Zone1 Good book on Catholicism and Protestants

[Votto]

Lots of threads about Catholics on here and how they compare to other sects withing Christianity.

This book will probably clear a lot of your questions up without all the trolling.

 

[Zebra]

Catholics are not another sect

 

[Cougarbear]

Catholics are not another sect

Yes, they are another sex.
So, they are Christians. Thus, they are a section that makes up Christianity. They are another sect.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Lots of threads about Catholics on here and how they compare to other sects withing Christianity.

This book will probably clear a lot of your questions up without all the trolling.

View attachment 1198633

The issues that caused and continue to cause Protestants to sway from the unified Catholic church are pretty well known.

Protestants...
1. Think Mary was just some girl who gave birth to Christ
2. Don't believe the miracle of the eucharist happens (even though they believe God can create miracles)
3. Thus, they don't believe in nearly as much reverence in front of the alter
4. They refuse the pope/church capital and have no central authority, which is why you have like 30,000+ sects of Protestantism
5. Don't believe in praying to saints (even though they pray in the same manner)

There's more, but Protestantism is doomed to relativism and mis-interpreting the bible. They reject all the knowledge capital of what people who wrote what they did, in the language they did, at the time they did... and just pick up a bible today and think they know better than the doctors of the church.

 

[Votto]

The issues that caused and continue to cause Protestants to sway from the unified Catholic church are pretty well known.

Protestants...
1. Think Mary was just some girl who gave birth to Christ
2. Don't believe the miracle of the eucharist happens (even though they believe God can create miracles)
3. Thus, they don't believe in nearly as much reverence in front of the alter
4. They refuse the pope/church capital and have no central authority, which is why you have like 30,000+ sects of Protestantism
5. Don't believe in praying to saints (even though they pray in the same manner)

There's more, but Protestantism is doomed to relativism and mis-interpreting the bible. They reject all the knowledge capital of what people who wrote what they did, in the language they did, at the time they did... and just pick up a bible today and think they know better than the doctors of the church.

They reject all the knowledge capital of what people who wrote what they did, in the language they did, at the time they did.

What does this even mean? The very reason Martin Luther, for example, broke away from the church was because he read the scriptures for himself and decided that selling indulgences for money was not Biblical.

It is now up to you to show us how selling indulgences to the Clergy within the church for money is Biblical.

Ninety-five Theses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is one of many issues I have with the Catholic church.

So, tell me, who do you think is a bigger motivator in spreading the kingdom of God? Is it Charlie Kirk who tried to stand on Biblical truth, even though it cost him his life, or the Pope blessing a block of ice in order to please the Left wing PC gods of the Left?

Pope Leo XIV Blesses Huge 20,000-Year-Old Chunk Of Greenland Ice

Artist Olafur Eliasson transported the ice slab to the Raising Hope climate conference in Rome to call attention to the threat of fast-melting glaciers worldwide.

www.forbes.com

Charlie, after he had his head shot off, brought a lot of people into the church as a result, and started a movement in the US which dared to challenge Leftism, which has become the most successful religion of our era.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

They reject all the knowledge capital of what people who wrote what they did, in the language they did, at the time they did.

What does this even mean? The very reason Martin Luther, for example, broke away from the church was because he read the scriptures for himself and decided that selling indulgences for money was not Biblical.

It is now up to you to show us how selling indulgences to the Clergy within the church for money is Biblical.

Nice try, but No it isn't, because at the time Luther was correct. However, the united Catholic church is the only church that traces its roots all the way back to Christ. Theology is clear that the Catholic church is fallible at times because it is run by man, but it will always be redirected and guided by the holy spirit. There have been a few bad chapters in Church history, and all of those have been important lessons as far as not yeilding the faith to monarchs and things like that.

Luther correctly diagnosed a problem with the Catholic church at the time, but he committed an infinitely worse action by splitting the church, re-interpreting the bible based on his own personal whims, preaching anti-theological "faith alone" claims, and ultimately leading so many souls further from the one true church. Now, what does his heresy mean? Are people doomed that are Protestants? I know that God is a just God, and all of the intricacies will be handled by him. However, when you look at the baseline, leaving the church was a horrible decision.

Ninety-five Theses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is one of many issues I have with the Catholic church.

