How Should nonCatholics view the CC

I've answered this on page one.

Because someone holds to the doctrines of a particular denomination, it doesn't mean that they are responsible and answerable for the sins of others past or present who hold the same faith.

If you have issues with the Church doctrines speak to those who teach them.

If you have an issues with individuals in the Church, take this up with them individually.

Be consistent and fair in your analysis of the history of Christianity. Do not single out the RCC for special analysis. If you are truly interested in looking at the history of Christianity go to the history thread and adress all the failures of christians throughout the years.

If you are only interested in dealing with the problems within Catholicism there are plenty of Catholic sites on the web where they will only be too willing to address your queries.

Look at the RCC as it is NOW, is it really any different to apostate protestant churches. Address all the issues of Christianity, basically what I mean is change the record once in a while.

God Bless

Enda

 

8o)

 

I think if we want to know what Catholics believe we should go to a Catholic parish, sit down and talk with real Catholics and Catholic leaders in person and with an open mind, ask them what they believe, completely dumping what we *think* we know about them.

Of course, feel free to replace Catholic with any other denomination.

 

AMEN AND AMEN!!!! This is ALWAYS what's lacking in these discussions. So-many Protestants are so 'certain' of what Roman Catholics believe/teach, and in many cases they are simply wrong. A book I would highly recommend to Protestants is quoted below...
" Not by Faith Alone : A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification
by Robert A. Sungenis
In examining the topic of justification seekers have the good fortune of living in a time when contemporary apologists of both faiths, Catholic and Protestant, have gathered their forces to teach and persuade. Speaking for the Catholics, Not By Faith Alone is a thoughtful, biblically based explanation of the obedience of faith. For the Protestants, a collection of scholars (John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Armstrong) elaborates the position of faith without works in their book, Justification By Faith Alone. In my opinion the winner in this round is the audience."

 

]


No need to leave the comfort of your home. Just ask one of the Catholics here on this forum....or go to a Catholic message board and ask them/us what we really believe.


LaRae

 

]


No need to leave the comfort of your home. Just ask one of the Catholics here on this forum....or go to a Catholic message board and ask them/us what we really believe.


LaRae </font>[/QUOTE]Might not have to leave the comfort of your own home but it looks like the question will have to be repeated if you want an answer.

Here's the original post:

 

Wondering One/John

Enda, of course I agree that we must have a burden for the lost. Scripture compels us to be witnesses of the Gospel.

When I stated that I do not worry about things that have no bearing on my personal salvation, I was referring to the convoluted miasma of conflicting doctrines and interpretations of scripture that permeate the church world. I can understand how this may have led you to believe that I have no heart for the lost, but that is not the case. I hope this will clarify the question.

 

Hi Everyone, this maybe a little off topic but I would like to pose a question to my protestant brethern. It appears that one of the big issues which we disagree on is the interpretation of scripture, just like the differences between Catholics and Protestants, so too is there differences between Protestant beliefs. This all is a result of differing interpretations. As a Catholic I can see and understand many of the Protestant beliefs based on the scripture they point out and its interpretation. What I am wondering is can some of you see the Catholic point of view when we point out a scripture and give our interpretation? I know you don't agree with the interpretation but can you see how we can come up with the understanding we have of scripture.

I think we agree that scriptures can be interpreted differently. One of the reasons for a Catholic difference is that when scripture is interpreted we take into account the apostolic tradition. Since we believe it to be equal to the written word we also feel that they can not contradict each other. By using the Apostolic tradition we feel it gives us a context on which to base the scriptural interpretation.

Thanks, God Bless You

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Personally, I can see many, though not all, catholic interpretations when I put on my catholic googles. I can understand why a catholic would see it that way. To answer your question, yes, I can see it other ways.

Honestly, I do not think that apostolic tradition is the root cause of the differences. If that were so, catholics themselves would never be able to give any answers as Tradition has had differing views and doctrine at times (Remember, Calvinism is only called that because Calvin popularized it. It was actually an Augustine doctrine that Calvin picked up).

The differences between catholics and non-catholics is and always will be an issue of authority. Non-catholics do not recognize the Pope as the final arbitor of biblical interpretation, whilst catholics do.

This being said, to trivialize the non-catholic position to one of individual popedom is quite unjust. As has been pointed out already (in other threads), the catholic and non-catholic positions all boil down to the same thing: Every christian does what they think they should do based upon individual interpretation of the bible or some other teaching they view to be true. No one can really argue this point. Breaking down all viewpoints to the most granular level it becomes quite clear that all christians are under the same tent of individual interpretation. Of course, the hope is that we are striving to be like Christ with those interpretations, but that is not always the case.

There is more, but that will do to begin the discussion.

What thinks you?

In Christ,
jason

 

Daniel:
Jesus said, And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32. The religious world by their creeds, synods and councils disavow the principle of absolute truth. John 17:17. They substitute the crutch of " that is your interpretation" when exposed to the static standard of the new testament of Jesus Christ. This statement reveals certain things about the religionist.
1. They do not believe men can really know objective,unchanging truth.
2. They do not believe the Bible may be interpreted correctly as God says must be done.
Eph.5:17.
3. One's individual interpretation is just as good as another. God has revealed this is an evil error. Mat. 23.
4.Individual interpretation does not matter as long as one is sincere in what they believe to be true. The road to hell will be paved with this idea. Mat. 7:13,14, Mat. 7:21-26;25:24-30.
5. Some believe in violating the law of silence. In comtemporary vernacular they say, " well God did not say not to do this or that or we could not do this or that. God has never allowed freedom to act by SILENCE. See Hebrews 7:14, Hebrews 8:4.
6. Since so many interpret the bible differently, absolute truth does not exist or is impossible to know. Jesus said this is not true. John 8:32. John said children of God know and abide in truth. II John 1:4;III:4.
Men who do not understand the way language works have great difficulty in comprehending any type document. Language works in three and only three ways. In order to understand truth, we must recognize and apply these principles to interpretation. These principles are the following:
1. Declarative statement. God states specifically what he desires or commands.
2. Approved example. God endorses a practice or teaching by giving an approval for an action.
3. Implication. By examining the totality of the evidence one makes a rational conclusion as to what God has said. For example, In Genesis 13:1 the Bible says, " And Abram went up out of
Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him into the south. It is implied that Lot went out of Egypt though the Bible does not declare it. see previous verse 12:20.
If I said, " the golf clubs are in the golf bag and the golf bag is in the trunk of the car. Where are the clubs? It is implied the clubs are in the trunk of the car because of the declaration as to the location of the bag.
Religionist do not use these fundamental principles to interpret scripture. This is a root cause of the plethora of false teachings we see today!

 

33 replies and as far as I've seen, a Catholic has yet to address the question in the original post despite Catholics having posted on this thread.

 

Perhaps because the original topic is so totally irrelevant to actually accomplishing anything fruitful. What does it matter how you guys SHOULD view us; you aren't going to change that view.

God bless,

Grant

 

Bob,

Your entire last post was nothing but your own opinion on how the Catholic Church has formulated its doctrines, and is based on nothing BUT that. I hope you won't mind if I take your comments with a grain of salt.

God bless,

Grant

 

How's this for an answer.

You should view us as we are taught to view you; as separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Was it really that hard that it took that long for a Catholic to answer the question?

However if we were to view ourselves as separated brothers and sisters, we would be agreeing that Rome is right and there would be no reason not to join Rome. I think that BobRyan's point is that given the Catholic view that non-Catholics don't have to change their doctrine to be Christians (and therefore not admit any doctrinal error and thus be justified in remaining just as they are, which would not lead them to conclude that they are separated brothers and sisters), then what else to they expect of us other than to disagree?

disagree + no need to change = disagree

So here's the main question again: