misunderstandings between Catholics and Christians

[epostle]

Hey Budman, this one's for you!

​

​

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

31. Evangelicalism's "techniques" of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree.

32. The gospel preached by many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors is a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely "fire insurance" rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles.
33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and "sacred space" are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than "meeting halls" or "gymnasiums" or "barn"-type structures. Most Protestants' homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants are often "addicted to mediocrity" in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

36. Protestantism has largely neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can't be so lightly dismissed.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.
38. Catholicism upholds the "incarnational principle," wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many Pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

42. Protestantism has removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly. This is against the Tradition of the early Church.

43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-28; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).

44. Protestantism has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:25-33).

45. Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; Acts 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

46. Catholicism retains the Pauline notion of the spiritual practicality of a celibate clergy (e.g., Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 7:27, 1 Cor 7:32-33).

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

48. Many Protestants have denied infant baptism, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; Col 2:11-12). Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

49. The great majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

50. Protestants have rejected the sacrament of anointing of the sick (Extreme Unction / "Last Rites"), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 6:13; 1 Cor 12:9, 1 Cor 12:30; Jas 5:14-15).

51. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; Mat 19:6, Mat 19:9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14; 1 Cor 7:39).

52. Protestantism doesn't believe procreation to be the primary purpose and benefit of marriage (it isn't part of the vows, as in Catholic matrimony), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 1:28; Gen 28:3, Ps 107:38; Ps 127:3-5).

53. Protestantism sanctions contraception, in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; Gen 41:52; Ex 23:25-26; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-25). Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition against the "anti-child" mentality.

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 2:34; Lk 1:15; Lk 1:41; Rom 13:9-10).

55. Protestantism (largely liberal denominations) allow women pastors (and even bishops, as in Anglicanism), contrary to Christian Tradition (inc. traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Tim 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

56. Protestantism is, more and more, formally and officially compromising with currently fashionable radical feminism, which denies the roles of men and women, as taught in the Bible (Gen 2:18-23; 1 Cor 11:3-10) and maintained by Christian Tradition (differentiation of roles, but not of equality).

57. Protestantism is also currently denying, with increasing frequency, the headship of the husband in marriage, which is based upon the headship of the Father over the Son (while equal in essence) in the Trinity, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-2). This too, is based on a relationship of equality (1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21).

58. Liberal Protestantism (most notably Anglicanism) has even ordained practicing homosexuals as pastors and blessed their "marriages," or taught that homosexuality is merely an involuntary, "alternate" lifestyle, contrary to formerly universal Christian Tradition, as the Bible clearly teaches (Gen 19:4-25; Rom 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Catholicism stands firm on traditional morality.

59. Liberal Protestantism, and evangelicalism increasingly, have accepted "higher critical" methods of biblical interpretation which lead to the destruction of the traditional Christian reverence for the Bible, and demote it to the status of largely a human, fallible document, to the detriment of its divine, infallible essence.

60. Many liberal Protestants have thrown out many cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, Original Sin, hell, the existence of the devil, miracles, etc.

source on previous post

 

[PoetMary]

We are all priests. Thete are mo priests as the Catholic religion has. That is a made-up position...not of God. Jesus has appointed us as priests to do the works of Christ.

Here is the etymology of the word PRIEST:

Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros (see Presbyterian).

So, there's this word PRESBYTEROS that's used in the New Testament. It is translated as "elders." as this word moved from Greek through various languages, it eventually arrived as PRIEST in English. So, when you talk about a man being a PRIEST, you're talking about a man who is as PRESBYTER (an elder).

So, all the places in the NT where the word PRESYTER or PRESBYTEROS is used (elder or elders), you could also substitute the word PRIEST. The word PRIEST means PRESBYTER.

What was the ROLE of the PRESBYTEROS then? Well, according to Strong's Concordance, it did not differ at all from the EPISCOPOS (bishops or overseers). Strong's says that EPISCOPOS denotes the function, while PRESBYTEROS the dignity.

Thus, a man who had spiritual authority over other Christians would be referred to as part of the EPISCOPOS or maybe referred to as part of the PRESBYTEROS. (Note: I've cut and pasted the information from Strong's at the bottom of the page). In other words, an elder would do those things we expect a spiritual leader to do: counsel, preach, teach, exhort, minister, evangelize, annoint and pray over, etc. Today, we use various terms for this role: pastor, reverend, minister, bishop, AND priest.

But WAIT, you say, the bible CLEARLY talk about the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS.

Yeah...and the word it uses there is NOT "presbyteros." Remember, we get the word PRIEST in English from presbyteros.

The word used for the priesthood of all believers is the word HIEREUS, which means "sacred one." This comes from the Hebrew concept of a HIGH PRIEST. It is not the same as the New Testament concept of a PRESBYTOR (priest/elder). There is no office created in the early church for a HIEREUS. Jesus is the HIGH PRIEST, and the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS means that all Christians (by virtue of the work life, death, and resurrection of Christ) are "sacred ones" who can freely approach the throne of God. Probably the ultimate symbol of this was the rending of the temple curtain when Christ was crucified. So, when people talk about how we can "freely approach the throne of God," they're talking about how all believers are now like the Old Testament high priest. Because of Christ's sacrifice, we can enter the Holy of Holies.

Thus, we have two DIFFERENT concepts: PRESBYTEROS and HIEREUS, or priest/elders and sacred ones.

SO, what does this all mean to the RCC?

Well, according to actual Roman Catholic doctrine (readily available for anyone to research from reliable sources), Roman Catholics completely believe in the priesthood of all believers. In fact, the Second Vatican Council specifically addresses this issue.

