Popeless Catholics

[Depleted]

drop the internet searching
drop the customs and traditions
drop all the twisted fancy words
read the bible for how the early church operated
find a church that worships and operates as the first century church did
mission accomplished


There was only 1 church in the beginning. With mans wisdom, we now believe there to be many many churches (denominations). I'm sure there are many who go into buildings every week where people talk about God and pray and teach, but if they are not following the order that God instituted in the bible then they are not the church and will likely hear the words of Jesus in the end say:

Matthew 7:21-23English Standard Version (ESV)

[SUP]21 [/SUP]“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [SUP]22 [/SUP]On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [SUP]23 [/SUP]And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

All the early church teachings/doctrine aren't in the Bible. Or, they are, however, there would be a lot more hokey churches around, and history gives support that, by now, most of us would not believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man.

In the first few centuries most Christians had to go underground to survive. Roughly 200 years of doing that. In that time period, humans were no different than we were today, so lots of funky stuff got added as "gospel." Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Jesus, and quite a few other spam or "inspirational writings" came through.

Now the church was in hiding, and yet, it wasn't like they had one scroll with the whole Bible in it. Nothing like that at all. OT was pretty much set, although I'm sure some Jews were probably adding to that with more "prophecies of the coming Messiah," just like scammers do today. But those letters in what we call "The New Testament?" That really was just that -- letters circulating around, often reprinted by scribes hundreds of times to keep passing it while keeping a copy for the home group.

A miraculous thing happened during that time. Each small group did the same thing. They kept papers in two places -- one that looked like it was hidden well, and one where they were willing to die to protect them. They were hidden in hopes the soldiers would ransack the place (because they were trying to stop this new "silly" religion from taking over) and find the less important documents, and think that was that, burn the papers, gather the believers, and cart them off to kill them. BUT in doing that, they wouldn't search further, (at least, all the time, although I'm sure they did at times), so if any stragglers survived the culling, they would then take the most important papers with them and find a new place to hide. (If they could, they'd find another group of believers to move in with.)

AND, after 200 years of doing just that, when Constantine finally freed the Christians to be out in the open, they gathered together, brought ALL the papers left from those years, and sorted through them. That is part of the purpose of the Council of Nicea. To figure out what should and shouldn't be considered "sacred."

How did they figure out that? Every single group had the same group of "really important"/"sacred" writings. And they also had other writings. But the sacred ones? You know that as The New Testament. To a group, without ever knowing everyone was doing roughly the same thing, they picked the same ones! The only hard question they had was one letter/book. James! James is the sticky point. That was the borderline book. The one the group couldn't hit consensus over. They did choose to include it, but that stayed an argument for over a millennium. Even Calvin was against James being in the Bible. That tough of a fight for that long.

And what went out? Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus Christ. Why? Because in the fourth century scholarly men realized this was spam. They knew what the spam of their time looked like, and that was those letters.

Next, they tackled who was Jesus -- Man or God? Because by then the main theory wasn't both.

So, yeah, The Bible is the Bible. It is a miraculous collection of sacred writings truly inspired by God, but you would have absolutely no idea which were which if the church didn't continue to learn and grow.

Don't diss the early believers post-apostles. They're also the ones who gave us the knowledge of "trinity." That too was a long fault battle precisely because, just like we do today, most people make up their mind on who they want God to be, and then accept that god, instead of the real God.

Same reason there are many denominations. Whereas every time a denomination breaks away, there is both a group who wants to stick to the Biblical God and trust that God (the only God) AND a group who wants to change the Bible/God just a little to keep up with the times.

Would you stay in a church that would promote homosexuality is fine with God? Me either, and that caused a split in the Presbyterian Church yet again recently. Time after time there are groups of people who want to know and follow the true God. And time after time the scholars of those groups fight out the big issue problems to have just that.

THAT is how doctrine becomes to be. THAT is how we even have a Bible. THAT is how we fought against spam gospels. THAT is how we learned Jesus was both Man and God. THAT is how we learned the trinity.

The history matters, and it cannot truly be relegated to "just trust the Bible," because early on they were trusting the Bible and both sides had a different understanding of Jesus, the trinity, and which books were "The Bible."

(I worry people want to remake the bible every time they say "just trust in that book." Quite often that is what is meant. Not saying you're in that group, but you have to know the history to appreciate what we learned since the apostles died. It matters.)

 

[Depleted]

It ain't enough!

Doctrinal beliefs don't say it all.
I know fer sher.

Fran

No, but then again, how many books do you want to read for it to say it all? (Again. Reformed. We're big on massive dissertations, and we've got the set of encyclopedia-length books just to tell one thing. lol)

 

[Depleted]

To begin with every denomination sets out to brainwash and the younger they can get them, the better since they are malleable. And they are taught in that denomination that whatever is said there is the final authority on all Christian things. Therefore they get dug in.

(Massive pile of cow patties)

 

[Depleted]

You think the RCC will be the one world religion?

That's pretty funny.
Many catholics are very disturbed because the Catholic Church is becoming more protestant every day!

NOW, If you tell me the Pope might become the head of all Christianity, that's a different story.
Although, with the way men seek power,and are reluctant to relinquish it, I doubt that could happen too.

Fran

If the US became completely communist, I would not take up arms to fight it. If woman had to wear burkas, I would not pick up arms to fight it. (I wouldn't wear a burka, so I'd take the punishment, but I wouldn't pick up arms to fight it.) If I lost every freedom I have as an American, I wouldn't take up arms to fight it.

If the Pope became the head of the only church on earth? I'd learn how to become a sniper. T'ain't no way, no how!

 

[Laish]

Concern post 103
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Depleted again.
Blessings
Bill

 

[AllenW]

(Massive pile of cow patties)

You have insulted me and totally disrepected me for putting this in my thread.
I expect you to delete this post and give me a full apology immediately!

 

[FranC]

I disagree jerry2465..as long as there is man, there will be differences in any textual meanings especially the Bible.

Take Baptism for example.

Jesus tells us, to be Baptized in the Spirit (Grace)

Others like "Church of Christ" requires not only water immersion as a prelude to being saved, but that it can only be performed by a fellow member/church and if not performed, your going to HELL. Remind you of any other Church (maybe RCC)

The Baptist congregations believe in being saved by Grace. Water baptism here is a ceremonial event where it represents to the person, the gravity that they have accepted Jesus Christ and have asked for repentance of their sins. It is also used for the a confirmation of sorts for the congregation of that person's intentions toward Jesus Christ.

There are many other differences, but most of the denominations split themselves along these two lines.

******Now I say this; At what point does the differences result in heresy (RCC). Does the acceptance of Gay weddings, etc. change anything? What about abortions, What about Grace through Works vs Grace then works.

A lot of people read the Bible but really do not read it. They apply it to how it would fit in their lives. It is why we have so many denominations.

Hi Bladerunner,

I'm not Catholic, but I sure hate to read incorrect things about that church, or any church.

First of all, where does Jesus tell us to get baptized in the spirit? Do you have a verse I could refer to? I've never heard of this.
Aren't we supposed to be baptized in water?

The RCC does not believe that if you're not baptized you're going straight to hell, your words.

There are three types of baptism in the RCC:

Baptism of water.... self-explanatory
Baptism of blood.... anyone martyred that was not baptized
Baptism of desire... anyone who would have liked to be baptized and died prior to..

It is also not taught that infants not baptized go to straight to hell...your words.
God's love and mercy is trusted.

Please reply re baptism of "grace" as you said.
You might mean baptism of the Holy Spirit as compared to John's...?

Thanks.
Fran

 

[FranC]

I do agree with this 100%. When the authors of the bible wrote the words by the inspiration of the Holy spirit, they had one intended meaning in mind, therefore it is possible to get the correct meaning of the words and it is also possible to get an incorrect meaning of the words. People want the bible to agree with them instead of the people agreeing with the bible so they try to figure out a way to make it fit. I am not saying that I know all the answers either, but I do try to stick with the simple statements of scripture at face value. I'm not even going to address any of the specifics (such as baptism) because I don't feel like getting into a million page argument, and everything that I might say has already been said so its pointless to do so.

Hi Jerry,
Yeah. But some of us here are new! Like me.
Words are never wasted.

