PDA

View Full Version : Catholics and Protestants



St_Michael
Jan 21st 2008, 07:13 PM
I have a serious question.

Most all of my Catholic friends do not view Protestants in a bad light. In fact for most Catholics, Protestantism is completely off their radar except for the acknowledgement that they are our "cousins" in the Body of Christ.

Very few choose to debate the differences we have and tend to focus more on what we have in common (which is quite a heck of a lot).

So why do Protestants (especially evangelicals) have such vitriol for Catholics? It seems they tend to think and speak badly of all things RC. Most of them don't really understand Catholicism from their arguments except what is preached to them. Why are they so angry?

What are they angry about? Why am I treated like a witnessing target because I am Catholic? I just kind of smile and shake my inner head....

If they would listen, I would explain; but I usually can't get a word in edge wise between "repent" and "hell" and "idolater." It's like having a conversation with self-appointed Jesus'. Why is that their approach? Not all of them... but the vast majority.

~St. M

David Taylor
Jan 21st 2008, 10:13 PM
So why do Protestants (especially evangelicals) have such vitriol for Catholics? It seems they tend to think and speak badly of all things RC.

Why are they so angry?



Protestants should never have a vitriol or hate towards any Catholic people. Love, peace, and charity should always be the approach one has with another.

However, there is much passion and zeal within Protestant believers against teachings that the RCC advances that conflicts with the teachings of the Bible.

Evangelicals especially, hold the Bible in a very high place of authority and esteem; and that is why you probably seem more fervancy from that group.

Teachings can be discussed, debated, and even hotly contested at times; however, attacking the individual and assaulting anyone individually; (as opposed to teaching and doctrine); should always be avoided.

Unfortunately there are extreme people within all groups and views. When Protestants attack and angrily assault RCC individuals on a personal level, they have gone too far; and have lost any opportunity at having what they might have to say received in a credible and accepting ear.

The issues themselves, however, are hot-topics....and will probably always be that way between RCC and Protestants as long as the RCC continues to teach and advance some views that are contrary to the Bible.

Fundamentally, that is why many Christian believers who were once apart of the RCC left it; and the modern Protestant groups separated themselves and came out of the RCC.

We can work more on being kind in our outreach and evangelism to Catholics Yes, but the message surely will never cease to go out.

St_Michael
Jan 21st 2008, 10:38 PM
Protestants should never have a vitriol or hate towards any Catholic people. Love, peace, and charity should always be the approach one has with another.

However, there is much passion and zeal within Protestant believers against teachings that the RCC advances that conflicts with the teachings of the Bible.



The issues themselves, however, are hot-topics....and will probably always be that way between RCC and Protestants as long as the RCC continues to teach and advance some views that are contrary to the Bible.

Fundamentally, that is why many Christian believers who were once apart of the RCC left it; and the modern Protestant groups separated themselves and came out of the RCC.



Thanks for the response. I only quoted some of it above, but I really do appreciate most of your words.

I am a Catholic who left the evangelical church and converted many years ago because of the same exact things quoted above. I refer to the "contrary to the Bible" and "conflicts with the teachings of the Bible" comments.

Upon deep study and prayer, I found my way to the Catholic Church. It is interesting how we each have our paths within the Body of Christ.

I am not here to convert or argue. I am here to encourage. You have been a breath of fresh air brother! Thank you!

While we can hurl scripture and doctrine back and forth, and nitpick over nuances in the dogma it is good to know that when it comes right down to it... you have my back and I have yours!

~Godbless


PS-- I will entertain any discussion you'd like to have regarding the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church... not to divide us.. but rather to explain and bring us together on common ground as Christians!

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 22nd 2008, 02:53 PM
PS-- I will entertain any discussion you'd like to have regarding the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church... not to divide us.. but rather to explain and bring us together on common ground as Christians!

Come to the thread:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=111414

Unless you're a sedevacantist, you're in for an interesting discussion.

Opally
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:27 PM
For me personally, and I WAS anti-Catholic for a time.

1. I didn't get it the first time around, sad to say I wonder if I slept through church.
2. I still see Protestants as our separated breathren, just missing in the fullness of the faith, as Jesus said, other sheep.
3. There's no visible viable Protestant counterpart to the Catholic Church. Jesus said he would found a Church, singular, not churches... all slightly different in doctrines and beliefs.

I pray this does not sound anti-Protestant because that is not my intent. I believe we can learn from each other.

Traditions
2Th 2:15-17 Douay-Rheims Bible
(15) (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
(16) (2:15) Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,
(17) (2:16) Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

1Ti 3:15 DRB
(15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Ephesians 4:13-14 DRB
(13) Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ:
(14) That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

Opally
Jan 23rd 2008, 12:42 AM
150 Reasons Why I am a Catholic (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-revised.html)
[originally written in 1992]

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of
Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church
divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to
submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and its missing many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief) relativistic.

Disclaimer: I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot - indeed, I think it is a pretty good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

Cor ad cor loquitur
"Heart speaks to heart" - John Henry Cardinal Newman
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
*****Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism*****Emphasis mine. These are just the first few, visit link for rest.

Deriluxa
Jan 23rd 2008, 03:31 AM
One good thing about the reformation was the counter reformation and more emphasis being put on evangelization within the Catholic Church.

Protestants however do not have access to all of the sacraments, and many do not recognize the legitimate teaching authority of the Catholic Church from which the canon of their bible is derived.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 23rd 2008, 07:16 AM
There seem to be a lot of Catholic threads lately.

Why don't you guys come on over to the thread mentioned above and defend your late pope, JPII?

Athanasius
Jan 24th 2008, 09:48 PM
Protestants however do not have access to all of the sacraments, and many do not recognize the legitimate teaching authority of the Catholic Church from which the canon of their bible is derived.

Care to share those with us Protestants?

Frances
Jan 25th 2008, 06:36 PM
Protestants however do not have access to all of the sacraments, and many do not recognize the legitimate teaching authority of the Catholic Church from which the canon of their bible is derived.

I'm curious.
Which sacraments don't Protestants have access to?
What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic church that I don't recognise?
It is my understanding that the canon of Scripture was nothing to do with the RC church, it is what was what was in regular use before the RC church came into being. . .

St_Michael
Jan 25th 2008, 06:46 PM
I'm curious.
Which sacraments don't Protestants have access to?
What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic church that I don't recognise?
It is my understanding that the canon of Scripture was nothing to do with the RC church, it is what was what was in regular use before the RC church came into being. . .


The Protestants threw out a bunch of books. If Luther and Calvin had their way the Protestant Bible would even be light a couple more... example James.

They basically axed all the books that dealt with Catholic doctrine that they didn't agree with or want to practice.

Oh and the most sacred sacrament of them all... The Eucharist... Protestants do not have access to. Along with others... example the confessional.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 25th 2008, 11:22 PM
I will entertain any discussion you'd like to have regarding the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church... not to divide us.. but rather to explain and bring us together on common ground as Christians!

Sweet! Thank you!


Oh and the most sacred sacrament of them all... The Eucharist... Protestants do not have access to.

Since I have received no response from Opally, I wonder if I might have yours... please read this post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1505600&postcount=6) and my follow-up post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1509659&postcount=17), pray about it, and get back with me (either here or there, it doesn't matter). Looking forward to hearing back from you! - Lk.11

losthorizon
Jan 26th 2008, 01:21 AM
...Oh and the most sacred sacrament of them all... The Eucharist... Protestants do not have access to. Along with others... example the confessional.
And herein lies the answer to your inquiry as to why non-Catholics resent non-biblical RCC dogma. Who taught you that only Catholics can partake of the Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper)? Let me guess - the Magisterium –right? Per Holy Writ – the Lord’s Supper is an act of worship ordained by Christ and it is a memorial act of worship to be enjoyed and participated in by all Christians – as Jesus said, “do this in remembrance of me…”

Regarding your notion of “the confessional” – the Bible teaches the priesthood of all believers. No man or woman needs a “catholic priest” to intercede between themselves and their God. The catholic priesthood is just one more non-biblical myth that should be rejected by all Christians.

solja
Jan 28th 2008, 02:48 AM
I have a serious question.

Most all of my Catholic friends do not view Protestants in a bad light. In fact for most Catholics, Protestantism is completely off their radar except for the acknowledgement that they are our "cousins" in the Body of Christ.

Very few choose to debate the differences we have and tend to focus more on what we have in common (which is quite a heck of a lot).

So why do Protestants (especially evangelicals) have such vitriol for Catholics? It seems they tend to think and speak badly of all things RC. Most of them don't really understand Catholicism from their arguments except what is preached to them. Why are they so angry?

What are they angry about? Why am I treated like a witnessing target because I am Catholic? I just kind of smile and shake my inner head....

If they would listen, I would explain; but I usually can't get a word in edge wise between "repent" and "hell" and "idolater." It's like having a conversation with self-appointed Jesus'. Why is that their approach? Not all of them... but the vast majority.

~St. M

They protest against something they know nothing about. If people would take the time to actually attend a catholic mass they would be surprised by how biblically and scriptural it is. The misconceptions of iodol worship and lack of biblical or scriptural use, is totally unfounded. It is sad that so many live with this indocrinated bias.

losthorizon
Jan 28th 2008, 04:46 AM
They protest against something they know nothing about. If people would take the time to actually attend a catholic mass they would be surprised by how biblically and scriptural it is. The misconceptions of iodol worship and lack of biblical or scriptural use, is totally unfounded. It is sad that so many live with this indocrinated bias.
I have attended RCC mass and I can assure you there is nothing “biblically and scriptural” in the notion of the bread and wine becoming the literal body and blood of Christ when blessed by a Catholic priest. In those same services I observed communicants bowing down before statues in an act of obeisance. I do not see this type of “worship” commanded or practiced in the NT. I do however read about warnings from the LORD not to bow down before such images made by man,
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me…” Exodus 20:5.

solja
Jan 28th 2008, 05:17 AM
I have attended RCC mass and I can assure you there is nothing “biblically and scriptural” in the notion of the bread and wine becoming the literal body and blood of Christ when blessed by a Catholic priest. In those same services I observed communicants bowing down before statues in an act of obeisance. I do not see this type of “worship” commanded or practiced in the NT. I do however read about warnings from the LORD not to bow down before such images made by man,
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me…” Exodus 20:5.

Bowing is in reverence to God. It has nothing to do with idol worship as you infer with your Exodus quote.
Bless you

militarywife
Jan 30th 2008, 07:57 PM
You know- all I am willing to add to this topic is my mom was catholic and my stepdad was protestant.
We all learned from each other and you know what? We all praise God and we have all been on our knees. Know why? Because of HIS BLOOD.

Braves27
Jan 31st 2008, 10:44 AM
Bowing is in reverence to God. It has nothing to do with idol worship as you infer with your Exodus quote.
Bless you

But you catholics aren't bowing in reverence to God, you're bowing in reverence to stones.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 31st 2008, 12:06 PM
But you catholics aren't bowing in reverence to God, you're bowing in reverence to stones.

Last Christmas at my church, after the Lord's supper, our pastor asked us that we lay our hands on a large cross in our church and to think about Christ's sacrifice.

We were not worshipping the cross, nor were we worshipping the cheap plaster-like material it was made of. Instead, we were remembering Christ's sacrifice.

Catholics do not worship the statues. Find me one Catholic who says that he/she worships a statue of a saint (and I've never seen Catholics bowing down in front of statues of saints (save mary). If I am wrong, please tell me!) (note: im not catholic)

karenoka27
Jan 31st 2008, 12:43 PM
The Protestants threw out a bunch of books. If Luther and Calvin had their way the Protestant Bible would even be light a couple more... example James.

They basically axed all the books that dealt with Catholic doctrine that they didn't agree with or want to practice.

Oh and the most sacred sacrament of them all... The Eucharist... Protestants do not have access to. Along with others... example the confessional.

I don't think I have ever posted in World Religions but I found this interesting.
I grew up in the Roman Catholic church. When I got saved, I was alone so there was no other church influence on me. As a matter of fact, I stayed in the Catholic church for two years after my salvation because I didn't know what kind of church to go too. After reading the Bible for those two years and asking my priest many questions with no satisfactory answers, I knew I had to leave.
My question is the Catholics talk about Catholic doctrines but very rarely line things up with Scripture. I found that even when talking with the priest. I have spent a lot of years since sharing the Bible with Catholics and much of it is a surprise to them. Why don't Catholics go to the Word and not to what someone wrote?
I would love to discuss the differences I see between the Catholic church and what I would call "the church" (I don't consider myself Protestant, but I think Catholics consider anyone who isn't Catholic Protestant?)

Can I also respectfully say that I do not consider Catholics my "cousins" or my brothers or sisters. Salvation is not by denomination but by our trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

Teke
Jan 31st 2008, 02:56 PM
Last Christmas at my church, after the Lord's supper, our pastor asked us that we lay our hands on a large cross in our church and to think about Christ's sacrifice.


At the end of an Orthodox service everyone is given the opportunity to kiss the cross (this is also when antidoron is given to all).:)

losthorizon
Feb 1st 2008, 02:35 AM
...Catholics do not worship the statues. Find me one Catholic who says that he/she worships a statue of a saint (and I've never seen Catholics bowing down in front of statues of saints (save mary). If I am wrong, please tell me!) (note: im not catholic)
You are wrong.

I would refer you to the RC "Marian dogma" where Mary is transformed into the “Queen of Heaven” – the Co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ. The RCC states, “No grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory cooperation”. Certainly this dogma is found nowhere in Holy Writ but comes from the doctrine of man. If you do not think many within the RCC worship Mary then you know very little about that religion and its flirtation with Goddess worship. Newsweek (1997) ran a rather thorough article excepted below that revealed much:
"Mary participates in the redemption achieved by her son, that all graces that flow from the suffering and death of Jesus Christ are granted only through Mary's intercession with her son…In place of the Holy Trinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of Holy Quartet, with Mary playing the multiple roles of daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit." Is Mary the Co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ? Is she the Queen of Heaven or is she simply the blessed mother of Jesus as presented in the Bible?

David Taylor
Feb 1st 2008, 03:33 AM
As a Protestant forum, we all know that answer.

No reason to try to egg-on any Rcc members with those type questions.

Mary is as insignificant and lost in her sins, in need of a sinless Savior.
Just like all there rest of us; past, present, and future.

excubitor
Feb 6th 2008, 08:28 AM
As a Protestant forum, we all know that answer.

No reason to try to egg-on any Rcc members with those type questions.

Mary is as insignificant and lost in her sins, in need of a sinless Savior.
Just like all there rest of us; past, present, and future.

It is possible to find scriptures which we can interpret to argue that Mary was a sinner. Just out of historical interest however I have been trying to find some evidence of the huge theological and scriptural debate when the church leaders first tried to implement this new fangled idea that Mary was sinless. Such a debate would be evidence that the very earliest Christians believed that she was a sinner. I just can't find it. In fact it seems as if universally all orthodox and catholic christians have believed this without the slightest debate or disagreement.