The priesthood of all believers (baptized Christians) is called the "common priesthood." As part of the "common priesthood" we are obligated to preserve and propagate the Gospel. In other words, Catholics are expected to uphold the truth of the Gospel (by living a Christian life--prayer, scripture, helping the needy, loving our neighbor, etc.) and to spread the Gospel.

Catholic clergy are called the "ministerial priesthood." As part of the body of Christ they must also uphold and propagate the Gospel; however, they also have spiritual authority and are responsible for providing ministry to believers. Thus, all the things you would expect a PASTOR or ELDER to do--pray over the sick, counsel people, preach, teach, administer, etc., are the duties of the clergy.

SO WHY DO SO MANY NON-CATHOLICS HAVE TROUBLE WITH CATHOLIC PRIESTS:

I don't think it has anything to do with the word "priest." Trouble with the word "priest" is either ignorance or a smoke screen. Clearly, many non-Catholics don't realize the origin of the word, nor do they understand that two different Greek words were used to denote two different concepts.

What non-Catholics object to is actually the concept of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. But they don't call it that because they have no idea what apostolic succession is. Again, a little research from reliable sources can totally explain this concept. It would be useful for non-Catholics to understand this concept because then they could express their disagreement using more precise and accurate terms.

**********
Here is the reference from Strong's
[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

b. among Christians, those who presided over the assemblies(or churches): Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23; Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22; Acts 16:4; Acts 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1, 5; with τῆς ἐκκλησίας added, Acts 20:17;James 5:14. That they did not differ at all from the (ἐπίσκοποι) bishops or overseers (as is acknowledged also by Jerome on Titus 1:5 (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, pp. 98f, 229f)) is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately,Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7, and that the duty of presbyters is described by the terms ἐπισκοπεῖν, 1 Peter 5:1f, andἐπισκοπή, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 44, 1 [ET]; accordingly only two ecclesiastical officers, οἱ ἐπίσκοποι and οἱ διάκονοι, are distinguished in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 8. The titleἐπίσκοπος denotes the function, πρεσβύτερος the dignity; the former was borrowed from Greek institutions, the latter from the Jewish; cf. (Lightfoot, as above, pp. 95ff, 191ff); Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche, edition 2, p. 350ff; Hase, Protest. Polemik, edition 4, p. 98ff; (Hatch, Bampton Lects. for 1880, Lect. 3 and Harnack's Analecten appended to the German translation of the same (p. 229ff); also Harnack's note on Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 1, 3 [ET] (cf. references at 44 at the beginning), and Hatch inDict. of Christ. Antiq., under the word .

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[valiant]

Here is the etymology of the word PRIEST:

Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros (see Presbyterian).

Then lets forget the misleading word priest and call them all elders. We have no problems with that../

The difficulty as far as you RCs are concerned is that you slide from the legitimate use to the illegitimate. Its when you actually use the term as a 'iereus that we disagree with you violently.

So, there's this word PRESBYTEROS that's used in the New Testament. It is translated as "elders." as this word moved from Greek through various languages, it eventually arrived as PRIEST in English. So, when you talk about a man being a PRIEST, you're talking about a man who is as PRESBYTER (an elder).

If we were we would have no quarrel. But we are NOT.

So, all the places in the NT where the word PRESYTER or PRESBYTEROS is used (elder or elders), you could also substitute the word PRIEST. The word PRIEST means PRESBYTER.

Then why not use presbyter? Because RCs slide into seeing priests as iereus.

What was the ROLE of the PRESBYTEROS then? Well, according to Strong's Concordance, it did not differ at all from the EPISCOPOS (bishops or overseers). Strong's says that EPISCOPOS denotes the function, while PRESBYTEROS the dignity

.

But episkopos in the nt is one of a number of church overseers in individual churches, far from the false teaching of the Roman Catholic church. You are already sliding into error.

Thus, a man who had spiritual authority over other Christians would be referred to as part of the EPISCOPOS or maybe referred to as part of the PRESBYTEROS. (Note: I've cut and pasted the information from Strong's at the bottom of the page).

But a man who was Scriptural would NOT be a modern bishop. They form an unacceptable hierarchy.

In other words, an elder would do those things we expect a spiritual leader to do: counsel, preach, teach, exhort, minister, evangelize, annoint and pray over, etc. Today, we use various terms for this role: pastor, reverend, minister, bishop, AND priest.

LOL tell that to a roman catholic bishop, that he is just on a level with a Pastor.

You are sliding into error straightway, This is simply sophistry

 

[valiant]

Here is the etymology of the word PRIEST:

Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros (see Presbyterian).

So, there's this word PRESBYTEROS that's used in the New Testament. It is translated as "elders." as this word moved from Greek through various languages, it eventually arrived as PRIEST in English. So, when you talk about a man being a PRIEST, you're talking about a man who is as PRESBYTER (an elder).

So, all the places in the NT where the word PRESYTER or PRESBYTEROS is used (elder or elders), you could also substitute the word PRIEST. The word PRIEST means PRESBYTER.

What was the ROLE of the PRESBYTEROS then? Well, according to Strong's Concordance, it did not differ at all from the EPISCOPOS (bishops or overseers). Strong's says that EPISCOPOS denotes the function, while PRESBYTEROS the dignity.

Thus, a man who had spiritual authority over other Christians would be referred to as part of the EPISCOPOS or maybe referred to as part of the PRESBYTEROS. (Note: I've cut and pasted the information from Strong's at the bottom of the page). In other words, an elder would do those things we expect a spiritual leader to do: counsel, preach, teach, exhort, minister, evangelize, annoint and pray over, etc. Today, we use various terms for this role: pastor, reverend, minister, bishop, AND priest.

But WAIT, you say, the bible CLEARLY talk about the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS.

Yeah...and the word it uses there is NOT "presbyteros." Remember, we get the word PRIEST in English from presbyteros.

The word used for the priesthood of all believers is the word HIEREUS, which means "sacred one." This comes from the Hebrew concept of a HIGH PRIEST. It is not the same as the New Testament concept of a PRESBYTOR (priest/elder). There is no office created in the early church for a HIEREUS. Jesus is the HIGH PRIEST, and the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS means that all Christians (by virtue of the work life, death, and resurrection of Christ) are "sacred ones" who can freely approach the throne of God. Probably the ultimate symbol of this was the rending of the temple curtain when Christ was crucified. So, when people talk about how we can "freely approach the throne of God," they're talking about how all believers are now like the Old Testament high priest. Because of Christ's sacrifice, we can enter the Holy of Holies.

Thus, we have two DIFFERENT concepts: PRESBYTEROS and HIEREUS, or priest/elders and sacred ones.

SO, what does this all mean to the RCC?

Well, according to actual Roman Catholic doctrine (readily available for anyone to research from reliable sources), Roman Catholics completely believe in the priesthood of all believers. In fact, the Second Vatican Council specifically addresses this issue.

The priesthood of all believers (baptized Christians) is called the "common priesthood." As part of the "common priesthood" we are obligated to preserve and propagate the Gospel. In other words, Catholics are expected to uphold the truth of the Gospel (by living a Christian life--prayer, scripture, helping the needy, loving our neighbor, etc.) and to spread the Gospel.

Catholic clergy are called the "ministerial priesthood." As part of the body of Christ they must also uphold and propagate the Gospel; however, they also have spiritual authority and are responsible for providing ministry to believers. Thus, all the things you would expect a PASTOR or ELDER to do--pray over the sick, counsel people, preach, teach, administer, etc., are the duties of the clergy.

SO WHY DO SO MANY NON-CATHOLICS HAVE TROUBLE WITH CATHOLIC PRIESTS:

I don't think it has anything to do with the word "priest." Trouble with the word "priest" is either ignorance or a smoke screen. Clearly, many non-Catholics don't realize the origin of the word, nor do they understand that two different Greek words were used to denote two different concepts.

What non-Catholics object to is actually the concept of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. But they don't call it that because they have no idea what apostolic succession is. Again, a little research from reliable sources can totally explain this concept. It would be useful for non-Catholics to understand this concept because then they could express their disagreement using more precise and accurate terms.

**********
Here is the reference from Strong's
[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

b. among Christians, those who presided over the assemblies(or churches): Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23; Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22; Acts 16:4; Acts 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1, 5; with τῆς ἐκκλησίας added, Acts 20:17;James 5:14. That they did not differ at all from the (ἐπίσκοποι) bishops or overseers (as is acknowledged also by Jerome on Titus 1:5 (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, pp. 98f, 229f)) is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately,Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7, and that the duty of presbyters is described by the terms ἐπισκοπεῖν, 1 Peter 5:1f, andἐπισκοπή, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 44, 1 [ET]; accordingly only two ecclesiastical officers, οἱ ἐπίσκοποι and οἱ διάκονοι, are distinguished in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 8. The titleἐπίσκοπος denotes the function, πρεσβύτερος the dignity; the former was borrowed from Greek institutions, the latter from the Jewish; cf. (Lightfoot, as above, pp. 95ff, 191ff); Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche, edition 2, p. 350ff; Hase, Protest. Polemik, edition 4, p. 98ff; (Hatch, Bampton Lects. for 1880, Lect. 3 and Harnack's Analecten appended to the German translation of the same (p. 229ff); also Harnack's note on Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 1, 3 [ET] (cf. references at 44 at the beginning), and Hatch inDict. of Christ. Antiq., under the word .

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

we object to both priests and apostolic succession of the Roman Catholic variety. both are gravely in error so stop trying to teach otherwise. you are engaging in sophistry,

 

[Loco]

Whatever theoretical distinctions the RC makes, in practice it is idolatry to kneel before any statue of a creature in reverence.

However, to worship Jesus Christ is not idolatry, and that all who agree to Nicea would I think agree. While in one sense Jesus Christ became a creature, in another sense He is not a creature but the Eternal Creator.

I believe God looks on the heart. There is one intercessor between man and God, Jesus Christ. Also dead people ought be allowed to rest in peace; see how Samuel felt about being disturbed by Saul.

I have not devoted time to a coherent understanding of why we living saints are allowed to pray for one another. If a Protestant here can point me in a direction as to why with only Christ being intercessor we can turn to one another for prayer I would be grateful.

 

[Loco]

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

Acts 8:18 is about Simon Magus trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit with money. The Protestant reformation was sparked by the sale of indulgences, a practice that continues in the RC today, and which this passage condemns.
Hebrews 6, laying on of hands is something done at Protestant churches to this day for the sick and in many, such as my own, the elders lay hands and pray over all new members in front of the congregation.

You know neither Scripture, nor reality.

As to the rest of the list, I picked one at random and BOTH Scripture references were way off.

I will agree with you on one thing: liberal Protestants I will not even call Christian at all. I salute the RC which I still think is a Christian Church, for resisting the liberals however.... let us see this new "pope" and what happens.

 

[Euphemia]

Whatever theoretical distinctions the RC makes, in practice it is idolatry to kneel before any statue of a creature in reverence.

However, to worship Jesus Christ is not idolatry, and that all who agree to Nicea would I think agree. While in one sense Jesus Christ became a creature, in another sense He is not a creature but the Eternal Creator.

I believe God looks on the heart. There is one intercessor between man and God, Jesus Christ. Also dead people ought be allowed to rest in peace; see how Samuel felt about being disturbed by Saul.

