big difference between Catholics and Protestants

[guanophore]

Here Jesus tells a teacher of the law, the law being all the rules and rituals that the Jews had to follow that the most important thing to remember is to love God and love each other. He doesn’t say that obedience to the law is the most important.

No, He is saying that obedience to the Law is summed up in these two commandments. By saying this, He is saying that obedience to the Law is the most important.

In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (B]Luke 18:9-14

) Jesus tells us not to exhault ourselves because we observe our faith to the letter of the law but instead to be like the tax collector and be only concerned about humbling oursevles before God.

Are you suffering some misapprehension that partaking of sacraments is self righteous?

 

[guanophore]

Makes is plain as day, Rome had been evangelized prior to the writing of the Book of Romans 57-58 A.D. The foundation Paul did not want to build on was Peters. Conclusion Peter not only came to Rome just before his death in Feb 68. A.D. but also after his release from prison under Herod in 43.A.D… He founded the Church of God in the Imperial City and in the almost 25 years between his tow visits preached the gospel fo Christ throughout Europe Britian and Asia.

There is nothing wrong with religious fiction. I enjoy it myself. One of my favorites is “The Robe”, and wonderful work of religious fiction that really gave me a lot to think about the events and people surrounding the Lord’s death.

There is no way, however, you can reconcile the activities of Peter recorded in the book of Acts with you imaginitive history.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, I know you will also deny this, the same as Peter being the Leader.

No, rinnie. You have misunderstood me. You think that, because I do not accept your imaginative fiction as fact that I am not Catholic, but that is not the case.

I agree I was wrong on when the first church was started, if you look at it as the first teachings as being the first Church. When I said Peter started the first Church in ROme and it was the ROman Catholic CHurch I still stand by this.

You are welcome to stand whereever you wish. The facts are not standing with you, but that is ok. If it makes you feel more authentic in your faith to believe this, more power to you. Peter was not a Roman, he was a Jew, and he built upon the Church that Jesus founded, which was not, and is not “Roman”.

That is what I meant by the First Church. But if again its the first teachings after the death of Jesus, Yes it would be the room where they all met in Jerusalem. But I did not look at that room as a Church, and that was where I admit my error. To me and still today in my mind is the Roman Catholic CHurch in Rome, and it will always be the first Church.

Clearly what is most important in this case is not the facts, but what is in your mind.

 You can rip me up, and tear up what I believe.  Thats okay. But this is the truth as I know it and believe it to be.

No, I have no desire to do so. I affirm your right to know the turth as you believe it to be. I pointed out that it is not consistent with the facts for the sake of the lurkers.

And I am sorry he was called the Roman Catholic CHurch and still is today.

No, I don’t think you are sorry about this. I think your sense of superiority about being Roman is very important to you - so much so that confronted by the facts, you are still not willing to give it up. It is ok. There is no need for you to do so.

I am sure this was a waste of time. You will of course deny everything. But that is okay.  I believe that Jesus made Peter the leader, And Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. THey called it Bishop back then, today Pope.

It is curious that you seem to think you have wasted you time.

It is curious that you seem to think that I don’t believe that Peter was made chief of the Apostles by Christ, and that he went to Rome and built up the Church there prior to being martyred there. It is curious that you think, since I do not accept your notion of Roman Supremacy, that you think I would reject these facts.

Since the book of acts finishes with the first imprisoment of Paul in Rome and two volumes may be dated to around 59-61. The we can conclude the book of Mark must have been written between 38-61 A.D. thus confirming the 45A.D. compliation date and the Presence of PETER IN ROME AT THIS TIME.

I know you do not believe the code names.

I wonder how you “know” this? I wonder why you think I beleive otherwise? You have made a number of erroneous assumptions about what I think, and what I believe. Curious.

Syriac Document which is an extract from a book concerning Abgar the king and the Apostle Thaddeus. outlines the areas of responsibility given to each apostle.
To SIMON PETER WAS ALLOTTED ROME. AND JOHN EPHESUS TO THOMAS INDIA TO ADDAEUS THE COU NTRY OF THE ASSYRIANS AND WHEN THEY WRE EACH SENT EACH ONE OF THEM TO THE DISTRICT WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOTED TO HIM THEY DEVOTED THEMSELVES TO BRING THE SEVERAL COUNTRIES TO DISCIPLESHIP ( THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS.

 

[guanophore]

Tough question, isn’t it. Though I think many of them reject creeds in general. As a result, they may accept what the Apostle’s Creed, for example, says, but reject the idea of creed.
Can’t back that up with anything but a feeling.

Let’s see, the Apostle’s Creed says:

I can’t imagine what in here couldn’t be accepted by a Christian, except maybe communion of saints.

Jon

I agree, but it starts with rejecting the communion of saints, then moves on to separating baptism in the HS from the baptism in water, so there is no longer one baptism, etc. etc.

 

[Matariel]

And I guess some would have a problem with “one baptism for the remission of sin”.

Jon

Even though the phrases “one baptism” and “baptism for the remission of sin” are Biblical?

 

[Matariel]

And I guess some would have a problem with “one baptism for the remission of sin”.

Jon

Even though the phrases “one baptism” and “baptism for the remission of sin” are Biblical?

The only part that my Protestant father refuses to say when worshipping with me at Catholic church is “the one holy Catholic Church”.

 

[JonNC]

Even though the phrases “one baptism” and “baptism for the remission of sin” are Biblical?

The only part that my Protestant father refuses to say when worshipping with me at Catholic church is “the one holy Catholic Church”.

At least he goes with you.

Jon

 

[nbtb1348]

Because Jesus only founded One Church, and wants us to be united.

I agree that the most important is the attitude of the heart toward God. But, you are wrong that the actions are “meaningless”. If this were true, Jesus would not have instituted the sacraments. He would never have been baptized Himself!

Yes,

It does matter, which is why He said we were to worship in spirit an in truth. It is not just picky details, but significant departure from the Teaching of Jesus.

I believe the Catholics stayed with the group that strayed away from the gospel. They drifted into a works salvation, an obssession with things other than Christ, and the Holy Spirit left. Exited the building. Mary is the Queen and the pope is the subservient king.

I believe the RCC’s obseession with succession is like the Jews of Jesus’ day that were so proud they could trace their lineage back to Abraham. They had the succession! But God’s Spirit had left the building. They were empty on the inside, BUT MY, WERE THEY RELIGIOUS!

Just a thought.

 

[Matariel]

I believe the Catholics stayed with the group that strayed away from the gospel.

In other words, the Church collapsed into heresy, and Christ’s promise was for nothing…

They drifted into a works salvation,

Huh? The Church doesn’t teach a “works salvation”…

an obssession with things other than Christ

The entire Church is centered around Christ, it’s founder.

…and the Holy Spirit left.

This is contrary to the Bible and constant Christian teaching, which teaches that Christ’s Catholic Church is indefectable.

Mary is the Queen and the pope is the subservient king.

“Subservient king”? More like Successor of St. Peter and Vicar (representative) of Christ on Earth.

I believe the RCC’s obseession with succession is like the Jews of Jesus’ day that were so proud they could trace their lineage back to Abraham. They had the succession!

And Christ said they have the “seat of Moses” listen to what they say, not what they do! In other words, Jesus acknowledged their teaching authority, even though they were hippocrites! This evidences the Catholic position.

But God’s Spirit had left the building.

You say so, but where is evidence for that?

They were empty on the inside, BUT MY, WERE THEY RELIGIOUS!

True religion cares for the orphans the poor and the widows. So says the Epistle of St. James.

 

[jmcrae]

True religion cares for the orphans the poor and the widows. So says the Epistle of St. James.

And the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the whole world. I read a statistic somewhere that 75% of the world’s orphaned children are being taken care of by Catholic nuns and religious sisters.

 

[Matariel]

And the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the whole world. I read a statistic somewhere that 75% of the world’s orphaned children are being taken care of by Catholic nuns and religious sisters.

And it has been for 2,000 years. Even the secular historians acknowledge that the Catholic Church has done more humanitarian work than any organization on the planet. And the Catholic Church invented hospitals, the college and university system, and funded the arts and sciences throughout history. Some of the greatest of the philosphers have been Catholics and Catholic saints-- Like St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the Catholics stayed with the group that strayed away from the gospel.

And what evidence do you have to support your “belief”?

When did this happen?

They drifted into a works salvation,

Can you please show where the Catholic Church teaches this?

Also, can you please explain how the Catholic Church defeated the heresy of Pelagianism?

Did this defeat occur prior the “straying” from the gospel?

an obssession with things other than Christ, and the Holy Spirit left.

Can you show where the Catholic Church is not Christ centered?

Can you explain why Jesus promised that the HS would remain and guide the Church until the end of the Age, and yet was too weak and insufficient to do so?

Exited the building.  Mary is the Queen and the pope is the subservient king.

Why did Jesus not keep His promise to remain with them forever?

To the exent that Mary is the mother of a King, yes, she is a Queen. To the extent that all believers are prophets, priests, and kings, then yes, the pope is the subservient King. However, Mary and the Pope have this status BECAUSE Jesus is head of the Church.

I believe the RCC’s obseession with succession is like the Jews of Jesus’ day that were so proud they could trace their lineage back to Abraham.

Is that a problem?

They had the succession! But God’s Spirit had left the building.

The Church is not a “building” but a Body. What you are saying is that Jesus went back on His promise, and He did not remain with them, that He did leave them orphans.

They were empty on the inside, BUT MY, WERE THEY RELIGIOUS!

Do you honestly believe that people who are empty on the inside will give their lives for their faith?

Just a thought.

One has to wonder about the origin of such thoughts.

 

[nbtb1348]

In other words, the Church collapsed into heresy, and Christ’s promise was for nothing…

Huh? The Church doesn’t teach a “works salvation”…

Christ’s promise was alive and well to this day. I didn’t say the
Church collapsed. I said the Roman church strayed from the gospel. The Church continued right on. Today we see converted upon the preaching of the gospel of grace just as in Acts. But you are not seeing that kind of activity in the RCC. It looks little like the fire of Acts.

And yes, you do teach a works salvation. Whenever you add anything to the finished work of the cross, you have committed the Galatian error. We believe works prove we were and are saved. You believe works keep you saved. There is, my friend, an eternal difference between those two ideas.

You have verses like, “a man is justified by faith apart from any works of the law” and “being confident of this…that He who began a good work in you will continue it until the day of Jesus Christ”

But the ‘works’ verses you cite fit perfectly into what we believe–they are the evidence of true salvation by grace through faith.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”–Eph 2:8,9

 

[nbtb1348]

And what evidence do you have to support your “belief”?

The Church is not a “building” but a Body. What you are saying is that Jesus went back on His promise, and He did not remain with them, that He did leave them orphans.
QUOTE]

“Left the building” was, of course only an expression.

Non Catholics are not the least concerned that if the RCC veered from the gospel, it would mean Christ’s promises about preserving the Church failed! We are millions upon millions strong, engaged in massive church planting, evangelism, worship, community…why, we KNOW Christ’s promises didn’t fail! Do you think Billy Graham or Rich Warren wonder if the line of authority and power for change runs through Rome? Or if the members of the largest Christian church in the world-The Yoido Church in Seoul, Korea (almost one million members of this one church) are wringing their hands, wondering if they should have checked with Rome before exploding? These ministries and others like them have explosiive Acts-like growth because the Holy Spirit is alive and well there.

Faithfulness to the truth of Scripture and the simplicity of the gospel is the only gurantee that any church-Rome or otherwise-are part of the true Church. Most of the 30-40 million born again people in the house churches of China have no time to debate the merits of Rome. They are too busy being the Church.

To deny the above is to totally have your head in the sand, and you guys are the only ones who don’t know it!

 

[guanophore]

Christ’s promise was alive and well to this day. I didn’t say the Church collapsed. I said the Roman church strayed from the gospel.

Can you please show when and where this happened? Until you can do this, you are just spouting anticatholic unsubstantiated opinion.

The Church continued right on. Today we see converted upon the preaching of the gospel of grace just as in Acts. But you are not seeing that kind of activity in the RCC. It looks little like the fire of Acts.

I can well believe that you cannot “see” the evangelization in the Catholic Church. You seem to have a very think set of anti-Catholic blinders over your face.

And yes, you do teach a works salvation.

Please show where the Church teaches a “works salvation”.
Until you can do this you are spouting out of your ignorance.

Whenever you add anything to the finished work of the cross, you have committed the Galatian error. We believe works prove we were and are saved. You believe works keep you saved. There is, my friend, an eternal difference between those two ideas.

It seems you have a non-Apostolic view of salvation.

You have verses like, “a man is justified by faith apart from any works of the law” and “being confident of this…that He who began a good work in you will continue it until the day of Jesus Christ”

Yes, we do have verses like this. This verse was written by a Catholic, for Catholics. I am glad you like it.

But the ‘works’ verses you cite fit perfectly into what we believe–they are the evidence of true salvation by grace through faith.

Yes, all of the truth that is found in the communities of our separated brethren came from the Catholic Church. The errors represent where they separate from the Catholic faith.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”–Eph 2:8,9

I notice that evangelicals are fond of omitting v. 10:

“that we may perform the works for which He has predestined us from before the foundation of the world”. If one is intellectually honest, one will admit that the grace that saves us by faith is not separated from the works produced by it. Both faith, and works produced in it, are begun and persist by saving grace.

“Left the building” was, of course only an expression.

I understand that, but the expression implies that Jesus did not keep His promise, and left the church orphaned.

Non Catholics are not the least concerned that if the RCC veered from the gospel, it would mean Christ’s promises about preserving the Church failed!

I did not imply that you were. I challenged you to support your assertion with some facts.

Catholics are concerned about insults to the Bride of Christ, such as the one you have leveled here.

We are millions upon millions strong, engaged in massive church planting, evangelism, worship, community…why, we KNOW Christ’s promises didn’t fail!

Bragging about your works notwithstanding, you have not shown that Christ “left the building” of the Catholic Church.

Do you think Billy Graham or Rich Warren wonder if the line of authority and power for change runs through Rome?

No. What has that to do with any evidence that the authority God gave to the Church goes through Rome? You have to show when and where the authority given to Christ was separated from Rome.

Or if the members of the largest Christian church in the world-The Yoido Church in Seoul, Korea (almost one million members of this one church) are wringing their hands, wondering if they should have checked with Rome before exploding?

God’s spirit is at work througout the whole world. You have still not substantiated your assertion.

These ministries and others like them have explosiive Acts-like growth because the Holy Spirit is alive and well there.

There is no dispute about that. What I am disputing are the accusations you have made against Catholicism. The evidence of Catholic faith outside of Rome does not prove your point.

Faithfulness to the truth of Scripture and the simplicity of the gospel is the only gurantee that any church-Rome or otherwise-are part of the true Church.

Please show where the Church in Rome is not faithful to the truth of Scripture and the simplicity of the gospel.

Most of the 30-40 million born again people in the house churches of China have no time to debate the merits of Rome.

This is probably good, since I am sure they know even less about it than you seem to know, and so whatever they have to say will not have much value.

They are too busy being the Church.

To deny the above is to totally have your head in the sand, and you guys are the only ones who don’t know it!

You have not substantiated any of your calumny.

 

[nbtb1348]

Can you please show when and where this happened? Until you can do this, you are just spouting anticatholic unsubstantiated opinion.

I can well believe that you cannot “see” the evangelization in the Catholic Church. You seem to have a very think set of anti-Catholic blinders over your face.

Please show where the Church teaches a “works salvation”.
Until you can do this you are spouting out of your ignorance.

It seems you have a non-Apostolic view of salvation.

Yes, we do have verses like this. This verse was written by a Catholic, for Catholics. I am glad you like it.

Yes, all of the truth that is found in the communities of our separated brethren came from the Catholic Church. The errors represent where they separate from the Catholic faith.

I notice that evangelicals are fond of omitting v. 10:

“that we may perform the works for which He has predestined us from before the foundation of the world”. If one is intellectually honest, one will admit that the grace that saves us by faith is not separated from the works produced by it. Both faith, and works produced in it, are begun and persist by saving grace.

I understand that, but the expression implies that Jesus did not keep His promise, and left the church orphaned.

I did not imply that you were. I challenged you to support your assertion with some facts.

Catholics are concerned about insults to the Bride of Christ, such as the one you have leveled here.

Bragging about your works notwithstanding, you have not shown that Christ “left the building” of the Catholic Church.

No. What has that to do with any evidence that the authority God gave to the Church goes through Rome? You have to show when and where the authority given to Christ was separated from Rome.

God’s spirit is at work througout the whole world. You have still not substantiated your assertion.

There is no dispute about that. What I am disputing are the accusations you have made against Catholicism. The evidence of Catholic faith outside of Rome does not prove your point.

Please show where the Church in Rome is not faithful to the truth of Scripture and the simplicity of the gospel.

This is probably good, since I am sure they know even less about it than you seem to know, and so whatever they have to say will not have much value.

You have not substantiated any of your calumny.

Let’s start with the most important–the first. I don’t know when the RCC strayed, but they are certainly there today. Scripture teaches that the moment a person is saved, they step into a heavenly family where the Father adopts us for all eternity and can, because He has dealt with the ENTIRE issue of sin and condemnation. The RCC teaches that at any moment, after faith, you could sin, die, and go to hell. Foget everything else I said until you understand this is the opposite of grace. It is no grace and you don’t even see it. We are saved by grace through faith and we are KEPT saved by grace through faith. Grace is simply not very 'AMAZING" in the system of the RCC.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s start with the most important–things first…

I would think that would be backing up your apparently spurious accusations with some facts.

I don’t know when the RCC strayed,

Then it puts you in a tenuous position to assert with such confidence that this has happened, does it not?

Perhaps, before you continue advancing such groundless calumny, you will do some research?

but they are certainly there today.

Given your apparent gross lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, this comment really has very little merit.

Scripture teaches that the moment a person is saved, they step into a heavenly family where the Father adopts us for all eternity and can, because He has dealt with the ENTIRE issue of sin and condemnation.

nb, Scripture does not teach. People teach. You acquired your understandings of what the scriptures mean by listening to people who teach this.

The reason scripture states that the moment a person is saved they step into a heavenly family where the Father adopts us is because Scripture was written by Catholics, and therefore, reflects the Catholic faith. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. That is why you are reading it in Scripture.

The RCC teaches that at any moment, after faith, you could sin, die, and go to hell.

Yes. This is the faith we have received from the Apostles.

 Foget everything else I said until you understand this is the opposite of grace.  It is no grace and you don't even see it.

I agree that when people sin they experience a loss of grace.

We are saved by grace through faith and we are KEPT saved by grace through faith.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 Grace is simply not very 'AMAZING" in the system of the RCC.

I accept that you did not experience it that way as a child and an altar boy. I, too, did not understand grace until I left the RCC. Although some of the fault for this is in poor catechesis, and it lack of parental adherance to baptismal vows, it primarily falls upon me to understand what the Church teaches, which I did not do.

 

[hays1122]

nb, Scripture does not teach. People teach. You acquired your understandings of what the scriptures mean by listening to people who teach this.

I agree with your statement completely,“You acquired your understandings of what the scriptures mean by listening to people who teach this.”
You believe what you believe as a Catholic,because that is what you were taught.
Same thing with protestants and any one else who was born and raised into a family that teaches their children to follow what their parents believe.
This is why I wish people were more understanding of what protestants or even Muslims believe. If they were raised to believe in that way,they can’t help it any more then you can help believing so strongly in the Catholic church.
If you really believe that a person who is not Catholic is miss informed,then pray for them. Teach them what you know in love and ask the Lord to open their eyes to His truth.
The Holy Spirit can do anything through Christ our Lord.
God bless us all with His understanding and Christian love.

 

[Always_For_Him]

"because that is what you were taught. Same thing with protestants and any one else who was born and raised into a family that teaches their children to follow what their parents believe.

