Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

[thomas t]

You are merely presuming that there can be no other church besides the Catholic one, you have no verse to back your presumption up, in my opinion. There is no logic at all to conclude that Jesus's church-body can be nothing else than the Catholic church. Jesus is with his body till the end of the times. Why suppose it is the RCC.
Ephesians 5:25-27 does not necessarily refer to the Catholic church. If a church murders, that's not blameless, of course!

thomas t The Holy Catholic Church is blameless.... She murders no one.... People murder, people sin, the Church does not!

as I said in #130, the Catholic church is not recorded to have done anything to prevent mass murder encouraged by a church official at that occasion while in office.
In my opinion, you can say that the church murdered here. When you know that your employee uses his time in office to murder around and you don't do anything to prevent it, and your employee keeps his position... it's you who is to blame for his deeds. You are responsible for your employees while on duty.

I told you already in #136: Even if the RCC venerate Mary... this does not render a murder undone! Don't make me repeat the same sentences over and over again!
There is no prophecy, not even a "Catholic" prophecy, saying that by venerating Mary you can't be tossed away by Jesus.


You say: For Jesus to leave the ONE Church he built on ROCK (not on sand) is to believe Jesus failed!
But in Revelation 3:16, when Jesus casts off a church that started off as a good one, there is no mention of Jesus or God having failed. Cutting off a church does not mean Jesus having failed!
In Revelation 3:16, a church is mentioned that did have the Holy Spirit... however, this didn't prevent it from being chopped off.

Now you say "thomas t Jesus gave the Keys to Peter in person ONLY TO PETER! Matthew 16"
At that instance, he gave the keys to Peter.
But I told you already in # 136... I told you already in #131... that I told you in #121 that You assume that there is but one keyholder (keys to the kingdom).
There is no scripture by which you could support your view.
I hate repeating myself all over again.

You added "Catholic" to the following scripture "Jesus said.... "He who accepts you (church) accepts me; he who rejects you (Catholic Church) rejects me and God the father in heaven!" Jesus was talking to his Apostles.. His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!"
Don't add to the scriptures, please!
Even if Jesus said church, this does not mean it's the Catholic one!

You say "If they fail to listen to the Church treat them as Pagan"!
Here again, you are smuggling "Catholic church" into a Bible verse, I think.

You say "So says you .... No scriptures; just your opinion!"
I forgot to back that up indeed. Here is one: Galatians 3:27-28. So by baptism in Christ, you become part of the entirety which is his church/ the body/ the bride, as I see it.

You say: " thomas t Jesus made Peter HIS Shepherd the Shepherd of God' flock.."
I hate to repeat myself. I already told you in #136, that I told you before that there are all sorts of shepherds, as I see it, see Ephesians 4:11.


I won't toss the Holy Book out of my window.
The Catholic Church made something good - decided the canon.
And afterwards went around murdering. I leave the Catholic Church because of the murdering.
As I said, a good deed does not compensate for murder.
A good lineage does not compensate for murder, either. Neither does Linus, your second pope.
In Matthew 2:11, God used pagans to announce the King, so why shouldn't he use that church to get the canon done.

This was all done 400 years after Jesus thus proving her authority is enduring! Proving the Holy Spirit remained with her and is still with her to this very day!

no, this doesn't prove anything that happened afterwards.

If God the Holy Spirit helped Jesus' Church in deciding what were truly the inspired words of God don't you think the Holy Spirit would also not stick around and help her INTERPRET the same letters!?

no, not necessarily. I wouldn't trust the pagans from Mt 2:11 in anything either.

I don't reject the words of God here.
I don't think that believing the scriptures makes me a Catholic.
I don't reject scriptures. I don't say that Jesus lied.
I do not twist and REJECT scriptures!
I do not say the Holy Spirit did not guide!
I don't say that Jesus died in vain if he chopped off the RCC!
I do not say Jesus lost his body!

 

[pearl]

pcarl The point is...The One Holy Catholic Church is Apostolic! She has a linage going back 2000 years! It is a historical documented FACT, has nothing to do with the scriptures to prove her linage to Jesus.. History and LOGIC proves her authority in Jesus!

Yes, the Church is Apostolic. What I disagree with is the use of a 'list' as historical 'fact' as your evidence of apostolicity when historical evidence does not support it. That Peter founded the Church at Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as its first bishop, (in the sense the term is used today), for even one year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century. The liturgical celebrations which relate to the ascent of Peter to the Roman episcopacy do not begin to make their appearance until the fourth century at the earliest. There is no mention of the Roman episcopacy of Peter in the New Testament. 1 Clement, or the epistles of Ignatius. The tradition is only dimly discerned in Hegesippus (Greek Christian historian) and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (170). By the 3rd century the early assumptions based upon invention or vague, unfounded tradition have been transformed into "facts" of history.

excerpt from "Priest and Bishop"

 

[metis]

if it's an employee of the U.S. and if the murderer keeps his job and if he committed murder while on duty... then yes, but I don't see this happening in the US.

I guess that's the difference between you and I on this I guess, as I blame the person/people and not stereotype and blame an entire country or organization.

I don't think that my charge was displaced. You didn't provide any historical sources to substanciate your guess of the Catholic church having done anything to prevent the killing as mentioned above in post 119. A killing encouraged by a Catholic church official.

I will have to go back and look at that right after concluding this post.

The Catholic Church says they are the valid church and there is no other besides them,

That is a false belief, so let me recommend you actually look that up through real Catholic sources. If you have trouble finding such information, then let me know and I'll get it for you.

In contrast, here in the thread... there is not one single Protestant claiming that everyone needs to become Protestant in order tobe belong to a valid church.

Even though many don't refer to them as being Protestant, the JW's were and are based on the Protestant movement. Plus, it is a falsehood to claim that we believe everyone must be Catholic in order to be in a "valid church". There was a time the Church did indeed teach that, and also the Orthodox Church did as well.

But in response to this, many Protestant churches taught that the popes were the anti-Christ. And during the Protestant Reformation a great many bishops, priests, and nuns were killed by Protestants, with some nuns being raped, so are you going to blame Protestants for that like you blame Catholics?

that's not Bible here. Just because someone succeeded somewhere...

It is ordained by Jesus and the apostles. I posted facts and links to show how and where it can be found, and all you do it to post your opinion based on nothing.

It's not biblical to believe that by a mere succession, if this were to be right, a church can get away with mass murder as committed by the Catholic church.

Another falsehood.

I was brought up in a similar tradition that you are spouting in a fundamentalist Protestant church that I grew up in and attended until my mid-20's, namely an anti-Catholic religious bigotry. When I stared taking theology classes in my undergrad studies, I found out that I had been mislead and left that denomination. However, since I was agnostic, I had no interest in converting to Catholicism or any other denomination for several years. Later, after taking many more classes during my grad years, I taught a comparative religions course whereas I brought in speakers from various faiths and religions.

Finally, I notice that you're not willing to even answer my simple question as to which denomination you belong to, especially since I'm curious as to which denomination would continue to teach you the absolute falsehoods you've been repeatedly spouting. Also, consider posting links to support your claims.

So, for a 2nd time, which denomination do you belong to?

 

[metis]

ah. Are you saying that the RCC did NOT murder people during inquisition?
So, let's look at the facts here, one example:

In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Écija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia, and Barcelona

from Inquisition - Wikipedia

So we see Catholics leaders doing this. The Archdéacon did not involve in this activities during his free time, I think, since it says "preaching". So he did this during his working time, I conclude.
However, the Catholic church did nothing to stop it, as I see it... so... the Catholic Church is to get the blame for it.

There's no doubt that there were quite a few Catholic officials involved in the Inquisition and that the Pope couldn't stop it (he actually did try). We don't deny this as Catholics and, as a matter of fact, I have covered this in the classes I teach, and with no excuses.

