Do Protestants Really Hate Catholicism?

[Ferde_Rombola]

Sorry to waste your time but the first church Christ started was called"THE WAY" not the Catholic church how come they changed the name? love of Christ Nancy

I don’t think your message is a waste of time, but it’s not edifying either. “The way” or “the new way” were the earliest references to the Gospel message, before the Church had a name.

I don’t know who you mean by ‘they’ but no one changed the name until the 16th Century when THEY started changing names twice a week. And they’re still at it.

Whatever Jesus’ Church was called in the beginning, by the early 2nd Century it was the Catholic Church and has been so ever since and we know He will be with us until the end of the world.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Of course the Jewish Scriptures were already in existence; they just were not included in our Bible until the Council of Carthage when the Bible was slapped together for the first time. There are other Jewish writings (Talmud, The Zohar et. al.) that we do not accept. That’s why the Jewish books of the Bible are called The Old Testement. As far as the Jews are concerned, their Testament isn’t old.

I suppose I should also clarify that “The Old Testement” didn’t exist as such; Jewish writings were on scrolls and not “anthologized” so to speak as they appear in The Bible. Jesus refers to them as “The Law and The Prophets,” meaning those scrolls specifically authored by prophets, and the the first five books of the Old Testament, referred to as the Torah. We also incorporated what are called the “Wisdom” writings (Psalms, Proverbs et. al.) So yes the Old Testament existed in its entirety, but not as the specific body of works that we call the Old Testament.

 

[JosieElaine]

Actually it’s you who are mistaken. The first reference to ‘the Catholic Church’ I’m aware occurs in the beginning of the 2nd Century about the year 110 when Irenaeus made the reference. The Church was never called ‘the Christian Church.’

Actually , I was taught the History of the Catholic Church by a very educated priest , Dean of the Faculty of Theology of a well-known university in Canada, a member of a Catholic order called the Eudists, after a Catholic Saint called Jean-Eudes, 2 hours a day, 3 days a week, for 4 years. I also have a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, have read most of the encyclicals of the past 100 years, keep in touch weekly with the weekly Catholic newspaper The Osservatore Romano from the Vatican. I read in equal proportion writings from the Catholic theologians, and their equivalent in different Protestant denomination . I especially read the Bible , of course .
I apologize if I insulted you . It was not my intention . Actually , I meant it a sort of excuse for the Catholics I personnally know who do not know much about their Church . Also , the comment I quoted was not from a Protestant but from a Catholic Archibishop. remember ?
Again , please accept my apologies …

The ‘after that’ means the 4th Century and it’s not true. Before the Church was called "“The Catholic Church” she was referred to as simply ‘the Church.’ The Church has never been known by any other name and there were no other Christian entities except the Catholic Church (East and West) until the 16th Century, when they started sprouting like mushrooms.

You are mistaken. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches accept each other as branches of the true Church. Each has Apostolic Succession, valid sacraments and valid orders. The differences between them are minor my comparison.

I couldn’t agree more. Protestants would do well to study the actual history of the Church from the beginning and not rely on the untruths they are taught. They would also do well to read Scripture for content instead of looking for ways to fit the Bible to their beliefs,which is what you do.

I take that as a personal affront. The entire protestant belief system now comprises over 33,000 different sects, all claiming to preach the truth. There is where you will find ignorance; willful ignorance which deliberately ignores the truth.

You’re right about that. The ‘Catholics’ you refer to are protestants who are calling themselves Catholics. They are not Catholics.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TanakhSo yes the Old Testament existed in its entirety, but not as the specific body of works that we call the Old Testament.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

Here’s a wikipedia article about the Tanakh. Of course, discussion about the formation of the Bible is not really viable in an on-line forum. There is so much more to it which is why Universities have entire curriculums for it, but the general point remains: Thump a Bible, thank a Catholic.

 

[Militant_Ellen]

Hello!
New to the post!
Interestingly for me,A devout Jew .taught me a valuable lesson in Christian charity.
First there was my Christian-Born-“Again” friend.
She is a great gal! ,I really liked her ,to me she was ,just a "lil,"over the top,with “evangelizing”!
We worked closely and well together,regardless of our faith differences.(I’m more of a “power of example"evangelizer”)She seemed to always “evangelize” to our librarian,who was a holicost
survivor from WWII,(she had a horrible tatoo)After my friend evangelized to her for the hundreth time, and my friend left.
I felt "scandalized"by my friends behavior.I went over to speak to the librarian,to sort of,"apoligize"for the zeal of my friend.The librarian told me "she"was not offened at all,because "she"knew my friend
only meant the best for her.I thought,gee,…I can only hope to,pray to get that kind of patience,wisdom and consideration for my fellow Christians,especially when they call me names,I can never remember “sticks and stones”.I always wanna smack em!
I know we are not supposed to be fighting ,and sometimes I just can’t help saying mean things,when I most especially shouldn’t…!!! Even responding to this post is "Danger,Danger,Will Robinson!,for me but if my humility "smack"from my Jewish friend,can help anyone stop the nonsense,that would be great!!

