Catholicism vs Protestantism

[oldethennew]

the 'mark of the beast are those who do not keep the Faith and the Commandments of Jesus Christ -
for they are under the 'spell of sorcery';
as it is written:
REV. 18:4.
And I heard another Voice from heaven, saying,
Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

 

[Benadam]

Satan controls his children.
Satan controls the Pope. Pope is father over Satans chil
Until you are saved you are in a false christianity under the pope.

The Pope and his priests apply to the mark of the beast to all who are not saved.

Well, I guess you can thank Satan that you have heard of Jesus.

 

[Bede]

I'm fine with using the name "Catholic Church".
at the same time, since the Catholic church is headquartered in Rome, I don't see that it is a negative thing to add Roman in front of Catholic Church.

I did an image search for "Roman Catholic Church sign".
found loads of examples, like
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3717054/posts
And

http://www.cityofmiramarflorida.com/2010/06/blessed-john-xxiii-roman-catholic.html?m=1

I don't think Roman is in itself a negative term, though I'm sure it has been used with that intent.
Mexican is not a negative term in itself, though I definitely have heard it used that way.

Sigh!

They are individual churches of the Roman rite.

 

[Bede]

You add Peter here brother

History shows that Peter was in Rome. There is no evidence of another apostle being in Rome.

And you believe it start by Peter, Peter is the apostle president, why act 28 not mention about Peter make welcoming party when Paul arrived there, while you read in Paul,journey to Rome every time he arrived to a town where there is Christian, they welcomm him, they love each other.

You try to make a lot out of silence. But consider the situation,
There had been such serious riots in Rome on account of Jews/Christians that all Jews were expelled. When they were allowed to return it would have been wise to keep a low profile, particularly Peter as the leader.
By the time Paul arrived in Rome Nero was Emperor. He was tyrannical.
Moreover Paul was under guard having appealed to Caesar.
Hardly a time to have a party.

The historical and biblical evidence is clear.
Peter was appointed by Christ as leader of the apostles.
Peter was in Rome early and founded the church in Rome.

 

[Bede]

did some research that might be of interest

found this page
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1357

it seems to be an article from
The Catholic University of America Press

"The second way in which the basic teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only kingdom of God on earth according to the dispensation of the New Testament has been denied in our era has been through the tactic of implying that, in one way or another, the Roman Catholic Church was not exactly identical with the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, or with the Communion of Saints, or with the Kingdom or the City of God."

this publication seems to be intended for scholars, and that is one long sentence!
but if I'm reading it right, the article in general and that sentence in particular relates to things we've been talking about.

Official Vatican documents trump some web site.
As I have shown, official Vatican documents use the name Catholic Church.

 

[Benadam]

I wonder if it would change anything if it were considered that the Church in Rome is where Peter was a Bishop but he was Pope at Pentecost. So, the Pope could choose not to be Bishop of Rome.

 

[garee]

I wonder if it would change anything if it were considered that the Church in Rome is where Peter was a Bishop but he was Pope at Pentecost. So, the Pope could choose not to be Bishop of Rome.

When a person begins to attribute the unseen work of the gospel to the hands/will of corrupted mankind . Then its easy to see that one has violated the first commandment. Making the apostles gods in the likeness of men.(Acts 14) It comes from the evil one .The one who needs a corrupted body of antichrists (mankind) which is another teaching authority other than as it is written. . needed to spread his lies. Like he performed with Peter working in him .

The Pope acting as a daysman or what the scripture refers to as the one "Good lord and Master" .A evil standing in the holy place of our Father not seen. An abomination of desolation.

Even the apostle prophet Jesus dared not rebuke the devil not but rather gave glory to our unseen father. Who gave him the words again and again, as it is written!

Therefore Saying one is our Good Master ..God. The unseen eternal , God is not a man .

 

[Benadam]

When a person begins to attribute the unseen work of the gospel to the hands/will of corrupted mankin

Can you explain what the unseen work is?

 

[Dan_473]

To my knowledge all or nothing thinking is the way depress person think, what this way of thinking have to do with interprate the Bible?

yes, all-or-nothing thinking is often found in depressed people.

but it sometimes occurs in other people as well.

when I read your posts, I often come away with the impression that you believe that a person must worship the true God in spirit and in truth (that would be the "all"), or they are not worshipping the true God in any way (that would be the "nothing").

as an example,
32They worshiped the Lord, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places.
https://biblehub.com/niv/2_kings/17.htm

how can you worship God, the true God, and at the same time make your own priests which I'm pretty sure God commanded not to do?
and sacrifice on high places, which again I'm pretty sure God commanded not to do?