But notice your bigotry on this, namely that you blame the CC and yet are unwilling to blame Protestants on the atrocities they did, especially during the Reformation. And how about the genocide of Amerindians here in what is the "United States", which was and still is an overwhelmingly Protestant country and was even more so back in the 1600-1800's. Do you hate this country now like you hate the Catholic Church? Just how far does your hatred go?

Yes, there were and are some bad people in the Church, and some of them have been our leaders. We've also seen this in other religious faiths as well, although that does not absolve what all too many Catholics have done over the centuries. I accept and don't deny this, and yet you simply cannot admit that many Protestants did this as well, nor admit that this happened in many countries including the U.S.

Your bigotry is on full display here, and yet you don't seem to much care. My church teaches that bigotry is morally wrong, so how about yours?

 

[metis]

Nowhere in scripture does it say that there is a church in Rome and everybody has to obey to them. It's completely made up.

When you don't do the homework, lies like the above get passed around. The Church does teach that we have the right of personal discernment.

Also, just fyi, it's called the "Catholic Church" since it includes non-Roman branches that operate under somewhat different "rules".

 

[thomas t]

I guess that's the difference between you and I on this I guess, as I blame the person/people and not stereotype and blame an entire country or organization.

I do not stereotype. The organization is responsible when their employees start to murder, of course. That's all.
When someone involved in murder keeps their job, the murdering is the fault of the whole thing, of course. You can't have employ somebody who is murdering around during working time and not be guilty. When the pope gets knowledge of murder within his organization and he does not fire that staff... it's the whole church that's guilty.
I stay with my opinion that by a mere succession, if this were to be right, a church cannot get away with mass murder as committed by the Catholic church.

[Apostolic succession] is ordained by Jesus and the apostles. I posted facts and links to show

read # 142. @pcarl has another opinion about the histriocity ("facts and links") of claimed succession.


Even if "The Church does teach that we have the right of personal discernment.", as you say, this doesn't mean everyone has to obey to the Catholic Church, of course.

Some standard answers:


I did not spout falsehoods.
I did deliver a link for my claim.
I did not pass around a lie.
I am not guilty of bigotry, here.
I did blame the Protestants for doing the same (murder) in post #130. You missed this. I've answered your question concerning my "denomination" in #130, too.
The US also killed, but they don't go around saying "everyone has to obey to us". The Catholics do. So I remain silent of US incidences in the past.

 

[Dogknox20]

Yes, the Church is Apostolic. What I disagree with is the use of a 'list' as historical 'fact' as your evidence of apostolicity when historical evidence does not support it. That Peter founded the Church at Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as its first bishop, (in the sense the term is used today), for even one year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century. The liturgical celebrations which relate to the ascent of Peter to the Roman episcopacy do not begin to make their appearance until the fourth century at the earliest. There is no mention of the Roman episcopacy of Peter in the New Testament. 1 Clement, or the epistles of Ignatius. The tradition is only dimly discerned in Hegesippus (Greek Christian historian) and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (170). By the 3rd century the early assumptions based upon invention or vague, unfounded tradition have been transformed into "facts" of history.
excerpt from "Priest and Bishop"

pcarl You say.. Historical evidence does not support the list. TRADITION supports the list! It was TRADITION that put your bible together also, do you also reject your scriptures!?!
Then you say; Peter was NOT in Rome and Peter was NOT the Chief Bishop?! To say this you must again reject TRADITION and the SCRIPTURES! You want word for word play by play of what happed 2000 years ago!? You are forced to reject TRADITION and SCRIPTURES to reject the Authority of the Catholic Church!
These people (below) lived much closer to the Apostles and Jesus! Ignatius of Antioch is said to be a student of the Apostle John!
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

pcarl Did you see it? Just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” 110 A.D.
pcarl What you say is all very nice but to believe Peter was NOT chief Bishop of Jesus' Holy Church you must reject the scriptures! Peter definitely was the Chief Apostle, Jesus made him and ONLY Peter his Shepherd! Jesus handed ONLY Peter the Keys to heaven! God the Father from heaven kept Peter from error! Peter answered correctly because God reveled the Truth to Peter & ONLY to Peter! Clearly God the Father wanted Peter to be the Key Holder!
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

pcarl You say a list of Chief Bishops is not historical... Fact is: The Early Church taught Peter was the FIRST Chief Bishop... NEVER was the issue in contention!
At the end of his first letter, Peter says he is writing from “Babylon” which was a common code word for Rome, because both empires were lavish persecutors of God’s people (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6).
1 Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

pcarl Scripture tell you, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence; FOREVER Jesus is with his Holy Church and his Church also has authority to teach and discipline believers this Church Jesus formed is “the pillar and foundation of truth” NO OTHER!

THINK: The ONLY CHURCH guided into all truth by God FOREVER is the Holy Catholic Church NONE OTHER; to say differently is to reject the scriptures! No other church can claim Peter as first Chief Bishop thus NO other except the Catholic Church can be Apostolic!
You reject Peter as Chief Bishop knowing Jesus made Peter his Shepherd! You also reject Peter as being in Rome but accept Paul in Rome as if Paul trumps Peter; Knowing the scriptures tell you Paul went to see Peter to get Peters acceptance!

pcarl The papacy is God’s gift to the Church. It ensures the Church will be united in one faith, one baptism, and the worship of one God who entrusted his Church to the successors of the apostles under the leadership of Peter’s successor, whom we call the pope/chief Bishop.

 

[Dogknox20]

You are merely presuming that there can be no other church besides the Catholic one, you have no verse to back your presumption up, in my opinion. There is no logic at all to conclude that Jesus's church-body can be nothing else than the Catholic church. Jesus is with his body till the end of the times. Why suppose it is the RCC.
Ephesians 5:25-27 does not necessarily refer to the Catholic church. If a church murders, that's not blameless, of course!

as I said in #130, the Catholic church is not recorded to have done anything to prevent mass murder encouraged by a church official at that occasion while in office.
In my opinion, you can say that the church murdered here. When you know that your employee uses his time in office to murder around and you don't do anything to prevent it, and your employee keeps his position... it's you who is to blame for his deeds. You are responsible for your employees while on duty.

I told you already in #136: Even if the RCC venerate Mary... this does not render a murder undone! Don't make me repeat the same sentences over and over again!
There is no prophecy, not even a "Catholic" prophecy, saying that by venerating Mary you can't be tossed away by Jesus.


You say: For Jesus to leave the ONE Church he built on ROCK (not on sand) is to believe Jesus failed!
But in Revelation 3:16, when Jesus casts off a church that started off as a good one, there is no mention of Jesus or God having failed. Cutting off a church does not mean Jesus having failed!
In Revelation 3:16, a church is mentioned that did have the Holy Spirit... however, this didn't prevent it from being chopped off.

Now you say "thomas t Jesus gave the Keys to Peter in person ONLY TO PETER! Matthew 16"
At that instance, he gave the keys to Peter.
But I told you already in # 136... I told you already in #131... that I told you in #121 that You assume that there is but one keyholder (keys to the kingdom).
There is no scripture by which you could support your view.
I hate repeating myself all over again.

You added "Catholic" to the following scripture "Jesus said.... "He who accepts you (church) accepts me; he who rejects you (Catholic Church) rejects me and God the father in heaven!" Jesus was talking to his Apostles.. His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!"
Don't add to the scriptures, please!
Even if Jesus said church, this does not mean it's the Catholic one!

You say "If they fail to listen to the Church treat them as Pagan"!
Here again, you are smuggling "Catholic church" into a Bible verse, I think.

You say "So says you .... No scriptures; just your opinion!"
I forgot to back that up indeed. Here is one: Galatians 3:27-28. So by baptism in Christ, you become part of the entirety which is his church/ the body/ the bride, as I see it.

You say: " thomas t Jesus made Peter HIS Shepherd the Shepherd of God' flock.."
I hate to repeat myself. I already told you in #136, that I told you before that there are all sorts of shepherds, as I see it, see Ephesians 4:11.


