Ask A Catholic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2014, 07:56 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 02:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Why are so many Protestants converting to Catholicism?

Source ?
The vast majority of the membership of the communities of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the US are made up of ex-catholics, as are Lutheran communities. 10% of Americans are now ex-Catholic.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The councils that decided the Canon of Scripture that would be in the first Christian Bible took place after Christianity became the official Religion of the Roman Empire and therefore it was the Roman Catholic Church that put together the first Bible and decided the New Testament Canon that is accepted by non-catholics.

It's a distinction without a difference. Protestantism emerged organically from the CHRISTIAN church as a result of the abuses in the Roman Church. The canon was disputed for centuries. The votes were not unanimous. The canon is still disputed today.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  There is overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church began in the first century and that the Papacy is nearly 2,000 years old http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

Wrong. There is evidence that the CHRISTIAN Church began in the first century, and the (supposed) primacy of the Roman COMMUNITY cannot be that early equated with what later developed as PAPAL primacy. They were not the same thing.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches...

...so if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century. if you follow that philosophy

No. Just all breaking the second commandment.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  So you say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority yet disagree on the interpretation where do we go?

Since there is a document that many are divided on wouldn't God leave us with a Supreme Court to interpret it and settle Doctrinal or interpretation disputes?

Anthropomorphism at it's worst. Justification after the fact. Even INSIDE the Roman Church there were always disagreements. Aquinas himself was censured early in his career. The fiction of "unity" is only that. The Fathers of the Church accused each other of, and admitted they used deception.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

And is therefore non-biblical. The Spirit in the Bible works UP THROUGH the community in many diverse ways. Not from the top down, in a unitary fashion.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and "every man for himself" confusion within the private interpretation system among laypeople.

Wrong again. EVERY saint had their own little peccadillo and point of emphasis. Basically their own little cults.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

So does the Anglican Church.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Church, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance.

Wrong. It emerged organically due the the ABUSES of the Roman Church, as a CONTINUATION. The fiction is that the Roman Church never really changed in any important way before that or throughout the centuries. In fact it changed RADICALLY, a lot, and continues to.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the ecumenical councils which defined and developed Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and the Nicene Creed which are embraced by most Protestants

Yeah the proceedings of the councils are hilarious to read, as HUMANS cooked up the bullshit, argued about it, threatened each other, and voted non-unanimously as they cooked up "the truth", pressured by POLITICIANS and political authorities to come up with an agreement. They didn't care WHAT they agreed on, just that they agreed the agree.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus cant be so lightly dismissed.

Wrong . The Anglican liturgy is far more beautiful now, after Rome jettisoned their traditions and sacred music and art in the 1960's. The Roman liturgy now is disjointed and ugly.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. This is against many centuries of Christian Tradition and therefore should not be lightly dismissed.

Reference ? Prove it.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence

No Jew would even CONSIDER touching or ingesting human flesh or any sort of blood. It was an abomination. Proof that later non-Jews added that crap. We know where it came from. The Greek 'thanksgiving" mysteries that Paul imported from Mithras/Zoroastrianism, as he invented HIS new religion, Paulianity, (now commonly called Christianity),

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

Wrong. The Anglican Church ordains priests, and requires the bishop to prove his apostolic succession.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

Assertion. No reference.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk
10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

Circular. Also marriage was not a sacrament until Trent named it one.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Many Protestant denominations (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) have changed their previous stances on women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality. Catholicism remains firm on what it has always taught of such behavior being forbidden or gravely sinful.

Yet continues to, in secret, (hypocritically) practice homosexuality at every level, including bishops and archbishops and cardinals WHOM I KNOW, but will remain publicly nameless. So what ? Paul named a woman as an apostle. Is it was good enough for him, why not the rest of the church.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Women pastors is contrary to Christian Tradition (including traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

Wrong again. It was unusual, but not unknown. The Bible says we ALL are made in the image and likeness of God. That's not good enough ?

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism sanctions contraception,(they changed their stance) in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Biblical Tradition.

