Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why?
Obviously Catholic, for they were the only church that Jesus ever founded. Who gave authority to Luther and Calvin? It was their own will/mind or possibly even worse, the Devil. But the Catholic Church was given direct authority by Jesus Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:18. The problem with Protestants is that they forget the fact that the Church is an organic and eternally changing organism. Here is a good analogy, someone plants a mustard seed, and then when it has grown into a bush, tries to find the original mustard seed. It cannot be found, and in the process you have destroyed the whole bush. Also, Protestants break from apostolic succession, whilst every Catholic clergyman can trace his ordination to Peter. This is why Catholicism is the religion of the New Covenant, not Protestantism.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
or possibly even worse, the Devil.

Nah. I hadn't been born yet.


....


Also, Catholic for me. I'm probably biased by my upbringing, but they're all about ornate ceremony and rituals and such...I was always a sucker for tradition like that.

I'm a Protestant and I have to disagree that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. So much happened politically/religiously between Christ's resurrection and the establishment of an organized church that it's impossible to say whether or not the Catholic Church is EXACTLY what Jesus wanted.

It's my personal belief that God loves and accepts Catholics and Protestants, but I don't believe in purgatory, praying to saints, or confessing my sins to another imperfect person who will tell me the exact way to earn God's forgiveness.

Snap! It's on.

*waits for Trans*

Half of my family is Catholic and the other half is protestant. I have never heard a word out of the Catholics mouth to condemn others to Hell or purgatory. On the other hand, I have heard out of the mouths of Protestant people that the Catholics are just lost.......lost and hopless...and will not make it to heaven because they are counting on works..

That's far from what I meant. I myself am married to a Catholic who believes in purgatory. I don't think he's lost or going to hell. I just didn't feel the need to convert because I don't think being one or the other makes a difference when it comes to your relationship with God. It's right for him to be a Catholic and right for me to be a Protestant.

Do you have children?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I'm a Protestant and I have to disagree that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. So much happened politically/religiously between Christ's resurrection and the establishment of an organized church that it's impossible to say whether or not the Catholic Church is EXACTLY what Jesus wanted.

It's my personal belief that God loves and accepts Catholics and Protestants, but I don't believe in purgatory, praying to saints, or confessing my sins to another imperfect person who will tell me the exact way to earn God's forgiveness.


I agree

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I'm a Protestant and I have to disagree that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. So much happened politically/religiously between Christ's resurrection and the establishment of an organized church that it's impossible to say whether or not the Catholic Church is EXACTLY what Jesus wanted.

It's my personal belief that God loves and accepts Catholics and Protestants, but I don't believe in purgatory, praying to saints, or confessing my sins to another imperfect person who will tell me the exact way to earn God's forgiveness.
See, the problem with your assumption here is that Protestants never had divine authority (or even apparent divine visions or instructions for that matter) to schism from the Church. It is true that during the time of the Protestant Revolution there was a lot of corruption in the church, but using my analogy above, stemming that plant (the church through excommunications etc.) is a solution, whilst abandoning the plant would be foolish. And the Catholic Church was established at the exact point that Christ "built his church" on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. From there every Catholic ordination happened and each and every one can be traced down to that event. The result of this is something called Apostolic Succession, where every ordained clergyman can perform the blessed sacraments (eg. Communion, Confession etc...) with Divine sanction. Protestants do not have this sanction, they broke away from it. Therefore they had and have no authority to schism (and judging from the hundreds of Protestant denominations, there is not much in the realm of clarity either). Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so. On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why? well i was born a protestant.... but really what difference is there, both believe there is a god and jesus only small factors vary.

this is literally religion
Jewish---------------stop believing here, christians start believeing here-------------they stop believing here and the islamics believe from here---------------to here it's all the same timeline, two of which are almost identical in everyway with only slight factors mainly changing

"Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so. On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator."---Trans

Let me say upfront that it's easy to get upset when it comes to religion. I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about it. I will answer your question about those who have committed "moderate" sins. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but can go to Heaven through Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you loved God, why would you go to hell? People sin every day in their thoughts, words, and actions. I can't speak for those who go to confession, but it seems to me it would be hard even remember every single sin you've committed between this confession and the last one. Part of why I choose to remain a Protestant is that I don't think a person needs a mediator between themselves and God. I can talk directly to him and he listens directly to me. I confess my sins to him and do my best to not sin anymore even though I know I will fall short. It is because I have accepted Jesus into my life that I'm going to Heaven. Committing sins doesn't condemn me, although it is God's will we make a real effort to not commit them anymore.

Oh, deja vu, we are expecting our first child this spring. When he and I took our premarital counseling, I said it was fine with me rearing my children Catholic. Again, that goes to my belief that nothing is keeping Catholics out of Heaven. I have told my husband I will support our son's Catholic faith as long as he desires to be a Catholic. He will naturally be exposed to what I believe and how I worship, so if he chooses to be a Protestant, we will be supportive of that too.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so. On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator."---Trans

Let me say upfront that it's easy to get upset when it comes to religion. I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about it. I will answer your question about those who have committed "moderate" sins. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but can go to Heaven through Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you loved God, why would you go to hell? People sin every day in their thoughts, words, and actions. I can't speak for those who go to confession, but it seems to me it would be hard even remember every single sin you've committed between this confession and the last one. Part of why I choose to remain a Protestant is that I don't think a person needs a mediator between themselves and God. I can talk directly to him and he listens directly to me. I confess my sins to him and do my best to not sin anymore even though I know I will fall short. It is because I have accepted Jesus into my life that I'm going to Heaven. Committing sins doesn't condemn me, although it is God's will we make a real effort to not commit them anymore.

Oh, deja vu, we are expecting our first child this spring. When he and I took our premarital counseling, I said it was fine with me rearing my children Catholic. Again, that goes to my belief that nothing is keeping Catholics out of Heaven. I have told my husband I will support our son's Catholic faith as long as he desires to be a Catholic. He will naturally be exposed to what I believe and how I worship, so if he chooses to be a Protestant, we will be supportive of that too. heres to hoping your kids an atheist

Catholic. Because that's what I am and that's what I'll always be.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why? That is a really, really good question. I'd be willing to bet most other Mormons would say Catholic, because Catholicism didn't originate from a different religion so it has a greater logical chance of being correct. On the other hand, I scratched that argument long ago because I believe any religion could be true if it was inspired by God, regardless of it's technical origins (I hope you're reading this, trans). If fact, looking at the repercussions of religion historically is also pointless because the actions of individuals has nothing to do with the actual doctrine. Protestants are noticeably more preachy then Catholics, but again that has nothing to do with doctrine or policy (if it did I probably wouldn't be a Mormon).

When it comes down to it, Protestantism probably comes closer to my personal beliefs in many ways, but Catholicism seems flexible enough to allow people to search by their own means.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so. On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator."---Trans

Let me say upfront that it's easy to get upset when it comes to religion. I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about it. I will answer your question about those who have committed "moderate" sins. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but can go to Heaven through Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you loved God, why would you go to hell? People sin every day in their thoughts, words, and actions. I can't speak for those who go to confession, but it seems to me it would be hard even remember every single sin you've committed between this confession and the last one. Part of why I choose to remain a Protestant is that I don't think a person needs a mediator between themselves and God. I can talk directly to him and he listens directly to me. I confess my sins to him and do my best to not sin anymore even though I know I will fall short. It is because I have accepted Jesus into my life that I'm going to Heaven. Committing sins doesn't condemn me, although it is God's will we make a real effort to not commit them anymore.

