Catholic vs protestant

[MichaelP3]

So you believe snippets of scripture are sufficient to convey the message we are intended to have? That the message the writer wanted the audience to have can be obtained without consideration of the time, culture, or audience?

No Horton and that was exactly what I was posting against. I’ll clarify more clearly for you although I do think I was pretty clear.

You specifically referred to the Bible verse numbering as being an invention. I then posted that you like the word “invention” a lot as you seem to be using it everywhere. So I gave you an alternative to refer to specific parts if you prefer to reject that “invention”. I do still think my alternative for you will not make our lives easier though.

As to taking larger points into context you also should know that everyone has access to the Scriptures. It is concerning that you think it wasn’t all studied as a whole. I mean that is elementary academics. I rather think space is more of a problem here and people don’t really read much these days and therefore snap remarks are the order of the day.

Having been a Protestant before finding the Truth in the Catholic Church I know using small texts from the bible to prove points does happen. I’ve seen it in real life, I heard family members attempt to use it with me, (while telling me I’m going to hell for being Catholic) and I see it all the time online.

I feel I should caution you not to use your time as a non-Catholic to give any credibility. Fair enough you may have spent many years in that tradition and learnt/not learnt from that. It is just interesting that whenever a former-Catholic comes here and claims their past as some credibility they get eaten alive and no respect is given. Now I prefer not to descend to that level but it would be dishonest not to give you that information.

As to your reply. You would have noticed that many things happen on this forum with no possible explination. The point is that assuming certain things would not help. Maybe this would be the time to use that previous non-Catholic knowledge and admit that although you will find that on this forum, but that numerous and numerous times the Scriptures as a whole has been studied and are readily available online by non-Catholic scholars.

 

[mcq72]

Who makes this decision? & in your opinion, what is the path to restore the Church to God’s intent?

If I may intrude.There is the law of small beginnings of any great endeavor. A little like Jesus saying if you can be trusted with a little now, more will come after.

So why not start with the latest mistep of 1954. Thank you for liking the logic of the post. Yet if we can’t start with that restoration as you ask then what, or why go elsewhere?

Still there is hope, and it may be preferable to look at any mistep by itself, or one doctrine at a time, instead of the “big bang” drama.

A little leaven here and there goes a long way.

 

[Justin_Mary]

So why not start with the latest mistep of 1954. Thank you for liking the logic of the post. Yet if we can’t start with that restoration as you ask then what, or why go elsewhere?

Still, the question is who determined 1954 was the latest misstep, or a misstep at all?

 

[MichaelP3]

That question will only make sense if it is assumed that “someone” can determine anything in the first place.

 

[Mishakel]

I “liked” this because it’s logical & thought out. Not because I agree. Just wanted to get that out.

Now my question, if we’re going to say the Catholic Church went astray at some time, when? Was that prior to the Reformation? Prior to the Great Schism? Prior to 1954?

Who makes this decision? & in your opinion, what is the path to restore the Church to God’s intent?

I can give you my opinions if that’s what you’re asking for and thanks for the like to my rational logic ))

You have several questions and so I’ll try to be brief. The first deals with if the RCC isn’t what it claims, when did it go astray etc…

I won’t say the Catholic church started astray but I also do not believe it was the same entity that it has grown into. You and I won’t agree on what the definition of the bride of Christ is or the Church. I believe, as Peter states, that all believers (Christians) “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

The definition of Catholic today really means everything that is defined by Catholicism. One other definition of the word catholic means “of or including all Christians”. If you want to say the first churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, Thessalanica, etc. were all like minded Christians and thus were catholic I will agree. If you believe all these early Christians held to every single belief that Catholicism believes today I will disagree.

I can’t point to a single event in history and say this is where Catholicism went astray. I believe since the death of Christ until the end of time there will have always been true Christians that spread the message of salvation through Christ.

On your question about restoring “the Church”, it falls under what I’ve already stated. You and I do not identify that as the same thing. To me it’s impossible to restore the Church because it is what’s actually made up of the elect. They’re the ones God knew and called and chose before creation.

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Can any of us truly understand this? No. Did God pre-select us and free will doesn’t come into play or does it mean God knew which path everyone would chose of their own? We’re not meant to understand everything. We’re only human and our intelligence and wisdom are but a grain of sand on the oceans beaches compared to God.

Paul said Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

We will all meet God one day and bow before him. As for me all I can tell you is I will bow knowing there is nothing I could ever have done by myself in my human life to deserve spending eternity with God save one thing. I put my faith in his Son and the Word that came directly from God himself that all my sins would be washed away if I but only believe and live as Christ commanded.

 

[mcq72]

Luther in a sense was declaring himself greater than christ

Well, a bit tongue in cheek may I say he never declared himself greater than to be a pope.

 

[mcq72]

Still, the question is who determined 1954 was the latest misstep, or a misstep at all?

Not sure but a lot of non Catholic ecclessial communities do, if that means anything.

 

[annad347]

I think this is a consequence of the development of the idea that Rome cannot error. If you are protected from error then why do you even need a Bible? Why do you even need Tradition?

That’s a scary thought.

 

[annad347]

…But we know the Catholic Church is protected from lies by the Holy Spirit.

That’s not what I said… I said things people post that is suppose to help me understand that other churches are lies can just as easily apply to the Catholic church… I’m not saying any church in which Jesus Christ is the head of the church are teaching lies.

…I’m not going to live my life as though I can do anything I want, make poor choices, harm others, because I don’t really believe what our Lord has said about sin and just punishment.

