big difference between Catholics and Protestants

[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.

 

[rinnie]

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.

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.

What you are saying is exactly true. Without the Church and the teaching of the RCC there would be no bible. It all came from the beginning and that was when Jesus taught his apostles. Why would the apostles teach things different than Jesus. They would not and did not. That is why in the beginning there was only one Church. There were only the first Apostles that Jesus picked. It was him that gave them the Power and the Power to hand it down until he comes again in Glory.

On the Billy Graham do not get me wrong I am a strong RC. But BG did teach alot of things that agreed with the RCC. The Man did teach alot of truth and I give it to him for that. But Billy Graham did not hold the fullness of the truth. That belongs to the Church. But please do not get me wrong we can all be teachers in the fullness of the truth. But it cannot be our Truth it must be Gods Truth. And again must come through the Church.

So we can all be weapons against the evils of the devil and help eachother. That is really the point to all come together and all be more Christlike. That is really what it is about.

My Dad told me once before the world ends we will all come back to the one Church. I don’t know if he got this in the teachings of the Church or what but I sure hope its true. I wish we could all come together some day. That is what I would call peace on earth all together praying to God from one Church. Hey who knows:shrug: God can do anything. Either its not time, or we don’t want it bad enough.

 

[Always_For_Him]

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

I think that Non-C’s don’t really consider the depth of what that means. If Jesus did not keep his promise, if that is really the case, then they can’t believe one word of the Bible and absolutely shouldn’t use it at all. The fact that words on paper can mean anything you want/need them to mean shows that context is key. Only the Catholic Church understands and teaches the context. We believe Jesus is who He says He is, and that He has guided and protected His Bride like He said that He would.

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

It seems that all that has been proven is that men will continue to teach in error and have followers that believe error. That is no proof that Christ left the Catholic Church. That is proof that MAN alone teaches personal interpretation and that others will just blindly follow without any historical proof.

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.

They won’t be able to. There is NO documented, historical written account of it. This is the tradition teaching of non-Catholic Churches. The only way you will EVER find any writings of the sort will by by non-Catholic Churches, and/or by the very men that ushered in the Reformation for their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
It had to be taught from the beginning of the Reformation that either Rome had no authority, or the authority ended with Peter, or that each of us humans has the authority, etc… to justify being split from the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church to begin with, and to continue to found new Churches with different beliefs. Authority was never separated from Rome, period. There is no proof of this claim. So, why is it that non-Catholics need to prove it or believe that it was? Self proclaimed authority was taken from Rome by Martin Luther and the other Reformers to found their own church. Self proclaimed authority is NOT authority. They were not breathed on by Christ - only the Apostles were. The Reformers separated themselves from Christ’s One Church and claimed their own authority, founded their own Church and added new teachings, doctrine, interpretation and changed the canon.

 

[distracted]

You left out the whole grace vs. works argument, which is a HUGE issue in my view.

how so? Catholics believe we are saved by grace… which comes trhough good works…

maybe Protestants believe they are saved through… grace that does not come through good works???

 

[Matariel]

how so? Catholics believe we are saved by grace… which comes trhough good works…

maybe Protestants believe they are saved through… grace that does not come through good works???

I’ve never heard anyone speak of “Grace Vs. Works”… this seems odd to me. I didn’t know Catholics and Protestants viewed grace’s role in salvation any different?

 

[Always_For_Him]

Hi rinnie,
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that Billy Graham was a wonderful Christian and did his job to teach about God and brought many people to God. You are right, he didn’t have the fullness of Apostolic teachings.

I guess where this takes me is that all of the millions of Non-C’s that he reached with his message didn’t know that. So, that means that they don’t realize that there is so much more to Jesus’ Deposit of Faith than they could possibly imagine. A lot of Catholics pick and choose and don’t live in the fullness of Apostolic teaching. The teaching of the Catholic Church is 2,000 years of the understanding of Jesus’ Deposit of Faith and Apostolic teaching. Non-C’s especially just don’t buy that because they have been taught something else for so many generations.

