What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello again com7fy8...I don't profess to be a preacher nor a bible scholar. I've been a Catholic all my life. I questioned and researched some church history years ago and for me, the Catholic Church is where I belong. It all makes so much sense to me.

I basically read just the Bible, have had no Bible school or ordination, and I do not read anything else, basically ... except to do a little research on words or what others believe. And read God and observe people and see what God actually does with me.

our Apostle Paul wrote:

Colossians 3:15 >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful."

We are commanded to obey how God rules us in our hearts with His very own peace. I need to be sensitive to Him and submit to however at each moment God personally rules me in my heart.

He alone can know what at each moment He desires to do with me. I just submit ... as well as He blesses me to. Paul says we "were called to this in one body" > so, all obedient people are doing this, now, or we are not obeying Him.

All for the Love wrote:

<quoted text>
John from NJ
Are you denying the Word of God?
Give me book chapter verse where the Word say's we can pray for the dead that are not saved and they will be saved and will have everlasting life,even though they didn't believe.
That is the only reason that one would be praying for the dead,right?
Like I said,it don't work that way.
You have to ask for forgivness of your sin's in order for the Lord to save your soul.
Once you are dead,it's too late.
You cannot be forgiven if you do not repent.
In order to repent,you have to be convicted of your sin's by the Holy Ghost.
No person can pray you into heaven.
You must be born again.
I mean no disrespect John,but I believe God's Word.

First of all, you don't use the Septuagint, as did Christ, as did the Apostles. So you only believe in *part* of God's Word, a part that you, "man" has selected. So your string of Bible verses if not just cobbled together is far from complete.

Secondly, let me explain to you what "being open to repentance" means. What being in that state when you die means. To repent is to be sorry for one's failings and asking forgiveness. If you had read what I had written in the discussion of Purgatory saying a moment before you died "have mercy on me a sinner" could put you in a form of being in the "state of grace" that the Roman Catholics talked about at the time of death.

Nowhere did I say that one does not have to ask God for forgiveness for one's sins. Nor would I. We do that with the Sacrament of Confession and Absolution all the time and many many times during the year.

You said "In order to repent,you have to be convicted of your sin's by the Holy Ghost." There is that mean and vengeful God that you Protestants so love. I much prefer the loving God that I find in the Bible.

But back to your phrase, what do you mean by repentance? Contrast your opinion above with what the Church says: "Repentance is ultimately a gift of the Holy Spirit who transforms the heart of the human person, and not a fruit of individual effort or anguish."

So is repentance the same for you as it is to me? I don't think so. There is no metanoia in your definition, no change.

As for who is saved, again, by your man made definition or by the words and teachings of Christ as taught by the Church? I don't know what you mean by "saved", for every time I see it it is meaningless. Confused. Incomplete. Limiting of God even.

No where did I say "...we can pray for the dead that are not saved and they will be saved and will have everlasting life,even though they didn't believe." No where did I imply it. Actually read what I wrote and come back and ask me an honest question about what I really wrote.

Whoops, in the above post I wrote that Paul says we "are called to this in one body" > and this is NOT a quote of Paul. He says we "were called in one body" ... to be ruled by God's peace in our hearts. In our *hearts*, this says > this is very *personal*, to at each moment be getting ruled by God Himself in our hearts, with His own peace. So, our Father does want to be *this* personal with each of His children. And ruling would be all the time, with no time out.

So, anything or anyone we give more attention is an idol. Only God is to be ruling us, and this in His perfect peace. This includes ruling our *attention*... in His peace, or we are disobeying, and letting some idol have our attention away from how He personally rules us with His perfect peace. So, we have a LOT of idols, then, don't we (o: It's not just so-and-so and so-and-so.

All for the Love wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way,I sure don't follow that Hinn dude.
Why you would say such a thing is beyond me.

The reason I say that is if I or a Roman Catholic say something we have to try to figure out what the particular belief is of that person in order to try to answer them. Some such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans have pretty much the same beliefs within their confession and many beliefs that are common among them. When you deal with the "go it alone" folks, such as you and others, one has to figure out what your mind has determined to be true and how you have not properly understood the Bible when answering. That is because you don't agree with each other.

Collectively you, CR, Hinn are all the same in many ways. You all have your very own personal "Holy Spirit" telling you what you want to hear.

