Are Catholics Christian Part Deux.

[jillian]

I don't know Jillian, one might say that the Protestants were 'perfecting' the Church, then again, they went in other directions, so who's to tell? Then the Catholic church belatedly corrected many of the past sins, but yet was 'stuck' with beliefs of the Creed. So, while the Protestants were going off on 'remembrance' Catholics clung to 'my body, my blood.' Big difference.

What Protestants forget or never understood, there is nothing prohibiting praying directly, intercessions are another way, especially during periods of dry.

I realize there are differences, though to be honest, I am sure there are far more than I would know of given that my knowledge is from books, not practice, but I've never understood how someone can say their beliefs are the "true ones" when the other existed first and closest in time to the actual events.

It's just different sects of the same, essential, belief system, IMO.

 

[dmp]

but I've never understood how someone can say their beliefs are the "true ones" when the other existed first and closest in time to the actual events.

Conversely, I will NEVER understand how somebody can say their beliefs have a good chance of being wrong.

it's silly.

 

[jillian]

Conversely, I will NEVER understand how somebody can say their beliefs have a good chance of being wrong.

it's silly.

One doesn't have to believe their beliefs are wrong to recognize that there are certain belief-systems which are inter-related or to respect the beliefs of others.

For example, there are different types of Buddhists... yet all share certain essential beliefs.

There are different types of Judaism, including at least three different types of Chasidic sects, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. To be fair, though, Chasidic Jews don't always consider you Jewish if you're conservative or reform... I think that's silly, too.

There are many different types of Christians. From my vantage point as an outsider, it seems to me that if you believe Jesus was Messiah, you're a Christian. How you choose to honor that belief and the traditions of your group is simply other ways of communicating the same basic thing.

 

[dmp]

There are many different types of Christians. From my vantage point as an outsider, it seems to me that if you believe Jesus was Messiah, you're a Christian. How you choose to honor that belief and the traditions of your group is simply other ways of communicating the same basic thing.

Right - but there's NO room for doubting or allowance that one's faith is misplaced; regardless of MEANINGLESS traditions and rituals

 

[Annie]

Conversely, I will NEVER understand how somebody can say their beliefs have a good chance of being wrong.

it's silly.

Respectfully, what are you referring to?

 

[jillian]

Right - but there's NO room for doubting or allowance that one's faith is misplaced; regardless of MEANINGLESS traditions and rituals

Faith doesn't preclude asking questions. Even Jesus doubted at Gethsemane, no?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hope you don't mind my jumping in and I haven't read all the backposts, so I'm hoping that I'm not restating things that were said earlier.

It seems to me, as a non-Christian, that the question of whether Catholicism is Chrstianity is kind of well, not silly, but certainly non-productive. As an outsider looking in, my understanding is that if one accepts Jesus as Messiah, then one is a Christian... by definition.

It also seems to me that Peter, the "fisher of men" being the "first Pope" and Rome being the first denomination of Christianity, makes it automatically "Christian". While there was a Reformation and a rise of Protestantism, that had to do with the power of Rome insinuating itself into other countries due to its religious power as well as with natural variations in belief and worship which occurred as Christianity spread.

Just my two cents...

Well said. I think you are stating the obvious....but, maybe not...since this was the question of the thread...:scratch:

I might add that "Christianity" is not a religion per se. One source estimates that there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world.

 

[jillian]

Well said. I think you are stating the obvious....but, maybe not...since this was the question of the thread...:scratch:

I might add that "Christianity" is not a religion per se. One source estimates that there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world.

Thanks.

True enough. Thanks for the observation... Personally, I don't understand why it's an issue. That's why I stuck my nose in.

 

[Annie]

One doesn't have to believe their beliefs are wrong to recognize that there are certain belief-systems which are inter-related or to respect the beliefs of others.

For example, there are different types of Buddhists... yet all share certain essential beliefs.

There are different types of Judaism, including at least three different types of Chasidic sects, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. To be fair, though, Chasidic Jews don't always consider you Jewish if you're conservative or reform... I think that's silly, too.

There are many different types of Christians. From my vantage point as an outsider, it seems to me that if you believe Jesus was Messiah, you're a Christian. How you choose to honor that belief and the traditions of your group is simply other ways of communicating the same basic thing.

I'm sure I cannot list all the differences but some that jump out:

1. Communion: In Catholic church, after the bread and wine are consecrated, they are the body and blood of Christ. In Protestant, they are bread and wine, remembrances of last supper.

2. The Pope. In Catholic teaching, the Vicar of Christ. Infallible in only teaching that comes directly from God, Jesus. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:

* that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
* that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
* that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
* in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation​

To me, those are the big 2.

There are also:

1. Intercession

2. Reconciliation-confessing sins to God directly is Protestant, whereas Catholocism maintains one must confess to God through a priest, giving up the 'priviledge' of total privacy. In this way, one makes public confession, asks for forgiveness-which is granted by God, not the priest, and promise to avoid the situation that led to sin.

 

[dmp]

Respectfully, what are you referring to?

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I'll try to clarify my reponse:

"Without 100% belief in one's faith as being THE path to God, Faith is useless"

 

[dmp]

Faith doesn't preclude asking questions. Even Jesus doubted at Gethsemane, no?

No.

 

[Annie]

No.

agreed. Jesus never doubted.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm sure I cannot list all the differences but some that jump out:

1. Communion: In Catholic church, after the bread and wine are consecrated, they are the body and blood of Christ. In Protestant, they are bread and wine, remembrances of last supper.

