Catholicism not Christian?

[Nicea325]

As for the whore of Babylon: no knock to you personally, but the interpretation you offered isn’t very impressive. First, the city of seven hills is the city of seven hills, and the Apostle John knew full well that he was referring to Rome when he used the expression. He couldn’t have thought otherwise–this was a familiar, ancient expression. Second, Babylon is the city of Rome. Catholics often urge this when try to offer Biblical support for their claim that Peter lived in Rome. After all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter indicates that he was in the church at “Babylon,” which Catholic interpreters typically take to be the city of Rome. I could go on, but I really don’t have time to explain all of Revelation 17-18… I think I’ve said enough for now, anyway.

Because it is the city of Rome. Catholics only provide biblical support for Peter livinng in Rome,but also historical. Care to show primary documents stating Peter lived and died elsewhere? Care to tell us what other ancient city confirms Peter died elsewhere,other than Rome?

As for the pope never speaking great things AGAINST God? Even Catholics agree that the popes often spoke great things against God… they just don’t believe those utterances were ex cathedra and authoritative. As Catholics often tell me, although the popes never made any official errors, it doesn’t follow from this that they don’t have a long history of being real jerks, arrogant men, or even outright tyrants at times. Any historian can show this. Furthermore, if this isn’t speaking a great thing against God, then I don’t know what is:

“We [popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” --(PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE. THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM, Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1894)

That’s in a papal encyclical.

Apparently you do not understand infallibility,like the majority of Protestants.

 

[Salvatore123]

Dan,

I am NOT trying to cause trouble for you, nor would I be the type of person who would report you to the administrators of this forum.

You seem like an intelligent person, but what you have been writing and definitely what you TEACH and ADVOCATE - that our Holy Father is the AntiChrist and that Catholic Church is the Whole of Babylon - goes directly against several of this forum’s rules against denigrating the Catholic Church.

Considering whom you teach, and if you REALLY are whom you claim to be, then you must also realize that you are preparing your students for service to the AntiChrist and that we Catholics, numbering over a billion, are really praying to, are in league with, and are in communion with Satan and his followers.

Aside from this being advocated on a Catholic Forum during Holy Week, I would not be surprised to see this thread stopped fairly soon (and no - I will NOT report the thread).

Just telling you what I think will happen . . .

P.S. - Beats me why anyone would knowingly teach a group of men that the teacher knows is about to or has already given fidelity to the Anti-Christ. How do you justify your existence and work?

I am reminded of the situation where the entire “mob” is rounded up after the bank robbery and one claims, “I was only driving the get-away car - I didn’t actually shove guns in people’s faces and demand money!” That defense does not usually work in court . . .

P.S.S. - C.S. Lewis, although a protestant, was a “high Anglican” (which is about as close to being a Catholic and an Anglican at the same time), and some of his closest friends were venerable Catholics such as J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton. Although anecdotal, some who knew Lewis best say that deep down, the beliefs he held were more closely related to Catholicism than Anglican (I seriously doubt he would approve of the recent moves of the Anglican/Episcopal Church in America today).

 

[marica_mandic]

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!

Catholic are first community of Christian.
Catholic religion has pope in Rome who is inherit of Peter,Jesus apostle.

 

[Timonator348]

I think we’ve run a little off track with the whole Antichrist issue again. The purpose of this thread was to delve into the deeper reason most non Catholics (at least the ones I know) really don’t entertain the possibility that Catholics are Christian. I know when I was outside of the Church, from baptism to age 25, I didn’t KNOW Catholic was Christian. I know my reasons were simply because of how Catholicism is portrayed in the American media. It is presented differently, never called Christian and any “Christian” representatives from the Protestant camp for sure. I think too that since it’s founding America has been a Protestant nation (look how many Catholic presidents we’ve had…1 in case no one knew). I think people in America have an especially hard time accepting the Kingdom of God when they are allotted such freedom they don’t want to ruled even by the king of kings! I also know many Protestants today are indoctrinated by varying degrees into theologies that have a strong anti Catholic bias. I would still like to see some Scripture references on this if anybody has any.

HAPPY EASTER!!!

 

[ajcstr]

Here are a couple dozen

jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

and

ianpaisley.org/tiara.asp

Of course, the response:

davidmacd.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.htm

 

[FCEGM]

, , ,That said, I will say this, though: the Antichrist is clearly taught to be a man who rules over a temporal kingdom (a ‘horn’) and the church (‘the temple of God’) who is propped up by ancient errors (the ‘mystery of iniquity’ was already at work in Paul’s day). Furthermore, he gained temporal power by subduing three kingdoms that arose out of the fallen Roman Empire (‘plucking up three horns’). I want you to tell me this: who else meets these criteria besides the pope? And you better not be thinking of somebody who will come in the future–Paul disallows that, it seems, in 2 Thessalonians when he says that the mystery of the Antichrist’s inquity was already present at that time and that it was only a matter of time before it was revealed. . .

Antiochus Epiphanes, that’s who.

 

[FCEGM]

I look forward to your response, and I also apologize for not seeing where we actually agree. I’ll try to be more careful going forward.

That said, if you intend to discuss the “whore of Babylon” passage in your reply, though, I would like to know this:

Scripture often portrays the church as a woman (e.g., the bride of Christ; the end of the age shall involve a wedding feast, etc.). Also, when God’s people turn away from him, they are collectively charged with being a “whorish” woman (the story of Hosea’s life is to the point, here). It would be uncharacteristic symbolically to call a pagan or heathen community a “whore” insofar as it is inappropriate to use the woman symbol / metaphor for such a community. So, here’s my question: why would Pagan Rome be called a whore?

Not Rome - apostate Jerusalem in bed with her Roman master.

 

[Eldee]

Are Catholics --Christians?

Yes!~

We are Christians…we have been called Christians since the first century (see Acts)…

*So often we hear Roman Catholics say: “Christian Catholic” this or that. If we think about why this foolish phrase comes out of the mouth of a so-called Christian it is because they are confused by this terminology. They think that catholic is a noun and not an adjective. These Christians, who may better be termed “Romanists”, have little knowledge of Christ, nor any personal relationship with him. *

So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics…

In time they were called Catholics. But why?
Of course we can answer:Because the Church is universal.
But is it really? Isn’t it instead culture bound by things like language and places like the Vatican?
Indeed it should be as universal as the term implies but instead the word catholic became capitalized and was used to refer to the branch of Christianity called the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a pity.

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.

I’m so glad he addresses the faithful as Christians and I hope that one day all Catholics will be called Christian and at the same time be recognized as members of a Church which is truly universal.

Are Catholics Christians??? Yes most certainly!

Only some are Christians and those are the ones who have a real consiousness of the core teachings of the faith founded by the Nazarean.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

You can’t really believe that this argument is helpful. Did the ancient residents of Rome–the ones who lived between the seven hills in the “valleys”–live “on the seven hills” in ancient (Pagan) Rome? Strictly speaking, no. But if they said that they lived in the city of seven hills, everyone would have known what they were talking about. When John mentions the city of seven hills, he isn’t restricting it to land immediately atop of the seven hills, or even to land in the immediate vicinity. He is obviously referring to the city that goes by that name, and that was all of Rome–whether on the hills or anywhere else that constituted the city of Rome.

Rome *is *the city of seven hills–including those parts of Rome that aren’t immediately atop one of the seven hills. The pope is the head of a temporal state and a church, and–both historically and presently–he has ruled and rules his subjects from the city of seven hills. At least you have to admit this: the position isn’t idiotic or unmotivated. Its not like we’re labeling Gorbachev the Antichrist because his birthmark is on his forehead, right?

Regards,
Dan

If you call all popes the antichrist, then they must’ve inherited the title from the pope before them, and eventually from Jesus giving authority to Peter. You are calling Christ the Antichrist. Ludicrous.

 

[approaching_arm]

Dan,

I am NOT trying to cause trouble for you, nor would I be the type of person who would report you to the administrators of this forum.

You seem like an intelligent person, but what you have been writing and definitely what you TEACH and ADVOCATE - that our Holy Father is the AntiChrist and that Catholic Church is the Whole of Babylon - goes directly against several of this forum’s rules against denigrating the Catholic Church.

Considering whom you teach, and if you REALLY are whom you claim to be, then you must also realize that you are preparing your students for service to the AntiChrist and that we Catholics, numbering over a billion, are really praying to, are in league with, and are in communion with Satan and his followers.

Aside from this being advocated on a Catholic Forum during Holy Week, I would not be surprised to see this thread stopped fairly soon (and no - I will NOT report the thread).

Just telling you what I think will happen . . .

P.S. - Beats me why anyone would knowingly teach a group of men that the teacher knows is about to or has already given fidelity to the Anti-Christ. How do you justify your existence and work?

I am reminded of the situation where the entire “mob” is rounded up after the bank robbery and one claims, “I was only driving the get-away car - I didn’t actually shove guns in people’s faces and demand money!” That defense does not usually work in court . . .

P.S.S. - C.S. Lewis, although a protestant, was a “high Anglican” (which is about as close to being a Catholic and an Anglican at the same time), and some of his closest friends were venerable Catholics such as J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton. Although anecdotal, some who knew Lewis best say that deep down, the beliefs he held were more closely related to Catholicism than Anglican (I seriously doubt he would approve of the recent moves of the Anglican/Episcopal Church in America today).

Hi Sam,

I just glanced over the rules, and I discovered some that I was unaware of. In particular, I didn’t know their was a rule against multiple consecutive posting. I obviously violated that rule, and I apologize.

I also saw that there is a rule against using derogatory descriptions of other religions, including derogatory descriptions of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I can tell, I’m not sure where my posts stand with respect to this rule. On the one hand, I have only answered questions so far, and I haven’t gone out of my way to portray the Catholic Church badly. For instance, I typically refer to the Catholic Church as ‘the Catholic Church’ or ‘the Roman Catholic Church,’ not “the whore of Babylon,” etc. Of course, I did apply a passage about the whore of Babylon to the Catholic Church… but that was in response to a request (made by a Roman Catholic) desiring to understand why historic Protestants would have believed the pope is the “Antichrist.” Since this is a position that has been maintained in historic, Protestant confessions of faith, I didn’t think that a respectful discussion of it would cause a stir… especially since I was asked to offer an explanation. That said, if I were to continue defending the position, it would only be in response to the objections of others. Nevertheless, I’m unsure of whether or not it would be consistent with the forum rules, so I’ll try to tread carefully. If the forum administrators feel that I am handling these sensitive issues in a disrespectful manner, then I would gladly move on to a different discussion on a different thread when requested. (It won’t take more than a request… this is your space, not mine.)

That said, thanks for pointing out the rules–it has made me look harder at them.

On that note, how do I justify my own work at a Catholic graduate school and seminary? Well, it isn’t that hard, really. First, the students are sharp, and I enjoy teaching sharp students. Second, I teach philosophy–not theology. Since my ethical and metaphysical commitments are Thomistic, I don’t feel that I need to compromise the truth in order to teach Dominicans the truth in my classes. If there is one thing that I admire about the Roman Catholic Church, it is the RCC’s deep appreciation for Thomistic ethics and metaphysics. I’m glad to teach that, and even Roman Catholics can benefit by the truth. Third, if I don’t teach Roman Catholics, I’ll be teaching secularists. (In fact, that’s who I teach on other days of the week.) Either way, I’ll be teaching people who disagree with me. I can’t be afraid of teaching people who may make bad use of what I teach them. I’d rather teach the truth to anyone who will listen, and let them be responsible for what they do with it. There are additional reasons, too, but time is short. Suffice it to say that I can teach them without being unprincipled.

–Dan

 

[Salvatore123]

Dan said: “Suffice it to say that I can teach them without being unprincipled.”

Different St. Thomas (More) who is my patron saint and who I know almost as well as my own family given as much as I have read and studied him (I own everything written by the man, including the entire Yale series of all of his collected works), but nevertheless - I think BOTH St. Thomases would have had a field day with your quote . . .

Coming from a follower of “the anti-Christ” : Happy Easter.

 

[ajcstr]

I would still like to see some Scripture references on this if anybody has any.

HAPPY EASTER!!!

I thought I posted some yesterday - did they get removed?

 

[Timonator348]

I thought I posted some yesterday - did they get removed?

I looked back and didn’t see any…not sure why…

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

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

Silly me, but why have you not been fired? You are teaching at a “Catholic School” and you believe (and teach?) that the Pope is the AntiChrist…

 

[mcrow]

Silly me, but why have you not been fired? You are teaching at a “Catholic School” and you believe (and teach?) that the Pope is the AntiChrist…

This guy is exactly why reading the bible like a fundamentalist is the wrong way to interpret it.

 

[PJM]

=approaching_arm;7794283]Hi Sam,

I just glanced over the rules, and I discovered some that I was unaware of. In particular, I didn’t know their was a rule against multiple consecutive posting. I obviously violated that rule, and I apologize.

I also saw that there is a rule against using derogatory descriptions of other religions, including derogatory descriptions of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I can tell, I’m not sure where my posts stand with respect to this rule. On the one hand, I have only answered questions so far, and I haven’t gone out of my way to portray the Catholic Church badly. For instance, I typically refer to the Catholic Church as ‘the Catholic Church’ or ‘the Roman Catholic Church,’ not “the whore of Babylon,” etc. Of course, I did apply a passage about the whore of Babylon to the Catholic Church… but that was in response to a request (made by a Roman Catholic) desiring to understand why historic Protestants would have believed the pope is the “Antichrist.” Since this is a position that has been maintained in historic, Protestant confessions of faith, I didn’t think that a respectful discussion of it would cause a stir… especially since I was asked to offer an explanation. That said, if I were to continue defending the position, it would only be in response to the objections of others. Nevertheless, I’m unsure of whether or not it would be consistent with the forum rules, so I’ll try to tread carefully. If the forum administrators feel that I am handling these sensitive issues in a disrespectful manner, then I would gladly move on to a different discussion on a different thread when requested. (It won’t take more than a request… this is your space, not mine.)

