If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[mikew262]

NotWorthy:
Well, it is accurate. The Catholic Scriptures are based on the Catholic Church’s teachings. Many people mistakenly put the cart before the horse.

Uh, no, thats backwards. :nope: The teachings better be based on the Scriptures, or they mean nothing.

 

[mikew262]

I know, it is bold. What I mean by it is that the Teachings of Jesus committed to the Apostles were whole and entire before a word of the NT was written. The Catholic faith is not “bible based” it is Christ based. The Holy Scriptures reflect this faith, but our doctrines are based on the teachings of Jesus through the apostles, and not from cherry picking passages out of context. Hope that clarifies my radical statement.

The teachings of Jesus through the apostles that the Church bases its doctrines on are in the Bible. It’s called the New Testament. Whether they were written immediately or 50 yrs later is irrelevant. This is why your statement is misleading or just plain wrong.

 

[NotWorthy]

Uh, no, thats backwards. :nope: The teachings better be based on the Scriptures, or they mean nothing.

The Teachings are in full conjunction with Scriptures. But which came first?

Were people repenting and being baptized into the Church decades before the first word of the New Testament was written? Were their sins being forgiven? Were they dying as martyrs? The Church predates the New Testament Scriptures.

The Church’s very teachings are part of the criteria the Church used to determine which of the hundreds of “thought to be scriptural” writings were to be included in the New Testament. Hence, the Church predates the New Testament Scriptures. And yet each bolsters and supports the other.

 

[Memaw]

The teachings of Jesus through the apostles that the Church bases its doctrines on are in the Bible. It’s called the New Testament. Whether they were written immediately or 50 yrs later is irrelevant. This is why your statement is misleading or just plain wrong.

Splain yourself my dear, your just not making any sense.

 

[Memaw]

mikew262 mikew262 is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: October 31, 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,180
Default Re: If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2
Quote:

Originally Posted by guanophore View Post

I know, it is bold. What I mean by it is that the Teachings of Jesus committed to the Apostles were whole and entire before a word of the NT was written. The Catholic faith is not “bible based” it is Christ based. The Holy Scriptures reflect this faith, but our doctrines are based on the teachings of Jesus through the apostles, and not from cherry picking passages out of context. Hope that clarifies my radical statement.

You are correct guanophore, Memaw

Mikew262 says,

The teachings of Jesus through the apostles that the Church bases its doctrines on are in the Bible. It’s called the New Testament. Whether they were written immediately or 50 yrs later is irrelevant. This is why your statement is misleading or just plain wrong.

Memaw says,

Soooo, you are admitting that the Catholic Church, (it was the only Christian Church in existence then) thru the Apostles received its teachings from Jesus!! Yes they are in the Bible, but the Church had the teachings BEFORE the Sacred Scriptures of the NT were even written. NOTHING in the NT contradicts what the Catholic Church taught before its written form or after. In fact it strongly supports Catholic teaching over and over again. The Bible itself tells us that it is to bring to mind all that Jesus taught. You just need to learn to study it correctly. The NT was written approx. 30 years after the death of Jesus, but it wasn’t put into its present form until the 4th Century. It was the Catholic Church that decided, thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which books were truly inspired by God and worthy to be included in the NT. So for 1,500 years the Catholic Church and the Sacred Traditions and the Sacred Scripture were inseparable and still are!!! But along comes the protestant revolt and look what they have done. They’ve grabbed the Sacred Word of God and ran with it, only to decide for themselves what it means, to take verses out of context and interpret them for themselves.They disagree so much among themselves they now have at least 40,000 different denominations. In the meantime the Catholic Church continues to teach, govern and sanctify, just as she always has since Christ founded her. And she will continue to do so till the “end of time.”

 

[mikew262]

mikew262 mikew262 is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: October 31, 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,180
Default Re: If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2
Quote:

Originally Posted by guanophore View Post

I know, it is bold. What I mean by it is that the Teachings of Jesus committed to the Apostles were whole and entire before a word of the NT was written. The Catholic faith is not “bible based” it is Christ based. The Holy Scriptures reflect this faith, but our doctrines are based on the teachings of Jesus through the apostles, and not from cherry picking passages out of context. Hope that clarifies my radical statement.