Oh, deja vu, we are expecting our first child this spring. When he and I took our premarital counseling, I said it was fine with me rearing my children Catholic. Again, that goes to my belief that nothing is keeping Catholics out of Heaven. I have told my husband I will support our son's Catholic faith as long as he desires to be a Catholic. He will naturally be exposed to what I believe and how I worship, so if he chooses to be a Protestant, we will be supportive of that too. That's interesting. I'm curious to know how that works out. I can see myself in a similar scenario in the future.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
heres to hoping your kids an atheist Wait till a Mormon comes into his life

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so. On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator."---Trans

Let me say upfront that it's easy to get upset when it comes to religion. I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about it. I will answer your question about those who have committed "moderate" sins. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but can go to Heaven through Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you loved God, why would you go to hell? People sin every day in their thoughts, words, and actions. I can't speak for those who go to confession, but it seems to me it would be hard even remember every single sin you've committed between this confession and the last one. Part of why I choose to remain a Protestant is that I don't think a person needs a mediator between themselves and God. I can talk directly to him and he listens directly to me. I confess my sins to him and do my best to not sin anymore even though I know I will fall short. It is because I have accepted Jesus into my life that I'm going to Heaven. Committing sins doesn't condemn me, although it is God's will we make a real effort to not commit them anymore.

Oh, deja vu, we are expecting our first child this spring. When he and I took our premarital counseling, I said it was fine with me rearing my children Catholic. Again, that goes to my belief that nothing is keeping Catholics out of Heaven. I have told my husband I will support our son's Catholic faith as long as he desires to be a Catholic. He will naturally be exposed to what I believe and how I worship, so if he chooses to be a Protestant, we will be supportive of that too.
One of the problems you have (and most Protestants have) is that you rely on God's mercy solely, whilst He is both eternally merciful AND just. Because of this justice, one must be held accountable for all of his/her sins, offenses against God. Even if you loved God with all your soul, but sinned, then the eternal justice of God would be used in judgement. But there are sins of differing levels of categorization: Venial sins are those sins which are not damnable (cursing for example) and they are removed every time you receive the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. The other type of sin, mortal, is damnable but requires three characteristics: it must be a grave matter, the person must be in full control of the event, and the person must know that it is a mortal sin (or at least offensive to God). We are all born with the inherent mortal sin of Adam, for God placed a curse on him and his children, but when one is baptized in the true sacrament, that sin is removed (that is why those outside the Church cannot be saved). The reason for all of this theology is that even after confessing sins, attachments to them may remain; and so the soul "atones" in Purgatory to clean itself of all sin before entering into Heaven. This is why loving God alone cannot get you directly into Heaven; by bringing a soul that has sin into heaven, you degrade the very perfect nature of the Place; therefore a Purgatory must exist (or it is almost impossible to enter into heaven, a scary thought...).
On your point that you can speak directly to God and do not require a "mediator", let me say that you are relying solely on Faith. This is a problem since the only time "faith" and "alone" are ever mentioned next to each other in the Bible is the line, "By faith alone ye are NOT saved" (James 2:26). That is why the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments are necessary for salvation. Also, back to the point of what I said earlier about apostolic succession, Protestants do not have a valid Communion and from the Gospel of John, " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54). But since Protestants do not have a valid communion by breaking from apostolic succession, they partake of the Body and Blood unworthily, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). This is why the Catholic Church exists as the sole keeper of the New Covenant in Christ.

And congratulations on your child! I will keep your family in my prayers. God bless.

Originally posted by Quark_666
That is a really, really good question. I'd be willing to bet most other Mormons would say Catholic, because Catholicism didn't originate from a different religion so it has a greater logical chance of being correct. On the other hand, I scratched that argument long ago because I believe any religion could be true if it was inspired by God, regardless of it's technical origins (I hope you're reading this, trans). If fact, looking at the repercussions of religion historically is also pointless because the actions of individuals has nothing to do with the actual doctrine. Protestants are noticeably more preachy then Catholics, but again that has nothing to do with doctrine or policy (if it did I probably wouldn't be a Mormon).

When it comes down to it, Protestantism probably comes closer to my personal beliefs in many ways, but Catholicism seems flexible enough to allow people to search by their own means.

That's interesting. I'm curious to know how that works out. I can see myself in a similar scenario in the future.

Wait till a Mormon comes into his life
The problem here on your point that any religion inspired by god can be true (I was listening...don't worry.) is that in the case of Christianity, God incarnate created a Church, His Church, and promised to safeguard it until His return at the end of time. When one scisms from this Church, there is no sanction to do so. Now, the Catholic Church will always reform (it is an organic institution), but to leave it is to leave the Church of God. And even though many Protestants had legitimate secular reasons to schism from the Church, they had no Divine sanction. If any religion inspired by God is true, then they would not ever contradict each other (Catholicism and Protestantism do) or else only one is correct or neither are.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
they had no Divine sanction. As a member of an entirely different religion, I agree. But that's the entire argument, isn't it? Kinda pointless to just say that...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why?

Why not throw them all to the lions?

Originally posted by Quark_666
As a member of an entirely different religion, I agree. But that's the entire argument, isn't it? Kinda pointless to just say that... And all, or most religions do.

And so only one true religion (Catholicism) exists.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And so only one true religion (Catholicism) exists. the one true religion TO YOU. its all semantics you believe basically the same thing.

Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.

As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.

I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.

And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.

As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.

I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.

And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.
I have made earlier the point of why one needs a "mediator" to God: The Church and all of its clergymen (mediators of sorts) are necessary to perform the true sacraments (baptism, communion etc) and without these "mediators" all of those sacraments are invalid. This brings me to the point of Protestant communion: even though a minister may "bless" the bread and wine, it is not a valid blessing because they lack the Divine authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles at the Last Supper. This is because, once again, they do not have apostolic succession. Unless you have been confirmed into the Catholic Church, you should not receive communion at one of the Catholic masses. On the point of pope John Paul the Second; you are in misunderstanding of what he said. He asserted that one could be saved outside of the VISIBLE church, but they must have had no possible chance to join the Catholic faith. Furthermore, this was not a dogmatic teaching; rather an opinion by a holy Pope. The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of salvation is that no one outside the Church can be saved. It can be interpreted both that there is an invisible Church that extends beyond the visible on, based on true desire for the Faith but no opportunity to find it, or that there is no salvation outside the visible Church. Pope Benedict is a holy pope, and he just interprets that teaching differently than John Paul; personally I believe that this Pope is a very Holy man, possibly saintly with his release of "Summorrum Pontificum", which freed up the old Latin Rite.

