Catholic Theology vs. Non-Catholic Theology

[MrPolo]

That's why I'm not Protestant. And if Majority rule is in process here and if you go by it, then we can all just go on a thread and say, "Oh it's 500 against 300, we win you lose."

I agree, I would not go with majority, but rather who is making reasonable interpretation of Scripture. You actually have to read the content of the person's exegesis to give a fair assessment.

 

[boswd]

congratulations "boswd". You win the Prize!

I have personally disporved the Catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 found in Post #34

And as far as I can see. No Catholic or Protestant or anyone has come to it's defense. Which leads me to ask: Where have Catholics gone? have to went back to the Catholic subforums?

Giving your own view doesn't disprove anything. LOL
As to why no came to challenge your view, maybe the fact that it's been hashed rehased a thousand times.
It get's to the point where you roll your eyes and are like "are you serious another one".

 

[PT Calvinist]

that, or, nobody is willing to conform to the thought I displayed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's why I'm not Protestant. And if Majority rule is in process here and if you go by it, then we can all just go on a thread and say, "Oh it's 500 against 300, we win you lose."

Me too

 

[Fixation On God]

"Oh it's 500 against 300, we win you lose."

LOL!
Majoritiy rule has been playing a big factor on GT lately, I see it more on the "Christians Ethics and Morals" sub-section.

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

You read the title right. It is the (oh I don't know), "Millionth" "They V. Us!" Thread.

I want Catholics to speak their mind already and get all the confusion over with. I, and others, get tired of this catabolistic attitude, the only thing it's done has brought confusion over the whole populice and tention. Protestants, you are Schismatic. Their is nothing wrong with that. I heard the old CC saying "you either Catholic, or you against us" and also stating, "you Catholic you get to heaven." But Pope "Re-designed" that whole controversy, so now it seemingly dosen't apply anymore, except that some Newbies (or gullible people) have taken in that concept and have applied it to Catholicism as a whole.

I understand that Catholicism is of Holy Spirit Inspired teachers. following a long branch since the Early Church thus making Catholicism, seemingly, incorruptible.
Ratification of Nicene Council:

And those who say There was a time when He was not, or that Before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing; or who say that The Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable,-these the Catholic and Apostolic Church​

Beside that:​

What have you to say against the theological backround?

I just want to say; that it is YOU, Protestors who are against us Catholics. It was Christ who put His Holy Hand on Saint Peter and thusly made him the FIRST POPE.

Protestants came into being far later when; when there was a case of disention (sp). As Sacred Scripture says: We know what we worship . . .

 

[MrPolo]

"Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9.

See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible.

Nowhere in Matthew 16:18 does Jesus say the building upon Peter would stop after Acts 2 or after Acts 10.

As well, this Peter-is-just-a-jump-starter does not address the primacy of Peter throughout the rest of Scripture, including the discourse given by the Resurrected Christ in Luke 22, or the concept of a priestly "office" in the OT and their fulfillment in the NT.

In Acts 15, I recommend reading it again. Peter is the first to speak. It was to Peter that God gave the special revelation which became the decision of the Council in Acts 15. Back in Acts 10, God gave Peter the special revelation to include the Gentiles as well as Jews into the Kingdom. Acts 10 ends with Peter baptizing Gentiles (verse 45 is the key verse here as it relates to Acts 15). Peter was already doing prior to Acts 15 what Acts 15 agreed upon as a council. Peter spoke first. James (whom the ancient record states was the local bishop at Jerusalem...cf. Eusebius, Church History, II.1.3.) took Peter's lead on this matter. Peter bore the special revelation from God on this matter, which he passed on to the Church at the council.

Next is the Galatians incident. Peter was acting hypocritically by pretending not to affiliate with Gentiles when he was in the presence of Jews. Nothing about this indicates subordination hierarchically. In fact, Paul specifically says he "withstood Peter to his face." While I would not say he was being braggadocio about it, Paul actually has to use strong language that HE stood up to PETER! If Peter was nothing, he would not have to convince his audience that HE stood up to lowly Peter right "in his face"! The Peter-is-lowly-just-look-at-Galatians argument also places that interpretation at odds with the rest of Scripture described and linked to in this post.