You are correct guanophore, Memaw

Mikew262 says,

The teachings of Jesus through the apostles that the Church bases its doctrines on are in the Bible. It’s called the New Testament. Whether they were written immediately or 50 yrs later is irrelevant. This is why your statement is misleading or just plain wrong.

Memaw says,

Soooo, you are admitting that the Catholic Church, (it was the only Christian Church in existence then) thru the Apostles received its teachings from Jesus!! Yes they are in the Bible, but the Church had the teachings BEFORE the Sacred Scriptures of the NT were even written. NOTHING in the NT contradicts what the Catholic Church taught before its written form or after. In fact it strongly supports Catholic teaching over and over again. The Bible itself tells us that it is to bring to mind all that Jesus taught. You just need to learn to study it correctly. The NT was written approx. 30 years after the death of Jesus, but it wasn’t put into its present form until the 4th Century. It was the Catholic Church that decided, thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which books were truly inspired by God and worthy to be included in the NT. So for 1,500 years the Catholic Church and the Sacred Traditions and the Sacred Scripture were inseparable and still are!!! But along comes the protestant revolt and look what they have done. They’ve grabbed the Sacred Word of God and ran with it, only to decide for themselves what it means, to take verses out of context and interpret them for themselves.They disagree so much among themselves they now have at least 40,000 different denominations. In the meantime the Catholic Church continues to teach, govern and sanctify, just as she always has since Christ founded her. And she will continue to do so till the “end of time.”

Alright, I see your points now, but the previous statement was very misleading.

On a side note, can we leave the Protestant bashing out if not germane to the immediate conversation? They are just a Christian as you and I, and are just as sincere about their worship of Christ as we are. While the Catholic Church has it’s own interpretation of scripture, etc, who is to say we have it right? Faith, right? Well, they have faith as well.

I hope many a Christian gets to Heaven, but once there many may get a stern look from Christ, about the bashing each denomination did to each other (and yes, in this context, I’m including Catholics as a denomination).

 

[Memaw]

Alright, I see your points now, but the previous statement was very misleading.

On a side note, can we leave the Protestant bashing out if not germane to the immediate conversation? They are just a Christian as you and I, and are just as sincere about their worship of Christ as we are. While the Catholic Church has it’s own interpretation of scripture, etc, who is to say we have it right? Faith, right? Well, they have faith as well.

I hope many a Christian gets to Heaven, but once there many may get a stern look from Christ, about the bashing each denomination did to each other (and yes, in this context, I’m including Catholics as a denomination).

Mike, Stating the truth is NOT protestant bashing. I didn’t say they weren’t sincere in what they believe but the truth is the truth. The Catholic Church has been stating the truth for 2,000 years. If the Catholic Church doesn’t “have it right” then Jesus didn’t mean what HE said when HE promised that she would Never teach error. To let someone go on believing in something less than the truth is not helping them.

 

[Roy5]

**CAN’T BELIEVE SEVERAL KEY DOCTRINES?
**

 My experience with Protestants is that they divide into two basic groups.

 1. **Mainline Protestants** generally are liberal theologically. Many of them have trouble with the whole idea that a blood sacrifice was demanded by a loving God to win salvation for us. The dogma that God gave his only Son to be crucified to allow us to enter heaven simply sounds too pagan to them. They also can't believe in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary (and usually doubt the Virgin Birth, too), praying to the saints, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc. They favor the right of clergy to marry and of women to be ordained. Many of them appreciate Catholicism's work in medicine and education, but can't accept its authority. They often are independent thinkers who don't fret about knowing ultimate truth. They may feel that that is beyond our ability to know, so we must live by faith.

  2. More conservative Protestants (evangelicals) share the belief that Christ died for our sins as key to God's plan of redemption. Many of them view Catholicism as cultic, with its ancient rites and rituals. They have a more relaxed and often even spontaneous worship style, with much lay leadership. Like liberal Protestants, they also reject transubstantiation, most Mariology (though they strongly affirm the Virgin Birth), praying to saints, and Papal authority. They believe in the right of clergy to marry and are somewhat divided on the issue of ordaining women. While liberal Protestants often ignore certain teachings in the Bible as archaic or even immoral, evangelicals are likely to believe it more literally, which may lead them to reject evolution and other modern ideas. 