What amazed me when I tried to locate this information was that Martin Luther himself believed that Mary was sinless

He said some 6 years after his excommunication
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.

(Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December [?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer,

So then I turned my attention to find information as to how it is that protestants came to believe that Mary was a sinner. I tried to find who was the first protestant who bravely announced that Mary was a sinner. Do you know that I cannot find any information on the web about how this idea of Mary being a sinner came to be believed.

If anybody has any historical information on how protestants broke with tradition and came to believe that Mary was a sinner I would be very interested to hear from them. By the way I am after historical information, names, dates and quotes, not just statements like "Because the Bible says so". I don't want to instigate a debate on the issue, but am simply seeking factual information.

David Taylor
Feb 6th 2008, 02:20 PM
It is possible to find scriptures which we can interpret to argue that Mary was a sinner.


You seem vague or unsure, however. Scripture itself, is adamant, concise, and very clear that Mary was a sinner; so there is no arguement.





Just out of historical interest however I have been trying to find some evidence of the huge theological and scriptural debate when the church leaders first tried to implement this new fangled idea that Mary was sinless. Such a debate would be evidence that the very earliest Christians believed that she was a sinner. I just can't find it.

The Scriptures are the very earliest writings of Christians, and they make that point plain. There were enough other topics and discussions for the early writers to contend with; that until the rise of Maryism; it wasn't a point worth considering or even contemplating. Any Christian following the teachings of the Bible, from the beginning of Christendom, didn't have any problem knowing from their Holy Writ, that Mary was a sinner.




So then I turned my attention to find information as to how it is that protestants came to believe that Mary was a sinner.


Again, Protestants have always deferred to the Scriptures; to find this answer. The teachings of the scriptures are how non-Catholics have always known Mary was a sinner.





I tried to find who was the first protestant who bravely announced that Mary was a sinner. Do you know that I cannot find any information on the web about how this idea of Mary being a sinner came to be believed.


Strange you as an RCC apologist, who seems to favor the idea of a sinless Mary based on your writings, couldn't find any information on the web about how the idea that Mary being a sinner came to be believed.

I went to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) , and entered in [Romans 3:23] and it returned 98 THOUSAND hits of websites; which shows in one verse, very clearly how Mary is a sinner.

And that 98,000 hit return was by only querying one verse that shows Mary's sinfulness.

There ya go!





If anybody has any historical information on how protestants broke with tradition and came to believe that Mary was a sinner I would be very interested to hear from them. By the way I am after historical information, names, dates and quotes, not just statements like "Because the Bible says so".

HHhhhhmmm.....the old, 'Lets throw out the Bible as a reference source' ploy, just never seems to fit well with Protestants. That's kinda like saying, Let's study what the Constitution says about rights, laws, and policy; but we can't use or cite the Constitution.

From my feeble understanding, there is no widespread, ground-breaking movement abreast to show where Elisha, Ruth, Shadrach, Simeon, Martha, Paul, or Onesimus were sinless either.....those types of assumptions are simply not even considered amongst Bible-Following believers; who know it teaches clearly that noone is sinless.

Why would anyone want to look for a 'break from tradition' about a sinless teaching that was false from the beginning; and always easily determined from using the scriptures you ask we not refer to by saying, "because the Bible says so?"

Remember excubitor, this is a Protestant Bible Discussion Forum; not a RCC-traditions and perpetuations of teachings foreign to the Scriptures Forum.

Protestants don't search and aren't interested in historical extra-biblical veins of broken tradition in the first place.

Protestants are people of the Book; and from it, and the guiding of the Holy Spirit; are given the discernment that the Sinless-Maryism teaching is false.

Teke
Feb 6th 2008, 04:44 PM
It is possible to find scriptures which we can interpret to argue that Mary was a sinner. Just out of historical interest however I have been trying to find some evidence of the huge theological and scriptural debate when the church leaders first tried to implement this new fangled idea that Mary was sinless. Such a debate would be evidence that the very earliest Christians believed that she was a sinner. I just can't find it. In fact it seems as if universally all orthodox and catholic christians have believed this without the slightest debate or disagreement.

What amazed me when I tried to locate this information was that Martin Luther himself believed that Mary was sinless

As I mentioned in the other thread, Roman Catholics believe grace is "dispensed" in varying degrees. So Luther likely held their belief that Mary was dispensed more grace when the Holy Spirit brought about the Incarnation.

Orthodox do not agree with this, and it is not a doctrine that she was sinless. It is believed by Orthodox that she was carried to heaven without sin at her death. As they believe Her Son protected her. But this is also not a doctrine, but a traditional belief.

Orthodox don't make doctrines or dogmas without ecumenical council.

excubitor
Feb 7th 2008, 01:57 AM
As I mentioned in the other thread, Roman Catholics believe grace is "dispensed" in varying degrees. So Luther likely held their belief that Mary was dispensed more grace when the Holy Spirit brought about the Incarnation.

Orthodox do not agree with this, and it is not a doctrine that she was sinless. It is believed by Orthodox that she was carried to heaven without sin at her death. As they believe Her Son protected her. But this is also not a doctrine, but a traditional belief.

Orthodox don't make doctrines or dogmas without ecumenical council.
Whether or not you believe it as a doctrine or as a tradition does not alter the fact that you believe as do Catholics that Mary was sinless throughout her life. You are hiding behind a lace curtain with that argument. You simply object because the Catholics made it into a doctrine in 1854 to combat the extremely recent protestant innovation that Mary was a sinner. You also object because the Catholics tried to come up with some explanation as to how it came to be that she was able to live without sin all her life. In fact the Immaculate Conception is the only possible logical explanation for Mary's sinlessness. Even your own saint John Damascene believed in the miraculous conception of Mary and even extended this miracle to be of physical nature in that her parents were made holy and filled with the Spirit so that not only was her nature free from sin but also her flesh was entirely pure.

Why then does the Orthodox church distance itself from the belief of a miraculous conception of Mary when its own saints believe that as a sacred tradition. Why do you have an ancient festival in honour of the conception of Mary if nothing particularly special happened on that day.

Of course this is all a theoretical discussion of tradition and the shaping of beliefs and schisms of ancient people and is largely irrelevant to us as protestants. As protestants we understand that the history of the church is entirely corrupted from the earliest of times and that Christianity was corrupted without any record of that corruption being retained in the writings of the church. We know this because we read the same scriptures as all of those ancient doctors of the church, but because of our modern day enlightenment we can see in them that Mary was a sinner whereas the ancient doctors were all corrupted by apostate christianity and deliberately interpreted the scriptures differently.

As protestants it is important that we ignore history altogether as being unreliable as a source of information. The only history which can be relied upon is the history of the preservation of the Bible and the Canon. God chose to preserve the scriptures of Christians throughout all of history but in his wisdom allowed the traditions and beliefs of Christians to be corrupted and distorted into deceptive lies.

Nevertheless I find it an interesting theoretical study to learn how Christian beliefs developed and changed throughout history and how various schisms and heresies developed. Some people study Chemistry and are fascinated by it. I study Church history and find it very interesting also.

losthorizon
Feb 7th 2008, 03:55 AM
It is possible to find scriptures which we can interpret to argue that Mary was a sinner. Just out of historical interest however I have been trying to find some evidence of the huge theological and scriptural debate when the church leaders first tried to implement this new fangled idea that Mary was sinless. Such a debate would be evidence that the very earliest Christians believed that she was a sinner. I just can't find it. In fact it seems as if universally all orthodox and catholic christians have believed this without the slightest debate or disagreement.

I would suggest you do a little more research. The "sinlessness of Mary" was certainly not universal and its introduction into Romanism was “strenuously opposed”. Like most error taught by the RCC it was introduced incrementally. Augustine wrote, “He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.” And according to Schaff - Thomas Aquinas, along with many popes and bishops rejected this non-biblical dogma, which runs counter to the "Rule of St. Vincent", i.e., the maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis…
"The dogma of the sinlessness of Mary is also uncatholic. It lacks every one of the three marks of true catholicity, according to the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis, which is professedly recognized by Rome herself (the semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus), and instead of a 'unanimous consent' of the Fathers in its favor, there is a unanimous silence, or even protest, of the Fathers against it. For more than ten centuries after the Apostles it was not dreamed of, and when first broached as a pious opinion, it was strenuously opposed, and continued to be opposed till 1854 by many of the greatest saints and divines of the Roman Church, including St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas, and several Popes…The ante-Nicene Fathers, far from teaching that Mary was free from hereditary sin, do not even expressly exempt her from actual sin, certainly not from womanly weakness and frailty." Philip Schaff , Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.

excubitor
Feb 7th 2008, 04:51 AM
You seem vague or unsure, however. Scripture itself, is adamant, concise, and very clear that Mary was a sinner; so there is no arguement.

The Scriptures are the very earliest writings of Christians, and they make that point plain. There were enough other topics and discussions for the early writers to contend with; that until the rise of Maryism; it wasn't a point worth considering or even contemplating. Any Christian following the teachings of the Bible, from the beginning of Christendom, didn't have any problem knowing from their Holy Writ, that Mary was a sinner.

Again, Protestants have always deferred to the Scriptures; to find this answer. The teachings of the scriptures are how non-Catholics have always known Mary was a sinner.

Yes that's what I would have thought too but when I search through all the documents of Christian fathers and even amongst protestants I cannot find anyone before about 1800 which believed that Mary was a sinner. So when you say Non-Catholics have always known this I have to ask Which NonCatholics are they because I can't find them. I can't even find a decent protestant authority which argues against the sinlessness of Mary. I was hoping someone here could find me some references/


You seem vague or unsure, however. Strange you as an RCC apologist, who seems to favor the idea of a sinless Mary based on your writings, couldn't find any information on the web about how the idea that Mary being a sinner came to be believed.

I went to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) , and entered in [Romans 3:23] and it returned 98 THOUSAND hits of websites; which shows in one verse, very clearly how Mary is a sinner.

And that 98,000 hit return was by only querying one verse that shows Mary's sinfulness.

Well actually you found 98,000 hits on Rom 3:23. Fortunately nobody has thought to apply this to Jesus Christ in order to bring doubt upon his sinlessness.
When I searched "Romans 3:23" mary " " in google I got 4,800 hits. I had trouble finding writings from any church authority which opposed the doctrine. Ian Paisley was one. Most opposers were like the chick website. I found this website which reflects the amazing inroads being made in restoring the unity between the anglican and catholic communions.
The extensive document does not cite a single protestant authority which opposes the sinlessness of Mary http://www.oecumenisme.ca/archive/arcic/mary_en.htm

In this document it states

The assertion of Paul at Romans 3:23 - "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - might appear to allow for no exceptions, not even for Mary. However, it is important to note the rhetorical-apologetic context of the general argument of Romans 1 – 3, which is concerned to show the equal sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles (3:9). Romans 3:23 has a quite specific purpose in context which is unrelated to the issue of the "sinlessness" or otherwise of Mary.

If you read this document you will find that the Anglicans do not dispute that Mary was sinless but are objecting (as do Orthodox) because the church made it an article of faith. To me this seems utterly staggering. Why would you believe something and then object to it being considered an article of faith. Is it reasonable to have in the same fellowship some people who believe that Mary was a sinner and some that believe that she was pure and holy all her life. That is a recipe for debate and argument and disunity which is the very thing which the Pope was solving when he made the decree.

The anglican document makes the point that statements of faith must be revealed by God and therefore they cannot admit as doctrine the 1854 and 1950 dogmas of the Catholic church regarding Mary. By this they infer that God has not revealed the finality of these truths to the Catholic church even though they believe them to be true. Go figure. This little statement also shows that the Anglicans have a long long way to go before there is any unity with the Catholic church.

It is interesting though that the major protestant denomination does believe that Mary was sinless, even if they coach their words clearly. Perhaps now we can take this debate into the main forums of the church. Surely if Anglicans can discuss these issues openly then we should be able to also.



There ya go!

HHhhhhmmm.....the old, 'Lets throw out the Bible as a reference source' ploy, just never seems to fit well with Protestants. That's kinda like saying, Let's study what the Constitution says about rights, laws, and policy; but we can't use or cite the Constitution.

From my feeble understanding, there is no widespread, ground-breaking movement abreast to show where Elisha, Ruth, Shadrach, Simeon, Martha, Paul, or Onesimus were sinless either.....those types of assumptions are simply not even considered amongst Bible-Following believers; who know it teaches clearly that noone is sinless.

Why would anyone want to look for a 'break from tradition' about a sinless teaching that was false from the beginning; and always easily determined from using the scriptures you ask we not refer to by saying, "because the Bible says so?"

Not sure what your point here is. I was agreeing with you that some scriptures can be interpreted to indicate that Mary was a sinner. I was simply looking for historical information on how the church managed to introduce a false tradition about Mary and not about Elisha, Ruth etc. And again. Is it wrong to look for historical evidence to learn who was the first protestant to shake off the shackles of false tradition and come to believe the pure teaching of the scripture that Mary was impure. I have endlessly searched for this information and asked people on a number of forums and just can't find who that liberating protestant was. I guess its not that important but I would still like to know. I figure that it is as late as the 1880's during the modernist period that the protestant teachings started to reflect this idea that Mary was a sinner. If anyone has any records of protestant statements earlier than this



Remember excubitor, this is a Protestant Bible Discussion Forum; not a RCC-traditions and perpetuations of teachings foreign to the Scriptures Forum.

Protestants don't search and aren't interested in historical extra-biblical veins of broken tradition in the first place.

Protestants are people of the Book; and from it, and the guiding of the Holy Spirit; are given the discernment that the Sinless-Maryism teaching is false.
I think that this is a very limiting statement. I have seen hundreds of protestant websites which draw upon the teachings of ante-Nicene fathers to add weight and authority to their writings and doctrines. Selective citation of church fathers has been going on for a long long time and so we must be careful to follow up on the context of these quotations of the fathers and the credibility and reputation of those fathers as well. The implication of this statement is that it is wrong for protestants to draw upon the writings of theologians before them and that protestants may only read the scriptures and may not learn from historical or traditional texts.

