The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

---

Because you aren't measuring teachings against words on paper. You're measuring teachings against your INTERPRETATION of words on paper. We all have our interpretative lense, including me. That was the point of Jesus leaving a church and not a Bible. I firmly believe this is why Jesus never commanded a single disciple to write down His words. The authority to teach was left. Some of that teaching was written down. Some was not. We can get into the fact that sola scriptura isn't found in the Bible either, but that argument falls under the larger umbrella of "who gets to determine what the hard passages mean".

All I know is it isn't me. Even to pope doesn't presume to know it all. What we do have is a church that was left. A church full of brilliant, spirit filled men that worked through many of these issues long ago. They cannot contradict scripture, so in that sense, they are bound. But where scripture is not clear, either we figure it out for ourselves or we go to the primary sources.

---

I can concede the idea there were traditions passed down in the early church that were not all communicated via written word. That seems like a fun game of telephone to continue to pass down those traditions (and interpretations) over two millenia.

My point is that we now have written scripture. Why not just go with that and keep it simple? I agree we have numerous interpretations of the written scripture we now have (even different books to include in the Canon) but the differences in some areas seem to be quite stark, like Mariology for example (not wanting to get into that specific topic).

On another note, I would speculate that Jesus and his disciples had an understanding some would be writing down his works, as we have the 4 gospels today. God governs all things and what he decrees comes to pass. So the idea that his "works" were going to be written down were wholly within his perfect plan for salvation.

I think most of the New Testament transcripts were available, even if on a limited basis, before 100 AD, correct me if I am wrong.

---

Hence the OP. Does it make more sense to use the interpretive lense of the last 200-500 years or the first 200-500 years?

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

---

Because you aren't measuring teachings against words on paper. You're measuring teachings against your INTERPRETATION of words on paper. We all have our interpretative lense, including me. That was the point of Jesus leaving a church and not a Bible. I firmly believe this is why Jesus never commanded a single disciple to write down His words. The authority to teach was left. Some of that teaching was written down. Some was not. We can get into the fact that sola scriptura isn't found in the Bible either, but that argument falls under the larger umbrella of "who gets to determine what the hard passages mean".

All I know is it isn't me. Even to pope doesn't presume to know it all. What we do have is a church that was left. A church full of brilliant, spirit filled men that worked through many of these issues long ago. They cannot contradict scripture, so in that sense, they are bound. But where scripture is not clear, either we figure it out for ourselves or we go to the primary sources.

---

I can concede the idea there were traditions passed down in the early church that were not all communicated via written word. That seems like a fun game of telephone to continue to pass down those traditions (and interpretations) over two millenia.

My point is that we now have written scripture. Why not just go with that and keep it simple? I agree we have numerous interpretations of the written scripture we now have (even different books to include in the Canon) but the differences in some areas seem to be quite stark, like Mariology for example (not wanting to get into that specific topic).

On another note, I would speculate that Jesus and his disciples had an understanding some would be writing down his works, as we have the 4 gospels today. God governs all things and what he decrees comes to pass. So the idea that his "works" were going to be written down were wholly within his perfect plan for salvation.

I think most of the New Testament transcripts were available, even if on a limited basis, before 100 AD, correct me if I am wrong.

---

Hence the OP. Does it make more sense to use the interpretive lense of the last 200-500 years or the first 200-500 years?

---

---

Does this mean you're converting?

Scoopen Skwert said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

What you are referring to is ongoing, adult level catechesis. This varies from parish to parish, however, many adult Catholics continue their spiritual formation in fraternal services organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or in apostolic movements such as the German founded, Schoenstatt Movement USA. Then there are mendicant orders that have laity as professed members such as the Carmelites, Franciscans, and my favorite, Dominicans.

Again, there is ample opportunity for ongoing faith formation and service within the structure of the Church- just not all take the opportunity.

---

The reason I hold a special place in my heart for the Dominicans.

---

My favorites were Roberto Clemente and Adrian Beltre.

This is one of those topics where terms and definitions matter.

For Protestants, or specifically those groups that existed during the Reformation, in many cases, they understood the Church Fathers better than any Roman Catholic. Part of the cry of the Reformers was we need to go back to the sources. Back to the actual words.

I've said it before, but one of the most powerful books I've read is Martin Chemnitz and his Examination of the Council of Trent, where he spends hundreds of pages just quoting the Church Fathers in defense of the Lutheran view.

This leads to the second group which are the more modern "evangelical" groups, who inadvertently try and "recreate the wheel" by not seeing that many of the questions or debates we see today were the same debates the Church has been going through for centuries and centuries. It can be shocking and overwhelming when they realize this and why so many jump to the EO/Rome without pausing to understand that none of this stuff was controversial up until the last 100 years or so.

Hang on. Before you start talking about the form of a ritual, let's make sure we're all playing the same game.

Do you believe that Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity who became human?

BluHorseShu said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

---

If your #1 is the case, then how do you square the councils that decided which books were inspired? The bible does say which books are to be included. The apostles were fallible men who presented an infallible gospel. Those beyond the apostles were passing on what they were taught and if what they passed on wasn't the inspired word, then how did it get written years later? These are the questions that as a former protestant I also had to come to terms with.

