover and its consequent observance. In fact, the Jewish people to this day observe it precisely because it was mandated by God to be celebrated, observed, and experienced by every single generation. Didn't Paul say that Jesus is our Paschal lamb; therefore, let us keep the feast? Forgive me if I misquoted his words, but he said something like that in reference to Jesus' sacrifice being our new Passover. And, the fact that the Last Supper was during the Passover meal and his discourse on his body being real food tells us that he elevated the truth of the Passover into the "new and everlasting covenant."

The passages in the Bible don't "prooftext" what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, but taking the entire Scriptures into consideration and the teachings of the Apostles it squares nicely with what the early Christians believed and what we still today believe as Catholic Christians.

As a Protestant Christian you might not want to believe in the Eucharist, but that doesn't make it any less true for us. So, when this is for you "a hard saying... who can believe it?" remember that you are not alone. Even some of Jesus' disciples left him when he made the claim. Read John 6:66 .
  #52  
Old Feb 28, '12, 7:06 am
rinnie rinnie is offline
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Posts: 12,238
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical View Post
Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in...the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

it is a possibility that I wouldn't deny


no, they have taken much away from it.

and?

infant - no

private judgement has always existed....it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement
Really? The Passover was only Symbols? I must have missed that part. Could you show me where Christ said this is a SYMBOL of my Body which will be given up for you, This is a SYMBOL of my blood which will be given up for you.

Then comes to the hanging and death of the Cross. Was that also just a SYMBOL then? Because Christ said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He said he body was the true temple.

Funny how if he meant SYMBOL why he did not say that. And more ironic is when he said it and MANY waked away when he stated QUITE clear may I add, that unless you eat the flesh of Man and Drink his blood you have not life in you.

Remember that Part? Why was it many walked away and said he was MAD!! Crazy, Why did Christ not say, Hold on guys, I mean the bread and wine are just SYMBOLS not actual.

Or could it be the Church is correct and Christ meant what he said!!
  #53  
Old Feb 28, '12, 7:17 am
rinnie rinnie is offline
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Posts: 12,238
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Radical, I also have another question for you, If Jesus did not mean what he said why did the Apostles teach it the EXACT same way. Are you trying to say the Apostles got it WRONG also?

Another thing Christ said unless you eat and drink you have not eternal life in you. Are you trying to say Christ put something impossible for us to live up to. If you are correct and Christ and his Church and Apostles are wrong we cannot possibly have any life in us then.

How do you explan this?

I am going to be out for the next day or so, but will check in around late Wed or Thurs. I am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about all of this.
  #54  
Old Feb 28, '12, 7:20 am
rinnie rinnie is offline
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Posts: 12,238
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical View Post
Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in...the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

it is a possibility that I wouldn't deny


no, they have taken much away from it.

and?

infant - no

private judgement has always existed....it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement

While I am on a roll Where is it said that Infants cannot be baptised? Why did it say after Peter made his speech ALL were baptised that day?

Why does it not say all Adults were Baptised that day? And also why does Christ say do not hinder the Children let them come to me? How if they cannot be baptised in his name? How can Children come to him if not in baptism.

Would not be denying them Baptism be hindering them?
  #55  
Old Feb 28, '12, 8:52 pm
Radical Radical is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,975
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie View Post
I am going to be out for the next day or so, but will check in around late Wed or Thurs. I am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about all of this.
and I won't have time to answer until Thursday or Friday at the soonest
  #56  
Old Feb 29, '12, 11:45 am
mangy dog mangy dog is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2007
Posts: 1,922
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Pride mixed with pretty much anything is bad enough.

Pride and ignorance is not so bad as far as pride goes.