Besides I am not seeking to perpetuate RCC doctrines. I am seeking protestant information on how the protestant communion came to believe that Mary was a sinner when the founder of the faith Martin Luther himself believed that she was immaculately conceived. I am actually seeking confirmation of the protestant teaching. This is not to say that the scripture is not enough. I just feel that some history to support the events of the changing belief system of protestants would be worthwhile. The library at my church has a whole shelf of books devoted to historical events during the reformation which justify Luther's departure from the church and the reformation and yet I cannot find a single reference or book in the library to explain the historical context of why protestants changed their belief in the immaculate conception. It is a strange and baffling mystery to me which I can't discover. Surely someone somewhere has written a book on it.

excubitor
Feb 7th 2008, 06:06 AM
I would suggest you do a little more research. The "sinlessness of Mary" was certainly not universal and its introduction into Romanism was “strenuously opposed”. Like most error taught by the RCC it was introduced incrementally. Augustine wrote, “He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.” And according to Schaff - Thomas Aquinas, along with many popes and bishops rejected this non-biblical dogma, which runs counter to the "Rule of St. Vincent", i.e., the maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis…
"The dogma of the sinlessness of Mary is also uncatholic. It lacks every one of the three marks of true catholicity, according to the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis, which is professedly recognized by Rome herself (the semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus), and instead of a 'unanimous consent' of the Fathers in its favor, there is a unanimous silence, or even protest, of the Fathers against it. For more than ten centuries after the Apostles it was not dreamed of, and when first broached as a pious opinion, it was strenuously opposed, and continued to be opposed till 1854 by many of the greatest saints and divines of the Roman Church, including St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas, and several Popes…The ante-Nicene Fathers, far from teaching that Mary was free from hereditary sin, do not even expressly exempt her from actual sin, certainly not from womanly weakness and frailty." Philip Schaff , Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.

This hardly amounts to strenuous opposition. It is largely unsubstantiated hearsay. Does Schaff go on to list who the great saints and divines, popes and ante nicene fathers were who opposed the doctrine? There was one reasonable quote there but having experience with schaff I though I better look it up. I have come across Philip Schaff circa 1880 before and quite frankly apart from Ian Paisley and James White he is about the only protestant author brave enough to take this subject on. Your post only goes to prove my point that there are no protestant authors or theologians prior to the modernist period of 1880 who advanced this notion of Mary's sinfulness.

I also highly doubt your quote from Augustine the only places I can find this quote reproduced are here
http://www.letusreason.org/RC1.htm
and the Ian Paisley site http://www.ianpaisley.org/revivalist/1984/Rev84apr.htm . Ian Paisley is the same guy who had to get escorted out of the European parliament when he loudly denounced the visiting John Paul II holding up a red poster with black writing POPE JOHN PAUL II ANTICHRIST shouting "I denounce you as the antichrist". There is a video on youtube of this embarassing incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdREMz_w9I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_..._by_Ian_Paisley

Its interesting to observe how the Pope reacted to Paisely. He reacted with "faint amusement" as Paisley was being thrown out of the assembly.

In any event I am certain that the quote you cited from Augustine is not valid and is a product of dodgy writers.

In fact Augustine claimed emphatically the direct opposite and argued clearly that Mary was without sin. The following reliable quote is evidence of this.

“With the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for the Lord, I do not wish there to be any further question as far as sin is concerned, since how can we know what great abundance of grace was conferred on her to conquer sin in every way, seeing that she merited to conceive and bear him who certainly had no sin at all?”

And again later he lists holy men and women from the Bible who he claimed were nevertheless sinners EXCEPT FOR MARY.

‘Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,’ he says, ‘we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.’ We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius)."

In other words Augustine places no limits on the grace which may be conferred upon Mary.

Your quote is also quite incorrect about Aquinas who actually said "“We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial.”"

The other fellow mentioned was St. Bernard who was from the 12th century and can hardly be considered an early church father. You have to read over a hundred quotes prior to the 12th century confirming the sinlessness of Mary before you got to St. Bernard.
Now here is where your quote is being very deceptive. St. Bernard did indeed oppose the doctrine of immaculate conception however neither he or Aquinas EVER disputed that Mary was without sin. They both vehemently taught that she was without sin.

So in my opinion you have still failed to find an author prior to 1880 who disputes that Mary was without sin.

Joe King
Feb 7th 2008, 01:16 PM
This is why I prefer non denominational services with the WORD OF GOD read. We are all Christians and shouldn't be seperated by the smaller petty issues that divide us now.

Teke
Feb 7th 2008, 02:31 PM
Whether or not you believe it as a doctrine or as a tradition does not alter the fact that you believe as do Catholics that Mary was sinless throughout her life. You are hiding behind a lace curtain with that argument. You simply object because the Catholics made it into a doctrine in 1854 to combat the extremely recent protestant innovation that Mary was a sinner. You also object because the Catholics tried to come up with some explanation as to how it came to be that she was able to live without sin all her life. In fact the Immaculate Conception is the only possible logical explanation for Mary's sinlessness. Even your own saint John Damascene believed in the miraculous conception of Mary and even extended this miracle to be of physical nature in that her parents were made holy and filled with the Spirit so that not only was her nature free from sin but also her flesh was entirely pure.


First off, just because an early Christian father wrote something, doesn't make it "official" dogma of the church.
Second, I'm not hiding behind anything. Orthodox don't feel the need to explain how God's grace operates, it just does. It's like Paul's explanation of celibacy. Some are able, some aren't. Those who aren't celibate aren't any less receptive to God's grace. Which is why Orthodox clergy aren't required to be celibate. Orthodox monastics are called to be bishops for a different reason.



Why then does the Orthodox church distance itself from the belief of a miraculous conception of Mary when its own saints believe that as a sacred tradition. Why do you have an ancient festival in honour of the conception of Mary if nothing particularly special happened on that day.

What feast are you speaking of?


Of course this is all a theoretical discussion of tradition and the shaping of beliefs and schisms of ancient people and is largely irrelevant to us as protestants. As protestants we understand that the history of the church is entirely corrupted from the earliest of times and that Christianity was corrupted without any record of that corruption being retained in the writings of the church. We know this because we read the same scriptures as all of those ancient doctors of the church, but because of our modern day enlightenment we can see in them that Mary was a sinner whereas the ancient doctors were all corrupted by apostate christianity and deliberately interpreted the scriptures differently.

If you believe that the church was corrupted and is apostate then you believe you've been given a corrupt gospel. I disagree.


As protestants it is important that we ignore history altogether as being unreliable as a source of information. The only history which can be relied upon is the history of the preservation of the Bible and the Canon. God chose to preserve the scriptures of Christians throughout all of history but in his wisdom allowed the traditions and beliefs of Christians to be corrupted and distorted into deceptive lies.

Without history you have no record of God's interaction with His people. I wouldn't call the tradition and belief of the Ecclesia "corrupt" and "distorted". There is no one person or group who holds all the fullness of God.

David Taylor
Feb 7th 2008, 05:26 PM
I cannot find anyone before about 1800 which believed that Mary was a sinner.

It is a strange and baffling mystery to me which I can't discover. Surely someone somewhere has written a book on it.

Excubitor,
Here are some sources that you could not find, that show the Pre and Nicene fathers believed that Jesus Christ alone was sinless....pre-dating your finds by over 1600 years. (It took a little over an hour to research and find these):

(New thread started:)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=115023

Now your strange and baffling mystery is over; and you can feel confident and at ease that throughout Christian history; it has been known, taught, and accepted that Jesus Christ alone was sinless. (Even if some groups swayed away from this Biblically foundational truth)

KATA_LOUKAN
Feb 7th 2008, 05:52 PM
You are wrong.

I would refer you to the RC "Marian dogma" where Mary is transformed into the “Queen of Heaven” – the Co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ. The RCC states, “No grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory cooperation”. Certainly this dogma is found nowhere in Holy Writ but comes from the doctrine of man. If you do not think many within the RCC worship Mary then you know very little about that religion and its flirtation with Goddess worship. Newsweek (1997) ran a rather thorough article excepted below that revealed much:

"Mary participates in the redemption achieved by her son, that all graces that flow from the suffering and death of Jesus Christ are granted only through Mary's intercession with her son…In place of the Holy Trinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of Holy Quartet, with Mary playing the multiple roles of daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit." Is Mary the Co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ? Is she the Queen of Heaven or is she simply the blessed mother of Jesus as presented in the Bible?

Yeah, but they dont worship the statues (the actual statues). They assign "hyperdulia" to Mary (high veneration) and "dulia" (veneration) to saints. (I do know a thing or two about Catholicism, but I was just asking if they prostrated themselves before statues of the Saints)

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 03:27 AM
This hardly amounts to strenuous opposition. It is largely unsubstantiated hearsay. Does Schaff go on to list who the great saints and divines, popes and ante nicene fathers were who opposed the doctrine?

It really matters little to me whether you agree with Schaff or not – the fact remains, the notion of “the sinlessness of Mary” was not universal (even within the RCC) and its introduction into Romanism was “strenuously opposed” because it is “uncatholic… according to the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis”.

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 03:34 AM
Yeah, but they dont worship the statues (the actual statues). They assign "hyperdulia" to Mary (high veneration) and "dulia" (veneration) to saints. (I do know a thing or two about Catholicism, but I was just asking if they prostrated themselves before statues of the Saints)
Well, we can play semantics with hyperdulia and dulia until the cows come home but at the end of that day Catholics still render to the creature the reverence due to God alone - you will just have to work with it.

KATA_LOUKAN
Feb 8th 2008, 11:29 AM
Catholics still render to the creature the reverence due to God alone - you will just have to work with it.

What is reverence due to God alone? I am not a Catholic, and I know that arguments like this only foster misunderstanding between the groups.

According to the Catholics themselves, dulia is

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

(latria links from that website).

So dulia is just reverence for men. We do it all the time. We revere Paul, James, Martin Luther, Moody, etc.

If you can show that a particular act of dulia falls under latria, then your criticisms are valid.

pnewton
Feb 9th 2008, 07:42 PM
Well, we can play semantics with hyperdulia and dulia until the cows come home but at the end of that day Catholics still render to the creature the reverence due to God alone - you will just have to work with it.No, and when we refuse to let others speak for themselves and insist on speaking for them, we do not argue, as much as call names. The Catholics I know understand the uniqueness of reverence due God alone, as naturally as anyone else does.

Let me add that there are superstitious sorts that engage in behavior, like burying statues and saying novenas to make something happen, but this sort of behavior is not limited to Catholics. Superstition can exist anywhere and can include things such as one's pastor or even the Bible. Yet I would never use an example like that to accuse one of worshiping an idol.

losthorizon
Feb 9th 2008, 09:48 PM
No, and when we refuse to let others speak for themselves and insist on speaking for them, we do not argue, as much as call names. The Catholics I know understand the uniqueness of reverence due God alone, as naturally as anyone else does.

This is an open forum and I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth – RCC doctrine speaks very loudly on this subject. I suspect you don’t really understand the cultus offered to Mary (cultus hyperduliae). It is not a concept found anywhere within the pages of the NT. We can call it “subordinate worship” if we wish but a rose by any other name is still a rose.


Let me add that there are superstitious sorts that engage in behavior, like burying statues and saying novenas to make something happen, but this sort of behavior is not limited to Catholics. Superstition can exist anywhere and can include things such as one's pastor or even the Bible. Yet I would never use an example like that to accuse one of worshiping an idol.
I don’t think anyone is limiting superstition and idol worship to Catholics but the fact remains, such behavior is not sanctioned by God and should be opposed for what it is – non-biblical.

pnewton
Feb 9th 2008, 10:27 PM
This is an open forum and I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth – RCC doctrine speaks very loudly on this subject. I suspect you don’t really understand the cultus offered to Mary (cultus hyperduliae). I did a search, because I do understand what the Catholic Church teaches on this, and found several links to the term. One talks about Catholics being "Romish", another Mariolatry and another describes the differences Chrisitianity and paganism. My point is that it is not a part of Catholic theology, only anti-Catholic rhetoric. Might the term appear in one document somewhere, sure, but that doesn't make it a theological term or phrase.

For example, to use English so we can understand. We can honor men. We do it all the time. But there is nothing that elevates anyone to the level of God if I said, "Today we pay special tribute" or "special honor for those who fell at this hallowed spot." (say post 9-11). Likewise we might award a special hero with this nation's "highest honor." This does not mean we will replace him on all our money where it says "In God we trust."

I invite anyone to google the phrase and see if it fits more in Catholic theology or anti-Catholic rhetoric.

KATA_LOUKAN
Feb 9th 2008, 10:50 PM
I did a search, because I do understand what the Catholic Church teaches on this, and found several links to the term. One talks about Catholics being "Romish", another Mariolatry and another describes the differences Chrisitianity and paganism. My point is that it is not a part of Catholic theology, only anti-Catholic rhetoric. Might the term appear in one document somewhere, sure, but that doesn't make it a theological term or phrase.

For example, to use English so we can understand. We can honor men. We do it all the time. But there is nothing that elevates anyone to the level of God if I said, "Today we pay special tribute" or "special honor for those who fell at this hallowed spot." (say post 9-11). Likewise we might award a special hero with this nation's "highest honor." This does not mean we will replace him on all our money where it says "In God we trust."

I invite anyone to google the phrase and see if it fits more in Catholic theology or anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Well said. Unless anyone can point out an act that catholics do for saints that should be directed at God alone, then i think we can lay this to rest.

losthorizon
Feb 9th 2008, 11:58 PM
...I invite anyone to google the phrase and see if it fits more in Catholic theology or anti-Catholic rhetoric.

And I would suggest you or anyone interested google the RCC movement called Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (The voice of the people for Mary the Mediatrix) and tell me what the implications are for Mary to share the “redemptive role” for all mankind with Jesus Christ. Does the Bible teach that Mary is the "Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces” or does the Bible teach Jesus alone is the mediator between the Father and His creation? "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (1 Tim 2:5).
For centuries the Church has not hesitated in calling the Blessed Virgin Mary Mediatrix in testimony to her exalted role in the Divine economy of salvation...there is still another deeper stratum to the meaning of the Blessed Mother's mediation. According to Tradition, Our Lady possesses tremendous influence over her Divine Son. Therefore, some saints have described her as the treasurer or dispenser of grace. What they are saying is that God has entrusted His Mother to dispense and apportion the graces He gives to mankind. So that the Holy Virgin not only intercedes for us but, by the will of God, she has, so to speak, a say in distributing graces to her children....~ John O'Connell, Editor of The Catholic Faith magazine
What do you think it does *theologically* to elevate Mary to the role of “Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of all graces”? Where does worship come into play with this Queen who sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven? This is of course the end result of the non-biblical concept of cultus hyperduliae.

chal
Feb 10th 2008, 12:49 AM
... We revere Paul The British are coming!

RJ Mac
Feb 11th 2008, 04:22 PM
Catholic and Protestants are brethren, we all believe in the one God, so lets get along and set aside this thing people call, the Truth.

Wow - I wonder in the history of the protestant movement how many died, how many laid down their lives to resurrect the Truth and set people free from the errors being taught in the Catholic Church. It seems give it enough time and people forget what happened. So let the Truth slide and lets just be brethren.

We are seeing this repeated with homosexuality, Yes we all know the Truth, God's Word teaches it's wrong, but hey! We all believe in Christ, so lets just let a little thing like error slide, lets hold hands and go forward, its all about forgiveness, so lets forgive God who put that in the Bible and enjoy our fellowship.

