# Roman Catholicism/True Christianity



## BlueNile (Nov 2, 2008)

Hello Ladies!

I recently made a post in the political forum stating that true christianity and roman catholicism are not the same thing. True christianity is following Jesus Christ and his teachings.

The bible is the one true source of christianity and the first place the term christians was used. The Romans realizing they could not stop the christians, then took the teachings and adapted them and introduced all sorts of things that are not biblical. 

I got a few posters that disagreed.

Please let me know if I'm wrong on this.

Thank you so much!


----------



## Bunny77 (Nov 2, 2008)

But Catholics are Christian though...


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Nov 2, 2008)

Well, I don't know how this thread will turn out so let me get in while it's still early.  lol

Catholics do consider themselves as Christians.  I am not catholic, so that's about all I can say that I know is true.  edited at the conviction of the Holy Spirit because I was seriously speculating  

For me True Christianity is whomever follows and lives by the teachings of Jesus Christ and knows that he is the only begotten son of God and that he is our saviour and that no one else's blood was sufficient---so he shed his for us And that through his death and resurrection we have a Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  When any person(regardless of what they call themselves) does not agree with that, then I feel that they are not true Christians.  And if I feel in my heart of hearts that a person is not a true Christian, then it is not my place to condemn them, that is between them and God.  All I can do is to share the Gospel and plant the seed.  Not argue them down on how wrong they are(that is a trick of the devil meant to distract us from God's truth---remember Eve and the snake).  I also don't need to tell them that unless they change, they are going to hell(the Bible clearly tells us to check ourselves before we can check anyone else, and since I am a sinner only saved by grace, then I don't know who will be in hell---I just pray that I am not there with them to find out. lol).  It is also not for me to hate anyone with beliefs other than my own(except the devil himself)  because a part of  Christianity is Love and tolerance of all mankind.  I don't have to be buddy buddy, but I do need to respect every one of God's creations whether or not they realize  who their true creator is or not.


----------



## divya (Nov 2, 2008)

Yes, Christianity is the belief in the Jesus Christ, which we learn through God's Holy Word. That being said, those of us who believe in Jesus Christ are one in the Lord - one Christian church. 

For purposes of history, there was one Christian church with many locations.  The Roman Catholic church arose out of a struggle for earthly power, which as you stated, led the leaders to adopt, introduce and teach unBiblical doctrine. 

However, the doesn't mean that Roman Catholics are not Christian.  To be Christian, we simply have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved. We must believe in Him - His sacrifice, Word, mission etc. Once a Catholic or any other individual has done so, that person is a Christian.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Nov 2, 2008)

This particular scripture keeps coming up as the answer

Luke 9:49-50
And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.


----------



## Farida (Nov 2, 2008)

Catholics are Christian.

They believe in the salvation and teachings of Jesus.

The discrepancy lies in their interpretation and doctrine.

Catholics believe that Christ died to save them, but unlike other churches, Catholicism believes that people are saved by the combination of faith and works.
People tend to say Catholics believe in salvation by works alone but that is not true. Catholics believe that without Jesus there is no salvation. Your works are "dirty rags." Fruitless. 

Whether a person is a 'true" Christian I feel is up to God to decide. Just because someone attends St. Mary's church doesn't necessarily mean they are less Christian than the baptist down the street. Only God knows a person's heart.


----------



## Evolving78 (Nov 2, 2008)

the thing that gets me is giving too much glory to Mary and the Cross.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Nov 2, 2008)

shortdub78 said:


> the thing that gets me is giving too much glory to Mary and the Cross.


Yeah,  I have heard explanations for why they do that. hopefully a catholic person can tell us so that I don't mess it up and tell a lie about why .  lol


----------



## aribell (Nov 2, 2008)

I grew up Catholic and was educated in Catholic schools through high school.  I was also very active in the Church.  When thinking about Catholicism, I think it's most useful to distinguish between the official _doctrine_ of the Catholic Church and the _practice_ in the Churches.  Officially, the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine are in many ways more rooted in the historical teachings of the Church than many Protestant churches.  Roman Catholic doctrine is definitely orthodox.

However, Catholic congregations are often spiritually weak, and the leadership suffers from a reliance on hierarchy and ministerial authority that seems to be producing things like the priest scandals (which are extremely widespread) and other problems.  I left the Catholic Church because I could not find believers with whom I could have genuine fellowship.  I am not saying that there are no Catholic Christians, since I was one.  Moreover, I know several former Protestants who have converted to Catholicism, and they are strong believers.  But Catholicism in practice is often missing an understanding (and teaching) of the Gospel.  In all my years of being in the Church, taught by nuns, and in religion classes, my coming to Christ was almost entirely unrelated to any of that.  

As far as things like praying to Mary are concerned, well...I believe they're wrong, but that's not a practice that affects anyone's salvation.  As far as why they do it, a very basic explanation would be that it's similar to you asking one of your close friends to pray for you.  If you know that they are close to God, then you believe that God will hear them on your behalf.  It is *not* supposed to be praying to Mary herself (though individual Catholics are often confused about that), but rather asking her to pray on your behalf:

Hail Mary, full of grace, *the Lord is with thee*.
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, *pray for us sinners*, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

Said a lot of those growing up...


----------



## BlueNile (Nov 2, 2008)

thank you ladies for your responses


----------



## aribell (Nov 2, 2008)

vivmaiko said:


> Catholics are Christian.
> 
> They believe in the salvation and teachings of Jesus.
> 
> ...


 
I think the bolded is a little shaky to put out there, since people who are Protestant will read it in a way that means "heresy."  If Catholics believed that people were saved by a combination of faith and works, they would be in violation of the Gospel message.  I think the Bible verse that would best apply to their belief is James', "You have faith and I have works.  You show me your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith _by_ my works.*"*

In Protestant Churches, the picture of salvation is described as at one point in time you confess your sins to Christ and submit to His Lordship, and then His perfection is applied to your account, and your sins are covered, and you are saved--forever.

