Catholic v. Christian

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[ 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.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Catholics have more "books" in their Bible.

Elaborate. What books?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[Jeff V]

[ 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.

"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.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[ 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.