The 10 Differences Between Catholics & Protestants (A funny perspective poking fun at both Catholics and Protestants, written by David Dulin) (FYI: a "Protestant" can be defined as any Christian who is not a Catholic.) - - - -

I've been studying the differences between Catholics and Protestants for quite some time. And the following list is the most accurate description of their differences on this planet. - D. Dulin .....

1. Catholics kneel in church; Protestants do not kneel because they have bad knees. 2. Catholics like to light as many candles as possible; Protestants are a bit more conscious of fire-safety. 3. Catholics attend church every Sunday; Protestants take off Sundays during the football season. 4. Catholic priests dress up in costumes; Protestant ministers are more fashion-sensitive. 5. Catholics promote chastity before marriage; Protestants promote the hush-hush policy on sex. 6. Catholics seek aid from the Saints; Protestants are stuck with each other. 7. Catholics are artistic innovators; Protestants are culinary experts. 8. Catholics receive Communion; Protestants are on a diet. 9. Catholics laugh at themselves; Protestants laugh at Catholics. 10. Catholics will go to heaven; Protestants will go to Disney World.

-- David Dulin (ddulin@hotpop.com), December 05, 2003

Answers

I dont think that is funny! But we Lutherans DO have world famous pot lucks! :D

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

One other difference. Catholics love MaloDrama. Protestants prefer simple services.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 05, 2003.

There is no maldrama in Catholic Masses. Most symbolism is descended from the Old Testament such as vestements, thuribill, candles, etc.

If you had seen how David danced when the Ark of the Covenant passed, would you call him 'malodramatic'.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

"I've been studying the differences between Catholics and Protestants for quite some time. And the following list is the most accurate description of their differences on this planet. - D. Dulin ..... "

If you've been studying and this is the best you can come up with, then go back to studying until you understand better.

These are neither funny nor accurate

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.

i thought they were hilarious... see, number nine is right. us catholics can laugh about a good joke directed, yes, even at ourselves. why are you protestants so offended? its obviously just meant to be funny. i truly doubt the person studied for years to come up with this joke, so "non catholic christian" let me recommend not having a heart attack over a humorous statement.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

Yes, "non-Catholic Christian", don't be upset. The list was meant as a joke. But all humor is half truth. Besides, we need to get over our fear of making fun of religion. For some reason religion is sort of "off-limits" when it comes to humor. And I ask: Why? It's man- made. Peace and God bless. ~

-- David Dulin (ddulin@hotpop.com), December 05, 2003.

And I ask: Why? It's man- made.

mr dulin, as one who claims to be catholic you should know that our faith was founded by Jesus upon peter, the rock, and is NOT man made. but even the fact that protestant traditions are man made is not what makes religious so often humorous... its because God has a sense of humor too...

ever look at a giraffe? what did God think when he designed that? i mean, its a spotted horse, with a really long neck, and a purple tongue.... or look at the duckbilled platipus, no comment even necessary. i think thats God's way of telling us its okay to be a little corny.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

I thought it was funny.

Although from a serious perspective, in my church we kneel. Plus Redskins games usualy don't start till around 2 or 3, and church gets over by noon (and for the games that start early, I have Tivo!). We have communion in my church, too.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

I wasn't offended. I just didn't see anything clever or funny about them - probably because they missing the "half-truth" factor.

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.

Paul h,

I think giraffes and duck-billed platypuses are God's way of saying: "Ain't evolution a b*tch?"

(Censored for the faint of heart.)

-- Yoyo Ma (spitshine@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

paul h- check your theology, babe! The doctrine of the INCARNATION claims that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine...so technically, our faith (Catholicism) is man-made as much as it's divinely created. let's not even mention the fact that as much as we claim jesus founded the faith, people have been living and breathing it for 2000 years- so our interpretations and cultures and prayers in a sense continually recreate it. But that's not bad. It's proof that the holy spirit is still at work. Blessings & Happy Advent, everyone! ps- has anyone seen eddie izzard's bit on christianity? it's hilarious and applies to both catholic & protestants!

-- re (beccahp@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

I wasnt upset, I was adding to the list. It was meant as comedic addition, not serious remarkl.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 09, 2003.

yeah, and what about the people who are seriously doing a world religions project on the differences between Catholics and everybody else?

(and THIS is the first thing that comes up in the search engine? )

-- non-christian person (white_shining_angel@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Sorry.

-- zarove (zaroff3@juno.com), December 10, 2003.

I thought it was horrible!!! I come from a Lutheran Church and I really thought that those were not accurate. Check your facts before spilling it over the net. I know you meant it as a joke but still don't joke about religion. Don't forget God's looking at this ok. Don't go dissing Lutherans you've got it all wrong. I don't even know how you came up with some of this stuff.

-- Heather (don'temailme@msn.com), December 21, 2003.

Did we diss Lutherans here? I looked at all the posts and I can't figure out the offensive part.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.

"diss" ???

What is that? It is not in my dictionary. Is it a slang, shortened form of another word?

-- (??@??.com), December 23, 2003.

see: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dis

slang : to treat with disrespect or contempt

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.

i think its pretty good actually n its only a feckin joke heather lighten up a bit eh even if god is watchin us who cares he'll probably think its pretty funny aswell n i didnt see them dissin lutherans either so seriously take a chill pill or sumin babe!

-- david crombie (rangers_rule1873@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.

Perhaps it would seem funnier to Protestants if statements such as

"10. Catholics will go to heaven; Protestants will go to Disney World."

were changed to

"10. Protestants will go to Disney World. Catholics are too busy playing bingo."

or something along those lines.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 23, 2003.

OK, let's try that again the way I intended . . .

Perhaps it would seem funnier to Protestants if statements such as

"10. Catholics will go to heaven; Protestants will go to Disney World."

were changed to

"10. Protestants will go to heaven. Catholics are too busy playing bingo."

or something along those lines.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 23, 2003.

dave, you fit this difference perfectly:

9. Catholics laugh at themselves; Protestants laugh at Catholics.

the joke is from a catholic perspective, not protestant, so why would we claim that catholics are too busy to go to heaven? lighten up a bit and just accept the fact that its a VERY minor protestant slight in a world where political correctness means trashing the catholic church and no others...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 23, 2003.

I was just providing an illustration to demonstrate how easily jokes can step on toes . . . thanks for completing the demonstration.

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 24, 2003.

Thanks, Bill, for pointing me to that online dictionary. I see why I didn't understand. First, it's a recent (1986) slang term, made up by people too lazy to say three syllables (disrespect), and I don't keep up on recent slang. Second, the other person misspelled the term as "diss," which provided no hint that it is derived from "disrespect."

-- (??@??.com), December 24, 2003.

The list is really funny, man, good work. Everyone else needs to lighten up, though.

-- Dave (daveflutie@hotmail.com), December 24, 2003.

Hi..I was raised catholic..but eight grade of catholic grammer school..we did a play...jesus christ supperstar...at the same time..sister fayda...real crazy..upbeat nun..got filled with the holy spirit...in religion class..she got us into the living bible..dont remember much more...but as I was behine the curtian waiting to come out as a priest in the play...I was over come by the power of god..my friend the lighting guy of the play..said my eyes were gloying...time passed...my relaatives in nj move to texas..and all became bornagain christians...I went to visit...they were all aliitle strange..but it was good thing....I found my self...asing who is god...and do I beleve in god....I was searching..I end up at a rev moon meetings....for a while in queens..it was nice..till I told sister fady...she was not happy...anyway...I want back..as i was in one of the meetings..god told me to leave..and I ran out..literly....well...i was walking around central park...i ended up at a jesus freak rock concert...run by church of the nazerane...well...one thing lead to the next...i was in a basement pray meeting ...and we were singing and in the mist of the song..i was over come by the power of the holy spirit..and if i did not get saved..behine the curtain in the play..then I was saved in the mist of the song..and i have never been the same...till....I got filled with the holy sprit and stared speaking in tongues...and then and know I move in wind and breath of lord...in all that i do.

