MONROEVILLE, Pa. - Clergy and lay members of the theologically conservative Pittsburgh diocese voted overwhelmingly Saturday to break from the liberal Episcopal Church, with which it differs on issues ranging from homosexuality to biblical teachings on salvation.
Assistant Bishop Henry Scriven said the vote means the Pittsburgh diocese is now more firmly aligned with the majority of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, which is more conservative than the communion's 2.2 million-member U.S. church.
"I am delighted," Scriven said, "that what we have done today is bringing the Diocese of Pittsburgh back into the mainstream of worldwide Anglicanism."
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the U.S. church, criticized the vote in a statement, saying, "There is room in this Church for all who desire to be members of it."
She also said schism is not an "honored tradition within Anglicanism" and is "frequently been seen as a more egregious error than charges of heresy."
The votes were 240 in favor of leaving the church and 102 against. Eight voters either abstained or cast disqualified ballots.
The Diocese of San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., was the first to leave the national church, in 2006. Dioceses based in Quincy, Ill., and Fort Worth, Texas, also are set to vote next month on leaving.
The Pittsburgh diocese was led for 11 years by Bishop Robert Duncan. He was removed from office by the national church's House of Bishops last month.
Many who opposed the split said the national church erred by disciplining Duncan before the vote. The Rev. James Simons — pastor of one of at least 16 Pittsburgh-area churches that plan not to break away — said it "created enormous sympathy" for those voting to split.
Duncan is among the leaders of a national network of theological conservatives who are breaking away from the liberal denomination in a dispute over Scripture. The long-simmering debate, similar to others going on in the mainline Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran denominations, erupted in 2003, when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Clergy and lay members on both sides of the aisle were impassioned before Saturday's vote. Several opposed to splitting from the national church acknowledged disagreeing with its more liberal teachings — including a more "inclusive" salvation that doesn't rely on Christ's crucifixion alone. But many said staying in the church was the only way to remedy those teachings.
The Rev. Philip Wainwright, an Episcopal priest who opposed the split, said the personal salvation of those who remain in the national church is not compromised by its more liberal teachings, which can be changed only by remaining in the church.
"If the gates of hell cannot prevail against this church, then a gay bishop and those who consecrated him cannot, either," Wainwright said.
But those voting to leave argued they're not being extreme, just faithful to biblical teachings.
"The church became as gray as the culture," said Alison McFarland, who voted for the split. "Undefined Christianity became the problem, and now the church is indistinguishable from the world."
Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, the Rev. Peter Frank, said the breakaway diocese is led by a standing committee that is formally expected to elect Duncan as its bishop in November.
The breakaway diocese will align with the like-minded Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, which already recognizes Duncan as a bishop and has welcomed the San Joaquin diocese into its fold.
Conservatives like Duncan and the Pittsburgh diocese are in the minority of the U.S. church but constitute a majority in the Anglican Communion.
Duncan expects more than two-thirds of the Pittsburgh-area's 74 congregations to be part of the breakaway diocese. Some congregations may end up splitting themselves over the issue, Duncan said.
Simons said a standing committee governs the parishes that remain in the Episcopal Church and will probably select an interim bishop before the end of the year.
Still unsettled is who owns the property of parishes remaining in the church.
Duncan said some parish properties are owned by the diocese and others by the congregations, although the diocese may have invested money in some of those. Duncan has pledged to negotiate fairly with parishes that wish to remain in the national church; he and Simons said they hope to avoid litigation.
RSS
Chris,
If the RCC taught only Truth, then I would agree it is from God. But it, like all denominations I have seen, teach doctrines that go against the word of God. The difference for me is that RCC teaches doctrines I think make it harder to trust Christ. They put people, both dead and alive, before Christ. They re-establish the priesthood of the old testament that added to the words of God. They put the church tradition above the scripture.
Even what the church fathers taught need to be measured against Scripture. Where the fathers disagree with scripture, the fathers must be ignored.
believer,
Thanks, you too.
online, I've got you there, ha! Mine is the 1996 edition, have a great Lord's Day, believer.