I am not saying people need to throw stones, I certainly don't. But the Truth needs to rise up, the Son needs to shine, people need to see the light and hear the Truth. Protestants split from the Catholics because of the massive errors, which have not been changed, how can the two come together, by denying the Truth!

The Truth will set you free and unless you go to it, your enslaved by whatever man made institution you may serve, and I am not saying that the protestants have it totally right either. We always need to be examining ourselves to make sure we are doing God's will not man's will.

When someone asked an officer working for the counterfeit department, how many counterfeit bills he studied, he replied I only study the real bills, the True bills, when I know them well, when the fakes come up they fall to the wayside.

Can't go wrong with the Truth, so why do we proclaim man made doctrines?
Give me the Bible, all my steps enlighten, teach me the dangers, of this realm below,
That lamp of safety o'er the gloom shall brighten, that light alone, the path of peace can show,
Give me the Bible, Holy message shining, Thy light shall guide me in the narrow way;
Precept and promise law and love combining, Till night shall vanish in eternal day.

RJ

pnewton
Feb 11th 2008, 11:51 PM
Wow - I wonder in the history of the protestant movement how many died, how many laid down their lives to resurrect the Truth and set people free from the errors being taught in the Catholic Church. It seems give it enough time and people forget what happened. So let the Truth slide and lets just be brethren.

As have Catholics, who died at the hands of Protestants. And Protestants who died at the hands of Protestants and Catholics who died at the hands of Catholics. Many spring to mind in each of these categories.

I think you have a good point about truth though. Watering down differences or pretending they don't exist is a bad basis for getting along or any type of ecumenism. Yet we must have some tolerance ot few Churches would exist. How could Baptists have ever accomplished all the have if not for being able to have fellowship on common ground, yet respecting others differences. Once saved, always saved, was the big point when I was younger, but there are more.

HisBlood
Feb 17th 2008, 01:57 AM
This is why I prefer non denominational services with the WORD OF GOD read. We are all Christians and shouldn't be seperated by the smaller petty issues that divide us now.

Amen.

I agree wholeheartedly. While there are things that are very wrong with Catholic doctrine, we shouldn't let that lead us to paint all Catholics with the same brush. In the end, we are all Christians.

solja
Feb 18th 2008, 11:17 AM
..........Can't go wrong with the Truth, so why do we proclaim man made doctrines?
Give me the Bible, all my steps enlighten, teach me the dangers, of this realm below,
That lamp of safety o'er the gloom shall brighten, that light alone, the path of peace can show,
Give me the Bible, Holy message shining, Thy light shall guide me in the narrow way;
Precept and promise law and love combining, Till night shall vanish in eternal day.

RJ


.......makes you wonder what Christians did for the first few hundred years before the first bible was put together. Maybe they relied on teaching from those who new Christ, His disciples, apostles, emerging tradition, church teaching, and the holy spirit to reveal, preserve and spread Christs' message.

9Marksfan
Feb 18th 2008, 11:37 AM
Amen.

I agree wholeheartedly. While there are things that are very wrong with Catholic doctrine, we shouldn't let that lead us to paint all Catholics with the same brush. In the end, we are all Christians.

So do you think Luther was wrong? That the Reformation was a mistake? What do you mean by "very wrong"? Issues that affect salvation? Don't you think what we believe about salvation is ESSENTIAL to whether we're Christians or not?

Joyfilled
Feb 18th 2008, 01:51 PM
I have a serious question.

Most all of my Catholic friends do not view Protestants in a bad light. In fact for most Catholics, Protestantism is completely off their radar except for the acknowledgement that they are our "cousins" in the Body of Christ.

Very few choose to debate the differences we have and tend to focus more on what we have in common (which is quite a heck of a lot).

So why do Protestants (especially evangelicals) have such vitriol for Catholics? It seems they tend to think and speak badly of all things RC. Most of them don't really understand Catholicism from their arguments except what is preached to them. Why are they so angry?

What are they angry about? Why am I treated like a witnessing target because I am Catholic? I just kind of smile and shake my inner head....

If they would listen, I would explain; but I usually can't get a word in edge wise between "repent" and "hell" and "idolater." It's like having a conversation with self-appointed Jesus'. Why is that their approach? Not all of them... but the vast majority.

~St. M

if Catholics don't view protestants in a bad light that's because Protestants don't distort the bible as much as the Catholics do. But I always obey God over men, so I will always oppose any denomination that changes the bible into its opposite like the catholics are proud of doing.

Teke
Feb 18th 2008, 02:31 PM
It is often claimed that the symbols and objects used in traditional Christian worship, and the style of beauty which it displays, have become outdated and irrelevant in the contemporary world.

The acts and symbols which we employ in worship possess a universal significance.

The Church in her prayer makes use of the primary realities of human existence, such as bread and water, light and fire. If people in an urban and technological environment no longer find these primary realities meaningful, then is this not a disturbing indictment of the artificiality and unreality of contemporary "civilization"?

Why offer incense or burn candles? Why make prostrations or the sign of the Cross? A verbal explanation only offers a a small part of the truth. And that is the reason for the symbolic action.
If the poet could express in plain prose what he has said in his poetry, if the artist or musician could express in words what she has said in paint or sound, then there would be no need for the poem or picture or symphony.

Each exists because it expresses something which cannot be expressed in any other way. So it is in worship. :)

Joyfilled
Feb 18th 2008, 02:34 PM
It is often claimed that the symbols and objects used in traditional Christian worship, and the style of beauty which it displays, have become outdated and irrelevant in the contemporary world.

The acts and symbols which we employ in worship possess a universal significance.

The Church in her prayer makes use of the primary realities of human existence, such as bread and water, light and fire. If people in an urban and technological environment no longer find these primary realities meaningful, then is this not a disturbing indictment of the artificiality and unreality of contemporary "civilization"?

Why offer incense or burn candles? Why make prostrations or the sign of the Cross? A verbal explanation only offers a a small part of the truth. And that is the reason for the symbolic action.
If the poet could express in plain prose what he has said in his poetry, if the artist or musician could express in words what she has said in paint or sound, then there would be no need for the poem or picture or symphony.

Each exists because it expresses something which cannot be expressed in any other way. So it is in worship. :)

Sorry, but the catholic church worships objects which is precisely why God tells us not to carve or make images of anything either in heaven or beneath it. But the catholics so hate that commandment that they have now removed it from the ten Commandments!!There is a plaque of the Ten Commandments in front of a local Catholic church that has omitted that commandment. So when I E-mailed the diocese about it, they said that's what the vatican now endorses! There can hardly be anything more arrogant than trying to change a commandment of God! But they don't fool God, only themselves. They don't realize that they can't remove one letter from the law.

They also think that bread replaces Jesus Christ instead of knowing that Jesus replaces earthly bread. But that's what happens when one worships what is seen rather than what is unseen and why God told us not to make our churches into an art gallery like the Catholics do. People begin to worship created things like beauty, art and people rather than the one who created them. To Him, they only pay lip service. It's disgusting. So you need to read Romans 1:25 to see what God thinks of people like the Catholics.

Teke
Feb 18th 2008, 02:58 PM
Sorry, but the catholic church worships objects which is precisely why God tells us not to carve or make images of anything either in heaven or beneath it. But the catholics so hate that commandment that they have now removed it from the ten Commandments!!There is a plaque of the Ten Commandments in front of a local Catholic church that has omitted that commandment. So when I E-mailed the diocese about it, they said that's what the vatican now endorses! There can hardly be anything more arrogant than trying to change a commandment of God! But they don't fool God, only themselves. They don't realize that they can't remove one letter from the law.

They also think that bread replaces Jesus Christ instead of knowing that Jesus replaces earthly bread. But that's what happens when one worships what is seen rather than what is unseen and why God told us not to make our churches into an art gallery like the Catholics do. People begin to worship created things like beauty, art and people rather than the one who created them. To Him, they only pay lip service. It's disgusting. So you need to read Romans 1:25 to see what God thinks of people like the Catholics.

If a Catholic believes another Catholic to be worshiping a created object, it is their duty to tell them otherwise.
Humanity by nature worships.

There was another thread done on the belief that they changed the commandments, so I will not comment on that here, as it was already explained in that thread.

I am certain that they do not believe that bread replaces Jesus Christ.

I've read Romans 1:25 and I do not see any correlation to Catholic practices. Catholic's are Christians and do not worship created things, they worship God alone.

pnewton
Feb 18th 2008, 03:13 PM
So do you think Luther was wrong? That the Reformation was a mistake? What do you mean by "very wrong"? Issues that affect salvation? Don't you think what we believe about salvation is ESSENTIAL to whether we're Christians or not?Then the question comes, what are the essentials that one must believe? How much proper doctrine of salvation does one need to be saved? For example, is it important to be correct about salvation being eternal, or can it be lost?

pnewton
Feb 18th 2008, 03:17 PM
if Catholics don't view protestants in a bad light that's because Protestants don't distort the bible as much as the Catholics do. The reason Catholics do not view Protestants in a negative light is because of the belief in something called invincible ignorance. Basically, God does not judge according to knowledge that one never has. Thus, we believe ulitmate judgement is best left to God.

pnewton
Feb 18th 2008, 03:26 PM
The acts and symbols which we employ in worship possess a universal significance.

God has also employed symbols. Do not forget that God has commanded images to be crafted. First, there were the cherubim that covered the Ark of the covenant. The Ark itself was an object that housed the glory of God. Really, do we think they had God in a box? Of course not. It was God using an object to convey His presence. He ordered the fashioning of a serpant for the people to gaze on and be healed of poison. Did the people worship this snake on a stick?

Even Jesus used an object to heal with. He had he blind man pat mud in his eyes, then wash it off. Was that needed? Only because of our humanity. God is willing to meet us more than half way. Where our faith is lacking, he is willing to offer his hand for us to feel the nail mark. Ideally we should all be at perfect communion with God in all situations, and will be one day. Until then, sometimes these physical object help us focus on the reality of God.

HisBlood
Feb 18th 2008, 03:31 PM
So do you think Luther was wrong? That the Reformation was a mistake? What do you mean by "very wrong"? Issues that affect salvation? Don't you think what we believe about salvation is ESSENTIAL to whether we're Christians or not?

No, I do not think Luther was wrong. He had a right, and maybe even a duty, to start the Reformation. The Catholic church was very, very corrupt at that time and needed a wake-up call. Without Luther, the Christian world would be very different now.

What I mean by "very wrong" is the worship of Mary and the belief that works and being a member of the Catholic church can be a way of getting into heaven. Yes, what we believe about how we get to heaven is essential to our faith. You're missing my point, though!

My point is that not all Catholics believe these things. There are some very real Christians in the Catholic church. I don't like it when people hear that someone is a Catholic and automatically assume that they need to be saved. I prefer not to judge someone because of their denomination. I leave the judgment up to God.

Teke
Feb 18th 2008, 03:45 PM
God has also employed symbols. Do not forget that God has commanded images to be crafted. First, there were the cherubim that covered the Ark of the covenant. The Ark itself was an object that housed the glory of God. Really, do we think they had God in a box? Of course not. It was God using an object to convey His presence. He ordered the fashioning of a serpant for the people to gaze on and be healed of poison. Did the people worship this snake on a stick?

Even Jesus used an object to heal with. He had he blind man pat mud in his eyes, then wash it off. Was that needed? Only because of our humanity. God is willing to meet us more than half way. Where our faith is lacking, he is willing to offer his hand for us to feel the nail mark. Ideally we should all be at perfect communion with God in all situations, and will be one day. Until then, sometimes these physical object help us focus on the reality of God.

I understand Pnewton. You know that the only difference between EO and Catholics is their councils. While I respect your patriarchate, the decision of statues in addition to icons (pics) isn't ecumenical. The Roman patriarchate decided that on their own.

Personally I don't have a problem with statues. But their not part of our canons. That's all. I'm not saying they'd lead people to worship them. Only a Christian with a bad understanding would do so.

Joyfilled
Feb 18th 2008, 11:08 PM
If a Catholic believes another Catholic to be worshiping a created object, it is their duty to tell them otherwise.
Humanity by nature worships.

There was another thread done on the belief that they changed the commandments, so I will not comment on that here, as it was already explained in that thread.

I am certain that they do not believe that bread replaces Jesus Christ.

I've read Romans 1:25 and I do not see any correlation to Catholic practices. Catholic's are Christians and do not worship created things, they worship God alone.

Yes, the catholics think that the bread is the literal body of Christ. And the diocese actually told me personally that they have removed the 2nd commandment which is blasphemous and can never be justified.

So there is no biblical justification for disobeying God and creating images of people or created things. Inf act, Deuteronomy 4:15 tells us not to in no uncertain terms. If the catholics didn't disobey God in that regard, then they would never be tempted to worship created things.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 12:19 AM
No, I do not think Luther was wrong. He had a right, and maybe even a duty, to start the Reformation.

Well I'm relieved to hear you say that!


The Catholic church was very, very corrupt at that time and needed a wake-up call. Without Luther, the Christian world would be very different now.

Precisely. But Rome hasn't changed - if anything, it's got worse! Many of its pet dogmas now were introduced long after the Reformation! And the current pope is very much a believer in the old, traditional RC doctrines.


What I mean by "very wrong" is the worship of Mary and the belief that works and being a member of the Catholic church can be a way of getting into heaven.

Not just "can be" - they're ESSENTIAL to RC dogma! Their dogma curses Protestants, because they are not members of the true church! And because we believe (weel, true Protestants do anyway!) in justification byfaith alone, apart from works. The RC phrase for cursing us is "let them be anathema".


Yes, what we believe about how we get to heaven is essential to our faith. You're missing my point, though!

And you're missing mine! A Christian is defined first and foremost by what they believe - have they believed the apostolic gospel or not? Rome teaches ANOTHER gospel - baptismal regeneration, salvation by faith and works, salvation by being a member of the RC church, penance, purgatory, the Mass, etc etc - all these are blasphemous perversions of the true gospel and I really struggle to accept that anyone can believe the true gospel when they are told the opposite! But I accept that it occasionally happens....


My point is that not all Catholics believe these things. There are some very real Christians in the Catholic church. I don't like it when people hear that someone is a Catholic and automatically assume that they need to be saved. I prefer not to judge someone because of their denomination. I leave the judgment up to God.

But as Christians we should be making right judgements about the gosple message! Just think - would you assume a member of a cult needs to be saved? Of course! Why? because they don't teach the gospel! The RC church is the biggest cult that has ever existed and has FAR more errors in it on salvific issues than any other cult. People think it is still Christian because it is Trinitarian but it isn't really - both Mary and the pope are more or less deified. Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix and is now considered sinless. The pope is called Holy Father, Pontifus Maximus (Great High Priest)/Head of the Church (both titles which belong to Christ alone) and Vicar of Christ (a title that belongs to the HS alone) - so he usurps all three persons of the Trinity in his titles.

