T
Timonator348
Guest
Can someone please explain where this idea came from? Also if any Protestants out there can enlighten me to the scriptural support for this belief I would appreciate it, thank you and God bless!
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
From ignorance and prejudices beliefs about Catholicism. A lot of it stems from the belief of the Bible-Only. Bible-Only Christians basically believe:
If it is not in the Bible,then it is unbibical.
How ironic they also hold to a belief not taught, let alone mentioned in the Bible?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Timonator,
As ANY protestant to give you the date of the founding of his church. Not one will be able to legitimately provide a date earlier than the Middle Ages.
As ANY protestant to give you the date of the founding of his church. Not one will be able to legitimately provide a date earlier than the Middle Ages.
T
Timonator348
Guest
It seems to me the Protestant mindset is not that “church” means any kind of physical construct but is an invisible institution of all true believers or true Christians or the elect or those who are “saved” and denominations do not matter. As a Catholic I know this is not the case as shown both Biblically and historically.
I
Ignatius
Guest
I don’t know where the idea came from, but if they want to make that argument, let’s discuss this:
Do you have any idea when your church was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:
If you are of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you are Anabaptist, your religion was founded by Nicholas Storch and Thomas Munzer in Germany in 1521.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you belong to the Mennonites, your church was started in 1536 by Menno Simons in Switzerland.
If you are a Calvinist, Jon Calvin started your belief system in 1555 in Switzerland.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your church came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Campellite Christian Church, your religion was started by Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone at a revival held at Bushy Creek around 1836.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you are Seventh Day Adventist, your religion was founded by Ellen Whitein 1844 in Washington, New Hampshire.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you’re Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the Topeka, Kansas in 1901 by Charles F. Parkham
If you are Assemblies of God your church grew out of Pentecostalism in 1914 in Hot Springs, Az.
If you are a member of Four-square Gospel, your church was started by Aimee Semple McPherson in L.A. in 1917.
If your Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in Costa Mesa, Ca, 1965
If your organization is “evangelical nondenominational Christian” your group started in the 1970s by protestants.
A
ajcstr
Guest
I hope I have all this right, but here goes (Note there is a Protestant view, a Catholic view, and a Protestant belief of what the Catholic view is) :
The Protestant view is that because of original sin we are totally depraved but Christ’s sacrifice “covers” us so that God declares us to be righteous even though we are not because of Christ’s righteousness. We cannot participate in any way and its our faith in Christ that saves us. Accepting Christ as our personal savior is our “born again” experience.
The Catholic view is also that we are depraved because of original sin, but not totally depraved. Baptism is our “born again” experience - born again of water and spirit - but in this case we are infused with grace. Through grace received through Baptism and through faith in Christ, we are capable of doing good works and must do them to confirm our faith.
From the view of many Protestants, Catholics follow a “gospel of works” meaning we believe we can obtain salvation through our works. Since Christ did all the work for us, believing that we can “add” anything to Christ’s sacrifice would disqualify us from being called Christians. The key that is missed here is that the Catholic believes that his good works are only doable as a result of faith and grace, not of his own doing.
As far as where this is in the Bible, Romans is the main book where the Protestant would point to show that faith alone leads to justification. Catholics would point to Romans but also point to James “justified by works and not by faith alone”, which is the only place in the Bible the words “faith alone” appear, to show that faith and works can’t be separated. This is one Catholic scriptural basis for works. But the “gospel of works” that the Catholics are accused of is not biblical, so you could see where if a Protestant believed that a Catholic followed this gospel, they would not be Christian. We as Catholics should never believe we earn our salvation. If we do, then we probably should not call ourselves Christians.
W
wed2catholic
Guest
I do not believe that Catholics are not Christians now, but there was a time when I did. Fortunately, I have learned a lot about the Catholic Church in the last few years. This quote pretty much sums it up for most people who are Protestant, I think. Some people adhere so strictly to the “faith alone” belief that they forget the other things that are supposed to make up Christianity. They believe that if Catholics (or anyone else) believe that you can add to what Christ has done, then you are not really Christian. Then, there are also the Protestants out there who really do not have a clue about Catholocism, and say crazy things like “Catholics don’t believe in the resurrection”, or “Catholics worship Mary.”