I won't toss the Holy Book out of my window.
The Catholic Church made something good - decided the canon.
And afterwards went around murdering. I leave the Catholic Church because of the murdering.
As I said, a good deed does not compensate for murder.
A good lineage does not compensate for murder, either. Neither does Linus, your second pope.
In Matthew 2:11, God used pagans to announce the King, so why shouldn't he use that church to get the canon done.

no, this doesn't prove anything that happened afterwards.

no, not necessarily. I wouldn't trust the pagans from Mt 2:11 in anything either.

I don't reject the words of God here.
I don't think that believing the scriptures makes me a Catholic.
I don't reject scriptures. I don't say that Jesus lied.
I do not twist and REJECT scriptures!
I do not say the Holy Spirit did not guide!
I don't say that Jesus died in vain if he chopped off the RCC!
I do not say Jesus lost his body!

thomas t Jesus made ONE Church! It was not yours!

Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism! The only Church Jesus made is the Catholic Church ONE FAITH none other!
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The early Church; the ONLY Church Jesus made, ate the Flesh of Jesus to have eternal life!
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

The early Church was the Catholic Church none other!

 

[metis]

read # 142. @pcarl has another opinion about the histriocity ("facts and links") of claimed succession.

Actually we don't. The importance of there being apostolic succession throughout the Church's history is not based on who was pope at some points in time but on the basis of the the succession of the bishops historically to the present, which is mention in the link that I gave you. The "Bishop of Rome" is but one bishop of hundreds internationally. IOW, focus on the pattern, not one specific bishop in one diocese, as important as the papacy is.

BTW, this same Church chose the Bible that I assume you use, thus the issue of apostolic succession is important even on that basis alone as different groups were using different books and chose different canons back after the apostles were long gone.

Again, blaming an entire country, religion, or denomination for things that were done wrong at some points in time is nonsensical, and the proof of that alone is that some of the apostles didn't exactly do the right thing either, remember?

So, ... Matthew.7[1]"Judge not, that you be not judged.
[2] For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
[4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
[5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

 

[pearl]

pcarl You say.. Historical evidence does not support the list. TRADITION supports the list! It was TRADITION that put your bible together also, do you also reject your scriptures!?!
Then you say; Peter was NOT in Rome and Peter was NOT the Chief Bishop?! To say this you must again reject TRADITION and the SCRIPTURES!

OK lets try another path. Do you believe today's Catholic Church is the same Catholic Church that developed from Scripture? And that it teaches with the same authority in its interpretation of Scripture?
That this Church continuously interprets Scripture for what it means for the life of the Church today? That the Church has its own body of Catholic scholars in the service of the Church who interpret Scripture?
These scholars are appointed by the Pope and serve on the Pontifical Biblical Commission which is seated within the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching authority of the Church. My post #142 is the work of one of these scholars and carries the NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur.
There is Tradition and there is tradition.

 

[thomas t]

Ignatatius is not Bible. I won't treat that one. Bible only please. At least when you want to show that the Catholic Church is the only valid one!
As I said in #136: even if we suppose that the first church was Catholic... why suppose that Jesus stayed with it - even after murder.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

In Catholic tradition, does the church eat flesh? Only the believers eat it, I think.

 

[thomas t]

Hallo Metis,
concerning the historiocity of said "apostolic succession", even @Dogknox20 admitted:

pcarl You say.. Historical evidence does not support the list. TRADITION supports the list!

Tradition cannot replace historical evidence, though.

on the basis of the the succession of the bishops historically to the present, which is mention in the link that I gave you.

when they can't trace back the popes... they can't trace back the other bishops in a historcally precise manner, either, I think. There is no neat historical facts that could prove a proper lineage of every single bishop, as I see it.
Your link said something about said succession, but didn't deliver historical facts concerning a proven lineage either, if I read it right.

So, ... Matthew.7[1]"Judge not, that you be not judged.
[2] For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
[4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
[5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

bolded mine.
I do not judge people here. I said a church, or an organization is responsible for their actions.

Again, I don't think blaming an entire country, religion, or denomination for things that were done wrong at some points in time is nonsensical...

some of the apostles didn't exactly do the right thing either, remember?

