What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
Please enlighten me.
Not with sacarsm, as is your trademark, but with the scriptures.

I wouldn't want to spoil your enlightment.
Reading is good...

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

Disciple, did you read the 2 articles i posted ? wats your take on this ? did you know that the RC church did this ? i think it' sick and un-Christian.
wats your opinion on this. i dont want to argue. just want your opinion.
u can lok upthe Elmer Grandin ting too probably on wikipedia.
let me know wat you think of this stuff.
PEACE !:)

It is unsound and absolutely unscriptural. These are similiar to the sort of practices and teachings that began to plague Israel before the Lord needed to have them endure the Babylonian captivity.

This is what happens when you have a bunch of people that are told not to trust the word of God. In Israel, it led to sick practices such as sacrificing one's own children...something God would never have thought of. But that's what happens with every successive generation that turns away from God's word. They frown upon [what they call] Sola Scriptura, but how can we please God without faith? The answer is that we cannot...it is impossible to please him without faith (Heb. 11:16). However, most people do not realize where this faith must come from. It is not enough to simply say, "I believe in Jesus, or I believe in God." Heck, even the demons believe in Christ (James 2:19). But faith must lead to obedience, because without works [of obedience] our faith is a dead faith (James 2:26)! Yet, the only way that we get this faith is through the word of God; because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17).

I didn't mean to sound so short and angry a while ago. Time is short, and we just don't have time to allow traditions of men to dictate actions that deceive and misdirect the believers. There is a time for justifiable anger (as Jesus demonstrated) and I believe that time is now.
Search the scriptures all you believers, and forsake the ways of men! Don't be deceived and just accept what is taught or practiced without going to the Word to find Gods Truth. That goes for every denomination.

Question for those of you into sola scripture:

Do you celebrate Christmas and easter? and if so why? surely these are pagan festivals that Luther should have cut out along with priestly confessions and indulgences.

But if you do celebrate them, then how different are you from the Roman Catholics?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, a wise statement that should be observed especially when dealing with a Christian brother or sister.

So if any of you sola scripture types are attacking Catholics for following pagan ways and practices, remember so long as you celebrate Christmas and easter and what ever else is not from the Bible then so are you.

Falcon, I put up a tree at christmastime because that is the only time I can get away with putting pretty lights and stuff on em without looking like a goober!
I decorate eggs and hide em because it's fun to watch the little ones search (then I like to eat the eggs and candy!)
I don't celebrate any religious holiday as such. I think about what they represent, give thanks (as I do on any other day) then I go on.

falcon wrote:

Question for those of you into sola scripture:
Do you celebrate Christmas and easter? and if so why? surely these are pagan festivals that Luther should have cut out along with priestly confessions and indulgences.
But if you do celebrate them, then how different are you from the Roman Catholics?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, a wise statement that should be observed especially when dealing with a Christian brother or sister.
So if any of you sola scripture types are attacking Catholics for following pagan ways and practices, remember so long as you celebrate Christmas and easter and what ever else is not from the Bible then so are you.

Please tell me your defintion of Sola Scriptoria and then I will give you the Evangelical definition.

pleased to meet you.

Blessings

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello my friend.
Good to hear from you. Long time, no hear.

yes indeed we don't always agree but what we do is eternal.

Blessings

I am watching the flow right now but you know me its hard to just observe.

all the best for your family and you.

Jesus is king

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
If you believe this, then what is this talk of Mary being some sort of gate? To what? To whom?

