Catholicism vs Protestantism

[Dan_473]

one more thing about names

I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

that of course includes Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants.

so, imo, it would be nice to have an easy, shorthand way to refer to those Christians who are in full communion with the Pope as opposed to those Christians who are not.

 

[Dan_473]

none of these churches have ever fully broken with the roman catholic church RCC. all of them have come back or are mving back to the roman catholic church RCC. the orthodox and anglican churches both have an imperfect communion with the RCC. the others are moving back toward dialogue and toward ecumenical unity with RCC.

Jesus prayed for the unity of the church, it makes sense to me that Christians would be drawn to unity with each other.

that having been said, the pastor of the Lutheran Church (ELCA) down the street from where I live is very anti-catholic and anti-pope.
it's a big separation, imo.

 

[Dan_473]

And what is These verse mean?

there's a lot of things in the passage, of course.

but one thing in there is that the Jews that Jesus is talking to were worshipping God.

 

[Bede]

sounds similar to the way the ancient Greek manuscripts are written,
all caps, no spaces between words, no punctuation.

so it sounds like punctuation would be translator's choice in this case.
they may have felt that a comma was required by context or something.

I came across something irenaeus said on another thread
https://christianchat.com/threads/the-absurdity-and-heresy-of-preterism.192468/post-4274060

he talks about the church being "founded and organized at Rome."

if an organization is headquartered in Britain, we might say it is British... in Canada, Canadian.
I don't really follow why saying the Catholic church is Roman Catholic would be an insult, even if it was intended as an insult.

I grew up Pentecostal,
sometimes people called us "holy rollers".
sometimes we called ourselves that.
it may have been intended as an insult, but we pursued holiness, and sometimes people rolled on the floor.

Then why not call it the Italian Catholic Church, or European Catholic Church?

However it's useful for protestants that are that way inclined to call it Roman to link it in with Rev 17.

Why not be respectful and call it what it calls itself?

 

[Dan_473]

Do you understand all what is declared from the Holy Sees? No you do not!

well, and I I mean this with a positive tone,
given how many popes there have been, I doubt if anyone understands everything all of them have said.

if you do not then don't cite the Nicene Creed. Because you are pledging allegience to the hierarchy of the Holy Sees .

I'm not following the evidence or logic of why you say that.

Nicene Creed is man written. It does not say "one church", it says "one, holy catholic and apostolic church."

well, logically that would mean one Church.

The word apostolic refers to apostolic succession. It is a confession that the one true church is the church with apostolic succession.

I think we all agree that the one church is built on the foundation of the apostles and Prophets.
I think "apostolic" can simply mean that.


in addition, there is this verse
Titus 1:5 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you.

so it looks like Paul appoints Titus, who was then told to appoint others.
did this system stop at some point?
I don't know.

Roman Pontiff is the succession from Apostle Peter.
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the succession from Apostle Andrew.

The Pentarchy established by the Roman Emperors are the five heads of the church.

as I understand it, there were bishops in those five major cities prior to the Roman emperors getting involved.

Each I believe claiming their origin from one of the 12 apostles.

Here is the Pentarchy (the five sees):
1) Rome
2) Constantinople (orthodox)
3) Alexandria (orthodox)
4) Antioch (orthodox)
5) Jerusalem (orthodox)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople
The 2) Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the "first among equals" among the world's Eastern Orthodox prelates and is regarded as the representative and spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians.

So 2) is the spiritual leader of 2), 3), 4), and 5)

However, 1) is spiritual leader over 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5)

I think the Eastern Orthodox dispute that.

 

[Dan_473]

Then why not call it the Italian Catholic Church, or European Catholic Church?

those would all be valid possibilities, as long as those involved in the conversation knew what was being referred to.

I mentioned irenaeus saying that the church is "founded and organized at Rome".

he could have said founded and organized at Italy, but he picked Rome.
it sounds like an ancient association to me.

However it's useful for protestants that are that way inclined to call it Roman to link it in with Rev 17.

Why not be respectful and call it what it calls itself?

I'm fine saying "Catholic Church".
but as I mentioned above, that could include the Orthodox Church in America and the United Methodist Church, for example.
so it would be handy to have an easy way to talk about those in full communion with the Pope.

speaking of which, I would happily take communion with the Pope.
but I think he won't take communion with me.
so it's his decision that we are not in full communion, not mine.