However, to have knowledge and pride is many times more dangerous to self and others.
  #57  
Old Feb 29, '12, 9:54 pm
Radical Radical is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,975
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie View Post
Really? The Passover was only Symbols?
as Everett Ferguson described it:
The Passover meal commemorated the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the deliverance of the Israelites (Ex 12:14). More than that, it was a reliving in the present of those events, a bringing of them into the present so that those participating could think of themselves as experiencing the exodus. As the Mishnah put it, “In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt (Pesahim 10.5). I consider Jesus’ words, “This is my body” (Mark 14:22), in the same way. The bread brings the body into the present. The presence is real, but not literal. The meaning of the event is made present once more. Similarly, the remembrance (anamnesis) of 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, according to the Jewish background, was neither simply mental recollection nor the actual repetition of something but the celebration of a past event in order to live in its experience and to participate in its redemptive qualities. The historical deliverance is unrepeatable, but its effects are reaffirmed.
It is not as if the soldiers of the Egyptian army manifested with a real bodily presence and then died in the Red Sea (with the waters of Red Sea also having become substantially present at the Passover). The meaning was made present through the symbols, but the symbols remained symbols. It seems that Catholics around here think that, if the symbols are not just mere symbols, but serve to make the event present (meaningfully not literally), then they are free to assert that the ancients also believed in a real bodily presence akin to the current Catholic belief. (It is as if they can only envision two possible options: mere symbolism and a real bodily presence….and with mere symbolism ruled out, then a real bodily presence is the only possibility left.)
Quote:
I must have missed that part. Could you show me where Christ said this is a SYMBOL of my Body which will be given up for you, This is a SYMBOL of my blood which will be given up for you.
perhaps your Bible reads that Christ said, “This bread has now been changed into the substance of my body”….but mine doesn’t. It was wine before and it was still wine after and that is how Christ described it.
Quote:
Then comes to the hanging and death of the Cross. Was that also just a SYMBOL then?
you have no idea as to how symbols work, do you?
Quote:
Because Christ said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He said he body was the true temple.
so are you saying that the substance of the flesh ceased to exist and that it was replaced with the substance of stone blocks? …that would be, after all, the proper counterpart to what you think happens at your Eucharist.
Quote:
Funny how if he meant SYMBOL why he did not say that.
b/c it is so obvious that anyone should be able to understand it as a symbol (especially given the Jewish position on drinking blood )….OTOH, if he was performing a miracle and changing the substance of the bread into the substance of his body (a thing entirely foreign to Jewish thought and not discernible by observation), then that would have demanded an explanation
Quote:
And more ironic is when he said it and MANY waked away when he stated QUITE clear may I add, that unless you eat the flesh of Man and Drink his blood you have not life in you.
If you read that passage carefully, then you would note that:

a) the grumbling actually started with Jesus’ claim to have came down from heaven;

b) the reference to a hard saying and some disciples leaving follows another reference to Jesus coming down from heaven; and

c) Peter’s correct answer at the end of the passage ties better to the matter of Christ coming from heaven than it does to eating his flesh
Quote:
Remember that Part? Why was it many walked away and said he was MAD!! Crazy, Why did Christ not say, Hold on guys, I mean the bread and wine are just SYMBOLS not actual.
the Eucharist wasn’t even contemplated that day
Quote:
Or could it be the Church is correct and Christ meant what he said!!
if your Church merely asserted that Christ meant what he said, then no error would be involved..it is in the explanation of what was meant that your Church has erred.
  #58  
Old Feb 29, '12, 9:57 pm
Radical Radical is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,975
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie View Post
Radical, I also have another question for you, If Jesus did not mean what he said why did the Apostles teach it the EXACT same way. Are you trying to say the Apostles got it WRONG also?
no, I am saying that you and your Church have got it wrong wrt what Christ meant, wrt what the Apostles actually taught and wrt what a good many of the ECFs actually taught.
Quote:
Another thing Christ said unless you eat and drink you have not eternal life in you. Are you trying to say Christ put something impossible for us to live up to.
here is a news flash for you…you don’t actually eat his flesh and drink his blood…if you actually did that, then it would be a cannibalistic act….and you and yours deny that cannibalism is involved.
Quote:
If you are correct and Christ and his Church and Apostles are wrong we cannot possibly have any life in us then.
If I am (and the majority of Christians are) right then Christ, his Church and the Apostles would also be right ….and it would be you and your Church’s hierarchy and about half of your Church’s membership that would be wrong.
Quote:
How do you explan this?
very easily…I don’t need assistance from Greek philosophy and I don’t need to disregard my senses
Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie View Post
While I am on a roll Where is it said that Infants cannot be baptised?
is it Catholic doctrine to allow anything and everything that is not expressly prohibited in scripture?
Quote:
Why did it say after Peter made his speech ALL were baptised that day?
b/c all those who believed were baptized....did you think all of the people of Jerusalem were baptized that day?
Quote:
Why does it not say all Adults were Baptised that day?
could a newborn believe? You were talking about Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, right?