  In many ways this liberal/conservative split is quite evident in Catholicism, also, though not as readily or as often identified. Millions of Protestants and Catholics simply practice their faith without becoming involved in such controversies. They leave such issues to clergy and laity who choose to be involved.

 

[guanophore]

History 101

Christianity comes into being:
*All dates approximate.

I would say that the history itself is “approximate”, since it contains a number of errors and quite a bit of anticatholic bias.

What you seem to be saying, in answer to the OP, is that you are not Catholic because you have been misinformed and believe errors about history.

 

[guanophore]

Partially. However, the Church is based on Scriptural Truth, at least partially, the “New Testament” Truth. I still think his statement is still very misleading or perhaps just plain wrong.

The Truth is in Jesus. That Truth is expressed in the Holy Writings and in the Teachings He committed to the Apostles. It is based in His person. His divinity. His revelation of Himself to us.

Uh, no, thats backwards. :nope: The teachings better be based on the Scriptures, or they mean nothing.

What you are saying is that the Teachings upon which the Church is based “mean nothing” because they had not yet been written.

Acts 2:42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Why devote yourself to that which “means nothing”?

The teachings of Jesus through the apostles that the Church bases its doctrines on are in the Bible. It’s called the New Testament. Whether they were written immediately or 50 yrs later is irrelevant. This is why your statement is misleading or just plain wrong.

Some of them are, yes, but the Bible clearly states that it does not contain everything. I am not minimizing the importance of the Word, or the fact that the Truth is found in them. I am just pointing out that our church is not a "biblically based " church in the sense that the Sola Scripturas use the term. The Truth was committed whole and entire to the Apostles, and was being promulgated, prior to the writings, and after them.

 

[joe370]

This is not anarchy. By the way, there are only a handful of major Protestant denominations, and not 30000 like those nifty little Jesuits try to point out. All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

The Reformation broke away from this bondage.

**No time to address each issue NOW—but I will!!!

Are you saying that the numerous protestant churches that we see today (all in agreement according to you) successfully reformed the C.C. Are you saying it was a successful reformation and Jesus would approve? Or are you saying that the C.C. is a Godless heretical movement that failed to adhere to the teachings of Christ?

One more thing; are you saying that the apostles via Jesus, taught these doctrines (5 Solas) in the 1st century?

if All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

Wikipedia…

excerpt…
"There are “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

Remember, the numbers below are derived using Protestant sources only.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm

As I said before, the C.C. is the world’s largest single religious body, and represents over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population. With a 2,000 year history, the Catholic Church is the western world’s oldest institution. Surely this is a fulfilment of Matthew 28:18-20,

"Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Jesus wanted His church to make disciples of all nations, not just a small remnant, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded the apostles, and of course their successors, otherwise the preaching and teaching ends with the apostles in the 1st century.

“Throughout history, small groups of Christians kept the fire alive outside of the Catholic church, groups like the Vaudois, the Cathars, the Albigenses, Lollards, Hussites, all before the Reformation.”

If these various movements represented the true apostolic church, established by Jesus (God ordained) --why did they fade into oblivion?

As I said before, The C.C. comprises 23 “particular Churches,” or Rites, all of which acknowledge a primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and are in full communion with the Holy See and each other.

If these 23 “particular Churches,” or Rites ALL
acknowledge a primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and are in full communion with the Holy See and each other, then the C.C. maintains the unity and oneness the bible speaks of:

“…Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:3-6

Catholic Churches

• Of Alexandrian liturgical tradition:
  o Coptic Catholic Church
  o Ethiopic Catholic Church
• Of Antiochian liturgical tradition:
  o Maronite Church
  o Syrian Catholic Church
  o Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
• Of Armenian liturgical tradition:
  o Armenian Catholic Church
• Of Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
  o Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
  o Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
  o Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
  o Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci
  o Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
  o Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
  o Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
  o Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
  o Melkite Greek Catholic Church
  o Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
  o Russian Byzantine Catholic Church
  o Ruthenian Catholic Church
  o Slovak Greek Catholic Church
  o Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• Of Chaldean or East Syrian tradition:
  o Chaldean Catholic Church
  o Syro-Malabar Church
• Of Western liturgical tradition:
  o Latin Church
  Reply With Quote**

 

[mikew262]

Mike, Stating the truth is NOT protestant bashing. I didn’t say they weren’t sincere in what they believe but the truth is the truth. The Catholic Church has been stating the truth for 2,000 years. If the Catholic Church doesn’t “have it right” then Jesus didn’t mean what HE said when HE promised that she would Never teach error. To let someone go on believing in something less than the truth is not helping them.