I believe when I pointed this out to you in the past, your response would be that they only think they worship the true God.

but that basically requires modifying the text, which is altering the scriptures, or,
to put it charitably, using a very loose interpretation of the scriptures.

of course, it's fine if a person wants to use a loose interpretation of the scriptures.
but then, to be fair, that person should use the same loose interpretation for other texts, including the CCC the lumen gentium.

 

[Jackson123]

History shows that Peter was in Rome. There is no evidence of another apostle being in Rome

History not always true, brother, there is evidence Paul in Rome and bible never say Peter in Rome.

Imagine Washington is us capital. Trump is there, all news paper wrote about trump there, if I visit Washington, not single news broadcast, because I am ordinary person,

You believe Peter is the president of the apostle, what ever significant of his action must documented in the main news/bible Paul his cabinet member must get less publication

The fact is Bible not publish the president being in Rome but did it for Paul.

Make me believe Peter not in Rome.
Please answer my question
If Peter in Rome, why do you think he not come to welcome Paul when he arrived in Rome
Why in the letter to Rome, Paul not say something to his President?

You try to make a lot out of silence. But consider the situation,

My brother, please read act 28
Paul invited Jews community and try to convert them, and Rome soldier was there.

The history Peter die in Rome may lie
Read this link brother

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/11/25/on-the-so-called-jerusalem-tomb-of-st-peter/

 

[Jackson123]

yes, all-or-nothing thinking is often found in depressed people.

but it sometimes occurs in other people as well.

when I read your posts, I often come away with the impression that you believe that a person must worship the true God in spirit and in truth (that would be the "all"), or they are not worshipping the true God in any way (that would be the "nothing").

as an example,
32They worshiped the Lord, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places.
https://biblehub.com/niv/2_kings/17.htm

how can you worship God, the true God, and at the same time make your own priests which I'm pretty sure God commanded not to do?
and sacrifice on high places, which again I'm pretty sure God commanded not to do?

I believe when I pointed this out to you in the past, your response would be that they only think they worship the true God.

but that basically requires modifying the text, which is altering the scriptures, or,
to put it charitably, using a very loose interpretation of the scriptures.

of course, it's fine if a person wants to use a loose interpretation of the scriptures.
but then, to be fair, that person should use the same loose interpretation for other texts, including the CCC the lumen gentium.

I believe you are adherent of post modern philosophy

And post modern philosophy is oppose the bible

Let me quote one of the post modernism characteristic

2. The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality—is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.

There is no such thing as a truth

Jesus say, I am the truth

That why you always say, it may another way of think.

 

[Dan_473]

Thank you for your reply. When I would go to mass when I was younger because of family, I would always feel weird about the Nicene Creed. I am just sharing what my heart's instinct is, and someone may feel completely different which is okay. But, I always felt like the Nicene Creed and other prayers said during mass just sounded so empty and almost lifeless. It always seemed like people were saying it just to say it; they weren't saying it because they believed what it was saying in their hearts. The statement "we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church" always bothered me; we aren't called to follow a church, we are called to follow Jesus. Plain and simple.

I worry because I think a LOT of people say the Creed, go to mass, and list off a set of prayers as a part of the Catholic "tradition" and think that is enough for them and it is not. I ALWAYS think of what Christ told us in the Gospels regarding those who are will make it into the Kingdom:

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many might works in your name'? And then I will declare to them, 'I never KNEW you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." [Matthew 7:21-23]

WOW! This passage has always stuck with me. It has the fear of God infused in it. I am not trying to categorize a group of people, but this [to me] applies to the situation I am talking about. People think they can just say what is "required" and "put in place" by the authority of the church and they assume that it will produce good fruit and save them. It won't. And it scares me for people. Now, there very well could be people who recite this prayer and genuinely believe the meaning. What this means, I cannot judge or say.

I can say though that God wants to KNOW us. He wants to KNOW the deepest part of hearts and our souls. Matthew 6:7 warns us not to "heap up empty phrases" when we pray and those who do think they will be heard for their MANY words... but they won't. Again, I am not judging the hearts of a Catholic who recites this prayer; HOWEVER, I think that the Nicene Creed is only one example of many things [pertaining to Catholicism] that has conditioned people to think that is what faith is meant to consist of, and I just don't agree.

God bless!

I hear what you're saying, and I think that for the most part we agree.

to be fair, I have seen the kinds of things you describe in many different flavors of church.
I think it tends to occur any place that church attendance it's part of the culture.
like small-town America in the 1950s, for example.
everyone was in Church on Sunday morning, except for the town drunk and even he might stumble in a half an hour late!
it can also occur in people who were raised to believe something and then just don't have the courage or energy to question it.

growing up Pentecostal, I often encountered people who had grown up Catholic and decided to leave because they felt it was empty or unbiblical.
that made sense to me.

imagine my surprise when as a young adult I began encountering people who had been raised bible-believing Protestants and as an adult had decided to convert to Catholicism or Eastern orthodoxy.
and the reasons that they gave were usually that they were looking for something deeper, or something more substantial than the sensation of God speaking to their heart.

I think I agree that we are not called to follow a particular church group.
at the same time, can a person follow Christ without being part of the body of Christ?
is the body of Christ the same as the church (or, "assembly" if you prefer)?

 

[Dan_473]

Satan controls his children.
Satan controls the Pope. Pope is father over Satans chil

I believe you wrote

TODAY, we are enslaved under Roman Pontiff (Roman Church).

who is the "we" that you are referring to?

I assumed you had meant people in general, including you and I.

Until you are saved you are in a false christianity under the pope.

are you saying that, for example, neopagans are actually false Christians, not just non-christians who are following a false religion?

The Pope and his priests apply to the mark of the beast to all who are not saved.

do you mean that the pope applies the mark of the beast even to people, say, in North Korea who have little knowledge of Christianity or the outside world?

 

[Dan_473]

the 'mark of the beast are those who do not keep the Faith and the Commandments of Jesus Christ -
for they are under the 'spell of sorcery';
as it is written:
REV. 18:4.
And I heard another Voice from heaven, saying,
Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

that's a possible interpretation.

how does the mark of the beast then prevent buying and selling, as you see it?

 

[Dan_473]

Sigh!

They are individual churches of the Roman rite.

okay, I see what you're saying about the signs.

but I think you can see why it would be confusing to outsiders.

also, and I mean this in a friendly way, you may be requiring too high a level of precision from outsiders.

kind of the way people often use Britain and England interchangeably.

 

[Dan_473]

Official Vatican documents trump some web site.
As I have shown, official Vatican documents use the name Catholic Church.

yes I agree that the article is not an official Catholic document.

and I agree that according to the documents of the second Vatican council, the official name is Catholic Church.

notice, though, if you wish, that the gentleman writing the article is also a priest, highly experienced and knowledgeable Catholic theologian, and a kind of adviser to the second Vatican council.

is he being disrespectful, in your view?

 

[Dan_473]

I believe you are adherent of post modern philosophy

then you believe something that is not true.

Jesus say, I am the truth

yes!
but anything written by a human, including my posts and your posts, may contain error.
as such, there is nothing wrong with questioning their claims.

That why you always say, it may another way of think.

no, I do not always say that.

 

[Bede]

History not always true, brother, there is evidence Paul in Rome and bible never say Peter in Rome.

Imagine Washington is us capital. Trump is there, all news paper wrote about trump there, if I visit Washington, not single news broadcast, because I am ordinary person,

You believe Peter is the president of the apostle, what ever significant of his action must documented in the main news/bible Paul his cabinet member must get less publication

The fact is Bible not publish the president being in Rome but did it for Paul.

Make me believe Peter not in Rome.
Please answer my question
If Peter in Rome, why do you think he not come to welcome Paul when he arrived in Rome
Why in the letter to Rome, Paul not say something to his President?



My brother, please read act 28
Paul invited Jews community and try to convert them, and Rome soldier was there.

The history Peter die in Rome may lie
Read this link brother

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/11/25/on-the-so-called-jerusalem-tomb-of-st-peter/

I told you in post #2144.
If you want to ignore the evidence of history so be it.

 

[Bede]

yes I agree that the article is not an official Catholic document.

and I agree that according to the documents of the second Vatican council, the official name is Catholic Church.

notice, though, if you wish, that the gentleman writing the article is also a priest, highly experienced and knowledgeable Catholic theologian, and a kind of adviser to the second Vatican council.

is he being disrespectful, in your view?

He seems to have a blinkered view of the Church and ignore all the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church.
I note from Wikipedia he founded an organisation called the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement.

 

[Bede]

okay, I see what you're saying about the signs.

but I think you can see why it would be confusing to outsiders.

also, and I mean this in a friendly way, you may be requiring too high a level of precision from outsiders.

kind of the way people often use Britain and England interchangeably.

The latter is complicated. I suppose you don't want to know this but
England = England
England + Wales = Britain
England + Wales + Scotland = Great Britain
England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom.
Simple.

Anyway I think I've had enough of this topic.