Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Well, I'll wait for what Faith is actually going to say. I believe I have answers for what I anticipate.But as to the Reformers themselves, people such as Luther and Calvin, I don't think they did lie about these issues. Where did Luther say that Catholics worshiped the monstrance, rather than the Real Presence? Where did Calvin say that the Albigenses were good Protestants? Where did Zwingli ... but you see my point. She's not getting this nonsense from the Reformers. Rather, it has seeped down to her from careless, ignorant, dishonest men whom she couldn't even name. And that is her problem.

Of course they aren't adoring the monstrance, the holder, and I couldn't have meant that, just misspoke. They are adoring the wafer, which they think is the physical presence of Christ.And here is Wikipedia on that subject: THE ELEMENTS themselves are adored because of their belief in the Real Presence of Christ in them. OK, another Vatican II change then, funny how they can change their infallible doctrine but oh well.But although both are now given in most RC churches, apparently it isn't certain in everybody's mind that that's the case: Catholic Answers If Foxe's Book of Martyrs says it then it's true, end of subject.As for your claims concerning the Albigensians I'll see what I can find out about all that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hey, can the same apply to my posts? I mean, if you get to declare the Book of Martyrs to be all absolutely true just by fiat, I think I should get to declare something too. Fair's fair.So, my turn. "If Dr Adequate says it then it's true, end of subject." See, this will make argument much easier. No need for all that tedious business of evidence. Why didn't I think of this before?

You're too gullible.That book is lie-filled propaganda.Even when it first came out, people could see that Foxe was a terrible historian who had an axe to grind.

Whoa. Another inerrant book! It's like aces up the sleeve. You do have a better track record.

You could in fact have meant that. Thanks for clearing it up. Well, that's how we and the NPOV of Wikipedia see it. But it's not how Catholics see it, according to them they are not adoring the wine and the wafer, which literally are not there, according to them, but rather they are adoring Jesus, who is there. Well, they didn't change the doctrine, just the practice, like changing from the Latin Mass to the vernacular.

For Dr Adequate.

The ex cathedra doctrine was only put in place during the nineteenth-century. Not many Protestants know this, as Faith's backhanded comment shows.The belief that the pope speaks with special authority dates from before that, of course. But that is just an extension a belief Faith herself holds: that the apostles (and their writings) speak with authority. After all, those apostles laid hands on successors they chose. Those successors laid hands on their own chosen successors, and so on through the centuries. Why shouldn't their modern successors be listened to, just as early Christians listened to their own leaders?The Protestant fundy is in a dilemma here. If one regards early church leaders (James, Peter, Paul of Tarsus) as infallible, one must respect their choices in the matter of successors. If one thinks they made mistakes and chose corrupt individuals who would soon betray their confidence, one has to admit the possibility that any texts authored by those early church leaders or made under their supervision are likewise corrupt.The premise behind both ideas--that church leaders hold authority and that scripture holds authority--is the same. That shared premise is that early church leaders knew what they were doing.

Who says the apostles chose successors? Sounds like the Catholic made-up stuff about "apostolic succession?" Which they made up long after the apostolic age. And the idea that Peter was the first Pope and other such absolutely nonsensical fictions. Peter was not even ever in Rome, let alone Pope. If there was even an office called "pope" in those days. They had Bishops of the various metropolitan areas, so there was a Bishop of Rome. Later they made him Pope and conferred all sorts of powers on him.As for the infallibility of the apostles, I don't think anyone says any such thing. What Protestants believe is that the scriptures they wrote are inerrant, but that's due to God's Providence, not anything about the apostles themselves. Paul upbraided Peter at one point, if you remember, certainly showing that Peter wasn't infallible as a Christian leader, if his betrayal of the Lord wasn't already evidence of that. In any case the inerrancy of the texts is not about the people who wrote them. Nor was it among the Old Testament writers and prophets either. Isaiah confessed himself to be a man "of unclean lips," and David the King who was beloved of God committed some horrific sins including murder, so nobody's going to call him infallible although he wrote inerrant scripture. Moses' sin kept him from seeing the Promised Land, but he too wrote inerrant scripture. NO HUMAN BEING IS INFALLIBLE, which is clear from scripture, and Protestants believe that.In any case the infallibility of the Pope is some kind of joke since there have been occasions when his infallible decrees have been rescinded or just shown to be false, not to mention the record of sins of all sorts racked up by some Popes. It's sin enough that recent Popes seem to prefer to pray to "Mary" than to God, and take the messages of "her" apparitions" seriouslyABE: Actually I was aware that the Pope was not officially declared infallible in matters of faith and doctrine until the 19th century. Why would you assume I wasn't? However, there are plenty of other doctrines from before that time that confer all kinds of superhuman qualities on the Pope, essentially deity. Which wouldn't be a surprise since he's really the heir of the Caesars who insisted on being worshipped as gods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And they are deceiving themselves. Remember the commandments Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, and Thou shalt make no graven image, of anything in heaven, to bow down and worship it. That includes images of God, such as the wafer, not to mention all the statues that the RCC decorates their churches with, that people DO bow down in front of, prostrating themselves for long periods of prayer even, and women in some European countries walk on their knees around statues of Mary. During my preChristian phase when I thought I was going to become a Catholic such devotion was very appealing to me, it's easy to be deceived by it. That's why we need scripture to set us straight.The point here is that if you bow down before a graven image. that is NOT God or Jesus you are worshiping even if that's what they tell you you are doing and what the purpose of the idol is.

I never argued that they were right. Obviously the Real Presence is one of the many things I don't believe in. It's harder to see why you don't ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No more nonsensical or anachronistic than your fiction that early Christians were really Protestant fundies, running around with pre-canon, pre-Gutenberg Bibles tucked under their arms.It's all myth.These myths exist to give each community a sense of continuity. The first few centuries of Christian history were actually tumultuous. Little was standardised and beliefs showed a lot of variety. Catholicism says the same thing about popes. Popes are imperfect people who say imperfect things. But the (very rare) ex cathedra statements they make are inerrant, by God's Providence. Catholicism says the same, too, as I've just indicated. (And there's no need to shout.)You and your sect have much in common with Catholicism, really. As well you should, given that all of the first Protestants started out as Catholics. (A reality you might do well to reflect upon more often.)Each group shares a belief that a mystical thing called divine inspiration takes place. Both believe that it infuses certain statements with infallible authority. Both believe the statements of the canon to be inspired in this way. The only difference is where you draw boundaries. Catholicism allows the deity to add to that canon even today if the deity chooses. You don't. That's all.--You know what? Christian history is not a good subject for you. Your notions about Catholicism are routinely misinformed, cartoonish, and belligerent, while your ignorance of ancient history and Eastern Christianity is nearly total.Sad as it is to say, maybe biology is your stronger suit.___Edited by Archer Opteryx, : creditEdited by Archer Opteryx, : clarity

Excellent point.Faith believes that a literal reading of the Bible is always the final word. On this basis she insists that the earth is literally only 6,000 years old, that the planet formed in six literal days, and that a literal worldwide flood once took place.Logically, she should also believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief naturally follows from a literal reading of Jesus' words:

quote:

---

While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
- Mt 26.26-28

​

While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
- Mk 14.22-24

​

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
- Lk 22.19-20

​

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ [....] Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves.
- 1 Cor 11.24-29

---

Which is a really silly straw man of yours that has already been answered here many times. Nobody says such a thing. I just answered this on the thread you started about Bible inerrancy What's a true Christian? Scripture is the standard for Protestants. Catholicism's myth IS myth, without any basis in scripture or in early church history. Peter was never in Rome, that's not myth, that's fact. The Pope did not officially exist until 606 AD, that's not myth, that's fact. There was no apostolic succession at all, let alone one that justifies the papacy, and that's not myth, that's fact. As I've pointed out before, the myths here are YOUR myths which is what this silly idea you keep pushing is, just a myth you like. You're the big mythmaker. What on earth are you talking about? Any beliefs that were heretical were being challenged right and left in those days. "Tumultuous" OK, since there were heresies galore in the early church. The early church is very much a history of God raising up able men to demonstrate truth versus heresy. Through their work doctrine eventually DID become standardized. But it's antichristian nonsense to even HAVE a Pope, let alone treat him as on a level with the apostles. Not only does the man wear a crown or tiara and other headgear (and aside from the antichristian display of wealth and power implied by this, scripture says men are not to cover their heads in church), but he accepts worship: people kiss his ring or his foot. And let's not quibble about the meaning of the word "worship" although the Jesuitical tendency would be to split meaningless hairs about this. Adulation, adoration, veneration, worship. hyperdulia or whatever you want to call it, it's the bowing down to someone regarded as a superior and it's totally antichristian to treat anyone that way. The Lystrans thought Paul and Barnabas were gods because they did miraculous healings and were going to sacrifice a bull to them, but Paul and Barnabas told them not to. The ministers of God are not to be worshipped. Nor even are angels, who throughout scripture are shown rejecting the worshipful impulses of people who witness their great beauty and power. They say they are ministers of God same as the men are and are not to be worshipedl We are not to worship ANYBODY, man or angel, but God only. But the Pope accepts worship as his due.There is no similarity whatever between the Pope and the apostles. The papacy is a totally antichristian institution. They did a pretty thorough job of divesting themselves of the Antichrist after some years of studying, despite some holdovers. Catholicism violates everything Christian revealed to us in scripture, THAT's where the difference is and it's enormous. You know what? You are a master of mythmaking and false history. You've said not one true thing in this whole discussion unless it's something totally trivial.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change "to" to "and"Edited by Faith, : change "Bible inerrancy" to "What's a true Christian?"

Of course you don't believe them but you do try to keep up on the issues so I gave you my Protestant answer to one of your arguments in favor of the Catholic point of view, which of course you don't believe in...I don't see why it's hard to see why I reject Catholicism. Scripture is the standard and everything about Catholicism violates the spirit of scripture.