So I believe it is right to assume that RCs need to be saved - because their church teaches a false gospel and it is very unusual to believe so many gospel truths that are the opposite of what your church teaches and yet remain in it! If you have received the Spirit of Truth, how can you tolerate so much error? If you have been made spiritually alive in the midst of spiritual death all around you, won't you want to find where the life is?!?

HisBlood
Feb 19th 2008, 01:33 AM
Not just "can be" - they're ESSENTIAL to RC dogma! Their dogma curses Protestants, because they are not members of the true church! And because we believe (weel, true Protestants do anyway!) in justification byfaith alone, apart from works. The RC phrase for cursing us is "let them be anathema".

All the Catholics I have known have not cursed Protestants. In fact, I know more Protestants that have cursed Catholics than Catholics that have cursed Protestants. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but from my experience it is a lot less common than some think.


And you're missing mine! A Christian is defined first and foremost by what they believe - have they believed the apostolic gospel or not? Rome teaches ANOTHER gospel - baptismal regeneration, salvation by faith and works, salvation by being a member of the RC church, penance, purgatory, the Mass, etc etc - all these are blasphemous perversions of the true gospel and I really struggle to accept that anyone can believe the true gospel when they are told the opposite! But I accept that it occasionally happens....

And I am saying that a Catholic can be a part of the Catholic church and still believe the apostolic gospel. You don't have to automatically assume that a Catholic is unsaved.



But as Christians we should be making right judgements about the gosple message! Just think - would you assume a member of a cult needs to be saved? Of course! Why? because they don't teach the gospel! The RC church is the biggest cult that has ever existed and has FAR more errors in it on salvific issues than any other cult. People think it is still Christian because it is Trinitarian but it isn't really - both Mary and the pope are more or less deified. Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix and is now considered sinless. The pope is called Holy Father, Pontifus Maximus (Great High Priest)/Head of the Church (both titles which belong to Christ alone) and Vicar of Christ (a title that belongs to the HS alone) - so he usurps all three persons of the Trinity in his titles.

I do not consider the Roman Catholic church to be a cult. There are many, many Catholics that do not believe that Mary is a deity or that the Pope is one either. In fact, many Catholics that I have come across do not agree with the pope half the time.

Just because they are in a Catholic church does not mean they have to agree with everything that is said. I go to Baptist university, but does that mean I agree with everything they say here? No!

My whole point is that I prefer not to automatically assume that a RC is not a Christian. That is between them and God and I do whole-heartedly believe that not all Catholics are ritualistic zombies.

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 12:58 PM
Their dogma curses Protestants, because they are not members of the true church! And because we believe (weel, true Protestants do anyway!) in justification byfaith alone, apart from works. The RC phrase for cursing us is "let them be anathema". This is simply not true. First, there was never a dogma that used the word "anathema." That word is specifically means set on high, or set apart. It is a word in canon law (Church's internal rules), not dogma. It means put out of the Church. It is a curse only in the sense that one is cursed to be cut off from the Catholic Church. Most quotes directed at Protestants were from the Council of Trent and specifically were aimed at those who were joining the Reformation, specifically, they could no longer be Catholic. :rolleyes:

Currently, under canon law, the penalty of anathema no longer exists. Now, only the term excommunication is used. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm#322) Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm#323) With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 01:12 PM
This is simply not true. First, there was never a dogma that used the word "anathema." That word is specifically means set on high, or set apart. It is a word in canon law (Church's internal rules), not dogma. It means put out of the Church. It is a curse only in the sense that one is cursed to be cut off from the Catholic Church. Most quotes directed at Protestants were from the Council of Trent and specifically were aimed at those who were joining the Reformation, specifically, they could no longer be Catholic. :rolleyes:

Currently, under canon law, the penalty of anathema no longer exists. Now, only the term excommunication is used. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

Excommunication is still bad enough - it is a declaration that Protestants are not true Christians! And all this stuff about those who are "properly baptised" shows their reliance on ritual - the current pope has recently confirmed the traditional RC belief that there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome.

Whether it's dogma, canon law, whatever - it's false doctrine and NOT the gospel. Anyone who is truly a Christian is compromising the faith by remaining within this institution:-

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.” 2 Cor 6:14-17 NKJV

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 01:46 PM
Let's not turn this into a RCC witchhunt and bashing round guys.

State what similarities and differences there are between RCC and Protestantism; but leave out the jabs and bites and pointed-poking-sticks.

Attract, don't repel.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 01:49 PM
Sorry if you think I'm doing that, DT, but the OP is about what problems Protestants have with RCs - and that's what I've been trying to put forward!

To my mind we all KNOW the similarities - but people brush the HUGE differences under the carpet as if they didn't matter! I'm saying they matter BIG TIME! Hence the quote from 2 Cor 6!

Joyfilled
Feb 19th 2008, 03:14 PM
Sorry if you think I'm doing that, DT, but the OP is about what problems Protestants have with RCs - and that's what I've been trying to put forward!

To my mind we all KNOW the similarities - but people brush the HUGE differences under the carpet as if they didn't matter! I'm saying they matter BIG TIME! Hence the quote from 2 Cor 6!

I only wish that more people understood; "Hate the sin, not the sinner." When we hate the sins of the catholics church, unfortunately, Satan twists that into claiming that we hate the people in the Catholic church which is simply a lie. But that's another one of Satan's tactics. So I'll stick with what Jesus tells us as always; "Hate what is evil and cling to what is good." And it's definitely evil to try to omit one of the Commandments and claim one is doing it "in the name of God." "God will not be mocked." Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. It's against Satan who is present in every church. So if people were more interested in defending the Word of God in the bible instead of their specific denomination, we would have much more unity in Christ.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 03:27 PM
I only wish that more people understood; "Hate the sin, not the sinner." When we hate the sins of the catholics church, unfortunately, Satan twists that into claiming that we hate the people in the Catholic church which is simply a lie. But that's another one of Satan's tactics. So I'll stick with what Jesus tells us as always; "Hate what is evil and cling to what is good." And it's definitely evil to try to omit one of the Commandments and claim one is doing it "in the name of God." "God will not be mocked."

Great points, Joyfilled! Let me make it plain to anyone in any doubt - I hate RC doctrine and dogma - it is a perversion of the gospel and an abomination to God. ALL Christians should hate what God hates and God hates those who pervert His gospel - there is reserved for them blackness of darkness forever.

Because I know that people believe what they are subjected to week after week, I struggle to understand (a) how anyone in the RC church can become a Christian (although I accept it does happen occasionally, DESPITE the church's teaching, not because of them); and (b) more importantly, I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why any true, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, God-honouring Christian could stay in such an institution. For the sake of the eternal well-being of their souls, I urge them to COME OUT!

For any on these threads tempted to think the RC church is actually Christian, I feel constrained by God to point out why it is not - in the same way (yet in fact WORSE!) that cults are not Christian churches.....

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 03:36 PM
Traditions
2Th 2:15-17 Douay-Rheims Bible
(15) (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
(16) (2:15) Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,
(17) (2:16) Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

This is currently a source of crisis for me in my faith. Specifically the stark difference between orthodox Judaism and modern Christianity (in both Catholic and Protestant flavors). If we are to stand fast and hold to the traditions... wouldn't those be traditions based in Judaism and not traditions created decades and centuries later under anti-semmetic church leadership?

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 03:37 PM
Great points, Joyfilled! Let me make it plain to anyone in any doubt - I hate RC doctrine and dogma - it is a perversion of the gospel and an abomination to God. ALL Christians should hate what God hates and God hates those who pervert His gospel - there is reserved for them blackness of darkness forever.

Because I know that people believe what they are subjected to week after week, I struggle to understand (a) how anyone in the RC church can become a Christian (although I accept it does happen occasionally, DESPITE the church's teaching, not because of them); and (b) more importantly, I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why any true, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, God-honouring Christian could stay in such an institution. For the sake of the eternal well-being of their souls, I urge them to COME OUT!

For any on these threads tempted to think the RC church is actually Christian, I feel constrained by God to point out why it is not - in the same way (yet in fact WORSE!) that cults are not Christian churches.....


Brother,

I think that maybe you have issues that have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. The vitriol you spew at every turn and chance makes it obvious there is something "more" going on here.

What you are doing in the name of your Calvinist Presbyterian church is well..... not Christian at all. You are doing the same thing you accuse the the Catholic Church of.

Thats all I gotta say about that. Release the hate bro. Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church probably dismisses your diatribes anyway. They are twisted and mis-informed.

~Peace.

Example Mark:

Originally Posted by 9Marksfan http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1538742#post1538742)
So would you say JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians, etc were all Christians, then?

RCs generally call themselves Christians but RC dogma is anti-Christian in umpteen ways - it's another gospel. While I don't discount the possibility of some RCs being born again, if a baby is born in a mass open grave, full of corpses, sooner or later, won't it want to get out because of the death all around it?

God is omnipotent and can of course save people from the most unlikely of backgrounds - but Tolkien must have CHOSEN to stay in the RC church - if he was truly born again, I really struggle to understand that.......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^

This might be one of the most disappointing and saddest things I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes:

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 03:43 PM
This is currently a source of crisis for me in my faith. Specifically the stark difference between orthodox Judaism and modern Christianity (in both Catholic and Protestant flavors). If we are to stand fast and hold to the traditions... wouldn't those be traditions based in Judaism and not traditions created decades and centuries later under anti-semmetic church leadership?

Hmm - don't quite follow your reasoning. What exactly is your crisis of faith? Is it to do with the way the church has treated the Jews? Do you ghave a Jewish background? Or are you perhaps influenced by eg John Hagee?

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 03:52 PM
Brother,

Wait a sec - how can I be your "brother" if I'm not in your church?


I think that maybe you have issues that have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. The vitriol you spew at every turn and chance makes it obvious there is something "more" going on here.

Care to share your thoughts?


What you are doing in the name of your Calvinist Presbyterian church is well..... not Christian at all.

I'm no longer Presbyterian - Reformed Baptist. What is unChristian about exposing unbiblical error? The writers of the NT were even MORE direct!


You are doing the same thing you accuse the the Catholic Church of.

Namely?


Thats all I gotta say about that. Release the hate bro. Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church probably dismisses your diatribes anyway. They are twisted and mis-informed.

Everything I've read of current RC dogma, canon law and practice confirms my beliefs. They are neither twisted nor ill-informed.


~Peace.

Example Mark:

Originally Posted by 9Marksfan http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1538742#post1538742)
So would you say JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians, etc were all Christians, then?

RCs generally call themselves Christians but RC dogma is anti-Christian in umpteen ways - it's another gospel. While I don't discount the possibility of some RCs being born again, if a baby is born in a mass open grave, full of corpses, sooner or later, won't it want to get out because of the death all around it?

God is omnipotent and can of course save people from the most unlikely of backgrounds - but Tolkien must have CHOSEN to stay in the RC church - if he was truly born again, I really struggle to understand that.......

This might be one of the most disappointing and saddest things I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes:

Well let me say likewise that when I read on the What denomination are you? thread that you had a Bible-believing background and have CHOSEN to be in the RC church for 15 years, THAT was one of the most disappointing and saddest things I have ever read on this board. With difficulty, I can understand people who are real Christians staying in the RC church after theior conversion, because it's all they've ever known, family ties, community spirit, etc - but I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why anyone converted under a Bible-believing ministry can reject that in favour of Rome. PLEASE would you explain to me you reasoning - I am genuinely upset by the matter........:cry:

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 03:56 PM
Sorry if you think I'm doing that, DT, but the OP is about what problems Protestants have with RCs - and that's what I've been trying to put forward!
If that is the case, then this problem is truly a misunderstanding. Excommunication can never happen to a Protestant. Nothing in Canon Law affects anybody but Catholics. Excommunication only means "out of communion." Many different denominations do not share common communion with each other, yet still consider others as Christians. The Catholic Church considers Protestants (and Orthodox) Christians.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 04:00 PM
Hmm - don't quite follow your reasoning. What exactly is your crisis of faith? Is it to do with the way the church has treated the Jews? Do you ghave a Jewish background? Or are you perhaps influenced by eg John Hagee?

My crisis of faith can be found in this thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=115904). I'll try not to hijack this thread with my own. Essentially, I'm overwhelmed by the masses of voices ... each who fervently and ardently believe that they've heard God's specific revelation to mankind (both inside and outside Christianity). I decided I better REALLY understand my own faith, so I started at the points I was fuzziest on.

Our faith "started" with Judaism right? Christianity is the fulfillment/evolution/continuation of what used to be Judaism prior to 0 - 33 AD right? But a cursory glance at what Orthodox Jews believe ... well... here's where I'll stop so I don't threadjack.

In the context of THIS thread, what I was asking Opally was specific to tradition. Opally offers passages in Thessalonians telling us to hold fast to traditions, in obvious defence of the RCC's authority over tradition. My question was, wouldn't "tradition" clearly point to JEWISH tradition, especially from the perspective of a person writing only shortly after Christ (a Jew) was with us? How could "tradition" from the Thessalonians' point-of-view be some as yet undefined tradition, authored and enfored by an as yet unestablished and antisemetic organization?

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 04:03 PM
My crisis of faith can be found in this thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=115904). I'll try not to hijack this thread with my own. Essentially, I'm overwhelmed by the masses of voices ... each who fervently and ardently believe that they've heard God's specific revelation to mankind (both inside and outside Christianity). I decided I better REALLY understand my own faith, so I started at the points I was fuzziest on.

Our faith "started" with Judaism right? Christianity is the fulfillment/evolution/continuation of what used to be Judaism prior to 0 - 33 AD right? But a cursory glance at what Orthodox Jews believe ... well... here's where I'll stop so I don't threadjack.

In the context of THIS thread, what I was asking Opally was specific to tradition. Opally brings up the passage in Thessalonians telling us to hold fast to traditions, in obvious defence of the RCC's authority over tradition. My question was, wouldn't "tradition" have clearly pointed at a JEWISH tradition, especially from the perspective of a person writing only shortly after Christ (a Jew) was with us? How could "tradition" from the Thessalonians' point-of-view be some as yet undefined tradition that would be authored and enfored by an as yet unestablished and antisemetic organization?

You aint highjacking bro.. go for it.... my thread anyway :)

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 04:04 PM
Wait a sec - how can I be your "brother" if I'm not in your church?

Because you are my brother. As I quoted above, and is in our prayers, we consider non-Catholic Christians brothers. The reverse may not be true, but this is Catholic belief. Did you know that on this Good Friday all Catholics will join in prayer for all Christians everywhere who are not of Catholic faith? The phrase is "separated brethren". Why? Because the separation is real, make no mistake. There are many real differences that divide us. But equally real is the brotherhood we share as followers and disciples of Christ.

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 04:13 PM
Wait a sec - how can I be your "brother" if I'm not in your church?



Care to share your thoughts?