If Paul or Peter walked into a service, they'd likely acknowledge the scripture being taught, but the context of its meaning would likely be different in places. The tradition going back to the church fathers was teaching scripture AND the meaning Acts 8:30-31

---

I don't understand what you mean by written down years later? The apostles and close associates wrote the NT.

birddog7000 said:

---

Jesus spoke of churches in the Book of Revelation who were already losing their way. I say this just to point out that in the earliest days of the Church there were things that needed addressing.

My biggest issue with this divisive debate is that we should in fellowship together serving those around us with love so they can come to know Jesus Christ, not quibbling like a bunch of Pharisees.

We are celebrating the birth of Emmanuel in a few days, we should act like it.

---

I never intend to divide with my posts, and hope that is not the end result. The reality is that we are divided in practice, and sometimes in spirit. It's hard to find common ground because of the numerous varieties of Christian denominations now, and in my opinion, makes it nearly impossible to work towards true unity.

My hope is that thought provoking questions can lead to deeper considerations of where we all come from. Even if we can pare down the numerous Christian sects into a couple of main camps, it would make potentially unifying dialogue easier. Right now it's a bit of a free for all, and the approach of the video maker in the OP seems to be a significant hurdle to truly unification.

I know it's likely a pipe dream, but I feel compelled to search for topics that might make all of us consider our presuppositions.

Zobel said:

---

Hang on. Before you start talking about the form of a ritual, let's make sure we're all playing the same game.

Do you believe that Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity who became human?

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

The Banned said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

Jesus spoke of churches in the Book of Revelation who were already losing their way. I say this just to point out that in the earliest days of the Church there were things that needed addressing.

My biggest issue with this divisive debate is that we should in fellowship together serving those around us with love so they can come to know Jesus Christ, not quibbling like a bunch of Pharisees.

We are celebrating the birth of Emmanuel in a few days, we should act like it.

---

I never intend to divide with my posts, and hope that is not the end result. The reality is that we are divided in practice, and sometimes in spirit. It's hard to find common ground because of the numerous varieties of Christian denominations now, and in my opinion, makes it nearly impossible to work towards true unity.

My hope is that thought provoking questions can lead to deeper considerations of where we all come from. Even if we can pare down the numerous Christian sects into a couple of main camps, it would make potentially unifying dialogue easier. Right now it's a bit of a free for all, and the approach of the video maker in the OP seems to be a significant hurdle to truly unification.

I know it's likely a pipe dream, but I feel compelled to search for topics that might make all of us consider our presuppositions.

---

Knowing Jesus I think is at the heart of it, however people also need to know how we got to where we are. We can tell about Christ's love and plan for salvation all day long, but for someone coming in cold to who Jesus is, there has to be a reason they need saving. We have to start at creation, not in the manger.

I don't feel any division here other than the fact we do have different nuanced beliefs. This is not impacting my preparation for Christmas one iota.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

---

If your #1 is the case, then how do you square the councils that decided which books were inspired? The bible does say which books are to be included. The apostles were fallible men who presented an infallible gospel. Those beyond the apostles were passing on what they were taught and if what they passed on wasn't the inspired word, then how did it get written years later? These are the questions that as a former protestant I also had to come to terms with.

If Paul or Peter walked into a service, they'd likely acknowledge the scripture being taught, but the context of its meaning would likely be different in places. The tradition going back to the church fathers was teaching scripture AND the meaning Acts 8:30-31

---

No council "decided which books were inspired."

Rome may try to retcon this into reality, but it never happened.

Yet meanwhile, Jesus spent the whole night passing cups around, but only the priest gets it during church, because the church said so. What would the apostles say about that?

take it up with the RCC. My church everyone receives in both kinds.

I think Zobel is saying it better, what we believe about the sacrament is what is at the heart of the mass. Hence, I couldn't go to another's worship service and expect to fully partake.

Another way of saying it, is that the mass for Catholics is the highest prayer and is based on tradition. A less formal gathering where this sacrament is not at the center would be a different experience.

Both are offered at RCC mass.

PabloSerna said:

---

Both are offered at RCC mass.

---

To be fair, not all of them. Our parish doesn't. Don't know if I should be upset about it or not, but haven't done a deep dive

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

In my opinion (because that's all I can give) it would be a great exercise to see what the early church fathers thought about the Eucharist/communion and see how that aligns with your church. Then you pray on it and see where He leads you.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

Depends on the Protestant. I am a former evangelical, so what I did should be fairly obvious.

I used to think like you and others on here. When I wanted to observe it more frequently we were given a side table to do it on our own and the pastor's kids would come up and grab handfuls of wafers and grape juice. This is ultimately the end of that line of thought: it's just going to be thrown out so why not? We'll have them wait til you're done before they eat next time. Kids are good at flushing out contradiction.

If it's an empty symbol, you're just Daniel Faraday on an island pushing a button til the smoke monster comes.

Edit: I second the prior two responses. Go deeper. You have a rich Christian tradition waiting for you with many who have gone before you exploring these questions.

Thrown out?

Zobel said:

---

Thrown out?

---

Was a Baptist church. They made a communion corner for those who wanted it more than once a quarter.

No protestants are saying communion is an "empty symbol", you might think it is that by how it's treated but it's not what they would say.

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

AGC said:

---

Frok said:

---

No protestants are saying communion is an "empty symbol", you might think it is that by how it's treated but it's not what they would say.

---

If you can't tell what something is based on how it's treated, why trust what someone says it is?

I've heard that explicitly for decades.

---

Baptists claim it's a symbol, yes.

"Empty" symbol, absolutely not. That is an untrue statement, you added the empty word because that is your opinion. It's like me telling a Catholic they worship Mary.

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

Depends on the Protestant. I am a former evangelical, so what I did should be fairly obvious.

I used to think like you and others on here. When I wanted to observe it more frequently we were given a side table to do it on our own and the pastor's kids would come up and grab handfuls of wafers and grape juice. This is ultimately the end of that line of thought: it's just going to be thrown out so why not? We'll have them wait til you're done before they eat next time. Kids are good at flushing out contradiction.

If it's an empty symbol, you're just Daniel Faraday on an island pushing a button til the smoke monster comes.

Edit: I second the prior two responses. Go deeper. You have a rich Christian tradition waiting for you with many who have gone before you exploring these questions.

---

I'm sorry that was your experience. There is a wide breadth of practice and reverence within Protestant churches (not only with communion), I'll admit to that.

Frok said:

---

AGC said:

---

Frok said:

---

No protestants are saying communion is an "empty symbol", you might think it is that by how it's treated but it's not what they would say.

---

If you can't tell what something is based on how it's treated, why trust what someone says it is?

I've heard that explicitly for decades.

---

Baptists claim it's a symbol, yes.

"Empty" symbol, absolutely not. That is an untrue statement, you added the empty word because that is your opinion. It's like me telling a Catholic they worship Mary.

---

Perhaps this is a good time to talk symbols. What is it a symbol of?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

In my opinion (because that's all I can give) it would be a great exercise to see what the early church fathers thought about the Eucharist/communion and see how that aligns with your church. Then you pray on it and see where He leads you.

---

Which Church Fathers? They all didn't affirm what the RCC subscribes to. Or is that your point - look at them all with their different points of view?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

Depends on the Protestant. I am a former evangelical, so what I did should be fairly obvious.

I used to think like you and others on here. When I wanted to observe it more frequently we were given a side table to do it on our own and the pastor's kids would come up and grab handfuls of wafers and grape juice. This is ultimately the end of that line of thought: it's just going to be thrown out so why not? We'll have them wait til you're done before they eat next time. Kids are good at flushing out contradiction.

If it's an empty symbol, you're just Daniel Faraday on an island pushing a button til the smoke monster comes.

Edit: I second the prior two responses. Go deeper. You have a rich Christian tradition waiting for you with many who have gone before you exploring these questions.

---

I'm sorry that was your experience. There is a wide breadth of practice and reverence within Protestant churches (not only with communion), I'll admit to that.

---

Besides the issue of whether its flesh or bread, blood or wine, in my experience the protestant church is severely lacking in the administration of the Lord's Table.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You would not agree that Catholicism is ritualistic?

---

they have rituals, just like your faith does. ritualistic is a pejorative, so i'm not sure i agree with how you're saying it.

Quote:

---

I believe the bread and wine are symbols, not his literal flesh and blood.

---

right. so. whatever else you're talking about when you come back to this -

Quote:

---

If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

---

they would not say you're practicing Holy Communion at all. because frankly you are not.

---

So, what is a protestant to do with a statement like this?

---

In my opinion (because that's all I can give) it would be a great exercise to see what the early church fathers thought about the Eucharist/communion and see how that aligns with your church. Then you pray on it and see where He leads you.

---

Which Church Fathers? They all didn't affirm what the RCC subscribes to. Or is that your point - look at them all with their different points of view?

---

More the second half. I firmly believe that anyone reading the church fathers for what they wrote (not what we wanted them to write) I think the very furthest you'd fall away from the RCC is Lutheranism. In my opinion Lutheranism is still a bit of a stretch for a couple reasons and Anglicans are probably a more accurate home for those that can't get on board with the Catholic faith, but Lutheranism is still much closer than the average evangelical parish when you read what they believed and did.

I believe everyone should be Catholic, but I understand the hesitancy. If all we do is start to coalesce into fewer and fewer Protestant groups, it's that much easier to understand each other and work together. So no, I don't want to "convince" anyone to change their denomination, but I do want to convict everyone to read what the original faith looked like and ask if that is what your church does. From there it is a prayer led, logical journey to figure out who was more likely to get it right? My Baptist pastor (in my case) continuing a couple hundred year old tradition, or the guys that were there at the beginning.

ETA: I left out EO like the terrible Catholic I am. If you become so convicted in their writings on the sacraments that you feel Anglicanism or Lutheranism come up short, but aren't ready to deal with the papal issue, the EO is there too.