What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

[john]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I responded to this post-
Mike wrote:
Many prostestant minister are as educated if not more so than catholic priests.
How about:Inquistion, crusades, joan of arc,Galileo,slavery,WWII,silen cing of credible theologians"
Mike was being "nice", right?

In general forums about religion have a lot of hate.

[proudredneck]

What divides Catholics and everyone else ? the 'Pope'.

I wont kiss his ring, bow down before him or call him 'father'.

any more questions ?

[Dan]

proudredneck wrote:

What divides Catholics and everyone else ? the 'Pope'.
I wont kiss his ring, bow down before him or call him 'father'.
any more questions ?

Thank you for oversimplifyng the thread.

[Dan]

john wrote:

<quoted text>Apostolic succession is something we will never agree on.

Here's my major point on this John-

While you are a most noteworthy exception, the great majority of non-Catholics posting to these threads have absolutely no idea about what Catholics believe (i.e. the endless "why do you worship the Pope?", et. al.) nor the intellectual curiosity or inclination to inform themselves.

Having shown this lack of intellectual curiosity or inclination, they then turn right around and claim to understand every nuance of Scripture, to the point where they presume to lecture others about it.

These same people probably sit in a pew on Sunday listening to a minister teach or at least discuss Scripture without the slightest hesitataion, but will spend hours telling me and anyone else they can that the Bible alone is sufficient and admonshing Catholics for "submitting" (or whatever) to Church teaching versus simply reading the Bible.

Am I the only one who sees this as more than a bit inconsistent?

[Mike]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I responded to this post-
Mike wrote:
Many prostestant minister are as educated if not more so than catholic priests.
How about:Inquistion, crusades, joan of arc,Galileo,slavery,WWII,silen cing of credible theologians"
Mike was being "nice", right?

No, Mike was sticking to the topic of this thread.

[Dan]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's my major point on this John-
While you are a most noteworthy exception, the great majority of non-Catholics posting to these threads have absolutely no idea about what Catholics believe (i.e. the endless "why do you worship the Pope?", et. al.) nor the intellectual curiosity or inclination to inform themselves.
Having shown this lack of intellectual curiosity or inclination, they then turn right around and claim to understand every nuance of Scripture, to the point where they presume to lecture others about it.
These same people probably sit in a pew on Sunday listening to a minister teach or at least discuss Scripture without the slightest hesitataion, but will spend hours telling me and anyone else they can that the Bible alone is sufficient and admonshing Catholics for "submitting" (or whatever) to Church teaching versus simply reading the Bible.
Am I the only one who sees this as more than a bit inconsistent?

The other huge inconsistency is this: countless posts have been made lately that whale away at Catholics for being sheep, following what the Pope says, etc.

Every single Protestant denomination can be traced to the biblical interpretation of one man (the founder of the denomination). If you are a Lutheran or a Calvinist, they even used his name.

Protestants are more than willing to trace their belief system back to whoever that one man was (Luther, Wesley, pick one out), but Catholics are the ones who ae subjugating themselves or are the "sheep" and are "blinded by Church teaching" over 2,000 years.

Again, what am I missing here?

[Evie]

To me it is the intolerance of the Catholic hierarchy to their own obsolesence. That is what divides the roman catholic cult from christendom.

[Dan]

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Mike was sticking to the topic of this thread.

Must have missed it. Rattling off historical events that cast the Catholic Church in a bad light don't deveelop the topic unless it's your assertion that Protestants are somehow above the fray as it pertains to the evils of men.

[Hijacked Journalism]

Oranized religion is bunk no matter what form it's in. Sheeple blindly following some doctrine created by a bunch of imperfect humans....great.

[ShoresBlogger]

Evie wrote:

To me it is the intolerance of the Catholic hierarchy to their own obsolesence. That is what divides the roman catholic cult from christendom.

Cult? I certainly hope you are not christian? Because that remark may be cause for eternal damnation.

[AnthonyMN]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Anthony-
While the Bible was not printed in ANY language for centuries past the death of Christ, this doesn't stop Protestants from assuming their "Bible alone" beliefs, which effectively makes the start of Christianity dependent upon the invention of the printing press and the establishment of universal literacy.

Correct Dan,

Very few "bible only" protestants have been able to support their position. Bible only is un-biblical.

[ShoresBlogger]

Hijacked Journalism wrote:

Oranized religion is bunk no matter what form it's in. Sheeple blindly following some doctrine created by a bunch of imperfect humans....great.

Favorite Things:
God, Family, Money
On My Mind:
God, Family, Friends
I Believe In:
God etc

I see God comes first for you. The question I have is ...How would you have received the word of God if not for organized religion?

[Logical Butterfly]

ShoresBlogger wrote:

<quoted text>
Favorite Things:
God, Family, Money
On My Mind:
God, Family, Friends
I Believe In:
God etc
I see God comes first for you. The question I have is ...How would you have received the word of God if not for organized religion?

By reading the bible. People are allowed to buy or get a bible and read it without having a religion. Religion doesn't save you...what your heart says, saves you or does away with you. Go toward the light.

[Logical Butterfly]

Hijacked Journalism wrote:

Oranized religion is bunk no matter what form it's in. Sheeple blindly following some doctrine created by a bunch of imperfect humans....great.

i will have to agree 100% with that statement. Oh and by the way-I love JAY Z too.

[Logical Butterfly]

john wrote:

<quoted text>In general forums about religion have a lot of hate.

I noticed that John. Whats up with that? I came in here thinking I would talk to all real nice people.

[Logical Butterfly]

ShoresBlogger wrote:

<quoted text>Cult? I certainly hope you are not christian? Because that remark may be cause for eternal damnation.

Sorry, as much as you want it to, one remark would not cause eternal damnation if you know my GOD.

[Mike]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Must have missed it. Rattling off historical events that cast the Catholic Church in a bad light don't deveelop the topic unless it's your assertion that Protestants are somehow above the fray as it pertains to the evils of men.

If you can't stand the heat...or don't understand the topic, ask for help. My incomplete list consist of things I think add to the separation of Protestants and Catholics. No mention of evils, it is what it is, pal.

[Ralph Marlow]

Wayne wrote:

I'll only list a few particulars.
Transubstantiation= the belief that while taking the communion the cookie and wine become the physical, actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
Calling the pope holy father while scripture is plain in telling us to call NO MAN our father.
Mariolatry, or the worship and veneration of Mary. They say they don't but try to get them to give up their rosary beads and quit saying the hail Marys.
Praying to Mary to ask her to mediate between them and her Son, Jesus Christ to gain favor for them. It is plain there is only ONE Mediator between God and man and that IS Jesus Christ, not Mary.
There are many, many more.

Couldn't agree with you more. the VA has to cover up the cross in the chapel but bush treats the pope like God, that is hipocrite to the highest degree

[Dan]

AnthonyMN wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct Dan,
Very few "bible only" protestants have been able to support their position. Bible only is un-biblical.

They don't have to necessarily support their position to me, but the logic seems circular, as the Bible never references itself to be the sole means for Salvation (the canon of the bible did not exist at the time of the scriptures).

[Minnesota Mary]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's my major point on this John-
While you are a most noteworthy exception, the great majority of non-Catholics posting to these threads have absolutely no idea about what Catholics believe (i.e. the endless "why do you worship the Pope?", et. al.) nor the intellectual curiosity or inclination to inform themselves.
Having shown this lack of intellectual curiosity or inclination, they then turn right around and claim to understand every nuance of Scripture, to the point where they presume to lecture others about it.
These same people probably sit in a pew on Sunday listening to a minister teach or at least discuss Scripture without the slightest hesitataion, but will spend hours telling me and anyone else they can that the Bible alone is sufficient and admonshing Catholics for "submitting" (or whatever) to Church teaching versus simply reading the Bible.
Am I the only one who sees this as more than a bit inconsistent?

Dan, you have hit the nail right on the head! MM