My Family on my fathers side is Heavily Catholic,from Bavaria.
My Moms side is more protestant.
I don't choose either one,I affiliate myself both with Catholic and Mainline protestants.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
One of the problems you have (and most Protestants have) is that you rely on God's mercy solely, whilst He is both eternally merciful AND just. Because of this justice, one must be held accountable for all of his/her sins, offenses against God. Even if you loved God with all your soul, but sinned, then the eternal justice of God would be used in judgement. But there are sins of differing levels of categorization: Venial sins are those sins which are not damnable (cursing for example) and they are removed every time you receive the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. The other type of sin, mortal, is damnable but requires three characteristics: it must be a grave matter, the person must be in full control of the event, and the person must know that it is a mortal sin (or at least offensive to God). We are all born with the inherent mortal sin of Adam, for God placed a curse on him and his children, but when one is baptized in the true sacrament, that sin is removed (that is why those outside the Church cannot be saved). The reason for all of this theology is that even after confessing sins, attachments to them may remain; and so the soul "atones" in Purgatory to clean itself of all sin before entering into Heaven. This is why loving God alone cannot get you directly into Heaven; by bringing a soul that has sin into heaven, you degrade the very perfect nature of the Place; therefore a Purgatory must exist (or it is almost impossible to enter into heaven, a scary thought...).
On your point that you can speak directly to God and do not require a "mediator", let me say that you are relying solely on Faith. This is a problem since the only time "faith" and "alone" are ever mentioned next to each other in the Bible is the line, "By faith alone ye are NOT saved" (James 2:26). That is why the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments are necessary for salvation. Also, back to the point of what I said earlier about apostolic succession, Protestants do not have a valid Communion and from the Gospel of John, " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54). But since Protestants do not have a valid communion by breaking from apostolic succession, they partake of the Body and Blood unworthily, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). This is why the Catholic Church exists as the sole keeper of the New Covenant in Christ.

And congratulations on your child! I will keep your family in my prayers. God bless.

1) I wouldn't call it a"problem" we protestants have an incredible strength, that we have a merciful God who sent us his son to die for for every sin. Also I would agree with you that loving God alone does not get us saved. It's (As repeatedly stated in the New Testament) the fact that God loves us, that he set about getting us saved through Jesus.
2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims? Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
3) If you read that verse from James chapter 2 in context it does in no way talk about sacraments made by the Catholic Church. It says faith without works is pointless. As in faith without action is pointless (the whole chapter revolves around the theme of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, which would have been an appropriate criticism of some of the Early Churches.)
The reference in 1 Cor 11:27 is also removed from it's context where it begins by referring to how different aspects of the Church should be unified for we are all one body (So no the Catholics aren't the only ones getting communion right as you claim at the end of your post). The passage goes on to the verse you mention stating of how we must be respectful of communion and examine ourselves in this important activity. I see nothing of being unworthy protestants And if you statement was accurate, as the following verses state, I'm not sick and ill for partaking in what you would call unworthy communion, I'm healthy and alive, full of praise for God.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.

As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.

I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.

And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.

I agree with everything you say here except the Lutheran part about Communion being a miracle of receiving Christs blood and body. I, like you refer to, see it as a gesture of remembrance of God's love.

Bah! Protestant don't like Saints.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine FTW!

Catholics are more philosophical!

In Yo Face SUCKAS!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Bah! Protestant don't like Saints.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine FTW!

Catholics are more philosophical!

In Yo Face SUCKAS!!!!!!!!! very professional for a mod

I just couldn't resist....

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Bah! Protestant don't like Saints.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine FTW!

Catholics are more philosophical!

In Yo Face SUCKAS!!!!!!!!!


I simply cannot argue with that ..........















AS IT'S SUCH A STUPID COMMENT!!!!!!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just couldn't resist....

Well said, willrules.

Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins. Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God? Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads? A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling. It takes someone of very strong faith and committment to do such a thing. But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.

I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church? How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population? If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people? An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it. My husband is one of them. And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven? I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned. So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.

All I'm really saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way Protestants worship and although we have a bad reputation for being anti-Catholic, it's really not the case. A whole group as varied as the Protestant population cannot be stereotyped in the same way the Catholic population cannot be.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well said, willrules.

Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins. Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God? Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads? A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling. It takes someone of very strong faith and committment to do such a thing. But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.

I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church? How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population? If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people? An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it. My husband is one of them. And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven? I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned. So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.

All I'm really saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way Protestants worship and although we have a bad reputation for being anti-Catholic, it's really not the case. A whole group as varied as the Protestant population cannot be stereotyped in the same way the Catholic population cannot be. no but you dont seem to get it. there arent any personal relationships with god in christianity because he's so generalized.

Originally posted by willRules
1) I wouldn't call it a"problem" we protestants have an incredible strength, that we have a merciful God who sent us his son to die for for every sin. Also I would agree with you that loving God alone does not get us saved. It's (As repeatedly stated in the New Testament) the fact that God loves us, that he set about getting us saved through Jesus.
2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims? Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
3) If you read that verse from James chapter 2 in context it does in no way talk about sacraments made by the Catholic Church. It says faith without works is pointless. As in faith without action is pointless (the whole chapter revolves around the theme of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, which would have been an appropriate criticism of some of the Early Churches.)
The reference in 1 Cor 11:27 is also removed from it's context where it begins by referring to how different aspects of the Church should be unified for we are all one body (So no the Catholics aren't the only ones getting communion right as you claim at the end of your post). The passage goes on to the verse you mention stating of how we must be respectful of communion and examine ourselves in this important activity. I see nothing of being unworthy protestants And if you statement was accurate, as the following verses state, I'm not sick and ill for partaking in what you would call unworthy communion, I'm healthy and alive, full of praise for God.

QFT.

Reading some of the earlier posts from Trans, how can you know that all Catholic priests came from Peter?

As I recall, the early church leaders are all Jews, who then trained up and discipled other Jews (like Paul with Timothy) for many years. I don't see the matchup to where that authority is passed on to the Roman Catholic church?

In fact, Jesus Himself said that we are ALL called to go forth and preach the good news to all people, and that we will do greater works than he did, and lay hands on the sick and see them healed in His name. Didn't catch the part in there where He said: "Oh, and make sure that you go through your priest for all that."

What he did say is that if 2 or more are gathered together, He is there in their midst. And that HE brings our requests before God, and that he will answer anything asked in his name.


In answer to the thread topic: Charismatic. (Pentecostal)

Which is a form of Protestant.

Protestants would find this blasphemous.

Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins.



>>Because Christ says so. John 20:21-23:

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

**************************************************
***





Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God?

>>No. We are all supposed to be, individually, members of Christ's Body: 1 Corinthians 12:12:-2712The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

**************************************





Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads?

>>Just as special as can be, even though not all of us are heads, or feet,or hands, or priests, or prophets, or teachers, or evangelists.



But each of us is, individually, in relationship to the Head, which is Christ Jesus. The relationship is that of cells to in a Body.

*****************************************



A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling.

>>If you truly bnelieved that, you would be Catholic. If you were truly Protestant, you would fulminate against the Catholic priesthood, which reserves to the ordained presbyters of the bishop, the power to effectuate the transsubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior, just as Paul tells us has been done from the very beginning of the Catholic Church. 1 Cor 11:23-29



23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



************************************************













But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.



Jesus has told you how to confess your sins. Why do you not hear Him?

John 20:21-23:

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

**************************************************
******

I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church?

>>Because Jesus Christ commanded it:

Matthew 16:17-19:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

*********************************************





How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population?

>>Because Christ just told you he can.

**********************************

If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people?



>>Unlike man-made religions, the Catholic Church can never change her teaching on matters of divine revalation. Only matters of discipline and pastoral approach can change. Dogma never can change. This is because the Catholic Church was not instituted by men, or by the will of mken, but by God, and by the Will of God. Therefore no Pope, when exercising the power of binding and loosing authoritatively, can ever bind a Catholic to sin or error in matters of faith and morals.



**************************************************
*********************







An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it.