In the Catholic Church, salvation is understood differently.  You are baptized into the Body of Christ (i.e., the Church) and salvation is not something that is finally attained until you reach heaven.  And if you leave the faith, then you will not attain it.  So, for a Protestant looking at that it would seem that they're saying that God accepts you on the basis of your works (and faith), but it's not exactly like that.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't confuse things.


----------



## PaperClip (Nov 2, 2008)

I have wanted to dodge this conversation but one thing compels me to post this:

PLEASE use the descriptor *"ROMAN"* when referring to the institutional Roman Catholic Church. 

So as Bunny has said that Catholics are Christians, that's partially right. We all could be considered "catholic" but we are not all ROMAN Catholic. 

Per the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: *CATHOLIC:* 1*:* a person who belongs to the universal Christian church; 2*:* a member of a Catholic church ; _especially_ *:* roman catholic

Per the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: *ROMAN CATHOLIC*: Main Entry: 2Roman Catholic 
Function: adjective 
Date: 1614 
: of, relating to, or being a Christian church having a hierarchy of priests and bishops under the pope, a liturgy centered in the Mass, veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints, clerical celibacy, and a body of dogma including transubstantiation and papal infallibility 

For the record, JESUS CHRIST is our intercessor, our intermediary to the LORD God Almighty. No longer a need for an earthly intervener (priest) because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our priest (Hebrews 3:1: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus")

This term "ROMAN CATHOLIC" supercedes the doctrinal issues because it directly connects the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH to the Vatican and the papal authority, which DOES NOT EXIST in PROTESTANT traditions, including predominantly African-American church contexts.


I refer to the book "The Black Church in the African American Experience" authored by _C. Eric Lincoln__, __Lawrence H. Mamiya_. Here's a brief about the book along with the listing of the seven mainline denominations at this link: http://www.blackandchristian.com/blackchurch/

The Black Church has historically been a source of hope and strength for the African American community. In 1990, the late professor, C. Eric. Lincoln co-authored, _The Black Church in the African American Experience _with Lawrence H. Mamiya. *They described the, "seven major historic black denominations: the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AMEZ) Church; the Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; the National Baptist Convention, USA., Incorporated (NBC); the National Baptist Convention of America, Unincorporated (NBCA); the Progressive National Baptist Convention (PNBC); and the Church of God in Christ (COGIC)," as comprising "the black Church."*

Yet it is known that blacks were also members of predominantly white denominations such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, United Methodist and Roman Catholic churches. However, Lincoln and Mamiya chose to confine 'the black Church,' to "those independent, historic, and totally black controlled denominations, which were founded after the Free African Society of 1787 and which constituted the core of black Christians."

Since the publication of the Lincoln and Mamiya book, two new black denominations have developed: The National Missionary Baptist Convention (NMBC) and the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship (FGBCF). 

The FGBCF does not refer to itself as a denomination.


The following books are excellent reference works on the African American religious experience:

C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience, (Durham: Duke University Press), 1990

Wardell J. Payne, Directory of African American Religious Bodies: A Compendium by the Howard University School of Divinity (Washington, DC: Howard University Press), 1995.


----------



## Farida (Nov 3, 2008)

Well, in as much as officially "catholic" means universal, 95% of the time you use that word everyone assumes you are addressing the denomination. I think it is commonplace today that Catholic means roman or orthodox. Most people balk at the idea of being called catholic.

Also, don't forget that we also have the orthodox catholics.

I would say the major difference with Catholicism and others is others believe in sola gratia, sola scriptura and sola fide. The Catholics like to say they believe in Sola verbum Dei, which to them includes the bible as well as tradition.

I don't mind people having issues with Catholicism. What I do mind is a vast majority of people who I have met who don't really know anything solid about Catholicism, just some criticism they heard from some person, which isn't even correctly defined.

Also, I agree that the church did a horrible job of handling the priest-child abuse issue. What I do not agree is people who demonize all priests, Catholics and the faith itself even though it was only 2% of priests who were implicated. A lot of the priests I met over the years were incredible people centered on serving God and his people to the death. For an example read about Fr. John Kaiser. He is an American priest who was murdered in Kenya. A very interesting story. 
Also people who claim that priests abuse children because they are celibate. That is a logical fallacy.


----------



## aribell (Nov 3, 2008)

vivmaiko said:


> I don't mind people having issues with Catholicism. What I do mind is a vast majority of people who I have met who don't really know anything solid about Catholicism, just some criticism they heard from some person, which isn't even correctly defined.
> 
> Also, I agree that the church did a horrible job of handling the priest-child abuse issue. What I do not agree is people who demonize all priests, Catholics and the faith itself even though it was only 2% of priests who were implicated. A lot of the priests I met over the years were incredible people centered on serving God and his people to the death. For an example read about Fr. John Kaiser. He is an American priest who was murdered in Kenya. A very interesting story.
> Also people who claim that priests abuse children because they are celibate. That is a logical fallacy.


 
I agree that there are a lot of unfounded assumptions and criticisms of the (Roman) Catholic Church, which is unfortunate

Also, I agree that it would be wrong to demonize all priests.  Truth be told, my personal experience in the Church as a child and teenager was actually very rich, and I found a lot of value in the traditions.  There is a culture within the Catholic Church, particularly among nuns, that is wonderfully open, loving and compassionate (doesn't mean that the Gospel was preached, though!).  The Catholic "religious" persons (ordained clergy, monks and nuns) are honestly some of the most wonderful people I have ever met.  While a lot people run off with these stereotypes of stern, cold, priests and harsh nuns, that was so, so far from my experience and is just that, a stereotype.


----------



## belle_reveuse28 (Nov 3, 2008)

Catholicism and Chrisitanity of the Bible do differ... 

1.  Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.  The Vicar of Christ is Christ's representation and spirit incarnate on this earth.   Therefore, he is also head of the church adn decides all that is concerning the Catholic church.   
 ETA:  The Pope, in all that concerns the church, decides the rules and regulations of the church, the government of the church, the doctrine and dogma of the church.  He decides what books are approved and which ones arent.  His rule supercedes the authority of scripture, and he has the authority to change as he believes fit or that "God" shows Him. 
        The Bible says that Christ is the final authority.  God, HImself, has provided all that is necessary for instruction, for governmetn of the church, and how we are to assemble and worship as believers.  He has given his authoritative word on everything that is necessary for correction, reproof, leadership, and governing the church.  Scripture is therefore, the final authority on all and man does not supercede scripture in any circumstance, because it is the Word of God, breathed by His Holy Spirit.

