Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[david_ruiz]

cont…

You call Christ’s Statement an exaggeration?

Yes and no. It was an exaggeration in their wrong way of thinking of the path of the Messiah .But it was quite prophetic for the believers , of His death , resurrection and ascension. Was it an exaggeration of the rich man and the eye of the needle , or of the rich man having to sell all that he had , or of the requiring to be me more righteous than the Pharisees ?

Why do the men on the Road to Emmaus only recognize Him in the Breaking of the Bread?

People keep mentioning this .What, Luther /Calvin , non-RPers don’t break bread in remembrance ?

The followers begin to murmur at such a HARD teaching and can’t accept what he is saying, That’s literal…

They did not believe from the beginning , before John 6

Did Jesus or the apostles, run after these followers saying, Oh you took this teaching all wrong? We didn’t mean it literally we meant figuratively??

I could understand your thought if indeed they were true disciples who got “stumped” by this enough to abandon all faith in Him. Trouble is, they were not believing disciples and this “stump” made them finally depart .Why would you chase after someone who has it all wrong form the most fundamental concept of whom Jesus is ? It’s like someone someone running around the bases for a homerun and they miss all the bases and of course he is eventually tagged out for he must be .And then we say ,"see, he missed third base .It’s that third “base” that got Him out for he never made it to home .I’d say he didn’t even touch first base. And you want to go and tell him he missed third base ? Can you see why Jesus would be frustrated and be hyper to show the runners mistake(s)?

Jhn 6:49 Literal or Hyperbola?

You can eat literally His flesh, and you will die like those in the wilderness also. Isn’t that literal ?

It is this Physical manna that God taught the Israelites was all they needed to depend on. But their flesh wanted MORE! And that’s the Context of Jhn 6:63. God gave them what they needed and the flesh wanted more. Jesus Gives Himself At Calvary, to provide us with physical and Spiritual food.

Sorry, but you have it askewed. That the Jews wanted more, yes (quail). But in John the Jews wanted less .They wanted their bellies full while not seeing they needed a spiritual overhaul. In one sense they wanted more .They wanted Jesus to sit on the Davidic throne, kick out the Romans, easy , high street , the glory days .They didn’t see their spiritual depravity .They didn’t understand the first advent form the second advent. Why do you think there is vs 62 where Jesus says forget third base , you don’t even get homeplate ,My ascension. This (John 6) is NOT about RP. It’s about missing ALL the bases, His incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension till His second return for the final homeplate dance.

Christ being human knows our needs, our nature, To be intimate with Him as humans we need to have physical contact,

This is tacky nonsense.Flesh profiteht nothing ,availeth little ,except for Calvary.

Christ gives us this need in the Eucharist, as well as our need to touch, and taste, we receive Chirst @ communion with all of our Five senses.

Paul wanted to apprehend Jesus , to understand Him and be like Him , in the inner man, not touch, feel smell Him.

Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist is just That HIS Real Presence, Nothing less!
And that goes all the back 1000 yrs. before the term Transubstantiation ever existed.

Yes, and that means different things to different people.The CC “explanation” of this “mystery” has does nothing but further divide the Body.

The church didn’t invent the Word to change what the Apostles taught, they used it to explain philosophically what the Apostles taught.

Sorry,apostles didn’t teach transubstantiation by any other word ,or deed.

 

[david_ruiz]

It just goes to show you, trying to explain a Mystery of God to men of the Flesh is foolishness.

It is only a mystery when you avoid the obvious and prefer what is not there. At the very least, transubstantiation doctrine was not needed and should of left well enough alone.

transubstantiation is a term developed for those who grumbled

From your viewpoint, yes. Trouble is non-CC RP’ers believe in Christ fully where the departing, murmurers did not.

