Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[benedictus2]

Hi MB I know what you mean. But from my point ,what did we add to the creed ? The only one that stands out perhaps is sola scriptura. Anything else ?

How about Sola Fide?

 

[benedictus2]

Oh what did we take away ? I see 12 points to the creed that are believed by Chrsitians.That you have to go in depth is indicative of the problem . A lot like the OT and the “depth” that evolved in adition to the original law.

Who says that the Creed is all that needs to be believed?

 

[benedictus2]

CopticChristian;8558010:

Not written by apostles .Formulated thru first four centuries of western church. “Holy,catholic” were adjectives for Church , not the name of the church.

Exactly! Because there was only one Church then. As Christ willed.
]quote] 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

1. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
2. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
3. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
4. The third day he rose again from the dead:
5. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
6. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
7. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
8. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
9. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

1. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Do you know that this is the creed the catechumens profess after they were baptized - i.e. after they were received into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? And do you know that until they were baptized they were not allowed to partake in the Eucharist?

 

[benedictus2]

Your reply is a non sequitur. It is a semantic issue about the meaning of the term religion.

Sorry but you are definitely a different religion.

I suggest you visit http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/

In his conversion story, Longenecker realized that the Anglican religion is indeed a protestant religion and therefore not Catholic when they started ordaining women contrary to the faith of the apostles and contrary to the Church believed. That they though they could act unilaterally on this mean that they are indeed protestants.

We see this even in the 1930 Lambeth conference when they decreed contraception permissible contrary to what the Catholic Church has always believed.

So no, you are not Catholic, you are definitely protestant and an altogether different religion albeit still connected to the Catholic Church as all Christian oriented churches are since you all came from the Catholic Church. Your founders just chose not to remain there.

Another thing, there is nothing in apostolic teaching that says a King can set up his own church if he disagreed with the successor of Peter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

I just joined the thread … but, have read some of the past posts in order to try and catch up…

I don’t think you have addressed this … at least I did not see it… but, just what are you saying with the statement, “Not written by apostles”? I am honestly only aware of two ‘apostles’ having written anything: Matthew and John. Of course, they would be from the ‘original, original apostles’…

Now, we can expand our view - not just from the original twleve to the two late-commers Matthias (who didn’t write anything we know of…) and Paul (who wrote more than anyone!) But, in doing so, we have these two other guys:Mark and Luke. Mark may have been one of the disciples (does that count?) But Luke was apparently not around Christ at all and got all of his information from oral reports (maybe the first reference of Sacred Tradition)

And, if we expand our view to them … what about the successors of the apostles?

From my experience in reading posts, there are essentially two ways of dating Christianity from a practical standpoint. It seems that:

Catholics date their origin from about 33AD (Matt 16:18, Acts 2) and go to the present with Benedict XVI

Protestants date their origin from about 10/31/1517 with the 95 Theses of Luther and then appear to act like they went back in time, picked over what they wanted and then began history with those who revolted. Their ‘church history’ has this 1,500 year gap that looks obvious to the casual observer. For those who dare to venture into the first 500 years of Christianity - and that would be the Catholic Church, there are multiple logical perils.

**Do we claim that God the Son is totally equal to God the Father **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 325 at the Council of Nicea

**Do we claim that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with God the Father and God the Son **- if so, then we must **thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 481 at the Council of Constantinople **

**Do we claim that Mary is the Mother of God **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 431 at the Council of Ephesus

**Do we claim that Christ has two natures and one person **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 331 at the Council of Ephesus

**Do we claim that original sin tainted human nature **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 416 at the Council of Carthage

Do we claim that the Seat of Peter in Rome has primacy over all others- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon

I could go on - but, I think you get the idea. Believe me this is a vey meger list when one considers all that is out there that has come from the Catholic Church (oh, and don’t forget that the Bible also came from the Catholic Church - chances are, however, that you are using an abridged version). If you would like to know more, here is link that may be helpful: catholicism.org/the-ecumenical-councils-of-the-catholic-church.html

God bless

CopticChristian;8558010:

Not written by apostles .Formulated thru first four centuries of western church. “Holy,catholic” were adjectives for Church , not the name of the church.

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

1. And the life everlasting. Amen.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your forgot to add a word…IMO

Originally Posted by CopticChristian
Your Church my Church believes and teaches that unity starts with worship in the Eucharist/Christ. All things we believe flow from Eucharist/Christ. Without common worship we cannot unite with anyone. This is the common thread that unites Oriental, Orhodox and Catholic. This is the only Gospel. There is no other gospel hard, squisshy, feeling good, kinda like it or otherwise, in my opinion.

Three words…

based on Scripture, Tradition and teaching of the magesterium…more words…

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8558010:

Not written by apostles .Formulated thru first four centuries of western church. “Holy,catholic” were adjectives for Church , not the name of the church.

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

1. And the life everlasting. Amen.

So as you say in your original posting, uniting the body in the Fourth Century, investigate the body united in the 4th century for its beliefs and compare and contrast with today.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TMJ365,

I think the only way you can maintain the position you have taken is to actually refute the words and deeds of one who was an Anglican - John Henry Newman … who became Catholic and since 9/19/2010 he has been recognized as Blessed by the Catholic Church.

Here is an intersting link: newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

The bottom line is that Newman left what he had proven to be false - to join what he had proven to be true. And the Grace of God guided each of his steps.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Your reply is a non sequitur. It is a semantic issue about the meaning of the term religion.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, David Ruiz,

I just joined the thread … but, have read some of the past posts in order to try and catch up…

I don’t think you have addressed this … at least I did not see it… but, just what are you saying with the statement, “Not written by apostles”? I am honestly only aware of two ‘apostles’ having written anything: Matthew and John. Of course, they would be from the ‘original, original apostles’…

Now, we can expand our view - not just from the original twleve to the two late-commers Matthias (who didn’t write anything we know of…) and Paul (who wrote more than anyone!) But, in doing so, we have these two other guys:Mark and Luke. Mark may have been one of the disciples (does that count?) But Luke was apparently not around Christ at all and got all of his information from oral reports (maybe the first reference of Sacred Tradition)

And, if we expand our view to them … what about the successors of the apostles?

From my experience in reading posts, there are essentially two ways of dating Christianity from a practical standpoint. It seems that:

Catholics date their origin from about 33AD (Matt 16:18, Acts 2) and go to the present with Benedict XVI

Protestants date their origin from about 10/31/1517 with the 95 Theses of Luther and then appear to act like they went back in time, picked over what they wanted and then began history with those who revolted. Their ‘church history’ has this 1,500 year gap that looks obvious to the casual observer. For those who dare to venture into the first 500 years of Christianity - and that would be the Catholic Church, there are multiple logical perils.

**Do we claim that God the Son is totally equal to God the Father **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 325 at the Council of Nicea

**Do we claim that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with God the Father and God the Son **- if so, then we must **thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 481 at the Council of Constantinople **

**Do we claim that Mary is the Mother of God **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 431 at the Council of Ephesus

**Do we claim that Christ has two natures and one person **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 331 at the Council of Ephesus

**Do we claim that original sin tainted human nature **- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 416 at the Council of Carthage

Do we claim that the Seat of Peter in Rome has primacy over all others- if so, then we must thank the Catholic Church’s work done in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon

I could go on - but, I think you get the idea. Believe me this is a vey meger list when one considers all that is out there that has come from the Catholic Church (oh, and don’t forget that the Bible also came from the Catholic Church - chances are, however, that you are using an abridged version). If you would like to know more, here is link that may be helpful: catholicism.org/the-ecumenical-councils-of-the-catholic-church.html

God bless

Hey Tom, great post!

 

[rinnie]

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.

David Bishop or Presbyter is just another name for a Priest.

And we no longer need Priests Where is that written in the bible.

The Bible states the Priesthood will CONTINUE with the laying of hands. Is that not in direct conflict with your words?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I was getting a little lonesome and saw you were on this thread … so, i thought I would join in…

One of the things that has amazed me is how Revativism has made itself apparent in so many areas. I came across an interesting link that is for everyone - but, especially for the OP: holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2011/07/anglicanism-case-study-in-moral.html

The idea of equating the Church to a social or civic club is really very scary… Ultimately, we are wagering our eternal salvation on the delusional ideas of a bunch of ‘good old boys (and girls)’ as opposed to what Christ taught. While there have been many differences between the Anglican system and Catholic belief - nothing has been so breathtakingly amazing as the Anglican embrace of homosexual BEHAVIOR. This is truly a ‘Love the sinner and love the sin’ approach to destroying the Gospel of Christ.

They are simply a ship without a rudder - and any and all abominations are quite possible on this turbulent sea of life. As I see it, they are sinking and nothing can save their little boat - now is the time to flee back to the safety of the Catholic Church with its divinely promised guidance of the Holy Spirit.

God bless

Hey Tom, great post!

 

[david_ruiz]

How about Sola Fide?

Oops ! I forgot about that one . There is two

 

[david_ruiz]

Who says that the Creed is all that needs to be believed?

The CC for sure .But wait, CC says the Apostles Creed is a Catholic document,once known as “rule of faith”. What did the original Apostles Creed leave out ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Do you know that this is the creed the catechumens profess after they were baptized - i.e. after they were received into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? And do you know that until they were baptized they were not allowed to partake in the Eucharist?