That is funny . . . as soon as I read the title you posted, I rolled over to one of my book shelves and it too was there . . . . It is the Revised & Enlarged Edition, 1981. Do you have the same one?
online, I need to look at my own books more often, I went to "The History Of Christianity Through The Centuries" by Cairn and low and behold just about every thing you posted was there.
online, thanks, believer
believer,
The information came from the O Timothy Magazine which I receive; it is published by Way of Life Literature (Baptist ministry), Editor David W. Cloud. You can view the article yourself be viewing the Daily Articles Listing; see August 2008 under (The Church Fathers: A Door to Rome).
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/index2fbns.htm
He quotes directly from William.A. Jurgens, (The Faith of the Early Fathers). This same info can be found in the 8 volumes of History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, which I also have but it was much easier for me to access the internet instead of manually turning pages from these 8 volumes. Hope this helps,
Peace
online, what was your source document for all this info, please don't seeing this as questioning you, but I'd be interested in getting a copy for my own reading, thanks believer
9. He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture was derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustine, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).
10. He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively.
11. He taught that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the (sovereignty of God) from Augustine. Calvin said: (If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his) (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).
12. He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter.
I believe it is you my friend who needs to come out and accept Gods Word as the only rule for faith and practice.
Augustine (354-430)
Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the (doctors of the church.)
1. He was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church.
The historian Neander observed that Augustines teaching (contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.) He interpreted Luke 14:23 (compel them to come in) to mean that Christ required the churches to use force against heretics.
2. He was the father of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.
3. He taught that the sacraments are the means of saving grace.
4. He was one of the fathers of infant baptism. The council of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: (Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED) (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism (infidels and cursed).
5. He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her worship. He believed Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1950, IV, p. 69).
6. He believed in purgatory.
7. He accepted the doctrine of (celibacy for priests) supporting the decree of Pope Siricius of 387 that ordered that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined.
8. He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, (I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church) (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
7. He believed that menâ
Here are a few more examples:
Origen (185-254)
Though he endured persecution and torture for the cause of Christ under the emperor Decius in 250, Origen was loaded with false teachings. Following are some of the strange heresies of Origen:
1. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.
2. He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 614). Durant quotes Origen: (Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life ... so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?)
3. He accepted infant baptism.
4. He taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works. (After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits. It is destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this) (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
5. He believed the Holy Spirit was possibly a created being of some sort. (In His case [that of the Holy Spirit], however, it is not clearly distinguished whether or not He was born or even whether He is or is not to be regarded as a Son of God) (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
6. He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism, denying the literal fire of hell and believing that even Satan would be saved eventually. (Now let us see what is meant by the threatening with eternal fire. ... It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before him. ... And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of itself) (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
chris, when you place your denomination at a more privileged status then other denominations your are calling members of other denominations 2nd class Christians regardless if that is your intent or not. As for the thousands issue, your original comment was that 1000s of Protestant PASTORS are coming to the catholic church, not simply Protestants but PASTORS. And if that were the case and I don't believe it is then why is there a shortage of priests?
(Let's do a comparison for a minute.)
I do not believe that the Protestant names that you gave in your post exemplify the best minds within historic Protestant circles; Jakes, Kennedy, Hagee, Robertson, and Meyers can hardly be recognized as being the best minds that represent historic Protestantism, that is my opinion; Jakes denies the trinity and the rest are somewhat comical in some of their beliefs, nevertheless, I will run with your comparison. Most conservative Protestants have stood upon Gods word throughout history and have written only to expound upon what has been written therein. I will admit that not all of them agreed with one another just as all of the church fathers did not agree with one another. However, they have not introduced extra biblical dogmas as some of the church fathers have done.
Here are few of many examples,
Ignatius (50-110)
Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was arrested in about A.D. 110 and sent to Rome for trial and martyrdom.
1. He taught that churches should have elders and a ruling bishop; in other words, he was exalting one bishop over another, whereas in scripture the terms (bishop and elder) refer to the same humble office in the assembly (Titus 1:5-7).
2. He taught that all churches are a part of one universal church.
3. He claimed that a church does not have authority to baptize or conduct the Lords Supper unless it has a bishop.
These relatively innocent errors helped prepare the way for more error in the next century.