 

[david_ruiz]

JO -Is there an instance where the apostles heard confessions ? You felt this was an anti Catholic question .CC claims everything today is Apostolic .So if today there is a confessional , then yesterday there was , all the way back to apostles . I will agree that to question it’s validity is “anti catholic”. So now what ? How do you show biblical foundation to those of a different persuasion /“religion” ? That it is questioning Catholic authority is a given , but no reason to complain or not answer. Her authority to her own will remain intact.

 

[John_oxios]

…

You must be confusing me with someone else. Who said confession is not biblical

See, now that is a good question. Is there an instance where the apostles heard confessions ? {/quote]

You stated confession as the Catholic Church, Roman, Greek Ortodox and the 290 other Catholic Faiths which go back to Apostolic times>> (which all cannnot be wrong!)

Let’s go to 2Cor
2Cr 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us** the ministry of reconciliation;**
2Cr 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

If you are A christian? early Catholic, Paul has no need to explain the ministry of confession, because it is already in Practice.

Ministry: ** the service, functions**, or profession of a minister of religion.
2. the body or class of ministers of religion; clergy.

How do you explain a Ministry of Reconciliation, outside Christ’s Church?
How is it you can believe NO Minister is involved? Not even in the O.T. was it made known Repentance, reconciliation was outside the ministers God had made.

Throughout Scripture Sin was not allowed in the Camp, you had to repent your sin. confess it, be checked out by the Priests before you could renter to join your family

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

It is only a mystery when you avoid the obvious and prefer what is not there. At the very least, transubstantiation doctrine was not needed and should of left well enough alone. From your viewpoint, yes. Trouble is non-CC RP’ers believe in Christ fully where the departing, murmurers did not.

 Let's forget the term Transubstantiation,  if that really erks you.. { a philosophical explanation of a mystery of God]  The problem Is the term does explain what the Church has taught since the Last Supper.  It was called the Real Presence for 1000 yrs. before.  You've turned it to golden arches which is the wrong emphasis on the Eucharist.

Murmuring against the camp/ Moses’ teachings were All against a dependance and mystery of God. God is obvious? Then why isn’t everyone a Christian? Why are there atheists, agnostics… why place 12 men to lead his Church and profess Christ turn into 26,00o different interpretations? So obvious that many 'believers drank the Kool aid provided by Demon theologies?

Obvious to whom?

God bless,
john

 

[david_ruiz]

See, now that is a good question. Is there an instance where the apostles heard confessions ? {/quote]

 

[david_ruiz]

Murmuring against the camp/ Moses’ teachings were All against a dependance and mystery of God.

 

[John_oxios]

See,that is the gospel ,that is not confessing to a priest.
No evidence except circular reasoning.
OT had no confessional.

God bless,

 

[jlhargus]

Mark

 

[John_oxios]

OT had no confessional.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hello Jo Tell me how apostles bound and loosed ? Reconciliation yes .But that it is CC sacrament ? that is a stretch.Why does new testament use bishop/presbyter and not priest ? The few times it is used it is to show we are all priests .You stretch to show minister is now “priests”. The Holy Spirit guided the written word and the new testament, and we have new words for new ministries(bishop/presbyters). We now have access to the throne, individually and corporately .We no longer need a priest in the OT sense, as a go between. That we minister to one another and have giftings in the body does not negate the fact that we are all priests .The gospel is reconciliatory , and we all are to be His light in this world, workers in His kingdom,reconciling the lost kingdom to His.No ,the apostles did not hear peoples sins and absolve them on a weekly basis. Nor is their biblical evidence that they appointed confessors, taking us up to 100 AD.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hello Jo Tell me how apostles bound and loosed ? Reconciliation yes .But that it is CC sacrament ? that is a stretch.

Why a stretch? Don’t you know that sacrament refers to channels of the grace Christ earned for us? And if forgiveness of sin is not grace, then i really have no idea what is

The gospel is reconciliatory , and we all are to be His light in this world, workers in His kingdom,reconciling the lost kingdom to His.

Perfect! Could have come right out of the B16’s lips!

