Catholicism vs Protestantism
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
I think you may be mixing metaphor and literal.
The Church is both visible and invisible.
Jesus founded a visible Church with a structure. It has one faith, (Eph 4:5) that is one set of doctrines, not many. I believe that is the Catholic Church which has the fullness of Christ. (Eph 1:23)
Paul likens the Church to Christ's body with Jesus as the head. We are not physically part of his body but spiritually. The Catholic Church calls this the Mystical Body of Christ which incorporates all those validly baptised even through they are not actual members of the Catholic Church.
Those who reject the Pope as the visible head of the Church on earth and reject fundamental doctrines cannot be members although through baptism they are related to it.
The Church is both visible and invisible.
Jesus founded a visible Church with a structure. It has one faith, (Eph 4:5) that is one set of doctrines, not many. I believe that is the Catholic Church which has the fullness of Christ. (Eph 1:23)
Paul likens the Church to Christ's body with Jesus as the head. We are not physically part of his body but spiritually. The Catholic Church calls this the Mystical Body of Christ which incorporates all those validly baptised even through they are not actual members of the Catholic Church.
Those who reject the Pope as the visible head of the Church on earth and reject fundamental doctrines cannot be members although through baptism they are related to it.
-
1
- Show all
This is all deception you are spewing. Most people on this site recognize there is something fraudulent with the Roman Catholic Church.
In First Vatican Council they clearly call themselves the "Roman church". It is also clear in your above post you try to make excuses and cover for this.
The Roman church changed their tactics to deceive the world in Second Vatican.
This is why they have removed the word "Roman" from Second Vatican. To usher in an era of ecumenical "unity" with denominations that broke away from them. There tactics are deceitful.
The tactic of the second Vatican council is to deceive other denominations that they are not the "Roman Church"
But any denomination that comes back into communion with the catholic church of second Vatican is agreeing to the terns in first vatican as well.
First vatican states. "the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, "
In First Vatican Council they clearly call themselves the "Roman church". It is also clear in your above post you try to make excuses and cover for this.
The Roman church changed their tactics to deceive the world in Second Vatican.
This is why they have removed the word "Roman" from Second Vatican. To usher in an era of ecumenical "unity" with denominations that broke away from them. There tactics are deceitful.
The tactic of the second Vatican council is to deceive other denominations that they are not the "Roman Church"
But any denomination that comes back into communion with the catholic church of second Vatican is agreeing to the terns in first vatican as well.
First vatican states. "the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, "
B
There is nothing deceiptful. You are just misreading what it says.
The Roman Church in that is not referring to the whole of the Catholic Church. It is referring to the Diocese of Rome. The Pope as the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Catholic Church. Therefore that church of which he is the Bishop is pre-eminent over all the other individual churches. That is the nature of hierarchy. But the correct name for the whole Church is the Catholic Church not Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Church in that is not referring to the whole of the Catholic Church. It is referring to the Diocese of Rome. The Pope as the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Catholic Church. Therefore that church of which he is the Bishop is pre-eminent over all the other individual churches. That is the nature of hierarchy. But the correct name for the whole Church is the Catholic Church not Roman Catholic Church.
Exactly, this world that Satan rules over has hundreds and hundreds of christian denominations, but in the end there are only two choices for all:
1) you belong to the Man of No Sin - Jesus Christ of Nazareth
OR
2) you belong to the Man of Sin - the Roman Pontiff.
I have been saved by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and fully rebel against the Roman Pontiff.
As for you Bede, you belong to the Roman Pontiff.
okay, at your request I read the entire page.
apparently, that's all of the documents put forward by the first Vatican council.
what I saw was that when referring to one of the 12 apostles, the writers were careful to use the word
apostle.
when referring to one of the subsequent leaders of the church, they always used the word
apostolic.
exceptions were things like the phrase
place of the apostles.
for example
"...by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles...
so my impressionis that the Catholic church does not see itself as having apostles,
but their leaders have apostolic authority, the place or role of the apostles.
an issue I see with the idea that
saying the Nicene Creed is pledging allegiance to the Catholic leaders
is that Eastern Orthodox leaders have the same "Roots".
the two groups are not in full agreement, so which group is one pledging allegiance to?