You are missing the point. Protestants feel they have the Truth (as they see it) and the Catholic Church has gone astray. All claim the Holy Spirit is leading them. I fault the Protestant denominations for bashing us, just as much as I fault my own fellow Catholics for bashing them. It’s a never ending cycle, and I’m sure God is sick of it. I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong (if that can even be done, God only truly knows). One has to use there own sincere conscious to decide how they feel is the right way to worship God. Hopefully, the Holy Spirit is involved with that conscious.

 

[mikew262]

The Truth is in Jesus. That Truth is expressed in the Holy Writings and in the Teachings He committed to the Apostles. It is based in His person. His divinity. His revelation of Himself to us.

Which is revealed to us in the Scriptures.

 

[Memaw]

**CAN’T BELIEVE SEVERAL KEY DOCTRINES?
**

 My experience with Protestants is that they divide into two basic groups.

 1. **Mainline Protestants** generally are liberal theologically. Many of them have trouble with the whole idea that a blood sacrifice was demanded by a loving God to win salvation for us. The dogma that God gave his only Son to be crucified to allow us to enter heaven simply sounds too pagan to them. They also can't believe in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary (and usually doubt the Virgin Birth, too), praying to the saints, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc. They favor the right of clergy to marry and of women to be ordained. Many of them appreciate Catholicism's work in medicine and education, but can't accept its authority. They often are independent thinkers who don't fret about knowing ultimate truth. They may feel that that is beyond our ability to know, so we must live by faith.

  2. More conservative Protestants (evangelicals) share the belief that Christ died for our sins as key to God's plan of redemption. Many of them view Catholicism as cultic, with its ancient rites and rituals. They have a more relaxed and often even spontaneous worship style, with much lay leadership. Like liberal Protestants, they also reject transubstantiation, most Mariology (though they strongly affirm the Virgin Birth), praying to saints, and Papal authority. They believe in the right of clergy to marry and are somewhat divided on the issue of ordaining women. While liberal Protestants often ignore certain teachings in the Bible as archaic or even immoral, evangelicals are likely to believe it more literally, which may lead them to reject evolution and other modern ideas. 

  In many ways this liberal/conservative split is quite evident in Catholicism, also, though not as readily or as often identified. Millions of Protestants and Catholics simply practice their faith without becoming involved in such controversies. They leave such issues to clergy and laity who choose to be involved.

While there may be liberal/conservatives individuals within the Catholic Church, they haven’t and never will split the Church into 40,000 different Catholic denominations. there is still only One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that still teaches the same TRUTHS that JESUS CHRIST gave it. Every member of the Catholic Church has the obligation and free will, to follow the truth in its fullest and that includes Bishops, priests and laity. Every day is a challenge and an opportunity for Grace. And in case you haven’t noticed, the liberals do not run the Church, (example, NO women priests), and the conservatives do not run the Church, The Holy Spirit guides the Church.

 

[Memaw]

You are missing the point. Protestants feel they have the Truth (as they see it) and the Catholic Church has gone astray. All claim the Holy Spirit is leading them. I fault the Protestant denominations for bashing us, just as much as I fault my own fellow Catholics for bashing them. It’s a never ending cycle, and I’m sure God is sick of it. I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong (if that can even be done, God only truly knows). One has to use there own sincere conscious to decide how they feel is the right way to worship God. Hopefully, the Holy Spirit is involved with that conscious.

