We should be guided by the word of God, not feelings.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Introduction & BIG question: Can I be both Catholic & Baptist?
- Thread starter Trinity47
- Start date
- Status
I'm wondering if an evangelical Anglican church might be something you could explore. The service itself is close to the Catholic Mass, but it is not within the Catholic church. From what I've known, there is more content in the homily, but my sample size is small. Admittedly, there aren't many of these.
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod also retains some elements in their services. Yes, Luther started the Reformation, but he was much closer to Catholicism than Baptists would be.
My preference would be that you pursue a Baptist church, but I know it's not the same for everyone. I do believe that a Protestant church between Catholic and Baptist could be a possible balanced option.
FWIW, others may skewer me for even suggesting these churches.
Trinity47
New Member
Jordan you have your mind made up and everything I say is going to be wrong in your eyes. I don't call it the sacrament of the Eucharist whether it is or not, I call it communion, I've always called it that, and actually I wasn't even referring to the receiving of the bread and wine I was saying that I feel like I am worshipping Jesus when the priest is reciting the words of Jesus and what he said to his apostles at the Last Supper. I have been brought to tears before during this part of the Mass, not often but it has happened during a particularly hard time in my life, and I am a woman so feeling that Jesus is with me is a great thing! I walked into church feeling worried and stressed out and walked out feeling healed and blessed like the Lord was with me and he was because all my worries melted away and everything worked itself out in my life in lickety-split fashion hehe. God gave me feelings so that I could feel his presence and that is good enough for me and I don't know if there is a scripture like that to back that up or not but there doesn't have to be for me because my faith in Christ tells me that he was with me that day and therefore he was 
In short or long, no way. Baptists for the most part are based on Scripture. The RCC is based on a hybrid of Scripture plus some extra books in their Bible, Tradition, and church edicts down through the centuries. We have nothing in common. Baptists read the Bible, pray to the Lord, ask Him for forgiveness (not a priest) and worship only the Lord, not Peter Paul and Mary. No created being is worthy of being prayed to or worshipped. The RCC treats the Lords Supper like a magic act. There is no Scriptural basis for baptizing infants. There is no Scriptural basis for the other seven sacraments. There is no such thing as Purgatory. Peter was not the first Pope. Popes are sinners like the rest of us, otherwise they would not die. There is no example in the Bible of a church hierarchy. Baptist churches spend offerings and tithes on the Lords work. They do not hoard money. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is there is nothing in common.,
No contradiction. And Amen to the scripture you stated. We don't say well its either what Jesus says or what Paul says. We say amen to both scripture, they are not fighting each other.
Justified is only by Jesus Christ did on the cross, no merit from any works NOR my faith.
Justification requires your cooperation.
Here the catechism explains it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
Luke 10
25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
Is Jesus a Liar? Giving half the truth?
No Jesus is telling the whole truth. You can't just split having Faith in God as being negated when you love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength and all your mind.
Love will carry faith. Faith Alone however can't carry love.
You can have ALL faith, no love, its nothing.
But because the standard is FAITH ALONE has no love in it literally, it doesn't get a pass.
HOWEVER, If when you say FAITH ALONE it means Faith it has Faith , Hope and Love. I would agree with you in a heartbeat.
1 Corinthians 13
2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
So I have to hear your meaning of "faith alone". If there is no love in there. Its worthless.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Look up ecumenical council and "infallible" before making stuff up like that as misdirection.
There are two primary entities that have a claim to infallibility according to the RCC - see your own RC encyclopedia for details - so you don't have to make stuff up here.
III. Organs of Infallibility
Ecumenical Councils
The Pope
You can listen to a Baptist preacher but everything he says must be juxtaposed against orthodox Catholic teaching. The preacher will say the Eucharist is just a symbol, the Catholic Church will tell you it is Jesus Christ really present in the most holy of sacraments. The Baptist preacher will tell you that the Scriptures is the only authority that Christians should believe, the Catholic Church will say it is the Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church. And so on, and so on, and so on about all the doctrinal issues that exist. I know who I look to for the correct Biblical interpretations and they don't come from any Baptist preacher.
As are the various Protestant sects, including Baptists. They have killed their share of innocent Catholics.
I can't give up Mass at the Catholic church so I won't be converting. It's too important to me. I will however listen to Preachers explain scriptures until which time they say something like "All Catholics are going to hell," and then I will just pray for them. I don't believe in just the Bible alone so I guess I am not Baptist but I can learn things about the scriptures from them so it's all a good thing
Yeah, right on sister! The focal point of a Baptist service is the pulpit, while the focal point of a Catholic Mass is the altar and the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us.
You believe falsely that the Eucharist is not Jesus Christ. Yes it is him, his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity available to all the faithful who choose to unite themselves with him.
Going to bow out of this thread now, but thanks for all the thought-provoking conversation! I may come back and ask questions about scripture in the future.
Please do come back as you can find some stimulating conversation here. There is love from some of the folks, but there is also hatred and derision from others.
Even source you cite states:
Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
In short there has never been a ex cathedra teaching to kill all Jews.
We are not killing Jews. SDA hospital however, are killing innocent lives.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 - so no pope would have known of any 1870 "formula" for distinguishing between his decrees.
The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives.
But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
That is an example of one of the most morally corrupt things a religious leader can ever say - calling for the torture and killing of so-called heretics and Jews. Yet you freely admit to Lateran IV and many other such statements by the Popes - of just such a morally corrupt nature. As if this is nothing.
