THE talk may be about abortion, holy communion and Roman Catholic politicians (read: John Kerry and New Jersey's governor, James E. McGreevey) but in one sense the argument is really about how you define being faithful - to religious authority, to the Constitution or to both.
With Senator Kerry's religion becoming an issue, Americans are back on a subject that emerges any time a Catholic stands in reach of the White House, whether Al Smith in 1928, John F. Kennedy in 1960 or Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
In 1960, the question was framed as whether an American Catholic leader could be independent of Rome. Now, the issue is how obedient he or she is to doctrine.
In recent months, a handful of conservative American bishops have said that Catholic politicians who support the right to abortion violate fundamental church teaching and should be denied the sacrament of holy communion. One leader,...
Mike: It is useless to argue with people who are blind to any truth but their half-truths. What you "ALWAYS FAIL" to see in your analysis is that those "other things to accomplish his salvation", as you put it, are commands from Christ. Such as "Unless you are born of water and spirit-Baptism", "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood-Eucharist", "Whose sins you shall forgive...whose sins you shall retain-Confession", etc. Can a slave claim to be honoring his master and be disobedient? How can you claim that Christ is sufficient for you, if you ignore his commands?
Martin Luther received Jesus as his personal savior and started the Lutheran Church retaining most Catholic doctrines and Luther did not lose his salvation. So a Catholic who has received Jesus as personal savior does not have to leave the Catholic Church as long as they disregard the unscriptural doctrines, adhere to the scriptural doctrines, pay attention only to the scriptural parts of the Mass and every night when go to bed rededicate their life to Jesus and ask Him to forgive any sins that they may have committed during the day.
DM, There is nothing in common between the two belief systems as far as salvation is concerned. Or Christ and only Christ is a sufficient Saviour, as we believe, or Christ is not a sufficient Saviour and man must do other things to accomplish his salvation as your church officially teaches--as we have pointed out in many many posts over the last year. I won't be drawn into another long useless argument so this will be my only post on the subject.
Pete: Even you do not believe that the mere fact of Jesus' death is sufficient to remove your sin. Has it saved the pagans, the Hindus, the Buddists? The key in your quote is "as many as RECEIVED him, to them gave he power". Unless you receive him you can't get the power. There are martyrs from the persecution of the Caesars that had accepted Jesus but died before being baptised, or recieving the sacraments. These people are in heaven. But I prefer to do as Jesus commanded: being baptised, and recieving communion, etc. The idea of works saving anyone is a protestant fixation. You still haven't proved that we have "NOTHING" in common.
DMS Let's take 1 item for example You said "Jesus died to take away our sin" I belive this in a different way than you do. I belive that Christ's death ALONE! is sufficient to take away all sina and save my soul. Without baptism, or any other sacraments, or works of my own. Can you say the same thing?
John 1:12-13, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Pete: Hundreds of people on this web site are waiting on you to prove that Evangelical Protestants have absolutely "NOTHING" in common with Catholics. Which items from my prior post don't you believe? PS- I said I would wager, not you!
Peter, inadvertently brings up a good point. He says, "...truely saved protestants...". Who determines who is truely saved? I know protestants that have been saved in the past, who became unsure of being saved later in life. How many protestants in Pete's opinion, are "truely saved"? Not many, I'll wager! Peter, which of the following do you not hold in common with the RCC. Belief in God, Belief in Trinity, Belief in Scripture as the word of God. Jesus born of a virgin. Jesus died to take away our sin. Jesus resurrected. Jesus, son of man and God, without sin. Jesus will come again to judge all mankind. Where in all of this do you disagree, Pete?
DMS said "In most things Catholics are very similar to Protestants" I say, only liberal protestants have anything in common with catholics. True saved protestants have a worldview quite different from anything of rome. I have been on both sides, and am speaking from experience.
How is it different for Protestants? What Protestant man of faith, could become President and then ignore his conscience in order to lead the nation? If he could, what voter would KNOWINGLY choose a man who is not bound by his conscience (Ok!...aside from Bill Clinton). In most things Catholics are very similar to Protestants, the years since JFK have proven it. No patriotic Catholic could "betray" his country to any head of state, not even the Pope.