That said, thanks for pointing out the rules–it has made me look harder at them.

On that note, how do I justify my own work at a Catholic graduate school and seminary? Well, it isn’t that hard, really. First, the students are sharp, and I enjoy teaching sharp students. Second, I teach philosophy–not theology. Since my ethical and metaphysical commitments are Thomistic, I don’t feel that I need to compromise the truth in order to teach Dominicans the truth in my classes. If there is one thing that I admire about the Roman Catholic Church, it is the RCC’s deep appreciation for Thomistic ethics and metaphysics. I’m glad to teach that, and even Roman Catholics can benefit by the truth. Third, if I don’t teach Roman Catholics, I’ll be teaching secularists. (In fact, that’s who I teach on other days of the week.) Either way, I’ll be teaching people who disagree with me. I can’t be afraid of teaching people who may make bad use of what I teach them. I’d rather teach the truth to anyone who will listen, and let them be responsible for what they do with it. There are additional reasons, too, but time is short. Suffice it to say that I can teach them without being unprincipled.

–Dan

Hi Dan,

I have completed my responce to your THREE PAGE POST

If you’r care to read it send me a PM message,

God Bless,
Pat

PJM

 

[Salvatore123]

Dan said: “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.”

Salvatoristic Theology: Christ established Catholic Church. Head of Catholic Church is Vicar of Christ. Head of Catholic Church = Pope/Holy Father/Bishop of Rome. Anti-Christ is against Christ. Against Christ = Against Catholic Church. Ergo, Pope/Holy Father/Bishop of Rome cannot be Anti-Christ.

Seriously, Dan - as you say you are a professor to graduate students who are either priests or who are training to be priests. If what you say is true, I really cannot understand the following statements you have made:

1.* “I teach philosophy–not theology. Since my ethical and metaphysical commitments are Thomistic, I don’t feel that I need to compromise the truth in order to teach Dominicans the truth in my classes.”*

Dan - regardless of the SUBJECT you are teaching, you are still “enabling” your students to be able to teach and preach to others, thereby influencing others with their preaching. How do you reconcile your professed belief in God with the fact that you are enabling a group of men whom you claim serve the Anti-Christ?

1. “If there is one thing that I admire about the Roman Catholic Church, it is the RCC’s deep appreciation for Thomistic ethics and metaphysics. I’m glad to teach that, and even Roman Catholics can benefit by the truth. Third, if I don’t teach Roman Catholics, I’ll be teaching secularists. (In fact, that’s who I teach on other days of the week.) Either way, I’ll be teaching people who disagree with me.”

Dan - do you really fail to distinguish between a group of people whom you claim follows the anti-Christ and merely “people who disagree with me”?

Good grief, man! You are willingly teaching students you readily (and actually seem quite proud of yourself in acknowledging your beliefit) say are followers of Satan and who belong to a Church that you consider it sinful to belong to. How do you think that would be any different than me knowingly teaching Latin to a group of Satanists who will then use that knowledge to invoke evil with their praying in that language?

Do you REALLY believe that Satan and his minions have a “deep appreciation for Thomistic ethics and metaphysics”? Do you REALLY think you are being principled?

 

[Salvatore123]

FatherofTwelve, you said: “Silly me, but why have you not been fired? You are teaching at a “Catholic School” and you believe (and teach?) that the Pope is the AntiChrist…”

mcrow, you said: “This guy is exactly why reading the bible like a fundamentalist is the wrong way to interpret it.”

I will go one further - I think THIS is a prime example of why orthodox Catholics in America laugh when they are told that colleges such as Georgetown and Notre Dame are still “Catholic colleges”.

 

[mcrow]

FatherofTwelve, you said: “Silly me, but why have you not been fired? You are teaching at a “Catholic School” and you believe (and teach?) that the Pope is the AntiChrist…”

mcrow, you said: “This guy is exactly why reading the bible like a fundamentalist is the wrong way to interpret it.”

I will go one further - I think THIS is a prime example of why orthodox Catholics in America laugh when they are told that colleges such as Georgetown and Notre Dame are still “Catholic colleges”.

I agree with you there. CiNO. Catholic in Name Only.

 

[Timonator348]

If you call all popes the antichrist, then they must’ve inherited the title from the pope before them, and eventually from Jesus giving authority to Peter. You are calling Christ the Antichrist. Ludicrous.

I agree completely! If one is to claim the pope is the Antichrist then which pope? The pope is a position or an office not bound to one man. See Acts 1:17, 20

“For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,”‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’”

This in reference to Judas whose office needed to be filled. One would first have to show Jesus did not establish the papacy for the Antichrist argument to have any merit.