Catholics, Protestants, Mass, etc.

[kierkegaard214]

You have much to learn about the Vatican Church before to assume such falsehoods to be truth

I know plenty about the Vatican Church. I have heard their claims and justifications, and I still think it is wrong. I see thier "authority" as elitism. If they make a descision they consult themselves, they don't consult any of the laity as far as I have seen. And women don't even have a say in any of these decisions, sure they can become a Nun and do great things like Mother Teresa, but I doubt God decided to only use men as conveyers of His word.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I know plenty about the Vatican Church. I have heard their claims and justifications, and I still think it is wrong. I see thier "authority" as elitism. If they make a descision they consult themselves, they don't consult any of the laity as far as I have seen. And women don't even have a say in any of these decisions, sure they can become a Nun and do great things like Mother Teresa, but I doubt God decided to only use men as conveyers of His word.

When the Apostles were debating in the council of Jerusalem in Acts, did they go consult the laity to get opinions? Did they ask the women in their churches what their opinions were, or did they consult themselves and exercise their authority?

 

[PaladinValer]

I know plenty about the Vatican Church.

It doesn't look like it.

I have heard their claims and justifications, and I still think it is wrong. I see thier "authority" as elitism.

Quite frankly, it is due to history. If you care to do some honest research, you'd find that the apostolic churches have continued in the faith of the Early Church.

If they make a descision they consult themselves, they don't consult any of the laity as far as I have seen.

The laity have a role, but it isn't the same role as the clergy.

And women don't even have a say in any of these decisions, sure they can become a Nun and do great things like Mother Teresa, but I doubt God decided to only use men as conveyers of His word.

Vatican Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have no problem with women as "ministers," but they do have a problem with them as clergy. Anglicans like myself have, to the most part, no problem with women clergy.

 

[kierkegaard214]

Vatican Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have no problem with women as "ministers," but they do have a problem with them as clergy. Anglicans like myself have, to the most part, no problem with women clergy.

And why do you suppose they have a problem with women being clergy?

 

[ps139]

Catholics believe that the first priests were the 12 apostles, and that if Christ saw fit to ordain a woman priest, He would have. He certainly wasn't concerned with following the status quo. He had many women follow Him, but only the 12 at the last supper, only 12 men as "apostles." Nothing against women, just a difference in gender roles for men and women in the Church.

 

[U R my Sonshine]

Catholics believe that the first priests were the 12 apostles, and that if Christ saw fit to ordain a woman priest, He would have. He certainly wasn't concerned with following the status quo. He had many women follow Him, but only the 12 at the last supper, only 12 men as "apostles." Nothing against women, just a difference in gender roles for men and women in the Church.

I for one have absolutely no problem with this. You make valid points about the apostles. It says in the bible that women shouldn't have leadership roles in church. God has given us authority in so many other areas surely we can give this a area up to a men happily. We get to raise children and run our households, teach and instruct other women in the ways of the Lord. I just see it as God rightly dividing tasks,as any good "boss" would do. And I personnally thank him. It isn't sexist in the least. God loves us equally but uses us differently.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

And why do you suppose they have a problem with women being clergy?

bc they're just not supposed to be

 

[kierkegaard214]

It says in the bible that women shouldn't have leadership roles in church.

It also says in the Bible that Bishops should be married, manage their own households, and keep their children in perfect dignity. THe Bible also refers to women deacons. Now it can be interpreted many different ways, but it seems pretty clear that women should have a role in the church.

 

[Llauralin]

Off topic: kierkegaard214, philisophically, do you generally agree with Soren Kierkegaard?

 

[U R my Sonshine]

It also says in the Bible that Bishops should be married, manage their own households, and keep their children in perfect dignity. THe Bible also refers to women deacons. Now it can be interpreted many different ways, but it seems pretty clear that women should have a role in the church.

"A" role just not minister (preist) or the higher leadership roles. Lot's of ther things for us to do.

 

[kierkegaard214]

Off topic: kierkegaard214, philisophically, do you generally agree with Soren Kierkegaard?

To an extent yes, not all of his theories but most of them. I find that his discourses are very encouraging for the Christian life.

 

[Dicy mind]

Is eating body of Christ the only way to accept Jesus for catholics?

 

[Lynn73]

We have no opinion as to how often Protestants must go to church. We must go to mass on Sunday. The mass is what fuels Catholics. It's our source of spiritual refreshment. To decide not to go is to reject the graces that we receive there. You don't have to go obviously if you're ill or have no way of getting there, but if you are able to go, you must.

As for communion, yes we are forbidden from sharing communion in a Protestant church. To share communion means to be IN communion with that church and obviously we are not in communion with Protestant churches and have various disagreements, so it would not be appropriate. Furthermore, we believe that our Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, so why would we go elsewhere?