Jesus wanted us all to be One, joined with Him. It is my hope that we can all become One again in His One Truth.

In regards to the RCC. I am not sure exactly how to say this, but I think that you and guanophore are saying much of the same thing, but you may not realize it. The Univeral Church had been established in Rome long before Peter ever arrived. Somehow though, the teaching got back to Rome and was ready to be made whole with the arrival of Peter. The Church already existed in many areas - started over the years by the Apostles. Hence the 23 Rites of the Catholic Church all under the Primacy of Rome. The primacy of Rome came later. I had to re-educate myself on this too. I went to Catholic School and had learned a lot, but then my thinking morphed over time to just say Roman Catholic Church. I don’t know if I am making any sense, but I hope that you understand what I am saying.

 

[Matariel]

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.

What is your justification for changing the identity of “Church” from Christ’s Catholic Church to an amorphous “invisible church” and where is this taught in the Bible and in the early Christian writings?

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.

The Catholic Church has converted more people than Protestantism by far. Whole nation-groups converted under such great preachers as St. Gregory the Illuminator. Protestantism has never surpassed the Church in propagation of the Holy Gospel.

It looks little like the fire of Acts.

Who are you kidding? The Catholic Church is still growing to this day.

And yes, you do teach a works salvation.

Show me where that is in Church documentation please.

You have verses like, “a man is justified by faith apart from any works of the law”

Don’t you know that “works of the Law” refers the the Mosaic Law?

and “being confident of this…that He who began a good work in you will continue it until the day of Jesus Christ”

This verse goes right along with the Catholic position. Also, “Faith without works is dead” and the Epistle of St. James goes on to say that that mere faith alone does not save.

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

If you twist the verses, yes, it does go along with the Luther-invented *Sola Fide * doctrine.

“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

Amen, where does this contradict the Church’s teaching?

 

[Matariel]

guanophore;4706186:

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?

Okay, when did the Catholic Church supposedly “stray”, and, if so, where were the true believers?

Secondly, Is what “you” (Meaning the “millions and millions strong”) teach exactly what the Apostles and early Christians believed? If so, what is your guarantee? And also, how do you know which books comprise the Bible?

 

[Always_For_Him]

nbtb1348;4706317:

Okay, when did the Catholic Church supposedly “stray”, and, if so, where were the true believers?

Secondly, Is what “you” (Meaning the “millions and millions strong”) teach exactly what the Apostles and early Christians believed? If so, what is your guarantee? And also, how do you know which books comprise the Bible?

that quote was not by quanophore. It was by nbtb1348.

 

[Always_For_Him]

nbtb1348;4706317:

Okay, when did the Catholic Church supposedly “stray”, and, if so, where were the true believers?

Secondly, Is what “you” (Meaning the “millions and millions strong”) teach exactly what the Apostles and early Christians believed? If so, what is your guarantee? And also, how do you know which books comprise the Bible?

Matariel, that quote was originally by nbtb1348, not quanophore.

 

[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.

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.

I still can’t get over this post. “The Catholics strayed with the group…”, says who? That is not historically documented. In fact, the opposite is actually documented. The Catholic Church has documented every step of the way. All you have to do is read it without bliders on. You will have to admit that you have been taught wrong. Nothing you are espousing is historically documented. It is historically documented to be taught by non-Catholics after the Reformation. Let’s see…Jesus’ Deposit of Faith as taught by the Apostles or teaching of man that separated themselves from Christ’s Church and Apostolic teaching. There is only ONE right choice.

 

[Matariel]

Matariel;4709672:

Matariel, that quote was originally by nbtb1348, not quanophore.

Yeah I messed up. Also, your quote of me was attributed to Nbtb1348…

 

[Always_For_Him]

Always For Him;4709866:

Yeah I messed up. Also, your quote of me was attributed to Nbtb1348…

I just don’t understand the quoting thing. When I hit quote, that is how it came out. Sorry about that.