2. The Pope. In Catholic teaching, the Vicar of Christ. Infallible in only teaching that comes directly from God, Jesus. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:

* that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
* that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
* that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
* in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation​

To me, those are the big 2.

There are also:

1. Intercession

2. Reconciliation-confessing sins to God directly is Protestant, whereas Catholocism maintains one must confess to God through a priest, giving up the 'priviledge' of total privacy. In this way, one makes public confession, asks for forgiveness-which is granted by God, not the priest, and promise to avoid the situation that led to sin.

Here's an expanded list: "One by one, over the next five centuries, essential doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church were denied and discarded by the followers of Protestantism. Chief among these are:

●The Teaching Authority of the Church and its Magisterium
●The Doctrine, Nature and Necessity of the Priesthood
●The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
●The Real Presence
●The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist
●The Sacrament of Confession
●The Sacrament of Confirmation
●The Sacrament of Holy Orders
●The Sacrament of the Sick
●The Doctrine of Original Sin
●The Doctrine and Necessity of Sacrifice
●The Baptism of Infants
●The Indissolubility of Marriage
●Opposition to artificial contraception
●The Pope as the Apostolic Vicar of Christ
●The Pope as Successor to Saint Peter
●The Pope as Visible Head of the Church established by Jesus Christ
●The Infallibility of the Pope and Church's Magisterium in its pronouncements on faith and morals
●The Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
●The Tradition of Honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus
●The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints
●The Doctrine of Intercessory Prayer
●The Tradition of Venerating the Saints
●The Doctrine of Temporal Punishment Due for Sins
●The Doctrine of Purgatory
●The Necessity of Doing Good Works
●The Doctrine of Mortal Sin

http://www.catholicradiodramas.com/A...__catholic.htm

 

[Annie]

Here's an expanded list: "One by one, over the next five centuries, essential doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church were denied and discarded by the followers of Protestantism. Chief among these are:

●The Teaching Authority of the Church and its Magisterium
●The Doctrine, Nature and Necessity of the Priesthood
●The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
●The Real Presence
●The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist
●The Sacrament of Confession
●The Sacrament of Confirmation
●The Sacrament of Holy Orders
●The Sacrament of the Sick
●The Doctrine of Original Sin
●The Doctrine and Necessity of Sacrifice
●The Baptism of Infants
●The Indissolubility of Marriage
●Opposition to artificial contraception
●The Pope as the Apostolic Vicar of Christ
●The Pope as Successor to Saint Peter
●The Pope as Visible Head of the Church established by Jesus Christ
●The Infallibility of the Pope and Church's Magisterium in its pronouncements on faith and morals
●The Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
●The Tradition of Honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus
●The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints
●The Doctrine of Intercessory Prayer
●The Tradition of Venerating the Saints
●The Doctrine of Temporal Punishment Due for Sins
●The Doctrine of Purgatory
●The Necessity of Doing Good Works
●The Doctrine of Mortal Sin

http://www.catholicradiodramas.com/A...__catholic.htm

On the above, both sides have moved. Then again, some Protestant religions never went as far as others. Depending on the sect, one could not tell the difference between Catholic and Lutheran/Episcopal. Actually if not a woman minister, the Episcopal is more 'Catholic' than most Catholic.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually if not a woman minister, the Episcopal is more 'Catholic' than most Catholic.

How so?

 

[Annie]

How so?

Not so quick to take 'blame' for wrongs. More consistent in liturgy. Not so much on the defensive.

 

[Nienna]

The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist
●The Doctrine of Original Sin
●The Doctrine and Necessity of Sacrifice
●The Indissolubility of Marriage
●The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints
●The Doctrine of Intercessory Prayer
●The Necessity of Doing Good Works

Most Protestants believe in these things, perhaps not in quite the same WAY as Catholics. The Eucharist is practiced, only transubstantiation is not accepted. Most Protestants believe in Original Sin, as well as committed sin (not subcategorized into Mortal and Venial). Most mainstream Protestants admit the necessity of sacrifice, only it's called "dying to self." Re: the indissolubility of marriage... Catholic marriages can be anulled, and most Protestant religions oppose divorce. I think most Protestants agree that all saints, living and dead, are held in eternal communion within the Body of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Intercessory prayer is accepted by Protestants, although the saints who intercede are generally believed to be limited to those living. Most Protestants will agree that faith without works is dead.

 

[glockmail]

So your contention is that Catholics are not Christians?

No, just that he fooled that particular priest. As a Catholic, I know that he could never fool the Lord.

 

[glockmail]

Well I'll be sure to pass your sentiments on to him

I won't hold my breath until you do just that.

 

[glockmail]

One doesn't have to believe their beliefs are wrong to recognize that there are certain belief-systems which are inter-related or to respect the beliefs of others.

For example, there are different types of Buddhists... yet all share certain essential beliefs.

There are different types of Judaism, including at least three different types of Chasidic sects, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. To be fair, though, Chasidic Jews don't always consider you Jewish if you're conservative or reform... I think that's silly, too.

There are many different types of Christians. From my vantage point as an outsider, it seems to me that if you believe Jesus was Messiah, you're a Christian. How you choose to honor that belief and the traditions of your group is simply other ways of communicating the same basic thing.

I've been a Catholic all my life and I am 100% convinced that Christ is present in the Church. Nothing in that statement suggests that He is not present in Protestant churches. Having moved to The South, which I am also convinced is God's Country, I have come to appreciate the ministers, usually Baptists, who are not afraid to spread His Word using modern technology, especially radio.