Yes, that's the same reason it wouldn't be appropriate for me to take the Eucharist in a Catholic church. In fact, I couldn't and wouldn't do it for I don't believe in the real physical Presence. We indeed to believe entirely differing things so I don't see why either Catholic or Protestant would partake of the Lord's supper in each other's churches.

 

[ps139]

Yes, that's the same reason it wouldn't be appropriate for me to take the Eucharist in a Catholic church. In fact, I couldn't and wouldn't do it for I don't believe in the real physical Presence. We indeed to believe entirely differing things so I don't see why either Catholic or Protestant would partake of the Lord's supper in each other's churches.

Hey Lynn, I think we actually found something to agree on!!

 

[Lynn73]

What we do know is that you deny the actual presence of Christ in our Eucharist and you are not in communion with the Church...therefore you may not receive.

These continued statements are exactly why there will be no unity between Catholics and Protestants. Who are you to tell me I'm not in communtion with Christ's church? I know that I am and nothing you say changes it, the Scriptures don't agree with the Catholic view imho. Believers ARE the church. No true believer is out of union with Christ's church because the Holy Spirit daily adds to the church those that are saved. Belonging to Christ automatically makes you a part of His church.

 

[Lynn73]

Hey Lynn, I think we actually found something to agree on!!

Ha ha! Maybe we all need some comic relief.

 

[ps139]

These continued statements are exactly why there will be no unity between Catholics and Protestants. Who are you to tell me I'm not in communtion with Christ's church? I know that I am and nothing you say changes it, the Scriptures don't agree with the Catholic view imho. Believers ARE the church. No true believer is out of union with Christ's church because the Holy Spirit daily adds to the church those that are saved. Belonging to Christ automatically makes you a part of His church.

Hi Lynn,

I've noticed that Catholics and Protestants have different "dialects," so to speak. Often this causes confusion. I think this is what happened here.
When Catholics say "The Church," we do mean the Catholic Church. And we believe that all baptized Christians are somehow part of the Catholic Church. From our POV, Protestants are not in "full communion" (which is why we have closed Communion) with the Catholic Church, but they are in an imperfect communion - by our baptism and faith in Christ we are all part of "the Church."

So I guess you could say, we believe in both the visible Church (Catholicism), and the invisible Church (all true Christians belong to this regardless of denomination). But when we speak, we do not always specify which meaning of "Church" we are using.

In other words, I do not believe IP was saying you are not part of Christ's Church. We recognize that our Protestant brothers and sisters have faith in Christ and are part of the Body of Christ. I think he was just saying you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, therefore could not receive the Eucharist.

 

[ps139]

Ha ha! Maybe we all need some comic relief.

Laughter is the best medicine!

 

[Carrye]

When Catholics say "The Church," we do mean the Catholic Church. And we believe that all baptized Christians are somehow part of the Catholic Church. From our POV, Protestants are not in "full communion" (which is why we have closed Communion) with the Catholic Church, but they are in an imperfect communion - by our baptism and faith in Christ we are all part of "the Church."

And just to add to what was said here: There are times when Catholics are not in communion with the Church, such as when one is in a state of mortal sin.

What ps139 was pointing out is that you could say "I am in communion with the Church" and I could say "You are not in communion with the Church" . . . and we could both be correct . . . or we could both be wrong. It's all in the terminology. But the terminology is by no means meant to shame your faith, or put you down. Often we're just talking about two different things.

 

[Lynn73]

Hi Lynn,

I've noticed that Catholics and Protestants have different "dialects," so to speak. Often this causes confusion. I think this is what happened here.
When Catholics say "The Church," we do mean the Catholic Church. And we believe that all baptized Christians are somehow part of the Catholic Church. From our POV, Protestants are not in "full communion" (which is why we have closed Communion) with the Catholic Church, but they are in an imperfect communion - by our baptism and faith in Christ we are all part of "the Church."

So I guess you could say, we believe in both the visible Church (Catholicism), and the invisible Church (all true Christians belong to this regardless of denomination). But when we speak, we do not always specify which meaning of "Church" we are using.

In other words, I do not believe IP was saying you are not part of Christ's Church. We recognize that our Protestant brothers and sisters have faith in Christ and are part of the Body of Christ. I think he was just saying you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, therefore could not receive the Eucharist.

I see, thanks for the clarification. It just doesn't sit well when I hear this constant "you aren't in full communion with Christ's church" stuff. I agree that I'm not in communion with the Catholic church, but I am with the catholic church. At least that's how I see it. It would be helpful if Catholics would specify which meaning of church they're using, you're right.