 

[rinnie]

Matariel;4709961:

I just don’t understand the quoting thing. When I hit quote, that is how it came out. Sorry about that.

I don’t understand it either. Sometimes it just messes up like that. Ive noticed it more lately then ever.

 

[elvisman]

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.

This is a clear-cut case of either spiritual blindness or spiritual pride.
You and others on a few other threads have been shown that - yes, you can lose favor with God and that your salvation is not guaranteed.
I am pasting this from another thread because it’s relevant here:

**Your assertion that salvation can’t be lost is yet another misunderstanding on your part of what salvation is.
Romans 11:22 says – “See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
**Hebrews 10:26-27 says – “If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”

*2 Peter 2:20-21 - "*For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. **
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them."

These verses are clearly about those who were in God’s grace and LOST it. Don’t twist the scriptures to your own destruction.

 

[Matariel]

Anyway, what happened to N? I’m still waiting for his replies.

 

[guanophore]

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.

That is not the ONLY reason, but yes.

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.

Yes.

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.

I don’t mean to be harsh at all saying this. What irks me is when people say “this is what the scriptures teach”. They really do believe that what they have been given to understand is from God, and don’t recognize the human source of it.

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.

I do, every day at Mass, and every day especially for those on CAF. I also think it is necessary to point out that people are interpreting what they are reading. If I did this uncharitably, I apologize.

 

[Matariel]

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.

Not me. I was raised Protestant fundamentalist, and then I studied the Bible and Church history and realized I was living a man-made religion from the 1500’s, and the Christ’s 2,000-year-old Church was there all along. I’m in RCIA now, and will be confirmed in the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil.

There is so much division, disunity, and splintering in Protestantism, which is condemned in the letters of St. Paul. And everyone has their own little interpretations of Scripture, and everyone disagrees. When people have disagreements Christ told them to “take it to the Church”, but in Protestantism, which church? Everyone will have a different answer. Protestantism is an untenable mess of splintergroups of splintergroups of protesting splintergroups.

 

[guanophore]

There is NO documented, historical written account of it. This is the tradition teaching of non-Catholic Churches. The only way you will EVER find any writings of the sort will by by non-Catholic Churches, and/or by the very men that ushered in the Reformation for their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
It had to be taught from the beginning of the Reformation that either Rome had no authority, or the authority ended with Peter, or that each of us humans has the authority, etc… to justify being split from the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church to begin with, and to continue to found new Churches with different beliefs. Authority was never separated from Rome, period. There is no proof of this claim. So, why is it that non-Catholics need to prove it or believe that it was? Self proclaimed authority was taken from Rome by Martin Luther and the other Reformers to found their own church. Self proclaimed authority is NOT authority. They were not breathed on by Christ - only the Apostles were. The Reformers separated themselves from Christ’s One Church and claimed their own authority, founded their own Church and added new teachings, doctrine, interpretation and changed the canon.

They did the best they could. They saw that the leadership in their vicinity was corrupt, and I believe, sincerely wanted purity. They accepted that the Scripture is “God Breathed” just as the Church is, and tried to replace the authority that Christ appointed with the next best thing. They did not realize, however, that Scripture does not “interpret” and “teach” itself, and that ultimately, they were replacing the magesterium of the church with their own. Now, every Christian who adheres to the Sola Scriptura doctrine and sincerely believes that he or she is being led by the HS becomes their own “pope”.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve never heard anyone speak of “Grace Vs. Works”… this seems odd to me. I didn’t know Catholics and Protestants viewed grace’s role in salvation any different?

Many Protestants, most evangelicals, and all fundamentalists confuse references in scripture to “works of the Law” with good works. They understand rightly that we are saved by grace apart from works, but do not understand that the grace that saves us flows through the good works that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Many of them misunderstand that, since our works cannot save us, that they have no place in our salvation.