Catholicism vs. Christianity

[wellwisher]

Christianity is built Uniquely on the Holy Scriptures, the written Word of God. The Bible is our only accurate rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel for our saving and holiness. Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium

When Rome made Christianity the official religion of Rome, the next goal was to expand Christianity to the empire, while maintaining stability within the empire. The prophecy stated that the word was to be preached to all nations. What better way to do this then through the owner of nations. Render onto God what was God's and render onto Caesar what is Caesar's.

To spread the word and not cause division in the empire they needed to accommodate differences. The modern Catholic Church retains that strategy and is flexible in terms of local customs. It becomes all things to all men, so it can save some. Christianity is about the inner man, so the outer man does not have to be one way.

The Older Church was much more Romanist in the sense of being heavy handed and might was right . It was more strict in an over lord sense. In modern times, if a Catholic wants to explore other religions or marries outside their religion there is no excommunication. Excommunicaitoin is more common to other religions, including some Christian sects. The modern church has more Mary or feminine influence. The Assumption of the virgin occurs in the early 1950's.

Christianity is connected to the New testament. While the bible includes both the new and old testaments. Christianity which stresses too much Old Testament, is more pre-Christian and can get harsh, elitist, and exclusive. The New Testament is a message of hope and love and breaks down the barriers of laws and customs. The Old Catholic Church was more Old Testament; fire and brimstone, and Roman to back that up with power and wealth.

 

[metis]

Just read through this new member's 35 posts and you'll understand where she is coming from.

Thanks, and I'll check that out later when I have more time.

 

[metis]

Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium

The Church operates much like the Roman traffic cop, whereas the cop gives directions as to what (s)he thinks is right, but then people end up making their own choices. All churches and religious institutions teach what they think is right, but nowadays the decisions are made by the congregants as to what to do with that information.

 

[metis]

Christianity is built Uniquely on the Holy Scriptures, the written Word of God. The Bible is our only accurate rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel for our saving and holiness.

And it was the Catholic Church that chose those scriptures to form the canon through a very difficult and time consuming process.

 

[RabbiO]

Thanks, and I'll check that out later when I have more time.

I'll save you some time. Basically her position is that the church, from Vatican II onward, has been under the control of apostate anti-popes and their evil minions.

 

[metis]

I'll save you some time. Basically her position is that the church, from Vatican II onward, has been under the control of apostate anti-popes and their evil minions.

Got it, and I've run into that before with a couple of other people. Since that's not the topic of the OP, I'll not comment on that.

Thanks, my rabbi and my friend.

 

[tayla]

Why do think some Catholics say that they are not Christians?

Because Christians like to judge everyone else so they know who is and who isn't a member of their specific belief system.

 

[Anna Therese]

What makes a Christian a Christian ?

To be a Christian means having received the Sacrament of Baptism (John 3:15) without which no one will enter Heaven (John 3:15). To be a Christian also means belonging to the Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, (Matthew 16:18-19) because he who will not hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).

 

[metis]

To be a Christian means having received the Sacrament of Baptism (John 3:15) without which no one will enter Heaven (John 3:15). To be a Christian also means belonging to the Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, (Matthew 16:18-19) because he who will not hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).

That's not the Catholic position on this, nor was it ever. Even in the gospels Jesus was told that some were preaching in Jesus' name but were not of the flock, and Jesus' response was that anyone who is for them is not against them.

Also, the Church never officially taught that salvation was not possible outside the Church, but it is true that it was questioned. Origen called the Church "the scarlet thread that binds" and wondered whether salvation was possible, and then concluded "who would be foolish enough to try?".

It's best not to judge others, imo.

 

[shmogie]

To be a Christian means having received the Sacrament of Baptism (John 3:15) without which no one will enter Heaven (John 3:15). To be a Christian also means belonging to the Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, (Matthew 16:18-19) because he who will not hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).

Sorry, NO. catholic, only in meaning universal. Roman Catholic, NO., just another denomination, though an early one. No denomination can save, intercede , or exist as a superior vehicle in which one is to ride to heaven.