So, tell me, who do you think is a bigger motivator in spreading the kingdom of God? Is it Charlie Kirk who tried to stand on Biblical truth, even though it cost him his life, or the Pope blessing a block of ice in order to please the Left wing PC gods of the Left?

This anecdote is rather pathetic to be honest. I loved Charlie Kirk's evangelism.. and you taking some silly side-action by the pope and using that to represent their main focus is just foolish.

Pope Leo XIV Blesses Huge 20,000-Year-Old Chunk Of Greenland Ice

Artist Olafur Eliasson transported the ice slab to the Raising Hope climate conference in Rome to call attention to the threat of fast-melting glaciers worldwide.

www.forbes.com

Charlie, after he had his head shot off, brought a lot of people into the church as a result, and started a movement in the US which dared to challenge Leftism, which has become the most successful religion of our era.

Indeed. Nobody said Christian morals and spirituality cannot happen outside of the church. Christians can be evil, and heck atheists can be holy. The issue is Christians are encouraged to be holy, while people outside of the church are not. Meanwhile, notice that acting holy is exactly that, action. Luther heavily took away action and said "faith alone". Many protestants and modern con-artists outside of the church have taken that ideology and used it to do whatever they want and justify because they have "faith alone". They can commit immorality like homosexual acts, abortion, suicide, etc... and they are justified because they believe and have faith. That's one way Luther's actions completely messed up the entire whole of the Christian faith that is outside of the clear true church. The Church has it's theology and "constitution" if you will, it's guiding ethics and morals. Protestantism does not. If there's a disagreement, they just split and create a new church.

 

[Votto]

Nice try, but No it isn't, because at the time Luther was correct. However, the united Catholic church is the only church that traces its roots all the way back to Christ. Theology is clear that the Catholic church is fallible at times because it is run by man, but it will always be redirected and guided by the holy spirit. There have been a few bad chapters in Church history, and all of those have been important lessons as far as not yeilding the faith to monarchs and things like that.

Luther correctly diagnosed a problem with the Catholic church at the time, but he committed an infinitely worse action by splitting the church, re-interpreting the bible based on his own personal whims, preaching anti-theological "faith alone" claims, and ultimately leading so many souls further from the one true church. Now, what does his heresy mean? Are people doomed that are Protestants? I know that God is a just God, and all of the intricacies will be handled by him. However, when you look at the baseline, leaving the church was a horrible decision.

This anecdote is rather pathetic to be honest. I loved Charlie Kirk's evangelism.. and you taking some silly side-action by the pope and using that to represent their main focus is just foolish.

Indeed. Nobody said Christian morals and spirituality cannot happen outside of the church. Christians can be evil, and heck atheists can be holy. The issue is Christians are encouraged to be holy, while people outside of the church are not. Meanwhile, notice that acting holy is exactly that, action. Luther heavily took away action and said "faith alone". Many protestants and modern con-artists outside of the church have taken that ideology and used it to do whatever they want and justify because they have "faith alone". They can commit immorality like homosexual acts, abortion, suicide, etc... and they are justified because they believe and have faith. That's one way Luther's actions completely messed up the entire whole of the Christian faith that is outside of the clear true church. The Church has it's theology and "constitution" if you will, it's guiding ethics and morals. Protestantism does not. If there's a disagreement, they just split and create a new church.

You have chosen to disavow all other churches that are not under the Catholic banner as apostate. By doing so you are the one driving the wedge of separation between the various churches dedicated to following Christ, not me.

We should be finding ways to unite one another under the banner of Christ, rather than dividing one another to proclaim that our church is simply better than yours for whatever reason. The unity should reside in the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God who came to die for our sins and it is Christ alone that should be the focus.

As the scriptures teach us, by your fruits you shall know them.

You may deride me from bringing up Charlie Kirk and the Pope blessing the block of ice, but what you should ask is, what fruits have either brought forth? Which brings more people to church that they may encounter Christ?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You have chosen to disavow all other churches that are not under the Catholic banner as apostate. By doing so you are the one driving the wedge of separation between the various churches dedicated to following Christ, not me.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that the people who left and divided from the church aren't driving the wedge, but the people of the original church are driving the wedge by calling them out? Help me make sense of that.

We should be finding ways to unite one another under the banner of Christ, rather than dividing one another to proclaim that our church is simply better than yours for whatever reason. The unity should reside in the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God who came to die for our sins and it is Christ alone that should be the focus.

