Posted on 05/10/2025 5:55:54 AM PDT by Rev M. Bresciani
After just two days and four secret ballots in the Sistine Chapel, the College of Cardinals elevated Chicago-born Robert Francis Prevost to the See of Peter as Pope Leo XIV—an outcome that underscores the doctrinal rifts at the heart of Christendom and the enduring reasons for our divide. Although Catholics and Protestants often use similar words and phrases, the meanings they attach to those terms are profoundly different.
Here are ten doctrinal fault lines that explain why true unity remains out of reach: while we can—and should—show mutual respect, we cannot pretend these convictions don’t exist. It’s the perfect moment to re-examine what you believe and why.
(Excerpt) Read more at new.americanprophet.org ...
That branch is Lutheran in name only and WAY off Scripture.
Where is the article in error?
Then they need to stop it. Catholics bash people enough on the FR.
There is not, and you are deceiving yourself to think that the really important differences can somehow be overcome. They cannot.
One of the failures of this article is to discuss it in terms of "Protestant" vs "Catholic<" both elevating these terns by capitalizing as proper nouns. Keeping the theme correctly narrow, the issue is "Romanists" vs "non-Romanists"; where the nature of the problem is the form of structure demanded by the polity of consolidating power by Gentile philosophers infiltrating it to become the religion-dispensing organ cash-cow of the State or not; in this case the supra-locality religious overseers answering to a Caesar/Kaiser/Emperor in whom all earthly power is thought to be personified, under the mistaken concept of the Divinely-given rights of a King.
It is under this theory that a portion of that insuperable force may be delegated to a select clergy aristocracy which alone is able to determine the kind of spiritual and/or moral life that the rest of the common citizenry may exercise, and what they may not.
The instance of that kind of episcopacy coagulating under the Roman Empire occurred under Constantine the Roman Emperor who paved its way to become the Roman State-funded Religion, which on the one hand professed "catholicism" (like-mindedness) which really meant "intolerance" of any other religious organization having different rules of operation and not answering for its spiritual authority to the Emperor or his appointees.
Such differences were labeled "heresy" or "apostasy" or "heathen," all of which were to be completely and quickly eliminated by such force as necessary to maintain a citizenry under that government every one of whom had to endorse and practice that religion alone.
If necessary, to refuse it became a capital offense for lack of allegiance to the State and its religion.
This kind of intolerance had to be negated when the policies of colonial Northern America bore their fruit in the Declaration of Independence from England (and its bastardized fatherless Romanistic state church, denominated the Anglican Church), and its newly-minted Constitution of the United Statesm which was formulated congregationally by "We(All Of) The People" whose philosophical core permitted any difference you want in spiritual state and its practice, as long as you did not inflict hurt on other fellow citizens, a freedom which embodied rational tolerances which still affirmed that all men are created equal, and where there is no Divine Kingly aristocracy granted to anyone.
Thus a critical thinker must come to the unavoidable ultimate conclusion that the intolerance of the Roman Empire's catholicity must come in great conflict with the North American citizen's tolerance of opinionated differences (aside from the necessary rules needed for a democratic republic).
What causes great stress in our present United States of America is the Roman Church headed by an "infallible" pope. This religion has clearly wished from the beginning to allow its clergy and their minions to overwhelm the common people of this country and the protesting of the many who resist having their beliefs forced on them from birth as unreasoned dogma. Lomg ago, our ancestors originally came here as pioneers to escape that smothering dominance of individuality that covered all of Europe. And such humans like me who have preserved the liberty to make up their minds as to the rules for their own behavior, will continue to resist Roman-type religious intolerance to the death.
As Patrick Henry said . . . (well, you know what he shouted).
My FRiend, there are oppositional theories that cannot be resolved by wedding them, differences under which people will survive only by arms-length tolerance both plainly physical and figuratively mental. The need for tolerance is the trap under which removal of that patient endurance, or removal of the intolerant person, is the hard choice that our Founding Fathers had to face.
How we react now will determine whether our freedoms will remain or not. Under Romanism, they cannot endure, but will have to be slaughtered with auto da fe or torture the same way that Muslims who similarly operate under their own version of intolerance. And communists as well do the same when they gain control. Or monarchies, if they revive.
God Bless the America of my youth, land that I loved so long ago that Kate Smith sang about, a theme memorialized by Irving Berlin.
My Heavenly Father, I beg You, stand beside her and guide her, I pray with all my heart.
And the #1 anti-pope poster was quiet....time will tell if he continues to post on the new guy.
Respectfully, no there isn’t agreement on the really important points between Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
Well said. Furthermore, there is unity among all the really important points.
Philip Melanchthon (born Philipp Schwartzerdt;16 February 1497 – 19 April 1560) was a German Lutheran reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, an intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and influential designer of educational systems.
Council of Trent, Canon 1 of the Thirteenth Session, "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema."
This canon directly condemns the denial of the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ, including His body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration. It specifically rejects the idea that Christ is present only symbolically ("as in a sign, or figure or force"). The consequence for holding such a belief, as decreed by the council, is anathema.
As you'll notice, Trent (or any other official Catholic teaching) doesn't say "literally", but "true, real, and substantial." It's an important distinction, as I explained in my previous post.
Count them up, the article and 28 comments, and you see eight scripture references. Like a hamburger with an ounce of beef.
Meaning, Rome has defined and interpreted Tradition to mean that it only consists of and means what she authoritatively says it does, as it is impossible to assuredly know what is of God apart from her.
Thus Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based criteria: pope or ecumenical in union w/ him defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole church). Which means that her declaration (Pastor Aeternus) itself that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, past, present and future. She also essentially presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Thus,
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;... all interpretation is foolish and false which...is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus;
As Cardinal Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning summed it up,
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” " (Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, pp. 227-228
However, the fact is that the RCC did not come first, but before that a body of wholly God-inspired authoritative writings had been established without an infallible magisterium, and which which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church
And men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do. Thus the latter can only self-proclaim that she cannot teach salvific error, or any error in certain formats.
Protestant conviction: Sola Scriptura insists the Bible alone governs faith and practice.
Protestantism, as wrongly defined as any professed Christian or group that is not in communion with the “Catholic Church,” is too diverse (some do not even believe the Bible is the sure supreme accurate standard on Divine Truth) to be identified as inclusively having a certain belief, and many or most negate SS by impugning its authority.
However, in what is called Protestantism, those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired sure and supreme authority have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
2. Justification: Faith + Works vs. Faith Alone Catholic position: Justification is infused by grace, then sustained by faith and cooperative works through the sacraments, culminating in final sanctification.
Meaning salvation by merit thru grace. The act itself of baptism, even apart from the required (Acts 2:38, 8:36, 37) personal repentant faith, effects regeneration which renders the subject good enough to go directly to be with God, until the subject realizes he/she is not, and unless they achieve and die in the required rarefied state of perfection, must suffer purifying torments in RC (not EO) Purgatory until they become good enough to be with/see God, as well as atone for sins they failed make full satisfaction for on earth.
Protestant conviction: Sola Fide teaches that we are declared righteous solely through faith in Christ’s atoning work (Ephesians 2:8–9).
No, it is by faith in a person, the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God, who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, and ever lives to make intercession for them.
More precisely, The redeemed are those who come to God as sinners knowing their desperate need of salvation - not as souls saved by their works or religious heritage, but as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may find salvation - and with a humble and penitent heart (that at least implicitly wants a new life following Christ) believe on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus who alone can save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. (Romans 3:9 - 5:1) And who are thus baptized to follow the Lord Jesus with persevering faith. And who thus are baptized and follow Him (John 10:27-29; Acts 8:12; Ephesians 1:7, 2:8-10) - and effectually repent when they find that they failed to do so. (Psalms 32:5, 6, 51:3; Hosea 5:15; 1 John 1:9) For penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47, 15:7-9) is that which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) and by which faith the believer is completely forgiven and "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven. Ephesians 1:6, 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for those who die in that effectual faith then it is with the Lord, at death or His return (whatever comes first), by the grace of God. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Thanks be to God. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-sinner-be-forgiven-if-he-she-does-not-repent/answer/Daniel-Hamilton-53
3. The Priesthood: Ordained Clergy vs. Universal Priesthood Catholic position: A distinct, apostolic priesthood—conferred through Holy Orders—acts in persona Christi, especially in celebrating the Eucharist.
Catholic priesthood is requires since since RC priests cannot confect what a strictly literal reading of the Lord's words of consecration at the last supper, which would mean, in which bread and wine would look, taste, smell, etc. as human flesh and blood as it always did on earth. Since they cannot confect this (and claimed special miracles do not conform to eucharistic theology) , then they must jump thru metaphysical hoops in order to justify how inanimate objects are the true body and blood of Christ, though unlike that of the incarnated Christ whose manifest physicality the Holy Spirit emphasizes (versus one whose appearance did not correspond to what He materially was), it is admitted that it would scientifically test to be just what is looks like, though Catholicism insist that what appears no longer exists.
Yet once this transubstantiated non-existent bread and or wine (as per eucharistic theology) begins to visibly (for only the visible particles are said to be Christ) act (decaying) consistent with what the are, then the body of Christ which they are supposed to be no longer locally exists either under that form either.
Meanwhile, the word of God is the only spiritual food described which gives life, being "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock. (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)
6. Mary and the Saints: Veneration vs. Direct Access to Christ Catholic position: Mary and the saints intercede for believers; devotions honor their example and seek their prayers.
Which is proof that the Catholicism did not edit the Bible, for it would not be hard to add an instance of prayer to created beings in Heaven, which Catholicism teaches despite
Which is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture,esp. Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
“However, the fact is that the RCC did not come first, but before that a body of wholly God-inspired authoritative writings had been established without an infallible magisterium, and which which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church
And men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do. Thus the latter can only self-proclaim that she cannot teach salvific error, or any error in certain formats.“
Thank you for sharing the Truth.
Good quote there, Mac.
On these sorts of threads too often we get posts something like this: You agree with my Biblical interpretations only 19 times out of 20. Therefore you are very wrong, and are probably a heretic.
Your quote reminds us that we can have differences around the edges, and still be part of one Christian family.
>Where is the article in error?
I already wrote; it restates false beliefs Protestants have about Catholics, and vice versa. The whole thing is garbage.
Also, not having been born yesterday, I’m familiar with this internet tactic. In order to ‘answer’ you, I’m demanded to write a lengthy disputation point by point.
Exactly 100% of the time this occurs, the maker of the demand then seizes upon some minutia or citation not made and claims victory. (This happens regardless of the subject; could be tariffs or Ted Cruz from 2016 or whatever).
The tactic works because a refutation tacitly admits the original statement is true except for the parts being refuted. This is BS; just because this journal has a website and publishes something, or because it’s posted here, doesn’t mean boo.
This is particularly galling to me because this is how the left operates. They start using language like ‘trans rights’ or ‘climate change,’ cite each other and dare us to challenge them. The right pundits, like idiots, smartly set to diligently debate each point smugly (while the left proceeds to mutilate kids and grift billions).
Now: Atheistic transhumanism that if not overtly Satanic is at minimum hateful to all sense and sensibility is trying to exterminate us and make the name of Christ vanish. The muhammedans are invading and butchering with the open invitation of the first batch of people. The pagans are busy helping or at least exploiting the situation. Maybe the Body of Christ could take a moment free from poking itself in the eye and stomping on its own foot.
Bless God you can see that, though "neither popes and councils cannot claim to do" is another example of me not writing what I was thinking, or editing, which is should have said, "neither of which popes and councils can claim to do."
That statement is on response to the attempt by Caths to argue that since Paul enjoined obedience to oral tradition ("whether by word, or our epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15), then it follows that Catholic magisteriums can do likewise.
However, while obedience to both civil as well as church authority is enjoined, that does not mean they are infallible, much less are speaking the word of God, and that one cannot dissent from them when they are contrary to that Word.
And,
"God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document......not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching." - Catholic Encyclopedia >Infallibility http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Moreover, since - despite the OT scriptures being discerned and established (Lk. 24:27,44,45) as such by the time of Christ - it is presumed that that one cannot discover the contents of Holy Writ without being told by those in God-ordained authority (cf. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72) and which requires faith in the intermediary authorities (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) then in order to avoid circularity, then in RC theology,
it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility)Thus it is is presumed that should be able to discern the RCC as being of God, but not wholly God-inspired Scripture.
Just come in, make a comment/accusation, and then drive off regardless of the consequences.
You've brought nothing to the discussion.
Read the article.
Am more convinced than ever of the Protestant disconnection from the true church instituted by Jesus, the one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
Rome declares Mary to be Immaculate; free of sin and has never sinned.
Only one of the statements can be true.
It is Rome that has departed from Scripture.
Scripture And Tradition.
.
Tradition is what Throws
One in Hell.
.
Not Purgatory But Damnation.
If I understand you, you're positing that there is a distinction between the "literal" body of Christ and His "true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ, including His body, blood, soul, and divinity." Call me ignorant, but I see no distinction. The canon states that the Eucharist is literally Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity. If there's any distinction it's that the Eucharist undergoes transubstantiation, which asserts that while the appearances (or "accidents") of bread and wine remain unchanged, their underlying substance is transformed into Christ's (literal) Body and Blood.
Re: http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Thirteenth_Session,_Canons.html
I gave you the very clear distinction in Post 11. I’m not going to repeat myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.