Quoted: Quoted: A bunch of stuff..... Like most Roman Catholics, you are so convinced that you are right, that you rarely hear what others are saying.   The reformers never intended to start a new Church, but the Popes during the various attempts at reformation were so power hungry and involved in politics and corruption that the "reformation" was a threat to their power, and had to be stopped at any cost. Little that has come out of Rome since has made any sense. There are more catholic churches than the one seated in Rome my friend, and I'd argue that the others have more right to call themselves catholic than the one in Rome due to their behavior and treatment of their fellow men.

There is both scripture and tradition to back the belief system of every Roman Catholic.
You simply choose to ignore it.

Quoted: Quoted: A bunch of stuff..... Like most Roman Catholics, you are so convinced that you are right, that you rarely hear what others are saying.

I have had plenty of doubt about  what the Church teaches, and even considered switching to a Protestant denomination.  But the more I studied Scripture, history and the writings of the early Fathers, the more I realized that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.  And it's not that "I'm right," but the Catholic Church is right.  I am right only insofar as I adhere to what the Church teaches.  I hear what you are saying just fine.  You just happen to be wrong.  

The reformers never intended to start a new Church, but the Popes during the various attempts at reformation were so power hungry and involved in politics and corruption that the "reformation" was a threat to their power, and had to be stopped at any cost.

They just rejected essential doctrines, made up their own interpretations that were different from the previous 1500 years, and convinced others to follow their teachings instead of the doctrines handed down by Christ through the Catholic Church.  Whether they intended to or not (at the start anyway), by their actions, they separated themselves from the Catholic Church and started their own ecclesial communities.  They didn't reform anything.  They revolted.

The abuses that were going on were already being addressed by others who didn't let pride get in their way.  They stayed faithful to the Church and helped to reform the Church, instead of breaking from the Church to start their own groups.  Just because you don't like someone in office abusing their power doesn't mean you reject the entire office itself and go and start your own authority.  That's what Luther did.  He threw the baby out with the bath water.

Little that has come out of Rome since has made any sense.

such as?  There are no new doctrines for the Catholic Church.  What was taught as the unchanging Deposit of Faith before the Protestant Revolt is the same Deposit of Faith after the Revolt.

There are more catholic churches than the one seated in Rome my friend, and I'd argue that the others have more right to call themselves catholic than the one in Rome due to their behavior and treatment of their fellow men.

And you just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the nature of the Church.  The Church is the mystical body of Christ, with Christ as the head.  The message stays the same, even when the messenger is a scoundrel (and yes, there were plenty of popes who were scoundrels), because the message comes from Christ Himself through imperfect, sinful men.  Christ gave his authority to Peter and his successors, and because Peter ended up in Rome, the seat of the Church is in Rome.  The authority goes where the Pope goes.  Any other church is Catholic as long as it is in union with the Pope.

Practices and devotions have come and gone (and good riddance to some of them), but the doctrine has not changed.  You can use abuse of power and sinful leaders as an excuse to break away all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that in the process of doing so, you've rejected many of the unchanging teachings of Christ.

From the earliest times, the Pope has been understood to be the visible head of Christ's Church.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church" ~St. Ambrose of Milan (389AD)

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" ~Tertullian (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" ~Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" ~St. Ambrose of Milan (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379])

Quoted: There is both scripture and tradition to back the belief system of every Roman Catholic. You simply choose to ignore it.

Show me the scriptural backing for Papal Indulgences and we'll talk.

And don't give me the nonsense about how they are not done any longer.

John Paul granted one within the last 10 or 15 years.

ETA:  Wow, it was as recent as the year 2000.

Originally posted by TWIRE and loonybin: The Roman Catholic church is right, and everybody else is wrong.

Yet someone wonders why there is a semantical difference made between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christendom.  


Edited for clarification.

Quoted: I was not saying that what the Catholic Church teaches is wrong but rather that what I have been hearing in in the Church does not necessarily go along with what I now believe.

Well, if what the Catholic Church teaches is not wrong, and what you believe is in opposition to what is correct, doesn't that make you wrong?  Why don't you believe it?  If it's correct, wouldn't you want to believe what is correct?  And are you sure that what you are hearing in the Church is actually what the Church teaches (sadly, this must be asked, as so many are being led astray even by priests).

I have been an active member of my church in the past. I took 10 years of religion class. [that doesn't mean much these days] I have been confirmed. In the past I have been very active and participatory in masses. However, recently, over the past year or so, I have really begun to question weather or not I'm in the right church.

And why have your beliefs changed?  Or were they ever actually your own to embrace?