    The Bible and true chrisitanity believes that the Vicar of Christ, or the representation of Christ on this earth is the Holy Spirit.  Many of us know that when Christ left he said he'd leave us a comforter and teacher to lead us into all truth, that is the Holy Spirit.  The reperesentation of Christ upon the earth.  

   So while Catholics believe this incarnate is within a man, we, evangelical christians, believe that this is the person of the Holy Spirit.

2.  Catholics believe that confession of sin must be made to a priest and the priest gives pardon of sin. 
     The Bible tells us that when Christ died on the cross, the Lord split the veil between man and the Lord and gave us DIRECT access to the Father.  Therefore, there was no longer a need for us to go to the high priest, confess our sins, and that he would then petition the Lord on our behalf.  If you read, I think it's Deuteronomy, don't shoot me if I'm wrong.  But once a year, the High Priest went up to the Holy of Holies to atone for the sins of the nation.  So people would come to him to confess their sins and then he would petition God on their behalf.  He lived a very devout life, and was righteous and was the only one would could go into the Holy of Holies and be in the manifest presence of God.  If there was sin on him, he'd drop dead.  And so he spent days of preparation preparing and seeking forgivenss and sanctification before he'd go before the Lord.  The other priests in the temple would tie a rope to his feet before he went into the Holy of Holies in case he dropped dead in the presence of God because no sin can glory in the presence of the Lord.  
     When the Lord provided Christ, our High Priest, He gave us access to Himself through Jesus Christ, who is now our High Priest.  So we no longer have to go through man to access God.
     Also, we cannot, according to the Bible, atone for our sins and receive forgiveness from man by saying Hail Mary's, or whatever.  But that we are given forgivness freely through Christ Jesus by simple confession and repentance of our sins to the Lord, asking forgiveness and receiving it, and then turning away from that sin.

  3.  Catholics believe the POpe is the head of the church.  The Bible says that Christ is the head of the church. 

  4.  Catholics believe in additional books of the Bible that are not part of the original canon called the Apochrypha, beliving that God's word isn't enough, but there are lost books and more scriptures were needed.
       The Bible says that God's Word, the Bible, is sufficient.  And the canon are the only books that were proved to have been God-spoken/breathed, inspired and written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, without error, sufficient and whole as given. 

   5.  Catholicism is mixed with mysticism, i.e. a derivative of eastern religions, apparitions, etc...
         The Bible forbids mysticism.

  6.  Catholics believe in sainthood and praying to saints for particular problems.  
       The Bible commands us to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, only to Him because it is only He who gives us access to the Father, it is only He who hears, who heals, who saves, who forgives, who can do anything on our behalves.  Not some dead saint. 
       Catholics also have a process in which someone is adopted into sainthood, providing that they have served a particular way, missions, etc... have performed miracles, have an article of their body or something preserved (some even have fingers), and many other things, have been martyred, etc.. and they must also know that this person is in heaven, and then they can be deemed a saint. 
        The Bible has never taught that we can know for sure if a person is in heaven, there really is no exact way to know that, but only through faith because we are not the final judge of a person's heart.  The Bible also teaches that we are all saints.

   7.  Catholics call the priest Father.  The Bible refers to Yahweh, God, Father as Father.  

    8.  Catholicism is works centered, and therefore doesn't allow salvation through grace adn faith alone. 
         Yes, it is true that hte Bible says that faith without works is dead, but that does not mean that we are saved by works and can work our way into heaven.   To believe that is to believe that we can work enough to earn the love, salvation and forgiveness of Lord, to which the value is immeasurable and so great, we could NEVER work enough to earn.  Therefore, he gave is freely.   If you linked all the works of the people of the world from the beginning of time, it still couldn't pay the price of Christ dying on the cross to buy our sin and give us salvation adn an eternity in heaven.  It is too great a gift to be earned, therefore, we must receive it freely.  All of our works truly are as filthy rags, esp. in comparison to God's gift to us of salvation, sacrifice, etc... To believe we can work for salvation, or even God's love is to be arrogant and prideful.  No person can be made holy, be saved, forgiven or loved by their works.

There are many more examples, but it is clear that Catholicism is not the Christianity or Gospel of the Bible.  Therefore, true Christianity is belief in first the trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Belief that we are saved by grace, through faith alone.  That we Believe the Bible is the inerrant, sufficient and whole word of God.  That God is Creator and Lord of All.  And that we have access through the Father in Christ, free of man's legalism, sinful ways, etc... (a watered down version of the Apostle's creed lol) 

Considering this all, which would you rather be?  I think God has made His way clear for us, and actually a lot easier than what Catholicism would have us do.  

The history of the church is a shabby one, and not too clean, but a lot of the abuses of power etc.. has come through legalism and hierarchy within the Catholic church causing believers to believe that the church lords and rules over it's people, and that all must go through the church to have access to Christ.  Teh truth is that God has set us free to live our lives in relationship with Him, freely and completely under him without the need to go through man to access him..
Traditions make us all warm and fuzzy, and make us feel sometimes closer to God, but a relationship with Christ does not involve tradition.  Often, man's traditions keep us from knowing the truth of who God is because we're so stuck on doing things our own way, rather than acknowledging that Christ is Lord and ruler of all, that His Word is the final authority, sufficient within itself, needing NOTHING ELSE to make it better.  Kissing statues, priests, bowing at people's feet, all of these things seem religious, but religion and relationship are two different things.  I hope you will be inspired to have a relationship wtih God based on truth adn who is really is, without all of this extra stuff that's so not required.  And if God requires my heart, my obedience, and my attention to know His Word and only those things, then I'd rather do that.
For more on Christianity, doctrine and how to read the Bible and know what God is saying,  go to www.letusreason.org


----------



## MsDeeDee82 (Nov 3, 2008)

wow this is great, my man and I have been arguing about christianity and cathlocism. I will bring this for discussion.


----------



## BlueNile (Nov 3, 2008)

belle_reveuse28 said:


> Catholicism and Chrisitanity of the Bible do differ...
> 
> 1.  Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.  The Vicar of Christ is Christ's representation and spirit incarnate on this earth.   Therefore, he is also head of the church adn decides all that is concerning the Catholic church.
> ETA:  The Pope, in all that concerns the church, decides the rules and regulations of the church, the government of the church, the doctrine and dogma of the church.  He decides what books are approved and which ones arent.  His rule supercedes the authority of scripture, and he has the authority to change as he believes fit or that "God" shows Him.
> ...




This was an excellent post detailing the differences between the two. Thank you! 

*All* of the posts that you ladies took the time to make are very much appreciated.

Thank you all so much for answering me without criticism and anger. 

I realize that I could have phrased those other posts in the other forum differently, and that I may have offended some people, which was in no way my intent. 

Thank you again!


----------



## belle_reveuse28 (Nov 3, 2008)

BlueNile said:


> This was an excellent post detailing the differences between the two. Thank you!
> 
> *All* of the posts that you ladies took the time to make are very much appreciated.
> 
> ...



You're welcome.  I encourage others to seek God.  He says that if we seek Him we will find Him.  Through seeking God and His truth, and why we believe what we believe, we are then able to understand what makes us different, and just because we say we are Christians, doesn't mean we are worshipping the same God and the same Jesus of the Bible.  Heck, even the KKK considers themselves Christian.  Everything, EVERYTHING is measured and rightly divided by the Word of God.  It's like a two-edged sword dividing the truth from a lie.  As Christians, we are commanded to show thyself approved through study and understanding of God's word, what the Lord is saying, to study other religions and know why they aren't the same, and that their god's is surely not our God, adn that the Jesus some of them say they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible.   Like I said, start wtih the website i gave, www.letusreason.org, it will change your world and open to you the freedom to know who God truly is, adn that He is who He says He is in His Word.  If you are interested in more discernment sites, as they are called, or Christian apologetics, which is the actual study of the Bible and biblical doctrine, PM me and I'll give you some sites that will help you on your journey.   Remember, study and show thyself approved....  Know God's Word and ask Him to give you a desire and thirst for His truth.  He will not fail you!  Be blessed my dear!

Here is a link for the section of that website that talks about Catholicism and it's practices versus the Bible... http://www.letusreason.org/RCdir.htm

OH, and thanks for the kiss on the cheek, sooo sweet!


----------



## aribell (Nov 3, 2008)

belle_reveuse28 said:


> Catholicism and Chrisitanity of the Bible do differ...
> 
> 1.  Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.  The Vicar of Christ is Christ's representation and spirit incarnate on this earth.   Therefore, he is also head of the church adn decides all that is concerning the Catholic church.
> ETA:  The Pope, in all that concerns the church, decides the rules and regulations of the church, the government of the church, the doctrine and dogma of the church.  He decides what books are approved and which ones arent.  His rule supercedes the authority of scripture, and he has the authority to change as he believes fit or that "God" shows Him.
> ...



I think that there are many points that the Catholic Church can be criticized on, which is why I am no longer a part of that Church.  However, it is too easy to oversimplify Catholic doctrine.  The doctrines of the Church are literally thousands upon thousands of pages and have been in the works since the birth of Christianity.

While I don't think that a forum like this is the most useful place to hash out complex theological positions, I will suggest that if anyone has questions or suspicions about the Catholic Church that they consult _Catholic sources_ themselves.  People outside of the Roman Catholic Church often misunderstand the doctrine and impose their particular denominational interpretations onto Catholic doctrine (this is not a comment on the above quote).  Moreover, many Protestant denominations take certain biblical interpretations for granted, when in reality Christian saints have differed on certain questions since the Church began.  

This is not to say that we cannot call out unbiblical ideas.  But it is to say that if we study the entire history of the Christian Church, we will find a very wide variety of Scriptural and doctrinal interpretations that, to our surprise, we may have erroneously assumed have always been clear cut.

When we refer to the Bible, we have to admit that any time we quote a Scripture, we are also _interpreting_ that piece of Scripture.  And because Scripture is not of private interpretation, we need the entire community of believers to come together and discern what it means.  And we need both Catholics and Protestants in that process.

What distinguishes Christians from non-Christians is not questions like whether you pray to saints or go to confession.  It is whether you believe the Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity, whose work on the cross provided for your salvation.  This is what is essential.


----------



## belle_reveuse28 (Nov 3, 2008)

nicola.kirwan said:


> I think that there are many points that the Catholic Church can be criticized on, which is why I am no longer a part of that Church.  However, it is too easy to oversimplify Catholic doctrine.  The doctrines of the Church are literally thousands upon thousands of pages and have been in the works since the birth of Christianity.
> 
> While I don't think that a forum like this is the most useful place to hash out complex theological positions, I will suggest that if anyone has questions or suspicions about the Catholic Church that they consult _Catholic sources_ themselves.  People outside of the Roman Catholic Church often misunderstand the doctrine and impose their particular denominational interpretations onto Catholic doctrine (this is not a comment on the above quote).  Moreover, many Protestant denominations take certain biblical interpretations for granted, when in reality Christian saints have differed on certain questions since the Church began.
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying, and I will only comment on part of what you said.  There is a proper way and improper way to interpret scripture.  And this is taught through the church and has been established for centuries.  So in order to know what the Bible is saying, you're right, we don't do this on a private forum, but through Christ's community.  The truths and interpretations I have presented here are not my own, but long established proper bilblical exegesis on the part of many scholars, clergymen and theologians alike.  And one thing you must know about truth is that there has to be confirmation and that whatever it is lines up with God's word and is consistent.  Therefore, we can in fact interpret scripture and be correct about what it is saying. 