No ,the apostles did not hear peoples sins and absolve them on a weekly basis. Nor is their biblical evidence that they appointed confessors, taking us up to 100 AD.

So I suppose Jesus just said “Whosoever’s sins you forgive/retain, they are forgiven/retained unto them” to be interesting, right? I’m sorry, but Jesus was not into instituting empty rituals and speaking empty words. Christ knew that his followers though baptized and reborn, would still fall into sin, and being corporeal creatures that we are, we would need forgiveness as real and tangible to us as the sins that we are leaving behind.

Peace!

 

[CalChristian]

I don’t get what you’re saying. You can’t say that you are apostolic if your beliefs are contrary to doctrines. Protestant beliefs are considered heresy by the Catholic Church.

If Protestants are not Christian, what religion are they? Buddhist? Hindu? Taoist?

I disagree with a very, very FEW of the teachings of the RC Denomination - but I certainly consider Catholics to be Christians (in fact, my FULL, unseparated, equally blessed and equal in every sense brothers and sisters in Christ). To disagree on some point, in my opinion, doesn’t mean a believer in Christ a Muslim or a Jew rather than a Christian.

Just my perspective…

.

 

[John_oxios]

Why does new testament use bishop/presbyter and not priest ? The few times it is used it is to show we are all priests .You stretch to show minister is now “priests”. … We now have access to the throne, individually and corporately .We no longer need a priest in the OT sense, as a go between. Nor is their biblical evidence that they appointed confessors, .

Hello,

A stretch? 22 Catholic Religions practice the same Doctrine til Luther, Calvin, Zwingli come along 1500 yrs later and say it is all wrong? The Holy Spirit misguided Christ Church? in matters of faith and Morals? Throw the entire Christian Bible out!

it is a translation from the Greek/ Hebrew:

This is real hard to figure out? The word Priest comes from Presbyter in ye olde English from the GreeK word, Presbyteros.

Doesn’t your Bible mention Priests? The KJV
AV — chief priest 64, high priest 58, chief of the priest 1

When did Christ do away with his ministers/ clergy The Bishops/Presbyters and elders/servants. He appointed a head steward/ Shepherd til His return

Jesus says to obey their teachings when they preside in the seat of Moses, even though they may live as poor examples:

Mat 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Dictionary.com Priest

1. (in the early Christian church) an office bearer who exercised teaching, priestly, and administrative functions.
2. (in hierarchical churches) a priest.

Origin: 1590–1600; < Late Latin, noun use of the adj.: older < Greek presbýteros, equivalent to présby(s) old + -teros comparative suffix

World English Dictionary
presbyter

1.  a.  an elder of a congregation in the early Christian Church

an official who is subordinate to a bishop and has administrative, teaching, and sacerdotal functions
2. in some Churches) another name for priest
3. in the Presbyterian Church
a. a teaching elder
b. a ruling elder
[C16: from Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros an older man, from presbus old man]

(Greek presbyteros, “elder”), **an officer or minister in the early Christian Church intermediate between bishop and deacon or, in modern **Presbyterianism, an alternative name for elder. The word presbyter is etymologically the original form of “priest.”

Why is it a secular dictionary sees the Word Priest coming from early Church and Biblical words, yet a believer refuses to acknowledge that Priest comes from the Early Church usage of Presbyter?

Was every Israelite a priest? But they were God’s people as a Nation, a beacon for all nations!
1Peter 2:5 context as each of us is a stone in the spiritual , “*Let ourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a royal priesthood…” * Not as individual priests but a nation,

It doesn’t say you are a Priest but ‘a priesthood’ that’s together as Gentiles in the witness of Christ, as used in the same language toward the Hebrews :

a. But you are a chosen generation: The things that once exclusively belonged to Israel - their election (chosen), priesthood, and calling, are now no longer the property of Israel alone. These are now the property of every Christian, and we have them in a greater, spiritual sense.

i. We are a royal priesthood. The offices of royalty and priesthood were jealously separated in Israel, but Jesus, who is our King and Priest, has brought them together for His people.
a. But you are a chosen generation: The things that once exclusively belonged to Israel - their election (chosen), priesthood, and calling, are now no longer the property of Israel alone. These are now the property of every Christian, and we have them in a greater, spiritual sense.