I pray to God, The Father, God, The Son and God,The Holy Spirit. I believe I'm a member of my spiritual family which is the Catholic church. We believe that life doesn't end when we die. I pray to God for deceased friends and relatives among other things. I respect those who my community has elevated to sainthood. God willing, they can hear our requests(you call it prayers)which we often also refer to as prayers but fully knowing they can only go before God and ask in our behalf.
We believe that Mary cannot save anyone, only Jesus Christ has the power and authority to do that. We believe Mary is the Queen Mother in heaven's court. To me, this is the second most powerful person in the Kings court. To go to the mother of The King for intersession to Her Son is what Catholics do when praying to Mary.
Something you may want to try. If you want to know what a church believes, listen to what a church prays.

keltec 9mm wrote:

<quoted text>
Catholics are taught that the church that Jesus created is the interpreter of scripture. But then I would assume that those in the Baptist or Lutheran churches follow the teachings of their partucular denominations so in essence we have 34000 paper popes in action, trying to do exactly what the church Jesus created does, interpret scripture.
"If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness. "
(Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 5th ed., 1978,
"It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere ... Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation ... Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled "
(Protestant Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1967, 366-367)
"In the Reformation the supporters of the sole authority of Scripture overlooked the function of tradition in securing what they regarded as the correct exegesis of Scripture against heretical alternatives."
Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol.1 of 5
Which is why sola scriptura does not work.

You say that the "church that Jesus created" is the interpreter of scripture. I would agree that the scriptures teach that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), but scripture is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). This goes for individuals in the Catholic Church hierarchy, as well as its everyday members.

What you are alluding to is what many call, the "Mystical" or "Hierarchal" methods of interpretation. This method of interpretation originated during the time of the Greek and Roman "gods". If you remember the stories, it was thought that the gods spoke through an oracle, usually a priest or priestess. This method was later adopted by the Roman Church in another attempt to appease the man cultures present within its society by appealing much to the rituals of heathenism as possible. This also served the purpose of attracting more heathen worshipers, who were more apt to swell the ranks if they were not offended senseless by the Christian doctrine.

This method successfully and ultimately resulted in taking the readings and understanding of the scriptures out of the hands of the people; and it was this way that led to the word of God as becoming whatever the priest and the
'Magisterium' said it was. The problem with the 'reformation' is that it took this power out of the hands of the priests and placed it into the hands of the creed-makers. Hence, before anyone could commit to their understanding of some particular passage, they would have to refer to a oracle, priest, or a man that they trust in order to discover the meaning as they might see it.

The hierarchical method is a modified form of the mystical, but it says that the church is empowered with the knowledge of God's will. This is what you are taught to believe. However, the hierarchal keeps going to the top of the food chain: If the priests disagree, then the bishop is consulted; if the bishops disagree, the archbishop is called upon; and so on up the ladder of their chain of command, all the way to the Pope, who is then empowered to tell everyone what they are to believe.

sunnstorms wrote:

Acts 10:25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons
Peter, whom Jesus set up as the cornerstone of His church, refused to allow any man to bow to him, recognizing that only God was worthy to be bowed down to. We are not to bow down to any man, and no man is to allow us to do so.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.(said Jesus)
There is just no honest and scriptural way to justify going directly against what God and Jesus, and even Peter (the cornerstone of the church) commanded. Tradition is not an excuse for going against what the Word of God directs. Tradition is man made, subject to the egos and desires of men.

I would almost agree with your points, Sunns; but you must remember that there is only one cornerstone of the church; and that is Christ. He is the only foundation of His church. Now, granted, I cannot speak for the Catholics on whom they have for their cornerstone, but it sounds to me like you are talking about the Lord's church. And if you are, then know that Christ is the only foundation of His church...not Peter.

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
I would almost agree with your points, Sunns; but you must remember that there is only one cornerstone of the church; and that is Christ. He is the only foundation of His church. Now, granted, I cannot speak for the Catholics on whom they have for their cornerstone, but it sounds to me like you are talking about the Lord's church. And if you are, then know that Christ is the only foundation of His church...not Peter.

