I don't really know why you're bringing these groups up. Each is in formal schism from Christ's one historic Catholic Church, and therefore possesses no doctrinal authority whatsoever. Again, genuine doctrinal authority rests in the established and binding teachings of the Catholic Church.
They are recognized as authoritative by Catholics, but remain objectively authoritative in their status as binding Christian doctrine. Unless you can demonstrate that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church that Jesus Christ himself founded in 33 A.D....? No? Then the Catholic Church's claim to divine doctrinal authority stands.
Keep dreaming. For Catholics only. Protestants do no accept the traditions of the Catholic Church as authoritative.
Please post this teaching. Is it in the Catechism? Would you say this is known by most RCs'?
Neither do atheists, pagans, non-Christian religionists, etc.
Btw, Glassjester, ▲this is why my family ceded the union in the first place▲ The heavy-handed nuns with rulers and the tramplings are a continuation of those medieval days. Nothing has changed and that kind of love is too brutal and harsh for me.
Yet you allowed them to exist. Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40 don't ya think???
Neither do most catholics.
The Catholic position is that the teachings of the Church possess inherent doctrinal authority because the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). All other professed Christian groups/sects have been invented by mere men during the past five centuries, and so their teachings can never rise above the level of mere human opinion. Only that one historic Church founded by Jesus can claim to preach the very teachings of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).
What you're expressing here are merely your feelings about what I've stated. Hopefully, at some point you'll be able to get beyond mere emotion and consider what I've said a bit more objectively. The fact that you prefer my statements to be untrue, however, is noted.
Not as a part of Christ's one historic Church.
Perhaps. I never said that they weren't "Christians," only that they were not in communion with the Catholic Church, within which the fullness of divine truth resides.
You'll understand if we do not accept you as any sort of knowledgeable authority regarding what "MOST Catholics" do or do not accept. :yawn:
:think:
No, I'm not emotional at all, merely stating you seem pretty crotchety....on a Protestant board no-less. You perhaps aren't the Catholic's best emissary.
It doesn't matter what I prefer, to you. But then again, I'm not on a Catholic board touting the Reformation and asserting its superiority. I DO recognize you get enough abuse here and other places to set you on edge, but that's also not something I think an emissary from the RC can afford. It just jumps right back into a history of conflict and wars of disagreement. I don't see crying or decrying accomplishing much on a Protestant board. GlassJester asked a question, I answered. You? You look like you are always rearing for a fight and are readily defensive.
Indeed I do. But you whine when we reject your rhetoric repeated ad nauseam like a 'hail Mary' or an 'our father'.
Again, this is merely the manner in which you subjectively perceive me, rather than an objective evaluation of reality. To you, I apparently feel "crotchety."
You may be right, however that wouldn't alter the factuality of my posted statements.
It would follow in a certain objective sense, since what I'm generally responding to are misrepresentations---and even outright attacks---on the Catholic Church and her teachings. So, often, my position is one of defense. This is what apologetics ("rational defense") is all about, after all.
Again, your subjective perception is noted. Next you'll be complaining that I'm "mean."
Thus, on that basis, your claim to know what "most Catholics" supposedly affirm may simply be dismissed.
Exactly true: You apparently 'feel' crotchety.
No. "Get off my lawn" isn't mean, but just remember you came to the Reformed lawn party. I subjectively think you have objective 'tells.'
Catholics often make threads like this. The answer "can't" be but a series of clear reasons why we can't become Catholics. IOW, I have to tell them (you) what is wrong or simply avoid the thread. If you are going to field those objections, it might be a good idea to not undo what is apparently another Catholic trying to bridge that gap. As it is, you are simply providing more of the authoritarian example that is part of the reason a lot of us are Reformed in the first place. The RC doesn't seem to get that their love is a bit TOO tough. The past was overtly tough. I'd think distancing from it would be more of a priority than it is. You can't slam people into church, imho. Perhaps there is nothing but bitterness left over the chasm :idunno:
Yes, to you, it feels as though I'm "crotchety." That's the subjective impression you get.
I have issued no commands, but merely stated objective propositions. Your feelings about those propositions, however, are noted.
To what "gap" are you referring? Am I somehow supposedly hindering a budding cyber-friendship?
Whether or not someone likes (feels good about hearing) the truth is entirely between them and God. My task is to prove the relevant information; the rest is up to the reader.
Again, no "bitterness." You're merely reading your feelings into the content of my posts. Maybe the bitterness you sense is simply your own.
Er, misreading verses 'feeling.' Impressions 'can' be feelings. You can either own it or not. You've done this in other threads. It 'looks' crotchety.
There is no lawn here so you are being thick, inept, or further crotchety. I don't 'feel' you are being that, I ascertain it.
You are perhaps doing a great job of illustrating why there are Protestants
You are stuck on Protestants 'feeling' for some reason.
No emotion, if anyone is stuck on mentioning emotions, it's you.
You assess incorrectly. Emotions aren't at play here. By YOUR words on TOL, you appear to be a crotchety old guy with a chip on your shoulder. This thread is no exception. The question was what would make any of us Catholic. You,I,we, shouldn't come to threads like this, probably. What is the point of it? Would a Catholic really want contentious Protestants? Would Protesting Protestants really want to be Catholic? If yet another reason for not being Catholic is feeling oriented, then that too. I'm not really that hung up on this, just trying to meaningfully answer the OP question, which I've done. I'm not attacking you or your church so your 'man-made' vitriol isn't really needed for response. The reason for stating is as much to cause offense as anything else. To me, it isn't very meaningful and amounts about as much as any name-calling. I do know it goes back and forth. I'm not a part of that and try to avoid it.
:idunno: "Reformed" "Reformation" "Protestant"