Do you know what I can’t find in the Bible?

**A non-denomitional Congregation outside the Early Church, **its not in there But you choose to attend one!

Binding = forbidding, loosing = permitting, What they forbid
God asks Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?

Mat*16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do you mean you can’t find the meaning of binding and loosing as it pertains to Jesus instructions to Peter 1st, and later the Apostles? Do you mean you’d have to seek and find an extra biblical source, The Church, to find out about this?
Confessions every week? Not necessary, You ought to confess at least once a yr, usually prior to Easter. But in preparation of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, Reconciliation may be used more often. In the beginning of each and every Mass there is absolution for guilt of sin to receive communion, but that in itself excuse us from seeking a confession.

Christianity/ catholicism like Judaism was and is never a religion of the Book alone.
The Word of God is alive, it breathes, grows otherwise we’d all be living the type of Life Quakers do, or we’d all be living as Jewish Christians why because that was what the Apostles knew, God gave the Church the guidance to grow and allow Gentiles Revelation of Christ, and grafted us in. Instruction was needed.

Using 100 a.d. as a cutoff date? Heck The Gospel of John didn’t start geting passed around til about 95 a.d and Revelations after that! why not Throw them out too! The were handed to Polycarp who received from John, it was His word and witness that gave authority to the writings.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

If Protestants are not Christian, what religion are they? Buddhist? Hindu? Taoist?

I disagree with a very, very FEW of the teachings of the RC Denomination - but I certainly consider Catholics to be Christians (in fact, my FULL, unseparated, equally blessed and equal in every sense brothers and sisters in Christ). To disagree on some point, in my opinion, doesn’t mean a believer in Christ a Muslim or a Jew rather than a Christian.

Just my perspective…

hi,
Nobody saying, Protestants are not Christian, although some religions do not believe Christ as Human and Divine, DO call themselves Christians.

But you practice your faith differently! They have made their own Religion outside the Catholic Faith. Some Protestants believe Catholics are not saved! That makes us different religions. We may have Christ in common, but you teach/interpret things differently.

**Similarity is not Sameness**


   God bless,
             John

 

[Marybeloved]

hi,
Nobody saying, Protestants are not Christian, although some religions do not believe Christ as Human and Divine, DO call themselves Christians.

But you practice your faith differently! They have made their own Religion outside the Catholic Faith. Some Protestants believe Catholics are not saved! That makes us different religions. We may have Christ in common, but you teach/interpret things differently.

**Similarity is not Sameness**


   God bless,
             John

I think it’s more accurate to say the Protestant faith is not the Catholic faith than to use the term “religions” to explain the differences. I do not believe that those who hold to the same truths of the creeds can in any way be genuinely said to belong to different religions ;

*One God in three natures, Jesus is one divine person with two natures (human and divine); he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified and died to save us, rose again, ascended, went to heaven, shall come again as King and judge, in the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, life everlasting, one holy church of believers etc *

Those are fundamentals that 99% of all Christians believe, and that’s what makes us a particular religion called Christianity, set apart from the rest of the world. Protestants, excepting JWs and Mormorns, are not of a different religion from us :nope:. The church even says they are part of her (the one true church) by virtue of that essential faith and baptism, though they are separated. We can call them and the Orthodox different communions, or faiths, but it’s misleading to say they are a different religion. In fact the church forbids us from calling ex-Protestants coming into the Church “converts” like we do people from other religions like Judaism/Islam etc- We call them only candidates. My two cents.