Salvation is based upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and being a denomination of one in that regard,

Who you choose to worship with, what name they adopt, what doctrines with which you agree, are irrelevant unless they diverge significantly from the Biblically described doctrines and worship described in the Bible, what the Apostles believed and did. Then they are wrong, and dangerous.

The Roman Catholic church would be wise to examine itself for these errors.

 

[metis]

Who you choose to worship with, what name they adopt, what doctrines with which you agree, are irrelevant unless they diverge significantly from the Biblically described doctrines and worship described in the Bible, what the Apostles believed and did. Then they are wrong, and dangerous.

The Roman Catholic church would be wise to examine itself for these errors.

It was the CC that chose the canon of the Bible you use, who then preached the gospel to the nations, and was this Church of "one body", as Paul called it, that relates its existence back to the apostles. No organization, including the CC, or even the apostles themselves, were or are perfect. Plus, the Bible is simply not the only source of information and inspiration as there's Pentecost as well as Jesus' promise that he will guide his Church until the end of time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Salvation is based upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and being a denomination of one in that regard,

If I could act Bible churchy for just a moment...

Please give me the chapter and verse where the phase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is used.

 

[shmogie]

And it was the Catholic Church that chose those scriptures to form the canon through a very difficult and time consuming process.

Although there is significant evidence that most of the scriptures in use today were in circulation in written form before the Roman Catholic church existed. They did a great work in methodically and in a scholarly fashion weed out the false books that claimed inspiration.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Although there is significant evidence that most of the scriptures in use today were in circulation in written form before the Roman Catholic church existed. They did a great work in methodically and in a scholarly fashion weed out the false books that claimed inspiration.

What was "false" about the Shepherd of Hermas or Clement's letter to the Church at Corinth? They were only rejected because the authors did not have first hand knowledge of Jesus, not because they contained false doctrine.

 

[metis]

Although there is significant evidence that most of the scriptures in use today were in circulation in written form before the Roman Catholic church existed. They did a great work in methodically and in a scholarly fashion weed out the false books that claimed inspiration.

Since that process took over 1/2 a century, it certainly wasn't anywhere near that cut & dry, and some books (the Apocrypha) were left in a "limbo" state because they could reach a consensus on them until much later.

BTW, the best book I read on this process was from William Barclay (Anglican), and it was "An Introduction To the Bible". Unfortunately, it is out of publication.

 

[metis]

What was "false" about the Shepherd of Hermas or Clement's letter to the Church at Corinth?

Especially the latter.

BTW, I think there were two letters but I'm not certain of that.

 

[shmogie]

Since that process took over 1/2 a century, it certainly wasn't anywhere near that cut & dry, and some books (the Apocrypha) were left in a "limbo" state because they could reach a consensus on them until much later.

BTW, the best book I read on this process was from William Barclay (Anglican), and it was "An Introduction To the Bible". Unfortunately, it is out of publication.

I will try and find the book, since this is an area I am interested in. I recently read an article that stated that based upon very early letters and writings, it can be established that about 80% of today's canon was in written circulation c. 165-200 AD. I am trying to find it, since I don't recall the author or even publication.

 

[Shiranui117]

Especially the latter.

BTW, I think there were two letters but I'm not certain of that.

The first one is accepted as genuine, the second one not so much.

 

[metis]

The first one is accepted as genuine, the second one not so much.

Thanks for that as I only read parts of I Clement and none of the latter.

 

[metis]

I will try and find the book, since this is an area I am interested in. I recently read an article that stated that based upon very early letters and writings, it can be established that about 80% of today's canon was in written circulation c. 165-200 AD. I am trying to find it, since I don't recall the author or even publication.

But right after that time period there were numerous "heresies" with each claiming that they had the "right" books, plus even within the apostolic Church different local churches were using some different books as compared to others. Barclay said that maybe only 2/3 of these local churches were using "Revelation" and also some were not using "Hebrews".

Anyhow, please let me know what you find.