I have reluctantly done these things in the past (Because my mom was very active in the church, a religion teacher and someone who spent much of her time helping the church community), but now, I'm to the point where I'm thinking maybe I should be looking for someplace else to worship.

Never mind.  You answered it for me.  Have you ever had a personal, intimate encounter with Jesus?  If not, then you're missing the other half of the equation.  Going to Mass, and attending catechism classes is only part of the story.  We were created to know, love and serve God in this life in order to be happy with Him in this life and the next.  That only happens through a personal commitment to Christ as the Lord of your life (sounds pretty Protestant doesn't it?).  Yet, how can you commit your life to Christ if you don't know Him?  You can't, so you need to get to know Him, but you need to learn about Him in order to know Who it is you're committing your life to.  I learned a lot about Protestant and Catholic beliefs and eventually chose to remain a Catholic, but it wasn't until a few years later that I actually took what I knew about Him and chose to get to know Him on a personal level.  From what you've written, that is what seems to be missing.  If you don't learn correctly about Jesus, how are you going to truly know Him and love Him, and thus serve Him as He wants you to serve Him?

All of that takes grace, and you get that through the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

I still do believe in God and that Jesus was sent to die for our sins and that he is our path to salvation, but I do not see my beliefs represented in the church that I go to now.

so it comes down to whether or not your beliefs are right or the Catholic Church is right.

Quoted: Originally posted by TWIRE and loonybin: We're right, and everybody else is wrong. Yet someone wonders why there is a semantical difference made between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christendom.

Don't attribute words to me that I didn't say.  You apparently haven't really read what I said.  It has nothing to do with whether I am right.  It has everything to do with whether the Catholic Church is right.

Quoted: Quoted: Originally posted by TWIRE and loonybin: We're right, and everybody else is wrong. Yet someone wonders why there is a semantical difference made between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christendom.   Don't attribute words to me that I didn't say.  You apparently haven't really read what I said.  It has nothing to do with whether I am right.  It has everything to do with whether the Catholic Church is right.

Likewise.

Quoted: Quoted: There is both scripture and tradition to back the belief system of every Roman Catholic. You simply choose to ignore it. Show me the scriptural backing for Papal Indulgences and we'll talk. And don't give me the nonsense about how they are not done any longer. John Paul granted one within the last 10 or 15 years. ETA:  Wow, it was as recent as the year 2000.

We've already discussed 'loosing and binding." Do you need the scripture references again?

From the Catechism:

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance. What is an indulgence? "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints." "An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

Short answer:  Catholics are a subset of Christians.

Gentlemen, my apologies.  I've edited the atributed quote for clarification.

I was simply pointing out the logical reason why some folks might make a distinction between the idea of "Christianity" in general and (Roman) "Catholicism" specifically.  While each facet of christianity, in all it's myriad forms and beliefs, would claim their doctrine to be divine, very few would hold to a "You must believe every bit of what we claim without question, or else".

Quoted: Gentlemen, my apologies.  I've edited the atributed quote for clarification.

Thank you for correcting your post.

While each facet of christianity, in all it's myriad forms and beliefs, would claim their doctrine to be divine, very few would hold to a "You must believe every bit of what we claim without question, or else".

I've talked to plenty of Christians who say that anyone who disagrees with them is rejecting the Word of God.  Yet they don't have 2000 years of history to back up what they believe.

The Church has no problem with questioning what she teaches (I've done plenty of it myself, especially when I don't understand it).  However, when the questioning becomes an excuse to ignore moral teaching ("because I don't understand it completely") or an excuse to reject doctrine, it ceases to be honest, seeking questioning, and becomes rebellion against the authority of the Church to pass on the Faith.

Quoted: Quoted: I was not saying that what the Catholic Church teaches is wrong but rather that what I have been hearing in in the Church does not necessarily go along with what I now believe. Well, if what the Catholic Church teaches is not wrong, and what you believe is in opposition to what is correct, doesn't that make you wrong?  Why don't you believe it?  If it's correct, wouldn't you want to believe what is correct?  And are you sure that what you are hearing in the Church is actually what the Church teaches (sadly, this must be asked, as so many are being led astray even by priests). so it comes down to whether or not your beliefs are right or the Catholic Church is right.

Just because I said the Catholic teachings aren’t wrong, doesn't mean they are right either. You could say that the sky is purple and I couldn't say that you are wrong. It's all a mater of perception.

One dunks you the other sprinkles you.

Quoted: Just because I said the Catholic teachings aren’t wrong, doesn't mean they are right either. You could say that the sky is purple and I couldn't say that you are wrong. It's all a mater of perception.