What I say to you to address your personal revelation is to you based on your personal revelation. Someone else has their own personal revelation. So now we have me trying to address two different Holy Spirit inspired revelations on the same subject. It gets a bit confusing so I would rather just deal with one person at a time.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>2 Maccabees 12: 44-46

But you must understand that as much as they claim to "...believe God's Word." they only believe a part of God's Word. When they ask: "Are you denying the Word of God?" they somehow ignore that they are by not using the Septuagint as did Christ, as did the Apostles. How that is not denying the Word of God is beyond me.

But they, in their confused state, do.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>purgatory is part of the dogma of the Catholic faith.
also these verses:
1 Peter 3: 19-20
Matthew: 12:32
1 Corinthians 3: 14-15

But long before the idea of Purgatory was created the Church at Rome prayed for the dead. We still do as we all did before Rome left the Church.

To toss the notion of Purgatory into this discussion only adds confusion and distraction.

com7fy8 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nowhere can you quote me as having written that an individual can have infallibility *on one's own*. You may have misunderstood me. You can check for yourself and see what you think, John.
What I did offer is that in God's ruling of His peace in my heart , how He rules me with His peace will be infallible. So, clearly I am offering that I have infallibility by submitting to how God rules me with His own peace in my heart, but therefore no way do I have infallibility on my own, because the infallibility is in how God rules me in His peace.

Again, nice try but no.

Since God gave you free will you do make your own decisions. God tells us all how to live. How we live is up to us and our choices.

In addition, saying that God is infallible is limiting God. Something you can't do. You could say that God is not fallible perhaps since that doesn't limit God. But then your whole case would disappear.

Again nice try but you are not infallible.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text> I see Jesus as the Son of this always existing God. Jesus is beyond our human conception of what's been given to Him by His Father.

So, Jesus has been in existence long before Mary had a clue that He existed. So, as far as this is concerned, Mary is not Jesus' mother, at all. God is His Father, and as for there being a Mother ...(o: The Holy Spirit is a "He".

So, she's His mother in a historical way. Jesus needed to come to thise earth as a flesh and blood human. And He used Mary to get Himself here. But, before Jesus was born, He already was Jesus the Son; so Mary had nothing to do with making Jesus who He is.

And the real parent of a person is the one who brings that person up to become who that person is. If we are how Satan makes us, we are Satan's children. If we are growing to become how God makes us, then we are our Heavenly Father's kiddos. And Mary did NOT make Jesus who He is; so in this way Mary is NOT Jesus Christ's mother.

He grew up with her, that their family. So, of course He personally related with he and Joseph and whoever else was in His family, however each related with Him. So, by relating He was indeed Son-mother with her. But she did not mother Him to become God or be God. That already was, before He was born. So, she is not, in THIS way, the mother of God, but only by historical fact has she given birth to God the Son, making her th mother of God only in this historical sense.

And that time of history is behind us. Now Jesus is Lord of all, in way more than who He was while in flesh and blood on earth. Mary has nothing to do with Him being in Heaven and on the throne. So, I can see why John did not see her on the throne with Jesus while John had his vision of Revelation.

Jesus loves her, and He loves all of us. And Jesus has prayed that our Father love us even as He has loved Jesus > as

our Apostle John wrote:

John 17:23 >

"'I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent me, and have

loved them as You have loved Me.'"

So, He is loving us as He has loved Jesus. Jesus Himself has prayed this. "He has taken care of things, Himself ... not leaving things to Mary."

The church is on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets and Jesus is the chief cornerstone ... nothing about Mary, here, olderndirt, being in or laying the foundation of the church. There's a lot of places where Mary is not mentioned.

And a mother image can be a very effective psychological measure to keep people emotionally hooked in a group. Look at how loyal ones can be because there is an exalted mother involved. But who told them all they were told about Mary? A mother, a grandmother, a nun (a female image). A number of people do not want to admit their mother is wrong. A parent can get you to believe anything, as we can see by what various cultures have their kids believing.