I think you are missing the point. What “we feel” and what “we think” isn’t always the truth. The Catholic teachings are not based on our feelings or what we “want” to believe, it is the Truths that Jesus taught, To claim the Holy Spirit is leading you is not always coming from the Holy Spirit. HE cannot, nor will not ever lead one into error. If you are a Catholic and if your not “sure” who is right and who is wrong, then you don’t know your Catholic Faith very well. While many of us catholics do not live up to our Faith as we should, the Truth is still there for us to come back to and the 7 Sacraments there to help us. The Church teaches that we must follow a well formed conscious according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Just because I feel I can practice artificial birth control and it doesn’t bother my poorly informed, or willfully ignorant conscience doesn’t mean its ok to do so. That just means I am fooling myself. My Mom used to tell us when we were kids, "You can fool me, you might even be able to fool the priest, (in confession, if not being truthful) but you can NEVER fool GOD. Like I said before, speaking the TRUTH is never bashing anyone, and I have never heard a Catholic accuse a protestant of believing something they did not believe. But I have had many protestant friends and acquaintances accuse me of worshiping statues and saints, and a piece of bread, the Pope and whatever. They do not believe me even when I try to explain that we do NOT. I have a friend that I have known for 40 years that still thinks I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because I have a crucifix in my home. I have explained and explained but she insists I’d get rid of the crucifix if I really believed in the Resurrection. Some people never learn.

 

[guanophore]

This argument I have always found so cute from Catholic apologeticists.

We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation?

Why, the one who makes the better argument.

So, what you are saying is that how we understand the Truth is not based on God’s revelation but on our own fallible reasoning and arguementative abilities? Who determines which person argues better?

Its simply so illogical!!! The Scriptures are the primary rule of faith! Then why, oh why in the wide world do we have to substitute it with the words of a fallible man?

Basically that is what you are saying we should do, by claiming that the person with the better arguement is the correct one.

On the contrary, Jesus revealed himself to His Apostles, and empowered them with His authority to teach. He did not instruct them to write it down, then fail to teach as He commanded. Making the Scripture the rule of faith is rejecting the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ.

…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor 4:6)

You are taking this verse out of context. Paul is referring to the passage he just wrote above this, where he gives examples to support his point. When this was written, most of the NT did not yet exist, so trying to force this verse to refer to non-existent text is way overboard.

This is not anarchy. By the way, there are only a handful of major Protestant denominations, and not 30000 like those nifty little Jesuits try to point out. All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

Where does the application of this rule appear in the Bible?

In fact, you are incorrect. Not all protestants believe in the 5 Sola’s. What all Protestants have in common is the rejection of the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ.

*For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Eph 5:23)*

Simple, the head of the church is Christ, not an earthly head. Lord Acton, himself a Catholic said one time that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thankfully we do not have to submit to the pope. History has proved the dire consequences of such a thing…

What do you think the “keys” were that Jesus gave to Peter?

The Reformation broke away from this bondage.

The perception of the Authority appointed by Christ as “bondage” reveals what is in the heart of such a person. This represents a heart steeped in rebellion. Jesus told His apostles “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16.

It is this rejection of those whom Christ sent that is the foundation of the Reformation. The fruit of it is separation and division, which continues and multiplies to this day.

 

[guanophore]

To be Catholic, I’m told, requires one to – at the very least – not publicly deny Catholic doctrine.

Then again, if one does deny Catholic doctrine publicly, one may be excommunicated, but excommunication does not revoke one’s status as a Catholic.

Such a statement does not make any sense at all! Excommunication reflects completely in status out of communion and fallen from grace.

I don’t deny any Catholic doctrine. However, I re-interpret Catholic doctrine in a way that Catholics in authority might view as denial.

Such activity usually results in a shipwreck of faith.

I don’t deny that the Pope is infallible. I simply re-intepret infallibility of the Pope to as a condition that exists in all Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit, not simply the Pope.

It is not that the pope, or any other person is infallible. It is the doctrine that is infallible. To the extent that a person embraces the infallible doctrine, they are in unity and benefit of the gift of infallibility.

I don’t deny that Jesus Christ is the only way. I simply re-interpret Jesus Christ as one Manifestation of the only way.

The fullest, and most complete!

Again, such re-interpretations would get one excommunicated in short order.

Oh, I don’t know. The church does not prohibit theological speculation. The dangerous part is placing yourself and your own “reinterpretations” above the Revelation of God through Christ.

 

[csmatyi]

**CAN’T BELIEVE SEVERAL KEY DOCTRINES?
**

 My experience with Protestants is that they divide into two basic groups.

 1. **Mainline Protestants** generally are liberal theologically. Many of them have trouble with the whole idea that a blood sacrifice was demanded by a loving God to win salvation for us. The dogma that God gave his only Son to be crucified to allow us to enter heaven simply sounds too pagan to them. They also can't believe in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary (and usually doubt the Virgin Birth, too), praying to the saints, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc. They favor the right of clergy to marry and of women to be ordained. Many of them appreciate Catholicism's work in medicine and education, but can't accept its authority. They often are independent thinkers who don't fret about knowing ultimate truth. They may feel that that is beyond our ability to know, so we must live by faith.

  2. More conservative Protestants (evangelicals) share the belief that Christ died for our sins as key to God's plan of redemption. Many of them view Catholicism as cultic, with its ancient rites and rituals. They have a more relaxed and often even spontaneous worship style, with much lay leadership. Like liberal Protestants, they also reject transubstantiation, most Mariology (though they strongly affirm the Virgin Birth), praying to saints, and Papal authority. They believe in the right of clergy to marry and are somewhat divided on the issue of ordaining women. While liberal Protestants often ignore certain teachings in the Bible as archaic or even immoral, evangelicals are likely to believe it more literally, which may lead them to reject evolution and other modern ideas. 

  In many ways this liberal/conservative split is quite evident in Catholicism, also, though not as readily or as often identified. Millions of Protestants and Catholics simply practice their faith without becoming involved in such controversies. They leave such issues to clergy and laity who choose to be involved.

No, this is wrong. The liberal Protestants do not beleive that the whole entire Bible is the word of God, see 2Tim. 3:16 which refutes this. Liberals are very open to ecumenism with Rome, however. You mix a lot of evangelical Protestant teachings with the liberals. Also, there are rather 3 divisions. You have the liberals, who really aren’t Protestant in their own right, the ecangelicals, many of which are getting more and more liberal day by day and then you have the conservatives.

 

[csmatyi]

*So, what you are saying is that how we understand the Truth is not based on God’s revelation but on our own fallible reasoning and arguementative abilities? Who determines which person argues better? *

Decide for yourself since you have the freedom. But: I mentioned in another post of mine, that one must not trust his own mental faculties but must be enlightened by the holy spirit, who cannot fail. This is the key.

On the contrary, Jesus revealed himself to His Apostles, and empowered them with His authority to teach. He did not instruct them to write it down, then fail to teach as He commanded. Making the Scripture the rule of faith is rejecting the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ.

This is cute. Then you would not read the Bible. Catholics always argue that their tradition was beleived from the very first days of Christianity, it is just that they wrote it down later. This is how they explain how their dogmas evolved. In the end of course, they still found it extremely important to write it down!!!

You are taking this verse out of context. Paul is referring to the passage he just wrote above this, where he gives examples to support his point. When this was written, most of the NT did not yet exist, so trying to force this verse to refer to non-existent text is way overboard.

I don’t understand what you are saying. Here is the verse you are referring to:

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Paul says that on the last day Christ will come and reveal all things. All things as it says which are in darkness and in the counsels of hearts. So until then we rely on what is written.

Where does the application of this rule appear in the Bible?

Jesus said over 50 times in the New Testament when He asked the Pharisees whether they had read in the Scriptures (you see, they who substituted the word of God with their own traditions - the Catholic church does the very same).

Also:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

In fact, you are incorrect. Not all protestants believe in the 5 Sola’s. What all Protestants have in common is the rejection of the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ.

I am a Protestant, please let me decide what we beleive. Either all 5 or no go.

What do you think the “keys” were that Jesus gave to Peter?

Only to Peter?

Cross question:

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. (John 1:49)

If Peter became the first pope since he said Jesus was the Christ, then what about Nathanael here? This would mean that Nathanael would have had to be the first pope.

*The perception of the Authority appointed by Christ as “bondage” reveals what is in the heart of such a person. This represents a heart steeped in rebellion. Jesus told His apostles “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16. *

Do you mean that all Catholic clergy were alive in Jesus’s day so that this means we have to listen to them? Are you serious?

It is this rejection of those whom Christ sent that is the foundation of the Reformation. The fruit of it is separation and division, which continues and multiplies to this day.

