Christian Forums

I think I get that and agree... They have been telling the Catholics for generations they are the ONLY true church, the ones TRUELY saved, and that the rest of us are not saved, because we are not Catholic...

I think now they are going to be even confusing their own peoples, unless they come right out and say.. "We were wrong, the Pope is fallible and we were wrong to say that "other" believers are damned, they are not ... Please forgive us"... then they still leave the impression with the people that we are. Don't they?

I know my sil still believes that I NEED to be Catholic... and her hope is someday all of my family will be. Even though she knows that I love the word, I know the word, I believe the word... and she can't qoute you one verse... she keeps her faith in Catholicism alone.   Sadly.

And what of the millions of wounded people these "infallible" men have left in their wake with such things as these documents. Sure they change them now... or in recent decades.... but MILLIONS of people have been shunned and considered even labeled as damned by family and friends who believed these documents.  That is the really sad thing. 

This one religion has been more divisive than the whole "saved vs unsaved" issue has been. 

I found this such a coincidence that this was the topic of the John Ankerberg show this week.

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 1)

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 2)

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 10:15:36
I found this such a coincidence that this was the topic of the John Ankerberg show this week.

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 1)

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 2)

Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon Part 2 last night while flipping through channels. It was on VCY...

Here is a great quote from R.C. Sproul, from that discussion, which addresses some of the issues that have been brought up in this thread:

"At Trent, Rome placed it's unambiguous anathema on the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone and has never in any magesterial sense removed that anathema."

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 11:16:57
Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon Part 2 last night while flipping through channels. It was on VCY...

Here is a great quote from R.C. Sproul, from that discussion, which addresses some of the issues that have been brought up in this thread:

"At Trent, Rome placed it's unambiguous anathema on the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone and has never in any magesterial sense removed that anathema."

And their anathema placed on the doctrine of justification by faith alone is just one in a long list of anathema's placed on the non-catholics Christians (Protestants) by the Council of Trent. Anyone who is in denial of this fact is "esconder la cabeza bajo el ala"

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 19:07:03
So now you claim that the canons of Trent only apply to Catholics, what happened not being dismissed altogether?

You are very difficult to discuss a topic with since your argument changes the moment you are proven wrong.

I was not proved wrong, since you do not clearly restate what others say, a clever trick by the way, I stated according to the catholic web site anathema has been set aside. I did not state that the reading of the rules had been set aside. The confusion is I don't think you read what people say when they reply to you.

If what I pointed out is true then the premise of the thread has failed, it keeps being modified as we go so it is hard to keep up.

Quote from: CharlesSince according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

They do not look at you, a non-catholic, as cursed. They have removed anathema from their canon law.

Quote from: KensingtonHarold, can you provide a link or a stated document to this?  I'm trying to follow along as to where the church and the members do stand concerning the rest of us in the body, but I would like to read where they actually say that.

http://www.catholic.com/default.asp Use the search engine to find what you are looking for, or I think you can send them a message.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 11:32:45

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 19:07:03
So now you claim that the canons of Trent only apply to Catholics, what happened not being dismissed altogether?

You are very difficult to discuss a topic with since your argument changes the moment you are proven wrong.

I was not proved wrong, since you do not clearly restate what others say, a clever trick by the way, I stated according to the catholic web site anathema has been set aside. I did not state that the reading of the rules had been set aside. The confusion is I don't think you read what people say when they reply to you.

If what I pointed out is true then the premise of the thread has failed, it keeps being modified as we go so it is hard to keep up.

Quote from: CharlesSince according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

They do not look at you, a non-catholic, as cursed. They have removed anathema from their canon law.

Harold,

How long are you just going to ignore the obvious evidence that the Council of Trent has never, and can never be changed? You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you are the one posting that anathema has been removed contrary to the very sites you claim support your arguments. Besides that Catholic answers is not an official site of the Roman Catholic Church.