Yes I did thank-you .That is why earliest of church buildings had two “sections”, so catechumens could leave before the “secret” words of consecration were prayed without disturbing the baptized. Not only that, very often there were two separate buildings,even cathedrals.It was not til infant baptism became widespread did these building practices cease.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi, David Ruiz,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

Responding this way does not indicate to me you have much, if any, of a genuine education in the Catholic Faith. This is not meant to be offensive but let me give you some articles of the Catholic Faith (and that means if you deny these articles you have excommunicated yourself - so that you are no longer a Catholic) that ARE NOT specifically included in the Apostles Creed:

There is no mention of the Eucharist

There is no mention of any of the six other Sacraments, and

There is no mention any of the Marian doctrines (Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption into Heaven and Crowing as Queen of Heaven)

Catholics are required to believe these dogmas of Faith. So if you were taught that everything is in the Creed, you were seriously misinformed. Here is a link you may find helpful: anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/INFO.htm

God bless

The CC for sure .But wait, CC says the Apostles Creed is a Catholic document,once known as “rule of faith”. What did the original Apostles Creed leave out ?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

I honestly do not who the author(s) is/are for the Creed… but, I do not think each Apostle wrote something.

It isn’t that OSAS is ‘detested’ - rather it is deceptive and not Scriptural. You may TRY to misapply this to the Catholic ‘inerrancy logic’ but, I think this is just another example of the inadequate education you had in the Catholic Faith. Let me explain…

The Bible is without error. The error-free designation was given to the the books in the Bible (you are using an abbreviated version) in before 400AD. For a historical account of how the Bible actually got to us - here is an interesting link: catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml

The Catholic Church can not teach error in matters of faith and morals. This means that the doctrine (not the individulas) that is taught can not have an error because the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ, is guiding the Church (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26). Indviduals in the Catholic Church - not only are capable of personal sin but have given grave scandal to the world by failing to follow Christ… these men are not impeccable.

It is noteworthy that the most public sins of any and all the popes you can think of - never once proclaimed a false doctrine. God is honestly looking out for His Bride - the Catholic Church.

I agree, God did give us the Holy Scriptures - but, in a way that was totally different fromthe way He gave Moses the 10 Commandments. God chose to use the Catholic Church as His instrument for determining which of the Books were inspired and which weren’t inspired - and this was done by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. Because of God’s intimate role in giving us the The Holy Bible, we can not say that one version is as good as another. The books deleted from Protestant bibles were given by God and man was not authorized to disrespect and remove them.

Actually, if you read the link I provided you will what I have given is far more accurate. I will leave the divisiveness aspects to others. Either you accept the Truth as Christ gave it, or you don’t. When it comes to drawing a line to see where people stand on some thing, let me invite you to read John 6:64-67. Please note, Christ did not run after them saying, “I did not mean to ve devisive” or “You must have misunderstood me; come back”! Christ apparently only had His Apostles remaining … and He even challenged them if they were going to walk. Christ did not adjust His Message in this section - and, I think that is an important concept.

One last note on the Bible. The primary reason why there are 40,000+ Protestant sects, groups, organizations, assemblies, tempels, tabernacles, gatherings, etc - all trying to be a church is the false belief that anyone can interpret the Bible as they see best. Let me tell you, students are not allowed to interpret Homer’s Iliad and Odessey or John Milton’s Paridise Lost as they see fit - there are specific rules that must be followed.

While most would agree that these classical works need specific instruction and explanations if the reader is to truly understand what these authors had in mind - and these are just works of fiction. There is a goup out there, however, that seems to think that the most important Book for their salvation can be handled any way they wish. This is quite wrong and those who believe this lie will have many difficulties.

God bless

tqualey;8563273:

Howdy tqualey.Well, this is inrefernce to the “authors " of the Apostles Creed. I beleive some held s tradition that each of the twelve apostles had/wrote one of the twelve lines”? I don’t think that is academically accepted anymore.We don’t know who the author(s) was. There is an old saying which many detest ,“once saved always saved” .I apply it to your Catholic inerrancy logic, “Once right ,always right”.What, you think there are not individual promises alike ,that He is the keeper of our salvation ,as you insist that He also promised an inerrant church Vatican 1 or 2 suggests we say God gave us Holy Scripture. It is more accurate and less divisive . …Your other points are well taken and can be discussed ,perhaps later. God bless

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

God bless,

 

[wisdomseeker]

Leviticus 16:32, “This atonement is to be made by the priest who has been anointed and ordained to the priesthood in succession to his father.”

Here also mentions the line of succession. Interesting, dont you think.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Leviticus 19:20-22, “If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death . . . but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him . . . before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.”