I suppose some people like to say "Roman Catholic" to make the connection with Revelation 17.
I never made the association myself.

I like this explanation:
the organization headed by the pope is by far the biggest Christian group.
when you're "King of the Hill", everyone else is going to try to pull you down.
so I'm sure some people will say that the pope is the Antichrist or whatever.

the Pope says that Jesus is Lord.
I don't see any indication that he's just pretending.
so, that's a very strange thing for an antichrist to proclaim.

on a happy note, I remember playing King of the Hill as a child.
it's one of the funnest games ever, so we were always on the lookout for a mound of soft dirt!

 

[Bede]

one more thing about names

I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

that of course includes Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants.

so, imo, it would be nice to have an easy, shorthand way to refer to those Christians who are in full communion with the Pope as opposed to those Christians who are not.

I missed this earlier.
It would not be true to say that everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

The Catechism puts it this way.
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC 838).
Note the part I emboldened. They are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Bede]

those would all be valid possibilities, as long as those involved in the conversation knew what was being referred to.

I mentioned irenaeus saying that the church is "founded and organized at Rome".

he could have said founded and organized at Italy, but he picked Rome.
it sounds like an ancient association to me.


I'm fine saying "Catholic Church".
but as I mentioned above, that could include the Orthodox Church in America and the United Methodist Church, for example.
so it would be handy to have an easy way to talk about those in full communion with the Pope.

speaking of which, I would happily take communion with the Pope.
but I think he won't take communion with me.
so it's his decision that we are not in full communion, not mine.

I suppose some people like to say "Roman Catholic" to make the connection with Revelation 17.
I never made the association myself.

I like this explanation:
the organization headed by the pope is by far the biggest Christian group.
when you're "King of the Hill", everyone else is going to try to pull you down.
so I'm sure some people will say that the pope is the Antichrist or whatever.

the Pope says that Jesus is Lord.
I don't see any indication that he's just pretending.
so, that's a very strange thing for an antichrist to proclaim.

on a happy note, I remember playing King of the Hill as a child.
it's one of the funnest games ever, so we were always on the lookout for a mound of soft dirt!

We had king of the castle.
I remember the refrain "I'm the king of the castle - your a dirty rascal"

 

[Jackson123]

there's a lot of things in the passage, of course.

but one thing in there is that the Jews that Jesus is talking to were worshipping God.

All jews, did Jesus say jews that don't believe in Him/Jesus worship true God

John 5
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Do Jesus ever Lie?

 

[Dan_473]

I missed this earlier.
It would not be true to say that everyone with a trinitarian baptism is a member of the Catholic Church, from the Catholic point of view.

The Catechism puts it this way.
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC 838).
Note the part I emboldened. They are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

well, we may be talking about two sides of the same coin.

a person in imperfect communion with the Catholic church is still in communion with the Catholic Church.

I asked a question on this subject on a Catholic forum years ago.
some of the people were quoting something from the canon law, but I don't remember what it was.

Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection.

this passage talks about being baptized into Christ, and associates it with being united with Christ.

I think we all agree that there was only one baptism, not a Protestant baptism and a Catholic baptism.
maybe valid baptisms and invalid baptisms?

so I think someone who has had a valid baptism and is therefore united with Christ would be a member of his body, the church.
then from the Catholic perspective, that could only be the Catholic Church.

or no? a wrong turn somewhere?

 

[Dan_473]

All jews,

not every single Jew, no.
but Jews as a group, yes.

did Jesus say jews that don't believe in Him/Jesus worship true God

yes, in the passage I posted earlier.

John 5
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Do Jesus ever Lie?

no, Jesus never lied.

but when we look at the passage from John 5, we see that it is about believing, it doesn't talk about worshipping.

 

[Bede]

well, we may be talking about two sides of the same coin.

a person in imperfect communion with the Catholic church is still in communion with the Catholic Church.

I asked a question on this subject on a Catholic forum years ago.
some of the people were quoting something from the canon law, but I don't remember what it was.

Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection.

this passage talks about being baptized into Christ, and associates it with being united with Christ.

I think we all agree that there was only one baptism, not a Protestant baptism and a Catholic baptism.
maybe valid baptisms and invalid baptisms?

so I think someone who has had a valid baptism and is therefore united with Christ would be a member of his body, the church.
then from the Catholic perspective, that could only be the Catholic Church.

or no? a wrong turn somewhere?

We need to be little bit careful about the word communion.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has this as its third definition of communion with two parts:
a) "a relationship of recognition and acceptance between Christian Churches or denominations."
b) a group of Christian Churches or communities which recognize one another's ministries or that of a central authority: the Anglican communion."

The communion with the Catholic Church is imperfect in that part a) is true but part b) is not true.
There is a certain communion in that their baptism is recognised as valid and we are all children of God and part of the body of Christ. But Orthodox, Anglicans etc. do not accept the Pope as a central authority. Nor do they accept some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church

Then there is another definition in the COED:
"(also Holy Communion) the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared; the Eucharist".
The Catholic Church recognises the validity of the Orthodox communion service and would allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service. But it does not recognise the validity of (for example) an Anglican communion service and would not allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service.

This is why the quote I gave you from the Catechism says:
"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

 

[Jackson123]

not every single Jew, no.
but Jews as a group, yes.


yes, in the passage I posted earlier.


no, Jesus never lied.

but when we look at the passage from John 5, we see that it is about believing, it doesn't talk about worshipping.

So you believe there is a person that don't believe true God but worship true God?

Can you worship true God when you even don't believe true God?

True God is trinity

Is jews that don't believe Jesus worship,true God? (Trinity)

I know your loyal try to catholic, my brother, but I hope thats not make you afraid to use logic

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Nebuchadnezzer wrote, " if you do not then don't cite the Nicene Creed. Because you are pledging allegience to the hierarchy of the Holy Sees."

I'm not following the evidence or logic of why you say that.

1) The Roman emperor Justinian formulated the Holy Sees (Pentarchy) in his laws.
2) The Roman emperors (Contantine and Theodosius I) called for the two ecumenical councils that established the Nicene and Nice Constantinople Creed.

Both the Holy Sees and the Nicene Creed were created under the authority of the pagan, non-believing Roman emperors. Full End Stop.

If you do not recognize the Holy Sees as valid, then you should not recognize the Nicene Creed as valid either.

Do you follow this line of logic?

I think we all agree that the one church is built on the foundation of the apostles and Prophets.
I think "apostolic" can simply mean that.

in addition, there is this verse
Titus 1:5 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you.

so it looks like Paul appoints Titus, who was then told to appoint others.

Titus 1:5 does not refer to apostolic appointment or succession.

1. Paul is encouraging that fellow believers appoint themselves elders or leaders, which makes sense. He is not telling them to appoint apostles and prophets. What the Roman Catholic Church and orthodox church claim is that their leaders are true apostles in the succession of Peter or Andrew. HUGE DIFFERENCE from elder.
2. For a time the roman emperors (non-believers) approved Roman Popes (succession of Peter) and appointed Ecumenical patriarches of Contantinople (succession of Andrew). Paul in Titus 1:5 never authorized elders to be appointed by non-believers.
3. No where in Bible were any of God's prophets (or apostles though some argue) selected by men. They were called by the will of God.. No where in Bible did God have his apostles and prophets be selected by unbelievers. The pope and ecuminical patriarch of contantinople have always been selected by fellow men and unbelievers.

 

[Dan_473]

We need to be little bit careful about the word communion.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has this as its third definition of communion with two parts:
a) "a relationship of recognition and acceptance between Christian Churches or denominations."
b) a group of Christian Churches or communities which recognize one another's ministries or that of a central authority: the Anglican communion."

The communion with the Catholic Church is imperfect in that part a) is true but part b) is not true.
There is a certain communion in that their baptism is recognised as valid and we are all children of God and part of the body of Christ. But Orthodox, Anglicans etc. do not accept the Pope as a central authority. Nor do they accept some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church

Then there is another definition in the COED:
"(also Holy Communion) the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared; the Eucharist".
The Catholic Church recognises the validity of the Orthodox communion service and would allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service. But it does not recognise the validity of (for example) an Anglican communion service and would not allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service.

This is why the quote I gave you from the Catechism says:
"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

...part of the body of Christ.

well, tell me if in your view this logic works, or if a definition has been stretched or something:

if a person with a trinitarian baptism is part of the body of Christ,

and the body of Christ is synonymous with the church,

and from the Catholic perspective the church is the Catholic Church,

then wouldn't someone with a trinitarian baptism be part of the Catholic Church?

 

[Dan_473]

The Catholic Church recognises the validity of the Orthodox communion service and would allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service. But it does not recognise the validity of (for example) an Anglican communion service and would not allow them to receive communion in a Catholic service.

how about if I put it this way,

I would happily share the table of the Lord with the Pope.
but I am saddened that he won't share it with me.

 

[Dan_473]

So you believe there is a person that don't believe true God but worship true God?

yes
John 4:22 You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.

Can you worship true God when you even don't believe true God?

yes

True God is trinity

Is jews that don't believe Jesus worship,true God? (Trinity)

yes, in ignorance.

I know your loyal try to catholic, my brother, but I hope thats not make you afraid to use logic

not loyal to Catholicism, loyal to the scriptures.

so, let's use logic
Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV

"in vain" is a prepositional phrase, and it can be dropped and the sentence remains true.

"They worship me"

that is clear to me.

 

[Dan_473]

1) The Roman emperor Justinian formulated the Holy Sees (Pentarchy) in his laws.

I think the basis for overseers or supervisors (assuming that's what you mean by holy see) comes from here
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer, he desires a good work.

2) The Roman emperors (Contantine and Theodosius I) called for the two ecumenical councils that established the Nicene and Nice Constantinople Creed.

Both the Holy Sees and the Nicene Creed were created under the authority of the pagan, non-believing Roman emperors. Full End Stop.

did those Roman emperors require the bishops attending the councils to reach a particular conclusion?

If you do not recognize the Holy Sees as valid, then you should not recognize the Nicene Creed as valid either.

Do you follow this line of logic?

suppose I recognized the office of overseer.
does that affect the logic?

Titus 1:5 does not refer to apostolic appointment or succession.

1. Paul is encouraging that fellow believers appoint themselves elders or leaders, which makes sense.

1. 
   as I read it, he is telling Titus to appoint them.
   
   
   He is not telling them to appoint apostles and prophets. What the Roman Catholic Church and orthodox church claim is that their leaders are true apostles in the succession of Peter or Andrew. HUGE DIFFERENCE from elder.
   I'm not sure about that.
   I read something recently that said that in the Catholic Church, they no longer have apostles.
   possibly what they have is overseers (Bishops) who carry apostolic authority in the sense that they can do things like write letters organizing churches, and when they meet together in council their decisions are guided by the holy Spirit.
   
   I think that's the Catholic position, but I'm not sure.
   
   
   [*]For a time the roman emperors (non-believers) approved Roman Popes (succession of Peter) and appointed Ecumenical patriarches of Contantinople (succession of Andrew). Paul in Titus 1:5 never authorized elders to be appointed by non-believers.
   I don't think Paul says whether the system is to continue or how it is to continue.
   
   
   [*] No where in Bible were any of God's prophets (or apostles though some argue) selected by men.
   how does a person get to be a prophet now?
   in Antioch, I think the holy Spirit spoke to Prophets who then set apart Paul and Barnabas.
   
   
   They were called by the will of God.. No where in Bible did God have his apostles and prophets be selected by unbelievers.
   possibly a valid point.
   however, it's also an argument from omission.
   
   
   The pope and ecuminical patriarch of contantinople have always been selected by fellow men and unbelievers.

I heard a non-catholic college professor explain it this way:
the holy Spirit operates within the institution of the church.

my take on that:
it's like a ship with a sailor controlling the rudder.
the ship may be buffeted by wind or waves, but over time the sailor will correct the course.

so, the thinking goes, there will be evil influences on and maybe even in the Catholic Church.
but the overall course is controlled by the holy Spirit.

so that's a possible explanation.

a thing I keep coming back to is that Jesus talked about building his church, a strong Church, and that it would be like a city set on a hill that can't be hidden.

where was this church from, say, 300 to 1300?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

I'm not sure about that.
I read something recently that said that in the Catholic Church, they no longer have apostles.
possibly what they have is overseers (Bishops) who carry apostolic authority in the sense that they can do things like write letters organizing churches, and when they meet together in council their decisions are guided by the holy Spirit.

I think that's the Catholic position, but I'm not sure.

where was this church from, say, 300 to 1300?

That is not the catholic position! Whoever told you this is deceiving you.
Please, read carefully for yourself at least once the:
Decrees of the First Vatican Council
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm

 

[Benadam]

where was this church from, say, 300 to 1300 ?

It became a Church founded on mist. jk