My statements about Catholic doctrine are in no way an over simplification about it.  You dont have to be part of a religion in order to know it's basis and what it's comprised of in order to have a good foundation of knowledge about it.  These are true statements about the catholic church, can be verified via catholic doctrine and their beliefs.  All points have been presented as objective truth, rather than subjective opinion.  Truth isn't based on what I feel or think, it's based simply on what is and what isn't.   Christian leaders for centuries have studied the entirety of catholicism, the 1,000s of pages mentioned, in order to educate believers and spread God's word as He see's fit.  So it's not like anybody's walking in the dark here, spewing facts that haven't been well-founded or establisehd.  There are and have been arguments within the Christian church about certain biblical doctrines, and most have been able to find the correct interpretations, and find continuity and consistency among the interpretations.  God has always made a way to convey his truth, and bring light to scripture and itnerpretations where there has been confusion.  That is part of his providence, which is great and enormous... 

Also, it does matter how we pray and who we pray to.  To continue in error leads us to destruction and falling outside of God's word.  Many Christians, whether catholic or protestant, aren't often aware of error until someone has the ability to point that out to them.  What benefit is there of praying to a dead saint who can't help you, and waisting time doing that, when you could be praying to the Living God?  So these things that seem miniscule to some, are very important, indeed.  The Bible isn't merely a book of suggestions, but rather a very necessary message, or love letter, rather, from our Creator on how we must live our lives if we choose to follow Christ.  It, therefore, it not a sum of it's parts, but a whole that cannot be broken down.  You can't take one part here and leave the other out.  It's all or nothign.

Be blessed!


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 3, 2008)

BlueNile said:


> Hello Ladies!
> 
> I recently made a post in the political forum stating that true christianity and roman catholicism are not the same thing. True christianity is following Jesus Christ and his teachings.
> 
> ...


 

One of the things I'm finding so difficult about this LCHF is religious overtone to the point of ad nauseum and I'm truly sorry for complaining.  Nonetheless, by nature, I'm inquisitive.  I seek out knowledge, whether it agrees with my political, social and spiritual point of view or not.  In other words, I don't usually have a problem with someone else's point of religious view.  With that said, this is a christian forum, true enough,  and I come here for the positivity...usually.  

I'm afraid I'd find this to be divisive amongst christians.  I'm sure there are Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians here who find this offensive, especially since those with opposing viewpoints of that religious expression have never studied theology in one of their seminaries.  Perhaps they share the same viewpoint towards protestants but one thing is quite evident and has attracted me to their version of christianity - they do not judge, even when they have 4,000 years of theological writings back to Moses, apostolic tradition as handed down from Judaic tradition (as the first christians were a sect of Jews), writings of the early Church Fathers, the   Doctors of the Church *and* a sense of knowledge that the other christianities have cut off much of the "truth " handed down and are essentially watered down semblances of the first christianity at whichever point one wishes to consider that sect of Judaism "christianity."  

Still, they do not pronounce judgement but live out their faith by example, not slamming others for differing beliefs.  Certainly, history has shown that the Church has made horrid errors in judgement, particularly with the Jews.  I think much has been corrected and relationship to the non-catholic world has improved immensely.  I'm not blind.  My experiences are basically  about the various people I have come into contact with.  I hate to say it, but all through my undergrad, which was my first encounter with people of another religious faith, I was told repeatedly by evangelical christians that, "I was going to hell in a handbasket."  It was hurtful and mean though they thought it the truth.  I think this approach could be  rather divisive amongst christians, even though the initial post was presented as a question.  It might just be better to ask which are the differing view on x-y-z and how is that presented in worship rather than assuming that sola scriptura is the way that truth is arrived at.  

For an example, Moses was given the Law consisting of the written law and oral law.  The Oral Law was written down in exile during Babylonian Exile to unite the  people.  G-d passed down the Oral Tradition to Moses who in turn passed this down to Aaron, priests and all the others.  You have Jesus, who was a JEW, not a christian...it wasn't around at the time.  He did everything that other Jews did and He even said he wouldn't change one point or vowel (liberally interpretated), which can change the meaning of a word.  He didn't preach anything new that wasn't already there.  He was circumcized, all Jews should have sons circumcized...these G-d said to do forever.  Then the apostles, followers of Jesus.  They passed it down.  Before it was written down in the New Testament, how did they keep unified?  You get my point.  The traditions are there.  

Fast forward to abuses by the Church, protesting of it, Martin Luther, who, btw still believed in the transubstantiation (change of consecrated bread/wine into the actual body of Christ when partaken) , Marian theology (Mother of G-d, Theotokus to the Greeks) and devotion, not worship of her but intermediation, Calvinists and the lists goes on and on, watering down what was widely held to be the truth and tenets of the "christian" faith.  Of course, my version is a bit watered down, omitting many points and histories.  In essence, there are new churches with new interpretations developing every day since the Reformation.  Who has the truth?  I like to believe it this way, in all religions, there is an element of the truth and whoever gets to go to heaven depends upon that person's knowledge of truth and living it according to the best of his ability - that for lack of knowledge of the complete truth, he is not guilty of not knowing.  Simply put, I believe it meanst that if you live to be a good person, righteous and just, doing good, then that is what G-d will judge you by.  If you go against what you know to be true, that is 

disobedience.  Essentially, G-d decides all for all and He's not asking our opinion.  Please forgive the long post, but I thought it might help others to realize just how divisive "we" can be at LCHF.  I truly love the ladies here but the bible thumping ...oy!


I truly feel I know your intent, that of honesty and truth seeking.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 3, 2008)

divya said:


> Yes, Christianity is the belief in the Jesus Christ, which we learn through God's Holy Word. That being said, those of us who believe in Jesus Christ are one in the Lord - one Christian church.
> 
> For purposes of history, there was one Christian church with many locations. The Roman Catholic church arose out of a struggle for earthly power, which as you stated, led the leaders to adopt, introduce and teach unBiblical doctrine.
> 
> However, the doesn't mean that Roman Catholics are not Christian. To be Christian, we simply have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved. We must believe in Him - His sacrifice, Word, mission etc. Once a Catholic or any other individual has done so, that person is a Christian.