Watch the videos I posted above, and consider that John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all agree that the anathema's of the Roman Catholic Church have never been removed. Your argument is completely indefensible.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 11:51:32

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 11:32:45

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 19:07:03
So now you claim that the canons of Trent only apply to Catholics, what happened not being dismissed altogether?

You are very difficult to discuss a topic with since your argument changes the moment you are proven wrong.

I was not proved wrong, since you do not clearly restate what others say, a clever trick by the way, I stated according to the catholic web site anathema has been set aside. I did not state that the reading of the rules had been set aside. The confusion is I don't think you read what people say when they reply to you.

If what I pointed out is true then the premise of the thread has failed, it keeps being modified as we go so it is hard to keep up.

Quote from: CharlesSince according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

They do not look at you, a non-catholic, as cursed. They have removed anathema from their canon law.

Harold,

How long are you just going to ignore the obvious evidence that the Council of Trent has never, and can never be changed? You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you are the one posting that anathema has been removed contrary to the very sites you claim support your arguments. Besides that Catholic answers is not an official site of the Roman Catholic Church.

Watch the videos I posted above, and consider that John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all agree that the anathema's of the Roman Catholic Church have never been removed. Your argument is completely indefensible.

The reformers were at one time members of the Catholic church, the anathemas passed to them are still in effect.

Vatican II states that if you are not catholic it does not count, and anathema as a penalty has been set aside 1983.

I got to catholic answers from the official web site, so I assume they are in union some how.

You have offered nothing from any modern Catholic source that states, or disputes what I have presented, so as it stands right now you are in the indefensible position.

Right now all I hear is the Catholic church can not change its mind, but it appears they did. In Ester the King had to change a law he could not, so he found a clever way to circumvent the law. In any event that is their stance.

FTL

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 12:44:53
The reformers were at one time members of the Catholic church, the anathemas passed to them are still in effect.

The reformers had left the Catholic church (like Luther), and this council was held after they left. So these canons were not directed at people either inside or outside the Roman Church, but were addressed to those not subscribing to the edicts described in these canons.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 12:44:53
Vatican II states that if you are not catholic it does not count, and anathema as a penalty has been set aside 1983.

You have yet to provide evidence that Vatican II has changed the Council of Trent.

I have been waiting for this since page one.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 12:44:53
I got to catholic answers from the official web site, so I assume they are in union some how.

Catholic Answers is not the official Roman Catholic website.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 12:44:53
You have offered nothing from any modern Catholic source that states, or disputes what I have presented, so as it stands right now you are in the indefensible position.

The only one that believes my position is indefensible is you. But thats only because you are ignoring what I and others have posted, and are stubbornly asserting your claims without any proof whatsoever. So you imagine yourself correct only because you will not admit you're wrong.

I have posted an entire thread on the infallibility's of the ecumenical councils and the magisterium, including the very article you posted disagreeing with your arguement. And I have also posted here portions of the catholic catechism that proves that ecumenical councils are infallible (infallible means unchanging). So you have done nothing but consistently ignore everything I have shown you for your substanceless assertions.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 12:44:53
Right now all I hear is the Catholic church can not change its mind, but it appears they did.

They cannot and did not change the law. I have already demonstrated from catholic sources that infallibility of a council cannot be overturned or be amended. I have also provided actual video documentation where respected Evangelical leaders admit that the Council of Trent is not dismissed and the anathema's they placed have never been removed in any magisterial document since.

If you would like to debate John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy on this topic I would be happy to provide you with the address for the John Ankerberg Show for you to schedule a debate. But the only person I think you might stand a chance against is Dr. D. James Kennedy...

QuoteThe only one that believes my position is indefensible is you. But thats only because you are ignoring what I and others have posted, and are stubbornly asserting your claims without any proof whatsoever. So you imagine yourself correct only because you will not admit you're wrong.

They the catholic answer page and apologists say in 1983 anathema was set aside, you may be guilty of an offense but it will not be punished by anathema. Vat II to be charged with anything you must have once been a catholic, or something to that effect.

No matter what is offered as evidence you brush it off.

I typed in catholic.com and that is where it took me.

I searched out catholic.org and catholic.net all are catholic pages. When searching questions both send you to catholic answers.

FTL

Please tell us why this is so important for you?

When Ankerberg went over to the theistic evolutionist side I put him in the who cares box.

Harold,

This topic has nothing to do with John Ankerberg or theistic evolution. I just mentioned him because these men spoke on his show addressing the Council of Trent. And just appearing on the Ankerberg show doesn't make one a theistic evolutionist. But please explain why John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all agree that the Roman Church has never retracted the anathemas of the Council of Trent.

Are we to believe that they are wrong and you are right?

Harold, I went to the site you mentioned... I saw nothing that said that this doctrine was no longer in tact. Nothing.

I searched and searched.  I'd prefer if you helped out and granted us a link to the actual Catholic doctrine that set it aside or states what you said. Because these sites you give doesn't do that. Not that I can find.

For Kensington Click Here

Quote5. Anathemas took effect automatically. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them.

This should be obvious from the fact that a special pontifical ceremony had to be performed as part of the anathema. Obviously, the mere fact that someone utters a heresy in some part of the world does not cause the pope to suddenly stop what he is doing and perform a specific ritual concerning this person.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren't in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn't true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

Because the penalty has been abolished, a word should be said about the status of the conciliar canons that employed this penalty. In addition to prescribing the imposition of a juridical penalty, the phrase anathema sit ("let him be anathema") also came to be one of the phrases that the Church traditionally has used to issue doctrinal definitions.

Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)

This is what the Catholic apologists say, have Ankerberg get these guys and along with the others have at it.

I am not saying I am right or wrong, I am pointing out that the catholic church says you are wrong.

Why not ask someone on the answer page, then you can educate yourself.

FTL

Interesting excerpt, Harold.  Thanks for posting that.

How heavy are the canon balls shot by these canons, and how far do they travel on average?  Also, how true do these canons fire?  Do they hit the target for which they are aiming?

Easy rule, spurly, if you hear a big boom, duck.  

Thanks for that Harold. However, that is a statement, somone's opinion.  A discourse or argument.  I would like to see an official catholic document of record stating that the anathema is voided. 

It appears from the statement that an "anathema" is actually a specific penalty sentenced against a specific person or persons, which is decided on a case by case basis (as in a trial).  From what I understand from the statement, there is no such thing as a "blanket anathema" that is in effect for all time... say against all Protestants, for example.

So, in that sense, there's not even anything to "void"... if those who were specifically given the penalty of "anathema" are no longer living.

That's what I take the statement to be saying, anyway.

Quote from: Harold on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 16:18:27
I am not saying I am right or wrong, I am pointing out that the catholic church says you are wrong.

Why not ask someone on the answer page, then you can educate yourself.

Why not just look at what the Vatican has to say?

Quote113. We wish in this matter to repeat the remarks which Our predecessor Benedict XIV makes with regard to the definitions of the Council of Trent: "First We must state that none of the faithful can hold that private Masses, in which the priest alone receives holy communion, are therefore unlawful and do not fulfill the idea of the true, perfect and complete unbloody sacrifice instituted by Christ our Lord. For the faithful know quite well, or at least can easily be taught, that the Council of Trent, supported by the doctrine which the uninterrupted tradition of the Church has preserved, condemned the new and false opinion of Luther as opposed to this tradition."[103] "If anyone shall say that Masses in which the priest only receives communion, are unlawful, and therefore should be abolished, let him be anathema."[104]

187. First of all, you must strive that with due reverence and faith all obey the decrees of the Council of Trent, of the Roman Pontiffs, and the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and what the liturgical books ordain concerning external public worship.

Vatican.va on the Council of Trent

Sounds to me like they are still cursing people as anathema, and noticably not limited to catholics either. Notice the statement "condemned the new and false opinion of Luther as opposed to this tradition...", and "If anyone shall say..." which is pretty clear language that all non-catholic Christians would fall under this category.