I have not devoted time to a coherent understanding of why we living saints are allowed to pray for one another. If a Protestant here can point me in a direction as to why with only Christ being intercessor we can turn to one another for prayer I would be grateful.

God wants us to uphold each other in prayer and to intercede for each other because we arr all jpined together as ONE NODY OF CHRIST. We work together and need each other. That is the purpose of the Church...to be a cohesive Body of Christ in the world.

 

[Angela53510]

Well, this is going to take a few posts to get all my responses done. Just to let you know that is what I am doing!

It's been a long time since I have seen so much copy and paste on a thread. But then, Catholics can only parrot what their catechism states, and any book that has been cleared by the Magisterium or whatever it is called.

Just looking briefly at these "points" and the Bible verses used to support them, really begs the question -

Have you ever actually read the Bible???

I will address each point in red, under the point. There are a few I agree with, but most are just fairy tales, nothing to do with the Bible. I guess I am so individualistic, that I am not going to copy and paste the answers, but actually post what I know, and how the verses posted in NO WAY support the points.

PS What a way to waste a perfectly good Saturday afternoon! I wouldn't mind if someone read it, but obviously, no one will!

​

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

I think this is one of the essential problems with the RCC. Christianity has always been characterized by a deep, abiding relationship with God. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us. We learn from the Bible, from others and from the Holy Spirit.

As for being undereducated theologically, unteachable etc, etc, I have an MDiv. That is 3 long years studying the Bible, theology and the original languages, so we can better understand what God is saying not just to the individual but to the congregation. I only make "infallible" statements if God tells me to! This whole point is just total ignorance of the Bible, God and the people who follow Christ.

31. Evangelicalism's "techniques" of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree.

I have to agree that a lot of times, this is the truth.

32. The gospel preached by many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors is a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely "fire insurance" rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles.

Yep! I agree on this one, too! I hate a gospel that leaves people with a "get out of hell" free card, in their back pocket, and doesn't make repentance and walking with God an essential part of the message.

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

Bonhoeffer was a Protestant! When the Catholic and Lutheran churches succumbed to Hilter, Bonhoeffer left the Lutheran church and formed the "Confessing Church" which did not capitulate to Hitler, and he died a martyr for this. I have about 10 books by Bonhoeffer and about him. (Amazing that a Protestant has studied church history, don't you think?)

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

I submit to God in all things. Jesus is the only authority, as per Matt 28:18
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt. 28:18

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and "sacred space" are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than "meeting halls" or "gymnasiums" or "barn"-type structures. Most Protestants' homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants are often "addicted to mediocrity" in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

It is too bad that Catholics think they have to have all these "outer" trappings to find God. God is found in his temple, which in the New Testament, happens to be us. (Call it the church, or whatever you want.) Notice how Paul talks about us - not a building with expensive fixtures.

"19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." 1 Cor. 6:1-20


Before I was saved, I used to attend RCC churches, just for the outside sense of God. He was not in me, so I guess I thought I might find him in stained glass windows and candles. When I was actually saved, I did not need that "sense" of the trappings of a church that was about what happened on the outside, not in the heart. I knew that the Bible I had been reading did not support this outer nonsense, but encouraged a deep relationship with Jesus Christ.

36. Protestantism has largely neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can't be so lightly dismissed.

The liturgy of the early church was to meet in homes, down by the river and sing songs. The also met in the synagogues, to discuss the Sciptures and try and win Jews to Christ. Nothing about a fancy building. I think that buildings started in the 3rd century and the liturgy much, much later.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.

All the Protestants I know who have studied the Bible know that Jesus was both man and God. And they condemn those heresies, just like the early church councils did, you know, the ones before the RCC was in place!

38. Catholicism upholds the "incarnational principle," wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

Righty! Where on earth did you dig up these lies?? I don't know any Protestants who do not believe in the incarnation of Jesus, and that he was literally born a man, died and was resurrected in his body to earth, and then ascended in the glorified body.

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many Pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

Show me the scriptures in the New Testament that talk about "sacramentalism". It is obviously a corruption of the word οἱ ἅγιοι, hagios, in the Greek, which means "holy" as an adjective, and "saints" as a plural noun. No such word or evidence of any kinds of sacraments in the Bible.

40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

I gave up drinking because I was an alcoholic, and God told me too. I don't like legalism either. But if the Protestant church is going to be charged with legalisms, the RCC with its rites and rituals, and not knowing if you are saved till after you die, and people have BOUGHT masses to get you out of purgatory, is the worst kind of legalism!

 

[Angela53510]

45. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

Don't have a clue who you are talking about. Maybe you are referring to a Catholic friend I had, who tried to sleep with two different men every weekend, then go to confession and mass and pretend she was living for God. RCC's are the most carnal people I have ever met. Let the church save you, so you don't actually have to walk with the Holy Spirit and obey him.

42. Protestantism has removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly. This is against the Tradition of the early Church.

The serving of the elements is symbolic, for many reasons. The best of which is the obvious - Christ was in his own body, when he instructed the disciples to use the elements of wine and bread as a metaphor for his sacrifice on Calvary. That means we remember what Christ did for us!

As far as totally dwelling on the cross, it kind of misses the most important point of the sacrifice of Christ, which is his resurrection. I tend to dwell on Christ being alive, not hanging dead on a crucifix. Christ is not dead, he is alive.

"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." Rev. 1:18

43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-28; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).

For example:

"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Matt 26:26-28

As I said above, unless Jesus was literally tearing pieces off of his flesh, and draining his body of blood, this scripture supports symbolism, not any silly imagined transformation which the supposed
"holy" priest makes. Jesus is alive - he is in heaven. He is not actually in the bread and the wine, he is telling them to remember his sacrifice on the cross, which they did not understand until Jesus died.

