Catholic v. Christian
 

Ok, this may seem odd coming from me, but let's get a theological discussion going.

In another thread, this comment was made:

I'm not considering Catholic, and definitely not Mormon, as "Christianity" in this thread

I understand the reasoning behind the Mormon statement. Mormons are not Christians for the same reason that Christians are not Jews. While in both cases, the pairs of religions share some scripture, they diverge when one group adds its own unique scripture. Thus, the same way Christianity diverges from Judaism by the addition of the New Testament, the LDS Church diverges from Christianity by the addition of the Book of Mormon. I know LDS members who will debate this, but that's a side point to what I'm asking.

Not just the quoted poster, but many Protestant Christians occaisionally state that Catholics are not Christians. Why? Interpretations aside, they share the identical scripture. Luther's initial break with the RC Church was ultimately more political than theological.

Discuss.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the reasoning behind the Mormon statement. Mormons are not Christians for the same reason that Christians are not Jews. While in both cases, the pairs of religions share some scripture, they diverge when one group adds its own unique scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's your criteria, then fine... but I'd think the defining criteria is what that group believes in regards to Jesus Christ. I believe Mormons believe that Jesus was God, and salvation is through him. Sounds Christian to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Not just the quoted poster, but many Protestant Christians occaisionally state that Catholics are not Christians. Why? Interpretations aside, they share the identical scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catholics have more "books" in their Bible.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Catholics have more "books" in their Bible.

Elaborate. What books?

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics have more "books" in their Bible.

Elaborate. What books?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the website of the US Catholic Bishops:

"Catholic and Protestant Bibles both include 27 books in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament, however, while Catholic Bibles have 46. The seven additional books included in Catholic Bibles are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in Protestant Bibles. These books are called the deuterocanonical books. The Catholic Church considers these books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit."

Note that the Book of Sirach is called Ecclesiasticus (different from Ecclesiastes) in older Douay-Rhiems versions of the Catholic Bible.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interpretations aside, they share the identical scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those interpretations are huge. Things like purgatory, mortal and venial sins, going through a preist for forgiveness and not directly to God etc etc. Most Catholics also think you get to heaven by works, and not Jesus. Catholocism in general seems focused on cerimony, and not scripture IMO.

That being said I know a few Catholics that are definately christians.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

"That being said I know a few Catholics that are definately christians."

Isn't a "christian" just a follower of Christ? Isn't any other attempt to define it really only an attempt by one cult to make itself feel superior to another? Who is to say who is christian or not? Personally I don't think any "christian" interpretation has got it right yet, and Jesus would be ashamed at what his teachings have turned into.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Fair enough, but since the OT is about pre-Christ prophesy, how does that impact whether or not they are *Christian*?

I ask this because my impression has always been that most non-Catholic Christians, aside from the "accept Jesus as your personal savior" aspect, put more emphasis on Paul's teachings than on those of Jesus.

edit: And, since Protestantism begins more than 1,000 years after Nicea, then those interpretations removed books from the Bible, as opposed to the RC Church adding anything.

Seems pretty suspect for the revisionists to claim the mantle of "true" Christianity.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seems pretty suspect for the revisionists to claim the mantle of "true" Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice point I have made before. Of course they claim the "institutional catholic church" only came about as a result of Nicea around 325 A.D., and that their beliefs and worship practices more closely imitate those of the early primitive christian church. Which is bunk as shown by the writings of christians in 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. which in no way resemble protestant doctrine or practices, aside from the fact that there are earlier instances of papal authority as well.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Most Catholics also think you get to heaven by works, and not Jesus.

Not entirely true. Catholicism says one achieves salvation through faith in God *and* good works. To me (and again, although I grew up in the RC tradition, I am not a believer), Salvation by Faith Alone sounds like a cheap cop out.

Ignoring the fact that I find it offensive to think that any loving God would *require* worship as a condition of salvation, why are deeds irrelevant? Sounds to me like most Christians think that if they show devotion (and be sincere about it), they need to do nothing else to be worthy. What ever happened to the concept that actions speak louder than words?


going through a preist for forgiveness and not directly to God

The similarity if the direct connection with God to Islam is not lost on me.

Catholocism in general seems focused on cerimony, and not scripture IMO.

Catholicism is much more ritual-oriented, but scripture is hardly ignored.

I guess my general antipathy to religion stems from the judgmental nature of practitioners. The "I'm right. you're wrong" mentality. As if salvation (if there were such a thing) would be dependent on accidents of birth and mindless minutiae.

Long before Abraham, Lao Tzu wrote "The Way that can be named is not the true Way." Later, The Buddha said "There are many paths to the top of the mountain."

