Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This sort of statement is not very nice, though, and is only inserted into the mix to start an argument. Of course you believe that your church is the only right one, and so do members of so many others churches and just as fiercely. As you are well aware, a Protestant could counter that their church is much closer to the one started by Jesus and that the Catholic Church's bells and whistles were added on by men as the centuries wore on. Since I personally belong to a church that was started by a king who wanted to divorce his non-male-child-producing wife, I'm not gonna go there.
Anyway, I once read one of the books of Karl Keating, a Catholic apologist. Although it did not make we want to convert to Catholicism or make me agree with all the Catholic dogma, it was very informative as it explained intelligently why Catholics believe many of the things they believe that Protestants do not.
Rather than continue to divide ourselves with these arguments, wouldn't it be nice if we learned about one another's beliefs within the Christian world and at least honored the reasons for the mixed beliefs, even if we don't agree with them? I'm pretty sure that none of us here on earth has it exactly right.
My statement of who started the churches is 100% accurate, no matter how much protestant hair is raised. The so called "bells and whistles" of the Catholic Church is all there for a reason. First all they have the Jesus given authority (Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven) to introduce any "bells and whistles" they like and secondly Jesus used bells and whistles too, aka, sacramentals. For example Jesus smearing the mud in the eyes of blind man. We are human and therefore need physical and tangible connections to the those things spiritual to help us understand and appreciate them better. Jesus knew this and taught the Apostles. Those traditions are continued today in the Catholic Church.
Thomas is another Catholic on this board. You want nice and intelligent, he's your man. I can be very nice, but I don't want to confuse people. I don't sugar coat anything. To me that only cause confusion and indecision. It's time for black and white, which I believe describes the Catholic vs Protestant argument.
Protestant churches could counter they are closer to the Church Christ started but that would be completely inaccurate. Just go to the Early Church Fathers and see what they believed. You will find the Catholic Church. St. Augustine of Hippo, which is about the only Early Church Father that protestants refer to, was completely Catholic in his beliefs.
Come home and discover the Church Jesus created. It's such a good feeling to know that almost 2000 years later, I can still go to the Church Jesus created and said he would protect.
Entire Anglican and Episcopal Churches have come home to the Catholic Church, pastor and all. Take another look. You won't be sorry.
My statement of who started the churches is 100% accurate, no matter how much protestant hair is raised. The so called "bells and whistles" of the Catholic Church is all there for a reason. First all they have the Jesus given authority (Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven) to introduce any "bells and whistles" they like and secondly Jesus used bells and whistles too, aka, sacramentals. For example Jesus smearing the mud in the eyes of blind man. We are human and therefore need physical and tangible connections to the those things spiritual to help us understand and appreciate them better. Jesus knew this and taught the Apostles. Those traditions are continued today in the Catholic Church.
Thomas is another Catholic on this board. You want nice and intelligent, he's your man. I can be very nice, but I don't want to confuse people. I don't sugar coat anything. To me that only cause confusion and indecision. It's time for black and white, which I believe describes the Catholic vs Protestant argument.
Protestant churches could counter they are closer to the Church Christ started but that would be completely inaccurate. Just go to the Early Church Fathers and see what they believed. You will find the Catholic Church. St. Augustine of Hippo, which is about the only Early Church Father that protestants refer to, was completely Catholic in his beliefs.
Come home and discover the Church Jesus created. It's such a good feeling to know that almost 2000 years later, I can still go to the Church Jesus created and said he would protect.
Entire Anglican and Episcopal Churches have come home to the Catholic Church, pastor and all. Take another look. You won't be sorry.
Thanks for the links. They look interesting. I myself am not anti-Catholic, just to be clear. If I could point to one person that I know and could say walks closest to the way of Christ more than any other, it would be a Catholic friend I've known for years. Oddly, she could never answer any of the questions we Protestants (we all used to work in the same office and discussed religion regularly) used to pepper her with about why Catholics believed what they do "when it's not in the Bible". She is one of the reasons I bought the Karl Keating book because I wanted to know those answers, and when I finished with it, I gave it to her.