finally, I don't think I agree with the idea that whatever meaning was attached to something when it was written must be used later in other times and places.
the Protestants that I know that recite the Creed are endorsing the idea of a single universal church that is founded upon the apostles.
apparently, that's all of the documents put forward by the first Vatican council.
what I saw was that when referring to one of the 12 apostles, the writers were careful to use the word
apostle.
when referring to one of the subsequent leaders of the church, they always used the word
apostolic.
exceptions were things like the phrase
place of the apostles.
for example
"...by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles...
so my impressionis that the Catholic church does not see itself as having apostles,
but their leaders have apostolic authority, the place or role of the apostles.
an issue I see with the idea that
saying the Nicene Creed is pledging allegiance to the Catholic leaders
is that Eastern Orthodox leaders have the same "Roots".
the two groups are not in full agreement, so which group is one pledging allegiance to?
finally, I don't think I agree with the idea that whatever meaning was attached to something when it was written must be used later in other times and places.
the Protestants that I know that recite the Creed are endorsing the idea of a single universal church that is founded upon the apostles.
-
1
- Show all
Perhaps you ought to sit down with a lawyer when you read it.
First Vatican Council says, "
Thereby this means that each and every pope that comes is the prince (or head) of the apostles.
Thereby the Roman Pontiff is the head apostle. Apostle (singular)
First Vatican Council says, "
- the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
- the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
- the prince of the apostles,
Thereby this means that each and every pope that comes is the prince (or head) of the apostles.
Thereby the Roman Pontiff is the head apostle. Apostle (singular)
@Bede
@Magenta
so, in the interest of promoting good understanding and looking at all the facts,
and in the hopes that this will be received charitably by everyone reading,
at the request of Nebuchadnezzer (post 2,059), I read this page
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
I found this
"I acknowledge the
holy,
catholic,
apostolic and
Roman
church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] ."
also, the phrase
"Roman church"
occurs 5 times in the page, according to my browser's search function.
so again, not technically "Roman Catholic Church", but hopefully some interesting information.
@Magenta
so, in the interest of promoting good understanding and looking at all the facts,
and in the hopes that this will be received charitably by everyone reading,
at the request of Nebuchadnezzer (post 2,059), I read this page
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
I found this
"I acknowledge the
holy,
catholic,
apostolic and
Roman
church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] ."
also, the phrase
"Roman church"
occurs 5 times in the page, according to my browser's search function.
so again, not technically "Roman Catholic Church", but hopefully some interesting information.
Do you see the false doctrine which you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker?
If there was any church which could claim to be the "mother" church, it was the church at Jerusalem -- the first Christian church. It was the apostles and elders in Jerusalem -- NOT ROME -- who were asked to rule on the applicability of the Law of Moses to Gentile Christians. Interestingly enough the apostle Peter is not even mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Romans!
And since the bishop of Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church to claim primacy and supremacy FALSELY, it was the Greek Orthodox Church which could claim being the mother church of the "whole Catholic church".
Here is what the Antiochian Orthodox Church has to say about the Roman Catholic Church:
"The Roman Catholic Church understanding of the Church can be defined as papal or institutional. Roman Catholics believe that Christ built His Church on the person of St. Peter. Thus, Roman Catholics believe that all Christians owe obedience to his successor, the Bishop of Rome. Roman Catholics consider the Pope the Vicar of Christ and supreme Head of the Church. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor to the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Thus, to be part of the true Church, a group of Christians must accept the supreme authority of the Pope. For this reason, the document states that the Catholic Church “subsists” in the Church of Rome. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, those communities of Christians outside of communion with Rome are either defective like the Orthodox, or like the Protestants lack the attributes of a Church."
http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/17076
As all non-Catholics know the claims of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church are all totally bogus.
If there was any church which could claim to be the "mother" church, it was the church at Jerusalem -- the first Christian church. It was the apostles and elders in Jerusalem -- NOT ROME -- who were asked to rule on the applicability of the Law of Moses to Gentile Christians. Interestingly enough the apostle Peter is not even mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Romans!
And since the bishop of Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church to claim primacy and supremacy FALSELY, it was the Greek Orthodox Church which could claim being the mother church of the "whole Catholic church".
