How are Mormons, Muslims and non-Catholic Protestant Christians really that different?

[Jimmy_B]

First of all catholic means universal, Roman Catholics do not own the term catholic…

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a Catholic Bishop, Saint and Martyr was born in 35 A.D. and he wrote -
*

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid…"
(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans /Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop / Here)
*

… It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his (**Saint Ignatius) **

friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, Church History II.3.22). Theodoret (“Dial. Immutab.”, I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (“Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).
Here

 

[1holycatholic]

That is a change of topic. You said Protestants do whatever they want. Protestants is a general term to be sure. However, it refers to specific groups that in many cases absolutely do not do what they want.
I then talked specifically about how that is not the case. Protestants and Catholics do not from what I can tell have different levels of adherence or willingness to follow the authority of their respective churches. The churches and denominations do have authority for their members.
If you want to go specific we can discussing shunning and any number of groups and how they promote adherence to their respective views.
If you want to go that broad I will but it would be helpful if you would talk about one or the other.
What is your preference?

Protestants have no authority regarding faith and morals. Further, the term “Protestant church” is an oxymoron. Protestant groups cannot be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

 

[1holycatholic]

First of all catholic means universal, Roman Catholics do not own the term catholic. All that accept at least Trinity and the three Ecumenical Creeds are Christians. The Mormons are not Christian. They do not accept the Trinity and worship a god of this world and in fact a good Mormon could become a god of a world somewhere. Muslims worship a god named Allah

When you see the word “catholic” in the creed it is referring to the Catholic Church., not some amorphous blob of believers known only to God. The non-Christian doctrine of the “invisible Church” did not exist until it was created by Protestants as part of the Protestant rebellion in the sixteenth century.

It is all in the eye of the beholder as to who has the pillar and the truth.

That is hands down one of the weakest defenses of relativism I’ve ever seen.

 

[1holycatholic]

Well if we go general, that is an interesting question. It boils down to what is the church? But shouldn’t the practical implications of that authority matter?
Thats where when I evaluate my possible conversion I see Catholicism having a major problem. Catholicism is the mother of all splinter groups. The Reformers were Catholics. And it just keeps splitting.
That is something the East has going for it. That possible pillar appears to have avoided this. The East and West split is far enough removed from the Reformation for the East to be really not culpable for any further splits. Just thinking out loud…

The Catholic Church is the only Church established by Christ. That some choose to separate themselves from her does not make the Catholic Church a splinter group.

The Protestant “Reformers” didn’t reform anything, they rejected the authority given by Christ to the Church and established themselves as the ultimate authority. That’s a deformation, not a reformation.

 

[1holycatholic]

It boils down to what is the church?

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth there can only be one Church because of the law of non-contradiction. That applies to everyone, Protestants included. If Protestantism were true then only one Protestant group can claim to be the Church, all other Protestant groups as well as the Catholic Church and the various Orthodox (Assyrian, Eastern, Oriental) would be necessarily false.

 

[ephesians2]

Obviously there is a huge difference between the groups you mentioned.

For one, Mormons are not a monotheistic religion while Muslims and non-Catholic protestants are.

Second, Mormons loosely follow Christ while non-Catholic protestants follow Christ devoutly and have a much closer to Catholic understanding of Christ. Muslims believe Christ was a prophet but not divine and so are not disciples of Christ at all while Mormons and protestants could be classified as Christians because they are attempting to follow the teachings of Christ, albeit in very different ways (with varying differences in accuracy).

I would say a Protestant has a Biblical view of Christ whereas a Mormon does not follow the Christ of the Bible in any way.

Third, to say that protestants wrote their own book, the KJ Bible, is a very crude interpretation of what happened. They removed some books from the Catholic Bible and the books that remain are, for the most part, accurate. This means that the KJ Bible is written by the same authors as the Catholic Bible even though they are different translations. I know several highly recognized and orthodox Catholic apologists who reference the KJV simply because it is closer to a literal translation in some parts. This means that their Bible is every bit as inspired as ours though incomplete.

Well said.

Compare that to the uninspired Koran and Book of Mormon. If your purpose was to insult protestants, I am sure you have succeeded. It is an insult to the Bible in general to equate these books.

“…An insult” Well said.

Finally, we all agree (or should) that all three groups you listed are in fact schisms from the Catholic Church and so have varying degrees of Catholic remnants remaining. To lump them together as essentially equivalent is an insult to each of them though. They have only this single factor in common which truthfully makes them all incomplete visions of the Truth and each has varying degrees of distortion. Protestants are clearly closer to a full understanding of Truth than say Muslims who are closer than Mormons.

Muslims aren’t even close and Mormons are just plain whacked in their beliefs. Neither of the two are Christians.

If that was your point, that these groups all were based on Catholicism and have some aspects remaining, then you can’t limit the argument to these groups because many modern governments are based on Christian models that all have some aspect of Catholicism in them as well. You can move to businesses and schools too. This is because Christ’s model for organization is worth imitating.

On a side note, you ignore Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, etc. who were not based on Catholicism so no, there are not just two groups of believers.