Infallibility has nothing to do with personal behavior so that is moot to bring up regarding Galatians. Infallibility with regard to the Papacy pertains to the proclamation of matters of faith or morals as a function of the office instilled by God, on a matter to be held for the whole Church. Peter being a hypocrite matches none of those criteria, including the exercise of his office at that moment. The definition of Papal Infallibility can be read from Vatican I, IV.4.9.

 

[Fixation On God]

I just want to say; that it is YOU, Protestors who are against us Catholics. It was Christ who put His Holy Hand on Saint Peter and thusly made him the FIRST POPE.

Protestants came into being far later when; when there was a case of disention (sp). As Sacred Scripture says: We know what we worship . . .

I'm Catholic... I go to a Catholic church.

Protestants are Schismatic just like Lutherans. I don't disagree with anything you said, the reason for the OP was to simply get different opinions of Catholics to defend against the Protestans and Lutheran Apologetics.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I just want to say; that it is YOU, Protestors who are against us Catholics. It was Christ who put His Holy Hand on Saint Peter and thusly made him the FIRST POPE.

Protestants came into being far later when; when there was a case of disention (sp). As Sacred Scripture says: We know what we worship . . .

Hmmm....where have I heard that before...oh, here........

Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? (2) - Page 20 - Christian Forums
Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? (2)

 

[MrPolo]

Hmmm....where have I heard that before...oh, here........

Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? (2) - Page 20 - Christian Forums
Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? (2)

When ya gonna change that "seeker" icon to a

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

When ya gonna change that "seeker" icon to a

I was gonna change it to a Calvinist icon in memory of Calvin's birthday today, but thought better about it....

What the heck......why not.....ehehe.......

 

[MrPolo]

I was gonna change it to a Calvinist icon in memory of Calvin's birthday today, but thought better about it....

What the heck......why not.....ehehe.......

Aren't you kinda sorta bearing false witness right now......????

 

[Uphill Battle]

Define "Catholic".

I typically tend to think they mean Vatican Catholic when they use the BIGCEE version of it.

That's why I'm not Protestant.

yeah... but what ARE you?

Panthiest for the first few posts... then Charismatic... now seeker.... First arguing FOR Catholicism, then against it, almost simultaneously. If you have an actual stance, you should state it. If not, what are you trying to accomplish here?

sincere question.

I just want to say; that it is YOU, Protestors who are against us Catholics.

you may want to say it, but that does not make it at all true. Most of us were born and raised apart from the Catholic church. we aren't protesting anything whatsoever. We have the cute label applied since apparently "not Catholic" is synonymous with "protestant" but that's just propeganda at this point.

It was Christ who put His Holy Hand on Saint Peter and thusly made him the FIRST POPE.

yes, I think we're aware of the Catholic position on that matter.

Protestants came into being far later when; when there was a case of disention (sp). As Sacred Scripture says: We know what we worship . . .

so do we. Christ.

any other fine arguments, or just more rhetoric? I don't mean to be harsh, it's just tries my patience when the group that typically cries wolf about anti-catholics (and yes, I know there a few of them around here) have their own sector or bigotry on display.

 

[Fixation On God]

Catholic = Universal

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Catholic = Universal

Yup. It's an adjective meaning general, whole, all-embracing, universal.

Since the RCC embraces AT MOST 50% of the Christians currently alive, and fewer than 20% of the current Christian congregations, it's not universal. It never has been. For a long time, it was limited to only one country - The Roman Empire, but now it has congregations in many countries - as is true for the LDS and many other denominations. Reality: no denomination is or ever has been catholic in the primary and original meaning of that adjective. Of course, a denomination may proclaim any moniker for itself that it wants, just as the 3 that choose the moniker, "The Christian Church" - doesn't mean each of them IS, in fact, THE Christian Church only that each choose that moniker. It's legal. Misleading, egotistical maybe but legal.





.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I just want to say; that it is YOU, Protestors who are against us Catholics.

Protestant


The Definition:

1. One of the German princes and cities that protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans. This is the original meaning and the origin of the term. Historically, this is the meaning.


2. A Christian or Christian organization whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially the teaching of Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide and often the praxis of Sola Scriptura.




The Usage:


1. By Non-Protestant. Originally, it simply referred to a group of German princes protesting the forbidding of Lutherans to worship in certain areas. It had nothing to do with the Pope or the Catholic Denomination, it was about the Diet of Speyer. But, in time, it became a term of derision by Catholics to refer to those who, IN THE OPINION OF CATHOLICS, were "protesting" the absolute, unquestionable, infallible/unaccountable authority of the Pope (and they were likely right!). It typically was not extended to Eastern Orthodox Christians and organizations. For some, it still has this deragatory, condemning meaning and for some Catholics, it is still a term of derision.

2. By Protestant. Those Christians and Christian organizations that identify themselves with neither the RCC or EO denominations and who embrace Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide originally called themselves "Evangelicals." For a time, they resisted the Catholic term of derision "Protestant", not only because it was intended to be deflamatory but because it was inaccurate - they were not about "protesting" but about proclaiming the Gospel as they understood such. But, in time, the term lost its derivise quality and simply became a very sloppy term for Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists as a group. In time, these Christians themselves began to use the term as a generic label for the commonality of this group - especially vis-a-vis Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide. This was not only true for the term "Protestant" but also for the terms "Lutheran" and later "Methodist" (both originally terms of derision that came into such common use and lost that negativity so that those in those groups began embracing the label).



Comments:


1. A "Protestant" is not one who fundamentally "protests." He/she is one who embraces what they regard as historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity and the defining concept of Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide and likely the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura. I'm Protestant, but I don't "protest" the Catholic Church - I hold it in very high regard and consider it valid (actually, its the RCC that "protests" noncatholics). This is an understandable but simply inaccurate usage of the term. The only "protest" involved was to the Diet of Speyer in 1529. In reality, Catholics and Protestants disagree on exactly the same thing to exactly the same degree - and so BOTH are equally in disagreement, and thus equally "protestant" in the sense of disagreeing with eachother.


2. A "Protestant" is not simply a Christian who is not officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination. Such would mean that Orthodox Christians, etc. would be "Protestant" as they would deny (correctly). Protestant is a sloppy, generic term for a theological position, for those that AFFIRM such.


3. While undeniably Luther, Calvin and others were "against" the Catholic Denomination of their day at some points AND the RCC was "against" them to the EXACT same degree on the EXACT same issues. Thus, Luther and the RCC were BOTH "protestant" (if such is defined as "in disagreement") to the EXACT same degree and on the EXACT same issues. But note that the RCC excommunicated Luther - not the other way around.


4. I take no automatic offense at the labels "Lutheran" or "Protestant." Indeed, I embrace and use them - even aware of their "history." Those registered with the LDS are typically no longer taking offense at "Mormon" (indeed, many of them have embraced it). Catholics (for some reason) occasionally still take offense at "Roman Catholic" but so it goes, that is their choice.


5. I do think the term should be understood and used correctly. As such, no offense will be taken (or implied) and nothing other will be meant.

It was Christ who put His Holy Hand on Saint Peter and thusly made him the FIRST POPE.

The RCC may claim whatever its ego permits, no one denies that. But a claim of self alone for self alone is not the same as evidence that such is true. You seem to be using the apologetic that if you say something big enough, loud enough, long enough - people will think it true. It doesn't seem to be working for you.





.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Do you two know of any Christian Faith that does not agree with itself?

On unessentials , all do .
On essentials , some do . That includes Catholics but many Catholics would say that the Catholics that disagree with them don't know enough of their own doctrines .

Not all groups detail their doctrines . They simply meet together .

Do you two know of any Christian Faith that thinks what it preaches is wrong?

Great question . While many will state that none have it all correct , I have not heard of any of them say that any of their important doctrines *may* be incorrect .