Zone1 A Brief History of modern Christianity, Catholic v Protestant

forkintheroad7

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2024
2,073
1,388
893
Brief history lesson

For 1521 years, there was only ONE Christian Church in the world.

There still is only ONE because that's how many Jesus established on Earth. We know Jesus did not establish 60,000 or even 10,000 or even 5 Churches.. No, that would not make sense. That is not something an all-wise and loving God would do. That would cause confusion and chaos and God is not a God of chaos.

So along comes Martin Luther in the 16th century who had issues with the Church and I supposed some of those issues were valid (it'ss questionable) but as happens with humans... Once he got an audience and people egging him on in his rebellion, he took things to an extreme, possibly to get attention (to "be somebody").

Out go the altars, out goes the priest facing said altar during Mass.. out go those hideous statues everyone worships.. out go the Original teachings on how to be saved! No, Luther, human being has the TRUE answers, Everyone!

So then things began to fall apart. People began hating the RCC because Luther said it was bad. And Luther was to be trusted over the 1500 year old Church Christ founded.

Don't ask me why... I guess it was a confusing time...

Some people stayed Catholic but in time they were persecuted and priests were hunted down and killed. Of course, you won't hear this history from a protestant!

So people didn't want to be persecuted so they began to mosey over to the Protestant "churches." I especially speak of England where the once-Catholic Henry VIII ditched the True Church and became a Protestant because he wanted to be with Ann Bolyen or however it is spelled, and she wouldn't sleep with him w/o being married. So then Henry rebelled against the Church who said he couldn't divorce his wife and marry Anne and that's how Henry became a Protestant and then as we know, he had Anne Boleyn's head cut off. Then Henry had St Thomas More's head cut off and a lot of other folks.. lovely beginning for the Church of England, right?

But no... Only Catholics have a checkered past... (to hear/tell)

So, that's Brief Lesson One of modern Church history
 
Beale probably posted his little smiley

after reading ONE paragraph...

lots of ignorant people around here
 
This says it all: that none of the professed "christians" here want to deal with the history of the Church after the Reformation!

Well, u know what they say

He who does not remember (or know) the past is condemned to repeating it

I guess all the evil and corruption and other forms of lawlessness in our world are a-ok with something like 80% of the population.

Geez...
 
Something happened of great importance for Christianity in 1054 that you seem to be unaware of.
off topic. I am speaking about the history since Luther busted up the Church. The orthodox Churches are not entirely un-Catholic
 
off topic. I am speaking about the history since Luther busted up the Church. The orthodox Churches are not entirely un-Catholic
No it isnt. The Catholic Church is NOT Gods Church. There is only one of those and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Catholic church is led by a man that can't even speak to God nor be spoken to from God. He is not a prophet.
 
No it isnt. The Catholic Church is NOT Gods Church. There is only one of those and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Catholic church is led by a man that can't even speak to God nor be spoken to from God. He is not a prophet.

oh well, You believe what you want. I believe what God wants
 
No it isnt. The Catholic Church is NOT Gods Church. There is only one of those and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Catholic church is led by a man that can't even speak to God nor be spoken to from God. He is not a prophet.
I agree that members of the LDS Church should believe what they want. The reasons I do not:

1. Long ago, I did pray over the matter and in prayer it was revealed to me that the LDS faith was not for me. When receiving a private revelation, I take extreme care in staying within the narrow confines of what was said. Note, the revelation was that the LDS faith was not for me; nothing was stated about it not being for anyone else.

2. Any faith that feels the need to tear any down another faith/s must feel they are on very shaky ground, unable to stand on its own.

3. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed with Christ and the Apostles. One can test the validity of private revelations by checking to see if it in any ways goes against faith, morals, or contrary to what Jesus taught.

What the LDS Church teaches about marriage, the afterlife, and the Godhead is contrary to what Jesus taught. It is also contrary to what Jesus taught about baptism.

Peace.
 
off topic. I am speaking about the history since Luther busted up the Church. The orthodox Churches are not entirely un-Catholic
You said that for 1521 years there was one Christian church in the world. That's factually untrue. The Protestant revolution was hundreds of years after the Great Schism.
 
You said that for 1521 years there was one Christian church in the world. That's factually untrue. The Protestant revolution was hundreds of years after the Great Schism.
That was NOT a rupture in the Church. The orthodox are considered Catholic, if not in full communion with Rome.

Protestantism in an entire DITCHING of the Original Church, saying to the whole world that the Church for 1500 years was defective--until the human being, failed Catholic priest Luther arrived on the scene.. whew! And people thought it would never happen!! :eek:

But What Jesus establishes is NEVER defective (though humans in the Church always are)

"I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"


EVER
Mt 16:18
 
It's not called the Great Schism???

No it didn't.
Translation: you have nothing to say to defend the indefensible history of the "church of England"

1st begun by the murderous Henry VIII

Oh, wait... maybe 1st begun by Luther
 
Translation: you have nothing to say to defend the indefensible history of the "church of England"
Why would I want to defend the Church of England. All Abrahamic religions are bloodthirsty and psychotic.

1st begun by the murderous Henry VIII

Oh, wait... maybe 1st begun by Luther
Speaking of murder, do you defend the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre?
 
It was such a massive rupture that it's literally called the Great Schism.
Catholic and Orthodox remain essentially the same: Sacraments, Scripture, Mass, Priests, Bishops. That great Schism was over a difference in language, Greek vs Latin regarding the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father to the Son. Difference in Latin and Greek seems silly today when explained. In Greek, if something "proceeds" then it proceeds from something to something. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son... This was a huge deal back in the day.

There were some political differences at the time as well, but basically the Catholic and Orthodox are the same. Personally, I think it is silly--maybe even stupid--that these two Churches don't reunite and become one, which might be a great start in re-uniting all of Christianity.
 
There were some political differences at the time as well, but basically the Catholic and Orthodox are the same. Personally, I think it is silly--maybe even stupid--that these two Churches don't reunite and become one, which might be a great start in re-uniting all of Christianity.

yes, I can relate to this!



Our Church should not be divided, to say the least. Jesus prayed for UNITY, right b4 the Crucifixion

We can't do anything right (we dumbass humans).

But Jesus save us regardless :)
 
Catholic and Orthodox remain essentially the same: Sacraments, Scripture, Mass, Priests, Bishops. That great Schism was over a difference in language, Greek vs Latin regarding the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father to the Son. Difference in Latin and Greek seems silly today when explained. In Greek, if something "proceeds" then it proceeds from something to something. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son... This was a huge deal back in the day.

There were some political differences at the time as well, but basically the Catholic and Orthodox are the same. Personally, I think it is silly--maybe even stupid--that these two Churches don't reunite and become one, which might be a great start in re-uniting all of Christianity.
For them to unite the Pope would have to first crucify his ego and accept that all bishops are equal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top