-- anthony spada (nyc4christ@aol.com), January 03, 2004.

Why doesn't everyone just smile and let it go? It was a joke! All that has been demonstrated here is that everyone spends more time bickering than praying!!!!! Can you imagine if Wars were started over such petty things? Oh wait.......they are!!!!!!

-- Jackie (JDawany@hotmail.com), January 06, 2004.

Yep. This entire chain has been pretty funny to read over time. I really needed all the laughs, thanks everyone!

-- David Dulin (ddulin@hotpop.com), January 06, 2004.

it does show how computers are another one of those distractions in life and how we could be praying to God rather than fighting about something as stupid as this the most important thing is Love (remembering that God is love)

-- jenny (charliepro404@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.

That was funny!

And for anyone who was affended, who cares? It's just a joke. Catholics get dissed a lot more than Protestents do and we just manage to laugh it off. And not to mention that Jack Chick guy who is constantly brain washing people into thinking Catholics are evil.

Yes, one day we will take over the world. *note the sarcasm*

Blessings, and try to lay back a little, Kat

-- Kat Carbrey (milkyway@enter.net), February 15, 2004.

7. ... Protestants are culinary experts.

Yeah right, tell that to the French Catholics and the Italian Catholics and the Spanish Catholics ... they will look at you with great indignation.

-- (King@Louis.XIV), February 16, 2004.

Just wanted to mention that "diss" is not a wrong spelling. It is a variant spelling of "dis" and actually the one most accepted in word games.

-- Observer (JustLooking@TheComments.com), February 16, 2004.

In the 80s when S$%^ Happens was a mantra I saw T shirsts with religious logos on them.

Catholicism: S$%^ happens because you deserve it.

Protestantism: Let s$%^ happen to someone else.

As a protestant living with a catholic wife and 3 catholic sons and now converting to the catholic faith I can see the truth in these statements from both sides.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

david, as a catholic, i much rather prefer the saying "justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is not getting what you deserve, and grace is getting what you dont deserve"

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 16, 2004.

As a catholic, I have to say that (altough I don't want to offend anyone) Catholicism is the only (with the possible exception of the Greek orthodox church) way the Bible should be intrepeted.

this is a historical dispute; protestantism emerged from Martin Luther! (which was somewhere in the 1500's ?)-correct me if i'm wrong on the date.

but the catholic faith IS the Christian faith; in my view (call me narrow minded , I know I am ;-) ) there's no other correct (both historically and Religiously) way of intrepeting the Bible, other than through Catholicism or through the Intrepetation of the Greek orthodox Church.

Catholcisim or greek orhodoxism are the only correct way of Intrepetng the Bible I think, they are both historically correct and realistic.

Is there anyone who disagrees with me , IF so please come up with CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS and not with something like "you catholics are all the same blabla".

I would appreciate the response! Ali Sitar.

-- ali Sitar (Ali.shortan@Hotmail.com), February 28, 2004.

Hi Ali, My name is kyle. I live, breath, operate, and preach, APOSTALIC DOCTRINE. And that is the only doctrine the bible tells us to live by. it doesnt matter what church you go to, as long as they believe in apostalic doctrine. the apostalic doctrine was started by Jesus himself. correct me if im wrong, but this is the way jesus taught his apostles, and his apostles were to teach the whole world this doctrine. jesus said himself "on this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail." and that rock is apostalic doctrine. now, i dont know too much about catholic doctrine, but you know what, who cares. if the catholic church believes what Jesus taught, that is the apostolic doctrine, then right on brother. by the way, just in case your wonderin, the apostolic doctrine is, and i quote from the books of ACTs "Be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

-- kyle (buckweet0684@aol.com), March 01, 2004.

kyle, stay with this forum. you have a lot to learn!

-- peter (speter_88@aol.com), March 02, 2004.

Kyle,

Have you ever considered the question: How can hundreds of different churches all be teaching apostolic doctrine when the doctrines they teach conflict with one another? Seems like it is very important indeed which church you belong to, since conflicting doctrines cannot be true, and Jesus said the TRUTH would set us free.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 02, 2004.

Just thought you all should know that I am a Lutheran, researching and trying to interept the differences between my current beliefs and that of the catholics. Although I did not think my "search result" was very funny, I don't believe it was offensive to anyone. I was however, offended or shocked at all the hostility both catholics and non catholics had over a simple attempt to be funny. After trying to get some serious facts on the two religons, I was dissappointed in the replys.

-- Kelly (kelly9@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

Kelly,

Truth disappointed Satan.

Christian Truth disappointed the Jews.

Catholic Truth disappointed the Protestants.

-- (W@y.+), March 08, 2004.

Kelly,
I am not sure what facts you are after. Spell out your questions and we can respond.

Best to place each question in a separate thread, otherwise the threads get too convoluted.

Warning: If your intent is to preach here, you have come to the wrong place and you will be shouted down. It your intent is to discover and edify yourself, you have come to the right place.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 08, 2004.

Point well taken about dissapointment....I was just truly frustrated at the time to see so much energy being devoted to "arguing" about a joke. This was my first time submitting a response and did not mean to be "preaching" to anyone. I was truly and honestly trying to find the top 10 differences between catholics and protestants. My sincere apologies to anyone who thinks otherwise. As I have said before, I am a Lutheran and have attended the same church for my entire life (35 years). Our church is having a LOT of problems with the bishop, pastors, etc. Through the years I have learned that we are similar to that of the catholic religon. I am very sad about the thought of leaving my "home church" but also have four young children that I would like to be involved in an active church. We have attended several other denominations and although all of these churches were very friendly, they lacked some of the "traditions" that I prefer, or are accustomed to. Which led me to do some research on the catholic religon and the difference between it and the Lutherans. If anyone could recommend a website for me that would be greatly appreciated. Once again, I am sorry for perhaps being somewhere that I didn't belong.

-- kelly (kelly9@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

Kelly,

No need to apologize. You’ve come to the right place. In your quest for the Truth, you will discover that the Catholic Church has the Fullness of Grace and Truth. Sheep belong in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

Some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants :

+ Catholics believe in the Holy Eucharist. We believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We literally and spiritually, eat and drink Jesus in the appearance of bread and wine every Sunday Mass or Daily Mass.
+ We worship only the Most Holy Trinity : Father, Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% Man.
+ We believe in the Powerful Intercession of Mary who is reigning as Queen of Heaven and Earth. We do not worship Mary. We honor Mary.
+ We have a 2000 year continuous history of Christianity … deeply rooted in Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles.
+ We believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles. He is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and Our One Visible Head of the Church. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope.
+ We believe in the Community of Saints and their powerful intercession. We do not worship Saints. We honor Saints.
+ The Catholic Church has Authority over the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible. The Catholic Church wrote, assessed, defined, assembled, and published the first Holy Bible in the 4th Century through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
+ We believe in Sacred Art. Catholics are not iconoclasts. We are not idolaters.
+ We believe in the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
+ We believe in the Holy Sacraments. We go to Confession for our sins. We believe in Infant Baptism.
+ We believe in the Traditions of the Apostles.
+ We believe in Purgatory.
+ We believe in Grace, Faith, Good Works, Repentance, Obedience, and Conversion.

Here are some websites that will assist you :

*The Coming Home Network* http://www.chnetwork.org/
*EWTN* http://www.ewtn.com/
*Catholic Answers* http://catholicanswers.org/
*Catechism of the Catholic Church* http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm
*Catholic Encyclopedia* http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Also, you can call your local Catholic parish and speak with a Catholic priest.

God bless you.

-- (W@y.+), March 09, 2004.

Dear "way",

Thank you so much for your response. It is exactly what I was looking for. From your response I can tell that there are some similarities between the Lutheran's and the catholics as well as some differences. We do not pray to the Virgin Mary or to the Saints, and that was one of my questions regarding the catholic faith. Obviously from your response, you do not "worship" her either but rather "honor" her. I think that there are a lot of misconceptions about the catholic faith when you are raised protestant, which is the purpose of this research. It is only natural to have certain questions as to "why...." since I do not know anything about the catholic faith. Your explanations were wonderfull. Thanks again. I am going to continue with my research by using the websites recommended by you, as I do not understand what purgatory is. Thank you much for your time and understanding.

-- kelly (kelly9@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.

Kelly,

You're welcome.

All the best,

-- (W@y.+), March 09, 2004.

Don't let the door catapult your sorry-self out into oblivious cyberspace too fast!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 21, 2004.

Whoops, I guess he or she did get catapulted and now my post makes no sense. No offense to the posters still remaining!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 21, 2004.

Dear "W@Y",

I just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for the websites that you directed me to. Over the past month I was able to collect almost all of the information that I was searching for. One more question...what did I do wrong on your "forum" to offend people? As I said, this was my first time "posting" anything, not sure why I am being called names by Gail.

-- kelly (kdrik9@yahoo.com), April 11, 2004.

Dear Gail,

Not sure what I did to deserve your reply to me or to make you so "hatefull" towards me, but, not sure that I was talking with you anyways. I came to this site looking for knowledge, wisdom, intelligent conversation, and direction...all of which I found through several responses that I received. I will now, as you requested, "catapolt my sorry self into cyberspace". Thanks for brightening my day, I wouldn't have been to this site if I wasn't already going through some "hard times" or personal conflicts, thanks for the acknowledgement, compassion and support. You need not waste your time posting a reply again this time if you don't want to, as I do not wish to keep this going on any further. Have a great day!

-- kelly (kdrik9@yahoo.com), April 11, 2004.

kelly,

you havent been around here long, so you might not understand some happenings here. Immature people like to post rude and insulting attacks on catholics here all the time. Normally the moderator can get to all those posts and delete them before others get a chance to respond. In this case, gail probably responded about the same time that the moderator was deleting the post, so the moderator didnt see gails response and remove it along with the offending post.

Thats why gail said: "whoops, guess he did get catapulted out of here and now my post makes no sense, no offense to the remaining posters."... because she wasnt talking about you or anyone else left on this thread of the forum.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 11, 2004.

Dear Kelly,

As Paul h said, Gail's response was not directed towards you but to a Deleted Post. Gail is a nice person and a good Catholic convert from Protestantism.

It's great to hear that the Catholic websites helped you in your quest for the Truth. When you are ready to take the next leap of faith towards Catholicism, you might want to inquire from your local Catholic diocese about the R.C.I.A. classes (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). Thousands of adult Catholic converts all over the world were baptized yesterday evening during the Easter Vigil Mass. Catholics are at least 1.2 Billion strong and growing through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Kelly, if you have cable TV, try to watch channel EWTN ... a 24/7 Catholic channel.

Happy Easter!

-- (W@y.+), April 11, 2004.

How about this, Why dont christians of all faiths quit fussing over petty differences that are immaterial because both catholics and protestants worship the same God. Christianity will break apart and become vulnerable to further criticism if the whole world sees us as prejudice to other faiths, especially if we continue to discriminate against those within our OWN. The Catholic Church has its share of bad history, but it would be naive to think the protestant church is without its share of flaws as well. Maybe because the men and women sitting in both churches are only HUMAN.

-- patrick sweany (psweany@indiana.edu), April 11, 2004.

The doctrinal differences between denominational religion and the Church founded by Jesus Christ are not "petty differences", and they make a world of difference - the difference between truth and untruth! Jesus said the truth would set us free. It is critical then that what we believe is actually the truth. Jesus did not say we would be set free by believing what we "think" is the truth. Jesus provided the means of knowing the actual truth by founding one Church for all men, a Church which is guided to the fullness of truth by the Holy Spirit, a Church which the Word of God characterizes as "the pillar and foundation of truth". Christianity has already broken apart. That's what denominationalism is. Catholics and Protestants do indeed worship the same God. Catholics worship Him according to His own revealed will; Protestants according to hundreds of conflicting, contradicting traditions of men. Jesus made it clear that His will was for all His followers to be ONE, in the ONE Church He personally founded for all men. Anything less is a deviation from the will of God - which is anything but "petty".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 12, 2004.

Protestants have ridiculous female vicars; I don't think that's petty at all.

-- Peter (peterpaul12@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

Sorry sorry sorry! My sincere apologies to Gail and others. As you said it was my first time .... didn't know that there was such a thing as a deleted post. I am not very computer minded. I do enjoy reading the posts and have learned a lot. Thanks again Way and Paul I know understand.

-- kelly (kdrik9@yahoo.com), April 15, 2004.

Typo.....I NOW understand.

-- kelly (kdrik9@yahoo.com), April 15, 2004.

"Catholics worship Him according to His own revealed will; Protestants according to hundreds of conflicting, contradicting traditions of men." Where does praying to saints (polytheism) come in with this verse, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' " —John 14:6. Before you go dogmatic about your beliefs, maybe you should rexamine and study what you believe. Purgatory- where in the Bible is that found. Please, don't attack others faith. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.

-- Ryan (tufts798@auburn.edu), April 15, 2004.

Ryan,

Purgatory was a Hebrew belief and is found in many old testament books. Unfortunately the book of Maccabees (OT) as well as others was taken out of the original Bible after 1500 years by Luther. He didn't like Purgatory so he ditched it. In 2 Mach 12:43-46 Judas Machabeus orders prayers and sacrifices to be offered up for his slain comrades. Purgatory was believed to exist by the Hebrews including such illustrious company as ST Paul thus the prayers are offered for the dead.

There are many times in the Bible when prays are made for the dead. If there is no Purgatory what is the point of prayers for the dead? Why would a protestant pray for a dead loved one? The dead are in Heaven or Hell I thought. The reason is that they forget to ditch Catholic traditions sometimes and harken back to the idea of purgatory unknowingly.

Heaven cannot be entered by anything or anyone who isn't perfect. Rev 21:27 "there shall not enter into it anything defiled". Jesus says the same in Matt 5:26 "Amen, I say to thee, thou wilt not come out from it until thou hast paid the last penny". Thankfully God in His mercy allows those of us who are less than pure access to Purgatory where we can atone for our earthly sins without the loss of Heaven.

The Church understands the idea that only the perfect can be admitted to Heaven. Those who are less than perfect need a time of purgation (cleansing) prior to admission. Scholars disagree on what purgatory is like but the Church affirms its existence.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 16, 2004.

Ryan,

Asking other Christians to intercede to Jesus on my behalf IS going to the Father through Jesus! In fact, it multiplies the prayers that are offered TO JESUS on my behalf. Don't you ask others to pray for you? Is that taking anything away from Jesus?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 17, 2004.

On an aside though, Martain Luther was not the only one to disagree witht the additional books the Catholic cannon possesses. My Jewish Bibles also lack them, an the Jews never recognised them as Scripture.

This is why most Protestants also lack these books.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 17, 2004.

Luther had no choice but to go to the 16th century Jews to make his Bible as the Catholic Church was not exactly going to hand him their copy. Thats why it is Jewish in its appearance. Not sure if that fact is very inspiring as the Jews deny Christ to this day.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 17, 2004.

TO ZAROVE concerning the Canon:

First, if you accept the NT as the infallible Word of God, you do so entirely because the Holy Catholic Church councils of Carthage and Hippo decreed them so in 393 and 397 AD. And, because you DO accept the Catholic Church on this, you must accept the entire canon. This includes the Deuterocanonical books as well.

As Protestants are aware of their human founder,Luther, they must also be aware that he violated Revelation's warning against taking out and adding in to the Scriptures. He added the word "alone" to be sola fide in a Pauline letter, and he also took out the Deuterocanonical and NT books... you can see the fruitful effects of this- 40,000+ denominations all claiming to have it right. Scriptures were indeed fulfilled now, weren't they?

Here's some background on the Deuterocanonical for the ignorant and uninformed such as yourself ZAROVE:

There were two groups of Jews in those days. The Palestinians who worshipped in the temple, used the Hebrew Scripture (Masoretic text), and maintained a separatist religion in which contact with gentiles and Samaritans was prohibited. They had distilled 613 laws from the Torah which governed their conduct. The other group, a majority, were the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora who lived away from Palestine. The largest centers were found in Rome, Babylon, and Alexandria, Egypt and other major cities of the Mediterranean basin. They were Greek speaking, worshipping in synagogues, and had reduced the law into three demands; circumcision, observing the Sabbath, and abstenation from Pork. However they also had developed a high moral code centered in the 10 commandments. Origin: During the 2nd temple period more and more of the Diaspora had abandoned the use of Hebrew in their synagogues using Greek instead. 3 Centuries BC the Jews at Alexandria asked and received permission from the high priest in Jerusalem to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. This was done over the next centuries and included the Deuterocanonical books as well which they revered and read in their synagogues. This Greek Bible used by the Jews of the Diaspora was called the Septuagint (LXX). It is most intersting that the codices of the LXX do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mixes them in with the prophets and the writings indicating that there was no awareness that they were thought to be later or foreign to an already existing Hebrew canon. It is also significant that some of these books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. In the early 2nd century the LXX was, like the Church thrown out of the synangogue and Greek speaking Jewish Orthodoxy was supplied with a different text minus the deuterocanonicals, and was subservient to the authority of the Hebrew text and the Pharisaic scribes and Rabbis. Adoption: When Christianity moved out of its Palestinian matrix into the Greek speaking pagan world the LXX became its Bible. Paul's writings and other NT writings show frequent quotes from the LXX. In the 5th Century when Jerome made his Latin translation(Vulgate) he noted that the deuterocanonical books were not used by the Jews. However, the great doctor of the Churc, Augustine, argued that on the basis of usage the majority of Churches including most emminent ones, accepted the Greek additions as canonical. His great stature tended to close the discussion. This reaffirmed the canonical lists of the Councils of Hippo(393), Carthage II (397), and Carthage IV (419) and the letter of Pope Innocent I (405) which included the Greek books. Over a millenium later, Luther argued in his debates (1519) that the Bible was superior to the authority of the Church. It was while arguing against the doctrine of purgatory that this came back to haunt him. He was confronted with II Maccabees 12:46 "He made atonement for the dead that they may be delivered from their sins". Thus pressed he argued that the Church had no right to decide matters of canonicity(but HE did huh???). He held that the internal worth of a book was the factor. He pointed out Jerome had questioned the status of these books because the Jews didn't use them either. THIS WAS NO VALID ARGUMENT- Because the Jews OBVIOUSLY do not use the 27 Christian books either. He refused to accept that the Church through usage and the guidance of the Holy Spirit had selected them. In his German Translation of the NT he relegated Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, and James which he called a "strawy" epistle. His followers later restored them to their proper place in the canon.

Zarove and other Protestants, your founder violated Revelation;s condemnation, and you can see through the statistics that this curse is true. One Catholic Church for 2000 years, and 40,000 plus denominations. The numbers and history,as well as Scripture, tell you where the Truth lies.

-- Andrew Paul Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 17, 2004.

mY OMMENTS IN {} bRACKETTS -----------------------------------------

TO ZAROVE concerning the Canon: First, if you accept the NT as the infallible Word of God, you do so entirely because the Holy Catholic Church councils of Carthage and Hippo decreed them so in 393 and 397 AD. And, because you DO accept the Catholic Church on this, you must accept the entire canon. This includes the Deuterocanonical books as well.

{First off, the Bible has hasd a longer and more interestign hisotry than that, and most of the boosk where alreayd recognised before AD 250. Most, in fact, where reognised by the beginning of the year 100. Even the Catholic sources admit that. The Cannonisiation proccess was more a confirmation of what was alreayd known and used. Likewise, it agreed on which portions of scriptures where compiled into a single volume. This doesnt dismiss the effort, but just to note that the proccess was by and large much, much loinger.}-Zarove

As Protestants are aware of their human founder,Luther, they must also be aware that he violated Revelation's warning against taking out and adding in to the Scriptures.

{You do relaise not all Protestants stem from Lutheren Chruches. Many Are independant chruches. Most pothers however stem form Anglicans. The Anglican break happened in the riegn of Henry the 8th. However, the actual chruch of england is older,a nd had a hisotry of Independance as outlined int he Magna Carta in 1215 Under John.}- Zarove

He added the word "alone" to be sola fide in a Pauline letter, and he also took out the Deuterocanonical and NT books... you can see the fruitful effects of this- 40,000+ denominations all claiming to have it right. Scriptures were indeed fulfilled now, weren't they?

{ This has little bearign on my actual comment, which was the validation for the practice form a Historical and polemic view. I was merley explainign the REASON, I was not even tryign to defend it.}- Zarove

Here's some background on the Deuterocanonical for the ignorant and uninformed such as yourself ZAROVE:

{Please do not insult peopel you clealry do not know. I am not ignoranyt and uninformed. I actually know al the things you said below, and simpley assuming I don't knwo them is rathwr ridicukous.}- Zarove

There were two groups of Jews in those days. The Palestinians who worshipped in the temple, used the Hebrew Scripture (Masoretic text), and maintained a separatist religion in which contact with gentiles and Samaritans was prohibited. They had distilled 613 laws from the Torah which governed their conduct. The other group, a majority, were the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora who lived away from Palestine.

{Which I as anignorant andUninfomed Protestant did not know... Yes this is al very well and good, but the realities of the matter at hand ictate we ahere tot he reasosn why Protestants removed the books, not the hisotry of daid books. The only thing I addressed was the reason for their exclusion.}-Zarove

The largest centers were found in Rome, Babylon, and Alexandria, Egypt and other major cities of the Mediterranean basin. They were Greek speaking, worshipping in synagogues, and had reduced the law into three demands; circumcision, observing the Sabbath, and abstenation from Pork.

{Judaism maded simple! Sorry, it was never THAT distilled. Their was adherenc eot Monotheism. Aoidance of all unclean foods, not just Pork. Reverence for the Lord. And obedience to several other laws, which wher einterrpeted. }-Zarove

However they also had developed a high moral code centered in the 10 commandments.

{Correct.}-Zarove

Origin: During the 2nd temple period more and more of the Diaspora had abandoned the use of Hebrew in their synagogues using Greek instead. 3 Centuries BC the Jews at Alexandria asked and received permission from the high priest in Jerusalem to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. This was done over the next centuries and included the Deuterocanonical books as well which they revered and read in their synagogues. This Greek Bible used by the Jews of the Diaspora was called the Septuagint (LXX).

{Gee golly I odnte never hear tale of that tar septele-gent.

Yes I am well aware of this as well. Dispite toyr vision of me as woefully uninformed. None o this relaly addresses the POINT.}-Zarove

It is most intersting that the codices of the LXX do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mixes them in with the prophets and the writings indicating that there was no awareness that they were thought to be later or foreign to an already existing Hebrew canon. It is also significant that some of these books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran.

{Which still doesnt answer much of the oriigonal point. It just assumed I am massively ignorant and did not knwo this and will be awed by your superior Cathlci Intellegence. Is that not itsself the sin of arrogance?}-Zarove

In the early 2nd century the LXX was, like the Church thrown out of the synangogue and Greek speaking Jewish Orthodoxy was supplied with a different text minus the deuterocanonicals, and was subservient to the authority of the Hebrew text and the Pharisaic scribes and Rabbis.

{You oerlooked Sacred tradtion later codifued in writign as the Babylonian Talud. But as I know nohting abouthe Talmud, beign an Ignotarant and Uninformed Protestant, i shall let you explain it to me.}-Zarove

Adoption: When Christianity moved out of its Palestinian matrix into the Greek speaking pagan world the LXX became its Bible. Paul's writings and other NT writings show frequent quotes from the LXX.

{Actualy Paul didn't nesisarily quote form the LXX. His where paraphrae quotations. He may have been citing the Hebrew for all we know. Not that I object to his use of the LXX, just that we cant tell for sure.}-Zarove

In the 5th Century when Jerome made his Latin translation(Vulgate) he noted that the deuterocanonical books were not used by the Jews. However, the great doctor of the Churc, Augustine, argued that on the basis of usage the majority of Churches including most emminent ones, accepted the Greek additions as canonical.

{Nice way to downplay the face that Jerome REJECTED the Deuterocannonical books. You dotn flat out say it, but then, I won't catch it. After all, I am ignorant and uninformed. I won't knwo that the origional Vulgate was Minus those works, and will simley beleive that thanks to Augistune they wher ein it...

I am sorry, but that actually strengthens the arugment agaisn them, since oneof the early Chruch fathers most promement in History rejected them. Jerome did not translate them at the first. They where later added to his work.}-Zarove

His great stature tended to close the discussion. This reaffirmed the canonical lists of the Councils of Hippo(393), Carthage II (397), and Carthage IV (419) and the letter of Pope Innocent I (405) which included the Greek books.

{You skip a lot. The Cahtolikc CHurhc was not unoformly in agreeance of thos ebooks , and many saw them as "Secondary Cannon" and not as authoritative as the other books... but again I idgress, shant go ino details as I cant posisbley know them, beign ignorant and uninformed and all...}-Zarove

Over a millenium later, Luther argued in his debates (1519) that the Bible was superior to the authority of the Church. It was while arguing against the doctrine of purgatory that this came back to haunt him. He was confronted with II Maccabees 12:46 "He made atonement for the dead that they may be delivered from their sins". Thus pressed he argued that the Church had no right to decide matters of canonicity(but HE did huh???).

{ Now is the time for the simple minded hayseed SZarove to back off, after all, yo knwo Hisotyr and I dont... Sorry, this is a paraphrase of events slanted in Catholic favour.

The reaity is that even the Catholic Church disputed the reliability of the Deuterocannonical owrks untilt he counsil of Trent, and Luthers desision, though possibely spured by personal desire, was still unde don a sound argument whihc raged until aroung 1545.}-Zarove

He held that the internal worth of a book was the factor. He pointed out Jerome had questioned the status of these books because the Jews didn't use them either.

{Yes, Jerome did not use them either. Soemthign you glossed over. Jerome wasnot alone in his rejecton, as SEVERAL leaders and Chruch fathers agreed with him, and at this point untl the Counsil of trent, they wheren veiwed as full scripture.It was the cousil of trent that ended the debate within the Catholic Church by affermign them as scripture, and until then many wihtin did not use them.}-Zarove

THIS WAS NO VALID ARGUMENT- Because the Jews OBVIOUSLY do not use the 27 Christian books either.

{Actually, it is a valid argiment, because the Deuterodcannonical works predate the Chrisyain books. The whole argumnt can be made that they where not recognised as scripture by the Jews, and thus shoudl nt be so by Chrisains, based onthe fact that they where Gods chosen people at the time.}-Zarove

He refused to accept that the Church through usage and the guidance of the Holy Spirit had selected them. In his German Translation of the NT he relegated Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, and James which he called a "strawy" epistle. His followers later restored them to their proper place in the canon.

{And beign British, have no real ties to Luther or the Lutheren Churhc, an hte Chuch if england actually DID emply the Deuterocannon in their officiual Bible, the Authorised verison of 1611, and the preceeding Bishops Bible in some editions.}-Zarove

Zarove and other Protestants, your founder violated Revelation;s condemnation, and you can see through the statistics that this curse is true.

{My FOunder wanst Luther. Please, if you are gpign to call soemone Ignorant and uninfomed, at leat learn their background.}-Zarove

One Catholic Church for 2000 years, and 40,000 plus denominations. The numbers and history,as well as Scripture, tell you where the Truth lies.

{Truth lies in o insitution, but in itsself. }-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 17, 2004.

Zarove,

Now I have a reason for you to be uninformed and ignorant; please learn how to spell.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 18, 2004.

Andrew, I now have reaspn to beleive you are ignorant and Uninformed. I have repeatedly stated on this baord I am Dyslexic. If the best you can do is make cheap shots at my spelling,and if you use this to prove my stupidity, then you are being rather biased and uninformed yourself.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

Zarove and Andrew,

You two are more alike than different and should be getting along better. I have seen Zarove's posts for the past months and respect him deeply. Andrew likewise appears wise beyond his years. I am assuming Zarove is C of E. In appearance C of E is very similar to the Catholic Church. I for one, am glad to have joined the Catholic faith after my Episcopal church turned its back on me.

The Catholic church would be a better place with Zarove. I am pleased he is here exploring. The more I think of Catholic/Protestant issues the more I think of the movie Mutiny on the Bounty (Mel Gibson as Fletcher Christian one).

I see Fletcher Christian as the Protestant and Bligh( Anthony Hopkins) as the Catholic. Christian has some legitimate beefs with the Captain but the Captain has the authority of the King of England and is the final authority on board ship (Holy Spirit, Papal authority). Mutiny ensues.

The problem for the mutineers is that they have no authority. They may have had some admirable reasons to mutiny but in the end noone can be trusted. The rebels tend to rebel from the new leader. This is the Catch 22 that protestants will always face. How can the rebel Episcopalians condemn Bishop Robinson when they themselves rebelled against the Holy Catholic Church. There is no central authority to answer to and chaos ensues.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 18, 2004.

Actual;ly I am Chrichof Christ. But it also did not begin with Luther, nor btanch off of Luther. Neiyher did the Meathodists. I ndeed, hundreds didnt...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 18, 2004.

It doesn't matter what human being founded a church. Luther, Calvin, John Smith, Charles Russell, Henry the 8th doesn't matter. What matters is that you would have to think the original church founded by Christ and the Apostles was flawed and that Thank God for (insert founder here). God is perfect and I don't think he would form a Church with His son and then go "oops I forgot something" or "those crazy Catholics are at it again why don't they listen to my latest prophet Luther, Calvin etc".

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 18, 2004.

To Zarove,

I wish to apologize for the previous comment. I had no idea about your condition and should not have mentioned that. David F was completely right in his reply.

I want to follow up what David F said in his last statement. As a member of a non Catholic Christian Church, I don't necessarily mean that your founder was Luther. I of course know that all the various 40,000 Christian denominations(excluding Catholicism) have separate founders. When I say that Luther was your founder, what I mean is he was the catalyst for the rise of Protestantism in all forms.

Each separate Church after Luther was formed and founded by a man that does not have the authority to do so. The Scriptures talk about Paul telling his addresee specifically about Apostolic ordination. In one passage (I don't recall, I believe it is Timothy), he mentions the teaching and ordination of 4 generations: Pauls, Timothys, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation Timothy taught that will teach others. Succession, rather than new founding, is the way the true Christian Church was organized.

You have a certain individual who founded your certain church. So does every Christian denomination founded AFTER LUTHER. Before the 1517 theses, there were NO DENOMINATIONS. There was only one Church for nearly a millenium and a half. Even the Eastern split is still Catholic. All the fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and other new Protestant sects were formed post-Luther. But since this is true that these were formed by mere humans 1500+ years after Christianity's growth, what does that say? David F is right- do you think God's Providence is so completely absurd as to "hide" the truth, even to the oral teachings of the Apostles and their first successors, until new prophets saved Christianity well over 1500 years later??? Come on, please be realistic. Many Protestants who do look into Church history acknowledge that the Church Jesus founded was indeed Catholic; they just say that the Catholic Church corrupted itself centuries later. This is also absurd, as it violates Scripture that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it". Should the original Church, which in doctrine is the SAME Church as the Catholic Church, be corrupted in its essential nature, the gates of Hell would indeed have prevailed against it.

This notion that Christianity was saved by 40,000 prophets post- Luther is insane. Explain to me, then, if all these new beliefs are true and Biblical, then why are they not true historically? Why would God hide the truth for 1500 years? If all these new beliefs (rapture, TULIP, sola fide, sola scriptura) were true, the Apostles would have taught them orally as well, the successors would have written about them, and the Church Ignatius of Antioch quoted would have gone like this: "just as where Jesus Christ is present, we have the Evangelical Church". But what does he say? "just as where Jesus Christ is present, we have the Catholic Church".

Before moving on to new topics, please explain to me and David F your reasoning behind the lack of true Christians until post- Lutherian times. And I'm sorry about the confusion considering Luther as your founder- if that were true, and all Protestant sects had their human founder in Luther, then they would be a united Church. But, as statistics and history have proven, without Church authority and Sacred Traditions passed on orally be the Apostles, its like a 3-legged stool that lost 2 pillars and collapsed into 40,000 pieces.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 18, 2004.

That's cute. Catholics have always been good at making stuff up :) Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm offended, however... I'm certainly not. It's funny I guess. We Protestants will have to just let you have this one. Let's fix number 7 though... Here goes.... 7. Catholics are Scriptural innovators; Protestants are Scriptural experts (followers).

-- Bible Scholar (noemail@nobody.com), April 18, 2004.

ummm - which Protestants are the scripture followers? Lutherans? Anglicans? Pentecostals? Methodists? Baptists? Presbyterians? Congregationalists? Obviously not all of them, or their beliefs wouldn't conflict with one another. Scripture doesn't conflict with itself, and neither do churches which follow it. The first sign of following the Word of God is UNITY of belief.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 19, 2004.

That's cute.

yeah, it is a clever joke, isnt it?

Catholics have always been good at making stuff up :)

yes, we have all sorts of beautiful art, and great churches which inspire awe for God's majesty. I would say that Catholics are great at making stuff!

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm offended, however... I'm certainly not.

um, not to put you off or anything, but its not to you to be offended here. our joke is on a catholic site, for catholics, and you are here as a guest. Personally, i could care less if you were turned into a chicken by the original joke.

We Protestants will have to just let you have this one.

well, seeing as this is a catholic site, with catholic moderators, and designed as a sanctuary for catholics... I'd say, yeah, you can't really do a whole lot about it.

Let's fix number 7 though... Here goes....

you can change number seven however you like, so long as you realize that number ten isnt changing.

7. Catholics are Scriptural innovators; Protestants are Scriptural experts (followers).

oh, sad. You made it a false statement now. if you want it to be correct: Catholics are scriptural innovators, protestants are self proclaimed scriptural experts.

catholics would be scriptural inovators in that they recognize sacred traditions, find places in scripture where these traditions are backed, and constantly find new and innovative ways to integrate church teachings with their lives.

protestants are self proclaimed scriptural experts because most all think they are the supreme source of scriptural interpretation, although there are 30,000 and more denominations each claiming they have "truth" and each fighting each other. No thanks.

Let me ask you a question: "if God came to you and told you you were wrong and should be a catholic, what would you do?"

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 19, 2004.

Catholics are Scriptural innovators; Protestants are Scriptural experts (followers).

Hey Bible Scholar,

Protestants are most certainly good at poor exegesis, and creating whole churches that base their beliefs on only one line of Scripture (out of context of course). And, as someone mentioned earlier, if Protestants ARE the Scriptural experts, answer why 40,000 different Protestant ways of being an "expert" are there. And why do they all conflict with each other?

No, my friend, your substitute was no substitute at all. Perhaps it could be more like this: Catholicism canonized the Scriptures, and Protestantism dismembered the Scriptures.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 19, 2004.

To Zarove, I wish to apologize for the previous comment. I had no idea about your condition and should not have mentioned that. David F was completely right in his reply.

{No worires, just don't pint with too broad of strokes in future. Not wevery Protestant is uninformed, and not every statement about protestantism, or anythign else, are meant as attacks.}-Zarove

I want to follow up what David F said in his last statement. As a member of a non Catholic Christian Church, I don't necessarily mean that your founder was Luther. I of course know that all the various 40,000 Christian denominations(excluding Catholicism) have separate founders. When I say that Luther was your founder, what I mean is he was the catalyst for the rise of Protestantism in all forms.

{Not really accurate either. The waldenses are a rgeat example of pre- Luther "protestants", in that they where liivng a seperate form of Chrisyainity than the Catholic Chruch. Likewise, the eastern Orthodox and Anglican Chruches are seperate frm Catholisism as wlel, both attaining their independence before Luther. ( Althought he Anflican Chruch re-broke undwer Henrt the 8th, it is a little knwon fact that they had been a seperate intety before. )}-Zarove

Each separate Church after Luther was formed and founded by a man that does not have the authority to do so. The Scriptures talk about Paul telling his addresee specifically about Apostolic ordination. In one passage (I don't recall, I believe it is Timothy), he mentions the teaching and ordination of 4 generations: Pauls, Timothys, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation Timothy taught that will teach others. Succession, rather than new founding, is the way the true Christian Church was organized.

{without going into the polemic, all I wanted to address initially was the reason why the Apocryphal.Duterocannonical books are bnot in Protestant Bibles. The reaosn is far more complexe than simpley declarign it Luthers fault becaue he didn't like what they said, and the Jews likewise reject them. The argument for their removal is older than Luther, and wss in the Cathlic Church until the matter was settled at Trent. Protestnats where not at Trnt, and reject it;'s fubndings, and acknowlege only the Jewish Cannon foe hte Old testement and the Chrisyain cannon foe hte new. Some accepted the Additional books, most did not.}-Zarove

You have a certain individual who founded your certain church. So does every Christian denomination founded AFTER LUTHER.

{or before. Again, Luther was not the firts seperatist fom catholisism.}-Zarove

Before the 1517 theses, there were NO DENOMINATIONS. There was only one Church for nearly a millenium and a half. Even the Eastern split is still Catholic.

{Waldenses, arian, albergoneses, al existed before Luther.}-Zarove

All the fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and other new Protestant sects were formed post-Luther. But since this is true that these were formed by mere humans 1500+ years after Christianity's growth, what does that say?

{Not a lot, the issue demands more examinartion than what it is given. However my initial concern was the discussion fo the books, and I wanted to impart the reason for their removal for hte sake of understabnding, rather or not anyone disagrees withthe practice. we all agree that the books where removed, as it is hard to deny the evidence, but most Catholcis don't understand WHY they where removed, and I was oly attempting to tell why. Not dispute the authority of the books themselves, btu to give insight into why they where first cxonsidered noncannonical.}-Zarove

David F is right- do you think God's Providence is so completely absurd as to "hide" the truth, even to the oral teachings of the Apostles and their first successors, until new prophets saved Christianity well over 1500 years later???

{well, again, not everyone was Cahtolic till Luther that was Christain, and again, this is wholly exterior to my initial point. Also, Mormons beleive that a Prophet restred the truth int he 1800's. The real queatsion si not rather r not the truth was Hidden, bt rather or not people litened to and obeyed the truth. Een the Bibel tells of when Israel tuened form the law, and it had to later be redicovered. This under King Josiah. It can happen. Its less about hiding hte truth, and mro about peopel turnign form it. Not that I really am sayign peple here are hiding nessisarily, just forming a hypothetical scenario. It isnt as absurd as you owudl make it, and to defend catholisism, you wold have to do better than say it is absurd to think the turth was lost for a while,when the Bibel records that it has happeend before.}-Zarove

Come on, please be realistic. Many Protestants who do look into Church history acknowledge that the Church Jesus founded was indeed Catholic; they just say that the Catholic Church corrupted itself centuries later.

{Hence the term "reformation". I am beign reaistic. I wa sonly offerign why the additioal books where in dispute, not debating the merits of protestantism.Further, I already explained that its not unrealistic to belive people lost the truth for many years, as it has happend before. }-Zarove

This is also absurd, as it violates Scripture that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it". Should the original Church, which in doctrine is the SAME Church as the Catholic Church, be corrupted in its essential nature, the gates of Hell would indeed have prevailed against it.

{Not nessisarily, but thats a longer and more detailed discussion, and I woudl rather go back tothe origional dscussion abouthte removal of thr books and why they where considered Nonscriptures. I do not however wan tot debate it so much as merley explain why htey where removed.}-Zarove

This notion that Christianity was saved by 40,000 prophets post- Luther is insane. Explain to me, then, if all these new beliefs are true and Biblical, then why are they not true historically?

{Who said they wheren't true Historically? }_Zarove

Why would God hide the truth for 1500 years?

{Again, on the Hypothetical level, one can always site JOSIAH, and how the law had been los to Israel, and restored. Peole can turn their back formt he turth, only to rediscover it later. It isnt out of the queation. Again, only the Minority of denomenaitons htink a Prophet Founded them, like the Sevent Day Adventists, the Jehova' Witnesses, and the Mormons. Most simpley where founded by regular men, not propehts. False or true not disputed here. IE, the Wesleyan Chruhc,foudned by John Wesley.}-Zarove

If all these new beliefs (rapture, TULIP, sola fide, sola scriptura) were true, the Apostles would have taught them orally as well, the successors would have written about them, and the Church Ignatius of Antioch quoted would have gone like this: "just as where Jesus Christ is present, we have the Evangelical Church". But what does he say? "just as where Jesus Christ is present, we have the Catholic Church".

{The Cahtolic Church was renamed Catholci accordign o Catolci Sources, and some older chruch fathers DO sa "Evangelical Chruch" , but I digress... also, note that Augustine Taught that the Scriptures where suffecient in "City of God", and tried vigorously to keep his teahigns inline with scriptural support. All of this, of cpurse, not addrerssing the actual comment about the Disputed books.}-Zarove

Before moving on to new topics, please explain to me and David F your reasoning behind the lack of true Christians until post- Lutherian times.

{I never made that Claim. Again, I beleive their where teue Christains since the tme of Christ. Likewise, I personally think many, thouhg not all, Catholcis are true Christains. }-Zarove

And I'm sorry about the confusion considering Luther as your founder- if that were true, and all Protestant sects had their human founder in Luther, then they would be a united Church. But, as statistics and history have proven, without Church authority and Sacred Traditions passed on orally be the Apostles, its like a 3-legged stool that lost 2 pillars and collapsed into 40,000 pieces.

{Actually most Churhces agree with each other mote often than not. Even the Cahtolcis agree withe Baptists a lot fo gthe time. Again, I am les sintereste din the Polemic.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 19, 2004.

Zarove,

I don't want to dissect every objection, but only take one as an example. This passage from your email:

"This notion that Christianity was saved by 40,000 prophets post- Luther is insane. Explain to me, then, if all these new beliefs are true and Biblical, then why are they not true historically?

{Who said they wheren't true Historically? }_Zarove "

If you think the Protestant beliefs are true and historical from the beginning of Christianity, use writings and quotes of the early fathers in support of your answer.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 19, 2004.

Ansrew, soemthign you seem to misunderstand abot my comments. I was tryign to steer back to my initial poitn whicj you misconstrued as an attack based on my explainign why the aditional books where removed form th protestant Bibles.

Many Cahtolics relaly do not understand why they where moved, and just assume that it was ofr no reaosn at all. Or, liek tyou, they jusr assume Luthers personal preference had to do with it and that settles the matter.

Many i hav spoekn with don't relaise the Jews don't recognise them either, and that is the principle reason for objecting tot heir preasence.

As o your own queatsion, the truth is that you have alreayd supplied me with an excellent citation form Jerome. He., too, objected tot he Deuterocannonical books, so the idea for their removal was not new , and did not begin with Luther, and is histroical.

Now can we press on with more important matters, as this thread is not intended to discuss MY take on protestantism.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 19, 2004.

Back to the jokes. I heard this one on Catholic Answers radio show: How do you tell the Catholics from the Protestants at a bible study? The Catholics are the ones without their bibles.

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 02, 2004.

How do you tell the Catholics from the Protestants at a bible study? The Catholics are the ones without their bibles.

heh, yeah, but thats because most of us know enough of the bible off hand to not need them in a general discussion. if bible studies covered anything as in depth or subtle as catholic mass, or as catholic catechism/bible studies, then we might need to bring them, but after a couple protestant (at least in my experience) bible studies, they dont ever really say anything new.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), May 04, 2004.

There is nothing christian about any of you. Im appauld.

-- Peter (o@o.com), May 08, 2004.

Gee Peter,

We're just talking business!

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 08, 2004.

You shouldn't make fun of other's religion because doesn't God say that Jesus was mocked for his beliefs, but those people that were mocking him would be forgiven because they knew not what they were doing? YOU ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!

-- Diana M. (dianavillegas@sbcglobal.com), May 17, 2004.

What good would the difference make? We all would post a message out here but the difference will remain. I guess let everyone keep their differences to themselves and lead a life that would give them the satisfacion and contentment of being a "good christian".

-- Noel DeCruz (noel_dcruz@yahoo.com), July 09, 2004.

While investigating religion for myself i came across this website if any wish to look here it is : http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm I was raised without a firm belief system myself and am searching for God for myself and my childern.

-- John Wolfe (nope@dontthinkso.com), August 19, 2004.

would like to add

10 reason why Catholics are the worse Christian demonition?

1.We asked Our Mother do interceded for Us, we don't know how to pray directly to God.

2.We ask our priest to forgive us when sin(CONFESSION)

3.We are so idolistlic, we kneel in front of the tarbanacle.

4.We are so forgetful, we have to be reminded we are Christian when we say our grace, (sign of the cross)

5.We are proud to be humble.

6.We are confused between our Mothers.

7.We need so many references to prove our faith, bible alone is not enough.

8.We dont know how to count ,( Holy Trinity 1 + 1 + 1 = 1)

9.We spend time on forum like this and claim we are devouted Catholics

10. On the 9 reasons above, we think its a joke.

-- james (james_how@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

james, despite the fact that your post is a violation of the forum rules here, it also contains some clear lies and deceptions which i will aim to clear up...

1.We asked Our Mother do interceded for Us, we don't know how to pray directly to God.

we do ask Mary, the mother of God, to intercede for us. HOWEVER, i pray directly to God all the time. it is a huge myth that catholics dont pray directly to God and that myth is spread by both the uneducated and liars. now that you have been educated that this point is not true, it would be a sin to continue to spread this lie.

2.We ask our priest to forgive us when sin(CONFESSION)

we actually ask God to forgive us. the priest is merely the arbiter in that dialogue. namely, what the priest forgives, if we make a valid confession, is forgiven by God as well. sound familiar? try "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." oh, thats right, protestants generally skip that part of the bible.

3.We are so idolistlic, we kneel in front of the tarbanacle.

the tabernacle is where the actual Body and Blood of Christ resides. what is idolistic of kneeling in front of Jesus? one might ask why so many protestants are so idolistic they cant bring themselves to kneel at all...

4.We are so forgetful, we have to be reminded we are Christian when we say our grace, (sign of the cross)

again, a stupid and silly misconception. the sign of the cross is not a reminder that we are christian, it is a reminder of our baptism and calls us to mind that our faith is more than an inward prayer, it is a physical thing in this world. the sign of the cross is our outward symbol of faith.

5.We are proud to be humble.

yes and no. we are humble , we show it. read the beatitudes if you don't know why good christianity requires humility before God.

6.We are confused between our Mothers.

conversly, we understand the relationship perfectly. i would say it is the majority of protestants who are confused by this.

7.We need so many references to prove our faith, bible alone is not enough.

more accurately, we believe that God still has the power to enact change and to teach us in this world. protestants who only recognize the bible limit God to say that the Trinity has no power to act in the world. Catholics recognize a God that is alive, an active force in the world today.

8.We dont know how to count ,( Holy Trinity 1 + 1 + 1 = 1)

obviously somebody who has never taken vector calculus... no college i presume? take a graph, place a line which goes one unit up along the y axis. now place one that goes one unit in the positive direction of the x axis. finally, place one more which moves in the negative direction of the y-axis. do the vector addition and you will find that the result which you end up with is X = 1. and the lesson is, dont assume that your faith makes you educated, the catholic church boasts some of the most brilliant minds in the world... BE HUMBLE.

9.We spend time on forum like this and claim we are devouted Catholics

i dont think i've ever made such a claim. in fact, the most i think i've claimed is to be a catholic who is trying his best to learn something.

10. On the 9 reasons above, we think its a joke.

no, not really, i take it very seriously. there you go again, though, thinking that catholics are ignorant... by the way, before you insult us with little jibes at how we must have missed this, or how we don't know that, your spelling and grammar is rather lacking.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), August 19, 2004.

to paul h,

thanks for the reminder, i wrote down all that because at this side of my world i get things like the above

Till one stage I was told Our Mother was not helping You,so why do You pray to Her.

I told them is not pray, is interceded but the answer i got was

So?Jesus ddid say I am the way,the truth ,the life.

One should never pray to Mary

As for the spelling and grammar rather lacking, am sorry, I know it is quite irritating and it doesnt justify my post but am not denying it, am very sick not only i know but also I type with only 2 fingers

-- james (james@intacon.com.my), August 19, 2004.

paul h, I think James is a Catholic who is searching, not seeking to insult our faith. Here is a thread he started recently: Thank you.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

And to think, all this started out as a way to be humerous. Well, I hope not to offend anyone with this, but my cousin (Who is Baptist, and this pokes fun at the Baptists.) sent some jokes to me and one of the things written in them was.........

There are three religious truths: a. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. b. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith. c. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.

Humor and laughter are wonderful! We all need to laugh, smile, and have fun. I know I have been the butt of many jokes in my life, and I just laugh the hardest when it is my turn to be made a joke of. I hope all of us here today have a happy day filled with the blessings of God! And don't forget to laugh (or at least smile a little!):)

God bless

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), August 20, 2004.

why cant we all just be friends....

-- Emily (catholicsarecool@something.com), February 21, 2005.

i must admit im a protestant and was just looking for some serious answers as to the differences between catholics and protestants and the beliefs etc, and upon stumbling accross this pathetic excuse to be humour i realised that some catholics(and some more than others i might add) are rather childish and so narrow minded...i mean to say that the only correct way to interpret the bible is the catholic way and such like is just a big croc of s**t to put it quite bluntly. its offensive to not only protestants but to any other faith or belief world wide. and people going on about more people flowing catholicism etc...who ever said that just because there is more believers the point is more or less valid than anybody elses beliefs or opinions. that response can be challenged by whoever wants to challenge it, i honestly couldnt care less, but it is a response to one catholic guy in particular who i think was called Ali something or other. Peace out

-- christian mo fo (???@???.com), February 23, 2005.

The fact that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth has nothing to do with the size of its membership. When the Church only had 12 members, it already possessed the truth, received directly from the lips of GOD in the Person of its founder, Jesus Christ. It also possessed the promise of GOD that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL TRUTH, and that whatsoever it binds upon earth is bound in heaven. No other Church was founded by God. No other Church received these promises from God. Sorry if you find it "offensive" that there can only be one truth; but any thinking person should quickly realize that the thousands of conflicting teachings and denominations of Protestantism cannot represent truth. Truth doesn't conflict with itself. Truth can exist only in unity. Where there are conflicting beliefs there is untruth. And where there is untruth there is not the Church Jesus Christ founded for all mankind.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2005.

Yeah I agree, c.m.f., some of the attempts at humor on this thread are pretty lame. But finally YOU have given us a joke to make us LOL! You come to a Catholic site and say that a basic Catholic belief “is just a big croc of s**t”, then in the same breath you criticize Catholics for being “offensive” merely for stating their own beliefs!!! And I’d say it’s very likely that a guy called Ali is a Muslim, not a Catholic!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

your description about chatholic is very good, but you must check to the bible deep inside, and you will find the right answer about Jesus Christ. God Bless you

-- anton (antonrudy@yahoo.com), February 25, 2005.