I'm no longer Presbyterian - Reformed Baptist. What is unChristian about exposing unbiblical error? The writers of the NT were even MORE direct!



Brother,

Please do not insult me. We are brothers in Christ Jesus :)

Sorry about getting your denom wrong. I thought you were Reformed Westminster Catechism Presbyterian... my bad.

Why should I share my thoughts with you? You have clearly stated you hate the Roman Catholic Church, that we are a cult, and that we are not Christians.

How is anything I have to say going to make a difference? It is a waste of time because you really do not even want to hear it. You have made up your mind. That is your right. I am not going to share my testimony or Biblical reasoning so cheaply as to fall on deaf ears. The way you are acting though is not in line with scripture or at all Christlike. It is full of hate.

~Peace Brother.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 04:42 PM
My crisis of faith can be found in this thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=115904). I'll try not to hijack this thread with my own. Essentially, I'm overwhelmed by the masses of voices ... each who fervently and ardently believe that they've heard God's specific revelation to mankind (both inside and outside Christianity). I decided I better REALLY understand my own faith, so I started at the points I was fuzziest on.

Our faith "started" with Judaism right?

Correct.


Christianity is the fulfillment/evolution/continuation of what used to be Judaism prior to 0 - 33 AD right?

Also correct.


But a cursory glance at what Orthodox Jews believe ... well... here's where I'll stop so I don't threadjack.

Don't be derailed by them. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life - what he has to say about the Jewish worship coming to an end and the gospel going to the Gentiles is what really matters. There are so many predictions and prophecies in the gospels, it's clear that Jesus was warning them that an end was coming to all the temple sacrifices because HE would be the fulfilment of all of them!


In the context of THIS thread, what I was asking Opally was specific to tradition. Opally offers passages in Thessalonians telling us to hold fast to traditions, in obvious defence of the RCC's authority over tradition. My question was, wouldn't "tradition" clearly point to JEWISH tradition, especially from the perspective of a person writing only shortly after Christ (a Jew) was with us? How could "tradition" from the Thessalonians' point-of-view be some as yet undefined tradition, authored and enfored by an as yet unestablished and antisemetic organization?

You're quite correct - it is Jewish tradition that is not inconsistent with Christian teaching and practice. Remember, the early church was still VERY Jewish in its culture and ethnicity. That would include traditions.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 04:44 PM
Because you are my brother. As I quoted above, and is in our prayers, we consider non-Catholic Christians brothers. The reverse may not be true, but this is Catholic belief. Did you know that on this Good Friday all Catholics will join in prayer for all Christians everywhere who are not of Catholic faith? The phrase is "separated brethren". Why? Because the separation is real, make no mistake. There are many real differences that divide us. But equally real is the brotherhood we share as followers and disciples of Christ.

But how do you reconcile that with your teaching that salvation is only to be found in your church?

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 04:50 PM
You're quite correct - it is Jewish tradition that is not inconsistent with Christian teaching and practice. Remember, the early church was still VERY Jewish in its culture and ethnicity. That would include traditions.

Yes... well thats my hypothesis anyway, and the question that was directed to Opally (or anyone else who wishes to defend Opally's position).

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 04:51 PM
Sorry if you think I'm doing that, DT, but the OP is about what problems Protestants have with RCs - and that's what I've been trying to put forward!

To my mind we all KNOW the similarities - but people brush the HUGE differences under the carpet as if they didn't matter! I'm saying they matter BIG TIME! Hence the quote from 2 Cor 6!

I'm not singling you our 9Marksfan.

Just making the reminder that we can share both similarities and differences between RCC and Protestantism in a peaceable manner; putting forth the facts and details in a clear and unabashed manner; yet metting that with charity and a manner of presentation that doesn't repel and put folks on the defensive.

When highlighting the difference of RCC to Protestantism, our goal should be that we are able to present those differences in a clear, yet sincere and caring manner, to the point that Catholics might receive them, reconsider, and perhaps find agreement that those differences should be abandoned and a turn to embrace the Bible over traditions is the best choice.

No RCC person, is going to do that, or even consider that, if anyone here is beating the RCC folks over the head with a hammer.

Salt and Light softens hearts and brings the Truth into clear focus; not jabs, and pokes, and put-downs.

We need to reach RCC folks, not repel them. List the differences, but do it in a cordial, careful, and patient manner.

9Marksfan
Feb 19th 2008, 04:57 PM
Brother,

Please do not insult me. We are brothers in Christ Jesus :)

You may recall that we had an exchange of posts on the What denomination are you? thread that have now been deleted - they were to the effect that you did not perceive us to be "brothers" but "cousins"! My point (and I will make it again) was that cousins have different fathers! Do you retract that comment now?


Sorry about getting your denom wrong. I thought you were Reformed Westminster Catechism Presbyterian... my bad.

No worries at all :)


Why should I share my thoughts with you? You have clearly stated you hate the Roman Catholic Church, that we are a cult, and that we are not Christians.

With respect, that's not a very mature attitude. You indicated that there was something "more" going on in my mind/heart/soul - I would genuinely like you to share what you think that might be - believe it or not, I am open to criticism, especially if you believe that my attitude is unChristian. I promise to consider it prayerfully before God. I may well be blind to something you are seeing clearly. I accept that my approach is direct but that is because I believe the Bible is direct about false teachings.


How is anything I have to say going to make a difference? It is a waste of time because you really do not even want to hear it. You have made up your mind.

You are correct that you will not be able to convince me that RC doctrine is biblical. But I would genuinely be keen to know why you chose to reject the Protestant faith and turn to Rome instead - was it perhaps your experience at ORU?


That is your right. I am not going to share my testimony or Biblical reasoning so cheaply as to fall on deaf ears. The way you are acting though is not in line with scripture or at all Christlike. It is full of hate.

~Peace Brother.

Well I don't hate you or ANY RCs - I long for you all to come to your senses and see that you are following the traditions of men, not the revealed truth of God! If that desire is wrong, well, there's nothing I can do about it. But your OP was about where we Protestants had a problem with you guys. Strictly speaking, we don't have a problem with RCs as individuals at all - we do NOT hate you. But we strongly believe that your system is a gross perversion of the gospel and, out of Christian concern for your eternal souls, we want to point you to the truth of the Bible and how that differs from what your church teaches. Now, if you are not willing to listen to that, then why start the thread?

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 04:59 PM
Our faith "started" with Judaism right?

No.

Our faith started with a work of God's Holy Spirit in our lives, drawing us to serve, love, and follow the Lord all of the days of our lives.

To unite with Him, to love Him, and to accept the free give and sacrifice of His Son, slain for the redemption of our sins....to give us the wonderful gift of everlasting life.

Ground your faith in Jesus bro, not in religious systems, and your crisis of faith will cease quickly.

Jesus should be your focus, and your individual relationship with Him.

Immerse yourself in His words. Talk to Him daily. Ask Him to help you.

He will never leave or forsake you.

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. "

"the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 05:05 PM
Yes... well thats my hypothesis anyway, and the question that was directed to Opally (or anyone else who wishes to defend Opally's position).

Thessalonians was wrtten by Paul (Roman) to the Thessalonians (Greece). That church was a mixture Romans, Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, Turks, etc etc etc.

The traditions of the early church were not "based" in orthodox Judaism.

The scripture Opally gives speaks for itself. Read it again..... in word and epistle....

:)

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 05:05 PM
No.

Our faith started with a work of God's Holy Spirit in our lives, drawing us to serve, love, and follow the Lord all of the days of our lives.

Respectfully David, you're changing my question. I'm not asking what saved us. I'm not asking who, what, or how our lives are changed. I'm asking if Christianity is a continuation/evolution/replacement/whatever of Judaism. If the answer is no, then we should promptly throw the Old Testament 3/4 of our Bible out, should we not?


Ground your faith in Jesus bro, not in religious systems, and your crisis of faith will cease quickly.

Jesus IS a religious system, especially when one is asked to systematically believe in him, but this is a topic for my "Open Letter to G_d" thread and has little to do with what is being discussed here.

For the context of THIS thread, my question to the Roman Catholics (and Protestants for that matter) is if the "traditions" mentioned in Thessalonians are referring to Jewish traditions or the traditions of a church coming in the future from the perspective of the author of Thessalonians.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 05:14 PM
Respectfully David, you're changing my question. I'm not asking what saved us.

Your question was: "Our faith "started" with Judaism right?"

I simply answered your question by saying, "No, Our faith started with a work of God's Holy Spirit in our lives, drawing us to serve, love, and follow the Lord all of the days of our lives."

No mention about who saved us....just answering the question that our faith didn't start with Judaism, and where our faith did start from.



I'm asking if Christianity is a continuation/evolution/replacement/whatever of Judaism. If the answer is no, then we should promptly throw the Old Testament 3/4 of our Bible out, should we not?

Jesus Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the O.T. types, shadows, and prophecies.

Christianity is a grouping of people who follow and belong to Jesus Christ.

Christ, not Judaism, is the answer. Anything in the O.T. that is of God, finds itself in harmony and/or fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 05:17 PM
For the context of THIS thread, my question to the Roman Catholics (and Protestants for that matter) is if the "traditions" mentioned in Thessalonians are referring to Jewish traditions or the traditions of a church coming in the future from the perspective of the author of Thessalonians.


Catholic perspective?

part 1 = no/false

part 2 = yes/true

EDIT:

There was a major problem here though.... the early church had a major problem with the gnostics twisting things. That is the reason for the epistles in the first place.... correction and encouragement. The true traditions were compiled and solidified, while the gnostic / mystic traditions / beliefs were expelled. At first this was done on a church by church basis but after Christiandom became more organized an ecumenical council / governing body was formed to look at these questions.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 05:27 PM
Jesus Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the O.T. types, shadows, and prophecies.

So is that a yes and not a no?


Christianity is a grouping of people who follow and belong to Jesus Christ.

And is this grouping of people (lets call it "Christianity") a continuation/replacement/reformation/evolution/fulfillment of Judaism. In other words, prior to 0-33AD, what WAS Christianity? Since there was no Christ to follow, I'm assuming it would be "God"ianity aka Judaism.


Christ, not Judaism, is the answer. Anything in the O.T. that is of God, finds itself in harmony and/or fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

So if Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, are you changing your answer from no to yes? And incidentally, are there parts of the OT that are not of God or are not in harmony of Jesus Christ?

But again, this is a much better discussion in my Open Letter to G_d (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=115904) thread, and does little to contribute to this.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 05:40 PM
And is this grouping of people (lets call it "Christianity") a continuation/replacement/reformation/evolution/fulfillment of Judaism.

None of the above. Judaism itself, is irrelevant. Ones relationship with God, and following Him personally and daily, has always been the important thing to God.



In other words, prior to 0-33AD, what WAS Christianity? Since there was no Christ to follow, I'm assuming it would be "God"ianity aka Judaism.

Christ has always existed; long before 0 AD, and was followed by faith joyfully and wonderfully by many faithful believers who lived during O.T. times.

Moses followed Christ.
Abraham followed Christ.
David followed Christ.
Job followed Christ.
Isaiah followed Christ.

Following Christ is a relationship between the created and the Creator, between the sinner and the Saviour, between the repentant and the Redeemer.

Paul knew it.... "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me,that I might preach him"




So if Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, are you changing your answer from no to yes? And incidentally, are there parts of the OT that are not of God or are not in harmony of Jesus Christ?


Again, Christ is where our faith starts....not any religious system corrupted by man.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 05:52 PM
None of the above. Judaism itself, is irrelevant. Ones relationship with God, and following Him personally and daily, has always been the important thing to God.

Consequently the old testament is irrelevant and can be disposed of?


Christ has always existed; long before 0 AD, and was followed by faith joyfully and wonderfully by many faithful believers who lived during O.T. times.

Moses followed Christ.
Abraham followed Christ.
David followed Christ.
Job followed Christ.
Isaiah followed Christ.

Moses through Isiah are the patriarchs of Judaism. Those who believed what these men taught about God BEFORE Jesus got here were following Judaism. Had you been alive in any of their times, and believed their revalation of God in those times, you would NOT have called yourself a Christian.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 06:06 PM
Consequently the old testament is irrelevant and can be disposed of?

No, your words, not mine friend.

The OT can find its purpose, fulfillment, relevance, and purpose in Jesus Christ.

Again, Jesus Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the O.T. types, shadows, and prophecies;

and 'our faith' is in Him; not religious systems.




Moses through Isiah are the patriarchs of Judaism.

I disagree.

Moses and Isaiah were followers of God, and faithful men who look for and placed their faith in Jesus Christ who would come and deliver them.

Judaism never saved anyone. Jesus saves all who shall be saved.

The Patriarchs of faith, placed their faith personally in Christ, not in a religious system.







Those who believed what these men taught about God BEFORE Jesus got here were following Judaism.


No, they were following God. They were following God's will, which pointed in types and shadows and prophecy to Jesus Christ.

The Rock the O.T. fathers followed, was not Judaism, but rather Jesus.

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." I Corinthians 10:1

Nowhere is is said that they drank of the Rock of Judaism which led them through the wilderness.




Had you been alive in any of their times, and believed their revalation of God in those times, you would NOT have called yourself a Christian.

The name I would have used, is irrelevant. Christian is a Greek-based name; and that language system is much younger in existence that Jesus Christ who is from everlasting to everlasting; the lamb slain from the foundation of the World.

Had I been alive in their times, my belief would have been on the same spiritual Rock in the wilderness, that Paul said the fathers followed; the Rock that is Christ. (regardless of the name used).

Peter taught that the Spirit testified before hand, (during O.T. times), of Christ, and that is what the faithful prophets inquired for, searched of, and wrote about.

Peter didn't put his faith in Judaism, but in Jesus. I gotta go with Peter on this one.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 06:16 PM
No, your words, not mine friend.

The OT can find its purpose, fulfillment, relevance, and purpose in Jesus Christ.

Again, Jesus Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the O.T. types, shadows, and prophecies;

Speaking of my words, lets go back to the originals where I asked if Christianity was an evolution/fulfillment/whatever of Judiasm. Here you clearly say so, but still answer no to the question. Which is it? And its not a large logical leap to conclude that the old testament is utterly void of meaning if, as you say, Judaism is irrelevant.


and 'our faith' is in Him; not religious systems.

Ok. Nothing to do with anything I'm saying.


Moses and Isaiah were followers of God, and faithful men who look for and placed their faith in Jesus Christ who would come and deliver them.

But prior to Christ's arrival on earth, they would have only what God revealed to man about himself, which at that time, was JUDAISM.


Judaism never saved anyone. Jesus saves all who shall be saved.

I never said it did. But clearly there was a large portion of people who believed what Moses through Isiah said about God's revelation. Those people were called Jews.


The Patriarchs of faith, placed their faith personally in Christ, not in a religious system.

I never said otherwise... but just in case...
I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.



