defnition of meanings?

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:52 am

please forgive my ignornace on this but me and boyfriend were talking the other night and we both had the same question

whats the difference between being a roman catholic and a christian, or is there none? im sure my parents told me once but it was a long time ago!!

thanks

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:14 am

pink princess wrote: please forgive my ignornace on this but me and boyfriend were talking the other night and we both had the same question

whats the difference between being a roman catholic and a christian, or is there none? im sure my parents told me once but it was a long time ago!!

thanks

Aside from the way that church services are conducted the Roman Catholics regard the pope as being Christ's representative on earth. His word is the be all and end all of what the Bible means according to the inspired words of the the Holy spirit that come out through this representative on earth.

The post of Pope comes from Peter who was the first Pope of the religion.

Virtually all other denominations of Christianity do not believe in the power of the Pope.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:19 am

thankyou

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:19 pm

pink princess wrote: thankyou

My pleasure.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:36 am

Now if you want to ask what is different between a catholic and a protestant we could start a war.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:44 am

actually a good point and another thing im not too sure of...... i did study it at school in my A-levels but the teacher was seriously rubbish and none of us learnt anything!

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:34 am

gmc wrote: Now if you want to ask what is different between a catholic and a protestant we could start a war.

We don't have to start a war because we've already have a pair of those idiots doing it in Ireland.

Post by **nev** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:05 pm

pink princess wrote: please forgive my ignornace on this but me and boyfriend were talking the other night and we both had the same question

whats the difference between being a roman catholic and a christian, or is there none? im sure my parents told me once but it was a long time ago!!

thanks

In my opinion spiritually there is no difference. Practicing Roman Catholics and other Christians base their lives and follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

The differences that exist however are man made to serve the weakness of human ego to be more right then anyone else. I got into a serious conflict when I once said that anyone who feels that their following (whether it be Catholic or other Christians) is more right or more superior to the other is in fact not Christian at all because they are going against the teachings of Christ.

It seems difficult for some of us to accept that our perspective of God, methods of worship and spiritual gifts could be different for everyone of us and not be in anyway more correct in anyone of us.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:35 pm

nev wrote: In my opinion spiritually there is no difference. Practicing Roman Catholics and other Christians base their lives and follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

The differences that exist however are man made to serve the weakness of human ego to be more right then anyone else. I got into a serious conflict when I once said that anyone who feels that their following (whether it be Catholic or other Christians) is more right or more superior to the other is in fact not Christian at all because they are going against the teachings of Christ.I agree with you. How do you relate to Papal Supremacy? Does that go against the teaching of Christ like you were saying?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:20 pm

posted by telapaquacky

I agree with you. How do you relate to Papal Supremacy? Does that go against the teaching of Christ like you were saying?

That question led to some of the bloodiest conflicts in europe. Have a wee look at this.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... eformation

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Puritan

To some protestants catholicism, because of the veneration of saints and the use of craven inages-madonna etc, is idolatory and therefore unchristian (though shalt have no god etc)

The word Puritan is now applied unevenly to a number of Protestant churches from the late sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century. However, Puritans did not, by and large, use the term for themselves, and the word was always a descriptor of a type of religious innovation, rather than a particular church. The closest analogy in the present day to the meaning of "Puritan" in the 17th century would be "fundamentalist": Puritanism was a movement rather than a denomination.

That said, the single theological movement most consistently self-described by the term "Puritan" was Calvinist and became the Presbyterian Church. The term was used by the group itself mainly in the sixteenth century. By the middle of the seventeenth century the group had become so divided that "Puritan" was most often used by opponents and detractors of the group, rather than by the practitioners themselves. The practitioners knew themselves as members of particular churches or movements, and not by the simple and nebulous term "Puritan."

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:22 pm

gmc wrote: posted by telapaquacky

That question led to some of the bloodiest conflicts in europe. Have a wee look at this.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... eformation

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Puritan

To some protestants catholicism, because of the veneration of saints and the use of craven inages-madonna etc, is idolatory and therefore unchristian (though shalt have no god etc)

I was under the impression that a lot of the problems in that era were caused by the hierarchy of the RC's granting clemency to sinners for cash in the afterlife. Indulgences were the vogue of the day that also gave us Lutherinism. It ll comes down to the collection plate.

RC's don't worship idols. It was a myth perpetrated by the Cromwellians.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:33 am

posted by kensloft

I was under the impression that a lot of the problems in that era were caused by the hierarchy of the RC's granting clemency to sinners for cash in the afterlife. Indulgences were the vogue of the day that also gave us Lutherinism. It ll comes down to the collection plate.

RC's don't worship idols. It was a myth perpetrated by the Cromwellians.

That's true as well the church was seen as corrupt and venal. It's a very complex period if you want simple explanations it's definitely the wrong time period to look at. There was also the issue of who was superior-the king, prince or the bishop in Rome, simple economics, famine disease all came in to it as well.

Whether it is a myth or not doesn't matter but that's why if you go in to most lutheran/presbytarian churches there are no statues the more extreme don't even allow stained glass windows. (I'm in scotland remember so I don't know the situation where you are but we have the church of scotland, the free church and then what are known as the wee frees who take it really seriously) Epicscopaleans don't really count as true protestants because of their romish practices and idolatory. (I'm not relgious so I'm not intending to have a go at any particular brand of christianity)

The reformation is a fascinating period and still influences thought today though most are unaware of it-if man is equal in the sight of god then should he not also be on earth as well, therein lie the seeds of social revolution and peasants believing they are as good as their masters read on to the rise of modern day western democracy

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:44 am

kensloft wrote: RC's don't worship idols. It was a myth perpetrated by the Cromwellians.There weren't any Cromwellians with me when I visited St. Peter's and saw people standing in line to kiss the foot of the statue of Peter (which I'm told was installed as Mercury in another temple before it was renamed Peter and installed in St. Peter's. Different place, same function)kensloft wrote:

I was under the impression that a lot of the problems in that era were caused by the hierarchy of the RC's granting clemency to sinners for cash in the afterlife. Indulgences were the vogue of the day that also gave us Lutherinism. It ll comes down to the collection plate.Ken, I believe that religions and churches have the right to do whatever they want with statues, collection plates, indulgences, whatever. They can call themselves whatever they want. The problem with the Middle Ages was that the Popes basically ruled over the kings of Europe. Can anyone condone any religious leader claiming authority over the whole world and imposing their own religious dogma and morality by force?

Here in America we have a similar problem developing. Increasingly the religious right is clamouring for legislation to enforce their own world view, which they think is Biblical, but which I believe is just plain right wing politics.

Post by **nev** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:23 pm

telaquapacky wrote: I agree with you. How do you relate to Papal Supremacy? Does that go against the teaching of Christ like you were saying?

I regard the Pope as a spiritual leader. His job is to guide the Roman Catholic community on spiritual matters, based on his learning and experience.

The Pope is a human being and therefore I do not accept that he is infallible. I do not accept that he has the power to decide who is/was or is/was not a good Christian. He also does not have the authority to judge which Christian community has a greater right, if any, to inherit God's Kingdom. Finally he certainly has no authority to discern who deserves to go to heaven or hell. As a human being he is entitled to his views, like the rest of us, but not the authority to make those judgements.

The Pope is advised by a group known as the Curia. These are mainly elderly men who have not the slightest clue what ordinary human beings and their families are going through in life today. The fact that there are no women in this elite group means that all their decisions lack feminine opinion, intuition and perspective. I believe therefore their decisions lack the correct balance and sensitivity.

Pope John Paul II, was a good Pope who achieved much. He will be remembered and missed by many. It is my sincere hope that whoever takes his place has the humility and vision to address the deep inequalities that create much of the churches problems.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:40 pm

telaquapacky :-6

There is a serious problem when we judge events or folks from back in history. We are judging from the 21st Cent. point of view. To truly make a judgement we must put ourselves, metaphorically, back in time to that eral.

Our beliefs are based on language(one of the most important) culture, history, causal events, belief systems, basic fund of knowledge, our ability to conceptualize and a host of others. The popes of medieval times felt they were right in demanding control over the kings etc. of Europe. At that time they felt that is how is was to be. These men must be judged in the milieu in which they found themselves and not on 21st cent. thinking.

That is also how we must learn to read the Bible.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:42 pm

I may have said it before on this thread but I think that John Paul II was one of the giants among the leaders of the world. He made his share of errors but he did in fact make a tremendous positive contribution to the world as a whole not just to Catholicism.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:44 pm

Some churches use statues and other religious items as a focal point. They use them to aid in focusing their mind on God. They do not worship the statues but venerate what they symbolize.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm

Jab :-6

The Anglican Eucharist is much the same as the Roman Catholic Eucharist. We essentially see it in the same way, believing in the real presence.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:55 am

nev wrote: I regard the Pope as a spiritual leader. His job is to guide the Roman Catholic community on spiritual matters, based on his learning and experience.

The Pope is a human being and therefore I do not accept that he is infallible. I do not accept that he has the power to decide who is/was or is/was not a good Christian. He also does not have the authority to judge which Christian community has a greater right, if any, to inherit God's Kingdom. Finally he certainly has no authority to discern who deserves to go to heaven or hell. As a human being he is entitled to his views, like the rest of us, but not the authority to make those judgements.

The Pope is advised by a group known as the Curia. These are mainly elderly men who have not the slightest clue what ordinary human beings and their families are going through in life today. The fact that there are no women in this elite group means that all their decisions lack feminine opinion, intuition and perspective. I believe therefore their decisions lack the correct balance and sensitivity.

Pope John Paul II, was a good Pope who achieved much. He will be remembered and missed by many. It is my sincere hope that whoever takes his place has the humility and vision to address the deep inequalities that create much of the churches problems.
Me too!

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun May 22, 2005 2:07 am

gmc wrote: Now if you want to ask what is different between a catholic and a protestant we could start a war. :DOh you don't need to bring Northern Ireland into it:D

vilssss · Post by **vilssss** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:31 pm

I read all the posts and I have yet to see this point pointed out.

The point in question is "authority." The RCs claim to be the only Christian sect on earth to have the proper authority (from St. Peter in the meridian of times down to the present-day pope) to conduct religious practices in behalf of God. All other Christian sects derived from the RCs and therefore don't have the proper authority because they all branched out from the RCs, and did not recieved authority from them to start new religions.

Just thought I'ld bring that one up. It's important if you read the bible. When a servant of God ventured forth to proclaim Gods truths. They all had to be anointed and blessed with the authority to proclaim God to the world. In those days, that world was Isreal, and later the Jews.

But even the authority of the RCs is sketchy since their claims to the authority of St. Peter came by way of Peter being crucified upside down because he would not allow himself to be crucified right side up like the Savior. While he was dead, the first pope claimed that he recieved his authority from St. Peter while he sat under the dead Saint with his hands hanging down and touching his head. That's hardly a continuation of authority because how can a dead person give authority to the living if he was dead to begin with. Had he claimed that St. Peter gave him the authority while he was yet alive, that we can believe.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:13 am

vilssss, I don't think the Roman Catholics claim supremacy over the Orthodox Christian community, which developed independently as separate patriarchates.

As for inerrancy, the Pope isn't just guided by the Curia, he is (allegedly) also guided by the Holy Spirit. It's on the basis of the latter's advice that the Pope was declared inerrant when speaking in very rigidly restricted circumstances. Very few papal utterances have had inerrancy claimed for them. All of the rest are simply opinions or guidance for his flock.

Oh... "whats the difference between being a roman catholic and a christian" - a Roman Catholic is a Christian who has been accepted into membership of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many other Christian Churches, each with their own membership of Christians. All of the Christians alive are members of the Church Militant, which is also called the Body of Christ. All the dead Christians are called the Church Triumphant. They might be useful labels if this thread goes on much longer.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:03 pm

If one listens to the Eastern Orthodox Church they are the only true church. Rome claims the Eastern branch left the church and the Easterns claim it was Rome that left. It becomes a bit of tiresome nonsense after while.

Shalom

Ted :-6