You can't get away with the fluff. I made many points about comparing "faith alone" vs. being held to a standard of action to be holy. You ignored it, and it isn't surprising, because you have no answer. Following Christ isn't fluffy all the time, there are very dire and serious issues. You can call for us to "unite", but Luther and Protestants are at direct theological impasse with the Catholic church.. so how can there be any uniting?

Drop the feelings game and if you want to stand up for your theology, do so. Until then, all you've done is shifted the goal posts.

Which brings more people to church that they may encounter Christ?

What's better:
1. Maintaining Christ's teachings and losing members in modern society
2. Watering down Christ's teachings and gaining members.

You know the answer.

 

[Votto]

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that the people who left and divided from the church aren't driving the wedge, but the people of the original church are driving the wedge by calling them out? Help me make sense of that.

You can't get away with the fluff. I made many points about comparing "faith alone" vs. being held to a standard of action to be holy. You ignored it, and it isn't surprising, because you have no answer. Following Christ isn't fluffy all the time, there are very dire and serious issues. You can call for us to "unite", but Luther and Protestants are at direct theological impasse with the Catholic church.. so how can there be any uniting?

Drop the feelings game and if you want to stand up for your theology, do so. Until then, all you've done is shifted the goal posts.

What's better:
1. Maintaining Christ's teachings and losing members in modern society
2. Watering down Christ's teachings and gaining members.

You know the answer.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that the people who left and divided from the church aren't driving the wedge, but the people of the original church are driving the wedge by calling them out? Help me make sense of that.

The people who divided the church are long dead is the point. I've seen churches divide over such insignificant questions as to whether Adam and Eve had a naval or not. It is time to return to Christ and stop contentious nonsense that has nothing to do with advancing the kingdom of God in this world. Look around my friend, the world is on fire and headed for destruction. We need more Charlie Kirks out there to reach out to kids who are so lost, they think that mutilating their genitals is the answer to curing their spiritual and psychological ills and will blow your head off with a gun if you "offend" them.

 

[Votto]

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that the people who left and divided from the church aren't driving the wedge, but the people of the original church are driving the wedge by calling them out? Help me make sense of that.

You can't get away with the fluff. I made many points about comparing "faith alone" vs. being held to a standard of action to be holy. You ignored it, and it isn't surprising, because you have no answer. Following Christ isn't fluffy all the time, there are very dire and serious issues. You can call for us to "unite", but Luther and Protestants are at direct theological impasse with the Catholic church.. so how can there be any uniting?

Drop the feelings game and if you want to stand up for your theology, do so. Until then, all you've done is shifted the goal posts.

What's better:
1. Maintaining Christ's teachings and losing members in modern society
2. Watering down Christ's teachings and gaining members.

You know the answer.

You can't get away with the fluff. I made many points about comparing "faith alone" vs. being held to a standard of action to be holy. You ignored it, and it isn't surprising, because you have no answer. Following Christ isn't fluffy all the time, there are very dire and serious issues. You can call for us to "unite", but Luther and Protestants are at direct theological impasse with the Catholic church.. so how can there be any uniting?

Was it fluff when the thief on the cross reached out to Christ in faith for salvation? He had no works that he could do so "save" himself. There was no Catholic church to join before dying to help ensure his salvation. No, it was just him and his Maker as he reached out to his Maker in faith.

Each man should study the scriptures himself on the matter and decide. That is why they exist, as well as pray fully asking God to reveal the truth to them. But we can't get there without first turning to Christ and pursuing him, which should be our unifying factor.

As Paul stated in Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that the people who left and divided from the church aren't driving the wedge, but the people of the original church are driving the wedge by calling them out? Help me make sense of that.

The people who divided the church are long dead is the point. I've seen churches divide over such insignificant questions as to whether Adam and Eve had a naval or not. It is time to return to Christ and stop contentious nonsense that has nothing to do with advancing the kingdom of God in this world. Look around my friend, the world is on fire and headed for destruction. We need more Charlie Kirks out there to reach out to kids who are so lost, they think that mutilating their genitals is the answer to curing their spiritual and psychological ills and will blow your head off with a gun if you "offend" them.