Not to mention this states that all of the decrees of the Council of Trent are to still be obeyed.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 16:58:12
It appears from the statement that an "anathema" is actually a specific penalty sentenced against a specific person or persons, which is decided on a case by case basis (as in a trial).  From what I understand from the statement, there is no such thing as a "blanket anathema" that is in effect for all time... say against all Protestants, for example.

So, in that sense, there's not even anything to "void"... if those who were specifically given the penalty of "anathema" are no longer living.

That's what I take the statement to be saying, anyway.

That is what I get also.

VAT II says it applies to only catholics, let all catholics who say. Where is the line taken from and when was it written.

FTL

Kensington look it up, it gives you the exact place to go look. It is not just an opinion it is an answer to someone with references, that would mean if you do not believe his is truthful look up the reference.

Look at the first two pages of this thread, all opinion with no modern day application.

If I asked you if you are cursing me because I don't like peanuts, and you say no then I would believe you. The catholic church says they are not cursing you.

Kensington look it up, it gives you the exact place to go look. It is not just an opinion it is an answer to someone with references, that would mean if you do not believe his is truthful look up the reference.

No thanks... if you don't care to post the documents that are the basis for your arguments on this discussion, I don't care.  It's no big deal to me.  I'm not going searching to prove your arguments.  It's your argument, you post the proof.  Or not.

No proof, no pudding.

I'm no expert, but a cursory study led me to the following conclusions:

Canon Law is meant to be an enforceable body of law for judicial purposes.
The decrees of ecumenical councils are meant to be declaration of official doctrine.

Now it seems to me that just because something is an official doctrine of the church, does not necessarily mean that it is included in the tomes of enforceable law.  Much like a police officer can "let you off with a warning," the church can choose not to enforce its own rules.  This does not mean that they are not the rules, though.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh,

Is that kinda like knowing your wrong and not admitting it?

I found out this morning I am considered a heretic in the country of Iran.

Well that is plain foolishness, I am in no way under the authority of the Iranian government, so anything they say is just hogwash.

So goes the basis of this thread.

I am not Catholic, so no matter what they say, it falls under the heading of who cares.

I have looked up the areas of discussion, go to the answer page web site and ask a catholic, go to the apologetics thread GCM and ask a catholic.

The sad part is a lot of people have been hurt by this foolishness.

FTL     

Quote from: Harold on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 12:54:46
The sad part is a lot of people have been hurt by this foolishness.

FTL     

By people on both sides. 

A different Catholic perspective...

QuoteThe Council of Trent's Anathemas

Peter and Paul Ministries

The Council of Trent, the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, was held at Trent in northern Italy between 1545 and 1563. The purpose of this council was to condemn every heretical teaching of the Protestant sects. Trent courageously defended the seven sacraments, the Most Holy Eucharist, purgatory, the necessity of the priesthood, justification by faith and works, indulgences, and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. Trent also hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation's) against anyone that denies the Catholic doctrine. These anathemas should not be looked upon in a negative light. The Church concerned with the spiritual welfare of mankind warned all against the danger of embracing error as any good guardian would do with those in trusted to their care.

The question many people ask today is were these anathemas from the Council of Trent ever revoked? The answer is No. An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible. Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did away with Trent's anathemas. First, there is not the slightest hint in the documents of Vatican II that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated. As a matter of fact Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent's proclamations as authority. Second, prior to the 1983 Code, those who were excommunicated from the Church were divided into two categories; i.e. vitandi and tolerati. The 1983 Code of Cannon law eliminated these distinctions which has given rise to the false impression that these condemnations were repealed, but this is not the case. Catholics must remember that canon law deals primarily with internal discipline. While there is always some relation between canon law and dogmatic theology, as a rule the law does not make doctrinal pronouncements.  Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation when asked if the Code of 1983 repealed the anathemas he stated, "I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 13:07:01

Quote from: Harold on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 12:54:46
The sad part is a lot of people have been hurt by this foolishness.