 

[david_ruiz]

Why a stretch? Don’t you know that sacrament refers to channels of the grace Christ earned for us? And if forgiveness of sin is not grace, then i really have no idea what is :shrugerfect! Could have come right out of the B16’s lips! So I suppose Jesus just said “Whosoever’s sins you forgive/retain, they are forgiven/retained unto them” to be interesting, right? I’m sorry, but Jesus was not into instituting empty rituals and speaking empty words. Christ knew that his followers though baptized and reborn, would still fall into sin, and being corporeal creatures that we are, we would need forgiveness as real and tangible to us as the sins that we are leaving behind.

Peace!

Hi MB Again ,just how are his graces channeled is what we are talking about.I believe sins are forgiven by His blood , past, present and to come, and it’s part of the gospel commission, not hearing sins .Is not Jesus alive and well on planet earth ? Is he not alive in your heart ? Do you not speak to Him ? Can He not hear you ? The bible talks of reconciliation , restitution ,confessing “faults” one to another " , but not needing a priest and sacrament for after rebirth sins. What Christ can not do is to forgive someone not born again, or to one who does not invite Him “in”. People need to submit to the gospel ,the gospel you and I are to preach , sometimes with words. And what is our gospel ? That Christ died for our sins and wants to give us life, and more abundantly, and that, eternal.Can you not guarantee forgiveness of sins to a lost soul if they place their trust in Christ for that ? Do you not have scriptural authority for that ? Do you not have your churches authority for that ? I tell you the same method of initial forgiveness from the Father is the same method of forgiveness forever thereafter. But perhaps there lies the problem, for even in that you need a “sacrament” and usually a priest(to be born-again/forgiven ).

 

[david_ruiz]

Hello,

 

[CalChristian]

hi,
Nobody saying, Protestants are not Christian

But is it saying they are a DIFFERENT religion? If so, then the proclamation is that they are not Christian - or they would be the same religion: Christian.

So, what religion are Protestants? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Taoists? Buddhists?
Or is Protestantism declared to be another world religion - Christian, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.?

Some Protestants believe Catholics are not saved! That makes us different religions

Perhaps. But this isn’t a Protestant website, and it seems odd to me to rebuke Protestants for considering Catholicism to be a different religion while defending Catholics considering Protestantism to be a different religion. Follow me?

Thank you!

Just my perspective…

.

 

[CopticChristian]

But is it saying they are a DIFFERENT religion? If so, then the proclamation is that they are not Christian - or they would be the same religion: Christian.

So, what religion are Protestants? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Taoists? Buddhists?
Or is Protestantism declared to be another world religion - Christian, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.?

Perhaps. But this isn’t a Protestant website, and it seems odd to me to rebuke Protestants for considering Catholicism to be a different religion while defending Catholics considering Protestantism to be a different religion. Follow me?

Thank you!

Just my perspective…

.

Understanding comes from perspective. If we accept that Christianity is a religion then all baptized in the trinitarian formula are part of the Christian religion as defined by the OHCAC. Those that are not united by beliefs foreign to the OHCAC are united mysteriously and represent “ecclesial communities”.

This is simple and inclusive. The Protestant perspective is dependent on individuals. There is no body that speaks for Protestants at any level. The most organized Protestant body, Anglican for instance cannot speak for all Protestants and make a statement that is binding.

The OHCAC accepts Protestants as Christian however in their practice they are at times operating as a different religion. Take for instance those that believe that they define Christianity and deny any and all others and declare that the OHCAC is labeled as per the reformation denegrating terms like “cult, whore of babylon, etc”. In these communities Protestants are operating as a different religion.

There is a posting on a particular Baptist website…I post the thread below.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611380

This Protestant body is acting like another religion.

In summary perspective dictates the answer. From the OHCAC side Protestants are Christian by their baptism and beliefs as they coincide with the teaching from which they sprang, the OHCAC and when they operate in defiance and teach false doctrine they act as if they were another religion.

From the Protestant side there are those that believe, teach, act as if they were another religion and the OHCAC accepts them as Christian by their Baptism and beliefs where they coincide with the OHCAC.