Some of the Protestants (especially some Baptsits) think that their particular church was forced into hiding and suppressed by the Catholics during the Middle Ages, and that no one was brave enough to say anything until the 1500’s. Some also think that Catholics did not allow any common person to read the Bible, so people could not figure out the real truth for themselves until the 1500’s. I hope that more Catholics can stand up and say why the stuff I just wrote down is not true.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yep! I agree.
LOL! Gotta love revisionism. Pure conjecture and speculation. Not a single shred of evidence supporting such a novelty. If it is indeed a fact, I am curious why not ONE Baptist is mentioned by name for nearly 1500 years by another Christian, pagan or by a secualr record? WOW!
Hhhmm? Why on earth would a common person want a book written in ancient langauges,if he or she could not read or write in their own native tongue?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
wed2catholic,
Did it ever occur to you (and I ask this as a general question - I am not trying to be inquistorial) why God would allow his people to “wander around” for 1500 years without any guidance as to what was and was not the true faith, but then suddenly he gave such guidance to people such as Calvin, Tynedale, Luther, et al., and that it all happened around the same time?
Don’t protestants find that odd?
And even if the above were true, what happened to the “one” protestant belief supposedly delivered to the men I mentioned, so that we now have thousands of independent protestant churches that continue to pop up because none of them can go to one teaching authority and be assured that one teaching is right?
Leave out the religion if you want - logic, alone, tells me that it makes no sense for Christ to establish a visible church on earth and then provide no guidance as to getting his word out to the rest of the word.
Did it ever occur to you (and I ask this as a general question - I am not trying to be inquistorial) why God would allow his people to “wander around” for 1500 years without any guidance as to what was and was not the true faith, but then suddenly he gave such guidance to people such as Calvin, Tynedale, Luther, et al., and that it all happened around the same time?
Don’t protestants find that odd?
And even if the above were true, what happened to the “one” protestant belief supposedly delivered to the men I mentioned, so that we now have thousands of independent protestant churches that continue to pop up because none of them can go to one teaching authority and be assured that one teaching is right?
Leave out the religion if you want - logic, alone, tells me that it makes no sense for Christ to establish a visible church on earth and then provide no guidance as to getting his word out to the rest of the word.
W
wed2catholic
Guest
Sure it has occurred to me now. I am married to a Catholic, and the fact that all of this has occurred to me is one of the reasons I am considering going to RCIA later this year to learn more about the Catholic faith. But it never occurred to me until a few years ago (after I got married). I suppose the reason that it did not occur to me is that I was brought up on all of this, and was indoctrinated in it from the time I was little. Those men (reformers) are treated as heroes in the Protestant faith. I guess we were just taught that the church was persecuted, then because man is so sinful, the church became corrupt, and the “true church” was persecuted; and I guess all the common people just were not smart enough to figure it all out. The Protestants I grew up under treat Luther as a tormented individual who finally figured everything out and was liberated. Other Protestants have honestly probably never even stopped to think all of this through very well and sort it all out because they have never had any reason to. (I had to when I got married.) Some would think I am crazy for even listening to the Catholic side of the argument. (Although many Protestants are much more open-minded.) It is very sad, and it is sad too, when uneducated Catholics become converts to Protestantism. It allows Protestants more fuel for their fire.wed2catholic,
Did it ever occur to you (and I ask this as a general question - I am not trying to be inquistorial) why God would allow his people to “wander around” for 1500 years without any guidance as to what was and was not the true faith, but then suddenly he gave such guidance to people such as Calvin, Tynedale, Luther, et al., and that it all happened around the same time?
Don’t protestants find that odd?
And even if the above were true, what happened to the “one” protestant belief supposedly delivered to the men I mentioned, so that we now have thousands of independent protestant churches that continue to pop up because none of them can go to one teaching authority and be assured that one teaching is right?
Leave out the religion if you want - logic, alone, tells me that it makes no sense for Christ to establish a visible church on earth and then provide no guidance as to getting his word out to the rest of the word.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Are Catholics --Christians?
Yes!~
We are Christians…we have been called Christians since the first century (see Acts)
First called “the disciples”…
Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes” (see Acts)
then at Antioch we started being called Christians.
Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100)
So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics.
Especially as various heresies arose in the first centuries…
Of course we still call ourselves Christians…but also we used the term Catholic.
Now a days we have many sorts of Christians --who are indeed Christians and our brothers…though we are unhappily not yet in full communion.
Catholics are Christians who in full communion with the successor of Peter. We call ourselves Christians all the time…Pope Benedict XVI when addressing the faithful does not usually say “Catholics this or that” but he calls them Christians…for that is what we are.
Other Christians have various degrees of communion with us (not speaking here of Holy Communion …but of “being in communion with”).
Are Catholics Christians??? Yes most certainly!
As one early Christian noted (375AD)
“If you want to know who I am,” he said, “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.”
St. Pacian
And with our fellow Christians…let us seek to love and follow our Lord Jesus Christ!
Yes!~
We are Christians…we have been called Christians since the first century (see Acts)
First called “the disciples”…
Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes” (see Acts)
then at Antioch we started being called Christians.
Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100)
So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics.
Especially as various heresies arose in the first centuries…
Of course we still call ourselves Christians…but also we used the term Catholic.
Now a days we have many sorts of Christians --who are indeed Christians and our brothers…though we are unhappily not yet in full communion.
Catholics are Christians who in full communion with the successor of Peter. We call ourselves Christians all the time…Pope Benedict XVI when addressing the faithful does not usually say “Catholics this or that” but he calls them Christians…for that is what we are.
Other Christians have various degrees of communion with us (not speaking here of Holy Communion …but of “being in communion with”).
Are Catholics Christians??? Yes most certainly!
As one early Christian noted (375AD)
“If you want to know who I am,” he said, “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.”
St. Pacian
And with our fellow Christians…let us seek to love and follow our Lord Jesus Christ!
J
Jakesmom
Guest
Igantious…That is possibly the coolest reply I have seen yet on Cathilc Answers Forums!
I just have to say WOW and Thank you!!
:clapping::dancing:
I just have to say WOW and Thank you!!
:clapping::dancing:
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
the answer to the original question is tautological…
T
TommyWommy
Guest
I’m a revert to Catholicism. I spent 20 years among fundamentalists and evangelicals before returning to the Church. It is widely believed in these circles that Catholicism is a deceptive religion that distracts people from a “true” relationship with Christ. In other words, Catholics are not “trusting in Christ,” they are trusting in popes, bishops, priests, man-made rules and practices to “earn” them a place in Heaven. This is known as “having religion” but not “having Christ.”
I’ve met well-meaning fundamentalists whose primary “mission field” is to reach out to and convert Catholics. They mean to rescue them from the clutches of this “deceptive” religion and tell them about a genuine relationship with Jesus. They generally believe there might be a few Catholics that are actually “saved” already, but in spite of Catholicism, not because of it.
When posed questions about Church history, they generally turn to unfounded theories about “true” Christianity somehow having gone underground for 1500 years until the Reformers got things back on track. I could go on and on, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Unfortunately, there are many Catholics that do not live lives of holiness and that ARE simply going through the motions of Catholicism with no real relationship (if they go to church at all). These Catholics seem to prove the fundamentalists’ point. These also are the Cathlolics that often end up filling Fundamentalist and Evangelical pews eventually. Some of them (like myself) find their way home when they realize the relationship they could have had all along in the Catholic Church.
As Peter Kreeft notes, “Sometimes people have to be good Protestants before they can be good Catholics.” Listen to this fascinating lecture: #3 on the list.
peterkreeft.com/audio.htm
I’ve met well-meaning fundamentalists whose primary “mission field” is to reach out to and convert Catholics. They mean to rescue them from the clutches of this “deceptive” religion and tell them about a genuine relationship with Jesus. They generally believe there might be a few Catholics that are actually “saved” already, but in spite of Catholicism, not because of it.