Wrong. The Hebrews practiced abortion. It was approved in the OT, in some circumstances. The Hebrews did not believe in souls or immortality. That developed later in the late Apocalyptic period. The majority of women in the Roman Catholic Church, (by their own theology .. the "Mystical Body of Christ"), of child-bearing age, use some form of birth control. Thus, the "real church", (NOT the hierarchy), does approve of, and uses, birth control.The unspoken, fallacious assumption/premise, is that the hierarchy is the church. A term often used in the debate, is "artificial birth control". The definition of "artifical" is debated, but the use of hormones is never challenged, in other contexts. Ingesting hormones for any other purpose is not deemed "artificial", or challenged in any way. Nor is the taking of drugs by men to "artificially" alter their sexual performance, challenged in any way by the male Roman hierarchy, nor has it been an issue in the current debates. Nope. It's just about old men, controlling young women, and their bodies. Kinda creepy, actually.

There is also a completely artificial semantic game played by the Roman Church in it's creation of a "distinction without a difference" with birth control, when they say that "Natural Family Planning" is acceptable, as moral, even while maintaining, in their own Moral Theology, that the ultimate determining factor in a moral choice, is "intention". The "intent", no matter how it's done, by definition, of "Family Planning", is to MAKE A PLAN..an intentional act to prevent a pregnancy, which can include a whole series of intentional acts, (temperature taking, abstaining on certain days, even going to classes, etc etc,). Apparently they have a REALLY dumb god, who is unaware of their intentions.

The Pontifical Commission, set up by Pope John XXXIII, inside the Roman Curia, was given the job, back in the 1960's, to determine the impact of "artificial" birth control on the Roman Church. The disagreements within the commission ultimately led to the publication of the Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, by Paul VI. 1960, dissenters INSIDE the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions, on the subject and, in 1963 Pope John XXIII established the above commission, consisting of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and populations. After he died in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and five women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals).

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that ("artificial") birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about, or if, they wished to employ (any) method of birth control. According to the majority report, the use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

Quote:
"The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman--that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives--makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."

Proof that at the highest level in the Roman Church, there is no real agreement on "dogma". When JohnPaul I was about to change the stance to "non-important" he got himself murdered for the trouble, and the papers announcing the change which had been seen on his desk the night before his murder, disappeared, and have never been seen again, and Cardinals Villot and Baggio made the nun that found him vow she would never reveal what she had witnessed.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible.Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting there from and false predictions of the end times and belief's like the Rapture.

Wrong. There is no "rotestant" view on church authority, except the Biblical one of authority working by the Spirit from the bottom up, not the top down. The early church was not ruled by a central authority. The Patriarchates were EQUAL, until Rome asserted supremacy for political reasons.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Sola scriptura could be considered an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition.The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

Wrong. "Orthodoxy DEVELOPED. There is no "tradition" before humans cooked up the shit.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  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.

Wrong. Presbyters were not "bishops", and many protestants have them. They were ELECTED, not appointed by a foreign power.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively.

Wrong. The synods and communities VOTE, just like the Roman church did and does.

Can I become an apologist and make apologies for their idiocy and revisionist bullshit ? Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-07-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: Ask A Catholic
Well I'll have to get the source. I remember a few years back on the news there were many Anglican Church's, Diocese, and Bishops that were becoming Catholic and the Church has an Anglican rite now.

I'll look for sources. The councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo decided the Canon of Scripture BTW which included the Deuterocanonicals. and the Fathers of Protestantism decided they knew better.

I got to go now but will answer the rest of your post when I get time.

The Catholic argument is that God set up a supreme Court

The founding Fathers knew better than to leave a constitution without an interpreter. They set up a Supreme Court for that purpose. And do you think that the all-wise God would be less careful in a matter of even greater importance where the salvation of millions of immortal souls is at stake?--as a Catholic Apologist will say

Most assuredly not. He, too, set up a "Supreme Court," to guide and teach His people, and to interpret the law for them. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to deliver His people, the Israelites, from the Egyptians, and to rule over them during their 40 years of wandering in the desert towards the promised land.

In the Book of Numbers, Chap. 27, verses 12-23, as the time of his death approaches, Moses asks God to "provide a man that may be over this multitude and may lead them out, or bring them in: lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd.

And the Lord said to him: Take Joshua- a man in whom is the Spirit - and put thy hand upon him ... that all the congregation of the children of Israel may hear him... he and all the children of Israel with him,

And in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses was repeating and expounding to the Israelites the ordinances given on Mt. Sinai, with other precepts not expressed before...And thou shall come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time. And thou shalt ask of them. And they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment.

"And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee, according to His law. And thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God (i.e., the high priest), and the decree of the judge: that man shall die . . ." --God

And the footnote, Douay Bible, to this Ordinance states: "Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the church guides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal, all controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not err therein; and surely he has not done less for the church guides of the New Testament."

