R. Catholic vs protestant differences after 500 yrs past reformation

[Bob Crowley]

sounds like every protestant should return to the one true church ,right?

Your words.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Your words.

speaking from a protestant myself I'm not convinced many of the teachings of the R catholic church, it seems like tradition is equal to the authority of the bible

 

[CaspianSails]

I would never expect the two to reconcile.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That looks like it is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is a great book to keep and reference, it is the "official" teachings of the church.

In brief, a lot has changed since the Reformation. The church of today is not the same as the church in the 1500s. However, the "faith on the ground" varies wildly from pious individuals, to animist cults wearing the masquerade of the Church. The Curia does little to stamp out popular pagan religion in the church, and that is a problem.

But many of the original issues that the Reformers dealt with are not really issues any longer, at least officially.

I wonder what you think the Curia could do about superstitious believers? The Church doesn't impose her beliefs on anyone. But if you call yourself a Catholic, you should believe what the Church teaches. It's the same thing as joining any club. Can you imagine being a member of the PGA and not agreeing to all the rules in the rulebook on playing golf?
I wonder what 'popular pagan religious practices' you're referring to. If you're talking about Filipinos nailing themselves to crosses, all I can say is that this is nowhere in Catholic teaching. Therefore it falls outside of the purview of the Curia. Short of saying that they shouldn't do that, I don't believe the Curia has any power to stamp out something like that.

 

[zippy2006]

If you're talking about Filipinos nailing themselves to crosses, all I can say is that this is nowhere in Catholic teaching. Therefore it falls outside of the purview of the Curia. Short of saying that they shouldn't do that, I don't believe the Curia has any power to stamp out something like that.

Well, it doesn't fall outside of the Church's teaching. The Church is well within her rights to to speak out against immoral or dangerous practices, especially when they are being done in the name of Christ. In reality the Church has spoken out against such things. For example, Archbishop Jose Palma, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said that the practice is "not the desire of Jesus Christ." (source)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, it doesn't fall outside of the Church's teaching. The Church is well within her rights to to speak out against immoral or dangerous practices, especially when they are being done in the name of Christ. In reality the Church has spoken out against such things. For example, Archbishop Jose Palma, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said that the practice is "not the desire of Jesus Christ." (source)

So, you're proving against your own point. You asked, basically, why the Curia doesn't say something against pagan or immoral practices, then you answer me that the Curia said something against an immoral practice.
The fact is, the Church does denounce such practices, especially those that are dangerous to body and soul. She tells us we shouldn't be doing yoga, or practicing Eastern religions, tells us we shouldn't fast without some guidance. She also denounces things like Voodoo.
What else would you like the Curia to do? We have a published document stating specifically and at length what the faith entails. It is true that the Church relies on, basically, a volunteer army to convey that faith, and that, at times, she doesn't do a good job of positive reinforcement of what she teaches. But the Curia, and priests in general, don't get much time with their flocks. An hour a week, if that, and if Mass goes longer than an hour, the people in the pews tend to shut the sound off, and twenty minutes or less for the homily. It's really up to the faithful to teach others their faith.

 

[zippy2006]

So, you're proving against your own point.

It would seem that you do not understand which poster you are responding to. I haven't weighed in on this topic at all. That was my first post regarding Catholic superstition in this thread...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Did you not say that a Catholic hierarchical member spoke out against a superstitious practice? If it wasn't you who made the original point, I'm sorry, but the point still stands.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

speaking from a protestant myself I'm not convinced many of the teachings of the R catholic church, it seems like tradition is equal to the authority of the bible

Tradition is just a review of Church history. There were many councils that defined Christian dogma and beliefs. Have you studied the great heresies? Arianism, Pelagianism, Jansenism? Many interpretations of the Bible have been debated over the centuries. The results of those debates are worth reviewing.
The Church is the Body of Christ, and He does not change, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
He promised to found a church the gates of hell would not prevail against

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Tradition is just a review of Church history. There were many councils that defined Christian dogma and beliefs. Have you studied the great heresies? Arianism, Pelagianism, Jansenism? Many interpretations of the Bible have been debated over the centuries. The results of those debates are worth reviewing.
The Church is the Body of Christ, and He does not change, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
He promised to found a church the gates of hell would not prevail against

how about purgatory and selling indulgence? is that a true teaching of the church?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

how about purgatory and selling indulgence? is that a true teaching of the church?

purgatory is a true teaching of the Church
It is explained in 1 Cor 3:12
Every man’s work will be tested by fire some suffer loss. Others receive a reward. This is not imputed righteousness but the works that the soul actually did while alive. Those are tried by the fires of purgatory

if you knew what an indulgence actually was, you would know that it cannot be sold. The charge of selling indulgences was alleged, and they may have been abused, but selling indulgences is not a teaching of the church
If you would like me to explain what an indulgence actually is, I would be happy to do so. Indulgences are based on Christ’s words to Peter when He gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16
To receive an indulgence , one must be in submission to the chair of St Peter and remove all attachment to sin. They cannot be bought and sold like a commodity

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

purgatory is a true teaching of the Church
It is explained in 1 Cor 3:12
Every man’s work will be tested by fire some suffer loss. Others receive a reward. This is not imputed righteousness but the works that the soul actually did while alive. Those are tried by the fires of purgatory

if you knew what an indulgence actually was, you would know that it cannot be sold. The charge of selling indulgences was alleged, and they may have been abused, but selling indulgences is not a teaching of the church
If you would like me to explain what an indulgence actually is, I would be happy to do so. Indulgences are based on Christ’s words to Peter when He gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16
To receive an indulgence , one must be in submission to the chair of St Peter and remove all attachment to sin. They cannot be bought and sold like a commodity

But that verse doesn't says in detail the believer will suffer in hell before go to heaven isn't?

 

[Albion]

purgatory is a true teaching of the Church
It is explained in 1 Cor 3:12
Every man’s work will be tested by fire some suffer loss. Others receive a reward. This is not imputed righteousness but the works that the soul actually did while alive. Those are tried by the fires of purgatory

So Purgatory, which the Church has defined and explained to the Nth degree as far as why, who, then what, and answered all sorts of other questions about its functioning and purpose...by pointing to one word, "fire." That's like "proving" that there are automobiles by referring us to the existence of a wheel.

if you knew what an indulgence actually was, you would know that it cannot be sold. The charge of selling indulgences was alleged, and they may have been abused, but selling indulgences is not a teaching of the church

In other words, the Church did it, but there's no teaching about it?

To receive an indulgence , one must be in submission to the chair of St Peter and remove all attachment to sin. They cannot be bought and sold like a commodity

They are not sold anymore, but they used to be bought and sold. The recipient even received a certificate, a receipt, that specified the purchase that was made.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

So Purgatory, which the Church has defined and explained to the Nth degree as far as why, who, then what, and answered all sorts of other questions about its functioning and purpose...by pointing to one word, "fire." That's like "proving" that there are automobiles by referring us to the existence of a wheel.

There is much more to study than this one verse, granted, but I showed it that the doctrine of Purgatory is not contradicted by Scripture. What this verse does contradict is imputed righteousness. It clearly says we are judged by our works. Just as Christ Himself has said not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but those that DO the will of the Father


In other words, the Church did it, but there's no teaching about it?

No, men did it, it was never the teaching of the Church that indulgences could be bought or sold. Alms giving is a work of sacrifice and even Protestants teach that God rewards those that give tithes to the church

if you want to know about indulgences we can talk about them. They are not about buying the forgiveness of sin or buying permission to sin



They are not sold anymore, but they used to be bought and sold. The recipient even received a certificate, a receipt, that specified the purchase that was made.

Do you have references for your statement?
We should review the historical document

 

[boughtwithaprice]

But that verse doesn't says in detail the believer will suffer in hell before go to heaven isn't?

It doesn’t say that he will receive imputed righteousness either. Purgatory is not contradicted by that verse. imputed righteousness is contradicted by that verse

There is much more to the study of Purgatory than one verse. If interested we can talk about it

 

[Albion]

So Purgatory, which the Church has defined and explained to the Nth degree as far as why, who, then what, and answered all sorts of other questions about its functioning and purpose...by pointing to one word, "fire." That's like "proving" that there are automobiles by referring us to the existence of a wheel.

There is much more to study than this one verse, granted, but I showed it that the doctrine of Purgatory is not contradicted by Scripture. What this verse does contradict is imputed righteousness. It clearly says we are judged by our works.

Then you can use it to support justification by works. But the topic here is Purgatory, and it has no Scriptural basis.

That it may not be "contradicted by Scripture" doesn't mean that it exists. All sorts of other things that are not real are similarly unmentioned in Scripture, and we all know that this fact doesn't prove that they are real.

No, men did it, it was never the teaching of the Church that indulgences could be bought or sold.

On the contrary, the Church authorized the sale of Indulgences.

They are not sold anymore, but they used to be bought and sold. The recipient even received a certificate, a receipt, that specified the purchase that was made.

Do you have references for your statement?

Not only is this a matter of the historical record and was the reason for Martin Luther's first protest against corrupt practices, but I have seen some of those actual certificates myself. You can too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

how about purgatory and selling indulgence? is that a true teaching of the church?

Purgatory is, but selling indulgences was never a true teaching of the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But that verse doesn't says in detail the believer will suffer in hell before go to heaven isn't?

That's not what purgatory is.

 

[Albion]

Purgatory is, but selling indulgences was never a true teaching of the Church.

What is meant by "true teaching?" It is undeniable that the Papacy authorized the sale of indulgences, so it may not have called it a doctrine, but it certainly was an approved practice.

When Johann Tetzel provoked Luther to post the Ninety-five Theses, the money he was raising by selling indulgences in the Germanies, as a certified agent of the Pope, was mainly done in order to finance the building of the present St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So Purgatory, which the Church has defined and explained to the Nth degree as far as why, who, then what, and answered all sorts of other questions about its functioning and purpose...by pointing to one word, "fire." That's like "proving" that there are automobiles by referring us to the existence of a wheel.


In other words, the Church did it, but there's no teaching about it?

The Church didn't do it. Some hierarchy, authorities in the Church, acted on their own to do it. They spoke in the name of the Church promoting something that wasn't Church teaching.

They are not sold anymore, but they used to be bought and sold. The recipient even received a certificate, a receipt, that specified the purchase that was made.

No. Some people said that they could be bought and sold, but it was never a teaching of the Church. Certificate or not. I'd dare anyone to try to present a certificate at the gate of Heaven. For one, a certificate is an earthly thing, and the gate of Heaven is not, and we all know you can't take anything with you. I can agree that something near on heretical and criminal was foisted on people, their ignorance or innocence was taken advantage of, in the name of the Church. But it wasn't in the name of the Church. I am also sure that any of those who were promised such a thing were not convicted because of this belief.