No, it's not a matter of perception.  It's a matter of God's Truth.  Truth is objective, not relative.  Either He revealed certain things to us to be believed, or He did not.

Quoted: Quoted: Just because I said the Catholic teachings aren’t wrong, doesn't mean they are right either. You could say that the sky is purple and I couldn't say that you are wrong. It's all a mater of perception. No, it's not a matter of perception.  It's a matter of God's Truth.  Truth is objective, not relative.  Either He revealed certain things to us to be believed, or He did not.

Again, we get back to weather or not the Catholic Church is really teaching the Truth of God, or their interpretation of thousands of years of oral and written tradition. Is it not possible that the Truth 2000 years ago has become skewed in todays teachings?

Back to the original question are catholics Christian? Yes , unless you ask someone thats not Catholic. It usually means I think mine is better than yours. If you even follow a few of Christs teachings you are Christian. However not everyone that says"Lord Lord" wil return to God so you better look at the scriptures and make sure you are as close as you can be.

Quoted: Quoted: Seriously, I was raised Catholic but honestly have no idea what the difference between Catholics and Christians are. Until now I have not really made an effort to know the difference, because I didn't really care, but now curiosity has taken over. Educate me ARFCOM. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm ie Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.

And not all catholics are Christians, either.


of course, neither are all baptists, pentecostals, methodists, church of Christ'ers, etc, etc, ad nauseum......

Quoted: Back to the original question are catholics Christian? Yes , unless you ask someone thats not Catholic. It usually means I think mine is better than yours. If you even follow a few of Christs teachings you are Christian.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

However not everyone that says"Lord Lord" wil return to God so you better look at the scriptures and make sure you are as close as you can be.

That's 'more better'.

Sadly, many people will ignore the advice.

Quoted: We've already discussed 'loosing and binding." Do you need the scripture references again? From the Catechism:

Don't quote the Catechism, it's not scripture.

Tell me where in the Bible it says that a man, namely the Pope, can give
indulgences to remove sin.   Dont tell me that Christ forgives sins, we know that.

Tell me why the Pope has special authority to remove sin, as in an indulgence.
You can't.  That's what got Luther and all the other reformers pissed off to begin with.

Popes were SELLING indulgences.  Thats what caused all this.  The fact that now they
are "giving them away" doesn't change the fact that nowhere in the Bible is there
scripture saying that the Pope has this authority. It's ludicrous.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seriously, I was raised Catholic but honestly have no idea what the difference between Catholics and Christians are. Until now I have not really made an effort to know the difference, because I didn't really care, but now curiosity has taken over. Educate me ARFCOM. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm ie Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics. And not all catholics are Christians, either. of course, neither are all baptists, pentecostals, methodists, church of Christ'ers, etc, etc, ad nauseum...... A practicing Catholic is, by definition, a Christian.

Key word in red.

there were some corrupt Popes.  There were also some very good Popes.  Next key word on were selling indulgence is the word WERE.  They are no longer selling indulgences nor do they/we practice indulgences.

The idea of going to confession and confessing to a priest stems from the scripture you previously quoted - furthermore the idea of humbling yourself before another helps in the forgiveness process.  Just because you go to confession and are absolved from your sins by a priest does not mean you are not accountable for your actions in the eyes of God.  Furthermore a Priest has only one reason that he can deny absolution and that is because the person asking for pardon does not appear truly sorry for his actions.  

Lastly We read scriptures from the bible daily in mass.  Active practicing Catholics also get the sentinel in which daily scripture study is organized and recommended.  We also read scriptures [both old and new] in weekly Mass.

In the Catholic Faith we have 7 sacraments.  A sacrament is an outward sign given by Christ to gain grace for heaven.  Those 7 sacraments are the sacrament of Baptism [lead by Christ's example], Reconciliation [also by Christ's example], Communion [lead by Christ's example], the gift of the Holy Spirit along with the Sacrament of Conformation [accepting Christ as your savoir and taking responsibility for your actions lead by Christ's example], The Sacrament of Marriage [preached and supported by Christ], The Sacrament of Priesthood [bestowed by Christ on his apostles], The anointing of the sick [lead by Christ's example], and the Last Rights [lead by Christ's example].

There are a lot of what I call door knob Catholics who have know idea what they/we actually believe in.  They go to church on Sunday.  They sit down, stand up, kneel and walk through Mass like zombies but this is not the fault of the church.  Every Church I have ever been in have adult classes offered.  The Priest is there to lead and guide.  There are several Catholics [more of the old WWII generation] that have false belief's in what the church stands for and why we have our sacraments.

Furthermore, state one thing that either Pope John Paul II has done or Pope Benedict that you don't agree with.