I do agree with you which is why I like to stick to mainline churches.
It takes a simple reading of the bible to come up with salvation and how to please God.
Then we go and twist and turn everything around to suit US.
Although I don't believe that we're saved by doctrine, but by Christ, I do believe that some
doctrine is Dangerous or some even silly.

Fran

 

[FranC]

Here are the 95 theses of Martin Luther.
They have nothing to do with the liturgy.
Anyone can verify this for themself

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5.The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.

17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.

18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.

19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words ``plenary remission of all penalties,'' does not actually mean ``all penalties,'' but only those imposed by himself.

21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.

24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.

26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.

31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.

36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.

38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.

40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55. It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.

57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

61. For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.

67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.

70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.

73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. (1 Co 12:28)

79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.

81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.

82. Such as: ``Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?'' The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83. Again, ``Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?''

84. Again, ``What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?''

85. Again, ``Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?''

86. Again, ``Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?''

87. Again, ``What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?''

88. Again, ``What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?''

89. ``Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?''

90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Peace, peace,'' and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Cross, cross,'' and there is no cross!

94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95.And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

Hi Magenta,
I'm not even a believer of Catholic doctrine, and no. 19 scares me!

Then we have hyper faith types who say you only need to believe in Jesus and you're saved, even if you do nothing - which should include some type of change in the person.

Then we have people who have to go to the Greek to prove that OSAS.

I think we're a wretched lot and if Jesus doesn't save us, we're pretty much doomed!!

Fran

 

[FranC]

Maybe the OP was a little vague and could use a bit more specificity on a more narrow scope.

I have to admit that I didn't really know what you really needed to learn.

Ummm. Willie, do you, like, think the O.P. has anything to learn? Really?

Is everything not Protestant, Catholic?
What do all the trappings mean?
What's the difference between all these "religions"?

Jesus said we are to be one.
1 Corinthians 10:17

What happened?
Who's right?

So many questions, so little time...

Fran

 

[jerry2465]

Hi Jerry,
Yeah. But some of us here are new! Like me.
Words are never wasted.

I do agree with you which is why I like to stick to mainline churches.
It takes a simple reading of the bible to come up with salvation and how to please God.
Then we go and twist and turn everything around to suit US.
Although I don't believe that we're saved by doctrine, but by Christ, I do believe that some
doctrine is Dangerous or some even silly.

Fran

just stick with the bible and the simple message. The message is simple so that all people regardless of intelligence can read and comprehend. It is also at the same time complex especially with how everything is so woven together from the old testament all the way through the new testament. But anything anyone says always check for yourself what the bible says. Do what the Bereans did.

[h=1]Acts 17:10-11English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [SUP]10 [/SUP]The brothers[SUP][a][/SUP] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

 

[jerry2465]

and

[h=1]Jeremiah 6:16English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]Thus says the Lord:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

 

[FranC]

Catholics and Protestants have some differences in their teachings.

imo the biggest is that Catholics believe that only the church can properly interpret the bible, while Protestants believe that an individual can do that.

Hi Dan,
The more I think about it, the more I feel that maybe the RCC is right!
At least they all teach the same thing...
Every Protestant Church I go to teaches something slightly different.
How could this be?
Are theologians not agreed on what the bible says?
It seems so easy to understand, and yet it's made out to be so difficult.

Maybe the CHURCH IS the only one who should be interpreting the bible.
Not us individually, which is SOLO SCRIPTURA --
not to be confused with SOLA Scriptura.

Fran

 

[AllenW]

Hi Dan,
The more I think about it, the more I feel that maybe the RCC is right!
At least they all teach the same thing...
Every Protestant Church I go to teaches something slightly different.
How could this be?
Are theologians not agreed on what the bible says?
It seems so easy to understand, and yet it's made out to be so difficult.

Maybe the CHURCH IS the only one who should be interpreting the bible.
Not us individually, which is SOLO SCRIPTURA --
not to be confused with SOLA Scriptura.

Fran

Now that's as confusing a statement as one can make.
Please clarify if possible.

 

[AllenW]

Hi Dan,
The more I think about it, the more I feel that maybe the RCC is right!
At least they all teach the same thing...
Every Protestant Church I go to teaches something slightly different.
How could this be?
Are theologians not agreed on what the bible says?
It seems so easy to understand, and yet it's made out to be so difficult.

