AND he keeps saying Saddam had WMD! What a whack job! Actually, I think most non-Catholics couldn't give a hoot about whether the church is incorrect. With that said, I've got no problem with the man suggesting that the church led by the man in a dress and fancy hat leaves a bit to be desired.
A protestant minister not agreeing with or believing Catholic doctrine is obvious, otherwise he would be Catholic himself. The term 'apostate church' suggests somehow the Catholic Church is evil or somehow leading people away from Christ. As a Catholic I can believe that Protestants believe (or don't believe) in a lot of things I do. But that doesn't mean I can't respect them for their love for Christ, which is genuine, even if they don't participate in or believe in things I think are essential for a Christian, whether they are aware of them or not.Or you could look at it from the opposite perspective, that protestants are heretics who abandon the faith practiced since the time of the apostles.The focus is either on the unity or the disunity and that affects your outlook on other churches.
anonymous, i think what is "obvious" to you and I is not obvious to those arguing about it. But, I'm glad I'm not alone.While I think that you could definitely argue convincingly the Catholic Church as an evolution of the faith of the early apostles, I'd be very interested to hear an argument for how today's Catholic Church resembles even closely the practices of the apostles as we see in the Scriptures.Whether we should unify despite these differences is a very interesting topic.
one must hate sin but love the sinner.also, just to be historically correct, the apostles did not practice their faith like the catholics. Catholicism wasn't formed until after the conversion on contantine in the fourth century. funny that the empire apostles like Paul and John referenced as the "New Babylon" and may have been led by the anti-christ, nero, is the same empire that started modern Catholicism. this is said in with the understanding that most protestant christians also do not practice their faith like the apostles and are highly influenced by empire. that is all. lauren
doing any reading on the Church Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus)- some of who were followers of the apostles such as John- will show that they believed in such things as the Eucharist, infant baptism, praying for the dead, etc. Constantine didn't start Catholicism. Reading about these believers from 200 years before him and thats apparent. And if your argument is that these things aren't explicitly stated in the Bible, I don't think the apostle John's teachings would contradict scripture, unless you want to argue that his faith was "corrupted" at even that early point.
anonymous vs. anonymous...this is confusing.
I know of a church that has apostles called by Christ today and organized by Him, if anyone is interested...
yes, there's quite a few churches today who believe that they are that church.
The Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, most apostolic churches...and to a different extent, any church that believes in apostolic succession, but believes that the number of apostles are not limited to 12
The Roman Catholic Church has bishops seen as "successors" to the apostles, not as actual ordained apostles. This is what apostolic succession usually refers to. I believe that a true church of Christ would have the same organization as set up by Christ in His ministry.
What is the source of the modern-day anti-Catholic sentiment, though? Is it simply a matter of the blatant mismanagement by some in the hierarchy? If so fine, but otherwise, there seem to be just as big of doctrinal differences between some Protestant denominations, yet you rarely hear them going at it with the same venom. Unless, of course, it's an intradenominational dispute, in which case all bets are off.
steve,that's a great question. i think a lot of protestants disagree among themselves as to the specifics of their faiths (church practices, etc.)But, they would contend that their disagreement with Catholicism is at a higher level - what the actual gospel is - saved by grace through faith.Though, many Catholics would probably agree to that terminology, they may also argue that more is needed on top of that.
I seem to remember back when I was in high school their being a joint Catholic-Lutheran statement on how you're saved by faith but that good works are a sign of that faith, a desire to do as God intends.
i think that's a pretty wrap-up of the book of James, so probably a good statement. So, then the question comes, can my works discount my salvation by faith? And that tends to be a point of argument within the Protestant churches as well.So, I don't know. Maybe it's the Mary stuff and the attribution of saints, and the divine nature of the papacy that causes the riff, and not necessarily the actual Gospel story?
Post a Comment