DEBATE - CATHOLIC vs PROTESTANT

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#21
doctrine(The teachings of Jesus and his Apostles) "really doesn't matter" and that you "don't care" about people believing in the one true doctrines from God.
Jesus and His Apostles didn't teach that Mary is "Queen over all things".

Luke 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (DR1899)

-> Catechism of the Catholic Church

(966) “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”


 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#22
Doctrine that is biblical is the only thing of value in the church. ....

.....Where Catholics deviate from the bible they are in error.,.... .Christ established a church.....
1. No place does the Bible claim that all doctrines of the faith are only contained in Scripture.

2. You won't be able to show that any doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts what is taught in Scripture

3. I'm glad you at least realize Christ established a Church. Now the question to you is this, 'Did Jesus hand authority to Peter and his other Apostles over that Church that he established? Yes or No?' The answer for a Catholic would be 'YES'.
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#23
Jesus and His Apostles didn't teach that Mary is "Queen over all things".

Luke 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (DR1899)

-> Catechism of the Catholic Church

(966) “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”


The virgin Mary being called Queen is simply a title given to her. The Catholic Church never claims that she has authority. For example, it has always been traditionally understood that when a King is in power over a nation, then his mother is always referred to as "Queen mother" even though she is not the official Queen of that nation in that she has authority over that nation. So if you believe Jesus is King of Kings, then you should not have any problem calling his mother by the term "Queen mother". Unless ofcourse you don't really believe Jesus is the King.
 
Last edited:

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#24
OK, so once again you are saying that doctrine is meaningless to you. You are saying that doctrine(The teachings of Jesus and his Apostles) "really doesn't matter" and that you "don't care" about people believing in the one true doctrines from God. So you think its OK for a Pentecostal to reject the Holy Trinity doctrine and instead embrace the Oneness false doctrine. I guess you are also OK with Mormons accepting Joseph Smith as being a prophet from God. I guess you are also OK with Jehovah Witnesses rejecting the fact that Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh.
I think you are confusing fringe pentecostals with the majority. Not all pentecostals believe in oneness which shows your ignorance and that you have no desire for true discussion. You are clearly trying to approach this from a 'catholics have the only true doctrine' approach. I'll just laugh as you get enough rope to hang yourself and probably get banned.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#25
The virgin Mary being called Queen is simply a title given to her. The Catholic Church never claims that she has authority. For example, it has always been traditionally understood that when a King is in power over a nation, then his mother is always referred to as "Queen mother" even though she is not the official Queen of that nation in that she has authority over that nation. So if you believe Jesus is King of Kings, then you should not have any problem calling his mother by the term "Queen mother". Unless ofcourse you don't really believe Jesus is the King.
Let's see how that reads in the Catechism then.

(966 EDIT 1.0.1) “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen Mother over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”

Is that the one true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles?

doctrine(The teachings of Jesus and his Apostles) "really doesn't matter" and that you "don't care" about people believing in the one true doctrines from God.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#26
1. No place does the Bible claim that all doctrines of the faith are only contained in Scripture.

2. You won't be able to show that any doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts what is taught in Scripture

3. I'm glad you at least realize Christ established a Church. Now the question to you is this, 'Did Jesus hand authority to Peter and his other Apostles over that Church that he established? Yes or No?' The answer for a Catholic would be 'YES'.
Sigh, what topic to pick....lol, there are so many. How do you justify forbidding priests to marry when the bible successfully prophesied that it was a false doctrine that would come to pass?

1 Timothy 4:1-3

"
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."



1 Timothy 3:2

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

It's clearly scriptural for a Bishop to marry, yet they are forbidden to do so. You can't explain that away at all unless you want to say the Catholic Church has the authority to change laws, create laws, or modify scripture anytime they please.

I love Catholics btw, I just loathe Catholicism. Christ is something everyone agrees on and that's the most important thing.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,958
113
#27
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? [SUP]18 [/SUP]The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? [SUP]0 [/SUP]Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched." Jer. 7:17-20

The Queen of Heaven was never Mary in the Bible, but rather a pagan goddess whom God condemned, as well as the people who worshiped and offered sacrifices to her.

I had a friend and her son was in a Catholic school. When the day came to offer up flowers to a statue of Mary, he asked me for a ride home. He knew it was pagan idolatry and he was in grade 6. One of those little Catholic ceremonies you don't hear very much about. I guess secret services are necessary because Mariology is so pagan?

As for the first pope being Peter, not so much.

"The Patriarch of Alexandria is the archbishop of Alexandria and Cairo, Egypt. Historically, this office has included the designation pope (etymologically "Father", like "Abbot"). The first bishop known to be called "Pope" was the thirteenth Patriarch of Alexandria, Papas Heraclas.The position at first was an episcopate, revered as one of the three oldest episcopates (with Rome and Antioch) several centuries before Jerusalem or Constantinople attained that status in 381 or 451; the five were subsequently known as the Pentarchy. It was elevated to de facto archiepiscopal status by the Alexandrine Council and regulated by the canon law of the First Ecumenical Council, which stipulated that all the Egyptian episcopal and metropolitan provinces were subject to the Metropolitan See of Alexandria (already the prevailing custom).

The word pope derives from the Greek πάππας, meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied (especially in the east) to all bishops and other senior clergy. In the west it began to be used particularly for the Bishop of Rome (rather than for bishops in general) in the sixth century; in 1075, Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration widely interpreted as stating this by-then-established convention. By the sixth century, this was also the normal practice in the imperial chancery of Constantinople.
The earliest record of this title was regarding Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (227–240) in a letter written by his successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon (a Roman presbyter):
τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.
This is translated:
I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas.
[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria

[/SUP]
 
Jan 6, 2014
991
27
0
#28
OK, so your opinion is that doctrine doesn't matter.




Anyone who claims to be a Christian and yet "protests" against Catholic teachings is by definition a "Protestant". If you don't believe me, then look it up in any dictionary and you'll see that I'm telling you the truth. So by you claiming that you are neither Catholic nor Protestant, then you are essentially claiming that you are not a Christian.
actually there are more christians than the ones you label catholic and protestant, actually there are seven branches of christianity, that is why Jesus spoke to the seven churches in the book of Revelation.
Just a thought.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,783
3,686
113
#29
The virgin Mary being called Queen is simply a title given to her. The Catholic Church never claims that she has authority. For example, it has always been traditionally understood that when a King is in power over a nation, then his mother is always referred to as "Queen mother" even though she is not the official Queen of that nation in that she has authority over that nation. So if you believe Jesus is King of Kings, then you should not have any problem calling his mother by the term "Queen mother". Unless ofcourse you don't really believe Jesus is the King.
That seems bogus.
Mary as us are a part of the new creation, the old natural ties don't exist...
2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
 
Jan 13, 2014
960
16
0
#30
There should be no debate
You should worship whomever you want

as for me and my house we will worship the Lord.
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#31
Sigh, what topic to pick....lol, there are so many. How do you justify forbidding priests to marry when the bible successfully prophesied that it was a false doctrine that would come to pass?

1 Timothy 4:1-3

"
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."



1 Timothy 3:2

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

It's clearly scriptural for a Bishop to marry, yet they are forbidden to do so. You can't explain that away at all unless you want to say the Catholic Church has the authority to change laws, create laws, or modify scripture anytime they please.

I love Catholics btw, I just loathe Catholicism. Christ is something everyone agrees on and that's the most important thing.
Innocent on Both Charges
Despite appearances, there are at least two central reasons these claims fail when held up to deeper scrutiny:
1. St. Paul was obviously not condemning consecrated celibacy in I Timothy 4, because in the very next chapter of this same letter, he instructed Timothy pastorally concerning the proper implementation of consecrated celibacy with regard to “enrolled” widows:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband . . . well attested for her good deeds. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-11).
There is nothing ordinarily wrong with a widow remarrying. St. Paul himself made clear in Romans 7:2-3:
[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she remarries another man she is not an adulterous.
Yet, the “widow” of I Timothy 5 is condemned if she remarries? In the words of Ricky Ricardo, St. Paul has some “splainin’ to do.”
The answer lies in the fact that the widow in question had been “enrolled,” which was a first-century equivalent to being “consecrated.” Thus, according to St. Paul, these “enrolled” widows were not only celibate but consecrated as such.
2. St. Paul was obviously not condemning the Church making abstinence from certain foods mandatory, because the Council of Jerusalem, of which St. Paul was a key participant in A.D. 49, did just that in declaring concerning Gentile converts:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that youabstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from bloodand from what is strangled and from unchastity (Acts 15:28).
This sounds just like "enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving." So there is obviously something more to I Timothy 4 than what one gets at first glance.
What Was St. Paul Actually Calling “Doctrines of Demons?”
In A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, the 1953 classic for Scripture study, Fr. R.J. Foster gives us crucial insight into what St. Paul was writing about in I Timothy 4:
ehind these prohibitions there may lie the dualistic principles which were already apparent in Asia Minor when this epistle was written and which were part of the Gnostic heresy.
Evidently, St. Paul was writing against what might be termed the founding fathers of the Gnostic movement that split away from the Church in the first century and would last over 1,000 years, forming many different sects and taking many different forms.
Generally speaking, Gnostics taught that spirit was good and matter was pure evil. We know some of them even taught there were two gods, or two “eternal principles,” that are the sources of all that is. There was a good principle, or god, who created all spirit, while an evil principle created the material world.
Moreover, we humans had a pre-human existence, according to the Gnostics, and were in perfect bliss as pure spirits dwelling in light and in the fullness of the “gnosis” or “knowledge.” Perfect bliss, that is, until our parents did something evil: They got married. Through the conjugal act perfectly pure spirits are snatched out of that perfect bliss and trapped in evil bodies, causing the darkening of the intellect and the loss of the fullness of the "gnosis." Thus, salvation would only come through the gaining, or regaining, of the “gnosis” that the Gnostics alone possessed.
Eating meat was also forbidden because its consumption would bring more evil matter into the body, having the effect of both keeping a person bound to his evil body and further darkening the intellect.
Thus, these early Gnostics forbade “marriage and enjoin[ed] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving.”
If there are any remaining doubts as to whom St. Paul was referring as teaching "doctrines of demons," he tips his hand in his final exhortation in I Timothy 6:20-21:
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely calledknowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith. Grace be with you.
The Greek word translated above as “knowledge” is gnoseos. Sound familiar? The bottom line is this: St. Paul was not condemning the Catholic Church in I Timothy 4; he was warning against early Gnostics who were leading Christians astray via their “gnosis,” which was notrue gnosis at all.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,539
113
#32
1. No place does the Bible claim that all doctrines of the faith are only contained in Scripture.
Come on...only the bible is inspired by God. Only the bible was affirmed by Christ while He walked on the earth. The bible is the only word that the Holy Spirit ministers through.
2. You won't be able to show that any doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts what is taught in Scripture
OK now you have overstepped the bounds of reason and intellect. There are biblical errors in the Catholic doctrine than we have time to illustrate. Ninety nine percent of the discussion with Catholics on these boards centers around Catholic teaching that relies more on traditions than on actual biblical doctrine. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory and the Catholic doctrine of the pope as vicar of Christ are two blatant examples of Catholic error. The doctrine of the pope speaking ex cathedra is another along with baptismal regeneration and salvation by works of grace received through the sacraments. I'm sick already. Heart sick for those poor souls indoctrinated into this foul system of superstition and corrupt teachings.
3. I'm glad you at least realize Christ established a Church. Now the question to you is this, 'Did Jesus hand authority to Peter and his other Apostles over that Church that he established? Yes or No?' The answer for a Catholic would be 'YES'.
Another prime example of sloppy, conveniently so, exegesis of the scriptures. The biblical answer is a resounding NO! Catholic doctrines cannot be reconciled to the bible. Virtually all of them have been perverted into something totally different from what Christ taught and what the apostles handed down to the disciples. Come out of her and come into the pure Light of the Lord. Touch not her unclean things and the Lord will receive you. Christ hath no fellowship with the unseemly things of the church of Belial or Rome if you prefer.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#33
Come on...only the bible is inspired by God. Only the bible was affirmed by Christ while He walked on the earth. The bible is the only word that the Holy Spirit ministers through.
You just made several claims, but wasn't able to back up any of them from the Bible itself. I challenge you to back up your claims by posting from the Bible itself where it says ....

1. "ONLY" the Bible is inspired by God
2. "ONLY" the Bible was affirmed by Christ
3. The Bible is the "ONLY" word that the Holy Spirit ministers through

In fact, the New Testament wasn't even written yet when Jesus walked the Earth. Did you not know that? So post your evidence from the Bible, but the word "ONLY" had better be in those Bible passages if you want anyone to take you seriously.



Also, I had asked you if Jesus gave authority to his 12 Apostles over the Church he originally established and your answer was,...
The biblical answer is a resounding NO!
So therefore you disagree with most of your own non-Catholic protestant community, since most protestants would have answered "YES". But since you answered "NO", then why bother reading the Bible since you believe Jesus' own Apostles did not have any authority as leaders of the Church Jesus established to teach the faith and impose disciplines upon the faithful? Even most protestants can see in Scripture that Jesus clearly gave authority to his 12 Apostles over the Church Jesus established, but apparently you are unable to see that fact.

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives his Apostle Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives his Apostle Peter authority on earth

Matt 18:18 - Jesus tells his 12 Apostles, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#34
....There are biblical errors in the Catholic doctrine than we have time to illustrate. Ninety nine percent of the discussion with Catholics on these boards centers around Catholic teaching that relies more on traditions than on actual biblical doctrine. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory and the Catholic doctrine of the pope as vicar of Christ are two blatant examples of Catholic error. The doctrine of the pope speaking ex cathedra is another along with baptismal regeneration and salvation by works of grace received through the sacraments. I'm sick already. Heart sick for those poor souls indoctrinated into this foul system of superstition and corrupt teachings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Why do you make claims against the Holy Catholic Church and yet are unable to back up your claims by posting the Scriptures? You cannot find even one verse from the Bible that says there is no Purgatory. Nor can you find any verse that says Peter was not the 1st Pope.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#35
Why do you make claims against the Holy Catholic Church and yet are unable to back up your claims by posting the Scriptures? You cannot find even one verse from the Bible that says there is no Purgatory. Nor can you find any verse that says Peter was not the 1st Pope.
I cant find a verse that says you are not a troll either.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
767
113
40
Australia
#36
Why do you make claims against the Holy Catholic Church and yet are unable to back up your claims by posting the Scriptures? You cannot find even one verse from the Bible that says there is no Purgatory. Nor can you find any verse that says Peter was not the 1st Pope.
What should the bible say about that then?
"In times to come there will be a group of people that say there is a place called purgatory, but there is not, be warned. They will also say Peter was the first pope but he was not the first pope."???

Seriously, the burden is not on us to disprove but for you to show us in scripture it is so.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#37
Why do you make claims against the Holy Catholic Church and yet are unable to back up your claims by posting the Scriptures? You cannot find even one verse from the Bible that says there is no Purgatory. Nor can you find any verse that says Peter was not the 1st Pope.
Jer 44:16-19 [As for] the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for [then] had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all [things], and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?


mary1.jpg
............
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#38
Jer 44:16-19 [As for] the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for [then] had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all [things], and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?


View attachment 70941
............
Praus, is that passage you posted referring to the virgin Mary? If not, then why did you post it? What point were you attempting to make?
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#39
What should the bible say about that then?
"In times to come there will be a group of people that say there is a place called purgatory, but there is not, be warned. They will also say Peter was the first pope but he was not the first pope."???

Seriously, the burden is not on us to disprove but for you to show us in scripture it is so.
Actually the burden is on you if you're going to make those claims. If you claim Catholic teachings contradict Scripture, and yet can't provide any Scripture to back up your claims, then you have no case. Simple as that.
 
Jan 27, 2014
18
0
0
#40
......the burden is.............for you to show us in scripture it is so.
We Catholics don't have to show you from Scripture because we are not "Bible Only" believers, but instead we believe in the Bible and in Oral Tradition. Unless of course you can show me in the Bible where it says all of the Christian faith is "ONLY" contained in the Bible. If you can find that passage in Scripture, then please post it. But you'll never find it, because it doesn't exists.