Protestant versus Catholic

[RevJoeBonner]

Now this is what I am talking about!!!:extrahappy: This is how we can become brothers and sisters in Christ once again. Before we can ever be re-united again, we must at least admit the truth of ones faith rather we understand it or not. Once the truth is revealed the other faith has a chance of explaining it to other faiths. But as long as lies are told we can never move forward.

Good Job RevJoe. Refreshing

I have found that is does no good purpose to attack another faith. I looked into Catholic doctrine, I do not agree with it all, BUT I am not going to perpetuate lies about it either. I would hope that others would do the same for me.
I think there are ARE things we can all agree on and then move on. If joining the Catholic church means total conformity to it I honestly could not do that as I would be a “cafeteria style Catholic” and it would not be fair to others around me.

 

[AwGusTeen]

I never saw those positions as incompatible and now question even more the reasons for Catholic closed communion… toward Lutherans especially.

To be in communion with the Catholic Church, one must necessarily accept all beliefs held and taught by the Church. To allow participation in the Eucharist “or communion” knowing that individuals do not hold to those beliefs, is to propagate a lie which would put the Catholic Church in the position of promoting sin (for both the individual and the Church). The Catholic Church cannot knowingly allow this.

Peace!

 

[Jon_Hus]

I have found that is does no good purpose to attack another faith. I looked into Catholic doctrine, I do not agree with it all, BUT I am not going to perpetuate lies about it either. I would hope that others would do the same for me.
I think there are ARE things we can all agree on and then move on. If joining the Catholic church means total conformity to it I honestly could not do that as I would be a “cafeteria style Catholic” and it would not be fair to others around me.

Always try to keep in the back of your rmind the thought that there are some here who truly believe that the sheer volume of words or the sincerity of the belief make it all true.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Since the popes arent going to change then the unity you seek will never happen. But you (collectivly) are the one’s seeking unity. I will not agree with you that every truth comes from the CC. Let me be totally clear on this, every truth as pertains to God comes from God (Jehovah God) and is recorded in the Holy Bible. It is in those words that this separated brethern puts his faith and trust.

Not true. Not everything that Jesus or the Apostles said or did was written down - some of it was transmitted orally.

**Consider 2 Thess 2:15 **
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

**or 2 Tim 2:2 **
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

or 1 Cor 11:2
…praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

**or 1 Thess 2:13 **
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

This most definitely supports tradition as another vehicle for God’s truth. Especially when considering what **2 Pet 3:16 says: **

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Not to mention **John 20:25 and John 21:35 **(respectively)

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

I have found that is does no good purpose to attack another faith. I looked into Catholic doctrine, I do not agree with it all, BUT I am not going to perpetuate lies about it either. I would hope that others would do the same for me.
I think there are ARE things we can all agree on and then move on. If joining the Catholic church means total conformity to it I honestly could not do that as I would be a “cafeteria style Catholic” and it would not be fair to others around me.

I totally agree with what you are saying. And you are correct. You have to believe 100% without a doubt in the Church you are attending. And you have to do your best to live your faith also. Which is a heck of alot harder then believing what you preach.

And I like the Pope admire all faiths for the truth they do have and live. But I think to when someone call’s you on your faith that is a good thing sometimes. Because it helps you to learn the faith that you do have even more. Sometimes its the challenge that keeps you learning

I have learned more defending my faith then I ever have studying it. And I think thats a good thing.

But alot of times when you defend your faith you get accused of attacking others. And I would never do that. But for many asking them to defend a teaching is taken as a personal attack. And I think thats what happens alot. I personally do not mind people saying something negative about my faith. I think its good that they can do that to me, and let me have the chance to show them how they are not correct in that statement.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Thanks be to AwGusTeen for giving us more reasons why the unity so desired by RCC and her members at large will never be achieved.

Some have said that the RCC (ie: the true church Jesus founded…) had been around for 1500 years before this current flash in the pan started by brother Martin and she (the RCC) will be around long after the pesky protestants wax weary of their rebellion. There is a problem with that thinking though, prior to AD 1517, the Holy writ was locked up tight in the confines of the monastery. Today however, the Scriptures are in abundance in most tongues and in numbers not easy to remove from the commoners.