>>You are simply wrong here. Unlike man-made Protestant denominations, which come into existence as easily as resentments crop up in their predecessors, the Catholic Church will never change any dogma of her faith, since her dogmas are God given, and not man made. Since Purgatory is an apostololic dogma, infallibly defined by Popes and Councils, it will never change. You might possibly be referring here to Limbo, which was never a dogma of the Catholic faith, but merely a (well-supported) theological speculation. I still happen to believe in limbo, by the way, along with hundreds of millions of other Catholics. But I have never been required to believe in limbo, as I would be required to believe in a dogma revealed to us on the authority of God Himself (such as Purgatory).

**************************************************
*****



My husband is one of them.

>>If your husband is truly Catholic, please tell him he has been listening to some extremely incompetent teachers, if they have told him the Catholic Church has changed her teaching on Purgatory. Ask him to show you proof.



Hint: he won't be able to.



That is because the Church has never, can never, and will never change her teaching on Purgatory, or on any other dogma of the Faith.



The Catholic Church, as opposed to man-made religions, does not consult popular opinion for her dogmatic teachings.

********************************************



And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven?

>>>It has always been the official teaching of the Church that invincible ignorance can excuse one from not accepting the Gospel and becoming baptized. This does not in any way mean they are assured of heaven, howqever. As Paul says:



Rm 2 12-16

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.



Notice that ignorance of the Law does not mean the Gentiles are forgiven their sins. Indeed, they will be judged by the law written on every human heart.



As for those who knowingly reject Christ and His Church, well.

There was more hope for those who decided not to get aboard the Ark, than there is for them.

**************************************************
***********

I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned.

>>No. The Church wrote Romans 2, the Church has always taught it. Read it above and see. The Church has always taught that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church, will not be condemned on those grounds.



The Church has always taught that these will, nonetheless, be judged according to the law written on each human heart.

The Church has always taught that there is no hope whatsoever, for any person who knowingly rejects Christ and His Church.



These latter cannot be saved.

****************************************

So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.



>>It is not the interpretation of people that is important. It is the commandment of Christ that is important:

Mt 16:17-19



17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims?

>>>Sure. 1 Jn 5:16-17:

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.



The "sin that does not lead to death", that is, the sin that does not destroy sanctifying grace, is what we call "venial sin" in Catholic moral theology. The "sin that leads to death", that is, the sin that does destroy sanctifying grace, is what we call "mortal sin" in Catholic moral theology.

**************************************************
**

Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.



>>Well, now you know that there are two categories of sin in Scripture, just as there aretwo categories of sin in Catholic moral theology. The reason is, that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament Scriptures, and the Catholic Church alone has retained the trustworthy interpretation of them.

**************************************************
**

well trans ill give you this you are goddamn thorough. i do agree with you on the point that people are not meant to have individual experiences with god in the catholic faith, and i even find the notion laughable. i completely agree that it is a body of teachings and people, and that if you accept the catholic faith you accept yourself as part of the body. i also agree, it doesnt agree with whats popular, which is certainly a good trait, however the church has been wrong multiple times which it has apologized for.

its hard for me to debate catholic scripture because i havent read the bible completely, nor do i know the intricacies of your faith, however if i was to become christian, i would likely be catholic. not because its structured, but because there is a way to become forgiven. although i do believe electing a pope is simply rediculus because you admit humans are fallible and fallible people electing someone who is supposed to be infallible is rediculus.

i would choose protestant

I am from a catholic fam was born catholic and raised going to the church, even though we were loose catholics not really devoted. But still, catholic church is so boring its not even funny. they made me go to sunday school and i'd get in trouble for saying the wrong shit. then we go to church and i gotta sit there for 2 hours while people chant in latin and shit and the priest reads from the bible.

also, they have different things you are supposed to stand for and somethings you're supposed to kneel for, and they don't warn you when it's coming up. i wasn't really a regular church goer so i'd always be behind on the kneeling and standing and the shit was really quite tiring. then as a "treat" at the end of this you get a tasteless waffer type of deal thats supposed to be the body of christ and a sip of wine thats his blood. then as we're in the parking lot walking to the car my mom asks me what the preacher was talking about and when i dont know the answer (which i never did, i was 7 at the time) she nags me about that too.

about a year or so ago my mom switched to a methodist church and now her and my fam go to that more often then we ever used to go to catholic church. for years before she switched we didnt go to church at all except holidays. but their new methodist church is much nicer. whenever i go to visit she makes me come with them. and it's still a pain getting up early but it's better than catholic church. the people are nicer, the sermons are less boring, the songs are slightly better and they even give you real bread not that wafer shit. and it's only 1 hour.

and since my mom switched the catholic church people are kind of ***** about it. oh, haven't seen YOU in church for a while. they're a stuck up bunch. like jesus really cares anyway.

Trans you've made some interesting points there but if you take up that interpretation of verses such as John chapter 20 to suggest that priests/bishops or specific people with ecclesiastical authority should be a form of mediator between God and his people, how do you account for passages such as Hebrews chapter 9 that clearly states that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no requirement for a high priest and all are available to come to God? This is made specifically clear in verse 15 that states that Christ is the mediator between God and us. This also corroborates with verses such as Matthew 27:51, the crucifixion, where the curtain in the temple is torn in two to symbolise that there is no barrier between God and man and all we have to do is to enter to that place of sacrifice that has been made open by the death of Jesus.

Trans, on the passage you cited earlier that stated Jesus telling his disciples to forgive others ("if you forgive them, they are forgiven", my Christian education actually interpreted that differently than you do. In Lutheran catechism, we have an entire section on the importance of forgiving others. We take this statement to coincide with the section in the Lord's Prayer about forgiving those who trespass against us. It is not about confession to a disciple. It is saying that if someone does those disciples wrong and repents, the disciple should forgive them. So you're really just arguing interpretation. I suppose you believe everything the Church says is right even though the very early church had many, many interpretations of God's work resulting in the Council of Nicea coming together to standardize everything. I could use the same points you make in saying the Gnostics were the church chosen by God. I could use the same arguement that the iconoclasts were more correct than those who did pray to the icons and vice versa.

I take great offense to you saying I'm basically a horrible Protestant and my husband not a true Catholic. We are both passionate about our faith, hence why neither of us feels the need to convert. There are some things we do not agree with the Church on and it was from our premarital counseling through a Catholic Church that I determined I could never agree with every little point. For example, couples in the church came in to tell us about the importance of staying married even in the event of infidelity...and yet they were divorced, or as the Church likes to call it "annullment." My husband and I are both military members and for at least the first four years of our marriage, we will have to go through long separations from each other. We need to be able to trust the other one 100% for this to work. If one of us should be unfaithful, we won't have that trust and our marriage will no longer be able to work. Yet the Church does not share this viewpoint in spite of Matthew 5, clearly stating sex with someone else is grounds for divorce:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Trans you've made some interesting points there

>>I thank you very much for saying so, and for the privilege of examining these matters. I think we can agree that they are, in the end, the things that really matter, that will really determine the ultimate outcome of our time here on earth. I am so grateful for others, like you, who also take these matters seriously, even if they still might not have arrived at the point where they are ready in conscience to seek the fullness of communion in Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
*******************************

but if you take up that interpretation of verses such as John chapter 20 to suggest that priests/bishops or specific people with ecclesiastical authority should be a form of mediator between God and his people, how do you account for passages such as Hebrews chapter 9 that clearly states that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no requirement for a high priest and all are available to come to God?