BTW, one of my current priests was one of those kids raised in Italy to become a priest. He did, somehow ended up in the US, became disillusioned (I know no details of this), left the priesthood, had a secular career, and then became an Episcopal priest last year at the age of 68. He is a marvelous scholar and teacher.
The Karl Keating book, by the way, is the one specifically written for Catholics to respond to fundamentalists who accuse them of idolatry and whatnot. I've found that ignorance about others' beliefs is not confined to one side or another. A Catholic woman I know once asked me if Protestants celebrate Easter. And she was well into her 30's. I was rather startled at the question at the time.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 01-16-2012 at 11:51 AM..
I am not sure i get the "purpose of mass" statement.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par. 1366-1368) says,
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents the sacrifice of the cross. . . . The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. . . .
The Church, which is the Body of Christ, participates in the offering of her Head . . . With him she herself is offered whole and entire. . . ..
In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer and work are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value."
Roman Catholics view the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice that presents again Christ's sacrifice for sin. Masses may be said, that is, communion may be celebrated, even for the benefit of the dead in purgatory. Priests, therefore, often celebrated mass without a congregation to receive it. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says "the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life." Most Catholic churches, therefore, offer it very frequently, even daily.
The Reformers rejected the Catholic concept of the sacrifice of the mass because it joins our work into the sacrifice of Christ as the quotations above show. Christ's sacrifice for sin was completed by him alone. We can receive its benefits but can in no way join in it.
It is this joining of our works into Christ's sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices for the dead that Lutherans reject when rejecting the sacrifice of the mass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Catholics honor Mary and the Saints, but that does not mean they are deities.
Again that is why Protestants and RC are different.
To the Protestant,
Catholics try to make a distinction between the highest form of worship which is given only to God and a lower form of veneration or adoration given to the saints. Mary receives something in between the two.
That this is simply a word game and not a valid distinction is clear from looking at the content of the prayers to Mary. These prayers do not simply congratulate her on being the mother of God. They ask her to play the role of being an assistant in obtaining salvation for people. Calling this by a different name does not change its nature.
To the protestant it is worship which is idolatrous......examine a prayer book with the prayers to Mary. To the Protestant these prayers can be understood as anything less than worship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
As per tradition: The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
Not to be repetitive but again that is a major difference.
No one issue more divides the two than the Pope.
At the protestant reformation Martin Luther declared ( taken from the Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12)
"This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him"Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12
In protestantism the only person who has the right to lay claim of infallibility is Jesus alone (whether or not any Pope ever evoke such authority).
This belief of infallibity still currently is held by RC today as it was in Luther's day.
My statement of who started the churches is 100% accurate, no matter how much protestant hair is raised. The so called "bells and whistles" of the Catholic Church is all there for a reason. First all they have the Jesus given authority (Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven) to introduce any "bells and whistles" they like and secondly Jesus used bells and whistles too, aka, sacramentals. For example Jesus smearing the mud in the eyes of blind man. We are human and therefore need physical and tangible connections to the those things spiritual to help us understand and appreciate them better. Jesus knew this and taught the Apostles. Those traditions are continued today in the Catholic Church.
Thomas is another Catholic on this board. You want nice and intelligent, he's your man. I can be very nice, but I don't want to confuse people. I don't sugar coat anything. To me that only cause confusion and indecision. It's time for black and white, which I believe describes the Catholic vs Protestant argument.
Protestant churches could counter they are closer to the Church Christ started but that would be completely inaccurate. Just go to the Early Church Fathers and see what they believed. You will find the Catholic Church. St. Augustine of Hippo, which is about the only Early Church Father that protestants refer to, was completely Catholic in his beliefs.
Come home and discover the Church Jesus created. It's such a good feeling to know that almost 2000 years later, I can still go to the Church Jesus created and said he would protect.
Entire Anglican and Episcopal Churches have come home to the Catholic Church, pastor and all. Take another look. You won't be sorry.
The articles were interesting. Recently I visited one of the so-called Anglo-Catholic churches for the first time. A Catholic would have thought they were in their own church.
Just FYI, I have not always been Episcopalian. I was confirmed at the age of 35. I grew up in the Reformed Church of America, a descendant of the Dutch Reformed Church, a hellfire-and-damnation Calvinistic denomination. It was all about fear and death. Not healthy.
The reasons I became Anglican vary, but the main one was acceptance. I had tried other churches and denominations, and the Episcopalians accept everyone with the simple belief that Jesus would do the same. Very few Episcopalians are "cradle". Most are refugees from other religious traditions, especially Catholic. Most of the time while visiting other churches I sat alone in a pew and while people said hello and smiled, they left me alone while they went off with their friends and families. The Episcopal church did not, neither the one I first joined or the one I belong to now that I've moved sixty miles from my old church. I'm not entirely certain I would find such a welcome in a Catholic church where I had no friends or family. I am a fifty-something, long-divorced woman with limited social opportunities, and I have no intention of going back to sitting alone every Sunday because I am not Catholic enough or don't fit in with the long-time parishioners. There is much to be said of a church guided first by love and not by rules.
However, I do see that from time to time Catholic churches offer courses in the religion to outsiders, and while I know quite a bit about Catholicism from my own study, I would be interested in sitting through such a course.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par. 1366-1368) says,
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents the sacrifice of the cross. . . . The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. . . .
The Church, which is the Body of Christ, participates in the offering of her Head . . . With him she herself is offered whole and entire. . . ..
In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer and work are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value."
Roman Catholics view the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice that presents again Christ's sacrifice for sin. Masses may be said, that is, communion may be celebrated, even for the benefit of the dead in purgatory. Priests, therefore, often celebrated mass without a congregation to receive it. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says "the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life." Most Catholic churches, therefore, offer it very frequently, even daily.
The Reformers rejected the Catholic concept of the sacrifice of the mass because it joins our work into the sacrifice of Christ as the quotations above show. Christ's sacrifice for sin was completed by him alone. We can receive its benefits but can in no way join in it.
It is this joining of our works into Christ's sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices for the dead that Lutherans reject when rejecting the sacrifice of the mass.
Again that is why Protestants and RC are different.
To the Protestant,
Catholics try to make a distinction between the highest form of worship which is given only to God and a lower form of veneration or adoration given to the saints. Mary receives something in between the two.
That this is simply a word game and not a valid distinction is clear from looking at the content of the prayers to Mary. These prayers do not simply congratulate her on being the mother of God. They ask her to play the role of being an assistant in obtaining salvation for people. Calling this by a different name does not change its nature.
To the protestant it is worship which is idolatrous......examine a prayer book with the prayers to Mary. To the Protestant these prayers can be understood as anything less than worship.
Not to be repetitive but again that is a major difference.
No one issue more divides the two than the Pope.
At the protestant reformation Martin Luther declared ( taken from the Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12)
"This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him"Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12
In protestantism the only person who has the right to lay claim of infallibility is Jesus alone (whether or not any Pope ever evoke such authority).
This belief of infallibity still currently is held by RC today as it was in Luther's day.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par. 1366-1368) says,
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents the sacrifice of the cross. . . . The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. . . .
The Church, which is the Body of Christ, participates in the offering of her Head . . . With him she herself is offered whole and entire. . . ..
In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer and work are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value."
Roman Catholics view the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice that presents again Christ's sacrifice for sin. Masses may be said, that is, communion may be celebrated, even for the benefit of the dead in purgatory. Priests, therefore, often celebrated mass without a congregation to receive it. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says "the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life." Most Catholic churches, therefore, offer it very frequently, even daily.
The Reformers rejected the Catholic concept of the sacrifice of the mass because it joins our work into the sacrifice of Christ as the quotations above show. Christ's sacrifice for sin was completed by him alone. We can receive its benefits but can in no way join in it.
It is this joining of our works into Christ's sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices for the dead that Lutherans reject when rejecting the sacrifice of the mass.
Again that is why Protestants and RC are different.
To the Protestant,
Catholics try to make a distinction between the highest form of worship which is given only to God and a lower form of veneration or adoration given to the saints. Mary receives something in between the two.
That this is simply a word game and not a valid distinction is clear from looking at the content of the prayers to Mary. These prayers do not simply congratulate her on being the mother of God. They ask her to play the role of being an assistant in obtaining salvation for people. Calling this by a different name does not change its nature.
To the protestant it is worship which is idolatrous......examine a prayer book with the prayers to Mary. To the Protestant these prayers can be understood as anything less than worship.
Not to be repetitive but again that is a major difference.
No one issue more divides the two than the Pope.
At the protestant reformation Martin Luther declared ( taken from the Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12)
"This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him"Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12
In protestantism the only person who has the right to lay claim of infallibility is Jesus alone (whether or not any Pope ever evoke such authority).
This belief of infallibity still currently is held by RC today as it was in Luther's day.
Thanks for clarification:
Most educated Catholics agree with you. What you have said is not outrageous at all.
But as always Protestants fail to see that tradition, rites, bells and whistles are very important to us. We simply cannot throw away the rosary and the "Hail Mary". The same can be said about honoring men and women that tried to live like Jesus. We name churches, schools and university after these saints. I love the smell of incense and would rather have the mass in Latin than in English. In the old days the priest used to face the altar rather than the congregation, that was really neat.
I love a very old church with a lot of statues, altars, chapels on the side, religious art, etc. I cannot stand a plain Jane modern church, if find it too sterile. I love the concept of having The Vatican as a separate country in Rome with the Swiss guard.
Regarding communion and its meaning: I agree, that is a huge difference. However, I think that having a mass without communion would be quiet strange.
Most educated Catholics agree with you. What you have said is not outrageous at all.
But as always Protestants fail to see that tradition, rites, bells and whistles are very important to us. We simply cannot throw away the rosary and the "Hail Mary". The same can be said about honoring men and women that tried to live like Jesus. We name churches, schools and university after these saints. I love the smell of incense and would rather have the mass in Latin than in English. In the old days the priest used to face the altar rather than the congregation, that was really neat.
I loved a very old church with a lot of statues, altars, chapels on the side, religious art. I cannot stand a plain Jane modern church, if find it too sterile.
Regarding communion and its meaning: I agree, that is a huge difference. However, I think that having a mass without communion would be quiet strange.
What I bolded made me smile. My women's group in my Episcopal church uses the Hail Mary and is doing a Lenten project on the Rosary.
We're also planning to do Ash Wednesday at Trinity Church in lower Manhattan, when the Psalm of David is sung in Latin during the imposition of ashes and there's lots of incense swung about. (I would love for my church to use incense but one of our priests has an allergy.)
What I bolded made me smile. My women's group in my Episcopal church uses the Hail Mary and is doing a Lenten project on the Rosary.
We're also planning to do Ash Wednesday at Trinity Church in lower Manhattan, when the Psalm of David is sung in Latin during the imposition of ashes and there's lots of incense swung about. (I would love for my church to use incense but one of our priests has an allergy.)
It wasn't until high school that I learned Catholics were considered to be relatively unusual in the U.S. (I just assumed we were like any other division of Christianity). I then learned a little about Martin Luther and his belief that Christians should work in order to please God. Besides that last bit, and various small differences such as Protestants not kneeling in church and not displaying statues in their churches, how else do Protestants differ from Catholics?
Martin Luther did not teach that one must work to please God. He taught the opposite. He taught faith alone saves (false doctrine).
Catholics believe works all by themselves save. I know many a catholic (I used to be one) who think that as long as they are good people, they will go to heaven. (false doctrine)
The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. It also teaches that faith without works is dead.
Faith alone = Dead faith
IMHO, we must do the works that God prepared beforehand for us to do: things like loving God and neighbor, having faith, repenting, confessing Jesus is Lord, being baptized, doing the things that Jesus commanded.
So it's a combination of both faith and works. Read James chapter 2. He spells it out pretty clearly for us to understand.
Blessings,
Katie
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