Justin Martyr (100 â
How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that Scripture says that we have is the Bible (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 2:25; Galatians 1:6-9).
Third, the (first church) is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the (original church) and the (one true church). We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is Gods pattern and foundation for His church.
Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the (one true church) doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc. .
If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will CLEARLY reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament. What it does teach is that one is to use Scriptures as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus it is true to the first church.
msn,
(If you do value the Apostles and those disciples in the Bible, then you should leave your church immedediately and become Catholic . . .)
As in times past I will share with you once again why I cannot become a Roman Catholic again. First, the RCC teaches doctrines that simply cannot be proven from scripture. This is the primary reason why I believe that it is not the one true church despite her claims. This argument is also used by a number of different churches; the Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim as well as some Protestant denominations.
Having a pedigree of supposed apostolic succession or being able to trace a churchs roots back to the (first church) is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. What is given are repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether a church is the (true church) or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.
For example, Paul does not set forth in his epistles the teaching that they were to follow the (first) organized church as a safeguard for the truth. Rather, he commits them to the safekeeping of (GOD and to the WORD of His grace (Acts 20:32). Thus, truth could be determined by depending upon God and (the word of His grace); Scripture cannot be broken, see John 10:35).
Second, dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individual (founders) is seen as the basis of a true church; see Galatians 1:8-9, in which Paul states, (But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed). Thus, the basis for determining truth from error is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, (we or an angel from heaven,) but whether it is the SAME GOSPEL that they had already received; and this gospel is recorded in Scripture.
Another example of this dependence upon the Word of God is found in 2 Peter. Peter begins by mentioning that we have a (more sure word) to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This (more sure word) is the written Word of God. Peter later tells them again to be mindful of (the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior) (2 Peter 3:2).
Also, 400 Anglicans is just an example of one group. I said thousands have become Catholic. I only gave you one denomination, and there are thousands of your sects so just do the math.
Lutherans were second with around 300, Methodists were next and a lot of Pentecostals who came to the Charismatic Catholic movement. Then there are all the independent churches which I can't even number who chose to become Catholic.
Thousands, my friend, thousands.
Believer,
Again, I can state facts about the Catholic Church without saying that Protestants are "Second Class". It is not your fault, that there are divisions in the Church. This happened many years ago and there is equal responsibility between Protestants and Catholics.
While the sepparation of Christendom is sad, it does not diminish the fact that the Catholic church was founded by Christ on the Apostles and your churches are not. Those Churches of the Reformation have much Truth, much more available than newer sects.
When you have removed yourself from the only church that has Christ official authority to "Bind and Lose" and a petrine ministry that is protected by the Holy Spirit through the power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, then of course your sect will be deficient. It doesn't mean you are any less saved, but your churches lack much of the truth that Christ gave His only Church.
We are all Christians, and you should have all the Truth instead of what your denomination has peice-mealed together. While protestantism continues to be watered down and broken, the Catholic Church continues as a shining light on hill. Our beliefs, morals and ways and manner of worship come to us from Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Your beliefs come from your interpretation. What has more value and what has more truth? The Word of God or your interpretation? It seems to me you put your interpretation over the Word of God.
chris, there you go again making anyone outside of the catholic church a 2nd class Christian and yet you claim you don't! And I have no problem with outside reading as long as we don't allow it to take precedence over the Word of God.
chris, I trust EWTN as much as I do TBN, plus 400 Anglican priests in the last 5 years sure doesn't add up to 1,000s as you stated earlier.
Hmm. Let's do a comparison for a minute.
Pastors who we revere and study their interpretations of Scripture:
Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaus, Polycarp, Origen, Eusibuius, Cyril, Athanasius Justin Martyr, Augustine, Clement, Jerome, etc.
Pastors you revere and study their interpretations:
Billy Graham, TD Jakes, Max Lucado, Bruce Ware, Dr. Dobson, Dr.James Kennedy, Pastor Hagee, Pat Robertson,Joyce Meyer, John Maxwell, etc.
