Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Can I just clarify something with you please kofh2u - you are presumably aware that the scale on the y-axis of the graph you provided in message 104 is different from the scale on the y-axis of the graph you provided in message 101 by a factor of 10 ? (And yet purports to show (roughly) the same data).

That's what I always say but it doesn't seem to get through to the faith-only people. What you believe is evidenced by what you do. Hence, the works are necessary. The belief in God - especially one narrow conception of God - is not.

Hi Kofh2u,You're somehow missing the elephant in the room. Here's your chart: Notice that the y-axis is in thousands of billions of dollars, which is trillions of dollars. For example, your chart says that in 2008 the welfare budget was roughly $5.5 trillion. That's actually the size of the entire federal budget. The actual figure for 2008 is around $500 billion.So, again, if you want to convince anyone then it would be better to use accurate data that isn't off by about 10 times. Here's a graph of the welfare budget over the past 10 years with projections for the past 2 years: And here's a graph of the defense budget for the same period: Using these real figures one can accurately point out that welfare costs have risen dramatically since Obama took office. But aid to families and children is only around $150 billion of the welfare budget at most, nowhere near the size of the defense budget.--Percy

That's Protestant doctrine, not Roman doctrine, which historically has required works, that is, personal righteousness, as necessary for salvation, and not just faith in Christ. That is, JUSTIFICATION in the sight of God, according to Catholicism, is accomplished by faith in Christ plus your own personal righteousness, but according to Protestantism it is accomplished by faith in the sacrifice of Christ ALONE. The doctrine that faith PRODUCES works is very different from faith-plus-works.But since you have now joined us Protestants in declaring that works are the product of faith and not cause for our justification before God, WELCOME, and you have now also brought yourself under the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which clearly demonstrate that they reject Justification by faith alone, of which I quote only three here:

As a Protestant I agree with all three of those Canon.Not all Protestant chapters of Club Christian espouse the easy cop outs.

Except that God has actually told us in His word that we can KNOW that we are saved. It's said in many different ways but here's one: THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFESo by leaving it up to God as it were, you are actually disobeying God who has given us ways to test our salvation so that we don't have to spend our lives worrying about whether we are saved or not. Gosh, YOU'RE a Protestant TOO? Both you and Catholic Scientist. Amazing discoveries today. Welcome to you as well!But of course you're wrong, Catholicism does require personal righteousness, i.e. works, FOR salvation and not just as proof of salvation.I just watched this video and I have no idea who these guys are except that they're doing a good job on the subject of Catholic history and belief, and the main speaker is an ex-Catholic which I always figures gives more credibility. The topic is Mary but the first half is a general discussion of the doctrines of Catholicism including justification by faith plus works, and they give a time line for the years when different doctrines were accepted into the Church:Video on Mary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXgxd74Kn9Y&feature=relatedBut really I didn't want to get this far into discussions of doctrine because my main interest is on the history of the conflict between the different systems. I'm going to try to inch back toward that focus. I'd rather just emphasize the fact that historically both bodies have regarded the other as EXTREMELY wrong, not at all "extremely similar" and to the extent that Protestantism regarded Rome as the seat of the Antichrist, that's not just a little schism between "two branches of Christianity," that's a complete and utter rejection of Rome as not Christian at all. (Again, this is not about individual Catholics who may be saved in some cases, this is about the institution of the papacy and the hierarchy of Rome) And yes, again, it works both ways, as Rome has anathemized Protestantism as thoroughly as Protestantism has anathematized Rome.Here's a page listing a huge number, including some Catholics but of course all the main Protestant Reformers, who recognized the papacy as Antichrist. Go all the way down the page, it's quite a list:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/4fathers.htmThis is no little dispute over doctrine, but the differences in doctrine in the eyes of Protestants at least are enormous. (to Rome as well except in recent years they are trying to woo us "back to Mother" so they are downplaying their anathemas and official position that they have the right to kill heretics and so on). Yes, Tempe, I've heard that but it's just typical jesuitical rationalization of idolatry. Merely to "ask" anything of a mere human being who has died and resides presumably in heaven is to pray. That's what prayer IS, Tempe. It doesn't matter what you are asking FOR, that's just an attempt to get around the fact that you are praying to a human being. And I'm sure you know that there are many ordinary Catholics who take it a lot further than the official limits you are acknowledging. People in Medjugorge for just one instance have been shown scooting around a statue of Mary on their knees crying and beseeching her for who knows what. That's worship and that's prayer and nobody tries to stop them, and you KNOW they are asking for all kinds of things of "her" that they should ask only of God Himself directly. All that is extreme idolatry, derived from paganism.Nope, LOTS more than "slight differences" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Megashift there, Tempe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not god saying anything Faith, it is the author of John making a claim.It's interesting to see how the various claims evolved as Christianity was marketed and John was na major revisionist.

So you think asking a DEAD person to pray for you is not idolatry, is not treating that dead person as a god who can hesr prayer although only God Himself is said in scripture to be the hearer prayer, which is what makes it blasphemy.But again, this is all doctrine, and I'd rather keep the focus on the simple fact that historically both sides have regarded the other as SERIOUSLY in the wrong.It's only in recent years when Rome has been making great gestures of conciliation to us "separated brethren" that they used to anathematize as heretics deserving of death that some Protestants have lost their sense of history and started following the papal pied piper.

Believe whatever you want, jar, I'm describing what historical Protestantism has taught and still teaches and it sure isn't anything like your twisted made-up stuff.

No, prayer hankies are false doctrine too as is the whole Prosperity Gospel doctrine and really just about the entire TV evangelism enterprise. False doctrine everywhere these days. That's no more Protestantism than Rome is.

Of course the Roman Catholic Church is not Protestant but the evangelists are Protestants. In fact most of the US genocide was done by Protestants, probably the most effective and efficient example of genocide in all of history.

OK jar, provide the evidence for that outrageous lie.

Who ran the Indian Schools?Who forbade Indian Children from speaking their language, wearing their hair uncut, worshiping their religion, wearing their clothes?Who stole their lands, killed off their food supply, pushed them onto reservations?The mostly Protestant Christians taught the world how best to commit genocide in an efficient and socially acceptable manner.

OK you're going to make a whole cultural thing into "Protestantism" and effects on culture into "genocide" and there's nothing about this that has to do with Protestant belief as such, you don't even know if the people involved were Protestants in any sense of the word. This is just a typical jar type accusation and rabbit trail, nothing to do with the topic of the historical conflict between Romanism and Protestantism.

Actually it has everything to do with it. If you want to run away from the facts and practice historical revisionism that is your choice. Just don't get upset when others call you out on it.