44. Protestantism has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:25-33).

I know my church, in fact every church I have attended has been serious about the meaning of marriage. But again, not buying into this "sacrament" nonsense.

http://www.gotquestions.org/seven-Catholic-sacraments.html

45. Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; Acts 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

Actually, Jesus is the one who abolished the Old Testament concept of having a "high priest" or The need for a priesthood. When Jesus became our "high priest" in Hebrews, he also changed from the Old Covenant, whch needed priests because God was in temple, not in our hearts.

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 6:14-16

I would suggest you read the whole books of Hebrews where will you learn about Jesus, and what he meant to the Hebrews, or the Jews. He fulfilled the role of the priest, which is why we don't need priests any more. instead, we can go boldly before the throne of grace ourselves, and not have to depend upon intermediaries, which is why the RCC is so mixed up. (See above Hebrews 4:16)


46. Catholicism retains the Pauline notion of the spiritual practicality of a celibate clergy (e.g., Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 7:27, 1 Cor 7:32-33).

Woe! Just so wrong. Peter had a mother in law.
"Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s home. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her." Luke 4:38.

Paul never said the clergy had to be celibate, in fact, what he said, was if people could be celibate, it would be better for them.
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Cor. 7:1-9

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

Not finding the word "confirmation" in those Scriptures, just the fact that the new disciples were taught the basics of Christiantiy. Of course, people need to be taught, especially new Christians.

"2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit," Hebrews 6:2-4

 

[Angela53510]

Many Protestants have denied infant baptism, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; Col 2:11-12). Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

Just offhand, Acts 16:15 doesn't mean that the jailer had a baby baptized. We have no idea who his "household" was. The rest of these verses are about children coming to faith, if we teach them and show them God in our lives. All the Acts Scriptures are about what happened at the birth of the church, not the rules governing baptism.

Acts 2:38 has to be taken in context of Acts 2:38.
"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

This very clearly says that you have to repent and then you will be baptized. A baby or child does not have the capacity to repent!! So the promise to your "children" in Acts 2:39 does not mean "infant baptism," but rather to their offspring, who will grow up with the promise that they, too, can know Christ, repent and be baptized.

49. The great majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

Oh, so sad they way this copy and paste twists Scripture, over and over. Let's look at Romans 4.

"By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:2-4

In context, first is the word "baptism" which comes from the word, baptize or βαπτίζω in the Greek and means "baptize, dip immerse." The early church tradition of full immersion came out of the Jewish "mikvah" which was a ritual cleansing ceremony. Most wealthy Jews had a Mikvah pool in their homes, so they could avoid ritual uncleanliness which would keep them from being at the temple. The early Jewish Christians, starting with John the Baptist, used this ceremony as the sign that the person believed in Christ and was baptized. Scripture is clear we believe first, and then we are baptized as a symbol of our identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not something again, that an infant or young child can understand.

At least the Eastern Orthodox Church insists of full immersion in its baptism ritual. I was baptized Orthodox when I was 19. I did it for my grandmother, but it did not save me. Believing in Jesus did save me!

50. Protestants have rejected the sacrament of anointing of the sick (Extreme Unction / "Last Rites"), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 6:13; 1 Cor 12:9, 1 Cor 12:30; Jas 5:14-15).

Not a sacrament, but again, wrong information about Protestant Churches. I have been in churches from Pentecostal to Baptist and they all use anointing with oil, and pray for the sick, as per James 5:14-16. I would advice you to screen this stuff, because it, and maybe you, know nothing about the practises of Protestant churches.

51. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; Mat 19:6, Mat 19:9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14; 1 Cor 7:39).

My same RCC friend above, who claimed to be a Christian, but was horribly immoral, was married to an alcoholic, abusive man. They had 5 children together. When she talked to her priest about divorce, they said it was not possible. However, they did say she could get an annulment. After all those years of marriage and 5 children! Talk about loopholes in the "indissolublity " of marriage.

52. Protestantism doesn't believe procreation to be the primary purpose and benefit of marriage (it isn't part of the vows, as in Catholic matrimony), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 1:28; Gen 28:3, Ps 107:38; Ps 127:3-5).

Well, I could care less about "tradition" but leaning on Genesis and Psalms, with NO New Testament verses tells me something wrong there. Of course, there is the simple fact that there was no birth control available in those days, but we have it today. Oops, that is the next wrong point! I think the purpose of marriage is ultimately to glorify God since he tells us he made us for his glory.

"everyone who is called by my name
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.” Is a. 43:7

Marriage is a covenant union of a man and a woman for the purpose of committing to each other in companionship, provision of good and shelter, sexual privileges, children and protection.


53. Protestantism sanctions contraception, in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; Gen 41:52; Ex 23:25-26; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-25). Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition against the "anti-child" mentality.

This is kind of funny! I don't know of any BIG catholic families these days. Except maybe the Irish. I do know of several huge families, and have it on good authority that contraception was not used. That includes my MIL's Baptist family of 10. To say nothing of the Duggars! LOL

We won't even get into all the child abuse going on in parishes everywhere, including moving the priest instead of reporting him to the police. That is as "anti-child" as you can get! My husband grew up in a small town in BC. Everyone knew the priest was abusing the altar boys, but no one in the church did anything about it, and the complaints just got him sent up north in BC, where he continued to abuse until a group of men in that town got together almost 25 years later, and reported him to the police. I once googled all the places in Canada where the priest was proven to abuse the boys sexually, and the list was HUGE! That includes the horrors of the Mt. Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland.