Here is what the Antiochian Orthodox Church has to say about the Roman Catholic Church:
"The Roman Catholic Church understanding of the Church can be defined as papal or institutional. Roman Catholics believe that Christ built His Church on the person of St. Peter. Thus, Roman Catholics believe that all Christians owe obedience to his successor, the Bishop of Rome. Roman Catholics consider the Pope the Vicar of Christ and supreme Head of the Church. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor to the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Thus, to be part of the true Church, a group of Christians must accept the supreme authority of the Pope. For this reason, the document states that the Catholic Church “subsists” in the Church of Rome. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, those communities of Christians outside of communion with Rome are either defective like the Orthodox, or like the Protestants lack the attributes of a Church."
http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/17076
As all non-Catholics know the claims of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church are all totally bogus.
-
1
- Show all
Most of the Roman Church's documents (and there are many, many documents) are written as legal and binding contracts for all persons.
There are a myriad of decrees made and beliefs stated in their documents (contracts). The Roman Church condemns, rejects and anathematises anyone who fails to agree with or believe in any one of their many, many decrees and beliefs. They also require that all persons follow suit and also condemn, reject and anathematise anyone who fails to agree with or believe in any one of there many, many decrees and beliefs. No one can understand nor abide in all that the Roman Church has decreed. They require all people to bring judgement and condemnation on others who do not abide, and thereby bringing judgement upon themselves. What these catholic documents (contracts) do is condemn, reject and anathematise all people.
Taken from First Vatican Council (in red)
"Likewise
What is also made clear is that the Roman Pontiff has soul authority to judge all people.
Taken from First Vatican Council (in red)
In this world all people are under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
All people are judged and condemned under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
This crooked authoritative system is what the Bible refers to as Babylon.
One must be saved out of this world.
One must be saved out of Babylon, which is the Roman Church.
TODAY, is no different than the time when the Israelites were enslaved under Pharaoh (Egypt).
TODAY, we are enslaved under Roman Pontiff (Roman Church).
There are a myriad of decrees made and beliefs stated in their documents (contracts). The Roman Church condemns, rejects and anathematises anyone who fails to agree with or believe in any one of their many, many decrees and beliefs. They also require that all persons follow suit and also condemn, reject and anathematise anyone who fails to agree with or believe in any one of there many, many decrees and beliefs. No one can understand nor abide in all that the Roman Church has decreed. They require all people to bring judgement and condemnation on others who do not abide, and thereby bringing judgement upon themselves. What these catholic documents (contracts) do is condemn, reject and anathematise all people.
Taken from First Vatican Council (in red)
"Likewise
- all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way
- whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.
What is also made clear is that the Roman Pontiff has soul authority to judge all people.
Taken from First Vatican Council (in red)
- Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
- he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
- in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
- The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
- nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
- they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
- So, then,
- if anyone says that
- the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
- not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
- not only in matters of
- faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
- discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
- he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
- this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
- the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
- let him be anathema.
- if anyone says that
In this world all people are under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
All people are judged and condemned under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
This crooked authoritative system is what the Bible refers to as Babylon.
One must be saved out of this world.
One must be saved out of Babylon, which is the Roman Church.
TODAY, is no different than the time when the Israelites were enslaved under Pharaoh (Egypt).
TODAY, we are enslaved under Roman Pontiff (Roman Church).
B
Jesus appointed Jesus as head of the Church (on earth). When Peter moved to Rome (some time before the Council of Jerusalem), the focus of authority went with him.
At the time of the Council of Jerusalem Peter was in Jerusalem, all Jews having been expelled from Rome. The Council therefore took place under the authority of Peter. It was Peter who made the decisive speech after there had been much debate.
And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
And all the assembly kept silence (Acts 15:7-12a)
Peter had spoken.The decision was made.
Not particularly interesting at all.
The Orthodox Church broke away from the catholic Church
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
The claims are not bogus
At the time of the Council of Jerusalem Peter was in Jerusalem, all Jews having been expelled from Rome. The Council therefore took place under the authority of Peter. It was Peter who made the decisive speech after there had been much debate.