Spiritually, not only have we not improved on these bits of wisdom, but we've gone way downhill.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they claim the "institutional catholic church" only came about as a result of Nicea around 325 A.D., and that their beliefs and worship practices more closely imitate those of the early primitive christian church. Which is bunk as shown by the writings of christians in 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. which in no way resemble protestant doctrine or practices, aside from the fact that there are earlier instances of papal authority as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the 2nd & 3rd Centuries are 2 to 3 hundred years after Christ. There were Christians before that, right? The first would have been the Apostles. Pentecostals follow the book of Acts religiously, and think that a complete Christianity would include being "filled with the Spirit", speaking in tongues, and such, resembling what happened to the Apostles at Pentecost.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

2nd century = 100s and 3rd =200s. And what is important is the amount of time between the death of the last apostle and a certain writing which narrows the gap 60+ years.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

It all starts with being born again. Catholics and many Christian denominations differ from true Christians in how this is accomplished. Catholics believe priest-baptized infants are born again. This is false. Any religion that baptizes infants and declares them born again is false.

You need to be born of God to be a child of God and a Christian. There are many who try to follow certain philosophies of Christ. There are few who are His kinsmen.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
2nd century = 100s and 3rd =200s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... and 100s is 100-200 years after Christ, and 200s is 200-300 years after Christ. Year 299 = 3rd Century = 299 years after Christ = 200-300 years after Christ.

(I should have said 100-300 years after Christ in my first response.)

[ QUOTE ]
And what is important is the amount of time between the death of the last apostle and a certain writing which narrows the gap 60+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that the book of Acts which "documents" beliefs and practices of the first Christians (Apostles), is used by many Pentecostal denominations as a "guidebook" on "true" Christianity. I'm not sure how your response addresses this -- not that it matters, anyway.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Doesn't matter what the difference is, it is all made up.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
It all starts with being born again. Catholics and many Christian denominations differ from true Christians in how this is accomplished. Catholics believe priest-baptized infants are born again. This is false. Any religion that baptizes infants and declares them born again is false.

You need to be born of God to be a child of God and a Christian. There are many who try to follow certain philosophies of Christ. There are few who are His kinsmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read mindless, evil, hateful crap like this, I start thinking that human society will only move out of our infancy when all religion is purged forever from this planet.

Then I remind myself that as a libertarian I believe that even idiots like this have the right to believe their silly little fairy tales.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Excellent point on infancy.

Some of you guys have been scared into your beliefs.

Have you ever asked yourself the question, "What would I believe in if I was born in Japan or India?"

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes... and 100s is 100-200 years after Christ, and 200s is 200-300 years after Christ. Year 299 = 3rd Century = 299 years after Christ = 200-300 years after Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the scholarly opinion is that Jesus was born around 5 BC and died around 33 AD, so the gap between the 2nd century and Jesus's death would be around 60-70 years.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

"Catholics believe priest-baptized infants are born again. This is false"

You are almost certainly correct. Nice to know a few posters on this forum can think straight.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

That's what got me to drop Christianity [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
It all starts with being born again. Catholics and many Christian denominations differ from true Christians in how this is accomplished. Catholics believe priest-baptized infants are born again. This is false. Any religion that baptizes infants and declares them born again is false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you google for "Didache", also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was written in the 100s but only rediscovered in the mid 1800s. It is a primer for early christian converts to be baptized and gives the best synopsis of christian moral teachings I have ever seen. But check toward the end of it where it discusses forms of baptism. The very early christians did not believe and practice like you, whose doctrine can only be traced to the 1500s.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I read mindless, evil, hateful crap like this, I start thinking that human society will only move out of our infancy when all religion is purged forever from this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been some notable attempts to implement the suggested purge.

- Pol Pot : banned religion (Kampuchean constitution chapter fifteen article twenty)

- USSR : the state imposed severe restrictions on religious activity, banned many churches, and persecuted religious leaders.

The results speak for themselves.

Wether you are an atheist or a theist you may find the argument against religion in society somewhat more complex than it at first appears.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It all starts with being born again. Catholics and many Christian denominations differ from true Christians in how this is accomplished. Catholics believe priest-baptized infants are born again. This is false. Any religion that baptizes infants and declares them born again is false.

You need to be born of God to be a child of God and a Christian. There are many who try to follow certain philosophies of Christ. There are few who are His kinsmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read mindless, evil, hateful crap like this, I start thinking that human society will only move out of our infancy when all religion is purged forever from this planet.

Then I remind myself that as a libertarian I believe that even idiots like this have the right to believe their silly little fairy tales.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought your question was why some Christians think of Catholics as non-Christians? You may get some fine-point doctrinal answers that avoid the central issue, which is "Who is born again", but you won't get a better or more truthful answer than the one I gave you. Being born again is the starting point of a true Christian life. How that is "mindless, evil, hateful crap" I have no idea.

I agree with you about the futility of religion. It substitutes itself for relationship with God and does nothing but hold men back.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
The very early christians did not believe and practice like you, whose doctrine can only be traced to the 1500s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I believe and practice from 2 paragraphs on a message board?