Hello Disciple, It has been a while since I last saw your post. Last Sunday was Pentacost Sunday, where we actually celebrate the birth of the Church. Saint Peter was among the Apostles and the leader of the group of 12. He founded first the Church in Antioch then founded the Church in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church traces its beginnings at that day of Pentacost, and Saint Peter as its first Pope. Yes other Apostles founded other churches, the Antiochian Orthodox Church also traces its beginnings to Saint Peter, Greek Orthodox to Saint Stephen in Byzantium, the Coptic Orthodox Church claims its beginnings to Saint Mark in Alexandria. But to who ever was the Apostle who founded either Catholic or Orthodox Church it was Jesus Christ that was the founder and the cornerstone so to speak.

falcon wrote:

Question for those of you into sola scripture:
Do you celebrate Christmas and easter? and if so why? surely these are pagan festivals that Luther should have cut out along with priestly confessions and indulgences.
But if you do celebrate them, then how different are you from the Roman Catholics?
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, a wise statement that should be observed especially when dealing with a Christian brother or sister.
So if any of you sola scripture types are attacking Catholics for following pagan ways and practices, remember so long as you celebrate Christmas and easter and what ever else is not from the Bible then so are you.

First of all, let me establish that simply stating that Catholics celebrate pagan practices hardly constitutes an attack. I cannot stop you from being ashamed of what you do; but the attempt is not meant to be an attack. Sometimes my tone is off, however, so I apologize in advance. Now to answer your questions:

No I do not "celebrate" Christmas and Easter as some sort of religious holidays. They are not. We do acknowledge the American traditions of Easter and Christmas, especially since they are made with the intent of celebrating aspects of our Lord and Savior. Playing along with such national traditions is not much different than paying taxes or stating the Pledge of Allegiance. Neither holiday is scriptural or necessary, but they are good and positive holidays. Halloween is fun too. My kids love candy. Does it mean anything for me or my family? No. But it is a holiday nonetheless.

I can't speak for Luther or his festivals. You might have to consult a Lutheran for that.

If you can scripturally prove your premise, then I would be happy to listen to you. Until then, I am aware of the ploy used by Catholics to exaggerate or build straw mans upon sola scriptura. You build up a false straw man, then you attack it, tear it down, and claims some sort of moral victory...all the while not realizing that you just tackled an illusion.

concerned in Brasil wrote:

<quoted text>
yes indeed we don't always agree but what we do is eternal.
Blessings
I am watching the flow right now but you know me its hard to just observe.
all the best for your family and you.
Jesus is king

Oh, I'm sure you won't be able to hold it for long. So far, however, the conversations have been mostly civil.

I hope you and your family are well also.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
I pray to God, The Father, God, The Son and God,The Holy Spirit. I believe I'm a member of my spiritual family which is the Catholic church. We believe that life doesn't end when we die. I pray to God for deceased friends and relatives among other things. I respect those who my community has elevated to sainthood. God willing, they can hear our requests(you call it prayers)which we often also refer to as prayers but fully knowing they can only go before God and ask in our behalf.
We believe that Mary cannot save anyone, only Jesus Christ has the power and authority to do that. We believe Mary is the Queen Mother in heaven's court. To me, this is the second most powerful person in the Kings court. To go to the mother of The King for intersession to Her Son is what Catholics do when praying to Mary.
Something you may want to try. If you want to know what a church believes, listen to what a church prays.

I was born and raised Catholic, OND; and I know what it prays and who it prays to. However, I also see that the Catholic Church of this day and age is being challenged on so many levels, that they have hired a bunch of lawyers (you call them apologists) to invent denials and arguments for everything that they do (that they would never have been challenged for centuries or even years ago).

Catholics used to proudly pray to Mary and the Saints (I know because I was taught how to). Now they are not sure if they should really call it praying. Why? Because too many people, including their own faithful, now have access to the word of God as never before, and they are slowly losing their once formidable and unquestionable hold over their believers. Catholics must now tread carefully and explain their positions...something they never had to do before.

I still remember long before those abuse scandals erupted, no one would think of bringing a charge against a Catholic priest. In fact, many young men committed suicide because their parents beat them simply for bringing such an accusation to their ears. Can you imagine the power that they had? I still remember my mother kissed the ring of a bishop. Oh, I know Catholicism and what it prays, my friend. I know it well.