That is not what I said… I said God would save you because He knows you better then you know yourself. You decide weather or not to take it.

I’m saying you could have messed up bad, you died because of it. God will know if what you did was done for the sole purpose of killing someone. Upon your death, God will show you the light because He loves you. You decide to walk to it or walk away.

Never did I say that meant you can sin when ever and how ever you want, without repenting. I said God knows you even if you die in sin. Besides, if you did kill someone with all intentions of killing, with no care or remorse… over and over again, even if you know Jesus, that just means you never really knew Him… meaning you never really had salvation or the Holy Spirit within you. That wouldn’t have applied to you, because you are filled with The Holy Spirit… you wouldn’t purposely kill someone.

… There were many more writings that were not included in the bible.

So Catholic’s picked and chosed which books to add to the bible and which to leave out?

I also believed scripture was written by man with inspiration from The Holy Spirit and the individual books were put together the way you said. Whether or not those very smart people were also inspired by The Holy Spirit on which books to include in the bible… I pray to God they were.

… To prove one belief system is better or to build mutual understanding?..

Not prove one is better then the other but to build a mutual understanding on how they are united through The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit… at least that’s my reason for reading and posting.

 

[mcq72]

Not prove one is better then the other but to build a mutual understanding on how they are united through The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit… at least that’s my reason for reading and posting.

Agree…shall some be graced in discerning the body and blood of Christ in a sacrament but not the body of Christ equally in ecclesial communities?

Jesus is coming back for His Bride. He is not a polygamist. One Bride, one Church. One better adjust their definition of church to this biblical truth. Some aspect of “church” must be universal, beyond differences in heirarchy and peripheral doctrines which will be left behind at His coming.

Those souls who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb shall see Him at the wedding .

 

[Justin_Mary]

I can’t point to a single event in history and say this is where Catholicism went astray.

I agree. There have been many points of divergence, even before Christ died. One example is after the bread of life discourse where some couldn’t understand the teaching. Jesus asked his twelve, “will you leave as well?”

Peter answering for twelve admitted he did not understand either, but believe it to be true.

Paul dealt with false teachings as well. His letters are examples of the correction he administered in person.

St John, St James, St Peter all authored letters correcting ecclesial communities that had gone astray. I assume all the apostles dealt with such matters throughout the world as they spread the Gospel.

History shows the successors of the apostles, the bishops, doing the same thing. Reaffirming the truth.

This is the way God has used the Church, & is using the Church, to protect what he has taught from the beginning. It is not always easy to understand. It is not always important that we understand, but to believe & trust the one he sent.

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Church is the true christian Church as christ body and blood is present in it. Luther in a sense was declaring himself greater than christ.

Source, please, where Luther says this.

Here’s what Luther actually said:

I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have.
… I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8

 

[mcq72]

Also I remember that most Protestants churches change the bible to suit them, such as divorces and so forth.them, such as divorces and so forth. Thus they are denying Christ’s word so hence how can ther church be true and holy since they do not acknowledge the truth that comes from jesus christ the Holy son of God and God the Father

Well, on some things we have different understandings, but do you want to be a legalist, or cleave to the narrowest interpretation on all things. I mean the bible, even Jesus, says “call no man father, or do not do repetitious prayer,” and shall we interpret that narrowly, and cross off our list as true and holy any churches that do so?

 

[Justin_Mary]

Well, on some things we have different understandings, but do you want to be a legalist, or cleave to the narrowest interpretation on all things. I mean the bible, even Jesus, says “call no man father, or do not do repetitious prayer,” and shall we interpret that narrowly, and cross off our list as true and holy any churches that do so?

I’d say you have a point, except Jesus said no vain repetitious prayer, only to be seen. & St Paul is already being called father less than 40 years after Jesus’ resurrection.

Still, he maintains God doesn’t approve of divorce.

 

[mcq72]

I’d say you have a point, except Jesus said no vain repetitious prayer, only to be seen. & St Paul is already being called father less than 40 years after Jesus’ resurrection.

Still, he maintains God doesn’t approve of divorce

See. You have a broader and more correct application of said verses.

When it comes to divorce you go narrow as it relates to other understandings, even though you do similar things but calling it annullment. That is we both understand that due to our weak nature there is an exception, allowance for divorce. This does not do away with His desire for no divorce, nor does he command an anullment/ divorce for pornea, but allows it.

PS…the father thing and the prayer thing still could be problematic on some levels, for some people…its the spirit of the thing…nothing dogmatic.

 

[Justin_Mary]

When it comes to divorce you go narrow as it relates to other understandings, even though you do similar things but calling it annullment. That is we both understand that due to our weak nature there is an exception, allowance for divorce. This does not do away with His desire for no divorce, nor does he command an anullment/ divorce for pornea, but allows it.

Actually, this is one of the things I admit I don’t understand. But it is what the Church teaches & I pray to one day understand.

 

[Mishakel]

Peter answering for twelve admitted he did not understand either, but believe it to be true.

One point of context is none of the disciples fully understand what Christ’s true purpose was until after he filled them in after the resurrection.

 

[JonNC]

Also I remember that most Protestants churches change the bible to suit them, such as divorces and so forth.

Please be specific. “Most Protestants” doesn’t identify who you are talking about. General comments about “all” or “most” Protestants are generally wrong, generally speaking.

Further, this sounds like an accusation that “most” Protestants are not sincere in their faith
Could you elaborate in order to clear up any misunderstandings?

 

[Irishmadcatholic23]

No salvation outside the church.

 

[TC3033]

Are you saying non-Catholic Christians cannot obtain salvation?