I assume the INternet is big and maybe there is a Protestant who will read this. I'm sure no atheist gives a flying fuck! LOL Tongue

BTW, in the World book encyclopedia there is an unbreakable chain of Popes (Bishops of Rome) dating back to the first century. The second was St. Linus who became Bishop of Rome in 67 AD.

The world book encyclopedia is not a Catholic book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 08:29 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  God chose Moses to deliver His people, the Israelites, from the Egyptians, and to rule over them during their 40 years of wandering in the desert towards the promised land.

Moses was a myth. Proven by archeology. There was no Exodus. Using the Bible to prove any point is circular. The Hebrew priests WROTE the Bible to insure their positions were safe. Joshua was also a myth from the Northern Kingdom. There was no central authority in the TWO KINGDOMS until the tribes demanded a king, and the prophets opposed the idea.

The Book of Deuteronomy has a known origin, and we know how and when and why it was cooked up for political control. No gods had anything to do with writing any of the texts. We can trace how and why most of them were written. It's all political jousting and squabbling. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s

"BTW, in the World book encyclopedia there is an unbreakable chain of Popes (Bishops of Rome) dating back to the first century. The second was St. Linus who became Bishop of Rome in 67 AD."

Being a bishop of Rome does not mean they were a "pope" until much later. It's meaningless. 1/2 of them were evil men with children and mistresses and lovers.

"The world book encyclopedia is not a Catholic book."
Neither is it known as a scholarly reference.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-07-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: Ask A Catholic
Source:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/article...e0252.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 03:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 09:27 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Source:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/article...e0252.html

Buncha crap.
He never says what the numbers are, going in the other direction.
"the first signs of an avalanche of conversions and reconversions.”
Really. The "first signs of an avalanche"? And what would those be exactly.
How would one know it's "the first signs" of a nothing, if it's "the first signs".
Send me Father Barron. I'll shred his (fat) ass to pieces.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 01:06 AM
RE: Ask A Catholic
I don't see why an atheist would give a fuck about this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
28-07-2014, 03:44 AM
RE: Ask A Catholic
(28-07-2014 01:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see why an atheist would give a fuck about this.

My thought also.
(Not that I actually think the OP here is not sincere....but it is rather weird).

Most of the traffic here is guests, and the search will come up on an internet search. So it was worth doing. Catholic "apologists" are so easy to pick off. There is no Catholic apologist around who cannot be refuted easily. Feser and Madrid spend all their time ranting, and in the end have no point. Serpa is a joke and a half. None of them actually know any real history. Feser actually teaches his version of Greek idealism at his second rate school in LA. It's a fun little game, (for about 2 minutes) to pop them off their pedestals.

As for the Catholic Church "being good for children" that is nonsense. They should be taught to think for themselves, not indoctrinated in the bullshit many of them will spend years working their way out of, ("recovering Catholics").

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 03:55 AM
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Okay I don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches anymore but I was a seasoned apologist when I was Catholic. I'm hoping I can debate Protestants and you might wonder, "well then why the fuck are you posting it at an Atheist forum".

It is because Christian forums are like elementary school. You can get banned for dropping an F bomb or disparaging God or the holy Bible. I'd like to debate Protestants on a forum that isn't superficial and you don't have to act like you grew up in a sheltered homeschooled environment.

Okay, so for you "Bible Christians", who think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, which most of you do, I can show you that Catholicism is more Biblical than you.

Why are so many Protestants converting to Catholicism?

The councils that decided the Canon of Scripture that would be in the first Christian Bible took place after Christianity became the official Religion of the Roman Empire and therefore it was the Roman Catholic Church that put together the first Bible and decided the New Testament Canon that is accepted by noncatholics.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church began in the first century and that the Papacy is nearly 2,000 years old http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches...

...so if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century. if you follow that philosophy

So you say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority yet disagree on the interpretation where do we go?

Since there is a document that many are divided on wouldnt God leave us with a Supreme Court to interpret it and settle Doctrinal or interpretational disputes?

Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and "every man for himself" confusion within the private interpretation system among laypeople.

Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Church, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance.

The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the ecumenical councils which defined and developed Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and the Nicene Creed which are embraced by most Protestants

Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus cant be so lightly dismissed.

Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. This is against many centuries of Christian Tradition and therefore should not be lightly dismissed.

Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence

Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk
10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

Many Protestant denominations (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) have changed their previous stances on women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality. Catholicism remains firm on what it has always taught of such behavior being forbidden or gravely sinful.

