Are Catholics and Protestants that different?

I take it you were absent awhile, it will be nice to make your acquaintance, phat jar has already mentioned this; Catholics of any rite do not worship Mary or come close to putting her into the Trinity.Properly put, there is no doctrine on Mary, but, rather, dogma. The difference is one of scripture. A doctrine is an interpretation of scripture held as the correct one. A dogma is part of the deposit of faith which has arisen in tradition and not scripture.There are no doctrines which relate to how one should honor Mary.

Quite true. Actually Mary is starting to come back into favor in many sects, and they now offer bible studies devouted to her specifically.I have mentioned before, but I will again for this thread, that the Reformation never ever talked about an issue in the veneration of Mary. Martin Luther prayed to her for his entire life. This subject is indeed a non-essential and seems to recur only as a last ditch effort by some to catch a Catholic off-guard.

I would like to take a moment to hopefully reconcile your problem, so that we can definitively close this part of the discussion. As it is it appears to be a loose end at least if it is not properly understood.There are indeed millions and billions of saints. Paul says that everyone who has died in Christ becomes a part of the Body of Christ, and they are all his 'saints'.The lists of saints is not intended to be all-inclusive. It is only a list of saints whose cause has been put to test. In plain words; they have been proven to be with God.Any man can claim to be a follower of Christ. Whatever they do behind closed doors is a matter between them and God, and no man can say 'they went to heaven' and be sure about it. So, when someone dies, like Mother Teresa, and folks start praying to her, the church takes this concensus amoung believers and puts their cause up for examination. They will study the life of the person in great detail, sometimes over many years. I doubt that Protestants look for miracles, but Catholics require three miracles before actual canonization happens. It is intended to prove that the person is already in Heaven, and that it is 'safe' to look to their life for example.So, while there are countless people in Heaven, only the ones whose lives or martyr's deaths have caused a stir amoung many people end up getting 'officially' called saints.The lists are pointing out a few good men, but don't include evryone who fought the good fight.

Not quite; Buzsaw is getting into the 'authority' topic here actually; He is saying almost exactly what NJ does in the 'Old Laws Still Valid' thread. I am not sure if the Anglicans grant permission to forgive sins to priests. Please bear in mind that Catholics most certainly do ask the priest for forgiveness of sins, but only through the priest acting in the stead of Jesus. Anglicans are as I say more similar to Catholics than anyone else, and as I have heard, actually stake a claim on 'authority'. I am quite sure other Ptotestants do not have confession. Anyone out there?You're taking away all the differences, jar!

Good point. Various protestants are not on the same page, but there are major doctrinal differences which define them as being protestants in general.If the first mark of the true faith is; that it be one in nature, i.e., undivided in belief...then if a protestant has already violated that unity, what stops them from protesting against each other ad aeternum?The fruits of protestantism is seperation.

Catholicism rejects pluralism of any discription

There may be a divide, but a dogma is a dogma, and a doctrine is a doctrine. We are discussing doctrine. Maybe the reason Protestants don't have a firm stance on this issue is because they don't have dogma.

I'm still not sure how pluralism snuck into this thread Strictly speaking pluralism is the view that all religions are equal to a degree, but not as equal as relavitism would have them be.The Catholic Church does not promote religious indifference, in whole or in part. In other words, a Muslim does not have faith in Christ, but just because a Lutheran does, a Catholic cannot blindly accept the Lutherans as equals in other areas.What the church has been attempting is not pluralism, it is ecumenism. Ecumenism is an effort to unite all of christianity (I'm sure you know that) The Pope is not striving to unite the church under the leadership or doctrine of any other denomination, which proves the point that other sects are not to be viewed as equal.It is a matter of finding common ground so as to make them all Catholic. It is large scale 'witnessing' if you will.Since Vatican II the Vatican has made some poor choices in ecumenism, resulting in a church that today more resembles the church of the Reformation than it does Catholicism. It is an issue of great proportion and results in much division in the church itself, but too complicated for the present discussion.Suffice it to say that the Vatican and especially JP II have sent a message that religious indifference is ok, and well...the church is losing more members than ever, go figure. The end is a worthy one IMO, but the means to it are suspect to many.

Hi schrafinator,Yes, he did.The Pope may pray wherever he likes, as can we.The popes recently have been acting very un-traditionally in such matters. John Paul II and Benedict are the only popes ever to have visited a mosque, and what they are doing as world leaders to aid the cause of peace is controversial or at least misleading at times.The church still holds to the logic that though two groups profess to follow a Biblical God, if one group believes in a Trinity God, and the other believes in a God who will destroy such believers, then the two can not possibly be worshipping the same God.

I really do not know where to start with this..excuse me...mess.But this is as good a place as any, so; let's just change the names of what we are dealing with a little.You believe that we are first born again. You believe baptism is public commitment to Christ and only happens once someone is born again.Catholics believe that confirmation is public commitment to Christ and only happens once someone is baptized.Let's say born again = baptism.Dedicated = confirmed.Now, you believe that we must be born again in order to be saved. Catholics believe you must be baptized in order to be saved.Very easy to understand that way, no?If a person must be born again in order to be saved, then what happens to the young baby who never was born again? What is the minimum age when someone can claim to be born again? Is it 5? at the age of reason? Obviously you think 12 is too young since you think 12 year olds are too young to be confirmed. So, you must think we need to be at least 13 to be born again...but, we reach the age of reason at around 5 you say, and in between 5-13, we are certainly able to sin. So, what then would become of the sinful pre-adolescent who waa not born again yet and died in a sudden accident?You see, the position must be logical through and through. You can't leave salvation open to only those over the 'right age' to be committed to God, or only those who suddenly were 'born again' in mid-life.

IMO there is some sort of purposeful confusion being perpetrated by groups such as you have mentioned. By using different terminology when talking about baptism, they make it seem like their is more of a difference than need be.Being baptized is being born again...it is gace through faith 100% all the way. In the case of infant baptism, it is grace from God being given to the child through the faith of their parents and god parents. When the child is matured he may personally dedicate himself to the promise

Maybe that is the simplest explanation, but simple is not always best. I believe as far as the OP goes, it is clear that Catholicism does not officially embrace pluralism, and that actually many sects are very my-way-or-the highway. It is also willful schism to oppose his actions without attempting to understand the delicate political positions and tremendous pressures of the Papacy. Applicable on a few levels there.

Well, here's a good one to start with;John 3:3 says 'Unless a man be born again he can not enter the kingdom of God'.When Jesus was asked to explain how someone is born again, he answered;John 3:5 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God'.Just from this one scripture is is already clear that being 'born again' and being 'baptized' are the same thing. Nope. It is faith that got you into the water in the first place! Otherwise, you just went for a swim In the case of infants, it is the faith of the parents drawing down God's grace for them. If you don't think that is possible, think about this scripture;Matthew 8:8; 'Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed'.And Jesus was astonished at the faith of the centurion, and said to him:'Go thy way, as you have believed, so shall it be done to thee.' Sure, that is why adult candidates for baptism are put through many months of spiritual counseling and discernments. Do the works of God save? I thought I made it clear to you that baptism is not a 'good work'. It is a sacrament, or as you would call it in your lingo 'grace thru faith'. So why then did you also say that confirmation was a ritual which is undertaken by pre-adolescents who are too young to make a commitment? I will find the quote it you need it. Now it sounds like you got stuck on the definition again. In confirmation a person 'confirms' that they wish to be part of the church. No human is qualified to do that?

The real difference here is not in the word 'again'. It appeared in my Bible, which was a commemorative 1950 edition of the Catholic Bible. I can not provide any more specifics about the translation, as it is primarily a Bible I happen to own for its decorative aspects. As far as I can tell it is not a Bible that was translated with an internal significance or comparison of doctrine. Catholics do not use the term 'born again' and I have no reason to think there was any meaning behind the inclusion of the word 'again'.That being said, the issue here is not about the word 'again'. It actually would not be needed to understand what Jesus meant. When He said 'of water and the Holy Spirit' it seems clear, and I say 'seems' so as not to offend, but I think it is clear, that Jesus means this birth happens all at once. A natural birth can not be considered a birth 'of water and the Holy Spirit'. So obviously Jesus did not mean a natural birth at all.The common error is in believing the verse means 'of water, and then, the Holy Spirit'.That is incorrect, in the same way that saying a man is 'black and blue' does not mean he is black and then blue.This is the main problem with the interpretation of the text. Including the word 'again' does not affect the two ways of interpreting it which I have pointed out.Even if you can make a case for the alternate interpretation, the Catholic version is equally viable if not more so, and my purpose was in showing that nemesis' assertion that Catholicism is not Biblical in regards to baptism is incorrect.Now, if you look at what happened at Christ's own baptism, you will see that it too was of water, and the Holy Spirit, at the same time.

Please see my reply # 136 to Buzsaw for the anwsers to these questions. Yes, but I was not speaking of salvation, I was speaking of grace, and how one person's faith can obtain grace for another. I believe there are cases when one person's faith can obtain enough grace as to lead to salvation...like with St Augustine and his mother. But that is not relevant.If we can not look at this one example as being normative, how do we decide which of Jesus teachings are? Is this another case of picking and choosing from the Bible?