about the Catholic Church

[BobRyan]

So you are saying that Baptists should not feel bad that Catholics want to share the joy of the Catholic POV and CATHOLICS should not feel bad that Baptists want to tell Catholics about the good news of not being bound to the myths of the dark ages.

In that I agree.

I think good news should be taken in the spirit in which it is given even if you don't agree with it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[violet]

I don't think I said anything like that. What I said was that I've known happy "formers" from both sides who've left for the other church. However, being happy does not equal being correct.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that "happy" is not correct. But given that the ex-Catholics turned-Baptist do appreciate all that was done to show them the light - is it a "negative" that this information is shared with Catholics?

It should not be viewed as a negative unless Catholics are going to view the Bible as "a threat" (something I hope they won't do).

Also Catholics should not see their own CAtholic history as told by their own Catholic sources/historians as "a threat".

The light of day - vs the loss of light in the dark ages -- it is a thing to be thankful for - not to fear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by violet:
I don't. But I do know a lot of former Baptist who are happy Catholics-- and vice versa.

I would be interested to know if the former Baptists are correct about their Baptist churches teachings...

and likewise, if the former Catholics are correct on what the Catholic Church teaches...

From what I see here, many former Catholics do not know what the Catholic Church really teaches.


God Bless,
Sirach

 

[BobRyan]

From the non-RC POV it "appears" that Catholics do not know what their own people are publishing out to the world.

For EXAMPLE EWTN made it quite clear that the RCC commanded an environment in the Dark Ages where Billy Graham himself would have been burned alive for preaching what he teaches today.

EWTN also made it clear that in the Pope's appology in the year 2000 - he never actually said the Church was wrong to do that.

RCC leaders are in print and in public admitting that the atrocities of the dark ages were AT THE DIRECTION of the RCC.

RCC leaders are in print - in public, teaching orthodox documents confessing that if the non-RC view of the bread is correct - then the RCC has been teaching idolotry and even blasphemey.

It is any wonder that ONCE you take the non-RC view that the RC doctrines are error - it has HUGE implications EVEN admitted to by RC sources themselves.

What we "think" is that Catholics are almost completely unnaware of the statements coming from their own church on many of these points.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What is "fascinating" is that the "former-catholics are always wrong" crowd typically says that former-catholics are wrong for believing everything they were told by their priests and all the Cathlolics they knew and all the RC material they read. When in fact they "should" have been reading some more "PC RC literature that tries to cover its tracks a little better" (obviously I am paraphrasing a lot on that one).

HOWEVER - there is a simple TEST. It is my experience that when you actually GO to an RC sponsored/hosted/purposed message board - and speak the words "sola scriptura" or even "tradition must be first validated against scripture to see if it is in violation" or possibly "God created the world in 6 literal days" -- you will get pummelled with every thing that FORMER Catholics here have been telling everyone about.

Now - does anyone want to put this to the test - because I know of some good places to "see it in living color".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Bob said...

(bolding mine)

What is "fascinating" is that the "former-catholics are always wrong" crowd typically says that former-catholics are wrong for believing everything they were told by their priests and all the Cathlolics they knew and all the RC material they read.

Its absolutly amazing, isnt it?

Mike