The moment they did something wrong, they received correction! That's the biggest difference that I see when it comes to the church murders of the Catholic Church.
Peter made something wrong in Galatians 2. However, he received correction in Galatians 2:11 and the whole matter was settled. Thanks to Jesus!
But when did a Catholic murderer receive correction from within? They murdered, that's all - as sad as it is.

Thank you for the more civil tone this time.
This makes discussion easier.

Thomas

 

[metis]

when they can't trace back the popes... they can't trace back the other bishops in a historcally precise manner, either, I think. There is no neat historical facts that could prove a proper lineage of every single bishop, as I see it.

It doesn't make a difference because it basically is a "package deal". Just because I can't name the trees in a forest mean there's no forest. Just because I don't know all my past relatives doesn't mean that I don't exist. Again, this pattern shows up and is mandated in Acts and some of the epistles, so if Jesus and the apostles said that this is important, then I would suggest that this is important. The Church was never a "just do your own thing" entity.

I do not judge people here. I said a church, or an organization is responsible for their actions.

And I have agreed with that, but we live in the 21st century, not the 12th.

At every single mass we pray for God's forgiveness, not only for our own sins but the sins of the Church. We cannot redo the past, but we can move on with God's forgiveness and try to live "Never Again" when it comes to hurting others. [I'm a student of the Holocaust]

Again, I don't think blaming an entire country, religion, or denomination for things that were done wrong at some points in time is nonsensical...

Do you blame America for committing genocide? I don't because it's too broad a brushstroke. Yes, it is a part of our collective history, plus I'm not absolving our leaders then for their shame, but what good does it really do to just focus on that and label America today as being "murderous", to use your word?

The moment they did something wrong, they received correction!

How about Judas? Should we condemn the apostles for his actions and the fact that he didn't ask for forgiveness? This is what you are doing in regards to the CC. Is hatred to be continued for what happened almost 2000 years ago or even just 1000 years ago?

IOW, if God can forgive, why not you? As Catholics, we are taught we must forgive per Jesus' teachings.

That's the biggest difference that I see when it comes to the church murders of the Catholic Church.

See above.

Thank you for the more civil tone this time.
This makes discussion easier.

Sorry about that, but if you knew what I went through along this line back over 50 years ago and afterword you'd maybe better understand why I get emotional over this.

My own parents, who were staunchly anti-Catholic, refused to accept my Catholic wife when we got married almost 54 years ago, but fortunately that changed after a while. And later, they even came to mass when our kids were being baptized and confirmed, and their anti-Catholic position finally came to a stop as they heard what the Church was preaching and teaching. Later on, they even began to attend some holiday masses with us. But there's even more anti-Catholic bigoty that we ran across from some others but, fortunately, that dissipated over time as well.

And what's ironic, after attending mass for well over 50 years, I have never heard one single attack on any Protestant church, but I've encountered so many Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church over the years, including some here at RF. Fortunately, that also has reduced over time.

We need to remember that this is 2020, thus not centuries before, and that forgiveness is one thing Jesus taught that is mandatory. As I said earlier in this post, we ask for forgiveness at every single mass, and we are taught that we must always be willing to forgive others.

Take care.

 

[thomas t]

HI Metis,

no, I don't hate here. I just point out that I see sufficient reason to cast doubt on the claim that the Catholic church is still the only valid one. And I give reasons as to why... and this happens to be the killings.

I wouldn't have said a word, if your colleage wouldn't have come up (repeatedly) with the notion of the CC purportedly being the only valid one among churches. Believe me.
Normally I couldn't care less about the CC. But when they go around telling everybody "we are the rulers"... I feel attacked. It's not hate. I want to defend myself. Just that!

Do you blame America for committing genocide?

that's not my topic. I remain neutral on that one. The world does not need a Thomas T leaving his 2 cents on virtually everything.

Furthermore, it's not mine to forgive a church when they persecuted others.
Look, I personally don't have any problems with the CC. I don't have anything I could forgive. Just to the contrary: Catholics use to help me a lot right where I live - it's a Catholic area.

I'm neutral on Judas, he received punishment already. Catholic officials never received any punishment for murdering - well, at least I don't know of any. They just murdered, it seems to me.

It doesn't make a difference because it basically is a "package deal".

they can't trace back the package deal when they can't trace back a single example in it, I mean a single pope. That's the opinion I'm leaning towards.
What they are saying is... it "somehow" goes back to the apostles. That's not a fact. It's presumption.

How nice that you have more peace inside your family now!

 

[Dogknox20]

Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

OK lets try another path. Do you believe today's Catholic Church is the same Catholic Church that developed from Scripture? And that it teaches with the same authority in its interpretation of Scripture?
That this Church continuously interprets Scripture for what it means for the life of the Church today? That the Church has its own body of Catholic scholars in the service of the Church who interpret Scripture?
These scholars are appointed by the Pope and serve on the Pontifical Biblical Commission which is seated within the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching authority of the Church. My post #142 is the work of one of these scholars and carries the NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur.
There is Tradition and there is tradition.

pcarl I hope all is well.... I reply... Yes there is tradition.... and Tradition.... The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is a living entity traditions develop, traditions can change! Logic alone should help you understand this reality. The Church grows in knowledge as any living organism would!

The traditions of the early church helped develop doctrine and dogma! The Holy Church uses traditions to understand scriptures as she studies interpretations can change! The Dogma of Trinity is a good example! Arius (a Catholic) brought the topic to the forefront! This scripture Prophesy proved true... 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Arius was AMONG Catholics. Catholics could not be among Arius the Prophesy can only work in the one direction! Arius was removed from AMONG us at the Church Council; She made her decision after much discussion of Her Bishops! The Dogma (Trinity) came out of the council and Arius was declared "False Teacher"! Same with the Catholic Priest Luther he also was AMONG US he; just as Arius was also declared "False Teacher"! Traditions are used to develop and grow the Holy Church! Verse #2 (above) tells you the Holy Catholic Church is "The Way Of Truth"! The Prophesy cannot work in the reverse; Catholics were NOT among Luther! You must reject the scriptures to reject the Catholic Church,1) Tradition, 2) Scriptures, and the 3) teaching office of the Church- Bishops! (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) Luther said.. (paraphrase) "All man needs is the scriptures and faith ALONE, we don't need the church"! He introduced the TRADITION of scriptures ALONE forcing every protestant to become their own scripture scholar! Forcing every one to become personal experts to find salvation! Luther took away the true expert the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit thus leaving all protestants sterile!

The Church is 2000 years old, there cannot be another going back to Jesus; he built only one church he has only one body! The Church Jesus established FOREVER has had 2000 years of study her main concern is to understand the words of God, she uses hermeneutics & exegesis involving history, ancient customs, ancient languages, archeology etc... She has had 2000 years of study she is very good at what she does.. She is an EXPERT!

 

[metis]

I wouldn't have said a word, if your colleage wouldn't have come up (repeatedly) with the notion of the CC purportedly being the only valid one among churches.

I actually only rarely read his posts, so I missed that apparently. He and I have "gone a few rounds" ourselves at times over some issues. Not all Catholics are on the same page, and that may be the understatement of the century.

The issue of the "true church" is one that Vatican II settled, namely that other denominations are brothers and sisters in Christ, thus we are not to judge. This is why we're ecumenical, and we have had much participation and mutual exchanges with our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters over the years. Up until four years ago, I belonged to a synagogue and yet went to mass with my wife weekly, only then "reconverting" back to Catholicism-- a looooooooooong story. At no time in our church was I ridiculed for the 20 years I was away.

that's not my topic. I remain neutral on that one.

Isn't that rather "convenient"?

they can't trace back the package deal when they can't trace back a single example in it, I mean a single pope.

Again, check out "apostolic succession"
back at the Wiki link I gave you, and a reminder that Wiki isn't a Catholic source. And had you actually read it thoroughly, you would know that apostolic succession applies to numerous other churches as well, thus not just the CC.

BTW, I could never have converted to Catholicism prior to Vatican II.

What they are saying is... it "somehow" goes back to the apostles. That's not a fact. It's presumption.

Only if you ignore history. Here's another article from a non-Catholic source: History of Christianity - Wikipedia

How nice that you have more peace inside your family now!

Our oldest daughter is in Judaism (Reform), our youngest daughter is Catholic, and our son is secular [our daughter-in-law is Pentecostal], and yet we never argue religion, and we actually do attend each others ceremonies. I've been involved in ecumenism for over 30 years, and I've been in religious services in many locations worldwide because of my job being an anthropologist. I feel very much at home in a synagogue, mosque, Hindu and Buddhist temples, etc., and the most enjoyable course I taught was comparative religions. When it comes to my personal "theology", I'm about as loosey-goosey as one could ever expect to run across because of my "naturalistic" bent.

The point of the last paragraph is to realize that as Catholics we do have different perspectives on so many things, but I have yet in over 50 years of attending mass ever hear a priest or bishop criticize another religion or denomination-- and I think that's a big +.

So, I think we've both made our points, and we know where each other stands, so I'm just going to move on.

Take care.

 

[pearl]

The Church Jesus established FOREVER has had 2000 years of study her main concern is to understand the words of God, she uses hermeneutics & exegesis involving history, ancient customs, ancient languages, archeology etc... She has had 2000 years of study she is very good at what she does.. She is an EXPERT!

And yet you do not accept the results of all this expert historical study that states the evidence for Peter being the first pope is not found, and not a 'fact of history'.

 

[Dogknox20]

And yet you do not accept the results of all this expert historical study that states the evidence for Peter being the first pope is not found, and not a 'fact of history'.

pcarl The holy Catholic Church is founded on Peter the FIRST Shepherd.. She has a TRADITION recorded in history: Peter is the first Chief Bishop!

To put it another way.... There is NO historical evidence written or TRADITION that says Peter is NOT the first Shepherd! There is NO scriptures pointing to another Apostles except Peter!

Scriptures tell you "God the father wanted Peter to hold the Keys to Heaven!"
Scriptures tell you "Jesus named Peter Shepherd of "HIS" flock"! (The flock of Jesus)
Scriptures tell you..."Peter is always named first, and the most!"
Scriptures tell you. ."Only Peter walked on water, like Jesus"!
Scriptures tell you. ."Peter is first into the Tomb"
Scriptures tell you .."Peter raises the dead"
Scriptures tell you. ."Peters Shadow heals all it falls on"!
Scriptures tell you.. "Peter chairs the replacement of Judas"!
Scriptures tell you.. "Jesus appears first to Peter are the resurrections"!
Scriptures tell you.. "Jesus changes Simons name to ROCK"!
Scriptures tell you.. "Jesus is ALWAYS with his Holy Church to the end of time, this means he is STILL with her today!"
Scriptures tell you.. "The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into ALL TRUTH forever, this means the Holy Spirit is STILL today guiding"!
pcarl it comes down to Scriptures Logic and Traditions.... Logic is; NO OTHER Church except the Holy Catholic Church; the Church of the Early Fathers was formed by Jesus all others were started by men!

 

[thomas t]

I feel relieved that not all Catholics seem to agree that all other churches are purportedly nonsense.

The issue of the "true church" is one that Vatican II settled, namely that other denominations are brothers and sisters in Christ, thus we are not to judge.

What I miss here is the acknowledgement that churches outside the CC can be valid.
To me, this stance comes across as saying "we have the church, the rest are just isolated Christians that don't have a valid church!"

 

[pearl]

What I miss here is the acknowledgement that churches outside the CC can be valid.
To me, this stance comes across as saying "we have the church, the rest are just isolated Christians that don't have a valid church!"

The Catholic Church accepts the validity of these churches as means of salvation through Christ. The question of validity is concerned with the non acceptance of the episcopate in historical succession of the apostles and the bishops as it developed in the NT period. Instead of 'isolated' Christians there is pluralism, as there was in NT times.