No, it is only human to differ in theological questions. No two Catholics think the same about all dogma. This is so obvious, I simply cannot grasp why you as well as a load of other Catholic apologeticists apply a double standard when it comes to your own church. Protestants are more united than Catholics because we all have the 5 Solas. This is a common unifying threme in Protestantism. For example there are traditionalist Catholics who disown modern popes because according to them they have long left the true Catholic teachings. Again there are many Catholic sects all across the world which differ in their teachings. Then again you have your run of the mill cafetaria Catholics. And yet still you have the brand of syncretism that the Roman Catholic church pushes which allows for unity with all other world religions, opening salvation to Muslims, Orthodox, and what not.

What is this, if not a theological potpourri?

It’s all a smokescreen I tell you.

 

[csmatyi]

***No time to address each issue NOW—but I will!!!

Are you saying that the numerous protestant churches that we see today (all in agreement according to you) successfully reformed the C.C. Are you saying it was a successful reformation and Jesus would approve? Or are you saying that the C.C. is a Godless heretical movement that failed to adhere to the teachings of Christ? **

Look, joe, I still don’t beleive you. As I said before, all people consist of a microdenomination on their own rights. This means there are more Catholic denominations then there are Protestant. Sorry.

*One more thing; are you saying that the apostles via Jesus, taught these doctrines (5 Solas) in the 1st century? *

Sola Scriptura: that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor. 4:6)
Sola gratia: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6)
Solus Christus: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
Sola fide: For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. (Rom. 4:4)
Soli Deo Gloria: That no flesh should glory in his presence…That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (1Cor. 1:29.31),

if All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

*excerpt…
"There are “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism*

Remember, the numbers below are derived using Protestant sources only.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm

I cannot objectively beleive what you say until you give me the entire list of all 33000 (last time it was 40000 btw, looks like a decrease) denominations.

But I scanned through your link, and I found your logic quite faulty to say the least:

1. There’s this list titled Independents, covering about 22000 so called denominaions. Examples of such entries are:

-schismatic Conservative Catholics
-Hidden Buddhist believers in Christ
-Hidden Buddhist believers in Christ (for example, and how many???)
-Independent Estonian Orthodox
-Gay/Lesbian homosexual tradition
-Independent Greek Orthodox
-Hidden Hindu believers in Christ
-Independent Jehovah’s Witnesses (yikes! how did they get in here???)
-Hidden Muslim believers in Christ
-Independent Assyrian or Nestorian
-Old Catholics (i.e. split from Rome after Vatican Council I)
-Orthodox sect/sectarian

So, you think that gay people can be Christian? Jehovah’s witnesses? Which is clearly non-Protestant? Adventists? Who deny sola gratia? Catholics? Orthodox? Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? What in the world are you talking about?

As I said before, the C.C. is the world’s largest single religious body, and represents over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population. With a 2,000 year history, the Catholic Church is the western world’s oldest institution. Surely this is a fulfilment of Matthew 28:18-20,

Just because you are larger in number and have a longer history doesn’t mean that by default you are right. Since there are many more non-beleivers than beleivers than does this mean that they’re right? Absoultely not. God said in the Bible He would preserve a remnant throughout all time who would be His witnesses.

*"Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Jesus wanted His church to make disciples of all nations, not just a small remnant, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded the apostles, and of course their successors, otherwise the preaching and teaching ends with the apostles in the 1st century. *

Alas, you are wrong:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Only a few are gonna make it!

• “Throughout history, small groups of Christians kept the fire alive outside of the Catholic church, groups like the Vaudois, the Cathars, the Albigenses, Lollards, Hussites, all before the Reformation.”*

If these various movements represented the true apostolic church, established by Jesus (God ordained) --why did they fade into oblivion?

Waldenses still exist to this day if I am correct. But hey, why do their denomination have to remain to this very day? They could have joined up with other denominations. History showed that the Waldenses had met with the Reformers and they found that they taught many similar things. When I was in Belgium I went to the Verenigde Protestantse Kerk in Belgie - the United Protestant church in Belgium - which shows that they had united instead of splitting up.

*As I said before, The C.C. comprises 23 “particular Churches,” or Rites, all of which acknowledge a primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and are in full communion with the Holy See and each other.
*

Okay, okay, but it doesn’t matter what the confession is of the church that you go to but what you beleive in your heart and in your mind. This is why your whole entire argument says absouletly nothing.*