com7fy8 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are pretty clear, here, John.
I'm not Sunny; so I can't absolutely say I understand her, infallibly (o:
What I have is how <quoted text>"And let the peace of God rule
in your hearts,
to which also you were
called in one body;
and be thankful."
So, I understand we are COMMANDED to be ruled by God's very own peace in our "hearts". In our "hearts" tells me, that God wants to rule each of us right in each one's *heart*. This is very *personal*, to have God ruling each of us in our hearts.
And ruling would be *all the time*, wouldn't it? So, at every moment, I can see, God wants to personally rule me with His very own peace, having me do what He desires at each moment.
Now, you have said you wouldn't buy into God being *controlling*, if I understood you right. But, John, I would say that being personally guided at each moment in God's very own Heaven-quality peace is better than just being controlled in a dominating way. He is very loving in how He leads us in His own love's peace.
This peace is *God's own* peace, which God Himself enjoys and is sharing with us while He is ruling us.
And this is NOT for individuals on their own, but we are called to this "in one body", Paul says. "So, we are individuals, but in one body."
But, John, what about when *individuals* in Jesus Christ's "one body" have things and issues to deal with, but these are not specifically dealt with by Jesus Christ's infallible message? How do we know what to do about those unique items and incidences that come up all the time?
I offer > we can simply submit to how God personally rules us in His peace in our hearts, and see what He has us do. What He will have us doing indeed can be better than what we would think or what any other person could tell us, because God leading us is so smarter and better than we are; and how He leads us will be infallible, at every moment while we submit to how His perfect peace rules us.
God bless you, John ...(o:

God wants to rule us, you say. I say that God wants us to want to love God. Two different concepts of God.

God gave us free will. You want that gift of God taken away. There have been many "loving" despots over the centuries but they were still despots. Is that what you think God is?

As for your question when we "...have things and issues to deal with, but these are not specifically dealt with by Jesus Christ's infallible message? How do we know what to do about those unique items and incidences that come up all the time?"

The answer is very simple. We do what the first people who were called Christians did, we go to the Church for those answers. That is why Christ established His Church. Why we are obedient to the Church, the bride of Christ.

It's time that we stop asking what divides Catholics and Protestants and instead focus on what unites them: they are members of a dominant cultural force that constantly whines about being "oppressed," and they rail against one another over the trivialities of an arcane, obsolete system of beliefs.

See? They're very much alike.

christian rabbi wrote:

I have a better example than any lies told by catholics concerning purgatory, and that goes for john from nj.
In march 1955, twenty minutes after he died, he came back to life and called me to his side. He described the beautiful land that He saw, while he was gone, and then he told me of those he saw and who talked to him(among them was peter).
now he was not a saint by catholic thoughts, just a poor hill farmer who tried to live as good as he could, with a good reputation among those he lived. and he NEVER WENT TO ANYTHING LIKE THE LIES OF A PURGATORY.
Roman Catholicism gives the name purgatory to the final purifcation of all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified.[8] Though purgatory is often pictured as a place rather than a process of purification, this idea is not part of the Church's doctrine.[9]
[edit] Heaven and Hell
According to Catholic belief, immediately after death, a person undergoes judgment in which the soul's eternal destiny is specified. Some are eternally united with God in Heaven, often envisioned as a paradise of eternal joy. Conversely, others are destined for Hell, a state of eternal separation from God often envisioned as a fiery place of punishment.[10]
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CATHOLIC PRUGATORY IS ONE GIGANTIC SCHEME OF satan

Perhaps you might enjoy reading what Calvin wrote about where the soul spends its time until "that day". Oddly some of his views are very much in agreement with what the Orthodox Catholic Church has always taught. Unlike Roman Catholicism and most Protestants we don't believe that after death we immediately go to heaven and in some cases hell.

The problem with any of these stories is that they are all based on something. Including what one thought before one has the experience. There was no "bright light" that is so common today when one hears about these experiences in what the farmer told you. If it happened to him today I would bet that it would.

Now while we do reject the idea of Purgatory which is a place, that there does exist a purgatorial process as mentioned in the Bible is a fact. When that happens is open to theological discussion, maybe at the moment of death, maybe on "that day" or when ever God decides. That process even you can't deny.

Forming one's belief based on anecdotal experience is something of a problem. I would exercise some real caution there.

America First wrote:

It's time that we stop asking what divides Catholics and Protestants and instead focus on what unites them: they are members of a dominant cultural force that constantly whines about being "oppressed," and they rail against one another over the trivialities of an arcane, obsolete system of beliefs.
See? They're very much alike.