FTL     

By people on both sides. 

I don't believe there is anything hurtful in discussing these doctrines. What I find hurtful is people stubbornly and pigheadedly asserting they are correct when they are obviously wrong and without supporting evidence from credible sources.

The fact remains that the premise of this topic was to examine the decrees of the Council of Trent that are still held as roman catholic doctrine to this very day, not to cause harm to them. I have posted numerous sources proving that no ecumenical council can be overturned. I have even provided a video documentary where John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy examine these doctrines and all testify to this fact.

This just isn't open to debate unless you are being willfully ignorant.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 13:27:26"I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 13:27:26
A different Catholic perspective...

QuoteThe Council of Trent's Anathemas

Peter and Paul Ministries

The Council of Trent, the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, was held at Trent in northern Italy between 1545 and 1563. The purpose of this council was to condemn every heretical teaching of the Protestant sects. Trent courageously defended the seven sacraments, the Most Holy Eucharist, purgatory, the necessity of the priesthood, justification by faith and works, indulgences, and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. Trent also hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation's) against anyone that denies the Catholic doctrine. These anathemas should not be looked upon in a negative light. The Church concerned with the spiritual welfare of mankind warned all against the danger of embracing error as any good guardian would do with those in trusted to their care.

The question many people ask today is were these anathemas from the Council of Trent ever revoked? The answer is No. An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible. Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did away with Trent's anathemas. First, there is not the slightest hint in the documents of Vatican II that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated. As a matter of fact Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent's proclamations as authority. Second, prior to the 1983 Code, those who were excommunicated from the Church were divided into two categories; i.e. vitandi and tolerati. The 1983 Code of Cannon law eliminated these distinctions which has given rise to the false impression that these condemnations were repealed, but this is not the case. Catholics must remember that canon law deals primarily with internal discipline. While there is always some relation between canon law and dogmatic theology, as a rule the law does not make doctrinal pronouncements.  Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation when asked if the Code of 1983 repealed the anathemas he stated, "I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.

The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

That the article was written for Catholics does not negate its point, Harold.  That's not logical in the least.  And don't forget, one of the quotes is by a Catholic expert in Canon Law, not just a writer on Catholic website, and not a non-Catholic looking at this from the outside in.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:33:37
The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

They're obviously anti-catholic, just look at their page:

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:33:37
The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

That the article was written for Catholics does not negate its point, Harold.  That's not logical in the least.  And don't forget, one of the quotes is by a Catholic expert in Canon Law, not just a writer on Catholic website, and not a non-Catholic looking at this from the outside in.

The point I get from Vat II is it applies to catholics not non-catholics. The article stated catholics must remember. It did not say all faiths must remember.

The non-catholic web-site states that the other person is correct. The council of Trent applies to catholics, not non-Catholics. If you do not belong to the catholic church who cares.

I was referring to the one I posted.

There are no catholics calling any one cursed, except other catholics. How can we be excommunicated from a church, if we do not belong to the church.

FTL

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:42:30

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:33:37
The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

They're obviously anti-catholic, just look at their page:

That is so funny. 

Quote from: kensington on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 16:53:22

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:42:30

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:33:37
The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

They're obviously anti-catholic, just look at their page:

That is so funny. 

If it had referenced the correct site it would have been..........

FTL

Quote from: kensington on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 16:53:22

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:42:30

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 15:33:37
The article I posted is from the following site:  http://www.geocities.com/~peterpaulmin/

They're obviously anti-catholic, just look at their page:

That is so funny. 

Indeed.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 10:53:59

I don't know about you, but after looking over these canons I am throughly cursed by the Roman Church. And when I listen to Catholics tell me that we are both Christians, and that the Pope is my brother I find this hard to believe or understand. Since according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

Before I jump into the "posting arena" full steam, I would like to address what has been stated in this paragraph.  I think that this sentiment goes to the heart at what has taken place on this forum between Catholics and Protestants during the past few weeks with devastating consequences.