Your saints used to pray to worship Mary with pride. However, Catholics are ashamed to admit they do so now, for fear of being called idolaters. Heck, they still believe the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments over the Biblical teaching of the 10 Commandments. Using the arguments of your apologists does not change the truth, OND...not by a longshot.

Now if you can please direct me to the scriptural teachings of Mary being some kind of Queen of Heaven, or over Heaven's "court" as you call it. Then we can continue.

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't want to spoil your enlightment.
Reading is good...

As usual. More concerned with sarcasm than the word of God. I expect no less from you.

JOHN wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Disciple, It has been a while since I last saw your post. Last Sunday was Pentacost Sunday, where we actually celebrate the birth of the Church. Saint Peter was among the Apostles and the leader of the group of 12. He founded first the Church in Antioch then founded the Church in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church traces its beginnings at that day of Pentacost, and Saint Peter as its first Pope. Yes other Apostles founded other churches, the Antiochian Orthodox Church also traces its beginnings to Saint Peter, Greek Orthodox to Saint Stephen in Byzantium, the Coptic Orthodox Church claims its beginnings to Saint Mark in Alexandria. But to who ever was the Apostle who founded either Catholic or Orthodox Church it was Jesus Christ that was the founder and the cornerstone so to speak.

If Peter is indeed the first Pope, then where are the scriptures alluding to him as such? Why doesn't Paul acknowledge the 'Holy Father' during his stay at Rome? He acknowledges many in his greeting, but Peter certainly isn't one. How can someone of so much prominence be so forgotten? In Rom. 1:11, he states to the saints in Rome that they must still be established. According to Catholic teachings, Peter should already have been Bishop at that time. You also might want to ask yourself if Peter foresook Paul, because according to 2 Tim. 4:16, no one stood with Paul in his defense, and in 2 Tim. 4:11, Paul states that only Luke is with him.

Now we might not find these statements too significant, except for the fact that this is the last letter Paul ever wrote, and it was written from his second imprisonment at Rome only a short time before his death. This is extremely odd considering that this epistle/letter is thought to be written somewhere around 64-68 AD. Therefore, if Peter was indeed established as the first Bishop of Rome before this time, as the Catholics claim, then we have to conclude that Peter abandoned his fellow apostle!

John, you know that I always try to reach you in the most practical way. You are really good natured, and you are not near as dogmatic and argumentative as some of your brethren. Please look into the things that I say.

You might also want to look into the fact that the word Pope comes from the Latin: Papa, or Father...a spiritual title that Christ, himself, distinctly told us never to give a man. Ask yourself, would Peter, in all his loyalty, disobey a direct order of Christ, and allow the followers of Jesus to call him [being Peter] Holy Father? A title that is only given to God?

JOHN wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Disciple, It has been a while since I last saw your post. Last Sunday was Pentacost Sunday, where we actually celebrate the birth of the Church. Saint Peter was among the Apostles and the leader of the group of 12. He founded first the Church in Antioch then founded the Church in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church traces its beginnings at that day of Pentacost, and Saint Peter as its first Pope. Yes other Apostles founded other churches, the Antiochian Orthodox Church also traces its beginnings to Saint Peter, Greek Orthodox to Saint Stephen in Byzantium, the Coptic Orthodox Church claims its beginnings to Saint Mark in Alexandria. But to who ever was the Apostle who founded either Catholic or Orthodox Church it was Jesus Christ that was the founder and the cornerstone so to speak.

Also forgot to say hi to you, my friend. Been a long time since I heard from you or have seen you post.

I have been very busy with various Bible studies, including Hermenuetics and various books of the Bible. I hope all is well with you.

