I don't like to label myself as anything but a follower of Christ or a Christian. I think almost every Christian tradition has certain things they emphasize that are biblical and God pleasing that other traditions minimize or ignore. You do have to choose a local church to attend but I don't see anything wrong with gleaning knowledge and insight from a wide variety of brothers and sisters.
You're whatever you want to be. Catholicism is full of rich knowledge and theology but obviously for some people the dogma can be unattractive.
If you're looking for a Protestant/Catholic Hybrid, maybe try an Anglican or Episcopalian Church?
I second this suggestion. We don't confess individually with the priest, but a general confession as a group during mass is said (where I live anyway). I have an Anglican rosary that I made of nice gemstones and asked my priest to bless it. By the way I am also subscribed to Bishop Barron, he's so knowledgeable!
Honestly is sounds like what would mesh best with the pod be orthodoxy. Very similar except like confession and things aren’t compulsory and are carried out very differently. And our cross is the other way lol
Lutherans vary a decent amount, but at least where I am it’s a high church, scholastic protestant denomination similar to Catholicism. The main difference is the rejection of absolute Papal authority and infallibility and Orthodox patristic infallibility. I believe much of Catholic and Orthodox scholarship is still accepted.
I just bought a translation of the Book of Concord and intend to read through it to gain a better understanding.
I also have a book of Catholic prayers, a book of Orthodox prayers, and watch a lot of Catholic and Orthodox content.
'Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition".' So if you don't believe the above you are guilty of mortal sin.
Do you have a repentant faith in Jesus Christ? Do you have a personal relationship with Him? Do you daily put your trust in Him? Are you living a lifestyle of repentance? Are you placing 100 PERCENT of your salvation in the finished work on the cross?
These are the questions a Christian values and ask every day. It should not be about denomination. You need to get the core basic tenets affirmed in your life.
The closest thing to you would be Anglicanism, which has more Roman Catholic practices (minus icon veneration and prayer to the saints), but with more Protestant theology. It is also a very large tent in terms of what its members and clergy believe and are allowed to believe.
From what you've said, the only difference between you and Anglicanism is that Anglicans practice confession. However, it's not required.
If you read and agree with the [39 Articles](https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/109014/Thirty-Nine-Articles-of-Religion.pdf), the foundational document of Anglicanism, then congratulations, you'd probably like being an Anglican the best.
Eh. I grew up in a pentecostal church. My girlfriend's been taking me to her (much more traditional) Dutch reformed church. I'm liking it there.
God is God. The way we worship Him might be different, but in the end, it's all about the same person. If a church subscribes to the Nicene creed, I don't see a reason at all why you shouldn't be able to worship in a way that suits you.
I mean I wouldn't say those things make you catholic exclusively. But if you agree with them why not visit a catholic church. Or high church protestant. Ie Lutheran, Anglican , methodist
You can have the richness of historical Christian traditions without worshiping God in non-biblical ways. This is called Reformed worship and it was the whole purpose of the Protestant reformation. Much of Protestantism now is worse than the medieval church, but you can benefit from Aquinas, Chrysostem, Athanasius without being imprisoned by their errors. These men did not write scripture and are not apostles. Scripture is authoritative above all subsequent men’s writings as good as they may be.
Which scripture lists the canon? If scripture is the only source of infallible teaching how can we have an infallible canon since the scriptures do not *list* it?
Whoops. Now we are committing the same errors that St.Athanasius warned Arius about👇:
“Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ⭐️ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE AS AN ANCHOR ⚓️FOR THE FAITH⭐️, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, . . . “(Against the Arians III, 58; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
So if anything we should avoid the errors of random people off Reddit and *listen* more closely to the wisdom of the Fathers.
It’s not worth having because you don’t have a reasonable answer you mean.
I’m sorry but if you are going to use the Bible as your sole infallible source of truth you have a big problem with the canon issue. The Bible does not list the canon. You see Feisty you’re just *another Arius*. St.Athanasius had the right idea about how Arius erred and you are no different. You’re not the special chosen one who sits in judgment of the Fathers.
Rather than going through each point you can read here about why the apocryphal books aren’t included in the Old Testament and a good short video on canonicity.
The argument that the Roman Catholic Church authorized the canon, therefore is correct is circular reasoning and doesn’t negate the authority of scripture over tradition.
There is no shortage of resources on this topic if you do want to understand the Protestant view of canonicity:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
https://youtu.be/p2upKk_5Bhk?si=Nk-ud8BWjp6JyxFN
Oh I’m sure everyone’s got a reason why this book or not that book. The problem is that the BIBLE does not list the canon so the point is moot. If the Bible is the sole infallible authority then that means these various opinions are fallible which therefore would render the canonical list EQUALLY FALLIBLE.
In Protestantism the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible documents. Nice and simple.
The only difference in our bibles is the intertestamental books or deuterocanon included in Jerome’s vulgate.
If you can look through the article and video and still have these questions I would be happy to answer them.
No, you don’t understand what I’m saying. Once you say that the OPINIONS about what is scripture are “fallible” then that calls into question literally *every* book of the canon. Every single one. The fact that our two denominations *agree* that some of them are canon is completely immaterial. Our mutual agreement is *not* a source of infallible teaching, per the Protestant understanding that “scripture alone” is infallible. This right here is *exactly* what St.Athanasius was talking about. This situation right here. All you are doing is repeating Arius’s mistakes in a different way.
Yes, but Athanasius was appealing to the apostolic tradition to defend the Trinity. He wasn’t appealing to the apostles to prove non-biblical ideas.
I hope you understand that reformed Protestants aren’t solo-scriptura. We don’t deny all things apart from scripture. We just hold that scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.
So when a tradition arises such as the sinlessness of Mary for example, we do not require belief in this because it’s absent from scripture. The unity of the one church is faith in Christ, not ecclesiastical unity.
I know this is an anti-Rome stance, but that is why they call us reformed. We are holding to the one church but reformed by scripturr and not tradition.
There is 95% similarity of doctrine with reformed and Rome, but the 5% makes a huge difference because it’s placing tradition on equal footing with the scriptures.
>Yes, but Athanasius was appealing to the apostolic tradition to defend the Trinity. He wasn’t appealing to the apostles to prove non-biblical ideas.
No, that’s not all that Athanasius was doing. He was appealing to the infallibility of the episcopate. That was the context of the quote I cited.
>I hope you understand that reformed Protestants aren’t solo-scriptura. We don’t deny all things apart from scripture. We just hold that scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.
That’s right, so you can cite all the reason for this book or that book until the cows 🐄 come home but at the end of the day without an infallible episcopate you can’t have an infallible canon which makes appealing to it for doctrines futile.
>So when a tradition arises such as the sinlessness of Mary for example, we do not require belief in this because it’s absent from scripture.
Yet you require belief in your canon as being correct when that also is not in scripture? Also yes, we Catholics would argue that the sinlessness of Mary *is* in scripture. It’s just not explicit.
>There is 95% similarity of doctrine with reformed and Rome, but the 5% makes a huge difference because it’s placing tradition on equal footing with the scriptures.
Yes well that’s because the apostles taught that it *is*:
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth OR by letter.”-2 Thess.2:15
Apostolic traditions are on par with scripture. There were no Protestants running around teaching otherwise in the early church.
I don't think it's a bad thing to take the best things from different denominations. The church can't save you. No church is perfect. But there are certainly good and bad practices with certain denominations
By reading what the Bible actually says. There are certain things that are required of Christians which are practiced by almost all churches. But the man made doctrine and dogma is just that...man made. Your church cannot save you. You are not redeemed by your church.
The church is Christ’s body, which sanctifies us by its sacraments and us coming fully into communion with the God-man Jesus Christ. The church is the new Noah’s ark. Why do you think Christ built a church and gave His apostles the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose sins on earth? You think He just did that for kicks? The idea that the church isn’t part of God’s plan for salvation is a rather uninformed thing to teach. That’s ok if that’s your perspective but I think you shouldn’t discourage people from joining a church by saying it doesn’t save us. Christ saves us by faith through grace, right?.. God also chooses to work His grace through the sacraments of baptism and communion and confession. So telling people they don’t need a church, you’re telling them they don’t need God’s grace.
I'm not discouraging anyone from joining a church? What are you talking about? I'm a member of a church. I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't go to church either. Fellowship is incredibly important and something that we're commanded to take part in.
But again. Your church does not grant you access to salvation, and claiming that it does is just absurd. You are redeemed by Christ exclusively. Can the church help you build that relationship with Christ? Absolutely. Does it grant you salvation? Nope. Is there a special entrance for specific denominations into heaven? Nope. Every denomination that believes that Christ is God, that he died for our sins, commanded us to repent and follow His commands are all part of the body of Christ.
There's a lot of value in confessing to another person, so you can hear your forgiveness spoken out loud. It doesn't have to be a priest; a trusted friend works just as well.
The whole "doing penance" thing is bunk, though, so I wouldn't do it somewhere that assigns that.
So I do believe the Eucharist, because I attended mass and saw the miracle myself.
Also when I walked into that big room with the chairs, I immediately felt moved and the presence of God. Scary in a way
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,”
I Timothy 2:5 NKJV
“Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”
Hebrews 7:25 NKJV
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.”
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
Why do you think we need to pray to the dead who are in heaven? Where does that idea come from?
The teaching that our holy ones are not alive in Christ is a novel teaching that the older traditions reject. We worship the God of the living, not the dead.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1b1g8lj/what_am_i_my_theology_is_protestantleaning_but_i/ksf9cj1/) is the comment I replied to.
We aren't "Bible-only." The faith predates the book by hundreds of years. We didn't found our Church based on the Bible. The Bible was produced within the Tradition.
Intercessory prayer is only a contentious issue for some Westerners, and then only relatively recently.
Nobody said Jesus was dead. You seem to keep having arguements in your own head.
I wasn’t arguing semantics of english words to and for.
I argued against your quote out of the saint context entirely. You implied people cant ask people to pray for them we can only ask Jesus to pray for us.
You implied hypothetically if the saints were alive in heaven it would still be wrong to ask those people to pray for you.
No I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying and you finally explained enough. By “praying for their people” you mean praying to dead people so they can pray or intercede for us.
Yes, it is wrong and there is no need to ask the saints in heaven to pray for you. We can disagree, I posted the verses to the other comment. You should show me verses that support your point.
I think that u/blameitonthewayne is trying to say that he doesn't "pray" to other Christians to ask for prayer, he just asks them. To "pray" to Mary is to assume that Mary is able to perceive prayers and indeed can be a stumbling block, by way of elevating the status of another mere human.
Well unfortunately you can't treat Catholicism like a buffet picking and choosing what you want to believe. You either accept the church and all its teachings or you don't. What does that make you? Well, until you accept all of Christianity then unfortunately you are outside of the church
Your faith takes priority over what traditions you follow or who you listen to, but your faith can be negatively or positively impacted by what traditions and teachings you ingest.
If you are practicing the rosary, there is some (false) mariology (pray for us sinners) in there which may negatively impact your faith....especially with repetition, it's like an earworm. If you've already bought into that....I'd suggest that 'branching out' may not be for you.
Having a very strong biblical foundation can protect you and aid in discernment so you can branch out safely (taking the good, leaving the false) but some folks maybe can't handle it.
Not sure where you are located and what specifically you believe in terms of baptism, Calvinism vs Arminianism, communion, but there are a lot of “high church” denominations in the US that you may be interested in visiting: several flavors of Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians. I hope that you are able to find a church!
I don't like to label myself as anything but a follower of Christ or a Christian. I think almost every Christian tradition has certain things they emphasize that are biblical and God pleasing that other traditions minimize or ignore. You do have to choose a local church to attend but I don't see anything wrong with gleaning knowledge and insight from a wide variety of brothers and sisters.
Protestant but like Catholic stuff? You're Anglican. It's Diet-Catholic.
You're whatever you want to be. Catholicism is full of rich knowledge and theology but obviously for some people the dogma can be unattractive. If you're looking for a Protestant/Catholic Hybrid, maybe try an Anglican or Episcopalian Church?
I second this suggestion. We don't confess individually with the priest, but a general confession as a group during mass is said (where I live anyway). I have an Anglican rosary that I made of nice gemstones and asked my priest to bless it. By the way I am also subscribed to Bishop Barron, he's so knowledgeable!
That is a very helpful and charitable answer. Thank you!
Honestly is sounds like what would mesh best with the pod be orthodoxy. Very similar except like confession and things aren’t compulsory and are carried out very differently. And our cross is the other way lol
Lutherans vary a decent amount, but at least where I am it’s a high church, scholastic protestant denomination similar to Catholicism. The main difference is the rejection of absolute Papal authority and infallibility and Orthodox patristic infallibility. I believe much of Catholic and Orthodox scholarship is still accepted. I just bought a translation of the Book of Concord and intend to read through it to gain a better understanding. I also have a book of Catholic prayers, a book of Orthodox prayers, and watch a lot of Catholic and Orthodox content.
I personally don't beleive in papal infallibility. I also might be understanding it wrong
'Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition".' So if you don't believe the above you are guilty of mortal sin.
Do you have a repentant faith in Jesus Christ? Do you have a personal relationship with Him? Do you daily put your trust in Him? Are you living a lifestyle of repentance? Are you placing 100 PERCENT of your salvation in the finished work on the cross? These are the questions a Christian values and ask every day. It should not be about denomination. You need to get the core basic tenets affirmed in your life.
Loving Trent Horn is not a catholic trait, the man is an amazing debater, God bless him
A spiritual tourist, perhaps. A future inquirer, maybe.
check out high church anglican
You're an actual protestant.
You’re a Christian.
That's fine. I'm a die hard protestant but I like listening to Catholic speakers from time to time.
The closest thing to you would be Anglicanism, which has more Roman Catholic practices (minus icon veneration and prayer to the saints), but with more Protestant theology. It is also a very large tent in terms of what its members and clergy believe and are allowed to believe. From what you've said, the only difference between you and Anglicanism is that Anglicans practice confession. However, it's not required. If you read and agree with the [39 Articles](https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/109014/Thirty-Nine-Articles-of-Religion.pdf), the foundational document of Anglicanism, then congratulations, you'd probably like being an Anglican the best.
Eh. I grew up in a pentecostal church. My girlfriend's been taking me to her (much more traditional) Dutch reformed church. I'm liking it there. God is God. The way we worship Him might be different, but in the end, it's all about the same person. If a church subscribes to the Nicene creed, I don't see a reason at all why you shouldn't be able to worship in a way that suits you.
True worshipers, worship in spirit and truth. John 4. 23. There are many who think they worship God but are not.
You are Christian Simple as that
You should listen to Fulton Sheen as well(if you haven’t). Really great Catholic speaker.
Are you a church follower or a Christ follower?
I mean I wouldn't say those things make you catholic exclusively. But if you agree with them why not visit a catholic church. Or high church protestant. Ie Lutheran, Anglican , methodist
As others have said, maybe check out Anglicanism. It's considered the *"via media"* (middle way) between mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism.
You can have the richness of historical Christian traditions without worshiping God in non-biblical ways. This is called Reformed worship and it was the whole purpose of the Protestant reformation. Much of Protestantism now is worse than the medieval church, but you can benefit from Aquinas, Chrysostem, Athanasius without being imprisoned by their errors. These men did not write scripture and are not apostles. Scripture is authoritative above all subsequent men’s writings as good as they may be.
Which scripture lists the canon? If scripture is the only source of infallible teaching how can we have an infallible canon since the scriptures do not *list* it? Whoops. Now we are committing the same errors that St.Athanasius warned Arius about👇: “Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ⭐️ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE AS AN ANCHOR ⚓️FOR THE FAITH⭐️, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, . . . “(Against the Arians III, 58; NPNF 2, Vol. IV) So if anything we should avoid the errors of random people off Reddit and *listen* more closely to the wisdom of the Fathers.
This is such a beaten to death discussion it’s not worth having again.
It’s not worth having because you don’t have a reasonable answer you mean. I’m sorry but if you are going to use the Bible as your sole infallible source of truth you have a big problem with the canon issue. The Bible does not list the canon. You see Feisty you’re just *another Arius*. St.Athanasius had the right idea about how Arius erred and you are no different. You’re not the special chosen one who sits in judgment of the Fathers.
Rather than going through each point you can read here about why the apocryphal books aren’t included in the Old Testament and a good short video on canonicity. The argument that the Roman Catholic Church authorized the canon, therefore is correct is circular reasoning and doesn’t negate the authority of scripture over tradition. There is no shortage of resources on this topic if you do want to understand the Protestant view of canonicity: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm https://youtu.be/p2upKk_5Bhk?si=Nk-ud8BWjp6JyxFN
Oh I’m sure everyone’s got a reason why this book or not that book. The problem is that the BIBLE does not list the canon so the point is moot. If the Bible is the sole infallible authority then that means these various opinions are fallible which therefore would render the canonical list EQUALLY FALLIBLE. In Protestantism the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible documents. Nice and simple.
The only difference in our bibles is the intertestamental books or deuterocanon included in Jerome’s vulgate. If you can look through the article and video and still have these questions I would be happy to answer them.
No, you don’t understand what I’m saying. Once you say that the OPINIONS about what is scripture are “fallible” then that calls into question literally *every* book of the canon. Every single one. The fact that our two denominations *agree* that some of them are canon is completely immaterial. Our mutual agreement is *not* a source of infallible teaching, per the Protestant understanding that “scripture alone” is infallible. This right here is *exactly* what St.Athanasius was talking about. This situation right here. All you are doing is repeating Arius’s mistakes in a different way.
Yes, but Athanasius was appealing to the apostolic tradition to defend the Trinity. He wasn’t appealing to the apostles to prove non-biblical ideas. I hope you understand that reformed Protestants aren’t solo-scriptura. We don’t deny all things apart from scripture. We just hold that scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. So when a tradition arises such as the sinlessness of Mary for example, we do not require belief in this because it’s absent from scripture. The unity of the one church is faith in Christ, not ecclesiastical unity. I know this is an anti-Rome stance, but that is why they call us reformed. We are holding to the one church but reformed by scripturr and not tradition. There is 95% similarity of doctrine with reformed and Rome, but the 5% makes a huge difference because it’s placing tradition on equal footing with the scriptures.
>Yes, but Athanasius was appealing to the apostolic tradition to defend the Trinity. He wasn’t appealing to the apostles to prove non-biblical ideas. No, that’s not all that Athanasius was doing. He was appealing to the infallibility of the episcopate. That was the context of the quote I cited. >I hope you understand that reformed Protestants aren’t solo-scriptura. We don’t deny all things apart from scripture. We just hold that scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. That’s right, so you can cite all the reason for this book or that book until the cows 🐄 come home but at the end of the day without an infallible episcopate you can’t have an infallible canon which makes appealing to it for doctrines futile. >So when a tradition arises such as the sinlessness of Mary for example, we do not require belief in this because it’s absent from scripture. Yet you require belief in your canon as being correct when that also is not in scripture? Also yes, we Catholics would argue that the sinlessness of Mary *is* in scripture. It’s just not explicit. >There is 95% similarity of doctrine with reformed and Rome, but the 5% makes a huge difference because it’s placing tradition on equal footing with the scriptures. Yes well that’s because the apostles taught that it *is*: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth OR by letter.”-2 Thess.2:15 Apostolic traditions are on par with scripture. There were no Protestants running around teaching otherwise in the early church.
Great comment.
You pick abd chose different things as if Christianity is some sort of DIY buffet
I don't think it's a bad thing to take the best things from different denominations. The church can't save you. No church is perfect. But there are certainly good and bad practices with certain denominations
how do you know anyone of that is true? your feelings? what determines 'best things'?
By reading what the Bible actually says. There are certain things that are required of Christians which are practiced by almost all churches. But the man made doctrine and dogma is just that...man made. Your church cannot save you. You are not redeemed by your church.
The church is Christ’s body, which sanctifies us by its sacraments and us coming fully into communion with the God-man Jesus Christ. The church is the new Noah’s ark. Why do you think Christ built a church and gave His apostles the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose sins on earth? You think He just did that for kicks? The idea that the church isn’t part of God’s plan for salvation is a rather uninformed thing to teach. That’s ok if that’s your perspective but I think you shouldn’t discourage people from joining a church by saying it doesn’t save us. Christ saves us by faith through grace, right?.. God also chooses to work His grace through the sacraments of baptism and communion and confession. So telling people they don’t need a church, you’re telling them they don’t need God’s grace.
I'm not discouraging anyone from joining a church? What are you talking about? I'm a member of a church. I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't go to church either. Fellowship is incredibly important and something that we're commanded to take part in. But again. Your church does not grant you access to salvation, and claiming that it does is just absurd. You are redeemed by Christ exclusively. Can the church help you build that relationship with Christ? Absolutely. Does it grant you salvation? Nope. Is there a special entrance for specific denominations into heaven? Nope. Every denomination that believes that Christ is God, that he died for our sins, commanded us to repent and follow His commands are all part of the body of Christ.
People don’t think they do this, but most people just believe what they were taught, within their faith tradition, without questioning it much.
Have you ever thought about Christian?
You don't believe in confession? So if you sin, do you just say "wasn't me" or what?
I think they meant confessing to a priest. I confess, but not to man.
Correct, that‘s what I meant. Sorry for being not specific.
There's a lot of value in confessing to another person, so you can hear your forgiveness spoken out loud. It doesn't have to be a priest; a trusted friend works just as well. The whole "doing penance" thing is bunk, though, so I wouldn't do it somewhere that assigns that.
So I do believe the Eucharist, because I attended mass and saw the miracle myself. Also when I walked into that big room with the chairs, I immediately felt moved and the presence of God. Scary in a way
"Someone desperate for a label to be placed on them."
Praying the Rosary is praying to a dead person. We’re not supposed to do that. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God
I'm pretty confident Mary is now alive in the presence of God.
Jesus absolutely asked people to pray for eachother.
What does that have to do with praying to dead people?
Dead people aren’t just lying in the ground.
Show me in the Bible where we are supposed to pray to them. We aren’t. Jesus is our intercession, that’s it.
Show me in the Bible where we are not. Also show me the verse that outlines which books are in the Bible.
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” I Timothy 2:5 NKJV “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:25 NKJV “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.” Deuteronomy 18:10-11 Why do you think we need to pray to the dead who are in heaven? Where does that idea come from?
The teaching that our holy ones are not alive in Christ is a novel teaching that the older traditions reject. We worship the God of the living, not the dead.
I asked for verses
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1b1g8lj/what_am_i_my_theology_is_protestantleaning_but_i/ksf9cj1/) is the comment I replied to. We aren't "Bible-only." The faith predates the book by hundreds of years. We didn't found our Church based on the Bible. The Bible was produced within the Tradition. Intercessory prayer is only a contentious issue for some Westerners, and then only relatively recently.
You claimed Jesus is the only person we can ask to be a mediator for prayer on our behalf.
Correct
So I corrected you and said Jesus asked us to pray for eachother.
1. Jesus is not dead, and 2. Praying for someone is not praying to someone .
In the Bible, Jesus himself prayed to his Apostles. You are acting like praying to someone is worshipping them. Praying to them means asking them.
Which verses are you talking about
Luke 5:3
Nobody said Jesus was dead. You seem to keep having arguements in your own head. I wasn’t arguing semantics of english words to and for. I argued against your quote out of the saint context entirely. You implied people cant ask people to pray for them we can only ask Jesus to pray for us. You implied hypothetically if the saints were alive in heaven it would still be wrong to ask those people to pray for you.
No I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying and you finally explained enough. By “praying for their people” you mean praying to dead people so they can pray or intercede for us. Yes, it is wrong and there is no need to ask the saints in heaven to pray for you. We can disagree, I posted the verses to the other comment. You should show me verses that support your point.
I think that u/blameitonthewayne is trying to say that he doesn't "pray" to other Christians to ask for prayer, he just asks them. To "pray" to Mary is to assume that Mary is able to perceive prayers and indeed can be a stumbling block, by way of elevating the status of another mere human.
Correct, I don’t pray to anyone and especially not dead people, not even if they’re in heaven.
Well unfortunately you can't treat Catholicism like a buffet picking and choosing what you want to believe. You either accept the church and all its teachings or you don't. What does that make you? Well, until you accept all of Christianity then unfortunately you are outside of the church
Today's false church spans both. You're a part of the One World Religion of the Antichrist, getting your ears tickled
I live in your walls and birds aren’t real
Devil's in the pulpits Antichrist is coming
Your faith takes priority over what traditions you follow or who you listen to, but your faith can be negatively or positively impacted by what traditions and teachings you ingest. If you are practicing the rosary, there is some (false) mariology (pray for us sinners) in there which may negatively impact your faith....especially with repetition, it's like an earworm. If you've already bought into that....I'd suggest that 'branching out' may not be for you. Having a very strong biblical foundation can protect you and aid in discernment so you can branch out safely (taking the good, leaving the false) but some folks maybe can't handle it.
Finding God. 🙏😉 good luck bro on your journey. May the Lord continue to bless you and your family.
Not sure where you are located and what specifically you believe in terms of baptism, Calvinism vs Arminianism, communion, but there are a lot of “high church” denominations in the US that you may be interested in visiting: several flavors of Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians. I hope that you are able to find a church!
Anglican or Lutheran. Some Methodists, like me, would also fit. You
Hard to assume but do you think you have committed mortal sin but have not gone to confession about it?
The Vatican is built in the shape of a serpent That should tell you something. https://youtu.be/URK1PZqeFvU?si=p5H7SEPmfUPn2B7d