Women pastors is contrary to Christian Tradition (including traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

Protestantism sanctions contraception,(they changed their stance) in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Biblical Tradition.

Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible.Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting there from and false predictions of the end times and belief's like the Rapture.

Sola scriptura could be considered an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition.The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

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.

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 or interpretation x, y, or z; Or (in a more sophisticated fashion), the Protestant can simply accept the authority of some denominational tradition, confession, or creed (which then has to be justified over against the other competing ones). There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

[Image: papal+flag.png]

"Ask a Catholic" you say?

Cool; what's with the whole institutionalised cannibalism thing they've got going?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 04:56 AM
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 07:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Why are so many Protestants converting to Catholicism?

Source ?
The vast majority of membership of the communities of Protestant Episcopal Church in the US are made up of ex-catholics, as are Lutheran communities. 10% of Americans are now ex-Catholic.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The councils that decided the Canon of Scripture that would be in the first Christian Bible took place after Christianity became the official Religion of the Roman Empire and therefore it was the Roman Catholic Church that put together the first Bible and decided the New Testament Canon that is accepted by non-catholics.

It's a distinction without a difference. Protestantism emerged organically from the CHRISTIAN church as a result of the abuses in the Roman Church. The canon was disputed for centuries. The votes were not unanimous. The canon is still disputed today.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  There is overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church began in the first century and that the Papacy is nearly 2,000 years old http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

Wrong. There is evidence that the CHRISTIAN Church began in the first century, and the (supposed) primacy of the Roman COMMUNITY cannot be that early equated with what later developed as PAPAL primacy. They were not the same thing.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches...

...so if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century. if you follow that philosophy

No. Just all breaking the second commandment.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  So you say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority yet disagree on the interpretation where do we go?

Since there is a document that many are divided on wouldn't God leave us with a Supreme Court to interpret it and settle Doctrinal or interpretation disputes?

Anthropomorphism at it's worst. Justification after the fact. Even INSIDE the Roman Church there were always disagreements. Aquinas himself was censured early in his career. The fiction of "unity" is only that. The Fathers of the Church accused each other of, and admitted they used deception.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

And is therefore non-biblical. The Spirit in the Bible works UP THROUGH the community in many diverse ways. Not from the top down, in a unitary fashion.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and "every man for himself" confusion within the private interpretation system among laypeople.

Wrong again. EVERY saint had their own little peccadillo and point of emphasis. Basically their own little cults.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

So does the Anglican Church.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Church, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance.

Wrong. It emerged organically due the the ABUSES of the Roman Church, as a CONTINUATION. The fiction is that the Roman Church never really changed in any important way before that or throughout the centuries. In fact it changed RADICALLY, a lot, and continues to.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the ecumenical councils which defined and developed Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and the Nicene Creed which are embraced by most Protestants

Yeah the proceedings of the councils are hilarious to read, as HUMANS cooked up the bullshit, argued about it, threatened each other, and voted non-unanimously as they cooked up "the truth", pressured by POLITICIANS and political authorities to come up with an agreement. They didn't care WHAT they agreed on, just that they agreed the agree.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus cant be so lightly dismissed.

Wrong . The Anglican liturgy is far more beautiful now, after Rome jettisoned their
traditions and sacred music and art in the 1960's. The roman liturgy now is disjointed and ugly.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. This is against many centuries of Christian Tradition and therefore should not be lightly dismissed.

Reference ? Prove it.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence

No Jew would even CONSIDER touching or injesting human flesh or any sort of blood. It was an abomination. Proof that later non-Jews added that crap. We know where it came from. The Greek 'Thanksgiving" mysteries that Paul imported from Mithras/Zoroastrianism, as he invented HIS new religion, Paulianity, (now commonly called Christianity),

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

Wrong. The Anglican Church ordians priests, and require the bishop to prove his apostolic succession.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

Assertion. No reference.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk
10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

Circular. Also marriage was not a sacrament until Trent named it one.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Many Protestant denominations (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) have changed their previous stances on women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality. Catholicism remains firm on what it has always taught of such behavior being forbidden or gravely sinful.

Yet continues to, in secret, (hypocritically) practice homosexuality at every level, including bishops and archbishops and cardinal WHOM I KNOW, but will remain publicly nameless. So what. Paul named a woman as an apostle. Is it was good enough for him, why not the rest of the church.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Women pastors is contrary to Christian Tradition (including traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

Wrong again. It was unusual, but not unknown. The Bible says we ALL are made in the image and likeness of God. That's not good enough ?

