Actually, there are some major differences — the most obvious being that from a legal POV, there were three genders, not two, back then. Male, female, and what is currently called “the third gender”.
Personally, I think it was a bit of a power trip at times. I’ve seen it first hand from some protestant ministers (not all, mind you) that they might have just wanted to "do something right’ but are unwilling to follow the Church, and just split and do what they think is right, they want the credit, they want to be so holy and lead the multitude into their version of Christianity. Some I notice think that it really doesn’t matter what “church” you go to and that just following Christ is good enough. But how would one truly know what they must do in order to follow Christ without guidance from another? and if they follow someone’s personal opinions, it’s just the blind leading the blind. And, obviously every time, with every split, it is a disagreement in the doctrines or the teachings of the previous denomination. Continuing to remove whatever * they* deem unworthy until there is nothing left of the Church that Christ left us with.I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible.
be careful what you read. I myself have read some pretty interesting things. Sometimes it helps to check validity of the source you read from. And just because someone claims to be something, doesnt truly mean they are. It’s tough especially on the internet.
Jesus, born of the House of David, was a Jew. We will start with that. He preached his message that “the kingdom is at hand” first to God’s chosen people, the Israelites (Jews). They had been expecting a Messiah, an anointed Saviour. Some of the Jews, especially after Pentecost, did recognize and accept Jesus as the Messiah described in the OT.
You absolutely can’t cluster all Protestants together on all issues including Scripture. Catholics differ in their beliefs regardless of what the church says. That is easily proven by the survey done a few years ago amongst Catholics that showed only about one third actually believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divility of Jesus Christ. Heck, even some of the Protestant denominations have a higher rate of belief in the Real Presence than that! It doesn’t make a hoot what the church says is the truth if some of the members don’t buy it.Try what again? Try to pick out which Protestant denomination is correctly interpreting the Scriptures? And using what as a basis for making this decision? Since we won’t know what is “biblical” until we actually sit down and read the Bible, right?
We know that homosexuality is wrong because the Church teaches it; not because it’s “obvious” in the Bible - it isn’t. That’s the only way we know that Protestants who accept homosexuality and interpret the Scriptures to be saying something else must be wrong - because the Church teaches differently.
If we say, “I will interpret the Scriptures for myself, and make my own decision,” what guarantee is there that we won’t read them from the liberal Protestant point of view? After all, when you exclude everything else, their interpretation makes just as much sense as everyone else’s. It’s only when you take the Tradition into account that it begins to make sense that the Bible is condemning homosexual activity as it is practiced today, and that there is no difference between what we call homosexuality today, and what it was 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago - that, indeed, as Qoheleth has written, there is, in fact, nothing new under the sun.
Those who differ from what the Church teaches have one foot out the door.
And those Protestants are on their way to becoming Catholic.
Of course it does. The Church teaching is what is true, and it will continue to remain true, even if no one on the entire planet believes it. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.
you are decieved by a different gospel. Pray to the Lord for Truth and you will recieve it. If you travel to Rome and Jerusalem which I have many times you will see it is evident the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic as it was implanted in scripture from the Cross. Do not be caught up in the “Winkle Wrap” which means you have been asleep from the first century and awakened in the 21st. READ YOUR HISTORY!First of all you have to believe that there was only one church to begin with. When the Roman Catholic Church began its reign not everyone that professed Christ was Lord belonged to it. The Roman Catholic Church just labeled those people heretics the same way it does now even though they had nothing to do with them from the get go. Luther did belong, but when he became aware of the corruption within the church, he did what he did. Even Roman Catholic priests admit that there was corruption at that time, yet the people of the church keep proclaiming that there wasn’t. My suggestion would be to read an unbiased History book.
No, but practices are.
Because they come from local culture, and are designed to meet the needs of the people. Practices (also known as disciplines of the Church) aren’t dogma.
This is precisely what you are accusing all Protestants of.If two thirds of a class fails Math, does that mean that 2+2 no longer equals 4? Or merely that two thirds of the class was not paying attention?
Those who differ from what the Church teaches have one foot out the door.
And that would include about half of my parents Catholic parish including them who happen to be lifelong cradle Catholics.
And those Protestants are on their way to becoming Catholic.
The Anglican church teaches the Real Presence and has in its entire existence. Many would would consider them catholic but just not Roman Catholic.
Of course it does. The Church teaching is what is true, and it will continue to remain true, even if no one on the entire planet believes it. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe that is why churches split? This is what Paul teaches in Scripture about those who waiver from the truth
And?
They actually used to be, until they threw away the Ordination ceremony for priests and substituted a different one of their own design. (Meaning that they no longer intend to do what the Church does, when it ordains priests.) Today, because of that, they no longer have the ability to consecrate the Eucharist, because their priesthood isn’t valid.
Yes. Those who waver from the Truth become schismatics. That seems to go without saying, I should think.
Its amazing you say this when you know how much your church has interpreted the scriptures.
So you would not have a problem with participating in mass in South Bend, Indiana, where the members of the parish speak in tongues?… Absolutely - and, we’ll all be going to Mass together on Sunday, too!
You keep bringing up comments like this as if you feel they should have great impact. I’ve yet to understand though exactly what it is you think you’ve hit upon when you ask these questions.
Lots of catholics on these forums mock protestants and think that the catholic church alone is the pillar of truth. Take the claim that there are thousands of denominations and interpretations of Scripture in protestant churches. When we apply the same criteria to the catholic church as being one unified whole and everyone interprets the scriptures the same we find otherwise. There are just as many different interpretations in the catholic church as in protestant churches.
Ok, your talking about uneducated Catholics, which there are many, but the Catholic teachings would *have * to be the pillar of truth because Jesus left us one church, for all people hint universal ;]. The bible itself is derived from the very men who are the foundation of the Catholic church and were taught by Jesus Christ Himself. Unless of course you deny that the apostles were taught by Christ, and the fact that Peter (who Jesus gave authority over His church and the keys to the kingdom of heaven ahem all things he binds on earth bound in heaven etc. ) passed his authority over to Linus (the next pope and his apprentice) who passed his authority over and so forth. Then the bible was actually put together from the writings of these men who make up the Catholic Church. So any interpretations of the Catholic Church itself are not so much interpretations as they are truth, especially seeing as how they wrote it, put it together, and taught it long before it was even completed. Any personal interpretations are not the beliefs taught by the Church, and are simply human error made out of personal experiences and beliefs. But the Catholic CHURCH is united. The people within it sometimes are led astray or haven’t been educated enough to know better than to interpret the bible personally. Every Sunday, Catholic’s all over the world read the same scripture and go through the same teachings, just as they always have. Check it out, it’s pretty interesting to see how the Catholics are in communion as Jesus taught us, but… how unified are any of the denominations that CAME from the Catholic Church? Why don’t THEY honor where THEY came from? Every Christian denomination derived from the Catholic Church. Do your homework, it should be interesting.
Jmcrae:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
… Absolutely - and, we’ll all be going to Mass together on Sunday, too!
So you would not have a problem with participating in mass in South Bend, Indiana, where the members of the parish speak in tongues?
biblia.com/christianity2/3b-charismatics.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement
Me, personally? No. However, I understand that speaking in tongues during Mass is considered an abuse, so it’s not something I’d do on a regular basis.So you would not have a problem with participating in mass in South Bend, Indiana, where the members of the parish speak in tongues?
biblia.com/christianity2/3b-charismatics.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement