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/wells-government-mount-cashel-timeline.php

http://youtu.be/nr6aJd4Kz_4

Really, child abuse is the biggest reason that the entire hierarchical RCC should be torn down. I'm not saying that there are not offenders in leadership in Protestant Churches, I know a woman from an extremely fundamentalist Protestant Churh who was sexually abused, but it was not hidden by a higher up leadership, because there was no higher up leadership. The entire RCC is a hiding place for pedophiles, under the guise of being holy and special, while the altar boys and orphans get sexually and physically abused.

Cased closed on this point!

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 2:34; Lk 1:15; Lk 1:41; Rom 13:9-10).

I do not know a single professing conservative Protestant who is in favour of abortion. It is murder, and that is all there is to it. I will acknowledge that individuals in the Catholic Church are more dedicated to stomping out abortion. I commend them on that!

55. Protestantism (largely liberal denominations) allow women pastors (and even bishops, as in Anglicanism), contrary to Christian Tradition (inc. traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Tim 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

I'm a woman pastor, in a fairly conservative Baptist church. I've written reams and reams on the poor exegetics of the war against women pastors, feel free to google those links in the CC search function, above.

56. Protestantism is, more and more, formally and officially compromising with currently fashionable radical feminism, which denies the roles of men and women, as taught in the Bible (Gen 2:18-23; 1 Cor 11:3-10) and maintained by Christian Tradition (differentiation of roles, but not of equality).

Have you ever been to any of the other forums on CC? There are very few people who do not believe in some kind of division of labour in marriage. Since the word "role" is not in the Bible, and there is a HUGE amount of bad hermeneutics, I won't get into this. I will say there are many people here who are Protestant and agree with you totally on roles.

57. Protestantism is also currently denying, with increasing frequency, the headship of the husband in marriage, which is based upon the headship of the Father over the Son (while equal in essence) in the Trinity, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-2). This too, is based on a relationship of equality (1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21).

See point #56.

58. Liberal Protestantism (most notably Anglicanism) has even ordained practicing homosexuals as pastors and blessed their "marriages," or taught that homosexuality is merely an involuntary, "alternate" lifestyle, contrary to formerly universal Christian Tradition, as the Bible clearly teaches (Gen 19:4-25; Rom 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Catholicism stands firm on traditional morality.

No conservative Protestant church ordains gays. I read yesterday about a Southern Baptist church in South Carolina that had decided to get with the world, and ordain gay pastors and marry gays, and it was disbarred from the SBC. I have a lot of doubts that "liberal" Christians have ever read the Bible, let along know what God says about this issue.

59. Liberal Protestantism, and evangelicalism increasingly, have accepted "higher critical" methods of biblical interpretation which lead to the destruction of the traditional Christian reverence for the Bible, and demote it to the status of largely a human, fallible document, to the detriment of its divine, infallible essence.

Let's move on from the "liberals." This forum is about 95% conservative Protestants.

60. Many liberal Protestants have thrown out many cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, Original Sin, hell, the existence of the devil, miracles, etc.

See # 59!

source on previous post[/QUOTE]

 

[Loco]

God wants us to uphold each other in prayer and to intercede for each other because we arr all jpined together as ONE NODY OF CHRIST. We work together and need each other. That is the purpose of the Church...to be a cohesive Body of Christ in the world.

Your response is true, but insufficient. It is one of the many small things that I puzzle over. If there is but one intercessor, then what is the meaning of intercessory prayer between living saints? Perhaps you see no APPARENT contradiction there, but I do. Now, "apparent" is emphasized because I acknowledge it is MY insufficient study that causes the difficulty. If you have no difficulty, God bless you.

I remain your stupid servant, JR

 

[Loco]

Angela, that was a lot of work, thank you. I do not have the time so I picked just one at random.

This list clearly does not address fundamentalists like us at all. It is a cut and paste shotgun rather than an attempt at reasoned discourse. I would say the work of a troll, except it is more an army of trolldom.

 

[Mec99]

Epostle, we will top bashing the Catholics the minute they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and reject Mary and toss her away.

 

[Mec99]

Sacred Tradition:

Mary being the Mediator between God and Men.

1 Timothy 2:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For there is one God, and there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Clearly epostle the Holy Spirit has called you a liar!

 

[Mec99]

Tell me fordman where is the "Hail Mary" prayer in the Scriptures in its entirety?

Show us the Book, Chapter and Verse fordman where in its entirety is the "Hail Mary" prayer!

 

[Mec99]

Here epostle is the verse you were demanding.

1 John 2:27
[SUP]27 [/SUP] But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and You have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Here you go epostle where God says we do not need the Catholic Church to teach us!

 

[Mec99]

Exodus 20:4-5
[SUP]4 [/SUP] "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[SUP]5 [/SUP] you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

Anything includes statues of Jesus!

We are NOT to make statues of Jesus and bow down to them!

 

[BeyondET]

The Black Plague decimated a majority of the population in Europe in the Middle Ages. 70% ? not sure.
It was thought that cats were the culprit in spreading it.
So they killed all the cats.
Now we know it was not the cats, but the rats.
Which flourished because there were no cats.

If im not mistaking parts of Europe was in need of a labor force again also, A king eased laws posted signs saying fornicate under the concent of the king basically the birth of the curse word and main stream sex out of wedlock. side info on the Plague

 

[epostle]

Well, this is going to take a few posts to get all my responses done. Just to let you know that is what I am doing!

It's been a long time since I have seen so much copy and paste on a thread. But then, Catholics can only parrot what their catechism states, and any book that has been cleared by the Magisterium or whatever it is called.

Just looking briefly at these "points" and the Bible verses used to support them, really begs the question -

Have you ever actually read the Bible???

Yes, with an effort to find the meaning the sacred authors intended, supplemented with the Early Church Fathers insights, some whom sat at the feet of the Apostles. You are stuck reading the Bible with reformist lenses. Have you ever actually read the ECF? Were they part of your curriculum or dismissed as irrelevant commentary? Or their general consensus was ignored because none of the ECF were Protestant?

I will address each point in red, under the point. There are a few I agree with, but most are just fairy tales, nothing to do with the Bible. I guess I am so individualistic, that I am not going to copy and paste the answers, but actually post what I know, and how the verses posted in NO WAY support the points.

My posts are not a comprehensive treatise on Catholic teaching. They are reasons why I am a Catholic. They are also reasons why I left Protestantism. It also served as an in-your-face statement to Budman who complains about cut and pasting. The more he complains, the more I will cut and paste. Keep in mind the points was written by Dave Armstrong. He is entitled to his opinions (which I support) and I am entitled to my opinions the same as you.

PS What a way to waste a perfectly good Saturday afternoon! I wouldn't mind if someone read it, but obviously, no one will!

I did.

​

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

I think this is one of the essential problems with the RCC. Christianity has always been characterized by a deep, abiding relationship with God. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us. We learn from the Bible, from others and from the Holy Spirit.

And no Catholic ever has? Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Spirit teaches individuals apart from the Church?

As for being undereducated theologically, unteachable etc, etc, I have an MDiv. That is 3 long years studying the Bible, theology and the original languages, so we can better understand what God is saying not just to the individual but to the congregation. I only make "infallible" statements if God tells me to! This whole point is just total ignorance of the Bible, God and the people who follow Christ.

Then that point doesn't apply to you, does it. It applies to self appointed authorities who think they know about Catholicism by reading what they want into the Bible. It's nice to know you have a direct line to God and can make infallible judgments on Catholic teaching. If you ever get time, have a look at the encyclicals minus the commentaries from Newsweek, and let me know where you infallibly think the Holy Spirit is being contradicted. .Papal Encyclicals Online

31. Evangelicalism's "techniques" of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree.

I have to agree that a lot of times, this is the truth.

32. The gospel preached by many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors is a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely "fire insurance" rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles.

Yep! I agree on this one, too! I hate a gospel that leaves people with a "get out of hell" free card, in their back pocket, and doesn't make repentance and walking with God an essential part of the message.

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

Bonhoeffer was a Protestant! When the Catholic and Lutheran churches succumbed to Hilter, Bonhoeffer left the Lutheran church and formed the "Confessing Church" which did not capitulate to Hitler, and he died a martyr for this. I have about 10 books by Bonhoeffer and about him. (Amazing that a Protestant has studied church history, don't you think?)[/QUOTE] Yes. Catholic apologists often quote Protestants to avoid being charged with bias. Truth has nothing to do with the source. If it's true, then its true. Is that an infallible statement about the Church succumbing to Hitler?

Mit brennender Sorge (English: With Burning Anxiety) On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[SUP][1][/SUP] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (March 21 that year).[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][dead link]
[/SUP]The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See.[SUP][4][/SUP] It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New.[SUP][5][/SUP] The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

Hitler's Plan to Kill or Kidnap the Pope
More Proof of Hitler's Plan to Kill the Pope
Editorial Published in the New York Times 1942
Index of Articles: Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

3 million non-Jews, mostly Polish Catholics, died in the holocaust. Your remark about the Catholic Church succumbing to Hitler is false and offensive.

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

I submit to God in all things. Jesus is the only authority, as per Matt 28:18
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt. 28:18

Therefore go and teach all nations...(you left that out) so if there is no earthly spiritual authority, what was the point of the commission? Did Jesus commission only the Apostles or anybody with a bible claiming the Holy Spirit?

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and "sacred space" are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than "meeting halls" or "gymnasiums" or "barn"-type structures. Most Protestants' homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants are often "addicted to mediocrity" in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

It is too bad that Catholics think they have to have all these "outer" trappings to find God. God is found in his temple, which in the New Testament, happens to be us. (Call it the church, or whatever you want.) Notice how Paul talks about us - not a building with expensive fixtures.

"19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." 1 Cor. 6:1-20


Before I was saved, I used to attend RCC churches, just for the outside sense of God. He was not in me, so I guess I thought I might find him in stained glass windows and candles. When I was actually saved, I did not need that "sense" of the trappings of a church that was about what happened on the outside, not in the heart. I knew that the Bible I had been reading did not support this outer nonsense, but encouraged a deep relationship with Jesus Christ.

No deep relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist? Did you ever have that to begin with? You can't leave something you were never in. Being Catholic by inertia or ethnicity is far removed from actually practicing. It's not the same.

36. Protestantism has largely neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can't be so lightly dismissed.

The liturgy of the early church was to meet in homes, down by the river and sing songs. The also met in the synagogues, to discuss the Sciptures and try and win Jews to Christ. Nothing about a fancy building. I think that buildings started in the 3rd century and the liturgy much, much later.

There were no buildings due to some 300 years of persecution. And no Bible either. Now you appeal the "early church" but can't give any names.

There is no historical or scriptural evidence of a congregational model of the early church. The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.

All the Protestants I know who have studied the Bible know that Jesus was both man and God. And they condemn those heresies, just like the early church councils did, you know, the ones before the RCC was in place!

Arguments against the sacramental principle, especially with regards to Baptism and the Eucharist, are Docetic when examined carefully. That is what 37 is talking about, not the Incarnation per se. I would like to see your evidence of a non-Catholic council in the early church. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the Gnostics that denied the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist but you probably don't like him either.
"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

38. Catholicism upholds the "incarnational principle," wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

Righty! Where on earth did you dig up these lies?? I don't know any Protestants who do not believe in the incarnation of Jesus, and that he was literally born a man, died and was resurrected in his body to earth, and then ascended in the glorified body.