 

Actually, like Jews, catholics come into the faith through covenant, meaning baptism...circumcision for Jews and as babies.  Girls in the orthodox christian tradition are dedicated after 40 days, at least in Ethiopia.  There is no "knowledge" being a baby, that Jesus is Messiah.  It's not like protestants coming to accept Jesus as Messiah through clear conscience and choice.  I think this is one great contention between the two.  Correct me if I'm wrong...anybody.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 3, 2008)

nicola.kirwan said:


> I grew up Catholic and was educated in Catholic schools through high school. I was also very active in the Church. When thinking about Catholicism, I think it's most useful to distinguish between the official _doctrine_ of the Catholic Church and the _practice_ in the Churches. Officially, the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine are in many ways more rooted in the historical teachings of the Church than many Protestant churches. Roman Catholic doctrine is definitely orthodox.
> 
> However, Catholic congregations are often spiritually weak, and the leadership suffers from a reliance on hierarchy and ministerial authority that seems to be producing things like the priest scandals (which are extremely widespread) and other problems. I left the Catholic Church because I could not find believers with whom I could have genuine fellowship. I am not saying that there are no Catholic Christians, since I was one. Moreover, I know several former Protestants who have converted to Catholicism, and they are strong believers. But Catholicism in practice is often missing an understanding (and teaching) of the Gospel. In all my years of being in the Church, taught by nuns, and in religion classes, my coming to Christ was almost entirely unrelated to any of that.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not being contentious (3 posts already...whew!) so please don't take it that way but didn't you come to Christ when you were baptized as a baby?  Then you grow from there?  In other words, I don't think catholics have a shake-down religious experience from tragedy to being christian like in many protestant tradition i.e. altar calls etc.  If you didn't live right and you realize it, you just then return to living right.  Right???  I better quit...NOW .

A side note:  I'm not hijacking, it's just slow and I want to know NOW which are the points of contention.  Some mentioned already.


----------



## aribell (Nov 3, 2008)

belle_reveuse28 said:


> My statements about Catholic doctrine are in no way an over simplification about it. You dont have to be part of a religion in order to know it's basis and what it's comprised of in order to have a good foundation of knowledge about it. These are true statements about the catholic church, can be verified via catholic doctrine and their beliefs. All points have been presented as objective truth, rather than subjective opinion. Truth isn't based on what I feel or think, it's based simply on what is and what isn't. Christian leaders for centuries have studied the entirety of catholicism, the 1,000s of pages mentioned, in order to educate believers and spread God's word as He see's fit. So it's not like anybody's walking in the dark here, spewing facts that haven't been well-founded or establisehd. There are and have been arguments within the Christian church about certain biblical doctrines, and most have been able to find the correct interpretations, and find continuity and consistency among the interpretations. God has always made a way to convey his truth, and bring light to scripture and itnerpretations where there has been confusion. That is part of his providence, which is great and enormous...


 
I know many Catholics, professional theologians included, who would take issue with several of the claims made in your original post, which is why I responded.  Also, having studied theology in both Catholic and Protestant contexts, I don't think that that source presented a very balanced presentation of Catholic doctrine.  I think it's perfectly fair to look at the doctrine and come to whatever conclusions about it you deem reasonable.  But it really is important to consult the primary sources themselves so that you are not relying on someone else's interpretation of what they say and believe.  You definitely do not have to be  a part of a religion to understand what it's about, but you do have to at least allow it to explain itself.  

Again, having gone from the Catholic Church to the Protestant community, misunderstanding of Catholic belief and practice is the *norm *among non-Catholics--even many educated ones*.  *And while I support Christian apologetics and have benefitted from it greatly, I can say for a fact that the majority of descriptions of Catholic doctrine are inaccurate, misunderstood, or misapplied, even when taken from sources that should be reliable.  



belle_reveuse28 said:


> Also, it does matter how we pray and who we pray to. To continue in error leads us to destruction and falling outside of God's word. Many Christians, whether catholic or protestant, aren't often aware of error until someone has the ability to point that out to them. What benefit is there of praying to a dead saint who can't help you, and waisting time doing that, when you could be praying to the Living God? So these things that seem miniscule to some, are very important, indeed. The Bible isn't merely a book of suggestions, but rather a very necessary message, or love letter, rather, from our Creator on how we must live our lives if we choose to follow Christ. It, therefore, it not a sum of it's parts, but a whole that cannot be broken down. You can't take one part here and leave the other out. It's all or nothign.
> 
> Be blessed!


 
That's all true.  But the original post was asking whether Catholics are Christians.  And my point was to say that, yes, they are--or at least they can be.  All Scripture is necessary, but there is a difference between essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith--any biblical seminary will teach that.  Anyone may be 100% convicted that a certain practice is wholly un-biblical, but the fact of the matter is that unless it is something that has to do with salvation or the nature of God, it is a "non-essential."  That's not a term that I'm making up, it is used by Christian theologians of all denominational backgrounds and can be found all over Christian scholarship.  The point is that even if someone disagrees with certain practices within a denomination _(e.g., women pastors, baptism of infants, headcoverings, speaking in tongues/the baptism of the Spirit, when the Rapture happens, etc.)_ you have to be able to distinguish between what practices disqualify a church from the Christian faith and which do not.  Belief in the intercession of the saints and confession do not change the Gospel message. _ If someone is convinced that Catholics pray to saints like they pray to God, then that would be a clear example of not understanding the doctrine properly._ 

So many things that are preached in churches today only came about in the past 50-100 years, from denominations that were started by one individual or a group of people, and older denominations like the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion have been thinking, praying about, discussing, and writing about these questions for literally thousands of years.  There is actually more support historically among Christians for many of _their_ interpretations of Scripture than there is for some of the more commonplace ones.  It's just something to keep in mind.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 3, 2008)

nicola.kirwan said:


> I agree that there are a lot of unfounded assumptions and criticisms of the (Roman) Catholic Church, which is unfortunate
> 
> Also, I agree that it would be wrong to demonize all priests. Truth be told, my personal experience in the Church as a child and teenager was actually very rich, and I found a lot of value in the traditions. There is a culture within the Catholic Church, particularly among nuns, that is wonderfully open, loving and compassionate (doesn't mean that the Gospel was preached, though!). The Catholic "religious" persons (ordained clergy, monks and nuns) are honestly some of the most wonderful people I have ever met. While a lot people run off with these stereotypes of stern, cold, priests and harsh nuns, that was so, so far from my experience and is just that, a stereotype.