>>Because Christ is our High Priest, offering eternally the One Sacrifice on Calvary, does not in any way mean that we do not partake, on our altars, of that same One Sacrifice, as the same Letter to the Hebrews assures us:
Hebrews 13:9-10

9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.


And, needless to say, it is clear that what we eat, from our Christian altars, from which those who serve the earthly tabernacle have no right to eat (remember, this Letter is written to the Hebrews, including those Jews of apostolic times, who were divided about whether to continue to observe the Temple sacrifices of the Law of Moses, or whether the coming of Christ had in fact fulfilled, superceded and replaced all the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law) is none other than the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ Our Lord, our Savior, and Our Passover:
1 Cor 11: 23-29:
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So we see that the ceremonial foods of the Old Covenant, as well as all the ceremonial foods of the pagans, are set at nought and replaced by the True Sacrifice, the True Lamb of God, the True Passover meal, Christ Our Lord, offered on our altars, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
Obviously, the Catholic Church's unbroken obedience to these truths stands in stark contrast to the endless debates back and forth among the separated, over which verse means what about whom and when and according to which interpretation.

The Church has retained the true interpretation of these matters, Will, not because Catholics are any brighter or smarter (God knows!), but because Christ Himself has promised us that the Catholic Church will never fail to do so:

Matthew 16:17-19

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
**************************************************
**********

This is made specifically clear in verse 15 that states that Christ is the mediator between God and us. This also corroborates with verses such as Matthew 27:51, the crucifixion, where the curtain in the temple is torn in two to symbolise that there is no barrier between God and man and all we have to do is to enter to that place of sacrifice that has been made open by the death of Jesus.

>>The Catholic faith agrees with every single syllable of what you have written above, Will. Where the Catholic faith completes the above understanding, is in adding to these truths the understanding of John 20, where Christ sends the apostles forth just as the Father has sent Christ, and actually gives to these mere men the divine power to forgive and retain sins, because Christ has given His power on earth for salvation into the hands of His Church, which, like Himself, is a mystical union of the Divine and the human:

Jn 20:21-23

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

Trans, on the passage you cited earlier that stated Jesus telling his disciples to forgive others ("if you forgive them, they are forgiven", my Christian education actually interpreted that differently than you do.


>>With respect, Will, the Bible can be interpreted as many different ways as there are readers of the Bible. This simple, tragic truth is the basic reason why Luther's doctrine of "Sola Scripture" (Scripture Alone) has proven to be so shockingly, abysmally, catastrophically, and resoundingly WRONG. Those who followed Luther's cry of "Scripture Alone!" were wonderfully united until the next time a disagreement arose. Then, the Lutherans became the Calvinists became the Methodists became the Baptists became the Anabaptists became the Wesleyans became the Anglicans became the Evangelicals (at least five hundred different flavors there alone)…on and on and on.

The principle of private interpretation is unscriptural and false, Will.

The principle of an authoritative Church, founded by the Apostles and governed by their legitimate successors, is scriptural and true.
**************************************************
********

In Lutheran catechism, we have an entire section on the importance of forgiving others. We take this statement to coincide with the section in the Lord's Prayer about forgiving those who trespass against us.

>>>There is no contradiction here, Will. We are to forgive one another. We are also to confess our sins so that we can receive Christ's forgiveness through the legitimate successors of the Apostles. Both statements are scriptural. Both statements are true. The True Church will be marked by obedience to both principles. A community separated from the fullness of communion with that Church will argue back and forth about which of the two holds.

**********************************

It is not about confession to a disciple.

>>It is about confession to the legitimate successors of the Apostles. Will. Please read it for yourself:
Jn 20:21-23

"21
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

**************************************************
*******************************************


It is saying that if someone does those disciples wrong and repents, the disciple should forgive them. So you're really just arguing interpretation.

>>There is no argument at all, Will. The argument begins when one attempts to set one truth over and against the other. The Catholic has no such difficulty, since the Catholic obeys both truths.
***************************************

I suppose you believe everything the Church says is right even though the very early church had many, many interpretations of God's work resulting in the Council of Nicea coming together to standardize everything.

>>What "the Church says", Will, does not consist in every crackpot's assorted lunacies advanced based on the rumblings of his or her stomach on what a given Scripture passage might mean. As you so correctly note, it is the official voice of the Church, of her bishops, in union with the Pope, in Council that enjoys the protection of Christ's Spirit against all error.

Since you accept Nicaea, Will, it is important to ask you- why do you not accept Ephesus? Viennes? Florence? The Vatican?

It seems illogical to me to submit to the binding authority of the Catholic Church at Nicaea, and then somehow decide to pick and choose which Councils you will accept afterward.
*****************************


I could use the same points you make in saying the Gnostics were the church chosen by God.

>>No. You couldn't. The Gnostics do not bear the marks of the true Church, in that (a) they do not have unbroken succession from the Apostles (b) they have not fulfilled the prophecies of Christ that the Church would survive in visible form from His institution of her at Ceasarea Phillippi, until His Second Coming (c) the Gnostics have not fulfilled the Prophets' testimonies that the Church would be a "light to the Gentiles" and bring men of all tongues, times, races, and nations to Christ (only the Catholic Church fulfills these prophecies, since the Catholic Church is the only religion in human history to spread throughout all times, tongues, races and nations).

I could use the same arguement that the iconoclasts were more correct than those who did pray to the icons and vice versa.

>>No, you couldn't. See above. The same Church which you accept in Council at Nicaea, pronounced infallibly against the iconoclasts in Council at Nicaea again in 787. Why would you accept one, and reject the other?

**************************************************
****

I take great offense to you saying I'm basically a horrible Protestant and my husband not a true Catholic.

>>I said neither thing. Please go back and read my words again. It is, alas, impossible to avoid hurt feelings, once it is understood that Christ spoke One Truth, and founded only One Church. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and I honor your faith, which will, please God, one day be brought to the fullness of Truth in the One True Church. Until then, please be advised that I am a Catholic, and am fully convinced of the necessity of Truth for salvation. I do not subscribe to the modern day pseudo-gospel of "what's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me".
*********************************
We are both passionate about our faith, hence why neither of us feels the need to convert.
>>With respect, Muslims, Jews, atheists, pagans, Wiccans, and Satanists are, presumably, passionate about their faith and feel no need to convert. This, alas, constitutes no evidence at all that they need not convert.

Protestants are obviously far better off than any of these, since they have retained a large measure of Catholic truth.

But they also suffer, as history shows, from the terrible errors of Luther, which have bred schism after schism after schism after schism, in stark and manifest contradiction to the Unity of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I am sorry if these truths offend.

They are, nonetheless, truths.
*********************************************
There are some things we do not agree with the Church on and it was from our premarital counseling through a Catholic Church that I determined I could never agree with every little point.

>>>If you cannot agree with Christ in every little point, I beg you to tremble in terror, and pray for conversion to Him in every little point.

**************************************************
*********************************



For example, couples in the church came in to tell us about the importance of staying married even in the event of infidelity..

>>>These are Christ's words.
Mk 10:2-10
2

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."



and yet they were divorced,
>>No, they were not.
**************************
or as the Church likes to call it "annullment."