Very nice. While I read through this thread it keeps reminding me that we all really have to take an honest look at WHY we believe what we believe. Jesus only left ONE Deposit of Faith. His teachings, while used in various forms, ONLY had ONE meaning. Either you (generally speaking) (not hays1122) believe Jesus is who He says He is and is capable of doing WHAT He SAID He would do, or you don’t. When the Protestants protested and separated themselves from Jesus One True Apostolic Catholic Church they did so of their own choice. The changes that were made then were for much more than the sale of indulgences, and they forever changed Christianity and separated what Christ wished to be ONE. Non-Catholics espouse a million beliefs as to why it was right for the Reformation. What I am finding is that most don’t even know the real reasons for the Reformation. They just say that the Catholic Church was so bad that it was necessary.
What they also DON’T know is that they have NEVER been taught the complete Deposit of Faith as it was taught BY the Apostles. They have been taught bits and pieces intermingled with their own denomination’s, family’s, etc., interpretation as has been handed down for generations. It is truth to them. So many teachings/traditions of Protestantism are NOT biblical - Sola Scriptura, Sole Fide, OSAS, etc. What happened to all of the sacraments, belief in the sacraments, Marian Dogma that the Reformers believed and held true to? That has even been phased out over the last 500 years.
All of Protestantism has had to take Scripture (which was written for them by the Catholic Church) change it, interrpret it differently, pull Scriptures out that support said belief as proof without the understanding of the context in which it was written. If you don’t believe the Catholic Church had any authority at all, then you can’t believe the Book that you call the Word of God is what it says it is. The Bible IS the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is the teachings that had been taught for centuries before it was written down. Catholic teaching will NEVER contradict Scripture. Catholic teaching was recorded through the Holy Spirit AS Scripture. HOWEVER, Scripture is not ALL teaching. You can’t possibly think that everything Jesus ever said or did could be recorded. With that, you then have to know that you have to understand the CONTEXT by which it was written and know that to truly understand Scripture, you have to understand it in the context of those who wrote it - the Catholic Church. Just because you wish that weren’t true, or believe your church has the truth, doesn’t make the Catholic Church wrong. It means that you have never known the truth other than what you have been taught.
Protestant denominations have been teaching their own teachings/interpretations since the Reformation. The Bible doesn’t teach itself - humans teach, humans interpret. So, that makes it even more important to make sure that your understanding of Scripture is the same as the people who wrote it for you - NOT individual interpretation - which Scripture itself admonishes. So, you can’t just ignore that.
It is up to every single Protestant and Catholic alike to know the history of Christianity. Without the Catholic Church’s (name removed by moderator)ut, NO ONE would have HIS STORY. The Catholic Church hasn’t apostasized, hasn’t fallen away, hasn’t changed it’s teachings. It is those that separated themselves from the original Church that have been taught man-made teachings, beliefs, interpretations that are NOT APOSTOLIC! The proof is there. All anyone has to do is research it without bias, without their denomination’s slant. When did your denomination start? Who started it? Why did they start a different denomination or branch? If you can answer those questions with answers other than at Pentecost and by Jesus Christ, then you are NOT in the ONE Church started by Christ, but one started by man with changes to original Apostolic teaching.
Christ only founded ONE Church. He did it through His Apostles, the men that HE chose to establish His visible Church on earth. He set forth the way He wanted it done. Who is ANY man to change that? Well, many men have come along and changed teachings. Over and over again, we see different teachings and interpretations of Jesus’ ONE Truth. He ONLY left it with the Apostles. They understood His teachings, what He meant when He said it, and the context in which it was said. They passed it on to their successors and so forth. There has never been a break in succession to Peter. That is historically recorded for you to research. The magesterium has preserved Jesus’ Deposit of Faith. You have to believe that if you believe one single word in your Bible.
The teachings of the Catholic Church have NEVER strayed from Apostolic teaching as preserved through the magesterium of the Church. If you believe that it has, please prove how, when, where and by who because your opinion is not proof. Your denomination’s tradition of teaching does not disprove it. It is all recorded for you. I want to make sure that everyone understands that I am using “you” to referring to Non-C’s who don’t understand Catholic history and teaching. I am not referring to hays1122.

And you are right, (hays1122) the only thing we can do is try to correct their misunderstandings and pray for them, pray for God to open their eyes to the Truth. Human understanding, pride and will are too powerful. Only God can truly reveal the Truth to those who have never been taught the fullness of Jesus’ Deposit of Faith as only the Catholic (Univeral) Church understands and teaches.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I believe the Catholics stayed with the group that strayed away from the gospel. They drifted into a works salvation, an obssession with things other than Christ, and the Holy Spirit left. Exited the building. Mary is the Queen and the pope is the subservient king.

That is what you believe. Where did you get that belief? Do you have written, historically documented proof? If so, please provide it. Beliefs morph and change over time, and this is proof of some original teaching by someone trying to discredit the Catholic Church.

I believe the RCC’s obseession with succession is like the Jews of Jesus’ day that were so proud they could trace their lineage back to Abraham. They had the succession! But God’s Spirit had left the building. They were empty on the inside, BUT MY, WERE THEY RELIGIOUS!.

It isn’t just the RCC. It is the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. Jesus founded His Church on the Apostles. Their successors ARE the magesterium of the Church. Jesus didn’t teach Martin Luther, Billy Graham or any of our contempories of today. He taught the Apostles, who taught their successors. Their successors wrote the teachings of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church down. This is what you call the Bible. If it is not taught in the understanding and context of Apostolic teaching, then it is not Jesus’ teachings, but teachings/interpretations of man who teach from Churches that separated themselves from the Apostolic Catholic Church.