We are Christian and there are more of us World Wide than any other Christian Faith there is.  We are also expanding at a higher rate then any other religion in the world.  Sure there is corruption, sure there are good priest and poor priests.  Sure there is a lot that can be made better but for a religion that holds these premises true:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
   the Creator of heaven and earth,
   and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
   born of the Virgin Mary,
   suffered under Pontius Pilate,
   was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
   and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
   whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
   the communion of saints,
   the forgiveness of sins,
   the resurrection of the body,
   and life everlasting.

Can't be that bad.  Patty

Quoted: Don't quote the Catechism, it's not scripture. Tell me where in the Bible it says that a man, namely the Pope, can give indulgences to remove sin.   Dont tell me that Christ forgives sins, we know that. Tell me why the Pope has special authority to remove sin, as in an indulgence. You can't.  That's what got Luther and all the other reformers pissed off to begin with. Popes were SELLING indulgences.  Thats what caused all this.  The fact that now they are "giving them away" doesn't change the fact that nowhere in the Bible is there scripture saying that the Pope has this authority. It's ludicrous.

You're a pretty selective reader, not to mention all the crap that you have 'read' between the lines. I NEVER said the Catechism of the Catholic  Church IS scripture. Its not. Neither is Luther's Catechism. If you had bothered to read the post, I asked if you needed the scripture repeated. You did not respond to that.

So....a few of the countless passages (abbreviated) that give papal authority over such matters.


James 5:16 confess your sins to one another...that you may be healed.

Leviticus 4:20 priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.

1 Cor 4:15 I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Matthew 10:40 receives you receives me..receives the one who sent me

Luke 10:16 "listens to you listens to me...rejects you rejects me...one who sent me.

Matthew 18:147-19 17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 16 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seriously, I was raised Catholic but honestly have no idea what the difference between Catholics and Christians are. Until now I have not really made an effort to know the difference, because I didn't really care, but now curiosity has taken over. Educate me ARFCOM. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm ie Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics. And not all catholics are Christians, either. of course, neither are all baptists, pentecostals, methodists, church of Christ'ers, etc, etc, ad nauseum...... A practicing Catholic is, by definition, a Christian. Key word in red.

I disagree.


I a not anti Catholic and what I say here probably applies to all denominations. I am just using Catholics here because they are the most numerous therefore the easiest ones I can recall at this time.



My sis in law is a practicing Catholic. She attends Mass, has a statue of Mary in the front yard. Had a crucifix in just about every room, more Mary statues, does the stations of the cross thing in public. She also defends her denomination very strrongly.

BUT

Its all about tradition for her. She practices it out of tradition but she is a big time liberal democrat. She is inot the NEw Age movement, tok some classes froma  local scientology thing becvause all the stars are doing it. She is totally ok with all that and even declared that as long as one is a good person they will be fine in the end. She is an alcoholic, smokes weed all the time, cusses up a storm and in fact, the only thinkg "christian" about her is that she has a crucifix necklace in the open. I wonder how it testifies to christianity when she is out drinking and cussing up a storm with out regret.


A good friend I used to have was the same wa, but he wasnt a liberal hippe. He did live like ther was no tomorrow and like my sis in law, he did not evangelise at all. They both though it was not needed. He had the statues, special blessed candles, a blessed cross, and some other thing that meant no matter how he lived, he was safe. Thats kind of how he explained it to me but I doubt if he even knew what the RCC officially teached.

Both were practicing Catholics but I would not call them Christians. I dont think the emphasis should be on practicing a denomination, but christianity in general.

Like I said I am sure other people in other denominations seek to practice their denominations before their Christianity.

I could have all the theologivcal knowledge and still not be a christian. I can practice all kinds of traditions in my family and denomination and not be a Christian. If I live like the unsaved and ignore spreading and defending the gospel then I can still call myself by whatever denomination I practice, but to call oneself a christian like that is foolishness.

Quoted: .

Point well taken and agreed with.

I was referring to the fact that many are, nominally, members of a church or denomination, or associate with it when questioned, due to family affiliation or something, but are hardly what anyone would consider 'Christian' by a scriptural definition of the term.

You bring up another issue entirely - the superficially religious.

Quoted: Don't quote the Catechism, it's not scripture. Tell me where in the Bible it says that a man, namely the Pope, can give indulgences to remove sin.   Dont tell me that Christ forgives sins, we know that. Tell me why the Pope has special authority to remove sin, as in an indulgence. You can't.  That's what got Luther and all the other reformers pissed off to begin with. Popes were SELLING indulgences.  Thats what caused all this.  The fact that now they are "giving them away" doesn't change the fact that nowhere in the Bible is there scripture saying that the Pope has this authority. It's ludicrous.

Before you go off on that, you will have to prove that the Bible is the only source of authority (getting back to the original post on what's the difference).  Sola scriptura is not Scriptural.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of authority.  So, before you can go and say we can't quote the catechism, you'll have to prove sola scriptura is correct, first.

The KKK hate Catholics as much as they hate Jews.  There is one difference.  Don't ask me why, they are idiots.

Quoted: A practicing Catholic is, by definition, a Christian.

Key word in red.

I disagree. I a not anti Catholic and what I say here probably applies to all denominations. I am just using Catholics here because they are the most numerous therefore the easiest ones I can recall at this time. My sis in law is a practicing Catholic. She attends Mass, has a statue of Mary in the front yard. Had a crucifix in just about every room, more Mary statues, does the stations of the cross thing in public. She also defends her denomination very strrongly. BUT Its all about tradition for her. She practices it out of tradition but she is a big time liberal democrat. She is inot the NEw Age movement, tok some classes froma  local scientology thing becvause all the stars are doing it. She is totally ok with all that and even declared that as long as one is a good person they will be fine in the end. She is an alcoholic, smokes weed all the time, cusses up a storm and in fact, the only thinkg "christian" about her is that she has a crucifix necklace in the open. I wonder how it testifies to christianity when she is out drinking and cussing up a storm with out regret. A good friend I used to have was the same wa, but he wasnt a liberal hippe. He did live like ther was no tomorrow and like my sis in law, he did not evangelise at all. They both though it was not needed. He had the statues, special blessed candles, a blessed cross, and some other thing that meant no matter how he lived, he was safe. Thats kind of how he explained it to me but I doubt if he even knew what the RCC officially teached. Both were practicing Catholics but I would not call them Christians. I dont think the emphasis should be on practicing a denomination, but christianity in general. Like I said I am sure other people in other denominations seek to practice their denominations before their Christianity. I could have all the theologivcal knowledge and still not be a christian. I can practice all kinds of traditions in my family and denomination and not be a Christian. If I live like the unsaved and ignore spreading and defending the gospel then I can still call myself by whatever denomination I practice, but to call oneself a christian like that is foolishness.

I'd say that the people you describe are NOT PRACTICING anything, but self indulgence. These superficially 'Christian' or 'Catholic' people are present to some degree in every denomination, in every congregation.

I would add that the situations you describe, from my perspective,  are precisely why the Catholic Church adheres to and concentrates on the actions/works of the converted sinner as opposed to the once saved-always saved philosophy expressed by some fundamentalist Christians. The real followers of Christ, of whatever denomination, are changed beings when they accept Jesus as their Savior. That's not to say that they will no longer stumble. On the contrary, Paul's references to 'the good fight' and the 'armor of light' sometimes makes me wonder if the struggle is a mandatory part of the plan of salvation.

Quoted: That's not to say that they will no longer stumble. On the contrary, Paul's references to 'the good fight' and the 'armor of light' sometimes makes me wonder if the struggle is a mandatory part of the plan of salvation.

Paul did say that there is no crown without the Cross.  I'm just thankful that He gives us the grace to deal with the Cross, otherwise I'd have no hope of attaining the crown.

Interesting to read the detritus with catholic and catholic lite debating eachother.

The difference is simple:

One believes in the perfection of the scripture in the Bible as being Christ Himself, as he has said:

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Bible furnishes all that is needful and perfect for us in all situations:

2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


That is a Christian, fully knowing that Christ Jesus is the Word and that through the Word, ALL that is necessary to salvation is available to us. We have no need of anything or anyone save the Word and its FEW AND BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS. No adding, no subtracting... no nothing.

A catholic believes in the elevation man, and the writings of man, to the same level as Inspired Scripture contained in the Bible. Rules made up and declared by man to be as good as that from Christ Himself.

It is really that simple. You either believe solely in the Word, or you believe that Christ needed the help of man somehow in formulating Gods plan for us in the period following the Mosaic Law.

Which would you choose, God or man?

I know what I have chosen....

Dram out

Quoted: Before you go off on that, you will have to prove that the Bible is the only source of authority (getting back to the original post on what's the difference).  Sola scriptura is not Scriptural.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of authority.  So, before you can go and say we can't quote the catechism, you'll have to prove sola scriptura is correct, first.

So, the Roman Church argues that there is NOT sola scriptura, which by definition
states that therefore the Bible is not infallible.   THAT argument will lead you nowhere
because you won't find a Christian outside of the Roman Church that thinks the Bible
is imperfect and all that is necessary.