An annulment is not a divorce.
******************************



My husband and I are both military members and for at least the first four years of our marriage, we will have to go through long separations from each other. We need to be able to trust the other one 100% for this to work. If one of us should be unfaithful, we won't have that trust and our marriage will no longer be able to work. Yet the Church does not share this viewpoint in spite of Matthew 5, clearly stating sex with someone else is grounds for divorce:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

>>>What you are so convinced your English translation "clearly says", is in fact not an accurate rendering of the teaching of Christ. The Catholic Church has been established, thankfully, to assist those suffering from the notion that Scripture can be used against itself, in order to establish a "clear meaning" that it obviously cannot have, since God can never contradict Himself.

I invite you, should you desire to obey Christ more than you desire Christ to obey you, to prayerfully consider the following examination of the Matthean use of the Greek word "porneia":
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp
**************************************************
************

Originally posted by Deja~vu
If you had only one choice, which one would you chose and why? I can't remember which one allows me to drink beer, that would be my choice.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
QFT.

Reading some of the earlier posts from Trans, how can you know that all Catholic priests came from Peter?

As I recall, the early church leaders are all Jews, who then trained up and discipled other Jews (like Paul with Timothy) for many years. I don't see the matchup to where that authority is passed on to the Roman Catholic church?

In fact, Jesus Himself said that we are ALL called to go forth and preach the good news to all people, and that we will do greater works than he did, and lay hands on the sick and see them healed in His name. Didn't catch the part in there where He said: "Oh, and make sure that you go through your priest for all that."

What he did say is that if 2 or more are gathered together, He is there in their midst. And that HE brings our requests before God, and that he will answer anything asked in his name.


In answer to the thread topic: Charismatic. (Pentecostal)

Which is a form of Protestant.

Trans, you skipped my post.

I want some answer as to when and where it's proven that Jewish leaders of the early church somehow transfered power over to Romans.

As I recall, they are all told to spread the gospel everywhere, and make disciples of all nations.

As I quoted above:

In fact, Jesus Himself said that we are ALL called to go forth and preach the good news to all people, and that we will do greater works than he did, and lay hands on the sick and see them healed in His name. Didn't catch the part in there where He said: "Oh, and make sure that you go through your priest for all that."

What he did say is that if 2 or more are gathered together, He is there in their midst. And that HE brings our requests before God, and that he will answer anything asked in his name.



What say you?

I am sorry, but I cannot get to everybody at once. My response will be soon, I have a demanding schedule as a student.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I can't remember which one allows me to drink beer, that would be my choice.

Catholicism.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Catholicism.



They both do

Religion is like a tree. What you see is the huge trunk (Catholicism), one strong religion. From that you see all the little branches (Protestants), but what is above ground doesn't see the roots underneath (paganism).

Originally posted by sithsaber408
QFT.

Reading some of the earlier posts from Trans, how can you know that all Catholic priests came from Peter?

>>Because all Catholic bishops come from the twelve apostles, who spread the Church from Jerusalem, making Bishops in the cities they passed through, to shepherd each new planted Church. We read about this in, for example, John 20:21
"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you: ( John 20:21 ).
Or in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 28:
"All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world

The process is also attested to by Paul, notably in his 2nd letter to Timothy, whom Paul personally ordained, just as Catholic bishops, priests and deacons are ordained today, by the laying on of hands:
2 Timothy 1:6-14

6 That is why I am reminding you now to fan into a flame the gift of God that you possess through the laying on of my hands.

7 God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but the Spirit of power and love and self-control.

8 So you are never to be ashamed of witnessing to our Lord, or ashamed of me for being his prisoner; but share in my hardships for the sake of the gospel, relying on the power of God

9 who has saved us and called us to be holy-not because of anything we ourselves had done but for his own purpose and by his own grace. This grace had already been granted to us, in Christ Jesus, before the beginning of time,

10 but it has been revealed only by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus. He has abolished death, and he has brought to light immortality and life through the gospel,

11 in whose service I have been made herald, apostle and teacher.

12 That is why I am experiencing my present sufferings; but I am not ashamed, because I know in whom I have put my trust, and I have no doubt at all that he is able to safeguard until that Day what I have entrusted to him.

13 Keep as your pattern the sound teaching you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

14 With the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, look after that precious thing given in trust.

And, again in Paul's letter to Titus:

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" (Titus, i, 5).




As I recall, the early church leaders are all Jews,

>>Not so. Luke, the "beloved physician", the author of a Gospel, and Paul's faithful companion on his journeys, was a Gentile. It is difficult to see how one could overlook Christ's explicit command that His Church is to encompass all men, and not just the Jews:
Matthew 28:19-20a

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
**************************************************
*************


who then trained up and discipled other Jews (like Paul with Timothy) for many years.

>>Again, you apparently forgot to read what Paul was at great pains to teach you under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in Scripture:
Ephesians 2:11-19

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.



If the above does not make it absolutely crystal clear that in Christ's Church there is no longer any racial exclusivity- the New Covenant is no longer the property of any one race after the flesh- then Paul makes it as clear as it can possibly be for you, in this next passage:



Galatians 3:26-29

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

**************************************

I don't see the matchup to where that authority is passed on to the Roman Catholic church?

>>It appears you do not see a great deal, in that you imagine that Christ's Church was merely for the Jews, when Christ Himself, as well as the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, has just told you that it is explicitly for all men, whether Jew, or Greek, or slave, or free.

Having missed this, you in turn miss that the Apostles go forth and "pass over" the authority they have received from Christ, to other men, who in turn become bishops, priests, and deacons, and so it is down to this very day.

The proof, of course, is so obvious that it really requires no further explanation.

The Catholic Church has held to the same doctrine, the same unity, and the same worship, though spread all over the earth, separated in time and place, in race and tongue, in the only such miraculous sign ever seen through any religion in the entire history of humanity.
****************************************


In fact, Jesus Himself said that we are ALL called to go forth and preach the good news to all people, and that we will do greater works than he did, and lay hands on the sick and see them healed in His name. Didn't catch the part in there where He said: "Oh, and make sure that you go through your priest for all that."

>>It is apparent that you missed the part where He said:
John 20:21-23
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

And again:
Matthew 28:19-20a

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

But your biggest problem is in dealing with the simple reality that wherever you go throughout the whole world, you will find Catholic churches which trace themselves back to the Apostles, or to men ordained by the Apostles, or to their successors, and who have held, believed, and taught the same things from that day to this.

The reason for this, is that Christ Himself has promised that His Church will be built on Peter, will encompass all nations, and will be One, and will never fail until the end of time.

Certainly not something one can say about any other sect. Please, go ahead and try, if you can think of another.........................................
**************************************************
********8


What he did say is that if 2 or more are gathered together, He is there in their midst. And that HE brings our requests before God, and that he will answer anything asked in his name.

>>That would be His followers, you see. Those who are His, who obey what He commands, as opposed to those who go about saying "Lord, Lord", but do not obey Him:
Mt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'



*******************************

A CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL RESPONSEOriginally posted by Transfinitum
See, the problem with your assumption here is that Protestants never had divine authority (or even apparent divine visions or instructions for that matter) to schism from the Church.Protestant reformers relied on the testimony of the Bible alone, which they held to be inspired by God and inherently authoritative. It was Rome's long departure from the written Word of God, and fallacious elevation of Church Tradition, that drove Martin Luther and others to point out the many theological faults of Roman Catholicism. As with conservative Protestants today, most reformers soundly rejected the idea that the Bible was a product of RC Tradition. Sola Scriptura!

