# Chuckt discussing with Turzovka: topic: Catholicism vs Protestantism



## Chuckt (Oct 29, 2013)

Chuckt discussing with Turzovka: topic: Catholicism vs Protestantism

Turzovka,

I invited you to have a discussion with me that is free from interference from many other members on the board.

I wish to have a discussion based on fairness, gentleness and respect but I want you to debate hard if you wish to and I do as well.

I'll leave the option on the table if you wish to invite one friend to the discussion if you grant me the same permission as well.

Chuckt


----------



## turzovka (Oct 29, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> Chuckt discussing with Turzovka: topic: Catholicism vs Protestantism
> 
> Turzovka,
> 
> ...



Is this a separate message from the other one I just sent you?     Well, ok.   Please invite someone if you wish.    I am open to learning too.    But keep in mind, my timing may not be all that quick to respond since we have real lives to tend to.   Thanks.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 29, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Is this a separate message from the other one I just sent you?     Well, ok.   Please invite someone if you wish.    I am open to learning too.    But keep in mind, my timing may not be all that quick to respond since we have real lives to tend to.   Thanks.



Yes.  This is a separate message from the email I sent you.

My motivation for coming to this board was the gospel.  To tell you the truth, I don't have a lot of time and I don't always want to be here but people do matter and I wish to tell people the truth about Christianity because if I don't, some won't hear the truth of the gospel.  Here on the message board, politics makes up the issues.  None of that matters because the only issues that matter are life or death which I explain as life in heaven or death in hell.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, I can appeal rather than repel.  I wish to appeal by not saying the worse.  I wish to say that I believe that Catholicism is an incomplete gospel.

If you wish to add something or tell me what you think of evangelicals or protestants, that is fine.  I don't really wish to use the word "protestant" except for identification purposes.  I don't really feel that the word should be used because I'm not protesting anything.  I believe the only type of Christian is a born again Christian which doesn't mean a baptized one in the Catholic church.  I believe you have to be born from above and that baptism is only a picture or what the bible refers to as a 'like figure'.  I believe that pictures record events and don't create them.  Maybe you feel differently.

What points of contention should we organize this discussion over?  I can think of a list but I would like your list too.


----------



## turzovka (Oct 30, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a separate message from the other one I just sent you?     Well, ok.   Please invite someone if you wish.    I am open to learning too.    But keep in mind, my timing may not be all that quick to respond since we have real lives to tend to.   Thanks.
> ...



You know chuckt, I do this stuff because I enjoy it and not because I think I am saving souls.   So, for one, I feel a bit guilty about all of it, I could be more useful.     Secondly, people like you are not my main target.     I have no real quarrels with evangelicals, Pentecostals and all other protestant folks on fire for God.   I think they are in good standing as far as I am concerned.

I am never offended by others comments.   The only reason I get a little riled up is when others ridicule Catholic practices or beliefs.   No, I am not offended once again, but it does motivate me to counter the victim.     I am absolutely convinced the Catholic Church is the truest Christian faith and the most direct and efficacious message from God.   Yes, except for particular situations, I believe it would behoove any non-Catholic to become a practicing Catholic and be open to the sacraments found only in Catholicism including the Holy Eucharist, of course, the sacrament of Reconciliation, and a highly beneficial understanding of purgatory, the saints, the Virgin Mary, and all its rewards.

I am beyond redemption if you think you will ever convince me I am wrong.  I am certain of my beliefs, it is beyond any doubt. 

So I dont know chuckT what you may want to discuss or argue about?    You pick the subject and see if either of us have any time to advance it?   I make no promises.    If you ask me to pick the subject I will ask you questions which I dont know? may be your best and only defense.

Nice talking to you.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 31, 2013)

turzovka said:


> You know chuckt, I do this stuff because I enjoy it and not because I think I am saving souls.   So, for one, I feel a bit guilty about all of it, I could be more useful.     Secondly, people like you are not my main target.     I have no real quarrels with evangelicals, Pentecostals and all other protestant folks on fire for God.   I think they are in good standing as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I am never offended by others comments.   The only reason I get a little riled up is when others ridicule Catholic practices or beliefs.   No, I am not offended once again, but it does motivate me to counter the victim.     I am absolutely convinced the Catholic Church is the truest Christian faith and the most direct and efficacious message from God.   Yes, except for particular situations, I believe it would behoove any non-Catholic to become a practicing Catholic and be open to the sacraments found only in Catholicism including the Holy Eucharist, of course, the sacrament of Reconciliation, and a highly beneficial understanding of purgatory, the saints, the Virgin Mary, and all its rewards.
> 
> ...



I believe the faith was written down because people lie and the only reason the Catholic church forbid other people to read the Bible is because they knew if people followed it, they wouldn't follow Catholicism and that is what happened with the Reformation.  Satan couldn't destroy the church so he joins it which happens with a lot of Churches.

I don't know what you mean by "I am beyond redemption if you think you will ever convince me I am wrong.  I am certain of my beliefs, it is beyond any doubt." because it is a mixed message.

Would I say, "I don't know"?  I don't think so because I already have books on Catholicism written by heavyweights and there are two Christian message boards with ex-Catholics on it who heavily write against Catholicism which I am not allowed to mention because of the rules.

I've been watching the priest sex abuse scandal around the world so if that doesn't shock you or if that is the norm then I don't know what I can tell you that will make a difference.

New Book Traces Sad Recent History of Priest Sex Scandals « CBS Philly

Back in the late 80's or early 90's, a Catholic official used me.  He wanted the arguments from a message against the Catholic church so I gave him some and then he cut the discussion because he never wanted the discussion.


----------



## turzovka (Oct 31, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> I believe the faith was written down because people lie and the only reason the Catholic church forbid other people to read the Bible is because they knew if people followed it, they wouldn't follow Catholicism and that is what happened with the Reformation. Satan couldn't destroy the church so he joins it which happens with a lot of Churches.


So you are saying Rome forbid the common folk to read the Bible?   Where is this documented and acknowledged by the Catholic Church?    Bear in mind that secular history and protestant history has told gross lies and falsehoods about the Inquistion and the Crusades and it was not until the past 20 years or so where a great number of historians have come to admit that based on scrupulous research.    Now you are speculating the Bible was forbidden for the faithful to read, and not only that, but done so in order to keep them in the Church?    This is so hard to swallow, I do not.   



Chuckt said:


> I don't know what you mean by "I am beyond redemption if you think you will ever convince me I am wrong. I am certain of my beliefs, it is beyond any doubt." because it is a mixed message.


What I am saying is that I am beyond convincing that Catholicism is not the truest path to God.   There are too many certainties in that faith where I will always look at other Christian denominations as something less.     



Chuckt said:


> Would I say, "I don't know"? I don't think so because I already have books on Catholicism written by heavyweights and there are two Christian message boards with ex-Catholics on it who heavily write against Catholicism which I am not allowed to mention because of the rules.


Well, questions like Was that the Virgin Mary appearing to the children at Fatima in 1917, yes or no?   If no then what was it? (I dont know is the answer I almost always get here.)   If yes then why do you not put faith in her message?



Chuckt said:


> I've been watching the priest sex abuse scandal around the world so if that doesn't shock you or if that is the norm then I don't know what I can tell you that will make a difference.
> 
> New Book Traces Sad Recent History of Priest Sex Scandals « CBS Philly


Yes, we acknowledge this great sin, the sin of coverup by many bishops.   This is too large for me to comment here, but I will say this.   The devil attacks where he is most likely to reap the greatest rewards.   Destroying the Catholic Church is immeasurably invaluable to him.   Bishops were his target, they panicked.   They were so afraid of scandal and loss of reputation and credibility to the Church that they thought it best to keep it quiet and try to deal with it from within.   Then as the abuses grew the problem and ramifications of exposure grew as well.   Now look.  The Church is mortally wounded never to regain its prominence in the secular world or in the overall Christian world.   No one gets attacked for sexual indiscretions but the Catholic Church, we are the biggest and easiest target.   Every other institution can remain under cover. 

But the Church is far from insignificant or dead.   Not even.   We just walk in shame and humility because of our sin.   But the bigger question is this:   Does the sins of some priests and bishops destroy the teachings of the Church?   Does it destroy the sacraments?   Does it stop being thee one and only Church established by Jesus Christ?   Surely not.    At every mass the bread and wine still become the body and blood of Jesus through the hands of an ordained priest.   Neither satan nor the world can destroy that.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 31, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > New Book Traces Sad Recent History of Priest Sex Scandals « CBS Philly
> ...



What is ordination?  My church doesn't ordain anyone.  They do but what they are saying is that they are looking for evidence that God has ordained someone.  One pastor had 5,000 people in his Bible study before he was ordained and one of the questions was, "Where do all of these people go if he isn't ordained?"  If you have something like that going on then it is hard for anyone to not notice.  The question is, "How did they get ordained if they aren't going to protect the sheep?" and from hindsight, I wouldn't ordain them if I was in charge because they wouldn't protect the sheep and leadership is a privilege and not a right especially when they had one set of standards for priests and a different set of standards for workers in the church.

Why would anyone look to the RCC for guidance in matters of faith and morals?

Isaiah 56:9 ¶ All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.  
Isaiah 56:10   His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.  
Isaiah 56:11   Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.


----------



## Chuckt (Nov 1, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the faith was written down because people lie and the only reason the Catholic church forbid other people to read the Bible is because they knew if people followed it, they wouldn't follow Catholicism and that is what happened with the Reformation. Satan couldn't destroy the church so he joins it which happens with a lot of Churches.
> ...



What language was the Catholic Bible written in?  Latin?  Did everyone speak Latin in those days?  Who controlled the manuscripts at that time?  Who was known for putting the Bible in every day man's language?  The Catholic Church?  No.



> Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.



Wycliffe's Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I tried looking up the Douay-Rheims Bible and Old English Bible Translations and got this:



> A number of Old English Bible translations (pre-1066) were prepared in medieval England, rendering parts of the Bible into the Old English language.
> 
> Many of these translations were in fact glosses, prepared and circulated in connection with the Latin Bible  the Vulgate  that was standard in Western Christianity at the time, for the purpose of assisting clerics whose grasp of Latin was imperfect. Old English literature is remarkable for containing a number of incomplete Bible translations that were not glosses and that were meant to be circulated independently.



Old English Bible translations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The DouayRheims Bible (pronounced /&#716;du&#720;e&#618;/ or /&#716;da&#650;.e&#618; &#712;ri&#720;mz/[1]) (also known as the RheimsDouai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as DR and DV) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.[2] The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes thirty years later by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering Genesis through Job, was published in 1609; the second, covering Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate was published in 1610



Douay?Rheims Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have Wycliffe's Bible in 1382 and we have the Catholic DOUAY-Rheims Bible in 1582.  That is a difference of 200 years and I think they were forced to print it to compete.

The Catholic church didn't make it available to the common man for 200 years.

What other English Bible was there?  Did I miss something?  If the Catholic Church didn't forbid Bible reading then what Bible could they read?  I know.  The Latin version which only they controlled and only they could read.


----------