And all of those who worship a “god”, but have never seen or heard of modern living. Example- those in the deepest jungles that we have not been able to preach the gospel to yet.

Well I guess there really there are two groups when you think about it: Christians and non-Christians.

I will agree that there is much happening now that is really an attempt to re-invent what Catholicism already has a handle on, but I am not sure your argument is a sound justification of that reality. I think that any group seeking truth is going to end up with some aspect of the Catholic faith ingrained in it, even if it does not have Catholic origins because any truth that is discovered is related to the one True God who is revealed in His fullness through the Catholic Church. So I think you will see that any group seeking truth will appear to be reinventing the wheel that the Catholic Church has been using for centuries.

God Bless

God Bless!

 

[BrianH]

Protestants have no authority regarding faith and morals. Further, the term “Protestant church” is an oxymoron. Protestant groups cannot be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Several denominations and churches do have authority in terms of the faith and morality of those that belong to them. To get back to a question I asked you. Do you personally believe that Catholics adhere to their church teachings concerning faith and morals than other groups? I do not see a difference personally.

 

[BrianH]

I disagree. It is by their fruits. Truth as an abstract theory without practical implications and adherence does matter. When evaluating the claims of respective groups, the practical implications do measure the validity.
Oh I understand this view but I see no biblical, logical, or rational reason to accept this line of thinking.

 

[BrianH]

The Catholic Church is the only Church established by Christ. That some choose to separate themselves from her does not make the Catholic Church a splinter group.

The Protestant “Reformers” didn’t reform anything, they rejected the authority given by Christ to the Church and established themselves as the ultimate authority. That’s a deformation, not a reformation.

I am not convinced that is the case. Apostolic succession is found in many groups.
And of these groups, its just a fact that most of the divisions in Christianity stem from the West. Its not something that is a deal breaker but being objective I think it matters.

 

[1holycatholic]

Several denominations and churches do have authority in terms of the faith and morality of those that belong to them. To get back to a question I asked you. Do you personally believe that Catholics adhere to their church teachings concerning faith and morals than other groups? I do not see a difference personally.

Are there Catholics who reject what the Church teaches? Sure, but that does not negate the fact that Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The highlighted sentence doesn’t make grammatical sense. Why is “than other groups” tacked onto the end of the sentence?

 

[1holycatholic]

I am not convinced that is the case. Apostolic succession is found in many groups.
And of these groups, its just a fact that most of the divisions in Christianity stem from the West. Its not something that is a deal breaker but being objective I think it matters.

You don’t consider phyletism division?

 

[BrianH]

Are there Catholics who reject what the Church teaches? Sure, but that does not negate the fact that Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The highlighted sentence doesn’t make grammatical sense. Why is “than other groups” tacked onto the end of the sentence?

I am trying to get you to answer a question.
Do you think Catholics adhere to their churches teachings better than anyone else? Everything I have read says no.
We have strayed a long ways from the topic. Sorry Jimmy. Not my fault this time

 

[BrianH]

You don’t consider phyletism division?

No of course not. If I did the same argument would apply to the Eastern Rites.
That is the argument Muslims use against all of Christianity:shrug:

 

[1holycatholic]

No of course not. If I did the same argument would apply to the Eastern Rites.

Phyletism is possible in both.

 

[1holycatholic]

Do you think Catholics adhere to their churches teachings better than anyone else?

What difference does it make?

 

[1holycatholic]

I am not convinced that is the case. Apostolic succession is found in many groups.
And of these groups, its just a fact that most of the divisions in Christianity stem from the West. Its not something that is a deal breaker but being objective I think it matters.

The various Orthodox (Assyrian, Eastern, Oriental) are not in communion with each other. And within each group there are further divisions. For example the various Eastern Orthodox are not all in communion with each other over things like the calendar.

 

[BrianH]

The various Orthodox (Assyrian, Eastern, Oriental) are not in communion with each other. And within each group there are further divisions. For example the various Eastern Orthodox are not all in communion with each other over things like the calendar.

The Eastern Catholics use different calendars too. I thought that was the case but just read it on this forum.
The Assyrian Church of the East are not Orthodox. The Oriental and the Catholics seperated prior to 500 AD. Eastern Orthodox does not own either one.
You cant lump these groups together with the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[BrianH]

What difference does it make?

LOL
Nevermind. I will chat with more pleasent people. Take care.

 

[1holycatholic]

The Eastern Catholics use different calendars too. I thought that was the case but just read it on this forum.

No Catholic Sui Juris Church uses the Julian calendar. The differences in calendar use have divided Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Assyrian Church of the East are not Orthodox. The Oriental and the Catholics seperated prior to 500 AD. Eastern Orthodox does not own either one.
You cant lump these groups together with the Eastern Orthodox.

You don’t have to point fingers and say who is and isn’t Orthodox, the various Orthodox do that themselves.

 

[1holycatholic]

LOL
Nevermind. I will chat with more pleasent people. Take care.

I didn’t expect a response. Your point is moot.