Imagine if Baptists said that about Billy Graham or Charles Stanley "sure he may say that we should kill all catholics but that does not make it infallible" as if this sort of thing happens among Baptist leadership now and then and is just fine for such totally morally corrupt commands to issue from church leadership.
If the MUSLIMS were to say that about their own Imams well then we might expect it. But we do not expect a Baptist to say that of their own church leadership - not even once to claim that this is just some morally corrupt statement that it is fine and dandy to have being said by Church leaders.!!
so then Muslims, Catholics, EO etc - they may say that of their own leadership as if such morally corrupt commands by their own church leaders is to be expected and a wise Muslim should just know to ignore them.
What then about "never fall" and "infallible" trusted leadership? Answer -- the Muslims have none. The EO have none. The Catholics have none - if they are expecting them to issue such morally corrupt cvommands and then arguing that the followers are supposed to "just know" to discard these highest of examples of moral corruption.
The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives.
But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
That is an example of one of the most morally corrupt things a religious leader can ever say - calling for the torture and killing of so-called heretics and Jews. Yet you freely admit to Lateran IV and many other such statements by the Popes - of just such a morally corrupt nature. As if this is nothing.
Imagine if Baptists said that about Billy Graham or Charles Stanley "sure he may say that we should kill all catholics but that does not make it infallible" as if this sort of thing happens among Baptist leadership now and then and is just fine for such totally morally corrupt commands to issue from church leadership.
If the MUSLIMS were to say that about their own Imams well then we might expect it. But we do not expect a Baptist to say that of their own church leadership - not even once to claim that this is just some morally corrupt statement that it is fine and dandy to have being said by Church leaders.!!
so then Muslims, Catholics, EO etc - they may say that of their own leadership as if such morally corrupt commands by their own church leaders is to be expected and a wise Muslim should just know to ignore them.
What then about "never fall" and "infallible" trusted leadership? Answer -- the Muslims have none. The EO have none. The Catholics have none - if they are expecting them to issue such morally corrupt cvommands and then arguing that the followers are supposed to "just know" to discard these highest of examples of moral corruption.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The Catholics admit to killing around 25 million - are you saying that Baptists are on record saying that Baptist leaders over the span of history have called for the killing of 25 million Catholics?
If so - do you say that because you enjoy "making stuff up" - and history means nothing at all to you?
What Muslim could not do the same total rejection of actual historic fact to then claim as you do - anything that comes to their imagination as if it also were historic fact???
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Pope Clement XIV makes this attempt at an infallible command/decree - in this case a totally reasonable and common sense decree.
=====================================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),
...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...
...
For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.
" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...
"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year of our Pontificate."
==================================================
There you have a pre 1870 Pope arguing for the highest-full-power - full-authority of Peter in support of his decree. And of course we have the "whatever you bind on earth - bound in heaven" and all that - supposedly backing up the Pope as infallible. In this case the decree is very reasonable -- so every possible advantage.
AND YET ...
Catholics today consider Pope XIV's supposedly eternal infallible decree -- fully revoked... complete garbage.
Given that this is the case even in the most obvious and reasonable of decrees - and given that they themselves also admit that Popes may issue the most morally corrupt decrees known to mankind in true Islamic fashion calling for the extermination of so-called heretics. (Things that no Baptist SBC president has ever called for in all of history...) where then is the "substance" in their claims to infallibility - other than pure dark-ages superstition??
=====================================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),
...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...
...
For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.
" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...
"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year of our Pontificate."
==================================================
There you have a pre 1870 Pope arguing for the highest-full-power - full-authority of Peter in support of his decree. And of course we have the "whatever you bind on earth - bound in heaven" and all that - supposedly backing up the Pope as infallible. In this case the decree is very reasonable -- so every possible advantage.
AND YET ...
Catholics today consider Pope XIV's supposedly eternal infallible decree -- fully revoked... complete garbage.
Given that this is the case even in the most obvious and reasonable of decrees - and given that they themselves also admit that Popes may issue the most morally corrupt decrees known to mankind in true Islamic fashion calling for the extermination of so-called heretics. (Things that no Baptist SBC president has ever called for in all of history...) where then is the "substance" in their claims to infallibility - other than pure dark-ages superstition??
Last edited:
To be quite frank,
you are missing Jesus point completely...Jesus was using the commandments of the Old Testament to show this man that he is a sinner and needs a saviour. Jesus is correct that if we were to keep the commandments completely then we would live...but the bible says
Galatians 5:3 KJV
[3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
In order to be justified by the Law, you have to keep the whole law, that means you can't break any of them
Ever.
That is why we are only justified by faith in Christ. You are falling into the same heresy that the Galatians were.
Galatians 5:4 KJV
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You are in a great spot. Try this out. Go to your priest and to the Baptist pastor of your choice and ask these questions, Don't argue with them - just write down whatever answer they give.
1. John 6 - did Jesus say "some day in the future my flesh will be food" or that it was then the case in John 6? literally true right then. What verse in John 6 gives that answer in your view?
2. John 6 -- did any of Jesus' true and faithful disciples bite him ... on the day of John 6.
3. Hebrews 10:4-12 - what does this verse teach about the sacrifice of Christ - and how does it apply to the Catholic mass?
==================================================
Ask them both to answer those 3 simple questions... write down their answers... compare your notes at home.
Might be enlightening. And in any case you get the benefit of both.
Were you intending to quote me?
What's the point of bringing any of this up? Yes it's true, Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics simply because of their faith tradition, both are guilty of this sin. Thankfully, neither of us does this type of thing anymore. We admit what happened, but do the Protestants do the same or do they only point out our misdeeds but cannot see their own because of the plank that covers their eyes?
- Status