Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Read carefully what I've written. I did not say that they were nothing more than gradual elaborations. These ideas are not simply carried over from a pagan cult. They evolved as Christians tried to heap more and more honors upon her, outdoing each other with the snazzyness and mystical claims that were involved. So, ultimately the Roman Church formalized them as doctrines (exactly as I said), claiming that since the people had believed them, that shows that the hand of God was involved in it. That's the way these things work. No, I don't agree with this sort of thing myself.

Disregarding the pagan origins for a moment. Are you really saying that all these "sacred tradions" are just made up out of nowhere and they just stuck? Where does that leave you and your communion with the Catholic Church?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Disregarding the pagan origins for a moment. Are you really saying that all these "sacred tradions" are just made up out of nowhere and they just stuck? Where does that leave you and your communion with the Catholic Church?

I guess it puts me out of communion with the Catholic Church, doesn't it?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I guess it puts me out of communion with the Catholic Church, doesn't it?

I guess it does. Congratulations! You are not Roman Catholic. Welcome to the protestant church. We have free cookies over here for you.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I guess it does. Congratulations! You are not Roman Catholic. Welcome to the protestant church. We have free cookies over here for you.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Lol

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I guess it does. Congratulations! You are not Roman Catholic. Welcome to the protestant church.

Out of curiosity, which one have I joined now?

 

[farout]

Hello, i'm here because i'm interesting in understanding the Protestant point of view that contends with Catholic teachings. I myself was raised in a Protestant church and heard all the anti-catholic statements, I've always been one of those who wanted to refute the Catholic church however upon reading the Bible carefully, I'm beginning to think that most protestant beliefs against catholic practices are a bit wrong, which leads me here to see what your thoughts are in regards to some Biblical back up supporting Catholic practices and theology.

I'll start of with a few areas first

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away. If you don't deny that Mary is the actual mother of Jesus, likewise do not deny that Jesus was also fully God, then what is the problem? Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"? I mean, Elizabeth said "the mother of my Lord" to her, and Revelations does talk about her in such a high fashion. Catholic's don't believe this statement means she is above or pre-exists God but just making sure that the divine nature of Jesus is not denied.

1. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?
I strictly thought this to be unbiblical, idolatry, etc etc.. and this was the first immediate practice that I ventured in refuting. However, after reading the Bible I understand the side of Catholics on this.

For one, Catholics believe that asking Mary, angels, and Saints for prayers is nowhere different than asking someone in church to pray for them. I mean, if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man" then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers? Does asking someone to intercede for us contradict the "Jesus is the only mediator to God" doctrine?

Now, some may say: "Well, one of the reasons why is because how can the Saints hear the prayers of millions of people around the world, in different languages that they never understood when they were alive"? Which is a logical answer.
However, all protestant churches teach how Satan goes around the world, tempting every single person around the world, through out time, and with different dialects to sin. If you believe that Satan -a fallen angel, the king of evil- has this near-omni present power, and this ability to speak in different languages to millions of people around the world then why can't you believe that a faithful servant of God (who is in heaven) can do petitioning/intercession for millions of people? Doesn't the Holy Spirit grant his servants the gift of tongues?

There are still reasons that have never been or never will be resolved between how Protestants and Roman Catholics view Scripture, GOD the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. Mary was never the Mother of God...never! She was the very best of all women the LORD would or could ever find for Jesus to carry His only Son. he was fully human or Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully human. We are never told to pray to Mary. Please do not tell me roman Catholics do not pray to her as they do so.

No where in Scripture does it give anyone but Jesus Christ the authority to forgive sins. No where in Scripture is there a Purgatory, it is a figment of the Roman Catholic churches tradition which is unbiblical. Indulgences are unbiblical, the RCC has done these dating back before Martin Luther, which he stood against.

The list of examples of unbiblical teaching in the RCC is extensive. The RCC believes the Pope and tradition is higher then that of Scripture, which is not upheld anywhere in Scripture.

I do not hate or dislike the people in the RCC. However those who are paid positions will be accountable for misleading so many souls into unbiblical teachings. IMO.

I resist dialoguing about the differences between the RCC and Protestantism. From the Protestant point of view the differences are great, and no matter how respectfully I present the differences it creates a huge difference. In explaining those differences you as a RC most likely resent what is said. That is hard to avoid no matter what I present. In presenting the differences you have to defend the RCC point od view, only naturally it will not agree, and both sides feel insulted at some level. That can not be avoided. However keep in mind you asked the questions.

For anyone RC who reads this, I am sorry if what I offends you, I wish I could have avoided it, but facts from a Protestant Theology are still quite serious at odds with the RCC. What ever efforts are made to work together in areas of common interest are very good. We do differ greatly in our Christian Theology, but as humans on this journey to lessen the worlds hunger, and slavery of men and women, and children in all kinds of areas we can and do work together. We must and are required by Christ to love our neighbor, and you are my neighbor.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Out of curiosity, which one have I joined now?