Quote:
And also why does Christ say do not hinder the Children let them come to me? How if they cannot be baptised in his name? How can Children come to him if not in baptism.
have you read that passage? How were kids coming to him on that day? It wasn’t through baptism…it isn’t mentioned. They came to him w/o baptism on that day.
Quote:
Would not be denying them Baptism be hindering them?
again, “hindering” occurred on that day (before Jesus intervened) and denying baptism to infants had nothing to do with it.
  #59  
Old Mar 10, '12, 8:48 am
Trebor135 Trebor135 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Posts: 2,131
Religion: Orthodox (ACROD)
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

So I'm finally getting round to replying. I apologize for the lengthy delay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical View Post
Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in...the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover
Interesting. I shall have to look into this issue further.

Quote:
it is a possibility that I wouldn't deny
Do you believe that any theological lines in the sand exist delineating "Christian" from "non-Christian"? How would you regard the status of a Muslim, who considers Jesus to be a human prophet?

Quote:
no, they have taken much away from it.
Have you considered founding your own church? If all other Christians are in error to one degree or another, it would seem incumbent upon someone with the truth to correct them.

Quote:
and?
I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses will claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a man-made innovation from the fourth century. I've heard one Muslim apologist, in a debate on the trinity, call for the discarding of Greek philosophy as a hindrance to attaining the truth. The same principles by which you go after one doctrine have the potential to undermine another.

After all, Matthew and Luke could have made Jesus into a demigod figure between the date of the resurrection and the time of writing, for which the textbook for a course on the New Testament I took last year essentially argued. The hypostatic union could be an innovation, but we just don't have documentary evidence showing the true original teaching.

Quote:
infant - no
How come?

Quote:
private judgement has always existed....it is part of our human nature.
I was employing the term with a specific definition: "reading Scripture to come up with the true faith on one's own (or with the aid of commentaries)".

Quote:
WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement
Why do you suggest this?
  #60  
Old Mar 11, '12, 6:43 am
Metamorphoo Metamorphoo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2008
Posts: 138
Religion: Nondem. Christian
Default Re: Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

[quote=Trebor135;8940318] Catholics don't set up organizations actively seeking to convert Protestants, but rather to explain their faith to all comers. QUOTE]

I don't know whether Catholics have organizations that actively seek to convert Protestants. But I do know that Catholics and the RCC ROUTINELY make it their mission to convert people to the Catholic Church. This is a source of great consternation to me personally. I understand evangelizing people who are not Christians--or are Christians in name only--but the focus among Protestants (at least evangelicals) is is upon leading that person to Christ Himself, not on membership within a particular Christian group. Yet if a person is living for Christ but is not a Catholic, Catholics still try to get them to convert to Catholicism.

Although I understand that certain segments of the Protestant world are rapidly anti-Catholic in their perspective, proselytization efforts cut both ways. It's not just some Protestant groups that are trying to get Catholics out of the RCC; the RCC tries to pull Protestants away from their faith and into the RCC.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8457Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3735Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3320Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3109For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: RevDrJBTDDPhD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:40 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.