Since I AM a Catholic, I certainly know and understand what the Catholic Church teaches.  I am not a "cradle Catholic," but a convert.  I grew up with a mother that was Church of God and a father that was Baptist.  During my adolescence, I attended a baptist church and left the church for various reasons, but not the faith.  Ironically, I was a Protestant lay leader while I was in basic training, and this is where I met and befriended a Catholic for the first time in my life.  My interests had always been politics and religion, and we had many good discussions.  Since I was never exposed to the Catholic faith growing up, most of what he talked about was quite foreign to me, and I believed in the same old Catholic stereotypes and misconceptions.

When I went to college and started to think for myself, I began to realize that some things just didn't hold water in many of my beliefs about Catholicism.  I was a history and political science major during college (After receiving degrees in these fields, I went on to major in secondary education and philosophy in religion studies...I was one of these strange creatures that really loved going to school...this is why I became a teacher). These fields gave me the opportunity to explore the Catholic faith more in-depth, and after ten years of studying and praying, I became one (a decision I wished I made a long time ago).

I realized that in my many studies and discussions with other members of the Catholic faith, I never judged or mocked their faith.  I never told them that they were going to hell or that their faith was anti-Christ.  I never mocked them or belittled them.  The discussions were civil, although heated at times.  However, I always had a profound respect for them and their faith.  I didn't realize just how much prejudice Catholics endured (especially in the south) until I became one.

Christianity is the most fragmented and divided faith among the major religions of the world.  There are reasons for this and it is truly shameful.  However, I would like to think that despite our disagreements, we can learn to understand one another.

As I look back at the threads and postings by many of the Catholics that have graced this forum, I realized that most of the postings were of a defensive nature.  Their posts aimed to educate and present the Catholic POV in the face of fierce and at times hurtful comments.  I feel as though that being Catholic involves constantly defending what we believe in.  No doubt that some Catholics, including me, have become frustrated with this process.  It is very easy to become angry, especially when people are constantly questioning your faith and misrepresenting the Catholic faith.  I warned CC not to fall into this "frustration" trap as soon as he joined.  I reminded him to keep his cool.  However, there are some on this forum that can be quite nasty.  There are those that are not interested in hearing what Catholics truly believe in...they would rather hold on to their misconceptions and stereotypes.  They would rather mock and belittle.  There is not much I can do about this except present what the Church teaches and move on.

The Catholic Church does not consider Protestants to be "cursed" or "damned."  Protestants may actually register as members of a parish church without being Catholic.  They may participate in the different charities and ministries of a parish church.  They may participate in Mass, with the exception of partaking of the Eucharist.  There are reasons for this that are not unreasonable or met to be a slight.  Protestant members may actually join the processional to the Eucharist.  They receive a blessing from the priest instead of receiving the actual bread.  Now tell me, would a "cursed" or "damned" person be allowed to do this?  I don't think so.  The doors of the Catholic Church are open to everyone...Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

As a devout Catholic, I can truly say that all of you are my brothers in Christ.  Despite our disagreements, you are my Protestant brethren.  If you do not or cannot accept this, then there is nothing I can do about it.

So, with all of this said.  I look forward to some interesting discussions in the future.

Protestants may actually register as members of a parish church without being Catholic. 

And why is it exactly that we would want to do this?

You know, it's very telling what you said... Because at my church, Catholics can come, they can join, they can participate in ministries, they can join in the worship, participate in services, go up for prayer, be blessed AND receive communion.

And I have been defending my beliefs against the rails of Catholics since the day I got saved. 

And your friend... CC... came here on the attack. He came here to convert.  His name stated his mission.  I understand those who found offense in that. Because I did.  I am a born again, spirit filled believer, a child of the living God. And when someone comes at me with that "not good enough" Christian junk... I get up for it. Which is what he did.

He didn't want to discuss Christ... He wanted to discuss Mary as Queen. ...  And got offended when others didn't receive her that way.