While I like many, but not all, of the Protestant Pastors I've listed they are still 2000 years too late, they didn't personally know the Apostles or any of their 1st, 2nd or even 3rd generation disciples.
The best these Protestant gentlemen can do is study hard and give their best guess. By contrast, these early Christians heard the Scriptures preached by the actual people who wrote them or at a minimum their immediate successors. That kind of powerful message, entrusted to faithful people, have passed down their interpretations for centuries in an unbroker TRADITION.
Without the historic witness and without passing that witness down, you are left with guessing what the scriptures meant rather than KNOWING what they meant.
The more you read the Early Church Fathers and their interpretations of Scripture the more you will realize that the Catholic Church is where you belong if you want to live in the "Fullness" of Christ Truth.
It is time to come home to the Truth Online.
ONline,
Yes there were things like you mentioned and if you were a reasonable person who could objectively study history you would find all these "Problems" in the beginnings of the Church were crushed by the Catholic Church. The early church fathers, the vast majority, were orthodox in their beliefs.
Remember Online, it wasn't your church that we are talking about here since you have no historical connection. This is all about the Catholic Church's history. It is our history, and your church was not there.
The Catholic Church fought against the Gnostics, the Arians, the Montanists, the donatists, the Palagians, etc. We excommunicated them from the True Church. Heresies started from a lot of groups, but those that stuck closely with the successors of the Apostles NEVER FAILED, especially with the Bishop of Rome. Even when the Arians controlled 2/3rds of all the Priest at one time, the Bishop of Rome stood strong against them and Arianism died out until we see a new version of arianism call "Mormons" who follow a Gnostic book and deny the divinity of Christ.
If you do value the Apostles and those disciples in the Bible, then you should leave your church immedediately and become Catholic because these people you admire founded my church and I can't see anyplace in scripture where Jesus or any Apostle said you can start your own church outside the Apostles authority and their successors authority. Your denomination left the Original Church of Jesus Christ and you've been making it up as you go for years.
Believer,
Remember, I'm not a young guy and I've been a Protestant probably longer than you've been alive before I became Catholic. I have never met one Protestant ever who didn't buy some sort of book by some Protestant Pastor on their interpretation of Scripture.
If Protestants stopped selling "Pastor Interpretation" books and this is including devotionals too, then the only thing that would be left in these Christian book stores would be "Prosperity, health and wealth, motivational" style books.
The fact is, you deny that you do read other people's comments of the Bible and that you can learn something from someone else. In the NIV there are comments on the bottom of the page and on the side. These are all interpretations. There are thousands of books written by Pastors about every book in the bible.
So, you do care what others have to say about Scripture and you do read a lot of other insights because YOU HAVE A HUNGER FOR TRUTH. The difference is, we Catholics do the same thing, except we go to the Pastors who actually knew the Apostles and their successors. We can objectively say that their witness is far more pure and closer to the Truth of what the scriptures actually mean because of their proximity to Jesus Christ himself and His chosen followers. The Tradition of what these scriptures actually say has been kept safeguarded by the Catholic Church.
Because you lack Tradition and any historical context to the Apostles and their followers, and because your sect of Christianity was founded by a man who had no personal connection to the Apostles. You have a HUGE missing link. This is why Christians who are from the Reformation have more in common with Catholics, than Christians who's churches were founded within the last 100 years. The fact is Christianity is being watered down by the continued division of Protestantism and their lack of "HOLDING FAST TO TRADITION" that was passed by the Apostles on down through the centuries.
By going by the Bible alone, without the historic witness, your interpretation becomes "Guessing" at best.
Believer,
A wee bit conservative actually, based on the numbers from the "Coming Home" network on EWTN. In the US alone, based on information from EWTN, the vast majority of Protestants have come from the Anglican, Episcopal and Lutheran ranks. Because of these denominations' stand on topics like homosexuality, women's ordinations, etc. In the last five years over 400 Anglican Priests have come to the Catholic Church. These numbers should not surprise you. In fact, whole dioceses have become Catholic and you remember how large a diocese is right?
It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and Gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
It is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers' writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles.
The only genuine (church fathers) are the apostles and prophets; their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the (faith ONCE delivered to the saints)(Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us (perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works) (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We donâ
chris, "thousands" do I detect a wee bit of exaggeration here?:)
Wbmoore,
There is nothing that compares to the Word of God. You can't even compare any written document to the Holy Bible and I don't think anyone equated reading the Early Church fathers to the Bible. There are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant book stores that sell millions of books all about interpreting the Bible, and all these authors seem to act like they have a better understanding of the scriptures when in fact they never knew the men who wrote it and never met Jesus personally.
Meditating and studying the Word of God is the most important thing without question. By reading the early church fathers, who read the "ORIGINAL" scriptures and heard these scriptures preached first from the Apostles, I think even you would admit that their testimony would be far more valuable than say....for example...yours or mine. Why? Well, they actually knew the people who wrote the Bible, the early church fathers heard the actual Apostles and their Disciples preach on the Scriptures. This historic witness and testimony of how they understood this preaching is invaluable.
The reason why Protestants always get their feathers ruffles when someone mentions the "Early Church Fathers" is because their witness points directly to the Catholic Church. By Their witness, thousands of tough scripture verses are discussed and analyzed within one or two generations from Christ. Their witness and testimony to what those scriptures mean are more reliable, than someone who has no connection to the history and basically opens the bible and tries to discern what the Apostles actually meant thousands of years later. This is why Protestants who go by the Bible alone, can rarely agree.
Moreover, thousands of Protestant pastors are becoming Catholic because of the Early Church Fathers interpretations of the Scriptures and how their interpretaions unequivically are all CAtholic in terms of worship style, understanding of scripture, how scripture is to be read and understood, and the doctrines of the Church.
"To be steeped in history, is to cease to be Protestant"
Cardinal Henry Newman(Anglican convert to Catholicism)
What the church fathers taught is important, but not as important as the word of God. It is GOD's word that is inspired. Not the church fathers.
Read the church fathers, but study and meditate upon the word of God.
IHS,
I have seen people who left the RCC because they believed they could never know if they would be with Christ when they died, due to what the church teaches concerning unconfessed sins. This is little different than trying to live by the Law, or worse the hedge laws (those laws put in place by the priests to keep people from actually breaking the Law), for salvation as taught by priests of the Old Testament and Christ's time.
Acts 15:10-11
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
As Jesus said to the Pharisees and Scribes:
Mark 7:9
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
But later, after the people of whom I am speaking had left the RCC, they came to understand that God loves them and holds those who believe Christ came to pay the price for their sins in His hands and nothing can remove them - not even themselves.
John 10:27-29
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Indeed, we were sealed by the Holy Spirit when we truly believed.
Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Having been sealed, we are to live righteous lives, and look forward to the day of Redemption.
Ephesians 4:30
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Of course, the assurance of salvation is a very different thing than whether one is saved or not. But it is a big issue for many people. There are many other doctrinal problems in the RCC. No, they might state we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but when you look at the whole of the teaching of the RCC, they have put up so many hedge laws that it makes it difficult to trust in Christ (the RCC would rather you trust in the church, which I see being as the same as trusting in Pharisees and Scribes).
I agree with believer. Please read up on the doctrine of the church you are defending.
IHS,
I have baggage from growing up. But the Catholic church is not part of it. I have nothing but pleasant memories of my time in catechism. Granted, church itself was boring, but hey, I was a kid! :)
Not, I have no bitterness for the RCC. I have no bitterness for the people of the RCC. I have only a desire that they might all go to heaven. My problem with the RCC is the bad doctrine the church hierarchy holds to. As I have said, I've known some in the RCC who were saved. But the majority worshipped saints rather than God Himself (and I realize the RCC teaches a difference between veneration and worship, but most of the laity I have met do not recognize a difference in practice).
Why would anyone want to be part of a church that tells you to pray to dead people, instead of talking to God Himself?
Isaiah 8:19
When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
We have ONE intercessor between us and God the Father: Christ. Why go for what would be, at best, second best?
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
ihs, if you're going to advocate for the catholics you need to really study up on what they believe. A mortal sin must be confessed to a priest in order for it to be forgiven only venial sins can be forgiven without a priest. I'm not talking about a sinful lifestyle I'm talking about 1 sin not being confessed that can seal your eternal fate. There is a huge difference.