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism sanctions contraception,(they changed their stance) in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Biblical Tradition.

Wrong. The Hebrews practiced abortion. It was approved in the OT, in some circumstances. The Hebrews did not believe in souls or immortality. That developed later in the late Apocalyptic period. The majority of women in the Roman Catholic Church, (by their own theology .. the "Mystical Body of Christ"), of child-bearing age, use some form of birth control. Thus, the "real church", (NOT the hierarchy), does approve of, and uses, birth control.The unspoken, fallacious assumption/premise, is that the hierarchy is the church. A term often used in the debate, is "artificial birth control". The definition of "artifical" is debated, but the use of hormones is never challenged, in other contexts. Ingesting hormones for any other purpose is not deemed "artificial", or challenged in any way. Nor is the taking of drugs by men to "artificially" alter their sexual performance, challenged in any way by the male Roman hierarchy, nor has it been an issue in the current debates. Nope. It's just about old men, controlling young women, and their bodies. Kinda creepy, actually.

There is also a completely artificial semantic game played by the Roman Church in it's creation of a "distinction without a difference" with birth control, when they say that "Natural Family Planning" is acceptable, as moral, even while maintaining, in their own Moral Theology, that the ultimate determining factor in a moral choice, is "intention". The "intent", no matter how it's done, by definition, of "Family Planning", is to MAKE A PLAN..an intentional act to prevent a pregnancy, which can include a whole series of intentional acts, (temperature taking, abstaining on certain days, even going to classes, etc etc,). Apparently they have a REALLY dumb god, who is unaware of their intentions.

The Pontifical Commission, set up by Pope John XXXIII, inside the Roman Curia, was given the job, back in the 1960's, to determine the impact of "artificial" birth control on the Roman Church. The disagreements within the commission ultimately led to the publication of the Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, by Paul VI. 1960, dissenters INSIDE the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions, on the subject and, in 1963 Pope John XXIII established the above commission, consisting of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and populations. After he died in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and five women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals).

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that ("artificial") birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about, or if, they wished to employ (any) method of birth control. According to the majority report, the use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

Quote:
"The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman--that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives--makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."

Proof that at the highest level in the Roman Church, there is no real agreement on "dogma". When JohnPaul I was about to change the satnce to "non-important" he gor himself murdered for the trouble, and the papers announcing the change which had been seen on his desk the night before his murder, disappeared, and have never been seen again, and Cardinals Villot and Baggio made the nun that found him vow she would never reveal what she had witnessed.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible.Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting there from and false predictions of the end times and belief's like the Rapture.

Wrong. There is no "protestant" view on church authority, except the Biblical one of authority working by the Spirit from the bottom up, not the top down. The early church was not ruled by a central authority. The Patriarchates were EQUAL, until Rome asserted supremacy for political reasons.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Sola scriptura could be considered an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition.The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

Wrong. "Orthodoxy DEVELOPED. There is no "tradition" before humans cooked up the shit.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  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.

Wrong. Prebyters were not "bishops", and many protestants have them. They were ELECTED, not appointed by a foreign power.

(27-07-2014 05:51 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively.

Wrong. The synods and communities VOTE, just like the Roman church did ad does.


Can I become an apologist and make apologies for their idiocy and revisionist bullshit ? Tongue

Clap that was painful to watch. But I tip my hat to you.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
28-07-2014, 05:21 AM
RE: Ask A Catholic
(27-07-2014 07:13 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Yeah! I think Masturbation is a lot more healthier than repression but am pretty sure it can be an unhealthy addiction that leads to sexual addiction and perversion.

....It's a coping mechanism for depression and anxiety...

Facepalm you say you aren't catholic anymore - but clearly you are still struggling with this.

No. Masturbation is not an unhealthy addiction anymore than exercising is. You masturbate more than once a day? So what? It's called a high sex drive. It's also healthy for producing better sperm, protecting against cervical/uterine cancers and prostate cancers.

It's also still under debate whether sex addiction is an actual disorder. DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the reference book published by the American Psychiatric Association) does NOT include it.

Masturbation is also used in treatment of sexual dysfunction.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with masturbating. (Small Children masturbate often too). It's no different from exercise. some people exercise everyday, or twice a day (i run in the am and usually go for a walk after dinner). I hope you can get over the unnecessary shame.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: