Psuedo-Catholic Protestant Denominations

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
3AM, you asked whether my doctrine of the Trinity is the same as the Catholics'? Well, um, yes; both are defined by the same Ecumenical Councils. I was brought up a Catholic, so I should know!

BTW, is a comediatrix a female comedian?

Yours in Christ

Matt

The first time I saw that word I thought it said DOMinatrix.

bad image.

You are from England?

I lived there for 3 years while I was serving in the USAF.

You know where RAF Fairford is?

God Bless

 

[ISJ]

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.

v. wor·shiped, or wor·shipped wor·ship·ing, or wor·ship·ping wor·ships or wor·ships
v. tr.
To honor and love as a deity.
To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.

v. intr.
To participate in religious rites of worship.
To perform an act of worship."

So I guess there are ALOT of different definitions to worship.

Look at the judgement you are making here:

"They say that they do not worship objects."

"I say that they do."

Well...isn't that unfair? Didn't you just say a little while ago that if you were going to talk about a religion you should learn about what it is they actually believe and not your own interpertation of what they believe? What is in their hearts and minds?

Of course...that definition of worship is a certian persons definition of worship...it's what they gave to mean to the vocal sound "wor-ship".

"their apologetics must 'redefine' just about EVERY word of their doctrine, to make it NOT say what it IS saying"

Actually...they were here first...we as protestant English folks redifined the words for ourselves

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Ok, how old are you?

How old am I? Are you serious?

Tell me how that is relevant to the discussion and I'd be happy to tell you. Or you can find my age on my website.

Would you like to share that with the rest of the class?

WHERE it is in the Bible.

You believe it, the burden of proof is on YOU.

It's not just me who believes it. It seems odd that you want me to defend what Christians have always believed, on a Christian board.

Nevertheless - if you want to see Bible verses supporting Jesus being fully God and fully man, the following site is quite comprehensive:

Jesus' two natures

Helen/AITB

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by ISJ:
Actually...they were here first...we as protestant English folks redifined the words for ourselves

No they weren't.

That is truly the funniest thing you have said yet!

Sheesh.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by AITB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Ok, how old are you?

How old am I? Are you serious?

Tell me how that is relevant to the discussion and I'd be happy to tell you. Or you can find my age on my website.

Would you like to share that with the rest of the class?

WHERE it is in the Bible.

You believe it, the burden of proof is on YOU.

It's not just me who believes it. It seems odd that you want me to defend what Christians have always believed, on a Christian board.

Nevertheless - if you want to see Bible verses supporting Jesus being fully God and fully man, the following site is quite comprehensive:

Jesus' two natures

Helen/AITB </font>[/QUOTE]ACTUALLY, I have a point.

You said it was a 'Catholic' doctrine.

I asked you if it was in the Bible.

NOW that you have confirmed that it IS in the Bible, I can say, what I have thought ALL ALONG.

It isn't a Catholic doctrine.

It is a BIBLICAL doctrine.

God Bless

 

[ISJ]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ISJ:
Actually...they were here first...we as protestant English folks redifined the words for ourselves

No they weren't.

That is truly the funniest thing you have said yet!

Sheesh.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Well...I guess I can't argue with that huh?

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
ACTUALLY, I have a point.

You said it was a 'Catholic' doctrine.

I asked you if it was in the Bible.

NOW that you have confirmed that it IS in the Bible, I can say, what I have thought ALL ALONG.

It isn't a Catholic doctrine.

It is a BIBLICAL doctrine.

God Bless

I don't see why it being Biblical means it's not a Catholic doctrine. If Catholics teach it it's a Catholic doctrine, period. It's not as if it can only be one or the other.

Anyway, since the Bible is one source of authority for Catholic doctrine, it would be strange indeed if none of their doctrine came from the Bible, in my opinion...

Helen/AITB

 

[Matt Black]

3AM - yes I know where Fairford is. Any moment now I expect the B52s to take off from there. Not sure what the relevance of that is to this discussion tho'...?

Re the Christological definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon - they are Catholic, they are adhered to I think by virtually every Protestant denomination, and they are Biblical. I know this may be a difficult concept for you to get your head around...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Charles33]

3angels mom said

Do
you believe what they believe about Mary? My intention is not to prove that the Catholic church does or
doesn't believe something, but rather how much of what THEY believe is part of what the protestants
believe!

Three angels. Two points.

1. Mary is not part of the Trinity. You can say the sun is blue until you are blue, and nobody, nobody teaches that Mary is part of the Trinity. YOU, can believe what you like, but you cannot introduce here that Mary is a diety and part of the Godhead in any way, no more than anybody else can. What I think is happening, is you have such a visceral reaction to Marian dogma, that you insert it where it does not exist.

2. I was a Baptist for 25 years, read so much that I almost went blind. I am now a Catholic. I read so much going Catholic I almost went blind. I still don't see any difference between the mainline Protestants and the Catholics in regard to the Trinity.

In fact, the Protestants started Catholic in doctine, and over centuries changed things a bit at a time. This happens to be one of those things that was never changed, unlike statues and sacraments. This one stayed the same.

It seems the root of your argument is Marian dogma, not the Trinity. Just because something has some relationship to the Trinity, does not mean that something is part of the Trinity. If Jesus lives in your heart, and you and he are now joined in some manner, then are you too in some way part of the Trinity now? I don't think so.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by AITB:
[QB]I don't see why it being Biblical means it's not a Catholic doctrine. If Catholics teach it it's a Catholic doctrine, period. It's not as if it can only be one or the other.

Well, considering that 'Catholic' means universal, and we CLEARLY know that not EVERYONE in the universe agrees with them, that we DO need to clarify what is UNIQUELY Catholic, and what is foundationally Biblical. Like the Marian doctrines, clearly some of it is Biblical, but you DO NOT see it in the universal Body of Christ. It is uniquely Catholic. Perhaps I should have been specific and said UNIQUELY Catholic.

Anyway, since the Bible is one source of authority for Catholic doctrine, it would be strange indeed if none of their doctrine came from the Bible, in my opinion...

And it would be equally strange if that was what I was saying, but since I said nothing of the sort, this is a moot argument.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by ISJ:
Well...I guess I can't argue with that huh?

I guess not!

Seriously though, the Catholic Church, no matter how hard they try to 'prove' it, is NOT the Apostolic Church from the first century. Many claim to be that 'one true church', but they just aren't. There are WAY too many things that they believe that are NOT in accordance with the Apostolic doctrines.

We could go crazy trying to define all of them, but I will just point out ONE, and that will make this point valid, and forever prove that they ARE NOT the First Century Apostolic church.

They don't break the bread.

NOW, some will argue 'yes they do', but it is an ACCEPTED fact, even among Catholics, that they DO NOT break the bread. The host that is actually put in the Monstrance is broken, but that only makes 4 pieces, so the 'hosts' that are actually given to the laity are unbroken, intact little circular wafers.

NOT broken.

What difference does it make? ALLOT. Why? Because the Apostles BROKE the bread.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] 3AM - yes I know where Fairford is. Any moment now I expect the B52s to take off from there. Not sure what the relevance of that is to this discussion tho'...?

Ah the memories. Are you close then? I don't remember where everything is over there, I left in '99. I know this has nothing to do with the discussion, I was just making conversation.

Re the Christological definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon - they are Catholic, they are adhered to I think by virtually every Protestant denomination, and they are Biblical. I know this may be a difficult concept for you to get your head around...

Could you provide a link or post the actual statement that you are referring to?

There aren't many concepts that I have trouble getting my brain around. The Trinity is one though. It not only doesn't make sense, but it is also not provable from Scripture. It can be supported well enough for MILLIONS to believe it, but careful study and prayer has led me to a different understanding of the Godhead.

Another concept is quantum physics.

Have no idea how that works.

Don't care either.

God Bless

 

[Charles33]

3AM said

NOW, some will argue 'yes they do', but it is an ACCEPTED fact, even among Catholics, that they DO NOT break the
bread. The host that is actually put in the Monstrance is broken, but that only makes 4 pieces, so the 'hosts' that are
actually given to the laity are unbroken, intact little circular wafers.

NOT broken.

What difference does it make? ALLOT. Why? Because the Apostles BROKE the bread.

Well, with that line of logical shcolarly approach to appologetics...are you SURE you know EXACTLY how the Apostles broke it? I mean, what if they tore some of the bread, or pulled it apart. That is fundamentally different than breaking.

How do you break bread to quailify as officially Apostolically Breaking Bread. In fact, if you have been to Catholic services, you find come do actually not have wafer style bread, but have what you might call a foccocia style bread, where every piece is torn off. Torn or broke? ... now I am not sure if it was apostolic after all. You have a great point.

 

[Charles33]

The Trinity is one though. It not only doesn't
make sense, but it is also not provable from Scripture. It can be supported well enough for MILLIONS to believe it, but
careful study and prayer has led me to a different understanding of the Godhead.

Hmmm. Interpertation is a beautiful thing.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Charles33:
[QB]Three angels. Two points.

1. Mary is not part of the Trinity. You can say the sun is blue until you are blue, and nobody, nobody teaches that Mary is part of the Trinity. YOU, can believe what you like, but you cannot introduce here that Mary is a diety and part of the Godhead in any way, no more than anybody else can. What I think is happening, is you have such a visceral reaction to Marian dogma, that you insert it where it does not exist.

Did I say Mary was part of the TRInity? Let's see, I'm not really that good at math, but let me tackle this one. Father, ok that's ONE, Son, ok, TWO, uhhhh, HOLY SPIRIT, ok that's THREE, alrighty, trinity is a unity of THREE, ok WE'RE done! Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not really any room for someone else. I guess the CC can't count. Because they DO put her in a position of authority. I have discussed this with Catholics here and in 'real' life, and they ALL tell me the same thing. We DON'T worship her. YEAH RIGHT. I used to BE Catholic. I can't even FATHOM how someone could try to say they DO NOT worship Mary. Queen of Heaven. Spouse of the FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, making her ONE with them. Please, by all means, explain THAT away.

2. I was a Baptist for 25 years, read so much that I almost went blind. I am now a Catholic. I read so much going Catholic I almost went blind. I still don't see any difference between the mainline Protestants and the Catholics in regard to the Trinity.

I'm very sorry to hear that. You went from a correct doctrine, to a totally incorrect doctrine. I feel your pain in the study department. You see, if it was an EASY concept (because HIS YOKE is EASY) then you wouldn't have nearly gone blind. I did the same thing you did, tried REALLY hard to understand it. It is a 'mystery'. It is also quite sad that you don't see a difference in the trinity of CC and Protestants. You don't see it, because you want to think it isn't there. The difference in the CC and Protestants is that Mary is part of the leadership in heaven. The Trinity is pretty much the same. And the thing most in common? Both are false.

In fact, the Protestants started Catholic in doctine, and over centuries changed things a bit at a time.

I'd like to read what you read on this. Do you remember what you read that taught you this?

This happens to be one of those things that was never changed, unlike statues and sacraments. This one stayed the same.

Actually there ARE entire denominations in the Protestant circle that DO NOT believe in the Trinity the way that Catholics do. There is a difference between the Nicene Creed and my church's statement about the trinity. There are differences, but they end up being the same thing. False.

It seems the root of your argument is Marian dogma, not the Trinity.

You're wrong. The root of the argument is non existent. I started this thread to discuss the doctrines that are similar in Catholics and Protestants. This thread wasn't started to argue.

Just because something has some relationship to the Trinity, does not mean that something is part of the Trinity. If Jesus lives in your heart, and you and he are now joined in some manner, then are you too in some way part of the Trinity now? I don't think so.

ACTAULLY, if I am IN CHRIST, and CHRIST is part of the 'trinity' then YES, I am part of the Trinity!!

Amazing how that works.

I am a chronic name caller when it comes to the Catholic Church.

I will spare you though.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Charles33:
[QB]Well, with that line of logical shcolarly approach to appologetics...are you SURE you know EXACTLY how the Apostles broke it? I mean, what if they tore some of the bread, or pulled it apart. That is fundamentally different than breaking.

Last I checked, the bread they were using was unleavened bread, and that kind of bread is usually very brittle. They broke the bread. They made a piece that was 'whole' into smaller pieces. That's not really a difficult concept. Well for some it might be.

How do you break bread to quailify as officially Apostolically Breaking Bread.

break it.

In fact, if you have been to Catholic services, you find come do actually not have wafer style bread, but have what you might call a foccocia style bread, where every piece is torn off.

Really? Is that 'new' dogma? Last I checked the 'Eucharist' was a WAFER host. Little round flat.

Torn or broke? ... now I am not sure if it was apostolic after all. You have a great point.

You're funny??? HA.

Let's see what JESUS did.

He took bread, blessed it, and BROKE it, and then GAVE it to the Apostles and said 'Take, eat, THIS is my Body which has been BROKEN for you'.

If they DO NOT break it, It is NOT His Body that was 'broken' for us.

It must be broken. Just like Him.

Why do you think they break the Monstrance Host?

For kicks?

NO. Because they know that JESUS broke the bread.

But then they DO NOT break every piece. And the little pieces that they have are their OWN little 'breads'. They aren't broken.

You said 'foccocia' style.... do you mean like leavened pizza bread?

If you ARE Catholic NOW, this thread is for Protestants. The reason I am doing it now, is because our Catholic brethren are taking off for Lent.

Not trying to be rude, but if you want to discuss your doctrines start your own thread.

Thanks!

God Bless

 

[Charles33]

3am - Hey, I have not seen you around before...your a real live wire . Good to meet you, I think.

you said

You don't see it, because you want to think it isn't there. The
difference in the CC and Protestants is that Mary is part of the leadership in heaven. The Trinity is pretty much the
same.

Ahh. Got it. That is why you don't see them as the same, when the rest of Baptist and Catholics do. You don't have a log in your eye, you have the virgin in your eye. You have Mary colored glasses on. Get those off, you'll go blind.

Ok. Well at least we have clarity on that matter with you. A different appraoch but there.

I guess the CC can't count. Because they DO put her in
a position of authority. I have discussed this with Catholics here and in 'real' life, and they ALL tell me the same thing.

Actually it is a quindinity now. They also place Priests in positions of authority. They have now added priests to the Trininty. Oh, and you added yourself in your last post. Dude.

I'd like to read what you read on this. Do you remember what you read that taught you this?

...Protestant Reformation stuff and that kinda stuff. You know.

Actually there ARE entire denominations in the Protestant circle that DO NOT believe in the Trinity the way that Catholics
do.

Yes there are. But the Baptist, which had been thrown into this discussion as well as most SDA, DO believe in the Trinity.

You're wrong. The root of the argument is non existent. I started this thread to discuss the doctrines that are similar in
Catholics and Protestants.

Nuh Unh, your wrong. You were discussing the Trinity and how Baptist and Catholics did not really see it the same.

ACTAULLY, if I am IN CHRIST, and CHRIST is part of the 'trinity' then YES, I am part of the Trinity!!

You ARE amazing. I have a new appreciation for SDAs.

You know folks, this is how it starts. Tomorrow well be drinking cool-aid...

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Charles33:
[QB] 3am - Hey, I have not seen you around before...your a real live wire . Good to meet you, I think.

Singer calls me 'Spitfire', you will soon see why.
Good to meet you too!

Ahh. Got it. That is why you don't see them as the same, when the rest of Baptist and Catholics do. You don't have a log in your eye, you have the virgin in your eye. You have Mary colored glasses on. Get those off, you'll go blind.

Ok, that not only answered NOTHING, but it made no sense. I do not believe in the trinity, nor in Marian dogma, therefore, NOTHING about those 2 doctrines are clouding my perception. However, as you may NEVER see, there is obviously no 'showing' you.

Ok. Well at least we have clarity on that matter with you. A different appraoch but there.

Do you? That's funny. After 2 posts YOU think you understand and have 'clarity' on the matter with me?

Actually it is a quindinity now. They also place Priests in positions of authority. They have now added priests to the Trininty. Oh, and you added yourself in your last post. Dude.

NO, you added me. I don't believe in the trinity. It doesn't exist. Therefore how can I be part of it? And, last i checked, I am not a dude.

But the Baptist, which had been thrown into this discussion as well as most SDA, DO believe in the Trinity.

Yes, and there are more than just Baptists, and SDA's in this discussion.

Nuh Unh, your wrong.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to what I think, you don't have a pitchfork to stand on. If I say you are wrong about how you are percieving my thoughts, then YOU ARE WRONG. There is no argument there. Oh, and by the way, it's YOU'RE wrong, not YOUR wrong.

You were discussing the Trinity and how Baptist and Catholics did not really see it the same.

Actually someone else started that discussion in the middle of my question about the similarities to the CC and the PD's. This isn't a trinity thread. Read the opening post.

You ARE amazing. I have a new appreciation for SDAs.

Don't blame them for the stupidity of the trinity doctrine. It was the Catholics who came up with it, remember????

You know folks, this is how it starts. Tomorrow well be drinking cool-aid

Yes, and the little cups will say 'stupid-medicine'. All those who drink will IMMEDIATLY understand the Trinity mystery.

God Bless

 

[Charles33]

3am - said

You said 'foccocia' style.... do you mean like leavened pizza bread?

Yep.

If you ARE Catholic NOW, this thread is for Protestants. The reason I am doing it now, is because our Catholic brethren
are taking off for Lent.

Not trying to be rude, but if you want to discuss your doctrines start your own thread.

You are being rude, but I don't think that bothers you. You were discussing my doctrines that were the same as other Protestants. I have been both Protestant and Catholic. If you just want one side, then have at it. You are mis-representing the teaching of the RCC. And then you wonder why you don't make any sense to these people. They are not following your logic because it has a check sum error. Can't take a little rebutal to your views? Thats fine.

If you feel the need to start calling names and really want to debate openly and vigorously, then just send me some email. You can scream and whatever you like. Then I can give some heat back. You know I have to excersice some control on a public forum.

 

[Charles33]

Ok I can see you don't ever really debate. Just an example. Do you have a good memory?

Let's see, you said:

ACTAULLY, if I am IN CHRIST, and CHRIST is part of the 'trinity' then YES, I am part of the Trinity!!

then you said:

NO, you added me. I don't believe in the trinity. It doesn't exist. Therefore how can I be part of it?

You are seriously hard to follow. Yeah I know you said if.

Last try cuz you don't really get it yet. I don't see Mary in the Trinity, Catholics don't see here there, and Baptists don't see her there. YOU are the one that sees her as somehow construed into it by some authority somebody gave her. Let me clarify one more time so you get it. YOU see her there, not us. That is why I say you see Mary in things that are not there. Mary colored glasses. You are right about me not seeing it, because she 'aint there.

If I say you are wrong about how
you are percieving my thoughts, then YOU ARE WRONG.

Hmmmm...I think you're wrong.

Ok, just kidding! I'm wrong.