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is true that during the time of the Protestant Revolution there was a lot of corruption in the church, but using my analogy above, stemming that plant (the church through excommunications etc.) is a solution, whilst abandoning the plant would be foolish.This solution assumes the Roman Church is the genuine article. Protestants have long held that view in doubt. If the Roman Catholic Church is merely a vague reflection of the New Testament church, then the only appropriate response is to reject it. Given that post-Vatican II Rome still preaches many of the heresies that led to the Protestant Reformation, it seems they still have a great deal of pruning to do.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And the Catholic Church was established at the exact point that Christ "built his church" on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. From there every Catholic ordination happened and each and every one can be traced down to that event. The result of this is something called Apostolic Succession, where every ordained clergyman can perform the blessed sacraments (eg. Communion, Confession etc...) with Divine sanction.In fact, the church was established at Pentecost . While Peter played a significant role in the launching of the church, one must look far beyond the pages of the Bible to make a case for Apostolic Succession. The circular nature of Rome's argument here is highly problematic. The very people who authenticate Tradition, rest upon their own affirmations in support of their positional authority. Thus Rome's "divine sanction" is at best pretentious.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Protestants do not have this sanction, they broke away from it. Therefore they had and have no authority to schism (and judging from the hundreds of Protestant denominations, there is not much in the realm of clarity either).Conservative Protestants rest upon the Bible as their only and all sufficient rule for faith and practice. It is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need.

It should be noted that, despite the many varieties of Protestant churches, there are only two relevant camps within the movement. There are those who hold a conservative approach to Scripture and believe its essential, salvific teachings, and there are those who follow a more liberal path. While Bible believing Protestants are often given to debate with one another, this does nothing to subtract from the elemental truth that all truly saved persons will one day occupy heaven. Issues like Calvinism vs Arminianism, the role of women in the church, the style of music used for worship, dress code, divorce and remarriage, the social consumption of alcohol, or one's favorite translation of the Bible, are all important subjects for discussion; yet they do not bear directly on a person's eternal destiny.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so.The Roman Catholic categorization of sins as Venial or Mortal is entirely contrary to Scripture.

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

Those who enter enternity with ANY sins on their record will face condemnation. The Bible makes it clear that all human beings are guilty of sin , and are therefore under an everlasting death penalty -- meaning hell . Salvation is avaiable to all who repent of their sins and place their trust in Christ alone to save them . Salvation is therefore by grace, through faith, plus nothing . A Christian's good works are a product of his redemption, not an agent of his redemption .

But you're right about one thing. Those who enter heaven have to be saints. Thankfully, all who know Jesus as Lord and Savior bear that title.


Originally posted by Transfinitum
On the point of the sacrament of Confession, the Priest is not one to listen to your sins, but acts as a mediator between you and God. When he provides absolution and penance, he receives both from the Holy Spirit (one person of God in the Trinity). He is also held to never repeat anything he has heard in the Confessional, for if he does he is Excommunicated from the Church automatically. So in fact you are not confessing to another imperfect person, but to God; using the priest as a mediator. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...."

Originally posted by Transfinitum
One of the problems you have (and most Protestants have) is that you rely on God's mercy solely, whilst He is both eternally merciful AND just. Because of this justice, one must be held accountable for all of his/her sins, offenses against God. Even if you loved God with all your soul, but sinned, then the eternal justice of God would be used in judgement.As I mentioned previously, Protestants rely on the grace of God, because the Bible says that salvation is by grace, through faith, plus nothing.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith --- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God --- not by works so that no one can boast."

Originally posted by Transfinitum
But there are sins of differing levels of categorization: Venial sins are those sins which are not damnable (cursing for example) and they are removed every time you receive the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. The other type of sin, mortal, is damnable but requires three characteristics: it must be a grave matter, the person must be in full control of the event, and the person must know that it is a mortal sin (or at least offensive to God). We are all born with the inherent mortal sin of Adam, for God placed a curse on him and his children, but when one is baptized in the true sacrament, that sin is removed (that is why those outside the Church cannot be saved). The reason for all of this theology is that even after confessing sins, attachments to them may remain; and so the soul "atones" in Purgatory to clean itself of all sin before entering into Heaven. This is why loving God alone cannot get you directly into Heaven; by bringing a soul that has sin into heaven, you degrade the very perfect nature of the Place; therefore a Purgatory must exist (or it is almost impossible to enter into heaven, a scary thought...).Again, I dealt with sin categorization earlier .

While Protestants have various opinions about the sacraments, baptismal regeneration is inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture.

"'The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raise Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in Him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile --- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

Notice the repetition of the phrase "will be saved". Notice also that baptism isn't even mentioned. To ensure that we respect context, I cited the whole passage. The conclusion? One is saved through faith in Christ, without baptism.


Originally posted by Transfinitum
On your point that you can speak directly to God and do not require a "mediator", let me say that you are relying solely on Faith. This is a problem since the only time "faith" and "alone" are ever mentioned next to each other in the Bible is the line, "By faith alone ye are NOT saved" (James 2:26). That is why the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments are necessary for salvation.Actually, I'd be relying solely on the Bible. And incidentally, you are misinterpreting the broader teaching of the New Testament concerning faith. Consider Paul's words:

"For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'"

"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.'"

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds a lot like "faith alone" to me. Because Rome preaches that its sacraments are requisite for salvation, and because said sacraments constitute a form of religious works, Rome is in direct violation of Scripture.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Also, back to the point of what I said earlier about apostolic succession, Protestants do not have a valid Communion and from the Gospel of John, " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54). But since Protestants do not have a valid communion by breaking from apostolic succession, they partake of the Body and Blood unworthily, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). This is why the Catholic Church exists as the sole keeper of the New Covenant in Christ. Again, you are misrepresenting Scripture.

John 6:54 is not a reference to the erroneous RC doctrine of transubstantiation, but rather a foretelling of Christ's death on the cross.

"I am the bread of life."
"I am the light of the world."
"I am the door."
"I am the good shepherd."
"I am the resurrection and the life."
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life."
"I am the true vine."

All of these statements by Jesus are figurative. In fact, the last two were spoken at the last supper. Indeed, at the conclusion of the supper, Jesus said to His disciples, "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language." While Protestants sometimes differ in their views of communion, there is no biblical support for transubstantiation.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i would choose protestant

I am from a catholic fam was born catholic and raised going to the church, even though we were loose catholics not really devoted. But still, catholic church is so boring its not even funny. they made me go to sunday school and i'd get in trouble for saying the wrong shit. then we go to church and i gotta sit there for 2 hours while people chant in latin and shit and the priest reads from the bible.

also, they have different things you are supposed to stand for and somethings you're supposed to kneel for, and they don't warn you when it's coming up. i wasn't really a regular church goer so i'd always be behind on the kneeling and standing and the shit was really quite tiring. then as a "treat" at the end of this you get a tasteless waffer type of deal thats supposed to be the body of christ and a sip of wine thats his blood. then as we're in the parking lot walking to the car my mom asks me what the preacher was talking about and when i dont know the answer (which i never did, i was 7 at the time) she nags me about that too.

about a year or so ago my mom switched to a methodist church and now her and my fam go to that more often then we ever used to go to catholic church. for years before she switched we didnt go to church at all except holidays. but their new methodist church is much nicer. whenever i go to visit she makes me come with them. and it's still a pain getting up early but it's better than catholic church. the people are nicer, the sermons are less boring, the songs are slightly better and they even give you real bread not that wafer shit. and it's only 1 hour.

and since my mom switched the catholic church people are kind of ***** about it. oh, haven't seen YOU in church for a while. they're a stuck up bunch. like jesus really cares anyway. crylaughOriginally posted by willRules
They both do Not all of both.

A CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL RESPONSE
quote: (post)

Originally posted by Transfinitum
See, the problem with your assumption here is that Protestants never had divine authority (or even apparent divine visions or instructions for that matter) to schism from the Church.

Protestant reformers relied on the testimony of the Bible alone,
>>Which is, of course, an unscriptural, man-made doctrine, utterly foreign to Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the practice of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, East and West, throughout the world, from the beginning.
********************************
which they held to be inspired by God and inherently authoritative.



>>>The Bible, we learn from the Church, is indeed inspired, and is indeed authoritative. What is most certainly not inspired, and what is most certainly not authoritative, is the man-made doctrine that the Bible ALONE is authoritative ("Sola Scriptura". This man-made, heretical innovation of 16th century Protest-ants was never known to Scripture or Tradition, until it was invented by a disgruntled Augustinian Friar named Martin Luther, 1,500 years after the last Apostle died.

**************************************************


It was Rome's long departure from the written Word of God, and fallacious elevation of Church Tradition, that drove Martin Luther and others to point out the many theological faults of Roman Catholicism.

>>>Alas, in so doing, they apparently managed to forget to read the very New Testament Scriptures they themselves proposed to set up in opposition to the Catholic Church which wrote them. First, as to the notion that the Bible alone is the sole authority, the Bible itself plainly disagrees, and one wonders how the "pointers out of theological faults" managed to miss the simple fact that the Bible itself tells us that it is the Church, not the Bible, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth":

1 Tim 3:15

15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

*********************************************

As with conservative Protestants today, most reformers soundly rejected the idea that the Bible was a product of RC Tradition.

>>What else was it the product of, then? It is certain Christ did not say "thou art Peter and on this rock I will rain down copies of King James Bibles from the sky, leaving everyone to decide for themselves what it means".

Sola Scriptura!

>>Is a man-made doctrine, contrary to Scripture, and one which has, predictably enough, proven to be a catastrophic breeder of schism after schism after schism after schism in actual historical practice. And how else could it have been? "Sola Scriptura"! you cry. "Sola Scriptura" Joe down the street cries. Until you both can't agree on whether "baptism" is with or without water…......presto! Yet another denomination.

Indeed, all it really takes to found another Protestant denomination, is a resentment and a coffee pot.

**************************************************
*****8

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is true that during the time of the Protestant Revolution there was a lot of corruption in the church, but using my analogy above, stemming that plant (the church through excommunications etc.) is a solution, whilst abandoning the plant would be foolish.

This solution assumes the Roman Church is the genuine article.
>>It certainly enjoys the advantage of having been around fifteen hundred years before the first Protestant was.

*************************

Protestants have long held that view in doubt.

>>Well, I should certainly expect so. After all, it certainly doesn't say much for one's catholicity, to schism from the Church, and then admit it was the True Church from which one schismed, does it?

**************************************************
*



If the Roman Catholic Church is merely a vague reflection of the New Testament church, then the only appropriate response is to reject it.

>>>Hear hear. Needless to say, the same goes for the twenty thousand-odd Protestant sub-sects which have, each and all of them, sprung up on the heels of "Sola Scriptura".



Hmmm. How to see which is the True Church, and which the "vague reflection"?



I know! Let's see when they first appeared.

Bzzzzt. Right you are.



Catholic, by fifteen hundred years.



Next?

**************************************************
*

Given that post-Vatican II Rome still preaches many of the heresies that led to the Protestant Reformation, it seems they still have a great deal of pruning to do.



>>>Well, it is certainly true that, unlike these twenty-thousand odd Protestant sect-lets that spring up with every shift in the winds, the Catholic Church has never, will never, and can never change even one of her dogmas.



This is because the Protestant sects' dogmas are man made, while the Catholic Church's dogmas are God-given.

quote: (post)
*******************************************8
Originally posted by Transfinitum
And the Catholic Church was established at the exact point that Christ "built his church" on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. From there every Catholic ordination happened and each and every one can be traced down to that event. The result of this is something called Apostolic Succession, where every ordained clergyman can perform the blessed sacraments (eg. Communion, Confession etc...) with Divine sanction.


In fact, the church was established at Pentecost . While Peter played a significant role in the launching of the church, one must look far beyond the pages of the Bible to make a case for Apostolic Succession.

>>>Quite so. Just as your Bible has already told you, it is the Church, and not the Bible, which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

**************************************************
********

The circular nature of Rome's argument here is highly problematic.

>>>That's a laugh. How ironic, that the fellow who cheers "Sola Scriptura"!, apparently oblivious to the fact that every single reader of the Bible can have their own interpretation of it, should accuse the Catholic Church of "circular arguments"!

**************************************************
***

The very people who authenticate Tradition, rest upon their own affirmations in support of their positional authority. Thus Rome's "divine sanction" is at best pretentious.

>>>>How unfortunate for you, then, that it is that very Roman Church which alone has fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible, that Christ's Church should be:



a) built on Peter (Matthew 16:18)

b) exist in visible, unbroken succession until the end of time (Matthew 16:18)

c)

Be spread throughout the world, and found in every nation, race, and tongue of mankind (Matthew 28:19)

**************************************************
*************
quote: (post)

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Protestants do not have this sanction, they broke away from it. Therefore they had and have no authority to schism (and judging from the hundreds of Protestant denominations, there is not much in the realm of clarity either).

Conservative Protestants rest upon the Bible as their only and all sufficient rule for faith and practice. It is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need.
>>>Apparently you are unaware that you are making my point for me with your answer. Of course you rest upon the Bible as your only authority. That is precisely why you continually schism and re-schism, having substituted the man-made absurdity of "Sola Scriptura" for the God-gtiven truth that Christ will build His Church on Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**************************************************
******8

It should be noted that, despite the many varieties of Protestant churches, there are only two relevant camps within the movement.

>>>Heh heh heh. Says who? You? On what authority? Where in the Bible does it say "there are only two relevant camps within the movement"? Can you give us chapter and verse, please? No? Oh. I see. So, by your own words above, "(the Bible) is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need" we can dismiss your statement here as utterly without authority.



<snip of statement self-acknowledged to have no authority>
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so.

The Roman Catholic categorization of sins as Venial or Mortal is entirely contrary to Scripture.
>>>For somebody always on about how the Bible is your sole authority, you apparently don't read certain parts of it much. Allow me to introduce the Apostle John:

1 Jn 5:16-

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

*********************************

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

>>>But you see, Christians are not under the law. Even most Protestants understand that.

**************************************************
***********

Those who enter enternity with ANY sins on their record will face condemnation.

>>Thankfully, John just told you that sins "not unto death", that is, what Catholic moral theology terms "venial sins" will NOT face condemnation, since the brethren will pray on their behalf, and God WILL GIVE THEM LIFE.



Please check the passage directly above and see.

**************************************************
*



The Bible makes it clear that all human beings are guilty of sin , and are therefore under an everlasting death penalty -- meaning hell .

>>>The Bible makes clear that there are two types of sin: sin"unto death" and sin "not unto death". Apparently you "Sola Scriptura" types might more accurately be termed advocates of "Sorta Scriptura"…….

Cheers!

neither, no religious sects for me

No, no..you got to pick one.

Just pic the Mithra one, ya know Catholics...Well it's slipped into Protestant too....LOL

">>It certainly enjoys the advantage of having been arou