So far the Non-denominational. Only because I assume you are still a christian but have not found another mainstream denomination that aligns with your beliefs.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Shucks

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Shucks

Hey, it's not so bad. Think of it as the Catholic Church minus the pope, sacred traditions (gradual escalation of legend), and anything else not specifically mentioned in the holy scriptures. Then you will get the same denomination that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Paul were in....the Non-denominational.

 

[Albion]

Hey, it's not so bad. Think of it as the Catholic Church minus the pope, sacred traditions (gradual escalation of legend), and anything else not specifically mentioned in the holy scriptures. Then you will get the same denomination that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Paul were in....the Non-denominational.

Why would I start with the Catholic Church before subtracting?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why would I start with the Catholic Church before subtracting?

Because that is what the Non-denominational church is. It is the catholic (small "c") church before Emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic (big "C") church. Non-denominational churches focus on Jesus Christ and His teachings as the "Petra" or "foundation" of the church. Not on Peter "Peteos" or "little stone" that helped to build the church on top of the foundation. So, if you were to really get back to the original church you would have to look at the Non-denominational church which has been around since the original apostles and not the Roman Catholic Church which was established in the 4th century with emperor Constantine. Who I might add was an aryan christian (believed that the Son of God was not the same as God but rather God's first creation) if he was at all. Constantine was baptized on his death bed by aryan priests against his will and his three successors (including Justinian the Apostate) even after aryan christians were declared to be heritics. Which is odd because Constantine's beliefs goes against the Nicine Creed that he helped to establish at the ecumenical council. Therefor, supports the theory that Constantine was actually a Roman pagan at heart who wanted to use this new religion called "Christianity " to unify a vast and diverse empire. Which further supports the theory that all these "sacred tradions" that are found nowhere in the sacred scriptures were actually Roman pagan throwbacks to make Roman pagans more comfortable accepting the new religion of Rome.

 

[Albion]

Because that is what the Non-denominational church is. It is the catholic (small "c") church before Emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic (big "C") church. Non-denominational churches focus on Jesus Christ and His teachings as the "Petra" or "foundation" of the church. Not on Peter "Peteos" or "little stone" that helped to build the church on top of the foundation. So, if you were to really get back to the original church you would have to look at the Non-denominational church which has been around since the original apostles and not the Roman Catholic Church which was established in the 4th century with emperor Constantine. Who I might add was an aryan christian (believed that the Son of God was not the same as God but rather God's first creation) if he was at all. Constantine was baptized on his death bed by aryan priests against his will and his three successors (including Justinian the Apostate) even after aryan christians were declared to be heritics. Which is odd because Constantine's beliefs goes against the Nicine Creed that he helped to establish at the ecumenical council. Therefor, supports the theory that Constantine was actually a Roman pagan at heart who wanted to use this new religion called "Christianity " to unify a vast and diverse empire. Which further supports the theory that all these "sacred tradions" that are found nowhere in the sacred scriptures were actually Roman pagan throwbacks to make Roman pagans more comfortable accepting the new religion of Rome.

Frankly, this sounds like just as much like a self-serving revision of history as the one employed by the RCC. Besides, there is no non-denominational "church" like you're describing. There are isolated congregations, but no church or denomination--obviously.

To get to the point, I think my church is just about correctly placed, having "subtracted" what needed reform but not throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater' at the same time.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Frankly, this sounds like just as much like a self-serving revision of history as the one employed by the RCC. Besides, there is no non-denominational "church" like you're describing. There are isolated congregations, but no church or denomination--obviously.

Hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

Consider it done.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Consider it done.

Awesome. Just do a little search on emperor Constantine and aryan Christianity.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Awesome. Just do a little search on emperor Constantine and aryan Christianity.

I said "consider it done."

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Consider it done.

You would obviously find cases where Emperor Constantine publicly criticized aryans as "schismatic" but what he says goes completely against what he actually practiced. Hence the aryan baptism and his three successors also being aryan.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Frankly, this sounds like just as much like a self-serving revision of history as the one employed by the RCC. Besides, there is no non-denominational "church" like you're describing. There are isolated congregations, but no church or denomination--obviously.

To get to the point, I think my church is just about correctly placed, having "subtracted" what needed reform but not throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater' at the same time.

I think the Lutherans would say as much about their church as would the various Reformed churches. In one way or another most of see our respective denominations as having the correct balance. In my case, I lean heavily toward Zwingli's position which was pretty much that the baby had been virtually strangled to death with heresies and errors of various sorts so that a great deal of reform was required. However, even he did not throw out the baby.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I said "consider it done."

Oh..also I just want to say I mispelled Arian...not aryan.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk