How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is the Pope the head of Catholicism?

Does the Pope believe he is the Vicar of Christ and God here on earth?

Does Catholicism believe Churches outside of the Roman Catholic Church to be anathema or cursed?

The answer to all 3 are yes and everyone saying my post is so terrible knows this. Why is my post so terrible if you know that Catholicism claims that Christians outside of their church are to be cursed?
 
ReadTheBible said:
Is the Pope the head of Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Earthly head, yes.
ReadTheBible said:
Does the Pope believe he is the Vicar of Christ
Click to expand...
Yes.
ReadTheBible said:
God here on earth?
Click to expand...
No.
ReadTheBible said:
Does Catholicism believe Churches outside of the Roman Catholic Church to be anathema or cursed?
Click to expand...
No. They believe that non-Catholic Christians are their brothers and sisters in Christ who are, for various reasons and with fault on both sides, separated from the Church.

You need to educate yourself. Your post is terrible because it’s ignorant, I think willfully so.
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
No. They believe that non-Catholic Christians are their brothers and sisters in Christ who are, for various reasons and with fault on both sides, separated from the Church.

You need to educate yourself. Your post is terrible because it’s ignorant, I think willfully so.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing Catholics from Catholicism. I’m not talking about what individual Catholics believe. I’m talking about what Rome has stated as dogmas and has publicly said.

The Catholic Catechism states the following:

“It is in the Church that ‘the fullness of the means of salvation’ has been deposited”
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation”
“The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation”

Pope Benedict said in 2007 ““Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.”

Do you not agree that all forms of Protestantism fall under Latae Sententiae? Again this is the dogma of Catholicism.

If we don’t submit to the Pope we’re schismatics.
If we knowingly reject at least one point of RCC dogma we’re heretics
If we knowingly believe certain ideas the RCC explicitly condemns we’re heretics
If we have our own churches we’re schismatics and sectarians.
Trent anathematizes Protestant formulations of justification.
Trent anathematizes rejects Protestant formulations of grace

I never said you or any Catholic member believes all Christians outside Catholicism are doomed but the institution you belong to does so in writing…
 
HopkinsReb said:
No. They believe that non-Catholic Christians are their brothers and sisters in Christ who are, for various reasons and with fault on both sides, separated from the Church.
Click to expand...
At the risk of totally derailing the thread, I will say that I, as an Orthodox Christian, have been told on this forum by Catholics that I, and my fellow Orthodox, are guilty of the mortal sin of schism and are therefore condemned to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts.
 
I’m not a Catholic.

Educate yourself. You’re constantly wrong about what Catholics believe and, at this point, I think you’re doing it on purpose. I have no faith whatsoever that you have any interest in honest discussion, and I am done responding to your ridiculous, asinine questions and claims.
 
Last edited:
Isaac14 said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
No. They believe that non-Catholic Christians are their brothers and sisters in Christ who are, for various reasons and with fault on both sides, separated from the Church.
Click to expand...
At the risk of totally derailing the thread, I will say that I, as an Orthodox Christian, have been told on this forum by Catholics that I, and my fellow Orthodox, are guilty of the mortal sin of schism and are therefore condemned to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Click to expand...
Those Catholics are not giving you Catholic Church teaching.
 
"Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
 
If I quote from the Catholic catechism or the council of Trent I’m wrong about what the institution of Catholicism believes? You are the one making claims that are unfounded. I have only stated facts concerning what Catholicism has in writing.
 
Please show us in the Catholic Churches writings and councils where what you’re saying the Catholic Church teaching is.
 
I know. I can’t help myself. I’m embarrassed as a Protestant. You’re right though. I’ll run up the white flag.
 
OH YAY I finally found the button to mute a poster! Huzzah! I didn’t think there was one!
 
HopkinsReb said:
Stop saying that RCs think it’s okay for doctrine to violate Scripture. It’s a false claim. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of Scripture doesn’t mean that they think that they’re free to run roughshod over it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t. Your compadre asked me where I draw the line for what should be considered heresy. I stated it should be drawn according to the clear reading of scripture. I said that is not necessarily the Roman Catholic standard because Rome has in fact drawn distinctions based on tradition that isn’t necessarily clearly supported by scripture. Examples would include the Perpetual Virginity, the Bodily Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, the veneration of saints, etc., which have their basis in tradition rather than any explicit teaching in scripture. In that sense, I am fine with drawing a less restrictive line as to what constitutes heretical teaching vs. what may be considered heterodox but not necessarily heretical.
 
Hodos said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Stop saying that RCs think it’s okay for doctrine to violate Scripture. It’s a false claim. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of Scripture doesn’t mean that they think that they’re free to run roughshod over it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t. Your compadre asked me where I draw the line for what should be considered heresy. I stated it should be drawn according to the clear reading of scripture. I said that is not necessarily the Roman Catholic standard because Rome has in fact drawn distinctions based on tradition that isn’t necessarily clearly supported by scripture. Examples would include the Perpetual Virginity, the Bodily Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, the veneration of saints, etc., which have their basis in tradition rather than any explicit teaching in scripture. In that sense, I am fine with drawing a less restrictive line as to what constitutes heretical teaching vs. what may be considered heterodox but not necessarily heretical.
Click to expand...
TBH at this point I’m gonna give you benefit of the doubt just for not being that other guy.

Carry on, folks.
 
I am literally laughing out loud right now. Well done folks. That’s how charitable discourse works.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top