Or, explained here:

The Scriptures are fully authoritative in all matters of faith and life. But the Scriptures nowhere tell us which books belong in the canon and which do not. Therefore, if we are to have an infallible canon, then it must come from a source that is infallible, but external to the Scriptures. Such a Tradition would be *equal to* Scripture in authority, but not *over* or *above* Scripture in authority.

And the Roman source of this "infallibility" is the Pope, which no one else recognizes as infallible.

So your argument only works on a practicing Roman Catholic, which makes it not a very good argument.

Quoted: I'd say that the people you describe are NOT PRACTICING anything, but self indulgence. These superficially 'Christian' or 'Catholic' people are present to some degree in every denomination, in every congregation. I would add that the situations you describe, from my perspective,  are precisely why the Catholic Church adheres to and concentrates on the actions/works of the converted sinner as opposed to the once saved-always saved philosophy expressed by some fundamentalist Christians. The real followers of Christ, of whatever denomination, are changed beings when they accept Jesus as their Savior. That's not to say that they will no longer stumble. On the contrary, Paul's references to 'the good fight' and the 'armor of light' sometimes makes me wonder if the struggle is a mandatory part of the plan of salvation.

In that I will agree with you 100%, so it seems the Anglican and the Roman Catholic can still agree
on some important issues.

Quoted: Interesting to read the detritus with catholic and catholic lite debating eachother. The difference is simple: One believes in the perfection of the scripture in the Bible as being Christ Himself, as he has said: Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Bible furnishes all that is needful and perfect for us in all situations: 2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. That is a Christian, fully knowing that Christ Jesus is the Word and that through the Word, ALL that is necessary to salvation is available to us. We have no need of anything or anyone save the Word and its FEW AND BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS. No adding, no subtracting... no nothing. A catholic believes in the elevation man, and the writings of man, to the same level as Inspired Scripture contained in the Bible. Rules made up and declared by man to be as good as that from Christ Himself. It is really that simple. You either believe solely in the Word, or you believe that Christ needed the help of man somehow in formulating Gods plan for us in the period following the Mosaic Law. Which would you choose, God or man? I know what I have chosen.... Dram out

Wow!! Thanks for clearing up the entire matter for us!!Man, oh, man, you're one smart guy. It's all so simple now!!

I have rarely encountered a post, or poster, so obtuse.

You're obviously a student of scripture, but I challenge you, or any other dissenting protestant, to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and find in it, and among the scriptural references which form the basis of Catholicism, the characteristics that you have assigned to my faith (hint: you won't, you're presumption doe not exist). Your understanding of Catholicism is minimal, and obviously tainted. And I know you don't have the fortitude to even open a Catechism (its free to read online).

Quoted: The real followers of Christ, of whatever denomination, are changed beings .

Amen and Amen.

Twire,

I will endeavor to explain things so that even you can understand them. You know, the lowest common denominator... since that is in FACT how and for whom the Bible was written, for simple folk to understand and come to Christ.

Christians, simply put, do not share a common basis for discourse with those who adhere to the tenants of catholocism.

It is FACT.

How you say?

There exist no catholics today who believe solely in the Bible alone. Not one. Else they would be no catholic but a Christian untainted by admixture.

Christians, thru the sound reasoning of the Scriptures, have validly deduced that they are wholly and completely from God, and in fact ARE GOD. Christ said HE is the Word.

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You dont say, eh? So, who does this Christ say he is and how are we to get to God?

Joh:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The rock solid basis for belief in Christianity is The Word, which is Christ Himself.

Your belief system, is based simply on a combination of choice quotes and selections from the Word and a vast changeable mass of human writings that are either elevated or cast aside as the fashions change at the court of the bishop of Rome.

No more and no less.

My explanation is UTTERLY simple, just as the message of Christ Jesus is UTTERLY simple and easy to comprehend.

You wriggle and twist and dance about under the light of Truth, claiming, utterly spuriously mind you, that somehow there has been an apostolic succession through Peter, or any other Apostle (TxSig). Which is an absolutely amazing claim to Christians everywhere. Not to catholics, but to Christians. If there was indeed an "apostolic succession" to Peter, the Pope would daily be healing the sick and the lame and raising the dead. If someone is that direct successor he would inherit the gifts of the Apostles. Period.

Last time I checked, the bishop of Rome had not raised any dead in ... oh...say.. NEVER.

This my friend is why we have no discourse available between us, as we UTTERLY AND WITHOUT RECOURSE will not agree that the Word is the FINAL and ONLY resource for the worship of Christ Jesus.

I accept the Word as FINAL whereas you WILL NOT.

I run into the same wall with another member here who shrilly screams "apostolic" over the voices of those who wish to declare plain Truth, unadulterated. He has some fantasy that his roots are traceable to some form of an apostles church.



Start your flaming Twire, I am waiting, bored but waiting.

Shot over,

Dram out

Twire, here is a bit more for you to ponder, if you are so inclined:

Ga:1:6: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Ga:1:7: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Ga:1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Ga:1:9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Ga:1:10: For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Ga:1:11: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

How is it so that man would fall away so soon? Because men are contrary by nature, quite frankly.

It is utterly impossible to believe in any Gospel other than that which Christ declared and the Apostles and Disciples disseminated. Unless you are WHAT?

2Tm:4:3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Here in fact, the Word is speaking directly about what religious organization??????

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Tm:4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Tm:4:5: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Well now, I must say that it is no longer a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday... but it surely used to be. That is an excellent ensample of the change in fashion at the bishop of Romes court, now venial, now mortal... who is to say what tomorrow will bring, eh?

Do you mean that you CANNOT cloak pagan mythologies with Christian names and remain true to Christ?

1Tm:4:7: But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

That is the entire cult of marianism Twire. Do a bit of research on it and its origins. Its not hard to discover lest you really do believe in that which is described above.

Shot over,
Dram out

Quoted: Seriously, I was raised Catholic but honestly have no idea what the difference between Catholics and Christians are. Until now I have not really made an effort to know the difference, because I didn't really care, but now curiosity has taken over. Educate me ARFCOM.

Catholicism is more orderly, we've got earth-bound C2 (command and control). We've got the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops on down.

Quoted: There exist no catholics today who believe solely in the Bible alone. Not one. Else they would be no catholic but a Christian untainted by admixture. Protestant

fixed it for you.

That's because there has been no Catholic in all of 2,000 years of Catholicism (stretching all the way back to Peter) who believed in sola scriptura.  That idea didn't exist until well over a thousand years after Christ ascended to the Father.

Christians, thru the sound reasoning of the Scriptures, have validly deduced that they are wholly and completely from God, and in fact ARE GOD. Christ said HE is the Word.

Even the Protestants I know would say your interpretation is flawed (Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, some evangelicals).  Using your logic, you should fall on your knees when you see a Bible, since the Bible is Christ, and we must fall on our knees to worship Christ.

Your belief system, is based simply on a combination of choice quotes and selections from the Word and a vast changeable mass of human writings

This coming right after you select a combination of choice quotes as prooftext!??!  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

My explanation is UTTERLY simple, just as the message of Christ Jesus is UTTERLY simple and easy to comprehend.

Emphasis on YOUR explanation.  If the message of Christ Jesus is utterly simple and easy to comprehend, why is it that the Scriptures say otherwise?  Have you forgotten the Ethiopian eunich?

You wriggle and twist and dance about under the light of Truth, claiming, utterly spuriously mind you, that somehow there has been an apostolic succession through Peter, or any other Apostle (TxSig). Which is an absolutely amazing claim to Christians everywhere.

Funny, the early Christians who were closer to the time of Christ believed it, why don't you?

Not to catholics, but to Christians.

At least you're being consistent.

If there was indeed an "apostolic succession" to Peter, the Pope would daily be healing the sick and the lame and raising the dead. If someone is that direct successor he would inherit the gifts of the Apostles. Period.

And your source for such an illogical statement is...?  It is the office of bishop that has succession.  The Lord gives gifts to whomever He wills.

Last time I checked, the bishop of Rome had not raised any dead in ... oh...say.. NEVER.

Illogical and irrelevant.

This my friend is why we have no discourse available between us, as we UTTERLY AND WITHOUT RECOURSE will not agree that the Word is the FINAL and ONLY resource for the worship of Christ Jesus.

And what's your authority for saying the Bible is the only authority?  Oh, your idea that the Bible and Christ are one and the same?  Prove that your interpretation coming up with that is the correct interpretation.  You can't.  Sola Scriptura is only a few centuries old.  Christians around 70AD, 100AD, 200AD, etc.) would find your idea to be foreign.

I accept the Word as FINAL whereas you WILL NOT.

That's because your interpretations are incorrect.

Start your flaming Twire, I am waiting, bored but waiting.

Wow, such humility.

The Word already kicked your butt Loony, in the other thread. Those interested to see your false premises thumped can look there.

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=135&t=386399&page=2#bottom

Same stuff you posted here, spanked there.

Here is a sample:

___________________________________________________________________________

Loony speaking:

I wonder how many of the early fathers (say the first 300 years -- before Constantine) held to your interpretations of Sacred Scripture. Find their writings and get back to me on that, please.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Loony ol' boy, I hope you got a knife and fork handy feller', how do you want your crow served... medium or rare?

"There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us" (Catholic Dictionary, p 509)

"Our present convenient compendiums-The Missal, Breviary, and so on- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" ( Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p 296)

Tastes like chicken I would assume.


Dram out

I believe its a Un-Catholic to use a condom........at least from Catholic Missionaries about 5 years ago.

Not sure if that's changed......

As a "fallen" Roman Catholic, I can only relay information based on my experiences.  I personally have nothing against RCs, save for the fact that I detest the worship of Mary and the saints.  Jesus Christ is the one who died for our sins, period.  Not Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul or Mary.  

In Catholic school, this was never emphatically emphasized.  I never knew that you needed to accept Christ as your personal savior, until I started READING the "Good Book."   This acceptance somehow escaped me, when I was a child.      

Even when sponsoring my kid brother throughout his confirmation, I was amazed at how little they talked about Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost and His plan for you.  

Personal relationships with God were rarely discussed.  It was only until I attended a non-denominational church, that I found how "off the track" I truly was.  

Pomp and ceremony are the trademarks of the Catholic Church, in my opinion.  It's time for all Christians to get back to the basics of Christ's teachings:

Repentance
Prayer
Humility
Getting educated (Bible study)
Maintaining a personal relationship with God
Temperance
Example to others

To summarize, Roman Catholics, in my opinion, worship Catholic dogma i.e., confession, the Pope, Mary, etc.  Conversely, true Christians need to be keeping their eye and faith on the One who shed his blood for us.  

"He who believeth in me shall have eternal life."  "No person comes to the Father, but through me."
-the Holy Bible

That's because there has been no Catholic in all of 2,000 years of Catholicism (stretching all the way back to Peter) who believed in sola scriptura. That idea didn't exist until well over a thousand years after Christ ascended to the Father.
_______________________________________________________________________________

"There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us" (Catholic Dictionary, p 509)

"Our present convenient compendiums-The Missal, Breviary, and so on- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" ( Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p 296)



Yeah, loony... your pet theories hold water like a colander. Even approved cath sources like the above tell you that you are WRONG.


This is not FUN to correct your theories Loony, it is frankly a pain. But if even ONE catholic is forced to RESEARCH his faith and compare/contrast that with the Bible and its teachings, then the cause of Christ is borne out as he came to seek and save the lost.

Dont trust me ( which is easy as it is readily apparent that you dont)
Or any other man
Read the Word
And place your Trust in Christ Jesus ALONE

2Tm:2:15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Thats the bottom line. I have studied throughout my life, as a youngster I had no use for childrens bible study and sat in on the adults and it has stood me in good stead these many years.

And the coolest tool I have ever used, is a free Bible search program... just now looking... can you believe there is nothing to say where it comes from on it? Boy that is irritating, I wanted to share it with everyone.  You dont need to remember scripture, just parts of it or a phrase and it automatically looks up everything with those words. It is just too neat.

Anyhow, THAT is all I am saying folks.

One is incompatible with the other. And all there was to use for the first 400 years or so WAS THE BIBLE. The catholics took a whole NEW direction at that point, away from Christ and towards their own goals... whatever they might be.

Dram

Dram out

Quoted: ... Start your flaming Twire, I am waiting, bored but waiting. Shot over, Dram out

No. Thanks anyway. Been out of town several days. But in reviewing the posts and links that have been provided thus far, I've come to a conclusion. You've proven yourself to be an egocentric wackjob in every other thread that you've posted in. So when you get back on your medication for a few weeks start up another thread, then you might be able to post something relevant and we can actually debate.

detritus indeed.

Christians worship a book. Catholics are a little more comprehensive.

VA-gunnut


Good job moderating there ol' buddy

Good thing you know how to edit SOME posts

I am very glad to see you as a mod here in the religion forum

I am thrilled that catholics with no reading comprehension verbally assault me

Honest, this just makes my day so much more full

Have the best day ever

Dram

Twire and Loony,

This scripture is for you, Christ said this when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, but it fits in quite well here:

Ac:9:5: And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Pricks are apparently a type of sharpened stick fencing and it is quite painful to kick a sharpened stake, or so I am told. If you do not like what you read, ie the Bible offends you, why not break out a good cath book and study up on your god and your mary and your jesus.
It should make you much happier than reading about what the nasty ol' regular Bible says.

You may not like the Bible and what it says, but then you are quite free to do so, this IS America after all.

You have the best day ever

Your ARFCOM pal,

Dram