So how does one determine Protestantism over Catholicism or vice-versa?

1. MrC.....you can see how Cathlics such as yourself calling Protestants "heretics"....JUST MIGHT....indicate a schism in Christianity?

2. If you can use writings 1000 years old to show that Catholicism is "more accurate" Christianity than Protestantism.....can you not go back 150 years and use JOSEPH SMITH to show that Mormonism is "more accurate" Christianity than Catholicism?

 

I was in the Episcopal Church (America's Anglican Church) in my youth.....we used to say Episcopalianism is "Catholicism without the guilt"

 

If it is one's intention to practice the religion of the Apostles of Jesus, then one should avoid both sects. Protestantism is merely Catholicism Lite. Both are versions of Pauline Christianity with a heaping helping of Roman paganism thrown in for good measure.

 

There are no Bishops in the Bible.

 

I've argued that before. What is the "Trinity"....if not "Zeus, Apollo, and Genius"?

 

Read what I've written ... today there are "Bishops" [so we could even discuss why Catholics invented such an authority ...], in the letters of the apostles there were "episkopos", overseers ...

But in reality that wasn't an "invention" ... look for the etymology of "Bishop"

 

I never called Protestants heretics. I merely said the Catholic Church considered Luther and considered Lutherism a heresy. The difference between a Lutheran today and their founder is that people are born into their faith and by default won't know about the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was a Catholic who rebelled against the Catholic Church.

You're not making any sense. The close you get to the time of Christ, the more accurate picture of Christianity you'll get. These writings are much Older than 1000 years old. Some of the writings go back to the first century. Knowing what early Christians believed is crucial to understanding Christianity. Not some guy from the 19th century who basically wanted to make an American version of his faith.

 

What makes you certain it is not a new revelation for mankind?
Are we to just think God inspired illiterate folks 2000+ yrs ago to record something and then never give an update as humans change? Languages change?

 

It was corrupt, and it was reformed. The Catholic church 100 yrs after Martin Luther was reformed from the one at Luther's time. It just took longer than Luther thought it should. That, and a lot of the things he rebelled against--the selling of indulgences, etc., were not worldwide Catholic problems, but German Catholic corruption in certain Dioceses of Germany.

 

Technically speaking, the only Lutherans that are considered heretics are those that joined as adults after being Catholic adults.

 

Protestantism was just one of the seven phases that the Church experienced in its evolution from 32AD:

 

Yes, we are to believe that Christ was the personification of the ideal we call Truth, and that never changes but only grows on as Reality, it's father, unfolds.

 

Actually I never referred to Lutheranism....I referred to Protestantism which YOU SAID the RCC considered a "heresy" (go back and look at your post). Ergo if you are a Protestant, the RCC considers your a "heretic".

Why? How is a guy born 300 years after Jesus more knowledgable about Jesus...than a guy born 1800 years after Jesus? Especially since the guy writing 300 years later has no more information to go on (i.e. the Bible)...than Joseph Smith did?

- - - Updated - - -

Dave, I'm still waiting on you to explain how Western society hasn't been in a state of "sexual immorality" for SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS, given you say since 1300 AD we have had nude art and are living in a "matriarchy"?

 

That isn't your true point, and they are both correct with no difference between them.

 

Both Matriarchies and Patriarchies have existed, side beside, together since the time of ancient Egypt.

What seems to be historical true is that, as each rich successful matriarchy has arisen among the patriarchies, they have been destroyed in a short time.
They were replaced by conquerors.

The conqueror then, themselves, became the next feminized matriarchy ready to fall later.

 

How about all of our posts? Here's a history of what was said by post #. I went from quoting to everything we said to hyperlinking to the posts themselves to save the space. I spent a lot of time and energy doing this. I hope you are appreciative of my efforts!

13:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063967552#post1063967552
14:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063967663#post1063967663
16:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063967944#post1063967944
26:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063969646#post1063969646
32:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063970697#post1063970697
38:http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360147&p=1063971099#post1063971099

Your mistake: In post #13 you assumed because I said that Protestantism is a heresy, you assumed I called protestants heretics, which is what I never did.
My mistake: In post #16, me confusing the words heresy and heretics, was paying more attention to the general terms heresy and schism.

Yeah, it was a stupid mistake for me to make, but I never actually said that Lutherans and/or protestants are themselves heretics.

This is based of your assumption of what heresy means, but this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. This link covers the term heresy as defined by the Catholic Church and also explains the difference between other terms such as apostasy and schism. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

So, by addressing a certain body of belief a heresy to the Catholic Church is not the same thing as calling the believers heretics. They are only heretics if they where once Catholic.

I assume you heard of the game telephone? The message is going to be less and less accurate with each person receiving the message. A religious leader living 300 years after the fact still may have the advantage if he received the word of Christ from other religious leaders in a process known as oral tradition. Sure, you may question the authenticity, but that far back, at least he would of had the advantage of knowing of the classical language and culture closer to Jesus than some man living on the other side of the world using a Germanic language with an alphabet bastardized from the French language. Does this not make any sense to you?

 

According to the "revelation" to Joseph Smith neither of the schisms is correct. He was told to found Christ's church--to be known as the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). He was directed to some buried tablets from which he translated and dictated The Book of Mormon .

Unfortunately, the tablets can't be found now. They are probably stored some place with the original Ten Commandments.

As an Agnostic/Atheist, I feel that I'm qualified to give religious advice to anyone who asks. After all, the good book says in Matthew 7:7, "Ask and ye shall receive."

 

Haven't read through entire thread, but this caught my eye. I'll go out on a limb and assume that Mr C was referring the fact that information is changed over time. If you start with "the cat sat on the mat", it might be "the hat stood on the tap" after 300 years, and "my arse is on fire" after 1000 years.

 

re the OP

Protestantism is just plain creepy, IMHO. The church started out as a lush, rich, ritual-filled cultural feature, and was progressively stripped of all its colour and texture by puritanical fun killers.

 

Catholics do put on some pretty cool rituals.

 

GOD yes

nothing beats a fully sung midnight mass on xmas eve, in a huge old cathedral, presided over by a cardinal (more elaborate robes and funnier hat), and backed by a 300 voice all male choir. awesome!

seriously though, I'm very comfortable attending pretty much any mass. no one ever wants to convert me, nor gives a damn if I don't do the rituals, nor rabbits on about how to be Ned Flanders during some interminable sermon. They just attend to the rituals, say a few 'nice' words, and everyone shakes hands, says "peace be with you" (which is far far lovelier and non-committal than "jesus is lord") and goes home. all done with a backdrop of gilded objects, candles, and men in long dresses

 

There's a funny youtube of Dara O'Briain (yes, he's nominally a Catholic, in an atheist sort of a way) describing a "mixed" marriage between Protestant and Catholic he attended.

 

In either case, wrong is wrong. Something some can't believe.

 

oh yes, to be sure. they're ALL likely wrong, but for the sake of the 'argument'

 

I know, I was chuckling when Mr C made the argument that 300 yrs later is better because there is less wrong with scripture because it is only 300 yrs removed from the actual date of history as opposed to 1000. Like after 300 yrs without any original documents it may be remotely accurate.
To some extent he is correct. But as I said, wrong is wrong and who knows what is right and what is wrong.