In order to go back to the good old days, we will have to recreate the conditions of the good old days. It would in my opinion be easier to put the cat back into the bag, so to speak.

Not true. Not everything that Jesus or the Apostles said or did was written down - some of it was transmitted orally.

**Consider 2 Thess 2:15 **
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

**or 2 Tim 2:2 **
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

or 1 Cor 11:2
…praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

**or 1 Thess 2:13 **
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

This most definitely supports tradition as another vehicle for God’s truth. Especially when considering what **2 Pet 3:16 says: **

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Not to mention **John 20:25 and John 21:35 **(respectively)

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

Always try to keep in the back of your rmind the thought that there are some here who truly believe that the sheer volume of words or the sincerity of the belief make it all true.

True very true. But what you must also keep in the back of your mind is what Jesus taught and said. Stick with the Early teachers of the faith.

quote: St Augustine of Hippo (392AD) The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence achieved through the prophecies of the prophets , through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ. Through the journeys of the Apostles through the suffering the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints… When then, we see so much help on Gods part so much progress and so much fruit. Shall we hesiate to bury ourselves in the bosom ot that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the of open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority. (The Advantage of Beleiving 35). unquote.

1 Tim 3:15 The CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Thanks be to AwGusTeen for giving us more reasons why the unity so desired by RCC and her members at large will never be achieved.

The unity is desired by Christ! However, I was simply challenging your statement that…

…every truth as pertains to God comes from God (Jehovah God) and is recorded in the Holy Bible.

The last part of this statement is false according to scripture itself. Any ecumenical inference is yours.

Some have said that the RCC (ie: the true church Jesus founded…) had been around for 1500 years before this current flash in the pan started by brother Martin and she (the RCC) will be around long after the pesky protestants wax weary of their rebellion. There is a problem with that thinking though, prior to AD 1517, the Holy writ was locked up tight in the confines of the monastery.

History simply does not support your position. In fact, it points to the contrary. There were approved translations in various venaculars going way back and they were available to those who could read.

Here are some examples:

In the 7th Century a Roman Catholic Monk named Kademan from the town of Whitby in Yorkshire, translated a very large portion of the bible into the language spoken in England at the time.

In the 8th century, the Beed of Jaro made another English translation.

At about the same time, the Bishop of Edhilm in Sherborg, Goothloc the Hermit, and Bishop Egbert of Holy Island each produced their own translations into the common language of the English Isles.

Those bibles WERE available in Churches. They were chained to be sure, but available for reading. Prior to the advent of the printing press, bibles were hand copied by scribes. These bibles, were extremely valuable (hence the chaining) and only the rich could afford them. Ultimately, most Christians for centuries were illiterate anyway - a fact making your last statement wholly irrelevant.

Peace!

 

[Jon_Hus]

Here are some examples:

In the 7th Century a Roman Catholic Monk named Kademan from the town of Whitby in Yorkshire, translated a very large portion of the bible into the language spoken in England at the time.

In the 8th century, the Beed of Jaro made another English translation.

At about the same time, the Bishop of Edhilm in Sherborg, Goothloc the Hermit, and Bishop Egbert of Holy Island each produced their own translations into the common language of the English Isles.

Those bibles WERE available in Churches. They were chained to be sure, but available for reading. Prior to the advent of the printing press, bibles were hand copied by scribes. These bibles, were extremely valuable (hence the chaining) and only the rich could afford them. Ultimately, most Christians for centuries were illiterate anyway - a fact making your last statement wholly irrelevant.

Peace!

Must be nice to live in an alternate (although technically correct) universe.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Must be nice to live in an alternate (although technically correct) universe.

Well, in which universe would you prefer to live - the one that is technically correct, or the one filled with fallacy and revisionist history? Given a choice, I’ll take the former.

To deny the facts, is to let prejudice override reason.

Peace!

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks be to AwGusTeen for giving us more reasons why the unity so desired by RCC and her members at large will never be achieved.

Hey, it’s not the Catholic Church’s fault that some people are willful and obstinate with regard to truth.

Some have said that the RCC (ie: the true church Jesus founded…) had been around for 1500 years before this current flash in the pan started by brother Martin and she (the RCC) will be around long after the pesky protestants wax weary of their rebellion.

And I think it will probably prove true if the Lord tarries.

There is a problem with that thinking though, prior to AD 1517, the Holy writ was locked up tight in the confines of the monastery.

Yeah, right…And precisely when did Gutenberg bring the printing press into being and what was his first task? It was about 1440.

Q: A friend insists the Catholic Church burned the first printed Bibles and punished people who had them. Is there any truth to the story?

A: Nope. Printing with movable type was first used (say most historians, but not all) by Johann Gutenberg, a German Catholic. The first book he printed was the Mazarin Bible, so called because a copy was discovered in Cardinal Jules Mazarin’s library. More commonly known as the Gutenberg Bible, the book was printed more than sixty years before the Reformation began.

Today however, the Scriptures are in abundance in most tongues and in numbers not easy to remove from the commoners.

And yet that is not a bad thing except for the abridged copied extant in so many people’s hands. The Catholic Church has always encouraged the study of scripture and Bibles and books were chained, not to prevent access, but to insure access. By your logic, the reason that phone books and pens in banks were chained was to prevent people from having and using them, yet we all know better. It was done so that all had access.

In order to go back to the good old days, we will have to recreate the conditions of the good old days. It would in my opinion be easier to put the cat back into the bag, so to speak.

Nice rhetoric. Grossly inaccurate, but oh well…

Here’s the facts from an article on my blog.
Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

 

[Nicea325]

Thanks be to AwGusTeen for giving us more reasons why the unity so desired by RCC and her members at large will never be achieved.

Some have said that the RCC (ie: the true church Jesus founded…) had been around for 1500 years before this current flash in the pan started by brother Martin and she (the RCC) will be around long after the pesky protestants wax weary of their rebellion.

Huh? Come again? The good old days? Recreate the conditions? And the massive divisions and theological chaos due to private interpretation is recreating the good old days? Sorry,but that recreated a NEW condition called divisions.

 

[Protestant101]

How do you know? And yes we will ALWAYS seek Unity. All are welcome to the house of the Lord.

Now you made a statement. Prove it. Show me ONE truth that did not come from the CC!

I think that the use of certain words here must be clarified.

First, what Catholics here are apparently calling “unity” actually is not unity; it is Conformity. There is a world of difference here,and I think your church should be more out in the open with the public about what you really mean with the word “unity.”

Second; as with “unity,” Catholics also have other uses for other words, that the rest of Christianity does not have. The word “bible,” for example, is something much different than it is for Protestants.

So even with using the same words and phrases, their are many areas where the Catholic belief is actually saying something much different than Protestants.

I would encourage people to investigate more closely how catholics use various scriptural words/phrases, in comparison to official Protestant statements. It will be an eye-opener for some.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Well, in which universe would you prefer to live - the one that is technically correct, or the one filled with fallacy and revisionist history? Given a choice, I’ll take the former.

To deny the facts, is to let prejudice override reason.

Peace!

And I’ll take that third option.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Huh? Come again? The good old days? Recreate the conditions? And the massive divisions and theological chaos due to private interpretation is recreating the good old days? Sorry,but that recreated a NEW condition called divisions.

The good old days were those in which the adverage Joe didn’t have access to the scriptures, the clergy ran ruff-shod over the civil authorities and we the people paid manditory taxes to the church regardless of religious beliefs. You know, before October 30, 1517. You want unity, that’s how to get it.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Here’s the facts from an article on my blog.
]Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

Nope. Printing with movable type was first used (say most historians, but not all) by Johann Gutenberg, a German Catholic. The first book he printed was the Mazarin Bible, so called because a copy was discovered in Cardinal Jules Mazarin’s library. **More commonly known as the Gutenberg Bible, the book was printed more than sixty years before the Reformation began. **

The distinction of the Gutenberg Bible was that it was the first in movable type. It was not a translation in the vernacular, it was in fact the Latin Vulgate. What is the point (from your quote above in bold) that you are trying to make?

Bibles in the vernacular, (English, German and so forth) that were not translated and printed by the RCC were burned. For half a century or more, this was every single Bible printed for sale to the masses. This is simple historical fact. The D/R was the first Catholic English translation, the vulgate was the basis for this. It appeared in the late 16th century, 50 or 60 years after Tyndale et el. A good arguement can be made to support the contention that the D/R was the direct result of the pressure of the reformers on the RCC to put the scriptures into the hands of the pew sitters.

 

[rinnie]

I think that the use of certain words here must be clarified.

First, what Catholics here are apparently calling “unity” actually is not unity; it is Conformity. There is a world of difference here,and I think your church should be more out in the open with the public about what you really mean with the word “unity.”

Second; as with “unity,” Catholics also have other uses for other words, that the rest of Christianity does not have. The word “bible,” for example, is something much different than it is for Protestants.

So even with using the same words and phrases, their are many areas where the Catholic belief is actually saying something much different than Protestants.

I would encourage people to investigate more closely how catholics use various scriptural words/phrases, in comparison to official Protestant statements. It will be an eye-opener for some.

Na. We want Unity = to become ONE. The Church is is ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. We want unity = ONE

 

[AwGusTeen]

Bibles in the vernacular, (English, German and so forth) that were not translated and printed by the RCC were burned. For half a century or more, this was every single Bible printed for sale to the masses. This is simple historical fact… snip

Well, of course! That is because they were terrible translations. This action was in keeping with the Church’s role as being the “pillar and bulwark” of the truth. The fallacy here is that they burned them to keep people from reading scripture in an attempt to control the masses. Remember, that even Protestants burned such bibles - and rightly so. Ever heard of the “murderer’s bible”?

Peace!

 

[Tartini]

Technically, it seems that all protestants are just separated Catholics (they would never admit this, but logic says differently). Unity is determined by a group who thinks alike. There is no unity where 10,000 different “churches” exist. Where unity is lacking, there is confusion. The differences that exist are usually only doctrinal, but often serious enough to take into consideration when the eternal state of the soul is concerned. Logically, one could not profess protestant stand unless they acknowledge what they are protesting. This has seemingly always been a mystery once one really looks closely at history itself. Are they protesting Christ? Are they protesting authority? Are they protesting scripture truths?

As the Catholic Church is the only True Church founded by Christ Himself then any other separated denomination or sect who preaches Christ must be included in the scope, to some extent. The four marks of the True Church, being it is ONE, HOLY,CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC, settles the argument right from the beginning. No protestant denomination or sect can claim this. The primary reason protestant denominations and sects exist is lack of unity to begin with. Did Christ know this was going to happen? Very much so. Ironically, the very thing which was to happen was based on an interpretation of the scriptures themselves.

It is a fact of human logic that it was actually bound to happen. Luther took full advantage of the new invention of the day (the printing press) and flew with it. In the state the world was in, his job was easy, but even he questioned it. The minds of others joined in and from there it was like a ripple in a pond. Human nature did the rest. Now it was possible to undermine the Church with words and the movable type system made a big difference as to how to construct those words. Historically, the question was not one of faith, but of power and the acquisition of land. The Reformation was the single most devastating event in the history of humankind. It still goes on today.

I pray that someday there will be unity, but in order for that to happen, all protestants must abandon error and come back to the Catholic Church. Sounds impossible, but nothing is impossible with God. As Christ promises the Catholic Church will prevail, this is what makes it a highly probable event in the future.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Well, of course! That is because they were terrible translations. This action was in keeping with the Church’s role as being the “pillar and bulwark” of the truth. The fallacy here is that they burned them to keep people from reading scripture in an attempt to control the masses. Remember, that even Protestants burned such bibles - and rightly so. Ever heard of the “murderer’s bible”?

Peace!

All of these (according to you) false translations are still available today. To name a few in English: Tyndale, Matthews, Great, Bishops, Geneva. Go ahead AwGusTeen, give me an example of them being as you say “terrible translations”? Many of these pre-KJV are still available in hard copy print. Try finding a first edition repro D/R in print.

Unless you make an attempt to bring the conversation up to at least a high school level I think I will sit the remainder of this thread out. Nothing personal as I truly believe that we are all intitled to our opinions.