It is apparent that you are intentionally neglecting the real issue here; the gospel. I have repeatedly asked you if we (Protestants and Catholics) preach the same gospel but you have yet to answer. Your main focus here seems to be interpreting scripture through the eyes of Catholicism instead objectively studying the latter through Godâ
I've never understood purgatory, only because I haven't researched it.
When a person dies in what Catholics call unrepentant Mortal Sin, then the person goes to hell. If we as Evangelicals know a person who lives an unrepentant life and continues to live in that sin up to the point when he dies and he doesn't confess his sins, then do you really believe that person is Saved?? I don't. I think anyone who doesn't confess to God their sins with remorse and a contrite heart will be damned.
Also remember, that Catholics ask forgiveness through a Priest not from a Priest. Confession to one another is in the Bible and so is the fact if a Presbyter prays for you that your sins will be forgiven. Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles and so on. While my church doesn't do this, it seems pretty clear to me that the Bible gives evidence to the Catholic Sacrament of Confession.
Also, Catholics ask forgiveness from God through the Priest. Moreover, if they have mortal sin on their soul like sins of the flesh, and can't make it to a Priest, then they can easilly just ask God for forgiveness. My old roomate said,"God gave us the Sacraments to infuse us with Grace as tools to live a Godly life in communion with the Trinity, if one can't get to the Sacraments God is not bound by them and by Grace you will be saved if your heart is right with God and you are truly sorry for your sins and want to live in communion with Him.
I know there are a lot of ex-catholics. Maybe your Priest and your seminary fell to Liberalism. I'm sure many Catholics would be sad that they let you down. I doubt seriously you would be Protestant today if you had gone to a orthodox seminary and your Priest as a child had spoken to you about Jesus and a personal relationship as they do today.
chris, "I pray that all non-catholic Christians come home to the "Fullness" of Truth which is only available in the catholic church." "Protestants are NOT second class Christians." This is what some would call an oxymoron!
ihs, then explain to me your interpretation of purgatory as to its purpose and who goes there? Explain to me why if a catholic dies with an unconfessed mortal sin on their soul that they go to hell? Much of your view of catholicism is based on heresay and what you have read, whereas online, wb, and myself have lived it and to the best of my knowledge in three very distinct locations and parishes and dioceses and yet all of us share the same testimony. We've been where the rubber hits the pavement. Once again if it were just the three of us well maybe we could call that a coincidence, but when we hear the almost identical story from every other former catholic who has become a christian and left the catholic church that is a definite pattern. And the issue with us is not so much anger, but a godly fear of seeing people being led to believe that they are a Christian because they've been baptized into the catholic church and have partaken of the sacraments and kept many of the other requirements of the church and in truth they are lost as lost can be.
Well IHS, thanks for your help.
Yes, many ex-catholics are bitter people and always attack the Catholic Church. You see, my friend, the Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church. With that type of claim, that no other church claims, they have to attack it. Because if they left the one True Church, then while they might still be Christians, psychologically it is rough for them because of what our church claims. They also attack it because they know, especially well, that Christ found our church and not theirs and Christ entrusted His Words with His Church. Protestants love the Bible, which is a Catholic Book. I mean that pschologically has got to be tough. I know it was tough for me as a Reformed Pastor.
Also, if you left the Catholic Church then your conscience took you away. Whether it was properly formed or not, you must do what your conscience tells you is right. If you were a Catholic and honestly do not believe the Catholic Church is the true Church and you become a Protestant, then you can be saved. All Christians, because of our trinitarian baptism, are members of the body of Christ. I accept all Protestants as members of that body even those whacky fundamentalists. I honestly believe that outside the Catholic Church, Protestants are wounded because they lack Apostolic succession, valid Eucharist, Confession and their sects are not Churches founded by God, but by men.
I pray that all non-Catholic Christians come home to the "Fullness" of Truth, which is only available in the Catholic Church. For 400 years we Catholics did not consider Protestants Christians for the most part. With mutual discussions, bible study, and building friendships with them we have come to accept them as Christians, but this has only been in the last 100 years. Protestants are NOT second class Christians.