Maybe the CHURCH IS the only one who should be interpreting the bible.
Not us individually, which is SOLO SCRIPTURA --
not to be confused with SOLA Scriptura.

Fran

I think I'm kind of a #19 type of guy,.....maybe......

 

[Dan_473]

No Jerry not you.
Here's a point.
Who so far has mentioned the Episcopal church?
I asked about it in the OP?
Does nobody know anything about it?
Or do those that know about it think their views on the RCC is more important to talk about?
If that's the case, you should start your own thread.
As episcopalians go, what can we say of them in comparison to the RCC.

This would be a legitimate post concerning the OP as far as I can see.

based on my time with the Episcopalians

meetings are organized around the liturgy. They use a book of common prayer, which includes the ancient creeds, and goes step-by-step through the service.

there is great latitude in how each person understands the words.

so, if you can agree with the words (nearly all Christians would), it's a great way to gather with other Christians and (theoretically) avoid doctrinal conflicts.

 

[AllenW]

based on my time with the Episcopalians

meetings are organized around the liturgy. They use a book of common prayer, which includes the ancient creeds, and goes step-by-step through the service.

there is great latitude in how each person understands the words.

so, if you can agree with the words (nearly all Christians would), it's a great way to gather with other Christians and (theoretically) avoid doctrinal conflicts.

Well thank you Dan. This helps in understanding other Christians.
What is the service like?
Modern Praise music or some sort of traditional music?
The Lord's supper every service or just occasionally?
How is it done?
A collection for money?
A sermon at the end?
An altar call?
Can you elaborate a little bit?

 

[Dan_473]

Hi Dan,
The more I think about it, the more I feel that maybe the RCC is right!
At least they all teach the same thing...
Every Protestant Church I go to teaches something slightly different.
How could this be?
Are theologians not agreed on what the bible says?
It seems so easy to understand, and yet it's made out to be so difficult.

Maybe the CHURCH IS the only one who should be interpreting the bible.
Not us individually, which is SOLO SCRIPTURA --
not to be confused with SOLA Scriptura.

Fran

as I understand it, both Eastern Orthodox and RCC say that the bible is supposed to be read by the church as a whole.

JOHN 16:13 When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide

you (each individual? or as a group? I don't know)

into the full truth.

 

[FranC]

Can you elaborate some on that? I can easily see that individual congregations would be different within any given denomination, but does that change the basics?

What I mean Willie, is that you can't really learn about a Church just from going online and reading about their doctrinal beliefs.

Basically all Christian churches have the same fundamental beliefs. They believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, in baptism - all the important stuff.

But they don't tell you what it all means. I went to a Nazarene Church for 10 years and really liked it. I came to find out, years later, that the Nazarene Church believes that the sin nature is erradicated upon salvation. Too bad the pastor never said this. He did talk a lot about how we're to be disciples of Jesus.

Unless you really study a Church, which is what I do now, you don't really know about it.
You think Catholics that go to Church on Sunday have any idea what the Catholic Church teaches? NO!

A friend of mine goes to a weird little Church a town up. It sounds so nice. I told her to bring me the little BOOK that explains their doctrine. They believe one could be saved AFTER Death! She didn't even know this.

This is what I mean.

Fran

 

[Timeline]

I grew up a Roman Catholic.
It was many years later before I ever entered churches other than Baptist.
Besides, the eastern Orthodox, who claim they are catholics, we have what was called mainstream protestants from Europe.
Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians.
I've been in each of these churches and they seem so much like a Roman Catholic church.
The old churches, the bells, the candles, and other rituals, I wonder, are they still catholics?
Are they simply popeless catholics?
I've heard people say, "no, they've changed".
Have those people ever been in a Roman catholic church to be qualified to say they've changed?
Are they all ecumenical churches?
How does all this play out in the end times?
Who has the answers?
Who are the experts here?
I'd like to know.

I will say up front that I have not read read anything but the opening post.

I believe that there are many things that have carried over from the Catholic Church. Most people don't even know that those things come from Catholic Doctrines.

Having said that, I don't think that a person could say that these Churches (the ones that I have attended) are that close to the Catholic Church. And yes, I did attend a Catholic Church for several months, about 20 years ago, while dating a young lady that was Catholic.