Why I can’t be Protestant or non-denominational - Page 2

FK04US · #16 Nov 2, '09, 9:08 pm

Because I cannot see my life without Our Lady. I really don´t understand how they do it.

JustaServant · #17 Nov 4, '09, 5:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heliotropium

Why I can’t be Protestant or non-denominational

1) To be Protestant would mean that I would have to deny or ignore the history of Christianity and that for 1500 years my church did not exist.

2) I would have realize that Protestants were Catholics before they split, and that their intentions back then were not to leave the Catholic Church unlike the protestants today.

3) I would have to accept that my interpretation if not in line with the Catholic Church could not be found anywhere in the writings of the early Christians. I would also have to accept the fact that my Church could not be traced back to the Apostles by means of my own Churches sources, or secular sources. That the only thing claiming to tie me to the Apostles was my Churches interpretation which was non existent until after the 1500s or whenever my Church was founded which also was not before the 1500s.

4) To be non-denominational I would have to ignore the fact that while being non-denomination I still go to a church that is visible to hear Gods Word while believing that I visible church was not established to preach and teach Gods Word. This would be like using the TV to advertise to others that TV should not be used to advertise.

5) I would have to ignore the fact that the Bible was not a household book until much later even after the printing press, and that the first Christians were not Bible Christians but Church Christians since they had to go to Church to hear Gods Word.

6) I would have to also then realize that the only Church that was doing this mission of teaching Gods Word was the Catholic Church.

7) I would have to deny the Catholic Churches claim of infallibility while at the same time taking the Bible as an infallible book which was written by Gods chosen Apostles who are the first bishops of His Church.

8) I would have to accept the fact that the first Protestant Bibles like the KJV had the same books as the Catholic Bible.

9) I would have to ignore the historical fact that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible Canon and that by the Churches authority it is the very reason for why we have the Bible Canon. For instance many writings were circulated at the same time the Apostles wrote their Gospels, and Epistles. It was the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that said this is inspired and this was not. Example would be the Apocalypse of Peter vs. the Apocalypse of John. It is by the Catholic Churches decision that the Apocalypse of Peter was not inspired and that the Apocalypse of John was which is why we have St. Johns Apocalypse in the Bible.

10) In the Bible I would have to ignore the famous verse in Matthew 16:18 where Christ changes the name of Simon to Peter and where he says upon this rock (Peter) he would build His Church. I would have to ignore that in Scripture when God changes a persons name it signifies a special role that person will take on. I would have to deny the list of Popes the Catholic Church has as proof of their succession of St. Peter. I would have to also ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is built upon the tomb of Saint Peter so if you take the verse literally the Catholic Church still fulfills Christ Word.

11) Bible verses such as:

“”Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27”” would make no sense if God was speaking symbolically in regards to the bread being His body, and the wine being His blood. For instance if I believe that God was speaking symbolically this verse would be a contradiction because how could I be guilty of Christ’s body, and blood if it is a symbol and not really His body and blood? This would be like me making a cardboard cutout of a stick figure and saying this is a symbol of you, but then also saying if someone steps on this cutout they are actually and literally stepping on you, thus being guilty of physically walking on you. This would not make since unless I meant that the cardboard cutout was actually and literally your body.

I have many more but these are just off the top of my head. Other Catholics are welcome to add on to this

Excellent points. Thank you.

crazzeto · #18 Nov 4, '09, 6:07 am

I could never be anything other than Catholic, or failing that in some weird parallel universe Eastern Orthodox.

Catholic because:
All my studies have convinced me throughly that we are in fact the original faith. It's hard to over look the Primacy of Peter (which technically, the Orthodox don't deny... First among equals?...), it's hard to over look the fact that in the greek Acts of the Apostles, "Catholic Church" appears (referenced in How Old is the Catholic Church), it's hard to over look the fact that all the fathers wrote of the "Catholic Church".

It's sad that we split, ultimitly along geographic lines with our Orthodox breatheren. As with our seperated Protistant brothers I pray for our unity.

Orthodox as a second choice because:
They may be seperated, they may try to find all kind of elaborate ways to get around the Priamcy of Peter (while acknowleging it, weird), but they haven't completely abondoned the true faith. They are well grounded in ancient tradition, have done a good job retaining their liturgies and reject all of the new fangled idea's introduced by the protistant reformers leading so many well meaninged but unsuspecting souls astray.

Ultimiatly it's not my desire though, to join a seperated faith. Instead, I will pray for our ultimate unity.