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
I was born and raised Catholic, OND; and I know what it prays and who it prays to. However, I also see that the Catholic Church of this day and age is being challenged on so many levels, that they have hired a bunch of lawyers (you call them apologists) to invent denials and arguments for everything that they do (that they would never have been challenged for centuries or even years ago).
Catholics used to proudly pray to Mary and the Saints (I know because I was taught how to). Now they are not sure if they should really call it praying. Why? Because too many people, including their own faithful, now have access to the word of God as never before, and they are slowly losing their once formidable and unquestionable hold over their believers. Catholics must now tread carefully and explain their positions...something they never had to do before.
I still remember long before those abuse scandals erupted, no one would think of bringing a charge against a Catholic priest. In fact, many young men committed suicide because their parents beat them simply for bringing such an accusation to their ears. Can you imagine the power that they had? I still remember my mother kissed the ring of a bishop. Oh, I know Catholicism and what it prays, my friend. I know it well.
Your saints used to pray to worship Mary with pride. However, Catholics are ashamed to admit they do so now, for fear of being called idolaters. Heck, they still believe the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments over the Biblical teaching of the 10 Commandments. Using the arguments of your apologists does not change the truth, OND...not by a longshot.
Now if you can please direct me to the scriptural teachings of Mary being some kind of Queen of Heaven, or over Heaven's "court" as you call it. Then we can continue.

So the sentence; "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death", makes Mary a co-redemptrise in your mind. If that's the case, we disagree. Mary isn't some kind of anything. She is the Mother of Jesus, who most christians believe is the second person of the trinity. I have known several fallen-away Catholics so you aren't the first I've communicated with. In fact some have been close friends for many years. One thing that they all have in common is they are on their third and fourth denomination. Still searching.
You are right about many priests. Not many years ago, priests were beyond reproach. That's no longer the case. Presently the church is ridding itself of these evil men. I suspect however that you guys will beat this scandle for the next several hundred years.
I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics are ashamed of anything they once did and see themselves as idolators. From what I do and see, nothing's changed as far as how we treat Mary and the saints. We still proudly pray to Mary to intercede for us.

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
If Peter is indeed the first Pope, then where are the scriptures alluding to him as such? Why doesn't Paul acknowledge the 'Holy Father' during his stay at Rome? He acknowledges many in his greeting, but Peter certainly isn't one. How can someone of so much prominence be so forgotten? In Rom. 1:11, he states to the saints in Rome that they must still be established. According to Catholic teachings, Peter should already have been Bishop at that time. You also might want to ask yourself if Peter foresook Paul, because according to 2 Tim. 4:16, no one stood with Paul in his defense, and in 2 Tim. 4:11, Paul states that only Luke is with him.
Now we might not find these statements too significant, except for the fact that this is the last letter Paul ever wrote, and it was written from his second imprisonment at Rome only a short time before his death. This is extremely odd considering that this epistle/letter is thought to be written somewhere around 64-68 AD. Therefore, if Peter was indeed established as the first Bishop of Rome before this time, as the Catholics claim, then we have to conclude that Peter abandoned his fellow apostle!
John, you know that I always try to reach you in the most practical way. You are really good natured, and you are not near as dogmatic and argumentative as some of your brethren. Please look into the things that I say.
You might also want to look into the fact that the word Pope comes from the Latin: Papa, or Father...a spiritual title that Christ, himself, distinctly told us never to give a man. Ask yourself, would Peter, in all his loyalty, disobey a direct order of Christ, and allow the followers of Jesus to call him [being Peter] Holy Father? A title that is only given to God?

Disciple, I am presently reading a book called the Apostles by Pope Benedict. It is an extremely easy book to read but very interesting. Take care my friend. John

Disciple wrote:

<quoted text>
Also forgot to say hi to you, my friend. Been a long time since I heard from you or have seen you post.
I have been very busy with various Bible studies, including Hermenuetics and various books of the Bible. I hope all is well with you.

That is a good thing, keep on studing. I remember when we posted each other. As you know I believe that we have to discover faith on our own and that I compare this to a journey of faith. Another place that you might want to look at is anything from the Monks on Mt. Athos(look at any artical about Saint Gregory Palamas..a great Orthodox Saint). I think that you might be amazed. Also Courage to Pray by Alexander Bloom. Take care my friend. John