True!

sunnstorms wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you are going to throw a fit over this, but I think you are setting the Apostles up to be more than they were.
Those that went to Gethsemane with Jesus ran and hid when Jesus was captured. Willing to die for Him? Peter denied Him 3 times because he was afraid. I know in their hearts they were willing, but when the stuff hit the fan, their feet hit the pavement.
We do not "all have the Holy Spirit"? Says who? The cath church? What does Jesus say about that?
Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
And the Apostles?
1 Thessalonians 4:8
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
All you have to do is ask.
"Do you do the will of the Father as they did all the time?"
No. But can you prove they "always" did the will of the Father? Do you think the popes "always" do the will of the Father? The priests? We are all fallible, as were the Apostles.
"As for your claim that you believe the verse from the Bible that says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." unless you are using the Septuagint for the Old Testament you are not doing what you claim. For that was the Scripture referred to and you reject what you said was given by God."
I use the OT as part of my faith. I don't live under the old Laws, but the OT is valuable for teaching and learning more about God. It contains prophecy that we need to know. We are not Jewish, but we have been grafted onto the vine, so their roots are our roots.
I have finally figured out what your problem is....you believe the scriptures were written for the popes, bishops, priests, etc, and not for the laity. You are wrong. The entire bible is a collection of love letters God wrote to all of us.

The reason you are wrong in your first assumption is proved in what you provide as examples of your reasoning.

How should I evaluate you, as you are today or as you were when you were five years old, or ten years old or fifteen years old? Of course you would say as you are today. When you were a child you thought like a child, etc.

Well you judge the Apostles as they were in the beginning, not after the Resurrection, not after Pentecost, not as they were in the Book of Acts. So you make them out to be less than they became.

That is why I said to you before that you froze history after only a few chapters of one of the Gospels and assume that nothing about the Apostles changed after that.

I don't view the Apostles as greater than they were, I view them as they actually were when told by Christ to establish His Church throughout the world. You don't. You judge them based on what they knew at the fifth chapter of a Gospel and compare them against yourself who has read the whole Gospel. Hardly fair. Hardly accurate. Hardly honest. But that is what you have done and that is what you said you did.

christian rabbi wrote:

<quoted text>I only acknowledge the KJV as the Word of God, along with the Jewish Masoretic Holy Scriptures.
all others can be tossed in the trash as far as I am concerned.
God Proved the KJV many Years ago when I first got saved, so if others wish to use something else, that doesnt make any difference to me,
I will not!

Let's be honest, you don't acknowledge the KJV as the Word of God, only the New Testament. The original KJV contained the Septuagint for the Old Testament, the same Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles.

So you reject what you say you accept.

Inconsistent behavior, in my opinion.

Kentucky Trevor wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of agree with you. As far as Catholic Doctrine is concered the KJV is the closest.
The KJV borrowed heavily from the Doauy-Rheims Translation. The Douay-Rheims is an English Catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate (the offical Bible Translation of the Catholic Church)

Wrong. The KJV was a translation of the Textus Receptus and only minimally used the Douay-Rheims version.

Kentucky Trevor wrote:

The KJV also borrowed heavily from the Geneva Bible, which was what the Puritans used. It was the first Bible translation to come to America.

Again not exactly the case. The Geneva Bible while written in English had a number of errors that the KJV attempted to correct. Using your logic the Jerusalem Bible which is a Roman Catholic translation in English borrowed heavily from the King James Version of the Bible.

Kentucky Trevor wrote:

But I do disagree greatly. First was everybody that spoke English without a Bible unil 1611?
Did you know the 1611 edition is not what your KJV is, it has been revised and updated.
Also, what about other languages, should everbody be forced to use an Old English Bible that don't even speak English?
I personally use the New Living Translation, God hasn't appeared to me and told me to use it, but I like it, it is easier to understand.
I don't understand why you have had how many apparitions and miracles in your life that no one else has ever had. You said water gushed of your stomach, God revealed to you that the KJV is the choice translation, ect. But God hasn't revealed this to other holy people, like Billy Graham or Joel Osten. Is it just you that this happens to.
you also don't believe in the apparition at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 where the Virgin Mary appeared to three little shepherd children and acduratly predicted:
1. The end of WWI
2. The emergence of Russia as a world power and spreading communism throughout the world, and it's persecution against the Catholic Church
3. The election of a pope named Pius XI
4. A WWII
Yet you believe this is simply a superstition, but Blessed Lucia told people the Virgin Mary told them these things, and she told people BEFORE they happened.
Also if you have ever read about the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima you can google it, there is verifiable PROOF that something did happen. The newspaper at Fatima reported it, as did the New York Times reported it.

I also don't believe in "Fatima", nor do I believe what is always in the New York Times.