The name I would have used, is irrelevant. Christian is a Greek-based name; and that language system is much younger in existence that Jesus Christ who is from everlasting to everlasting; the lamb slain from the foundation of the World.

Of course it would have been relevant. If you had been listening to any of the old testament patriarchs or prophets and you said "I do XYZ because Jesus would have me do it that way" you would not have a warm reception. But if you would have said YWHW commands that I do this and it will be accounted righteousness, everyone would assume you were Jewish.


Peter taught that the Spirit testified before hand, (during O.T. times), of Christ, and that is what the faithful prophets inquired for, searched of, and wrote about.

Peter didn't put his faith in Judaism, but in Jesus. I gotta go with Peter on this one.

And what was that faith called prior to 0-33AD? Judaism: Faith in and obedience to YWHW The Eternal.

At any rate, I promised St. Micheal I wouldn't hijack this thread. So whatever. You win.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 06:33 PM
If you had been listening to any of the old testament patriarchs or prophets and you said "I do XYZ because Jesus would have me do it that way" you would not have a warm reception.

I believe Moses knew exactly who Jesus was, and when Moses heard that I followed the same Jesus he did, would have accepted me as a brother in the Lord.





And what was that faith called prior to 0-33AD? Judaism: Faith in and obedience to YWHW The Eternal.
Take out the term: "Judaism", and I would agree with you.

Jesus is YHWH, BTW....not Judaism.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 06:36 PM
I believe Moses knew exactly who Jesus was, and when Moses heard that I followed the same Jesus he did, would have accepted me as a brother in the Lord.

Yet because Jesus had not arrived yet, you would still be expected to follow the old covenant, and looked forward with expectation for the arrival of the Messiah. The other people who believed this were practicing Judaism.


Take out the term: "Judaism", and I would agree with you.

Jesus is YHWH, BTW....not Judaism.

Of course Jesus isn't Judaism. Jesus is Jesus. But those who were faithfull and obedient to YHWH before 0-33AD would have been classified as Jews.

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 06:40 PM
For the context of THIS thread, my question to the Roman Catholics (and Protestants for that matter) is if the "traditions" mentioned in Thessalonians are referring to Jewish traditions or the traditions of a church coming in the future from the perspective of the author of Thessalonians.I believe you might be right, or at least mostly probably so, just like I believe the "all Scripture" of II Timothy 5 to be the Jewish scripture, or the Old Testament.

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 06:41 PM
At any rate, I promised St. Micheal I wouldn't hijack this thread. So whatever. You win.


Bro, you're fine.... Im learning something myself.... its cool.

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 06:43 PM
I believe you might be right, or at least mostly probably so, just like I believe the "all Scripture" of II Timothy 5 to be the Jewish scripture, or the Old Testament.


I don't think the Thessalonian reference had anything to do with Jewish orthodoxy.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 06:43 PM
Yet because Jesus had not arrived yet, you would still be expected to follow the old covenant, and looked forward with expectation for the arrival of the Messiah. The other people who believed this were practicing Judaism.

So how did Job and Noah practice Judaism...exactly?





Of course Jesus isn't Judaism. Jesus is Jesus. But those who were faithfull and obedient to YHWH before 0-33AD would have been classified as Jews.


Noah and Job weren't Jews....Judaism did them no good at all; yet having a relationship and faithfully following the Lord sure seemed to be important to them.

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 06:50 PM
But how do you reconcile that with your teaching that salvation is only to be found in your church?Excellent question and more to the point. We believe that all Christians are joined together in one body of Christ. The fact that I am Catholic means I believe the that I believe the Catholic Church to be the visible embodiment of that body on Earth. Therefore, the Catholic perspective is that all Christians are joined to the Catholic Church through a common faith and baptism.

To draw a Baptist style parallel, Baptist believe the Church as a body of Christ is strictly a mystical body with no visible structure on Earth. Yet all believers are joined to it, even if they are Catholic, if they have professed saving faith in Christ. It may well be that someone has done that, yet not known the proper terminology of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet from a Baptist perspective, that would be what they have done.

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 06:53 PM
I don't think the Thessalonian reference had anything to do with Jewish orthodoxy.I never have either, but there is a certain logic to it and it is something I am going to consider.

St_Michael
Feb 19th 2008, 06:55 PM
I never have either, but there is a certain logic to it and it is something I am going to consider.


I agree, but I will admit that is really thinking outside the box to use a cliche.....

Worth consideration, but a difficult stretch for me at the moment given what I understand about Biblical Literature and Church History. It will take more research on my part.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 07:00 PM
So how did Job and Noah practice Judaism...exactly?

Noah and Job weren't Jews....Judaism did them no good at all; yet having a relationship and faithfully following the Lord sure seemed to be important to them.

Excellent points David. To be honest I hadn't considered those two carefully enough. I would consider Noah, Job, Enoch, and the most ancient patriarchs as being pre-Mosaic Jews (which I'm roughly equating to pre-Physical Christ Christians). But the people who wrote and maintained the traditions of those ancient patriarchs are the Jews. Judaism would have been the continuation/fulfillment/whatever of the pre-Jewish patriarchs. Hope that makes sense.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 07:07 PM
I agree, but I will admit that is really thinking outside the box to use a cliche.....

Worth consideration, but a difficult stretch for me at the moment given what I understand about Biblical Literature and Church History. It will take more research on my part.

Even though I sound that way sometimes, I really don't hold myself above correction. My thoughts about the "traditions" mentioned in Thessalonians being Jewish, and the "scripture" of Timothy being Jewish texts + existing letters from the apostles are as follows (horrible sentence structure! I know!).

Say I was a Roman/Greek/Otherwise-Gentile (RGOG for short) listening to a disciple. A Christian disciple is telling me about this man named Jesus and how he is the prophesized Messiah and fulfillment of scriptures & traditions. An RGOG like me would be thinking "a fulfillment of Zeus' scriptures?" "a fulfillment of Castor and Pollux traditions?". There must have been some exposure to what the Jews believed about God (especially there being only one!!) and the traditions of the Law to which Christ was a fulfillment of.

David Taylor
Feb 19th 2008, 07:07 PM
Excellent points David. To be honest I hadn't considered those two carefully enough. I would consider Noah, Job, Enoch, and the most ancient patriarchs as being pre-Mosaic Jews


I would call Noah, Job, and Enoch pre-Nativity Christians.

Since the Hebrew term Jew, and Judaism didn't exist in their time, in the same way the Greek term Christos didn't exist yet either, I think they would understand the application nonetheless.



But the people who wrote and maintained the traditions of those ancient patriarchs are the Jews.

New Testament Christians also wrote and maintained the traditions of those ancient patriarchs.

Hope that makes sense.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 19th 2008, 07:25 PM
Excellent points David. To be honest I hadn't considered those two carefully enough. I would consider Noah, Job, Enoch, and the most ancient patriarchs as being pre-Mosaic Jews (which I'm roughly equating to pre-Physical Christ Christians). But the people who wrote and maintained the traditions of those ancient patriarchs are the Jews. Judaism would have been the continuation/fulfillment/whatever of the pre-Jewish patriarchs. Hope that makes sense.

I would like to point out that the patriarchs of the Judaism start with Abraham. The fathers of the patriarchs (those called faithful in the OT before Abraham [Adam to Noah]) could be called an Elohist, or Elist, or YHWHist. Since this is the God that they followed as oppoisted to the Egyptian, Sumerian, and other pagan gods. That would fit in more with what I believe Jews would say (those both present and past).

Also if you are having trouble fitting Christianity into it's Jewish roots I would suggest that you maybe try to find a Messanic Church or Jews for Jesus Church near you (if you have one) and go; they can be, from my experience, very fun. They keep a lot of traditional Jewish stuff in the service, like the Shema and other Jewish prayers, they also look at the OT as both Jews and Christians and try to understand it in that light. Again that was my experience with it.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 19th 2008, 07:42 PM
This post is in response to the OP. I feel you brother when I left a SBC for the Anglican church I heard all about it. I don't know why so many protestants have a problem with what I would call the 'High-Churches' (note: this only denotes the way that we do liturgy nothing about them being better), ie RC, Anglican, Orthodox churches.

But if you ask me in my experience it seems that the evangelic churches are starting to drive their members away and they are seeking refuge in the High Churches. I about 8 or so friends that left the evangelic protestant churches that they were going to and went to the Orthodox church and a few friends that left for the RCC, I and a few others went to the Anglican church. Yet I have only known a few people that have left the RCC for an evangelic protestant church.

If there was no Anglican Church I would be Roman. There are only about three doctrines that I don't agree with the RCC on, they are minor points for me but major for the RCC so me not agreeing with them is a big deal.

But I still pray that one day all branchs of Christianity will be in full communion again, although I doubt (really know) that it will not be in my life time.

I am unsure of why some protestants are so angry with Catholics. I think it really comes from misunderstanding of how the church really works. Many will read or hear about the paractices and doctrines of the church but very few will actually go to a service and see what it is really like. It might also come from not understanding the liturgy. Again I don't know.

HisLeast
Feb 19th 2008, 08:03 PM
I am unsure of why some protestants are so angry with Catholics. I think it really comes from misunderstanding of how the church really works. Many will read or hear about the paractices and doctrines of the church but very few will actually go to a service and see what it is really like. It might also come from not understanding the liturgy. Again I don't know.

For many, its when (for example) the RCC makes statements like "the RCC is the only true church". There's also some anger around arguable doctrines, such as the question of Mary. I don't know how many times I've heard "we don't worship her, we revere her" and the possibility that the RCC may be divided on this are squelched violently. Spend some time in a relgious hispanic community, or go to a few Churches in Mexico, and you're bound to see some HARD CORE Mary worship. I've talked to a couple co-workers about this... and these people can go on and on and on about "their virgin", but barely know who Jesus is, or YHWH for that matter.

Thats not to say I think Protestants have it all right either. I admire the planned catechism as it ensures consistant doctrine church to church. You don't find rogue crazies in the RCC, Ortho, & Angl curches like you do in Protestant chuches.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 19th 2008, 08:13 PM
HisLeast

Oh, I know that some rever Mary more then others I have spent sometime with the monks at Gethsemani. They love the Blessed Virgin, but never have I seen them pray, worship, or show anything other then respect and love for her. I spent about a week with them going to all the prayer times and never once did they ever offer prayers to anyone but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Teke
Feb 19th 2008, 09:07 PM
This post is in response to the OP. I feel you brother when I left a SBC for the Anglican church I heard all about it. I don't know why so many protestants have a problem with what I would call the 'High-Churches' (note: this only denotes the way that we do liturgy nothing about them being better), ie RC, Anglican, Orthodox churches.

But if you ask me in my experience it seems that the evangelic churches are starting to drive their members away and they are seeking refuge in the High Churches. I about 8 or so friends that left the evangelic protestant churches that they were going to and went to the Orthodox church and a few friends that left for the RCC, I and a few others went to the Anglican church. Yet I have only known a few people that have left the RCC for an evangelic protestant church.

If there was no Anglican Church I would be Roman. There are only about three doctrines that I don't agree with the RCC on, they are minor points for me but major for the RCC so me not agreeing with them is a big deal.

But I still pray that one day all branchs of Christianity will be in full communion again, although I doubt (really know) that it will not be in my life time.

I am unsure of why some protestants are so angry with Catholics. I think it really comes from misunderstanding of how the church really works. Many will read or hear about the paractices and doctrines of the church but very few will actually go to a service and see what it is really like. It might also come from not understanding the liturgy. Again I don't know.

This Orthodox agrees with you. :)

The poster His Least, might be surprised to find out that the Orthodox make the statement "true church" as well. What is meant, is that it has not changed (core of truth) since the time of the Apostles.
The book called the bible was "canonized" to preserve this truth.

pnewton
Feb 19th 2008, 10:23 PM
Spend some time in a relgious hispanic community, or go to a few Churches in Mexico, and you're bound to see some HARD CORE Mary worship. I've talked to a couple co-workers about this... and these people can go on and on and on about "their virgin", but barely know who Jesus is, or YHWH for that matter.
You are right. It is a problem and a source of division, if not in fellowship, at least in thought. In my Church we have a large number of immigrants, some legal, some not I bet. Fighting superstition that has mixed with Christianity is a problem. It is even worse south of the border. I would be the first to admit that Catholics can engage in idolatry. Another problematic superstition is saying set prayers and to make something happen. Some Catholics engage in the sin of presumption on God. At least in this, we are not the only ones.

Joyfilled
Feb 20th 2008, 02:27 PM
Great points, Joyfilled! Let me make it plain to anyone in any doubt - I hate RC doctrine and dogma - it is a perversion of the gospel and an abomination to God. ALL Christians should hate what God hates and God hates those who pervert His gospel - there is reserved for them blackness of darkness forever.

Because I know that people believe what they are subjected to week after week, I struggle to understand (a) how anyone in the RC church can become a Christian (although I accept it does happen occasionally, DESPITE the church's teaching, not because of them); and (b) more importantly, I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why any true, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, God-honouring Christian could stay in such an institution. For the sake of the eternal well-being of their souls, I urge them to COME OUT!

For any on these threads tempted to think the RC church is actually Christian, I feel constrained by God to point out why it is not - in the same way (yet in fact WORSE!) that cults are not Christian churches.....

Amen! And anyone who tries to justify why we shouldn't believe: Matthew 23:9-10, Matthew 1:25, Deuteronomy 4:15, Exodus 20:4, Colossians 2;8, Galatians 4:9-11 and many more verses doesn't honor God. It takes deliberate effort to change those verses into their opposite like the Catholics do! So the catholic beliefs are not a matter of "interpretation" but of deliberately disagreeing with God's Word.

David Taylor
Feb 20th 2008, 02:48 PM
It takes deliberate effort to change those verses into their opposite like the Catholics do! So the catholic beliefs are not a matter of "interpretation" but of deliberately disagreeing with God's Word.

You're over-generalizing here Joy.

"It takes deliberate effort to change those verses into their opposite like "some" Catholics do! So "some" catholic beliefs are not a matter of "interpretation" but of deliberately disagreeing with God's Word." would help lesson the over-generalization.


Not all Catholics embrace and believe all doctrines that Protestantism disagrees with RCC on.

This is no different than the thread the other day, where someone was swinging the wide-brushstrokes over-generalizing all Baptists with a long laundry list of horrible things most Baptists would never believe, participate in, or endorse. Another example of "some" within a group being in serious error, but not "everyone" within that group holding to all those beliefs.


You will find that there is a higher number of Catholics visiting and posting in the WR subforum, that most any other subforum.

Because of this, we need to be more careful here to avoid over-generalization of the people; so we don't repel them without getting the opportunity to share when Protestantism differs on those points of disagreement.

Personally, I would rather see RCC members come and post in this forum, and be met with Protestants who want to share with them the scriptures in a non-confrontational and patient manner; with the hopes that through this type of exchange, they might come to agree with why Protestantism rejects many of the RCC teachings, and they inturn, realize they should do the same; because it is a more biblical and sound choice.

We can only do this, if we avoid over-generalizing all Catholics as the enemy who is "deliberately disagreeing with God's Word" .

As I have said before, we don't have to hit them over the head, with a holy-hammer, to get them to believe is; that simply will never work...it only repels them, and causes some to want to increase knee-jerk counter replies against Protestantism.

St_Michael
Feb 20th 2008, 03:08 PM
The example David is referring to is here:

The Baptist Thread -- Yep I'm Guilty (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=114117)

^^^
About the broad stroke thing....at times....

Teke
Feb 20th 2008, 04:35 PM
Currently, under canon law, the penalty of anathema no longer exists. Now, only the term excommunication is used. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

I thought they didn't "excommunicate" any longer. I may be confused about this, as it may only pertain to certain canons.

The subject came up for me with a friend who was RC (or I should say is RC but was excommunicated) that told me she was excommunicated over her marriage (I won't go into details). This was back in the 70's. Then later another RC told me that they no longer do excommunication, since the 70's.

Can you explain this better for me Pnewton? What happened?

pnewton
Feb 20th 2008, 05:57 PM
I
Can you explain this better for me Pnewton? What happened?I have no idea what happened in the specific situation you described but there is still the penalty on the books. In fact, having an abortion or participating materially in an abortion incurs automatic excommunication. In this one case, a priest can lift it, though, if the person repents.

Athanasius
Feb 21st 2008, 01:35 AM
I have no idea what happened in the specific situation you described but there is still the penalty on the books. In fact, having an abortion or participating materially in an abortion incurs automatic excommunication. In this one case, a priest can lift it, though, if the person repents.

Yeah, that whole excommunication thing.
It should be thrown out. . . Did I mention, I've been excommunicated ;)

Assuming, of course, that excommunication is still equated with damnation.

losthorizon
Feb 21st 2008, 02:13 AM
I thought they didn't "excommunicate" any longer. I may be confused about this, as it may only pertain to certain canons.

Excommunication is still practiced by the RCC and is usually reserved for those who "spread division and confusion among the faithful". It is still imposed either ferendae sententiae or latae sententiae, i.e., “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" (Canon 1398).

Joyfilled
Feb 21st 2008, 02:41 AM
Excommunication is still practiced by the RCC and is usually reserved for those who "spread division and confusion among the faithful". It is still imposed either ferendae sententiae or latae sententiae, i.e., “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" (Canon 1398).

So it appears that the Catholics don't believe in forgiveness which is the hallmark of Christianity. "By their fruits you will know them.";)

losthorizon
Feb 21st 2008, 02:48 AM
So it appears that the Catholics don't believe in forgiveness which is the hallmark of Christianity. "By their fruits you will know them.";)
Actually, Catholics do believe in repentance and confession of sins and they do believe God can and does forgive those sins confessed. :)

pnewton
Feb 21st 2008, 01:03 PM
So it appears that the Catholics don't believe in forgiveness which is the hallmark of Christianity. "By their fruits you will know them.";) Catholics actually use this part of the words of Christ.


Matther 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I wonder how many Churches our there have ever followed these instructions of Jesus. If this seems too formula or unmerciful, it did come from Jesus. The goal is never damnation, but rather repentence. Forgiveness is always one step away.

losthorizon
Feb 21st 2008, 10:49 PM
Catholics actually use this part of the words of Christ.

Does the Catholic priest have the power of absolution under the “Sacrament of Penance” to free man from sin or is God the only one who knows the hearts of man and is it only He who can free men from sin? Is the RCC concept of "absolution" by a priest a biblical concept?

Joyfilled
Feb 22nd 2008, 12:16 AM
Actually, Catholics do believe in repentance and confession of sins and they do believe God can and does forgive those sins confessed. :)

So why do they ex-communicate people who've had abortions if they've repented?:confused

losthorizon
Feb 22nd 2008, 12:29 AM
So why do they ex-communicate people who've had abortions if they've repented?:confused
The RCC does offer forgiveness to those who have repented of the sin of abortion.

pnewton
Feb 22nd 2008, 01:29 AM
Does the Catholic priest have the power of absolution under the “Sacrament of Penance” to free man from sin or is God the only one who knows the hearts of man and is it only He who can free men from sin? Is the RCC concept of "absolution" by a priest a biblical concept?
Obviously this is an area of difference in Catholics, but yes, God forgives sin and the absolution of the ordained priest is the normal way, but not the only way. This practice is based in the last verse in the scripture above.

losthorizon
Feb 22nd 2008, 05:25 AM
Obviously this is an area of difference in Catholics, but yes, God forgives sin and the absolution of the ordained priest is the normal way, but not the only way. This practice is based in the last verse in the scripture above.
What “scripture above” might that be? Do the scriptures tell us that all Christians are priests? Does any priesthood exist on earth today that is authorized by God to forbid any Christian (RCC or otherwise) to go directly to God through Christ for forgiveness of sins? Why would I or anyone else need to go through a Catholic "ordained priest" for absolution? Where is your authority?
Peter said, "You too are living stones, built as an edifice of spirit, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).

pnewton
Feb 22nd 2008, 01:25 PM
What “scripture above” might that be? Do the scriptures tell us that all Christians are priests? The scripture I mentioned was Matthew 18:18, which Jesus says to the apostles, specifically addressing the issue of sin and repentence thereof. I am not going to defend this interpretation or any other specifically Catholic doctrine. I believe this to be counter to the intention of this forum, although I do not mind clarifying any position. I also do not mind correcting the notion that all Catholic doctrines are made up out of thin air. You may not agree that Matthew 18:18 applies to the relationship between the Church and the sinner, but that is only disagreeing with the interpretation, not the existence of the scripture.

Joyfilled
Feb 22nd 2008, 01:44 PM
The RCC does offer forgiveness to those who have repented of the sin of abortion.

So then people are not excommunicated for certain sins, only unrepentant ones. Is that correct?

pnewton
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:07 PM
So then people are not excommunicated for certain sins, only unrepentant ones. Is that correct? I believe abortion is the only sin that incurs automatic excommunication. Realize that excommunication is a legal issue only, though. It is not that this sin is worse than murdering someone else. It is just that this is a current problem that is facing our culture today. The gradual acceptance of abortion as an alternative needs to be fought at every front with every weapon.

But not to avoid the issue, the Catholic Church does acknowledge some sins as more serious than others. All but one can be forgiven.

Joyfilled
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:09 PM
I believe abortion is the only sin that incurs automatic excommunication. Realize that excommunication is a legal issue only, though. It is not that this sin is worse than murdering someone else. It is just that this is a current problem that is facing our culture today. The gradual acceptance of abortion as an alternative needs to be fought at every front with every weapon.

But not to avoid the issue, the Catholic Church does acknowledge some sins as more serious than others. All but one can be forgiven.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that if a woman repents for having an abortion, then she is re-admitted into the catholic church. So which is it? :confused Jesus tells us that the only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. So I'll go with Jesus over the catholic church, as always.

Teke
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:11 PM
The scripture I mentioned was Matthew 18:18, which Jesus says to the apostles, specifically addressing the issue of sin and repentence thereof. I am not going to defend this interpretation or any other specifically Catholic doctrine. I believe this to be counter to the intention of this forum, although I do not mind clarifying any position. I also do not mind correcting the notion that all Catholic doctrines are made up out of thin air. You may not agree that Matthew 18:18 applies to the relationship between the Church and the sinner, but that is only disagreeing with the interpretation, not the existence of the scripture.

Probably should add that in the beginning they confessed before the whole congregation. Later when non believers were allowed to also attend Christian meetings, confession became a more private matter. As believers are not required to confess to non believers, but must give account to the Church.:)

Jam 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Joyfilled
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:15 PM
Probably should add that in the beginning they confessed before the whole congregation. Later when non believers were allowed to also attend Christian meetings, confession became a more private matter. As believers are not required to confess to non believers, but must give account to the Church.:)

Jam 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

James was talking about physical illnesses in that passage. He was not talking about coming to the cross for forgiveness. He encourages us to confess our sins to one another. But only God can forgive sins, people don't have the pwoer to take our sins away because people are not unblemished, nor did they die to pay for our sins.

Teke
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:32 PM
James was talking about physical illnesses in that passage. He was not talking about coming to the cross for forgiveness. He encourages us to confess our sins to one another. But only God can forgive sins, people don't have the pwoer to take our sins away because people are not unblemished, nor did they die to pay for our sins.

I agree only God forgives sin. But we must also consider the fact that the Church IS literally (albeit in an ontological manner) His Body and representative on earth. If you want to split that up in some way, that is up to you.
Personally I have always believed that the Church IS His Body. And Jesus said whatever you do to another you do to Him. So.....

pnewton
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:47 PM
Jesus tells us that the only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. So I'll go with Jesus over the catholic church, as always.:bounce:That's IT!!! Good show.

I didn't make myself clear on the one sin. I did not say abortion was the one sin. Of course abortion can be forgiven, like anything else. What I said was all sins can be fogiven except one. You got it! Only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can not be forgiven.

Teke
Feb 22nd 2008, 03:29 PM
I looked at the Wiki on "anathema" and found some interesting info. I was curious about the similarities between "excommunication" and "anathema". And I recall that this was also in relation to why Jesus was crucified (put to death) according to the law. Interesting paradox for anyone interested.:)

Here is the part on the Roman Catholic perspective.


Anathema in the Roman Catholic Church

After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication, known as major excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church.

While "minor excommunication" could be incurred by associating with an excommunicate, and "major excommunication" could be imposed by any bishop, "anathema" was imposed by the Pope in a specific ceremony described in the Pontificale Romanum. Wearing a purple cope (the liturgical color of penitence) and holding a lighted candle, he, surrounded by twelve priests, also with lighted candles, pronounced the anathema with a formula that concluded with the phrase: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." The priests responded: "Fiat, fiat, fiat" (Let it be done), and all, including the pontiff, cast their lighted candles on the ground. Notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church.[1]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, which abolished all ecclesiastical penalties not mentioned in the Code itself (canon 6), made "anathema" synonymous with "excommunication" (canon 2257). The ritual described above is not included in the post-Vatican II revision of the Pontifical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema


Would you say this is correct Pnewton?

____________________________

The law in reference to Jesus and His death is in Leviticus.

Lev 27:28 ¶ Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, [both] of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing [is] most holy unto the LORD.

Lev 27:29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; [but] shall surely be put to death.


That which is completely devoted to the Lord cannot be redeemed, it is "most holy", it can only be put to death.

Cause for deeper contemplation of the matter, wouldn't one say.....

I<3Jesus
Feb 22nd 2008, 05:33 PM
I have an extremely short attention span and cannot make it through this mammoth thread. I have experiences that are the opposite of the OP, I have been judged by several Catholics because I do not believe in their church doctrine. That being said, I try not to judge them, but there are things about the Catholic church that I do not agree with. I will be getting married in a joint ceremony in my FI's Catholic church in May. I have nothing against the church, but when I attend it I feel uneasy. I do not know if it is just a psychological reaction or if it is of God. Either way, I prefer the Wesleyan Church that we sometimes attend.

pnewton
Feb 22nd 2008, 06:42 PM
Would you say this is correct Pnewton?
Sounds okay to me, from a historical perspective. The whole thing sounds rather medival.:D

Teke
Feb 22nd 2008, 07:08 PM
The whole thing sounds rather medival.:D

Doesn't everything ancient.:lol:

But notice the ritual described above is not included in the post-Vatican II revision of the Pontifical. I think they should have kept it.

losthorizon
Feb 22nd 2008, 11:33 PM
The scripture I mentioned was Matthew 18:18, which Jesus says to the apostles, specifically addressing the issue of sin and repentence thereof. I am not going to defend this interpretation or any other specifically Catholic doctrine. I believe this to be counter to the intention of this forum, although I do not mind clarifying any position. I also do not mind correcting the notion that all Catholic doctrines are made up out of thin air. You may not agree that Matthew 18:18 applies to the relationship between the Church and the sinner, but that is only disagreeing with the interpretation, not the existence of the scripture.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:18)I see nothing even hinted at in this passage that requires a child of God to seek a Catholic "ordained priest" for absolution of sins. Are you sure "thin air" is not involved? ;)

losthorizon
Feb 22nd 2008, 11:43 PM
I believe abortion is the only sin that incurs automatic excommunication.

Actually there are “seven sins” which cause automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) under RCC cannon law – one of which is abortion..

pnewton
Feb 23rd 2008, 12:22 AM
Actually there are “seven sins” which cause automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) under RCC cannon law – one of which is abortion..Yes, some are rather strange, like sacrilege of the Holy Eucharist. I was unclear, or flat out wrong. I was thinking of those which can be absolved and normalized at the parish level. The others require the bishop to lift the excommunication.

pnewton
Feb 23rd 2008, 12:27 AM
Are you sure "thin air" is not involved? ;)Neither thin air, nor helium Like I have said many times here, I am not going to mount a defense of the reason, just state it. I believe that is more in line with this board's goals and in line with what I promised the Mutt a couple of years ago. It has worked well for me since I have not yet been banished to the outer rings of hell (or even warned).

Teke
Feb 23rd 2008, 01:38 AM
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:18)I see nothing even hinted at in this passage that requires a child of God to seek a Catholic "ordained priest" for absolution of sins. Are you sure "thin air" is not involved? ;)

A structured authority is involved. In this case the RC church.
Do you abide by the rules of your church?

losthorizon
Feb 23rd 2008, 02:25 AM
A structured authority is involved. In this case the RC church.
Do you abide by the rules of your church?
My church is the church of God which adheres to the “Law of Christ” and His law does not require an OC/RCC “ordained priest" to “absolve” me of my sins. Why? Because “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Do ALL Christians make up God’s “holy priesthood”? Do you subject yourself to a "structured authority" not authorized by the Eternal?

David Taylor
Feb 28th 2008, 06:51 PM
**WR Moderator Notice**

This thread has recently (along with a couple of others in this section), spiraled into being insulting one to another; and some post have had very hateful tone to one another board members; as well as people in general.

Those posts have been removed.

Be nice.

Hateful and insulting posts will continue to be removed, without notice or concern for the amount of time and effort that went into creating them.

If you can't post in a kind manner to one another, then your posts are worthless to begin with.

You don't have to agree; but you can disagree in a charitable and kind manner.

Teke
Feb 28th 2008, 09:47 PM
My church is the church of God which adheres to the “Law of Christ” and His law does not require an OC/RCC “ordained priest" to “absolve” me of my sins. Why? Because “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Do ALL Christians make up God’s “holy priesthood”? Do you subject yourself to a "structured authority" not authorized by the Eternal?

I did threads on the subjects of "authority" (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=49265&highlight=authority) in relation to the Church, and "biblical authority" (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=50653&highlight=authority).

My understanding of authority is related in those threads. :)