You miss the point. It says nothing about Protestants denying anything. It says the Catholic Church upholds the Incarnation principle.
There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=560

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many Pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

 

[Angela53510]

Yes, with an effort to find the meaning the sacred authors intended, supplemented with the Early Church Fathers insights, some whom sat at the feet of the Apostles. You are stuck reading the Bible with reformist lenses. Have you ever actually read the ECF? Were they part of your curriculum or dismissed as irrelevant commentary? Or their general consensus was ignored because none of the ECF were Protestant?

My posts are not a comprehensive treatise on Catholic teaching. They are reasons why I am a Catholic. They are also reasons why I left Protestantism. It also served as an in-your-face statement to Budman who complains about cut and pasting. The more he complains, the more I will cut and paste. Keep in mind the points was written by Dave Armstrong. He is entitled to his opinions (which I support) and I am entitled to my opinions the same as you.


I did.
And no Catholic ever has? Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Spirit teaches individuals apart from the Church?

Then that point doesn't apply to you, does it. It applies to self appointed authorities who think they know about Catholicism by reading what they want into the Bible. It's nice to know you have a direct line to God and can make infallible judgments on Catholic teaching. If you ever get time, have a look at the encyclicals minus the commentaries from Newsweek, and let me know where you infallibly think the Holy Spirit is being contradicted. .Papal Encyclicals Online

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

Bonhoeffer was a Protestant! When the Catholic and Lutheran churches succumbed to Hilter, Bonhoeffer left the Lutheran church and formed the "Confessing Church" which did not capitulate to Hitler, and he died a martyr for this. I have about 10 books by Bonhoeffer and about him. (Amazing that a Protestant has studied church history, don't you think?)

Yes. Catholic apologists often quote Protestants to avoid being charged with bias. Truth has nothing to do with the source. If it's true, then its true. Is that an infallible statement about the Church succumbing to Hitler?

Mit brennender Sorge (English: With Burning Anxiety) On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[SUP][1][/SUP] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (March 21 that year).[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][dead link]
[/SUP]The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See.[SUP][4][/SUP] It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New.[SUP][5][/SUP] The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

Hitler's Plan to Kill or Kidnap the Pope
More Proof of Hitler's Plan to Kill the Pope
Editorial Published in the New York Times 1942
Index of Articles: Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

3 million non-Jews, mostly Polish Catholics, died in the holocaust. Your remark about the Catholic Church succumbing to Hitler is false and offensive.

Therefore go and teach all nations...(you left that out) so if there is no earthly spiritual authority, what was the point of the commission? Did Jesus commission only the Apostles or anybody with a bible claiming the Holy Spirit?


No deep relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist? Did you ever have that to begin with? You can't leave something you were never in. Being Catholic by inertia or ethnicity is far removed from actually practicing. It's not the same.

There were no buildings due to some 300 years of persecution. And no Bible either. Now you appeal the "early church" but can't give any names.

There is no historical or scriptural evidence of a congregational model of the early church. The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention.


Arguments against the sacramental principle, especially with regards to Baptism and the Eucharist, are Docetic when examined carefully. That is what 37 is talking about, not the Incarnation per se. I would like to see your evidence of a non-Catholic council in the early church. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the Gnostics that denied the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist but you probably don't like him either.
"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

You miss the point. It says nothing about Protestants denying anything. It says the Catholic Church upholds the Incarnation principle.
There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=560

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many Pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, I take it from what you have said, that you have read the ECF, but not the Bible. Try the Bible, the ECF quoted it a lot. And yes, I have read the ECF, in Greek! Because in Seminary, we all knew the Bible really well, so it was too easy to translate Greek, with only a few key words of Greek. But the ECF and the Septuagint - those made us work hard! They actually were very Biblical in what they wrote. I can't imagine how you think that reading the ECF would change anyone's mind about the real gospel. And even the leaders in the church didn't include them in the canon. Two reasons - one was that they did not personally know Jesus. But the other is because they made mistakes and the writings were not inspired!


As far as the Holy Spirit teaching us, you really do betray with every word that you have not read even the gospels in the NT.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

It was in Bonhoeffer's books I read about the Lutheran and Catholic Churches capitulating to Hitler.

Here is a link you might like to read. An historian who was given access to the Vatican files and German files from WWII. He had written some positive books about the RCC,which is why he was allowed to see the hidden files. He discovered that Pope Pius XII had totally bargained with Hitler in return for him consolidating religious Catholic power in the hands of the papacy. Really an interesting read, because the pope wasn't all powerful before the 20th century.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican55.htm

As far as Polish Catholics, my grandfather was one. He came to Canada after WWI, and after he met my grandmother, he converted to the Orthodox Church. So don't tell me about what was done to the Poles, in any religion during WWII. I was actually talking about the German Roman Catholic Church. Hitler was a Catholic who strayed, but kept some of the worst features of the GRCC in his Reich.

And I am just asking you to show me the word "sacramentalism" in the Bible. It doesn't make sense in Biblical or Greek terms and apparently comes from the Latin. Yet another solid case of the RCC making up stuff, which is not in the Bible, and not in the early church.

"It applies to self appointed authorities who think they know about Catholicism by reading what they want into the Bible. It's nice to know you have a direct line to God and can make infallible judgments on Catholic teaching."

There is a quote worthy of a good laugh! Seriously I just really showed you the huge number of major mistakes your Catholic copy and paste made about what Protestants don't believe, and you have the gall to tell me we are judging Catholicism?

You must realize that all I did was answer those ridiculous points, sometimes with the Bible and a lot of times pointing out that is not what Protestants believe, nor is this forum full of "liberal" Protestants, if you had ever bothered to read any of the posts outside of the ones about Catholics.

Nothing worse than an apostate Protestant! LOL