 

[Church_Militant]

Hello!
New to the post!
Interestingly for me,A devout Jew .taught me a valuable lesson in Christian charity.
First there was my Christian-Born-“Again” friend.
She is a great gal! ,I really liked her ,to me she was ,just a "lil,"over the top,with “evangelizing”!
We worked closely and well together,regardless of our faith differences.(I’m more of a “power of example"evangelizer”)She seemed to always “evangelize” to our librarian,who was a holicost
survivor from WWII,(she had a horrible tattoo)After my friend evangelized to her for the hundreth time, and my friend left.
I felt "scandalized"by my friends behavior.I went over to speak to the librarian,to sort of,"apologize"for the zeal of my friend.The librarian told me "she"was not offended at all,because "she"knew my friend
only meant the best for her.I thought,gee,…I can only hope to,pray to get that kind of patience,wisdom and consideration for my fellow Christians,especially when they call me names,I can never remember “sticks and stones”.I always wanna smack em!
I know we are not supposed to be fighting ,and sometimes I just can’t help saying mean things,when I most especially shouldn’t…!!! Even responding to this post is "Danger,Danger,Will Robinson!,for me but if my humility "smack"from my Jewish friend,can help anyone stop the nonsense,that would be great!!

Thanks for sharing this! I have a great buddy who is Orthodox Jewish as it gets and I love him to death. Many times we are side by side fending off the stuff we get hit with, and being guys…well you know we have a low threshold so it’s been good for us both. One on one we have shared and I’ve learned TONS from him.

Ultimately, the real challenge to all of us is to remain Christ-like in all our faith sharing regardless of what Christian religion you come from. The key to me is always the issue of the personal investment I have to make in the person I am sharing with. It’s what Our Lord did and if I will not do likewise, then I need to just keep still.

P.S. Neat name!

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Do you know what I really love? What Nom?
I love when Protestants tell me I’m not a Christian because I’m a Catholic. *Say it isn’t so, Nom! Say it isn’t so! *
Yes, I’m afraid that happens quite a lot.
“What are you?”
“Why, I’m a Roman Catholic. What are you?”
“I’m a Christian.”
“Well, you know, I’m a Christian, too.”
“No you’re not. You just said you are a Roman Catholic.”
“Roman Catholics are Christians.”
“Then why not say you’re a Christian like I did?”
“But I said I’m a Roman Catholic.”
“That’s just my point. Roman Catholics are not Christians. They’re Roman Catholics. They worship the Pope and Mary.”
“We certainly do not!” etc. etc.

The term protestant actually refers to “protest.” Specifically, protesting the Catholic Church. And the protestants are still protesting. Why is that? Why keep a name which promulgates the spirit of rebellion? I once saw a Lutheran newspaper and most of the articles were about the Catholic Church. When you read “The Catholic Answer” or other Catholic publications, their articles are also mostly about the Catholic Church, which seems quite appropriate. So really, the fight between Catholics and Protestants is really based on nomenclature and not theology at all.

 

[Dchsknight]

I am converting from Baptist to Catholic, once April 12th comes i aint ever looking back. On subject. Protestants, don’t catholics, Well some do. It is the protestant doctrine that s catholics. Protestant Doctrine is like a ed off teen ager who does not want to listen to daddy.

 

[JosieElaine]

I am converting from Baptist to Catholic, once April 12th comes i aint ever looking back. On subject. Protestants, don’t catholics, Well some do. It is the protestant doctrine that s catholics. Protestant Doctrine is like a ed off teen ager who does not want to listen to daddy.

I converted from Catholic to Baptist less than a year ago . Never will look back either .

In the case of your teenager who doesn’t want to listen to Daddy , I am 67 years old . Past the teen-age rebellion stage , wouln’t you say ?

 

[bksumm]

JosieElaine,

Ref you question on the St Ignatius quote…that particular quote *“Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” *comes from his Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. A.D. 110]. The quote isn’t from the Didache.
Also, you can find direct refrence to the Catholic Church prior to Constantine in the Muratorian Fragment (MF). I noticed that some Protestant websites translate the MF Greek for Catholic as “Universal.”