When posed questions about Church history, they generally turn to unfounded theories about “true” Christianity somehow having gone underground for 1500 years until the Reformers got things back on track. I could go on and on, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Unfortunately, there are many Catholics that do not live lives of holiness and that ARE simply going through the motions of Catholicism with no real relationship (if they go to church at all). These Catholics seem to prove the fundamentalists’ point. These also are the Cathlolics that often end up filling Fundamentalist and Evangelical pews eventually. Some of them (like myself) find their way home when they realize the relationship they could have had all along in the Catholic Church.
As Peter Kreeft notes, “Sometimes people have to be good Protestants before they can be good Catholics.” Listen to this fascinating lecture: #3 on the list.
peterkreeft.com/audio.htm
J
johnbres2
Guest
In fairness to whatever idiot has the belief you mention, you are assuming facts not in evidence; it is not really fair to condemn the idea when it is not being stated by one of its proponents.
A
approaching_arm
Guest
Hi Timonator,
I am a Protestant who is also an adjunct faculty member at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology. (I teach Aquinas’s philosophy to Dominicans.) So I’m in a unique position to answer your question.
There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.
I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism.
–Dan
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Mr. Davidson,
You said:* "There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.
I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism."
“[As] an adjunct faculty member at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology . . . I teach Aquinas’s philosophy to Dominicans.”*
I am trying to be respectful, but why does it not surprise me that a Catholic University has, in its employ, a graduate school teacher who teaches priests-in-training, and the teacher believes the Holy Father is the Antichrist, the Catholic Church is led by the AntiChrist, people should not be members of the AntiChrist’s Church, but the AntiChrist’s church has the ability to validly baptize people who are Christians or want to become Christians?
I hear a new one every day that never cease to amaze me . . .
You said:* "There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.
I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism."
“[As] an adjunct faculty member at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology . . . I teach Aquinas’s philosophy to Dominicans.”*
I am trying to be respectful, but why does it not surprise me that a Catholic University has, in its employ, a graduate school teacher who teaches priests-in-training, and the teacher believes the Holy Father is the Antichrist, the Catholic Church is led by the AntiChrist, people should not be members of the AntiChrist’s Church, but the AntiChrist’s church has the ability to validly baptize people who are Christians or want to become Christians?
I hear a new one every day that never cease to amaze me . . .
A
ajcstr
Guest
BTW - the best definition of a Christian I ever heard is someone who was baptized in the name if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Everything else is judgement.
PS - I just read the couple posts before this - I was NOT responding to those, I was responding to the original poster. With respect to the last two, I agree with Salvatore123 - what else can you say?
Everything else is judgement.
PS - I just read the couple posts before this - I was NOT responding to those, I was responding to the original poster. With respect to the last two, I agree with Salvatore123 - what else can you say?
A
approaching_arm
Guest
On one level, you’re right: it seems strange that they would have me in that position. But it isn’t strange once you realize that I’m hired to teach primarily philosophy–not theology. The students and I get along very well, everyone is respectful to one another, and the students are mature enough that they can discriminate between Protestant views and Roman Catholic ones. They aren’t stupid. (They’re graduate students… so they’re mostly grown men. As such, they want to learn philosophy from someone who is a good philosopher–whether or not he is a Catholic. Many Catholics on this forum study C.S. Lewis, for example. He’s no Catholic, but many Catholics respect him as a thinker.)
I hope this response comforts you.
Kind Regards,
Dan
I hope this response comforts you.
Kind Regards,
Dan
A
approaching_arm
Guest
One more thing: I teach Aquinas as a Thomist. That’s another reason why I’m a suitable hire. Believe it or not, the instruction my students receive from me is more thoroughly Thomistic than many Catholic theologians would offer. Since the students are Dominicans, this makes sense.
–Dan
–Dan
- Status