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you google for "Didache", also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, but I will pass. I have gone past the 'what I believe' drudgery (where so many just stop and stay and fiddle around) and gone on to enjoy the wonders of the 'Whom I believe' life. In things spiritual, he who has the experience is never at the mercy of he who has an argument.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Many of the comments here are rather silly. I am a fallen Catholic too. Catholics are Christians. "Christ" is found in the word "Christ"ian. If you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. Simply stated, because it's simple. Want to start I firestorm? I sho' as heck do, so let me add this to the non-ceremonial christians, the founders of the Catholic Church walked with Jesus (if you believe the mumbo jumbo), your founders did not. Seems to me that makes the Catholic faith the only true Christian CHurch. Alright, we murdered a good bit during the inquisition. Oops.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Yes from your two paragraphs I could easily deduce that you are a fundamentalist christian. And regarding the last comment in your reply, ignorance for you is obviously bliss and avoids any pesky questioning not of faith in Christ, but in the particular brand of christianity you believe in. It sure is nice isn't to feel so smug about johnny-come-lately denominational views when the majority of Christians living now or that have ever lived in the past 2000 years have been members of the Catholic Church.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes from your two paragraphs I could easily deduce that you are a fundamentalist christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well sir, then you deduced wrongly.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding the last comment in your reply, ignorance for you is obviously bliss and avoids any pesky questioning not of faith in Christ, but in the particular brand of christianity you believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religionists believe in differing doctrines, particular brands of christianity. My faith is in a Person. And He is who is worthy of being followed, not the doctrines of men.

I was a baptized in a Catholic church, but I wasn't born again until I was an adult. That is my experience. At one point the Holy Spirit was outside of me. And when I was born again He is in me. That is my experience. And that experience lines up with scripture. Any argument pointing to a Didache or this that or the other is futile to the man who has experienced what God says man will experience when you become his child.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

And a logical extension of your feelings and beliefs is that we catholics who have experienced only infant baptism cannot have that same feeling and belief of having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or of being a child of God without that adult baptism you had. You are very wrong on this.

And your refusal to examine doctrinal claims because of your present feelings and beliefs is just following the admonitions of less well educated preachers in your own denomination because they know that the beliefs of that denomination not only cannot stand the light of the experience and beliefs of the Body of Christ through time, but also not even the Bible properly interpreted by an authentic interpreter.

And how very lucky you were to stumble onto the correct protestant denomination out of so many denominations with differing beliefs. Congratulations.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes... and 100s is 100-200 years after Christ, and 200s is 200-300 years after Christ. Year 299 = 3rd Century = 299 years after Christ = 200-300 years after Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the scholarly opinion is that Jesus was born around 5 BC and died around 33 AD, so the gap between the start of the 2nd century and Jesus's death would be around 60-70 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, even though it's not relevant to any point I'm making.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

"You need to be born of God to be a child of God and a Christian."

What did you do with the placenta?

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

Not only those born in a place where christianity is preached can hear from God. Only those who seek truly find, not those who sit in church services.
It's a pity an issue such as your place of birth would make you lose faith in God, I think it's a proverb that says something like, if you fall apart during crisis there was not much of you to begin with.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

So what is someone born in the Middle East into an Islamic family supposed to do? If it were you, do you HONESTLY think you would not be a Muslim right now?

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

I think it's most likely that I would have been a muslim, yes.
I think if I were around when Christ was I would have been one of the Jews trying to get him killed.

Yet, I'd like to think that I would see if I could defend and rationalise my faith.
Isn't is obvious that if a person has exposure to beliefs they are more likely to accept it, it's only because they have had exposure to it.
A person who I really respect was brought up in a Jewish home, he now believes in Jesus, against his family's wishes, he has been quite excluded from his family.
I like to think that I would measure the accuracy of my beliefs with personal experience and finding relevant answers to my questions.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

I appreciate your honesty.

Although I obviously don't agree with your friend's conclusion, I also respect anyone who thinks outside what they were brought up to believe, and arrives at their own conclusions. Even if he remained Jewish, as long as he thinks for himself at some point. You seem to have done this as well (which I also respect even though I disagree with your conclusions), but it's surprising how many have not.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

I thought your question was why some Christians think of Catholics as non-Christians?

It was, and there was actually an intelligent discussion going on until that nimrod preached at me. If he said. "some people believe that infant baptism is counter to the teachings of Jesus" that's an intelligent reply that adds to the discourse. His reply was empty proselytizing and I responded just as I would to someone preaching in my face.

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

You forgot China [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The results speak for themselves.

They do, and I did add the libertarian part afterward. I would never support such measures, but when I get angry, the evil part of me comes out. Wu v. Wei and all that. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Catholic v. Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
In things spiritual, he who has the experience is never at the mercy of he who has an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said, as he argued about spirituality.