I have a question. You stated that the OT was completed 400 years prior to the Incarnation. Since you are now a Baptist, and Baptists are *Sola Scriptura *adherents…WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT? Didn’t the Church, led by the Holy Spirit canonize the Christian Bible-Old and New Testament?

I converted from Baptist to Catholic last Easter Vigil. Glad to be home.

 

[Dchsknight]

I converted from Catholic to Baptist less than a year ago . Never will look back either .

In the case of your teenager who doesn’t want to listen to Daddy , I am 67 years old . Past the teen-age rebellion stage , wouln’t you say ?

No not at all. Age does not Dictate Maturity. You are making a huge mistake. In fact according to the bible, your committing Adu.ltery, with the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Since the Church is a building and the body of Believers in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, leaving the church is a Kin to Adu.tlery. That is what Luther did and set up all protestants to follow the same Mold. Protestants mostly, I say mostly cause i do know a few Protestants who Are truly in tune with God and God will welcome them in, are in flat out Disobedience to God’s word. They are ok with Abortion, On the whole, Individual maybe not, Divorce and Contraception. They are ok with Euthanasia, and Not taking care of the elderly or poor.

I hope your ok with Joining a fractured house that bickers and fights all the time and is pretty much ok with Kil.lling you off, because your 67 years old and drain on the economy.( their words not mine)

the Fact is protestants as a whole, are in constant disobedience because they can not be like minded, that is why there are over 30,000 Different Denoms, to the Protestant “faith”. Protestants basicly is just a fad. They are going left and right here ad there to find the next Preacher who has the “It” translation. Joel Olsteen, Is a coward and will have a lot to answer for in heaven. Benny Hin a liar, and mocks the name of God when he speaks because people treat him as a modern day Jesus. As a whole portestants believe if they Follow God everything will happy and bright, They will be wealthy and Healthy when Jesus says Quite the opposite. He told his Disciples, “They will Ha.te you because they first Ha.ted me.”

Not being Racist or anything of that matter. Some one said on this thread that the Jews did not kill Jesus, that the romans did. Well sorry to burst your bubble, but the Jews did kill Jesus. Here is why: First off: any one who says that the Jews did not Kill Jesus, needs to read the gospels, because they are the ones who cried “Crucify him” not the romans. the Romans Simply wanted to scourge him and then set him free. Pontious Pilet( or however you spell it) was an evil man, not down playing that. The reason that this all falls on the Jews is because Herod had ordered P.P. not be as brutal as he had been in the past, if so he would be put to De.ath . His own wife warned him not to kill the man. PP tried ever single way to get out of it, including begging Jesus to tell him something that would set Jesus free, and Jesus simply answered “There is no authority that you have that is not given to you by the father.” Now the romans carried out the De.ath sentence because under Roman law, which the Jews were under, Romans could only give out De.ath sentences. it was apart of the agreement which let the Jews carry out their own law and own courts, but still fall under roman rule. Also, any one who says that the Jews did not kill Jesus, Answer me this… Why would the High Priest, Tear his cloths, when he heard Jesus’ answer if he was the Messiah or not, when Under Jewish LAW a High Priest is to never rip his cloths will in Trial? Why did the Council carry out the trial, when jewish law states that the case must be thrown out and re done when all of the members of the Council agree unanimously , when it is impossible to get 50 men to agree 100%? why did the Jews carry out the Trial when a member of the Court can not sit in judgment when they have given or received Money for a bribe or a payoff for that Trial, which is exactly what the jews did with Judas? Why did The Jews take jesus to the Romans when Jewish law states that all trails and sentencing must be 24 hours apart. The whole Trial was screwed up. Because they wanted Jesus De.ad .

The Reason protestants and every one else Hat.es Catholics, is because we have the Whole truth. Everyone else is living a lie.

 

[Catholicc]

I am converting from Baptist to Catholic, once April 12th comes i aint ever looking back. On subject. Protestants, don’t catholics, Well some do. It is the protestant doctrine that s catholics. Protestant Doctrine is like a ed off teen ager who does not want to listen to daddy.

Many Baptist preachers think the pope is the antichrist.

Anyway, there is a minority of protestants who really really hate Catholicism, mostly your hardcore Fundies and “Evangelicals”. I don’t think that mainstream protestants do though.

