What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

There are 84619 comments on the www.christianpost.com story from Apr 19, 2008, titled What Divides Catholics and Protestants?. In it, www.christianpost.com reports that:

As Pope Benedict XVI continues with his highly publicized visit to the United States, some may wonder what the major differences are between Catholicism and Protestantism - the two main Christian bodies in the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.christianpost.com.

barry

Henagar, AL

#82583 Aug 30, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon. I hope you and yours are doing well.
That was quite a long discussion you guys had. Nijoni disappeared for three hours. What were y'all talking about? Dispensationalism? What's that?
hey dali, you might want to go back and read them. they certainly are more entertaining and profitable then some of the previous trash that has been on here.
barry

Henagar, AL

#82584 Aug 30, 2012
servant wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
I wasn't talking about Abraham's grandfather. I was talking about his grandfather's descendants living in the land at that time Abraham went to Hebron. This should also tell you why I was using Numbers 26 as evidence ( hence: Heberites and Hebronites.) I thought I was clear about that. But anyway this is why we are told that arguments of genealogies are useless. Last time I'm responding. Go do your homework.
.
.
keep tap dancing. you claimed that there were no hebrews during abrams time. you were wrong. you claimed that heber was abrams uncle. you were wrong. you claimed that the clanS of ashur and levi were hberites. you were wrong. now you are trying to claim that you were drawing some kind of relationship or whatever between the heberites and the hebronites. good luck with that one.

btw you are also wrong with your fixation on the vine being israel.
barry

Henagar, AL

#82585 Aug 30, 2012
servant wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
Well, let's see who's playing games.
.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
When you start getting comments like this you know they're about to change direction of the conversation. Let's see?
.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
How did I know you'd change the direction. Remember your question in post # 82493. You were asking if I thought Noah was a gentile or Hebrew (Israelite). And I thought it was clear also that we were talking about the culture from which Abraham came. We weren't talking about Abraham nor those who came after him. You're the one playing games my friend.
.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
And you're just bitter because I used evidence and you had to change the direction of the conversation. I'm done here. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over genealogy. There are more important things to discuss . Have a good day.
.
.
oh, this is good. this is the only defense that you have for your erroneous statements?
i{m playing games?
i changed directions?

you made this statement,
"Originally there were only two types of people on earth. People were either in the Israelite camp or in the Pagan camp."
so i asked which noah was in? instead of offering a simple explanation you responded with the comment about there not being hebrews in the days of noah and abram.

you were the one who referenced geneology to try and prove your point about heber being the source of the term hebrew which even by your effort proves that abram was a hebrew and perhaps others also. however if that was the case heber was born aprox 225 years before abram and was still probably alive another 200+ years after abrams birth perhaps out living abraham.
too bad that the evidence did not support your theory.

next time research your facts beyond regurgitating what you heard in some seminar or one of your cds
ITB

Philadelphia, PA

#82586 Aug 30, 2012
Oxbow wrote:
539
<quoted text>
"How much more primary can you get on Catholic beliefs/teachings than the CC itself?"
It depends...last I looked, not all of the teachings therein are based on Scripture..
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches a creed that no one knows whom wrote it!!!!
Go back to sleep. You aren't even on the same page with this discussion.

I wrote.....

"How much more primary can you get on Catholic beliefs/teachings than the CC itself?"

I was referring to getting information about the Catholic Church, her teachings and beliefs, from the Catholic Church itself...not some ant-Catholic site.

If you want to know what the Catholic creed states, and what it is based on according to the CC, then anyone with an ounce of brains would know that they would get the accurate information they are seeking from the Catholic Encyclopedia and not from some anti-Catholic web site.

This is not about what you believe...it is about where to find accurate information about the CC.

Do you understand the "conversation" now? Too bad you didn't figure it out BEFORE you put your moronic two cents in.
ITB

Philadelphia, PA

#82587 Aug 30, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the point is still the same. i was only responding to the accusation that all other churches-denominations do the same thing. however there is no evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to cover up and transfer corrupt ministers in , i would say, most of the other denominations let alone your so called small congregations.
and your comparison of families in a school district with members of a church... well i guess it fits perfectly with the CC. the people in the CC have no authority and are ruled by a hierarchy which then is corrupted by politics. that would be nicolaitinism where the people are conquered.
So, IOW, you're the only one allowed to make blanket statements and get away with it?

Again, how do you know? You don't. You're making a blanket statement that you have no actual facts to back up. It is your opinion based solely on ignorance of the inner workings of all those other churches.

You know about what went on in the CC because it was all over the news. Did you know it was going on before the scandal broke? I didn't and I'm a Catholic. Before it was all over the news? And why was it all over the news? It was all over the news because the CC is one, large "organization" with billions of members, thousands of parishes, thousands of priests under one authority... Look how many years the cover up of child molestation went on at Penn State U before anyone knew about it.

Ahha...you finally realized that the CC is over 2000 years old with a membership in the billions, and that's just in the present, not even taking into account all Catholics down through the ages. It's been based on the same hierarchy system for all those years and it's still here and still going strong.

When your little autonomous Independent Baptist church of 300 has been in existence for over 2000 years, then maybe you can toot its horn, until then, don't make me laugh. The CC hasn't fallen yet and it won't. The ECF condemned Nicolaism, they didn't condemn the CC, stop making yourself look stupid.
servant

Mérida, Mexico

#82588 Aug 30, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
next time research your facts beyond regurgitating what you heard in some seminar or one of your cds
.

.

Here we go again. Let's get this part out the way before I continue. Instead of asking me a question so we can have a genuine conversation you'd rather tell me how smart I'm not. I seen your other post too. Thanks Teacher. Not a good look especially when you've shown no evidence for your claims.
.

.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
oh, this is good. this is the only defense that you have for your erroneous statements?
i{m playing games?
i changed directions?
you made this statement,
"Originally there were only two types of people on earth. People were either in the Israelite camp or in the Pagan camp."
so i asked which noah was in? instead of offering a simple explanation you responded with the comment about there not being hebrews in the days of noah and abram.
you were the one who referenced geneology to try and prove your point about heber being the source of the term hebrew which even by your effort proves that abram was a hebrew and perhaps others also. however if that was the case heber was born aprox 225 years before abram and was still probably alive another 200+ years after abrams birth perhaps out living abraham.
too bad that the evidence did not support your theory.
.

.

Barry,Barry, Barry. Yes, we know Abram's great (5x) grandfather Heber lived 430 years, but show us in Scripture of Heber being 225 years before Abram's birth and alive another 200 + years after his birth. I even love the word you used "probably". And you accuse me of theories. And by the way, you have yet to show me any evidence of their being Hebrews or Israelites before Abram.

.

.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#82590 Aug 30, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>hey dali, you might want to go back and read them. they certainly are more entertaining and profitable then some of the previous trash that has been on here.
Thanks but I think I'll pass. I'm glad you guys had a good time.
Dispensationalism looks like a lot of fun but I've got my own salvation strategy to work on.

We know not the day nor the hour so we must remain vigilant and prepared for the return of the Lord.

That, by the way, was this evening's Gospel, Matthew 24.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#82591 Aug 30, 2012
servant wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
Here we go again. Let's get this part out the way before I continue. Instead of asking me a question so we can have a genuine conversation you'd rather tell me how smart I'm not. I seen your other post too. Thanks Teacher. Not a good look especially when you've shown no evidence for your claims.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
Barry,Barry, Barry. Yes, we know Abram's great (5x) grandfather Heber lived 430 years, but show us in Scripture of Heber being 225 years before Abram's birth and alive another 200 + years after his birth. I even love the word you used "probably". And you accuse me of theories. And by the way, you have yet to show me any evidence of their being Hebrews or Israelites before Abram.
.
.
Good evening.

We adored the incarnate Lord on display in the monstrance for about a half hour after Mass in song and prayer. Burn on you.

God bless you.
Reality

Madison, WI

#82592 Aug 30, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks but I think I'll pass. I'm glad you guys had a good time.
Dispensationalism looks like a lot of fun but I've got my own salvation strategy to work on.
We know not the day nor the hour so we must remain vigilant and prepared for the return of the Lord.
That, by the way, was this evening's Gospel, Matthew 24.
I to have been contemplating my own salvation.......... It seems that a 10% tithe is good, therefore I have chosen a 20% tithe in hopes that I will sit at the Right hand of Jesus, Lord knows I don't want the left hand.

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#82593 Aug 30, 2012
Funny, Did MRSmurphy have a coronary? Just disappeared after ITB showed back up....
<snicker>

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#82594 Aug 30, 2012
Nijoni wrote:
Funny, Did MRSmurphy have a coronary? Just disappeared after ITB showed back up....
<snicker>
We are all together on another thread.
Do try to keep up, hon.

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#82595 Aug 30, 2012
I have been praying for years that the RCC would get caught in it's sins. They have. But the Sheeple won't hear the voice of God. Regardless.

Hard to pity their judgement. They will be shaking hands and feasting with the Beast as well.
Backstabbing, turning in believers,etc.....
ITB

Philadelphia, PA

#82596 Aug 30, 2012
Nijoni wrote:
Funny, Did MRSmurphy have a coronary? Just disappeared after ITB showed back up....
<snicker>
Paranoid much?

Funny how nijoni shows up after native disappears.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82597 Aug 30, 2012
539
ITB wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back to sleep. You aren't even on the same page with this discussion.
I wrote.....
"How much more primary can you get on Catholic beliefs/teachings than the CC itself?"
I was referring to getting information about the Catholic Church, her teachings and beliefs, from the Catholic Church itself...not some ant-Catholic site.
If you want to know what the Catholic creed states, and what it is based on according to the CC, then anyone with an ounce of brains would know that they would get the accurate information they are seeking from the Catholic Encyclopedia and not from some anti-Catholic web site.
This is not about what you believe...it is about where to find accurate information about the CC.
Do you understand the "conversation" now? Too bad you didn't figure it out BEFORE you put your moronic two cents in.
This is not from some anti-Catholic web site. Any Bible you use will verify my words. Quote: It depends...last I looked, not all of the teachings therein are based on Scripture..

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not on some anti-Catholic web site!!!!!

The crotch fumes are getting to you....come up for air!!!!

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#82599 Aug 30, 2012
ITB wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoid much?
Funny how nijoni shows up after native disappears.
You will burn in hell for all your lies, if nothing else.
We have been posting at the same time often. Unlike your MrsMurphy who leaves all the posts and questions unanswered.
For you to then come in....yeah, you are just so smart..ITB..<sarcasm>

Hypocritte and LIE much? Besides every time your mouth is open that is.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82600 Aug 30, 2012
539
ITB wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back to sleep. You aren't even on the same page with this discussion.
I wrote.....
"How much more primary can you get on Catholic beliefs/teachings than the CC itself?"
I was referring to getting information about the Catholic Church, her teachings and beliefs, from the Catholic Church itself...not some ant-Catholic site.
If you want to know what the Catholic creed states, and what it is based on according to the CC, then anyone with an ounce of brains would know that they would get the accurate information they are seeking from the Catholic Encyclopedia and not from some anti-Catholic web site.
This is not about what you believe...it is about where to find accurate information about the CC.
Do you understand the "conversation" now? Too bad you didn't figure it out BEFORE you put your moronic two cents in.
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

The Greek word for "blood" is haima and is defined as: blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood.

His actual blood could not have been in that cup...Christ was alive and well at that time.

"Wine" is not a definition of "haima" in this Scripture...so wine could not have actually been in that cup.

It had to be grape juice (fruit of the vine) in the cup....which is a teaching of the SBC...

The erroneous teaching that the Catholic priest has the power, or the power is given to him, to turn wine into blood, is coming from the Vatican and is not supported by Scripture...no priest has ever become an alcholic from drinking the blood of Christ!!!!!

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#82601 Aug 30, 2012
Oxbow wrote:
539
<quoted text>
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
The Greek word for "blood" is haima and is defined as: blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood.
His actual blood could not have been in that cup...Christ was alive and well at that time.
"Wine" is not a definition of "haima" in this Scripture...so wine could not have actually been in that cup.
It had to be grape juice (fruit of the vine) in the cup....which is a teaching of the SBC...
The erroneous teaching that the Catholic priest has the power, or the power is given to him, to turn wine into blood, is coming from the Vatican and is not supported by Scripture...no priest has ever become an alcholic from drinking the blood of Christ!!!!!
Eucharistic Cannibalism

Question: Non-Catholics and Catholics I know say if we believe in the true eucharistic presence of Christ as Body and Blood, we are like cannibals when we receive Communion.

Answer: It is understandable that (through misinformation) some non-Catholics might think that Catholics hold a cannibalistic understanding of the Eucharist. However, that Catholics themselves would think this is surprising, and it indicates a serious lack of an adequate understanding of eucharistic presence.

The charge of eucharistic cannibalism has been made from the earliest days of Christianity. The Church has always refuted the notion by insisting that "body" and "blood" in the Eucharist do not correspond to actual meat and blood as we understand these in everyday life. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of "bleeding hosts," of images of Christ crucified appearing in the host, or of bread that turns into flesh after the consecration.

To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Spirit the bread and wine, while remaining in appearance bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is in no way to play down the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole person of the risen Christ.

The Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ’s body and blood are cannibalized in eucharistic communion.
http://www.osv.com/OSV4MeNav/Sacraments/TheEu...

The biblical foundation for Holy Communion is what Christ Himself did at the Last Supper. As narrated by St. Matthew, Jesus first offered the apostles what He was about to change, then changed the bread and wine, and then gave them Communion.

And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to His disciples and said, "Take you and eat, this is my Body." And taking the chalice He gave thanks and gave it to them saying, "Drink you all of this. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holyc...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82602 Aug 30, 2012
539
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Eucharistic Cannibalism
Question: Non-Catholics and Catholics I know say if we believe in the true eucharistic presence of Christ as Body and Blood, we are like cannibals when we receive Communion.
Answer: It is understandable that (through misinformation) some non-Catholics might think that Catholics hold a cannibalistic understanding of the Eucharist. However, that Catholics themselves would think this is surprising, and it indicates a serious lack of an adequate understanding of eucharistic presence.
The charge of eucharistic cannibalism has been made from the earliest days of Christianity. The Church has always refuted the notion by insisting that "body" and "blood" in the Eucharist do not correspond to actual meat and blood as we understand these in everyday life. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of "bleeding hosts," of images of Christ crucified appearing in the host, or of bread that turns into flesh after the consecration.
To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Spirit the bread and wine, while remaining in appearance bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is in no way to play down the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole person of the risen Christ.
The Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ’s body and blood are cannibalized in eucharistic communion.
http://www.osv.com/OSV4MeNav/Sacraments/TheEu...
The biblical foundation for Holy Communion is what Christ Himself did at the Last Supper. As narrated by St. Matthew, Jesus first offered the apostles what He was about to change, then changed the bread and wine, and then gave them Communion.
And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to His disciples and said, "Take you and eat, this is my Body." And taking the chalice He gave thanks and gave it to them saying, "Drink you all of this. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holyc...
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
The Greek word for "blood" is haima and is defined as: blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood.
His actual blood could not have been in that cup...Christ was alive and well at that time.
"Wine" is not a definition of "haima" in this Scripture...so wine could not have actually been in that cup.
It had to be grape juice (fruit of the vine) in the cup....which is a teaching of the SBC...
The erroneous teaching that the Catholic priest has the power, or the power is given to him, to turn wine into blood, is coming from the Vatican and is not supported by Scripture...no priest has ever become an alcholic from drinking the blood of Christ!!!!!

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#82603 Aug 30, 2012
Oxbow wrote:
539
<quoted text>
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
The Greek word for "blood" is haima and is defined as: blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood.
His actual blood could not have been in that cup...Christ was alive and well at that time.
"Wine" is not a definition of "haima" in this Scripture...so wine could not have actually been in that cup.
It had to be grape juice (fruit of the vine) in the cup....which is a teaching of the SBC...
The erroneous teaching that the Catholic priest has the power, or the power is given to him, to turn wine into blood, is coming from the Vatican and is not supported by Scripture...no priest has ever become an alcholic from drinking the blood of Christ!!!!!
As narrated by St. Matthew, Jesus first offered the apostles what He was about to change, then changed the bread and wine, and then gave them Communion.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82604 Aug 30, 2012
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>As narrated by St. Matthew, Jesus first offered the apostles what He was about to change, then changed the bread and wine, and then gave them Communion.
I showed you why and how this never could have happened...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 3 min So Sad 2,401
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 199,407
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min My New Alias RULES 1,395,811
News Mega Millions Winning Numbers Unmatched as Jack... (Mar '11) 10 min Cherry Girls 21
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 12 min Denny CranesPlace 6,651
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Rogue Scholar 05 216,882
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min Fit2Serve 388,257
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 16 min Denny CranesPlace 1,209
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Limbertwig 228,688
More from around the web