 

How could the gospel not be preached when at every mass, it's part of the liturgy, Old Testament and New?  Do you mean in a protestant way?  Reason I'm interested, I wanted to know why some friends left and other friends joined.


----------



## Farida (Nov 3, 2008)

belle_reveuse28 said:


> Catholicism and Chrisitanity of the Bible do differ...
> 
> 1.  Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.  The Vicar of Christ is Christ's representation and spirit incarnate on this earth.   Therefore, he is also head of the church adn decides all that is concerning the Catholic church.
> 
> ...



I have my answers in bold. I used to be Catholic and I still attend a Catholic institution. It took me forever to choose a new church, because I didn't like how hostile people were with their message. I was Catholic, I loved Jesus, I had a true passion for him. Every morning with my class, with the priest, we prayed, we meditated we studied the bible. I felt God's hands in my life and I felt blessed. 

This made it extremely irritating when people would come to me and tell me I wasn't a real Christian, that I wasn't saved. WHO are they to say that to me? Most of them didn't even understand me. It saddens me and as long as people carry on this way, good luck getting people over to your church. People do the same with Muslims - a religion which is shockingly tied with Christianity. If we are positive and focus on our similarities rather than demonizing our differences we progress. You get more flies with honey...


----------



## aribell (Nov 3, 2008)

I tried to post an answer to this before, but it got lost in the ether...oh well, I'll try again.



hwiseman said:


> I'm not being contentious (3 posts already...whew!) so please don't take it that way but didn't you come to Christ when you were baptized as a baby? Then you grow from there? In other words, I don't think catholics have a shake-down religious experience from tragedy to being christian like in many protestant tradition i.e. altar calls etc. If you didn't live right and you realize it, you just then return to living right. Right??? I better quit...NOW .
> 
> A side note: I'm not hijacking, it's just slow and I want to know NOW which are the points of contention. Some mentioned already.


 
If I understand you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, you want to know how I reconcile saying I was saved when I was 14, though I grew up Catholic?  Well, this isn't a point about Catholic doctrine, but of my own story.  I wasn't baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant, and my parents didn't go to Church.  But I did go to Catholic schools, and when I was 10 I chose to convert to Catholicism because it was important to me.  I continued in the Church, but when I was 14 I had a more evangelical "saved" experience, which is when I was finally taught what the Gospel actually meant.  I distinguished between becoming "saved" and simply being a part of the Church because, as in any denomination, there is a difference.



hwiseman said:


> How could the gospel not be preached when at every mass, it's part of the liturgy, Old Testament and New? Do you mean in a protestant way? Reason I'm interested, I wanted to know why some friends left and other friends joined.



After actually understanding the Gospel, the liturgy only became that much sweeter to me.  And I know several Protestants who converted to Catholicism because they are able to appreciate the richness of the Mass, and the traditions of the Church.  But you have to be taught what it means first in order to deeply appreciate it.

The phrase "personal relationship with Christ" is used a lot in Protestant circles.  But with good reason, I think.  The liturgy proclaims the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection; and during the liturgy you recite the beliefs of the Christian church in the creeds.  But the Gospel message is understanding how you personally fit into that story, and who _you_ are in relationship to God, and what _you_ must do to be in right relationship with Him.

I could go on, but then I'd really get to preaching. Hope that makes some sense.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 4, 2008)

nicola.kirwan said:


> I
> 
> The phrase "personal relationship with Christ" is used a lot in Protestant circles. But with good reason, I think. The liturgy proclaims the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection; and during the liturgy you recite the beliefs of the Christian church in the creeds. But the Gospel message is understanding how you personally fit into that story, and who _you_ are in relationship to God, and what _you_ must do to be in right relationship with Him.
> 
> I could go on, but then I'd really get to preaching. Hope that makes some sense.


 

You make perfect sense!!!  Thank you.  I guess what I mean is what you mean by being saved?  Is it believing in the Christ or is it a feeling additionally?  I'm not understanding.  I think there is what you do...being the result of what you believe to be truth.  Of course, there's coming into the family of G-d through baptism and the coming of age decision to continue and make it a personal way through confirmation.  Is there something else?  I just can't comprehend the difference between catholics (orthodox, chaldeans, armenians, byzantine etc. i.e. original christianity) and christians  (meaning protestants) pertaining to belonging to G-d's family via salvation.  Oh, I forgot.  That's one of the points, right?  Salvation hasn't occurred yet for catholics and they work for it until the end whereas protestants believe once they believe a certain way, they have secured it eternally???  There are differences between *when* someone enters G-d's family through following the Christ.  I'm trying to remember previous discussions with a messianic "rabbi."


----------



## letitgrow0702 (Nov 6, 2008)

For some reason my post will not take. Please disregard previous post. Hwiseman if you still need a explanation in regards to salvation, please send me a PM.


----------



## aribell (Nov 7, 2008)

hwiseman said:


> You make perfect sense!!! Thank you. I guess what I mean is what you mean by being saved? Is it believing in the Christ or is it a feeling additionally? I'm not understanding. I think there is what you do...being the result of what you believe to be truth. Of course, there's coming into the family of G-d through baptism and the coming of age decision to continue and make it a personal way through confirmation. Is there something else? I just can't comprehend the difference between catholics (orthodox, chaldeans, armenians, byzantine etc. i.e. original christianity) and christians (meaning protestants) pertaining to belonging to G-d's family via salvation. Oh, I forgot. That's one of the points, right? Salvation hasn't occurred yet for catholics and they work for it until the end whereas protestants believe once they believe a certain way, they have secured it eternally??? There are differences between *when* someone enters G-d's family through following the Christ. I'm trying to remember previous discussions with a messianic "rabbi."


 
Sorry it's taken a minute.  Hmm...I don't think that trying to figure out the doctrinal differences/perspectives on salvation will be helpful, since a lot of it is speculative and they all agree on the main things:

1) We are sinful and therefore are separated from God due to our rebellion against His ways.  We know what is good and choose to do wrong.

2) God, being holy, cannot have fellowship (communion) with us while we are separated from Him because of our sin.

3) In order to make a way to reconcile Himself to us, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the second Adam (the Adam who does not sin, but lives perfectly before God).  By dying on the Cross, Jesus took upon Himself the condemnation of death that was the result of humanity's sinfulness.  But, being God, He overcame death, and all who repent of their sins and have faith in Him are joined to Him and raised with Him in life.-->*This* is salvation.

4)  Being saved means being a part of Christ's resurrected Body (the Body of Christ, the Church) through faith in Him, being restored to communion with God, having the presence of God's Spirit in one's life, and looking forward to a bodily resurrection and reward in heaven.

Now, that definition of salvation applies across the board.  However, Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Anglicans, at least, believe that you don't just inwardly have faith and then become a part of an intangible "Body of Christ", but you outwardly confess that faith and become a part of the Body of Christ represented in the *institutional* Church.  This is done through Baptism (rather than simply a sinner's prayer).  Though of course, if you don't have the opportunity to be Baptised before passing away, they aren't going to say that you'll be condemned.  

Those three denominations are heavily *sacramentally* oriented.  Sacraments are "outward signs of inward grace".  The Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans (and Lutherans and Presbyterians to a lesser degree) believe that the practices which take place in and outside of the litury are not simply ritual and tradition, but they have the *power* of God in them and are the *means* by which the Lord communicates His salvation, healing, forgiveness, and presence.  So, when they have communion, they believe that Jesus is genuinely present--it's not just a symbol.  Or, if you go to confession, God really is forgiving you of your sins through that act.

As far as salvation itself is concerned, basically they believe that you can't separate inward feelings and movements of the Spirit from outward "rituals" and actions in the Church.  Moreover, they believe that their various practices were ordained by God and have God's Spirit moving in them, so they are not just empty actions, but God acting through them.

However, they _will_ be just empty actions if the person taking the sacrament (Roman Catholic ones are: Baptism, Holy Orders, Confession, Matrimony, Communion, Unction of the Sick, Confirmation) doesn't him/herself have faith in the Lord who ordained them.  _This distinction is what I think is often missing in these congregations._  IMO, many people end up simply falling into the ritual itself and having faith in the ritual itself, or simply taking comfort in the tradition, and don't really understand what they are supposed to be really believing in.  Also IMO, that's why a lot of people who grow up in these denominations leave, complaining that it feels empty, because they were never taught the genuine meaning and significance of the ritual, and therefore have no connection to it.  If you don't have faith, the sacraments will not communicate God's grace to you.

---------
As far as feelings go, I wouldn't say that feelings are what you need to be saved, if you're talking about a particular kind of emotional reaction.  But, there is a difference between intellectually assenting to Jesus being God and Lord, and actually submitting yourself to Him.  So if by "belief" you mean simply acknowledging that what the Bible says is true, then no, that's not enough ("for even the demons believe, and tremble").  _But you must humble yourself before God and draw yourself into right relationship with Him, living in faith in and obedience to Him._  Coming to this point is often a very emotional experience for people, which is why a lot of Christian's testimonies talk so much about the "feelings" involved.  But getting to that point is the important part, not how you feel once you get there.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Nov 8, 2008)

nicola.kirwan said:


> sins through that act.
> 
> As far as salvation itself is concerned, basically they believe that you can't separate inward feelings and movements of the Spirit from outward "rituals" and actions in the Church. Moreover, they believe that their various practices were ordained by God and have God's Spirit moving in them, so they are not just empty actions, but God acting through them.
> 
> ...


 

Hi, Kirwan.  I rather forgot about the discussion .  What about baptism?  The infant cannot intellectually decide for himself what is and is not the truth but the parents obey a "command" to raise the child in the faith, much like Judaism.  The child is confirmed at the age of reasoning but it cannot be forced.  They have to make the conscious choice for the child.  Obviously, there are those families who wish to save face and thus, a child is confirmed later without "feeling" it or that the family's actual commitment to living the faith to any degree of orthodoxy is lacking.  And I don't think that one can truly take Holy Order nor Confessions without a committment to it.  Esp. confession,the act of recognizing sin and obeying to confess it is in itself a return to truth.  If there's any reason the priest doesn't believe the confessor, he isn't absolved.

What I believe to be true is that some fall from these traditional churches because the emotionality appears to be lacking compared to evangelical churches.  Are those not the fastest growing churches in the world?   Are they not even in turmoil now because of the new age and feel-good and name-it-claim-it theology creeping into them as though that in itself constitutes the gospel?  Perhaps television has something to do with that.  BTW, there is a growing renewal to G-d in Judaism, Catholicism and christianity in general, even Islam (absolutely fastest growing religion).  

Therefore, people tend to equate evangelical protestant "feelings" that they are saved at some point in their lives with the actual salvation itself.  I couldn't say that catholics don't realize how sin separates man from G-d since they have sacraments to bring man back into that living relationship with Him.  So, when people who might well be better served participating in religious instruction and  prayer groups in their own faith do not partake of that which is readily available, their confusion come in the comparison of their religious experiences with those of other sects and feeling they are lacking because they did not witness this emotionality and psychological manipulation often expressed in protestant congregations.    They get to the point that *feelings are perceived as the determinent of whether one is saved or not and whether or not one has arrived at a universal truth.  I've often heard it.  People would say that they just didn't feel they knew G-d although they knew He existed, obeyed living a good life and participated in the sacraments.  What else is there?

And you know, this just touches more on Judaism for me and demonstrating that catholicism is a more direct brother of Judaism esp. concerning how they incorporate traditions.  There is the command to do and in doing, one learns why as they obey in doing.  Has nothing to do with feeling it.  You comprehend the deeper meanings as you live life and that's true for all people IMHO.  Submission and intellectually assenting to the truth is taken care of in obedience.   I don't think that having an emotional experience equates with repentance.   It might intensify it, it might add a little more humanity to it but it doesn't actually become the repentance itself IMHO.


----------