 

[JosieElaine]

JosieElaine,

Ref you question on the St Ignatius quote…that particular quote *“Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” *comes from his Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. A.D. 110]. The quote isn’t from the Didache.
Also, you can find direct refrence to the Catholic Church prior to Constantine in the Muratorian Fragment (MF). I noticed that some Protestant websites translate the MF Greek for Catholic as “Universal.”

I have a question. You stated that the OT was completed 400 years prior to the Incarnation. Since you are now a Baptist, and Baptists are *Sola Scriptura *adherents…WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT? Didn’t the Church, led by the Holy Spirit canonize the Christian Bible-Old and New Testament?

Thank you for your information . I shall make due note of it .
The books of the Ot have been dated by outside sources , historical, archeological, etc . Sola Scriptura speaks about the message , the content , not the dates , which may vary as new discoveries od ancient manuscripts are made . Also, the Jews date their Scriptures has having been silent for 400 years B.C
I agree that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, decided in one of the Councils, what books were to be included in Scriptures . What is your point ? We both believe in the Bible . It is in the Magisterium that I don 't believe .
Also, the Church did not make its decisions out of the blue . Those books were commonly used by the early Christians long before the Council “canonize” them as you so quaintly put it ( Clement of Alexandria , Tertullian , Polycarp, Origen etc., etc.) That is not the problem. We all started with Christ , remember ? The divisions came later .
And for your information , Baptists are not Protestants are per the Reformation . We can trace our line directly from the earliest Church .
But I have a very sincere question, not a criticism . Anyone who has some opinion, please let me know .
I belong to a very small Baptist church (31 members) . Every one except the Pastor comes from Catholicism, and even the Pastor’s parents were initially Catholics .
My daughter belongs to a large Catholic church (1,500 members). Every year, during Holy week , they baptize converts from Protestantism ( 19 last years).
I am moving to a different province of Canada where the Baptist church is composed of solely ex-Catholics also . The Pastor , who is from West Virginia (USA) is a convert from a different Protestant denomination .
My perplexity concerns this : " What is happening here ?" Some cosmic game of “musical chair” ?
Also these new converts , in both groups, are all in fire and zealous about their new-found faith , enough to put to shame those who have been in each respective group for several generations .
Anyone cares to comment ?

I converted from Baptist to Catholic last Easter Vigil. Glad to be home.

 

[Maranatha33]

Ferde, You start with:

*Because I’m not talking to Him. I’m talking to you and I asked you a direct question which you refuse to answer. Which is your prerogative, of course.
*

Jesus shows us plainly that to answer a confrontational question, Scripture is the best
method. Trying to use me to establish an argument is certainly confrontational. It seems that your motivation is to argue about Sola Scriptura.

(unnecessary comment deleted)

You just contradicted yourself, which is par for the course with protestant apologists. If Scripture is not the only source of truth, which is what you say above, then it follows that truth can be found outside of Scripture. Yet you say no additional knowledge is needed for salvation – ONLY Scripture. Can you show me where the doctrine of sola scriptura is in Scripture?

Insulting me by including me in your gross generalization, is rather tacky. But before you insult, shouldn’t you show where I have contradicted myself? In case you weren’t aware, there is a difference between generalized truths and the salvation Truth, as shown below…

It appears to me that we have finally arrived at your ultimate destination. The debate over
Sola Scriptura. Since 2Timothy 3:16 is not sufficient, lets add verses 15 and 17 as well.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man
of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The
written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” . If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.

Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does Sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Scripture) until everything is accomplished.

Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity.

The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That
means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on Sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not

read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and
taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the
principle of Sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early
churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all
that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God.
That–no more, no less–is what Sola Scriptura means.

I will reserve additional responses, since I believe that this is the gist of your post.

 

[Dchsknight]

Ferde, You start with:

*Because I’m not talking to Him. I’m talking to you and I asked you a direct question which you refuse to answer. Which is your prerogative, of course.
*

Jesus shows us plainly that to answer a confrontational question, Scripture is the best
method. Trying to use me to establish an argument is certainly confrontational. It seems that your motivation is to argue about Sola Scriptura.

(unnecessary comment deleted)

You just contradicted yourself, which is par for the course with protestant apologists. If Scripture is not the only source of truth, which is what you say above, then it follows that truth can be found outside of Scripture. Yet you say no additional knowledge is needed for salvation – ONLY Scripture. Can you show me where the doctrine of sola scriptura is in Scripture?

Insulting me by including me in your gross generalization, is rather tacky. But before you insult, shouldn’t you show where I have contradicted myself? In case you weren’t aware, there is a difference between generalized truths and the salvation Truth, as shown below…

It appears to me that we have finally arrived at your ultimate destination. The debate over
Sola Scriptura. Since 2Timothy 3:16 is not sufficient, lets add verses 15 and 17 as well.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man
of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The
written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” . If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.

Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does Sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Scripture) until everything is accomplished.

Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity.

The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That
means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on Sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not

read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and
taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the
principle of Sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early
churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all
that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God.
That–no more, no less–is what Sola Scriptura means.

I will reserve additional responses, since I believe that this is the gist of your post.

You know what is Funny, Sola Scriptura is what Catholics believe too. But here is were we differ. St.Paul said Test everything, not interupt everything. Only one person has the authority to Interupt. That is the Man that Jesus left In Charge over the church, and then the men that, that man put in charge after him.

i am willing to believe that you dont even believe that Jesus gave the power to forgive sin, to the Disciples?

 

[bksumm]

JosieElaine,

My point is that your new tradition claims that everything we need to know as Christians is in the Bible…except what goes in the Bible!!! That is a logical contradiction. The Church…“The pillar and foundation of the truth” was necessary to determine what went in the Bible.

“I agree that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, decided in one of the Councils, what books were to be included in Scriptures . What is your point ? We both believe in the Bible . It is in the Magisterium that I don 't believe.”

My point is that THE CHURCH that in the decree of Damasus, The Councils of Hippo/Carthage and Trent, all of which determined the Christian canon, of the Bible was the CATHOLIC Church.

Also, the Church did not make its decisions out of the blue . Those books were commonly used by the early Christians long before the Council “canonize” them as you so quaintly put it ( Clement of Alexandria , Tertullian , Polycarp, Origen etc., etc.)

Have you read the writings from the aforementioned Fathers of the Church? Their writings don’t sound real Baptist to me. They sound real Catholic.

And for your information , Baptists are not Protestants are per the Reformation . We can trace our line directly from the earliest Church .
LOL. Are you a believer in Landmarkism? I hope you are aware that Dr Caroll’s “The Trail of Blood” has been widely debunked. Do you claim that the Donatists were ProtoBaptists?

 

[tmac1956]

Hi Michael, I’m not quite sure what I am I love all of you and I love the Baptist i dont form my friendship on beliefs i form it on good honest relationships based on the belief of Christ but not to extreme. In other words i ry to get along with all believers and i would die for You or a Baptist or a Mormon,because i believe Christ died for all.If i seen anyone who needeed help i would try to do what i could not based on religion,lets face it some Mormon could be wearing your coat they bought from St Vincent De Pauls store,you know what i mean?All life is of value that’s why we are against abortion,not just for the Catholics but for everyone on the face of the earth.Did you know about the Bill they are trying to pass tomorrow in Conneticut? Bill 1098 they are asking that all power be taken from the Catholic Church because of prop.8 same sex marriage.Tune into Glenn Beck or go on line Glenn Beck.com I think he is catholic and is outraged they are targeting the Christians. So an I Love of Christ Nancy

Hi Nancy:
I believe that Glen is actually of the Mormon faith.

 

[Church_Militant]

Do you know what I really love? What Nom?
I love when Protestants tell me I’m not a Christian because I’m a Catholic. *Say it isn’t so, Nom! Say it isn’t so! *
Yes, I’m afraid that happens quite a lot.
“What are you?”
“Why, I’m a Roman Catholic. What are you?”
“I’m a Christian.”
“Well, you know, I’m a Christian, too.”
“No you’re not. You just said you are a Roman Catholic.”
“Roman Catholics are Christians.”
“Then why not say you’re a Christian like I did?”
“But I said I’m a Roman Catholic.”
“That’s just my point. Roman Catholics are not Christians. They’re Roman Catholics. They worship the Pope and Mary.”
“We certainly do not!” etc. etc.

Would be funnier if it wasn’t true so often.

 

[Church_Militant]

I converted from Catholic to Baptist less than a year ago . Never will look back either .

Josie, I tried it. Almost went into the ministry. I never expected to revert and have a bunch of times (Over more than 30 years) where I said that same thing.

Leave the Catholic faith now? No chance. Without the Eucharist (IMO) it just isn’t New Testament Christianity.

Two things that I would ask you to read and consider.

My Testimony & The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Church_Militant]

Many Baptist preachers think the pope is the antichrist.

Anyway, there is a minority of protestants who really really hate Catholicism, mostly your hardcore Fundamentalists

and “Evangelicals”. I don’t think that mainstream protestants do though.Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best I think.

“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion,
but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion
—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion,
Catholics would hate it too.”