Believer,
Most of the time I feel you do a great job of being reasonable. Saying Catholics believe in a salvation by works, really diminishes your advanced degrees. Even I know that the Catholic Church excommunicated Palagius and anyone who thought that our works can earn heaven. Later, they excommunicated semi-palagianism followers too. Catholics believe salvation is by Grace through faith in Christ. You should really read St. Augustine.
Let me see here, Online, Wbmoore and Believer were all ex-Catholics. Now I get it. WOW, such baggage. I've heard that a lot of ex-Catholics who become Protestants are quite negative about Catholicism, but funny how when Protestants become Catholics they always resound with how much they loved being a Protestant and now they love being Catholic all the more.
Guys, your mutual witness is so tainted and I'm surprised you can't see it. I thank God I'm younger than you three and haven't had to endure this last 40 years of liberalism. I'm glad that I can come to the Word of God without bias against my fellow Christians. Yes, there are some Catholic beliefs that I do not accept, and there are some beliefs of fellow Evangelicals I can accept either; once saved always saved, prosperity gospel, women pastors, etc. Despite these doctrines or beliefs they are still christian. I've been a Christian all my life, and I thank God I don't have the same issues that you gentlemen do.
I've read some of the early church fathers and you know what, the early church fathers gives context to the Word of God. I love reading about what the original Christians thought about the Word of God. I see a lot of value in reading them because of their proximity to the Lord and the Apostles and their immediate successors. It is immeasurably sad you don't see this value.
I have a lot of empathy for you gentlemen. If I was Catholic and I wasn't taught to have a personal relationship with Christ when I was a child, and I had to find that relationship outside of my church, I would be angry and bitter like you and would probably attack it like you guys do.
I think I might advise some therapy for you guys.
believer,
I too have an aunt who initially told me that leaving the Catholic Church would keep me out of heaven; her sentiments were shared by the rest of my family. My grandfather was hot to say the least but when I asked him why he was Catholic, all he could say was, my parents were Catholic, I was raised Catholic and I will die Catholic. It took literally two years of debating and studying the scriptures together that finally brought about the significant change. My grandfather was able to read some material and realize the difference between what the Scriptures taught and what Rome taught; he never attended any church after that. He passed away back in 1997 and the same aunt who told me that I would be lost for leaving Catholicism is a Christian.
ihs,
It is always interesting to me when I hear of Protestant pastors joining the Catholic Church; if they had theological questions before I cant imagine how they can reconcile with so many extra biblical dogmas such as those mentioned in my earlier post.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2Timothy 4:2-4).
ihs, isn't it interesting that you note that pastors who become catholics do so after reading the works of the early catholic church fathers, I wonder what would happen if they just stayed in God's Word? Personally, to me it sounds like they weren't very well grounded in the Word of God, but then again God's Word does state that there will be those who will be tossed to and for by false teachings and doctrines.
ihs, let's face it though, any religious group such as catholics, mormons, and jws who have a works based salvation mindset will be out doing good things, but they won't be intentionally leading people to Christ by sharing God's plan of salvation with others. Ephesians 2:8-10, declares that we are not saved by works but we are saved to join God in doing His work which is the fulfillment of His Great Commission.
online, I had an aunt who told me right after I got saved she felt sorry for me for doing that because now I would be cast into hell for leaving the catholic church, then several years later after she got a divorce she began asking my wife and I to pray for her and her family when they were going through some difficult times when prior to that she wouldn't give us the time of day when it came to spiritual matters. Plus, I still have an aunt who sends us Christmas cards saying that a number of novenna masses are being said for us. And the sad thing is I know she has to pay money to have all those masses said.
ihs, once again a number of catholics who have become Christians and especially those who are priests and nuns I believe choose to stay in the catholic church not out of loyalty to the catholic church as much as to be used of God in reaching other catholics for Christ. They see their position as making them more effective in reaching them and also giving them credibility as well. Plus, a lot of priests and nuns have left the church over the issue of celibacy which is another extra-biblical teaching of the catholic church. But I would be interested to see how many catholics made professions of faith in Christ as a result of someone outside the catholic church witnessing to them or as a result of attending an evangelistic event outside the catholic church and how many came to Christ as a direct result of the teaching they received in a parochial school, CDC, or through a message preached at a mass.
Believer,
Lol, amen; the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion will have to be on another article. Recently a cousin and I attended the West Coast Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona where R.C. Sproul, John McArthur, and Ligon Duncan spoke on this and other topics; the bookstore, fellowship, and time off was indeed refreshing.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/09/ligonier-west-coast-conference-9.html
Now back to our original topic; it seems that most ex - Catholic experiences are pretty much identical. My entire family was raised Catholic and it was not until 1990 that I became a Christian. I cannot begin to tell you about the commotion that followed but fast forward to this day, three quarters of them are no longer Catholic. The Lord has allowed his truth to shine not only in my heart but in the hearts of most of my family members. God is truly good. There are still some family members that adhere to the Catholic faith and yes, we all get along just fine. As a matter of fact I attended my cousins graduation at Norte Dame a few years ago and we had a great time. This same cousin and I continue to have deep theological discussions, even when at a football game; pray that the Lord illuminates his heart.
Today in this postmodern world the gospel is being diluted by the culture, being diluted by the ecumenical movement, and by liberal theology. As a result many people are being given a counterfeit gospel which cannot save. As Christians it is our duty to not only proclaim the true gospel but also to defend it; we must continue to correctly define it, lovingly share it, and oppose anything that attempts to alter it.
May the Lord continue to bless and keep you believer.
No, if we met Mormons on missions we already know they are nice but they are polytheists who deny the trinity. They are not Christians. Moreover, Mormons only seek to convert people, not help them. True mission work is preaching the Word and Helping people because you generally want to help them. Ever see a Mormon hospital or halfway house or a Jehovah Hospital??? No, but you will see more Catholic Hospitals than any religious group.
The Catholics we met on Mission also let us use their Church for our services. When you actually go on mission in dangerous territories, then you know who are the Christians since we all have to fight as one. Catholics will fight right next to a Baptist, next to a Lutheran, next to a Methodist. There are no Mormons or other cults in the Vineyard, risking life to spread the Good news.
As far as I can judge, and many of my teachers too Catholics hold to the same basics that makes us all Christians. I've listed those points that we share before, so I won't list them again.
Believer,
If you know Bruce Ware from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, then you might have known my dad since they are friends.
ETS is the Evangelical Theological Society. Also, as far as the Exodus of Protestants to becoming Catholic I have a few thoughts on that subject.
I'm sure there are more numbers of Catholics becoming Protestant, since objectively speaking they have more people than all our denominations combined. So, mathematically it makes sense. I did some minor research and found that there are many Protestants that have become Catholics, but what stands out the most is that many of these are former Protestant Pastors who were extremely well thought of and had amazing reputations. In fact, the former President of the ETS converted to Catholicism. That was a huge deal! If you find a Catholic Priest who converted to Protestantism it is a rare thing, but finding a Protestant Pastor who became Catholic especially after reading the Church fathers AND STUDYING DOCTRINE became Catholic because of the Truth of that Church is not rare and in fact there are thousands of them in the US alone.
Believer,
My dad thinks the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is a joke. He said they are a bunch of Liberal namby pambies, who want to water down the Bible and what it says. We met a lot of them on missions and my dad and grand daddy called them "Koombayahs". They would rather have everyone get along than truly seek the Truth.
This is what my dad said.
IHS,
Why do Catholics bring up the "exodus" of protestants for "greener patures" in the Catholic faith? I can find statistics that show that more Catholics leave the Catholic faith in favor of Protestantism. So we can leave that argument out of the equation. People are flopping back and forth. As believer said "...most studies show it has little to do with the doctrines or theology of the catholic church..."
online, although we would probably disagree on the eternal security issue, your catholic teaching is identical to what I was taught by the catholic grade school, seminary, and church I attended until I became a Christian in 1971.
ihs, let me take a stab in the dark, if the church your father attends is a Southern Baptist Church, has it by chance aligned itself with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship?