Differences between Catholics and Protestants

[mikepec]

So what are we doing here?

J.

Discussing why we think what we think ,

The early fathers writing just after Christ all repeat a number of themes.
One is stay true to what the bishop teaches. Where he is , is the church, and the Eucharist is not valid without him.
The point is that is how the faith was handed down. Only those sent could preach,

According to iraneus ( 100 years after Christ, outer of many heresies ) all his generation of bishops could trace their succession back to the apostles.

Several things are historically true in early writings

1/ they all taught the same things, like baptismal regeneration
2/ they started with and were taught by apostles ( eg polycarp, ignatius ) by john
3/ the Eucharist of the real presence valid only if presided by a bishop was taught explicitly by such as ignatius
4/ the weekly meeting was liturgical , and in essence sane till today with liturgy of word , readings to catechumens , then “ breaking of bread” Eucharist only for those already baptised,
5/ even the romans thought Christian’s were caninibals because of what they taught

So here is the problem , if that isn’t true doctrine it started with those taught by apostles.
Because writings show + That is what they did and handed down.

So if the ecucharist is as ignatius claimed, then you need it for eternal life because that is how they interpreted John, the ones who were taught by John!


One of the biggest defences of the Catholic Church . Is that It’s still going after 2000 years despite the shocking behaviour of many of its clergy and members. So something other than Catholics must be keeping it going!

 

[Behold]

-
The Catholic Bible... which is demonic... teaches that you are 'born again.... BY WATER"... and that is why the "cult of Mary", is obsessed with Water Baptism. The NT teaches that the HOLY SPIRIT imparts the new birth.. not water baptism.

The "cult of Mary" teaches, literally, that dead Mary flew into heaven, while still a Virgin.

The "cult of Mary" teaches, that cutting off parts of a dead person's body, is a "relic" that they hold in high esteem, and share and cultivate.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that the Priest, putting the cookie in your mouth.... = is now become JESUS Himself, in your mouth.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that Priests, can't Marry, yet Paul wrote the Peter had a wife, who traveled with Him, and Paul's doctrine says that "forbidding to marry, is a doctrine of Devils".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that the Church is "Built on Peter", whereas Jesus said the REVELATION that He is the CHRIST, that was recognized by Peter, is the ROCK that the Church will be built upon".

The "cult of Mary" teaches as does Paganism that was found in Ephesus, that Paul wrote about .., as "the Goddess Diana", that they both are the "queen of heaven" and are both "perpetual virgins".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that water washes away your sin, when in fact its the Blood of Jesus that is the cleansing agent that redeems you from your sin.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that Mary is in Heaven right now, helping Jesus to harvest souls for the Kingdom. Whereas the NT teaches that Jesus is "seated at the right Hand of the Father", Himself only "making intercession".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that they alone are the "one true Church".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that works are a part of the "Justification by faith"

 

[mikepec]

-
The Catholic Bible... which is demonic... teaches that you are 'born again.... BY WATER"... and that is why the "cult of Mary", is obsessed with Water Baptism. The NT teaches that the HOLY SPIRIT imparts the new birth.. not water baptism.

The "cult of Mary" teaches, literally, that dead Mary flew into heaven, while still a Virgin.

The "cult of Mary" teaches, that cutting off parts of a dead person's body, is a "relic" that they hold in high esteem, and share and cultivate.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that the Priest, putting the cookie in your mouth.... = is now become JESUS Himself, in your mouth.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that Priests, can't Marry, yet Paul wrote the Peter had a wife, who traveled with Him, and Paul's doctrine says that "forbidding to marry, is a doctrine of Devils".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that the Church is "Built on Peter", whereas Jesus said the REVELATION that He is the CHRIST, that was recognized by Peter, is the ROCK that the Church will be built upon".

The "cult of Mary" teaches as does Paganism that was in Ephesus, as "the Goddess Diana", that they are the "queen of heaven" and are both "perpetual virgins".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that water washes away your sin, when in fact its the Blood of Jesus that is the cleansing agent that redeems you from your sin.

The "cult of Mary" teaches that Mary is in Heaven right now, helping Jesus to harvest souls for the Kingdom. Whereas the NT teaches that Jesus is "seated at the right Hand of the Father", Himself only "making intercession".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that they alone are the "one true Church".

The "cult of Mary" teaches that works are a part of the "Justification by faith"

There is only the Bible , not the catholic Bible.
It was luther tried to change it, except for him it was the same since early times, a product of the church.
If you dismiss the church you have no Bible.
Take a history lesson.

See what those appointed by Jesus handed down to their disciples. Then you will discover what it means,

You can imagine all,the nonsense of your post is easily dismissed,

Eg There are several instances of first, second and third class relics having efficacy,
I will give you an hour to find them before admit you know little of scripture!
Clocks ticking. You can echo anti catholic myths, but you have never studied them

Tell me. Why do all protestabrs disagree on the meabing of scripture? Even on all the basics.
Luther calvin and Zwingli were poles apart. Lutherans don’t agree with luther, calvinists don’t agree with Calvin.
The sermon you hear from your pastor , is contradicted by anothet pastor in a church just down the road!
How can that be if you were teaching truth?

 

[Johann]

Discussing why we think what we think ,

The early fathers writing just after Christ all repeat a number of themes.
One is stay true to what the bishop teaches. Where he is , is the church, and the Eucharist is not valid without him.
The point is that is how the faith was handed down. Only those sent could preach,

According to iraneus ( 100 years after Christ, outer of many heresies ) all his generation of bishops could trace their succession back to the apostles.

Several things are historically true in early writings

1/ they all taught the same things, like baptismal regeneration
2/ they started with and were taught by apostles ( eg polycarp, ignatius ) by john
3/ the Eucharist of the real presence valid only if presided by a bishop was taught explicitly by such as ignatius
4/ the weekly meeting was liturgical , and in essence sane till today with liturgy of word , readings to catechumens , then “ breaking of bread” Eucharist only for those already baptised,
5/ even the romans thought Christian’s were caninibals because of what they taught

So here is the problem , if that isn’t true doctrine it started with those taught by apostles.
Because writings show + That is what they did and handed down.

So if the ecucharist is as ignatius claimed, then you need it for eternal life because that is how they interpreted John, the ones who were taught by John!


One of the biggest defences of the Catholic Church . Is that It’s still going after 2000 years despite the shocking behaviour of many of its clergy and members. So something other than Catholics must be keeping it going!

I’m glad you brought up the shocking behavior of many clergy and members.

But honestly, it’s a global phenomenon across churches worldwide.

J.

 

[mikepec]

I’m glad you brought up the shocking behavior of many clergy and members.

But honestly, it’s a global phenomenon across churches worldwide.

J.

Point is, something is holding the Catholic Church together, and it isn’t the behaviour of members of it!
Left to our devices it would have fallen apart long ago!

Some Chinese official said to a bishop in thr Catholic Church “ we will wipe you out in a generation”
The bishop replied , you are welcome to try, because we have done anll we can to wreck it and we can’t do it!

 

[Johann]

Point is, something is holding the Catholic Church together, and it isn’t the behaviour of members of it!
Left to our devices it would have fallen apart long ago!

Some Chinese official said to a bishop in thr Catholic Church “ we will wipe you out in a generation”
The bishop replied , you are welcome to try, because we have done anll we can to wreck it and we can’t do it!

I apologize for any members who have attacked your church.
Don't attack mine.

J.

 

[mikepec]

I apologize for any members who have attacked your church.
Don't attack mine.

J.

I Don’t think I have attacked it.

Indeed ..I said that God had many mansions, there are holy people in all.

But I am entitled to answer points you raise on “ who is in Christ”
By pointing out what Jesus said about obedience in John 3:36
Which begs a big question of “ obey what “? Which matters to,life and who is in Christ.

I also think all Christian’s should study the earliest church.
The writings of early fathers are there,
Then ask .., is my church like that? , and if different, why are we different ?
Fair question.

 

[Johann]

I Don’t think I have attacked it.

Indeed ..I said that God had many mansions, there are holy people in all.

But I am entitled to answer points you raise on “ who is in Christ”
By pointing out what Jesus said about obedience in John 3:36
Which begs a big question of “ obey what “? Which matters to,life and who is in Christ.

I also think all Christian’s should study the earliest church.
The writings of early fathers are there,
Then ask .., is my church like that? , and if different, why are we different ?
Fair question.

You do realize there are disagreements even from the ECF's-correct?

J.

 

[mikepec]

You do realize there are disagreements even from the ECF's-correct?

J.

Not on many substantive issues.
Like real presence in Eucharist, liturgy ot mass, need for baptism

When there were differences councils were called in which the church itself spoke, the bishops together with power to bind and loose.

The first was Jerusalem in acts. Paul wanted guidance.

Matter settled. Bind and loose is t the power Jesus gave. . The creed/ Nicea council settled the Arian issue

And it depends on who.

Some cherry pick statements of such as tertullian. But he was not a priest let aline bishop in succession.

Some point at Jerome questioning such as Maccabee’s, but he defers to the church decision as definitive.

Some point at Augustine , on the question of predestination , but Augustine was catholic through and through, listing all the popes against donatism. The thomist vs Montana’s t perspective is not an article of faith.

Jesus gave the mechanisms, bind and loose, and the church resolves disputes that way. Then it is settled . It’s why you can trust your New Testament.

 

[Johann]

Not on many substantive issues.
Like real presence in Eucharist, liturgy ot mass, need for baptism

When there were differences councils were called in which the church itself spoke, the bishops together with power to bind and loose.

The first was Jerusalem in acts. Paul wanted guidance.

Matter settled. Bind and loose is t the power Jesus gave. . The creed/ Nicea council settled the Arian issue

And it depends on who.

Some cherry pick statements of such as tertullian. But he was not a priest let aline bishop in succession.

Some point at Jerome questioning such as Maccabee’s, but he defers to the church decision as definitive.

Some point at Augustine , on the question of predestination , but Augustine was catholic through and through, listing all the popes against donatism. The thomist vs Montana’s t perspective is not an article of faith.

Jesus gave the mechanisms, bind and loose, and the church resolves disputes that way. Then it is settled . It’s why you can trust your New Testament.

So you believe in baptismal regeneration.

J.

 

[mikepec]

I see @Behold can’t asnswer the biblical question.
Several places the Bible refers to first second and third class relics being efficacious, showing his anti catholic attack does not hold water.

See who else can answer!

 

[mikepec]

So you believe in baptismal regeneration.

J.

The cathokic church believes it, not just me because the early fathers did who got their faith from the apostles.

 

[Johann]

Several places the Bible refers to first second and third class relics being efficacious,

There is a problem here-

The concept of relics as efficacious—that is, possessing the power to confer spiritual benefits or healing—is not directly supported by Scripture. While there are references in the Bible to objects or people being associated with God's power or presence, the idea of first, second, and third class relics (a term specific to Catholic tradition) and their efficacy does not appear explicitly in the Bible.

What are relics in Catholicism?
In Catholicism, relics are physical objects that are venerated because of their association with a saint or with Jesus Christ. These relics are categorized as:

First-class relics: Actual parts of a saint’s body (e.g., bones, hair).
Second-class relics: Items that a saint personally owned or used (e.g., clothing, tools).
Third-class relics: Items that have been touched to a first-class relic or the tomb of a saint.
Relics are believed to be efficacious in the sense that they are seen as a means through which God might work miracles, healings, or convey blessings. However, this practice is not explicitly outlined in Scripture.

Biblical Context: Objects and God's Power
There are instances in the Bible where physical objects are connected to God's power, but these instances are not the same as the Catholic understanding of relics. Let’s look at a few examples:

The Healing Power of the Apostle Paul's Handkerchiefs:

Acts 19:11-12: “And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”
This demonstrates that items associated with a person (in this case, Paul) could be used by God to heal. However, this is not the same as veneration or worship of the object itself.

The Healing Power of the Ark of the Covenant:

2 Samuel 6:6-7: When Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was struck dead. However, the Ark was treated with great reverence because it represented the presence of God. It was not the object itself that had inherent power, but rather God’s presence that was associated with it.
The Bronze Serpent:

Numbers 21:9: “So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”

Here, the people were healed by God’s instruction through the bronze serpent, but it was a symbol of God's mercy, not a relic worshipped for its own sake.

Jesus’ Healing Power through Contact:

Mark 5:27-34: “She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, ‘If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.’ And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.”
This is a direct example of an individual being healed by touching Jesus' garment, yet the power was not in the garment itself, but in Jesus' divine power.

The Bible's Teachings on Objects and Worship
The Bible consistently teaches that worship and adoration are reserved for God alone, not for physical objects or persons. The Second Commandment in Exodus 20:4-5, for example, prohibits the making and worshiping of idols:

“You shall not make for yourselves a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”

Although the Bible contains instances of objects being used in connection with God's work (like the examples above), there is no scriptural support for the notion that relics themselves have inherent efficacy or power apart from God's will.


The idea that first, second, and third class relics are efficacious in and of themselves is not found in Scripture. While the Bible does reference objects associated with God’s power (e.g., Paul’s handkerchief, the Ark, the bronze serpent), these objects do not carry inherent power or merit but are simply tools through which God chose to act. Worship or veneration of relics as efficacious is a doctrinal development in certain traditions (especially in Catholicism), but it is not explicitly grounded in biblical text. The Bible stresses that it is God’s power, not objects, that brings healing or salvation.

J.

 

[e v e]

You did not solve anything by leaving , other than depriving yourself of Christ’s church, the pillar of truth, the Bible which is a product of it, , the magistrrium and tradition which says what it means


You also deprived yourself of the bread of life, the Eucharist, sad.

the pope represents baal fish religion...

look at this twisted cross too.
it is so so evil

so sickening.

 

[mikepec]

the pope represents baal fish religion...

look at this twisted cross too.
it is so so evil

so sickening.

It is indeed sickening how anti Catholics twist the truth.
Bear false witness.
You should be ashamed.

 

[mikepec]

There is a problem here-

The concept of relics as efficacious—that is, possessing the power to confer spiritual benefits or healing—is not directly supported by Scripture. While there are references in the Bible to objects or people being associated with God's power or presence, the idea of first, second, and third class relics (a term specific to Catholic tradition) and their efficacy does not appear explicitly in the Bible.

What are relics in Catholicism?
In Catholicism, relics are physical objects that are venerated because of their association with a saint or with Jesus Christ. These relics are categorized as:

First-class relics: Actual parts of a saint’s body (e.g., bones, hair).
Second-class relics: Items that a saint personally owned or used (e.g., clothing, tools).
Third-class relics: Items that have been touched to a first-class relic or the tomb of a saint.
Relics are believed to be efficacious in the sense that they are seen as a means through which God might work miracles, healings, or convey blessings. However, this practice is not explicitly outlined in Scripture.

Biblical Context: Objects and God's Power
There are instances in the Bible where physical objects are connected to God's power, but these instances are not the same as the Catholic understanding of relics. Let’s look at a few examples:

The Healing Power of the Apostle Paul's Handkerchiefs:

Acts 19:11-12: “And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”
This demonstrates that items associated with a person (in this case, Paul) could be used by God to heal. However, this is not the same as veneration or worship of the object itself.

The Healing Power of the Ark of the Covenant:

2 Samuel 6:6-7: When Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was struck dead. However, the Ark was treated with great reverence because it represented the presence of God. It was not the object itself that had inherent power, but rather God’s presence that was associated with it.
The Bronze Serpent:

Numbers 21:9: “So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”

Here, the people were healed by God’s instruction through the bronze serpent, but it was a symbol of God's mercy, not a relic worshipped for its own sake.

Jesus’ Healing Power through Contact:

Mark 5:27-34: “She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, ‘If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.’ And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.”
This is a direct example of an individual being healed by touching Jesus' garment, yet the power was not in the garment itself, but in Jesus' divine power.

The Bible's Teachings on Objects and Worship
The Bible consistently teaches that worship and adoration are reserved for God alone, not for physical objects or persons. The Second Commandment in Exodus 20:4-5, for example, prohibits the making and worshiping of idols:

“You shall not make for yourselves a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”

Although the Bible contains instances of objects being used in connection with God's work (like the examples above), there is no scriptural support for the notion that relics themselves have inherent efficacy or power apart from God's will.


The idea that first, second, and third class relics are efficacious in and of themselves is not found in Scripture. While the Bible does reference objects associated with God’s power (e.g., Paul’s handkerchief, the Ark, the bronze serpent), these objects do not carry inherent power or merit but are simply tools through which God chose to act. Worship or veneration of relics as efficacious is a doctrinal development in certain traditions (especially in Catholicism), but it is not explicitly grounded in biblical text. The Bible stresses that it is God’s power, not objects, that brings healing or salvation.

J.

Do none of you know scripture at all?

- Elishas bones brought someone back from the dead.

- His mantle was used to part the waters.

- And as you note - Handkerchiefs touched by Paul caused the sick to be healed.

All classes of relics.
Yes the definitions are recent, the words ised to classify them, the different types of relic are scriptural,
I presume you accept that bones , a garment worn , or a cloth touching are different ?

Indeed Even peters shadow appeared to be efficacious,

Small wonder polycarps bones in some of the earliest Christian writings were sought after
Because of the history that showed the efficacy.

The bottom line.
God acts as he chooses through numerous things . Some of those things are relics,
There are too many instances even in recent times to deny it.
Do you deny God the power if He so wishes?


And stop saying “ Catholics “ say the historical truth - Jesus church from the beginning - the pillar of truth - accepts it, so why don’t you?
Polycarp was a disciple of John! How much closer can you get?The geberation after Christ believed it!

It is sad how watered down the Protestant faith has become.
You even deny the scientifically confirmed miracles of our time.

It is as if you were all saying Jesus is so weak he needs you to put his church right!!

That was how the un appointed Zwingli, Calvin and Luther viewed it, as their excuse for heresy and apostasy,
Yet they all disagreed with each other, so each viewed the other reformers as heretics and apostates. How crazy it was to believe any of them! The house divided that could never stand. Even crazier is that Lutherans do not agree with Luther, calvinists do not agree with Calvin or each other! They agree on little a bout the faith , even what is essential about the faith. Some Pentecostals brought back modalism, outed as heresy in the first generations! Reinventing heresies!

Seriously. God does not need any of you. Indeed He does not need any of us.

If God chooses to act through relics, that’s His choice not yours, he does, end of story,

Marvel at it,
don’t try to diminish it, .