We need to define what is Christ and what is not. Answer these questions:

1. Is Christ's church supposed to be unified or divided?
2. Is the Pope infaliable in ex cathedra?
3. Does a miracle happen in the eucharist every Sunday?
4. Does the history of Christ trail back through the Catholic church via the Pope all the way to Christ?
5. Can you pray to saints for intercession?
6. Can you be saved on faith alone? (aka Sola Scriptura)

 

[Votto]

We need to define what is Christ and what is not. Answer these questions:

1. Is Christ's church supposed to be unified or divided?
2. Is the Pope infaliable in ex cathedra?
3. Does a miracle happen in the eucharist every Sunday?
4. Does the history of Christ trail back through the Catholic church via the Pope all the way to Christ?
5. Can you pray to saints for intercession?
6. Can you be saved on faith alone? (aka Sola Scriptura)

1. Is Christ's church supposed to be unified or divided?

Unified, of course. But as we all know, the forces of darkness seek to divide which the Bible says would happen. Even though there has been great success in this division, the Abrahamic religions remain being the only real games in town as all major religions reference to God of the Bible in some way, except for maybe Hinduism. So, even though on the surface it may seem like there are so many religions out there, they still point in some way back to the only true God. This is why Revelation talks of "the False Prophet" that will arise to deceive many into apostasy. It will be someone who refers to the God of the Bible but will alter key teachings that neutralize the salvation message of Christ. In my view, Mohammad fits the bill because Mohammad denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died for our sins. And no, the false Prophet is not Martin Luther in my view.

2. Is the Pope infaliable in ex cathedra?

No.

Papal infallibility - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brian Tierney argued that the 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope. Tierney's idea was accepted by August Bernhard Hasler, and by Gregory Lee Jackson. "The material near this tag may rely on a self-published source. It was rejected by James Heft Klaus Schatz says Olivi by no means played the key role assigned to him by Tierney, who failed to acknowledge the work of earlier canonists and theologians, and that the crucial advance in the teaching came only in the 15th century, two centuries after Olivi; and he declares that "It is impossible to fix a single author or era as the starting point." Ulrich Horst criticized the Tierney view for the same reasons. In his Protestant evaluation of the ecumenical issue of papal infallibility, Mark E. Powell rejects Tierney's theory about 13th-century Olivi, saying that the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at the First Vatican Ecumenical Council had its origins in the 14th century – he refers in particular to Bishop Guido Terreni – and was itself part of a long development of papal claims."

So, if you accept this doctrine, you are to believe that it all of a sudden popped into being around the 13th or 14th century? The early church clearly had no such doctrine. The notion that man of any stature could ever be declared infallible is just bizarre to me, knowing what we know about human nature and human failings, unless God himself came to earth in human form, that is. And given the checkered past of scandals involving Pope's that even you seem to acknowledge on some level, it is even more bizarre in my view to believe this doctrine. The Pope is free to continue to give sermons about global warming and building border walls are "evil" if he so desires, but it has zero effect on me, and neither should it you. Heck, even Saint Peter, whom the whole Pope business was framed after, denied knowing Jesus 3 times. Are the Pope's to follow any better than Peter? Nope.

3. Does a miracle happen in the eucharist every Sunday?

I have never interpreted the Eucharist that Christ commanded his followers to take to mean that it was the actual body and blood of Jesus, rather, it was a symbolic gesture. We are commanded to take it to remember what Christ has done for us all, and by taking it, we demonstrate of faith in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our salvation. Do we need to take the eucharist to be saved? No. Clearly, not as demonstrated by the thief on the cross who died next to Christ. Thinking that we require rituals for our salvation instead of only requiring faith in Christ alone I think is dangerous, as those rituals become idols to us.

It reminds me of the religious leaders watching Jesus heal a man, and then telling the man that his sins were forgiven him.

Luke 5:17
One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 18 Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Jesus broke all the rules, didn't he. Here we have a man who simply came to Jesus in faith, a man how had sinned previously, but Christ forgave them all because of his simply act of faith in Jesus to heal him. It really is offensive, isn't it? I mean, he should have to do some sort of religious ritual or maybe do some act of kindness to try and earn the remission of his sins, right? Yep, no Eucharist, no Baptism, not even having to join the Catholic church and there is Jesus telling him that his sins were forgiven sending the religious leaders into a rage for not doing it the way they thought it should be done. I bet on some level, it even upsets you.

4. Does the history of Christ trail back through the Catholic church via the Pope all the way to Christ?

All Christians can trace the history of the church of God all the way back to Christ himself no matter what the church decides to call itself in name.

5. Can you pray to saints for intercession?

Of course you can, but is it Biblical? Does it help? Does God want us to do so? It has always seemed bizarre to me that we would ever seek anyone or anything other than God himself to help us. Jesus taught his disciples to pray and he gave us the Lord's prayer as he taught them to pray to the Father only. Feel free to add to it if you like, but again, it's not in the Bible.

6. Can you be saved on faith alone? (aka Sola Scriptura)

Scripture indicates that faith is a requirement for salvation, unless you think that performing rituals can save you. Going back to the OT, we see indications of this.

Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

And it makes sense. If all good things come from God, then believing in God's plan and implementing it into your life brings righteousness and the only way for good to come about in your life, and in the world.

But faith has it's roots in love as it is a natural outcropping of love.

Matthew 22

37Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If you love someone, you naturally place your faith in them.

John 14:15 Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

We tend to want to please those we love, and even though it may be hard at times, it is not considered burdensome.

The gospel is meant to be simple and beautiful, for all to embrace no matter how poor uneducated you may be.

 

[Meriweather]

The notion that man of any stature could ever be declared infallible is just bizarre to me

There were are two "infallible" rulings (made ex-cathedra).

Are you saying no argument should ever be settled, that the debate should continue on ad nauseam? The Church argued for over 1800 years whether Mary was immaculately conceived. They argued for over 1900 years whether she was bodily assumed into heaven. Just how long did you want the Catholic Church to take up time debating these two issues?

The people argued and couldn't decide/agree, so they took the question to their priest; the priests couldn't decide/agree, so they took it to the bishops; the bishops couldn't decide/agree so it went to the archbishops, then to the Cardinals, and finally onto the Pope for the final decision. 'Infallible' means that Pope's decision is final. In other words, with that Pope's passing, the Church (from laity to future popes) agreed the matter was settled and would not be reopened.

What is bizarre to me is your wish for the Catholic Church to spend another two thousand years debating these matters.

 

[Votto]

There were are two "infallible" rulings (made ex-cathedra).

Are you saying no argument should ever be settled, that the debate should continue on ad nauseam? The Church argued for over 1800 years whether Mary was immaculately conceived. They argued for over 1900 years whether she was bodily assumed into heaven. Just how long did you want the Catholic Church to take up time debating these two issues?

The people argued and couldn't decide/agree, so they took the question to their priest; the priests couldn't decide/agree, so they took it to the bishops; the bishops couldn't decide/agree so it went to the archbishops, then to the Cardinals, and finally onto the Pope for the final decision. 'Infallible' means that Pope's decision is final. In other words, with that Pope's passing, the Church (from laity to future popes) agreed the matter was settled and would not be reopened.

What is bizarre to me is your wish for the Catholic Church to spend another two thousand years debating these matters.

The Bible says that Mary conceived as a virgin. It then does not say if she remained so.

Pretty simply really.

Basically, all I see are useless contentious questions that in no way promote the kingdom of God.

They need to stop.

 

[Meriweather]

The Bible says that Mary conceived as a virgin. It then does not say if she remained so.

Pretty simply really.

Basically, all I see are useless contentious questions that in no way promote the kingdom of God.

They need to stop.

It's not contentious in the Catholic Church. We have our belief. Why argue with it?

 

[ding]

They need to stop.

Who is they?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Catholics are not another sect

Do you know what the Bible calls your organization? And what it calls the Protestants?

 

[ding]

Do you know what the Bible calls your organization? And what it calls the Protestants?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, an early Apostolic Father and Bishop of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 108 AD), is credited with first using the term "Catholic Church" in his writings around 107-110 AD, emphasizing its universal nature, meaning "universal" or "according to the whole," in his letters to various Christian communities.

• First Usage: He used the phrase "Catholic Church" (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans to describe the universal body of Christians.
• Meaning: The term highlighted the unity and worldwide scope of the Church, distinguishing it from localized congregations by stressing its adherence to the whole body of faith.
• Context: Ignatius was martyred in Rome and wrote his letters while en route to his execution, providing some of the earliest descriptions of Church structure and beliefs, according to sources.