Since never in any of the times that the Virgin Mary has appeared in Russia over the centuries did she ever say to us to become Roman Catholics, why would she say so here?

If it gets you to pray, fine, but other than that it is bogus.

christian rabbi wrote:

<quoted text>rotflol, I never felt one twinge of condemmnation when I said I was going to get rid of it.
So if God isnt going to condemm me over it, I for certain arent going to allow you, a proven liar to condemm me.
BTW, I was at that poll about you.lol

If you are too stupid to even know when you have desecrated something I suppose God can't dondemn you for that thatis true. After all, he apparently created you an idiot in order to test the patience of those around you.
But even moron can see that there is something you have said in your posts that causes a Catholic to say you desecrated the Holy Bible. Gee, I wonder why that is so hard for YOU to figure it out.

BTW I voted on YOU at that poll about me. LOL.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Diane.. Could you explain what being born again means to you?? My friend Rabbi may be kind enough to give us his definition. Can you give us your thoughts??

Certainly. Every single human being on this earth is a sinner and has a sinful nature. When we confess our sins to Jesus Christ and ask the Lord to forgive us, he does! Every person must also believe that Jesus Christ is their own PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR, and that he died on the cross for you. When a person invites Jesus Christ to live in their hearts, he will! When you truly repent of your sins, know and believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is the Lord of your life, you will want to be baptized. Baptism is getting rid of your old sinful ways (down into the water) and coming up from the water, being a new creation in Christ. This is called re-birth or being Born-again.

John from NJ wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason I say that is if I or a Roman Catholic say something we have to try to figure out what the particular belief is of that person in order to try to answer them. Some such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans have pretty much the same beliefs within their confession and many beliefs that are common among them. When you deal with the "go it alone" folks, such as you and others, one has to figure out what your mind has determined to be true and how you have not properly understood the Bible when answering. That is because you don't agree with each other.
Collectively you, CR, Hinn are all the same in many ways. You all have your very own personal "Holy Spirit" telling you what you want to hear.
What I say to you to address your personal revelation is to you based on your personal revelation. Someone else has their own personal revelation. So now we have me trying to address two different Holy Spirit inspired revelations on the same subject. It gets a bit confusing so I would rather just deal with one person at a time.

Well,I'm sorry John,your wrong about me in a lot of way's.
As for what I posted about being born again,that is God's Word.
I never said that you stated that you prayed for the dead to be saved.
I was making a point that it just don't work that way.
As for Hinn?
He claims that the seed is money.

Salvation is a gift from God.

The Gospel is free.

A person can just live in a way that can plant a seed of faith in a sinner.

We do not have to pay for Salvation or healing from God.
I am absolutely not anything like Hinn.

Now I am not going to argue over God's Word and how you and I differ in our beliefs.
I just wanted to say what I believed about praying for the dead.
Only a person and God know's if they are saved.
God is the judge,not anyone else.

Diane wrote:

<quoted text>Once again, John 3:3, Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, unless a man be born again, he will not see the knigdom of heaven." Pretty straight forward.

Diane, and you forgot to mention be born again by water and spirit-Baptism.

com7fy8 wrote:

<quoted text>I basically read just the Bible, have had no Bible school or ordination, and I do not read anything else, basically ... except to do a little research on words or what others believe. And read God and observe people and see what God actually does with me.
<quoted text>"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful."
We are commanded to obey how God rules us in our hearts with His very own peace. I need to be sensitive to Him and submit to however at each moment God personally rules me in my heart.
He alone can know what at each moment He desires to do with me. I just submit ... as well as He blesses me to. Paul says we "were called to this in one body" > so, all obedient people are doing this, now, or we are not obeying Him.

Com7fy8...If I recall, you are up there in age, as I am. I don't expect you will do anything any different than what you've been doing because of anything I post.
If you read the bible, what version do you think is the correct one? Where we begin to take seperate roads in our beliefs is where Jesus calls Peter The Rock and gives him the keys to His kingdom. The Acts of the Apostles continues what Peter and the Apostles did. Jesus said, before ascending into heaven, that He would send the Paraclete to guide them.
Reading the bible is a good thing. Obviously, interpreting it is where the disagreements, anger, finger pointing , accusations occur.
I rely on what Christ said. The Paraclete will guide the church. There have been numerous crimes committed and the evil one constantly attacks but it's still strong and being cleaned up again.
God bless....