And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
And all the assembly kept silence (Acts 15:7-12a)
Peter had spoken.The decision was made.
Not particularly interesting at all.
The Orthodox Church broke away from the catholic Church
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
The claims are not bogus
B
It's a matter of history.
There is no explicit mention of Peter in Rome. It would have dangerous for him to be identified as being there.
But apart from non-scriptural evidence there are four hints in scripture.
1. A hint that Jesus intended Peter to go to Rome in Mt 16.
2. Acts 12:17 says after his imprisonment Peter departed and went to another place - taken to be Rome.
3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, says in 15:21-22 says he was to visit Rome but does not want to build "on another man’s foundation". Only an apostle could lay a foundation for a church and Peter is the only apostle known to have been in Rome at that time.
4. In his first epistle Peter writes "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." Babylon was a code word for Rome.
But you have to put this together with all the historical data to get the full picture.
I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Peter was in Rome. In his book The Eternal City Taylor Marshall puts the date Peter arrived there as 42 AD.
There is no explicit mention of Peter in Rome. It would have dangerous for him to be identified as being there.
But apart from non-scriptural evidence there are four hints in scripture.
1. A hint that Jesus intended Peter to go to Rome in Mt 16.
2. Acts 12:17 says after his imprisonment Peter departed and went to another place - taken to be Rome.
3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, says in 15:21-22 says he was to visit Rome but does not want to build "on another man’s foundation". Only an apostle could lay a foundation for a church and Peter is the only apostle known to have been in Rome at that time.
4. In his first epistle Peter writes "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." Babylon was a code word for Rome.
But you have to put this together with all the historical data to get the full picture.
I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Peter was in Rome. In his book The Eternal City Taylor Marshall puts the date Peter arrived there as 42 AD.
I don't see in this chapter say Jesus want Peter go to Rome
2. Act 12 didn't say Peter go to rome
3 Paul didn't say Peter build Rome church et all in contrary it prove Rome build by Paul indicate in this verse
20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Paul not preach on the church that another man's build
The fact that Paul preach in this letter more than 15 chapter prove that he the one that build that church
You believe the president of apostle/Peter was the boss there, do you think Paul wrote this letter without mention boss Peter?
If Peter bishop there and Peter is paul supervisor than this letter is impolite
I believe Paul is polite and claim Peter in Rome is wrong, my brother.
4. Babylon is not Rome.
2. Act 12 didn't say Peter go to rome
3 Paul didn't say Peter build Rome church et all in contrary it prove Rome build by Paul indicate in this verse
20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Paul not preach on the church that another man's build
The fact that Paul preach in this letter more than 15 chapter prove that he the one that build that church
You believe the president of apostle/Peter was the boss there, do you think Paul wrote this letter without mention boss Peter?
If Peter bishop there and Peter is paul supervisor than this letter is impolite
I believe Paul is polite and claim Peter in Rome is wrong, my brother.
4. Babylon is not Rome.
Why make an an argument you can't prove or win?
Whether it is true or not the Roman Church does have a claim to Peter's grave being under St. Peters Basilica. If you do your homework the Old St. Peter's Basilica was a temple and a shrine to Peter. They have made Peter as their god. But you don't understand this.
I say let them have their god Peter!!
Prove this too!
The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome
Whether it is true or not the Roman Church does have a claim to Peter's grave being under St. Peters Basilica. If you do your homework the Old St. Peter's Basilica was a temple and a shrine to Peter. They have made Peter as their god. But you don't understand this.
I say let them have their god Peter!!
Prove this too!
The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome
-
1
- Show all
well, I grew up basically hearing that true believers had essentially been suppressed by the Catholic Church from sometime shortly after the death of the apostles up until the Protestant Reformation.
then because we were Pentecostals, we saw a kind of second wave of enlightenment coming around the early 1900's.
and another wave in the 60s and 70s.
but it does seem very strange that the light of the world, a city set on a hill, then went dark for well over a thousand years.
then because we were Pentecostals, we saw a kind of second wave of enlightenment coming around the early 1900's.
and another wave in the 60s and 70s.
but it does seem very strange that the light of the world, a city set on a hill, then went dark for well over a thousand years.
-
1
- Show all