Catholicism not Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timonator348
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I looked back and didn’t see any…not sure why…
Here they are again - If a moderator is removing them, please let me know.

jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

Again, its interpretation and misunderstanding. I also mentioned that the program on EWTN called the Journey Home is very good for understanding in this area. Converts are interviewed and they discuss how they initially viewed the Catholic Church and what brought them to conversion. If you have an interest in this I can’t recommend this show highly enough. You can also listen to prior programs on the website.
 
Originally Posted by approaching_arm
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.
First a note about Dan’s teaching: He teaches philosophy; which if I understand it correctly deals with the “Science of Critical Thinking.” So he ought to be effective in this role. He’s not after-all teaching Neophyte Catholics?

I’m not yet sure if Dan really beleives what he is saying; [he is after all, a teacher] which by the way is not a reference to past or our Present Supreme Pontiff. It seems to me to be prophsey to be filled sometime in the future?

The issues I have with his position are two:
  1. The Credibility of God’s Actions
  2. The Credibility of God’s Inspired word…The Bible.
God can be described as “All and every GOOD thing PERFECTED.” God can only “be Good”, but God can and dos permit evil. Again gthere are two reasons for this:
  1. ALWAYS for the Glorification of God
  2. For the possible sanctification of one or some. POSSIBLE, here being the key word.
Because of the Incarnation; the Passion and Death, and the REASONS for the Ressurection; and of immense significane; the Catholic Eucharist; wherein Christ REALLY and Truly remains in our Midst; one cannot question the Love of God for humanity; for God’s overwhelming Desire to be is a personal realtionship with us; and the fact that God is the CC [in a real sense] and neither can abandon Her, or it’s teachings on Faith Beliefs and Morals. God has given abundant evidence of this FACT.

Now as form the WORD of God: **John 1: 1-5 ** “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. **The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” ** And this is but the introduction to THEE Singular truth.

**2nd. Tim. 3:16 **"2Tim.3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” Matt.16:19 “I Jesus’ perfect God] will give you **[Did; Have; Done] ** the keys of the kingdom of heaven, ALL OF THEM] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So access to heaven in the very Power of and From God is Given to Peter; the CC; and successors [Mt. 28:19-20]. … Jn. 20:19-22 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ***“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ***[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. "

So just as Jesus came in the name of the “Thee Father and with His Power,” so too now the Church Led by Peter and the Apostles are similarly empowered and COMMANDED.

**John 14: 16-17 ** And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,Again :did and DONE!] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

In **Mt. 28:20 **Jesus promises [a perfect God can’t lie] to remain "forever with the Church to Guide and Protect her Truts and Teachings]… John.17:15 to 19 " “I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. *Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. * **As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **[19] **And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.” **

No other Faith, no other Church, no other Church leader has the very Presence of Christ to protect and Guide Him WHEN officially teaching of Faith-Beleif issues and or Morals; they simply cannot be; absolutely impossible to be in error.

From all of this [more but limited space], one can conclude that God remains in Charge!

Dan’s opinions are simply andONLY that: Dan’s opinions 👍

God Bless you Dan!

Pat
 
Here they are again - If a moderator is removing them, please let me know.

jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

Again, its interpretation and misunderstanding. I also mentioned that the program on EWTN called the Journey Home is very good for understanding in this area. Converts are interviewed and they discuss how they initially viewed the Catholic Church and what brought them to conversion. If you have an interest in this I can’t recommend this show highly enough. You can also listen to prior programs on the website.
Thanks for posting this again. I’ve come across this website before and whoever runs it has a tremendous anti-Catholic bias and ignorance.
 
Thanks for posting this again. I’ve come across this website before and whoever runs it has a tremendous anti-Catholic bias and ignorance.
Wouldn’t you expect that bias if they consider Catholics non-christian?

I know JW’s consider themselves to be Christian but wouldn’t they say there is anti JW bias when they are not considered Christians?
 
Good point! I guess therein lies the problem…everyone is right from their own perspective 🙂
 
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.
Some Fundamentalists have an invented history tracing Fundamentalism (which sprang into being in the late19th/early 20th centuries) back to John the Baptist. I am not making this up. It called Trail of Blood
 
Some Fundamentalists have an invented history tracing Fundamentalism (which sprang into being in the late19th/early 20th centuries) back to John the Baptist. I am not making this up. It called Trail of Blood
I’ve come across this too with “revisionist history” and find it disappointing to say the least that so many people care so little about real Christian history. Well as Cardinal John Henry Newman put it: “To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”
 
=Timonator348;8158057]So how can we change this wave of anti-Catholic bias?
It’s the RIGHT question; BUT I’m not sure there is a way. …WHY?

Catholics are THE Worlds other religions **TARGET **precisely because we ARE the Only Church actually Founded by God [not man] and Protected by God. John 14:16-17 and John 17:15-19.

No where in the Bible is there evidence that God would be willing to tolerate “other faiths,” or “other gods.” The NT alone has over 100 evidences of God’s desire for BUT one Church; One Faith and One God.

ONLY God can resolve the confilct you ask about. Faith is Always a GIFT FROM GOD alone.

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

**Phil.2: 2 **“complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, …one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs*] ] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

**Eph. 2: 18-22 **“ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ***Noteably SINGULAR] ***built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 🤷

God Bless you,
Pat
 
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? 🤷
What I find interesting is even Jesus said no man shall eat by bread alone.
 
What I find interesting is even Jesus said no man shall eat by bread alone.
Exactly!

Matthew 4:4 ~ But he answered, "It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

And we also know:

John 21:25 ~ Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Sounds pretty strong against sola scriptura to me. 🙂
 
=White Peony;8166282]What I find interesting is even Jesus said no man shall eat [live] by bread alone.
This refers to the WORD of God. Only why are there so many differing understandings:whacky:
 
Wouldn’t you expect that bias if they consider Catholics non-christian?

I know JW’s consider themselves to be Christian but wouldn’t they say there is anti JW bias when they are not considered Christians?
But the JW’s are considered to be non Christian because they deny the basic tenet of being a Christian and that is that you believe that Jesus is divine. So in their case the term “nonchristian” is aptly deserved.
 
Can someone please explain where this idea came from?
Since The Catholic Church is The Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and was, in fact, the only Christian Church in western Europe for 16 centuries, there is no reasonable explanation. It is simple a fabrication of those who hate The Catholic Church.
 
approaching_arm: A few questions for you (if these are too tangencial, I ask a moderator to split this into a new thread):
  1. Of what Protestant denomination are you a member? You call yourself “Protestant”, but this is a purely negative form of self-identification–“I am Not-Catholic”. But then what are you instead?
  2. If the Early Church once held to sound doctrine but later went Catholic and thus “heretical”, what Christian group today most closely resembles the believers of 30-300 AD?
  3. If a Christian should by no means be Catholic, how can he determine which Protestant denomination to join?
  4. If transubstantiation and other miracles are “evidence” that the Catholic Church is the “Antichrist”, what do you think of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches? And if such an example of beguiling “signs and wonders” as non-symbolic communion helps to render Catholicism “satanic”, are High-Church Anglicans and Lutherans (who believe in the real presence in some fashion) still under the sway of the Enemy?
 
=Trebor135;8191956]approaching_arm: A few questions for you
MY replies ADDED to Trebors Q’s… [PJM]
  1. If the Early Church once held to sound doctrine but later went Catholic and thus “heretical”, what Christian group today most closely resembles the believers of 30-300 AD?
  1. If a Christian should by no means be Catholic, how can he determine which Protestant denomination to join?
A new rule I just added: In-order to answer this you must provide evidence that God [OT or NT] ever desired, or approved of more than One God [Trinue], One set of Faith beleives, and One Temple / now Church].
  1. If transubstantiation and other miracles are “evidence” that the Catholic Church is the “Antichrist”, what do you think of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches? And if such an example of beguiling “signs and wonders” as non-symbolic communion helps to render Catholicism “satanic”, are High-Church Anglicans and Lutherans (who believe in the real presence in some fashion) still under the sway of the Enemy?
So friend if all of these things that require Faith, Grace and God to understand are false:

Of what value is the Bible?

We look forward to an active debate with you.👍

God Bless you,
Pat
 
  1. Does he have a history of persecuting God’s people? Check, supposing Protestants, Waldensians, etc., qualify as God’s people.
  1. How do you know that Protestants and Waldensians ever took the place of Catholics as “God’s people”?
  2. Where does the Bible anywhere predict that a collection of denominations will wholesale replace the corrupted unified one that came before?
  3. What criteria can be used to determine whether the Protestant “Reformers” had God’s favour? Why couldn’t Constantine of Paulicianism, Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Joseph Smith of Mormonism fit the bill?
  4. Since Protestants disagree among themselves on such doctrines as baptism and communion, only one denomination must teach the truth. How can denominations which teach error represent “God’s people” if the Catholic Church ceased doing so by beginning to teach error?
  5. Protestants persecuted not only Catholics but also other Protestants. See here for more details on Martin Luther and his sect’s not-so-stellar record. How could Protestant founders–those who supposedly revived and restored the then-corrupt Christian faith and made Catholics by upbringing into God’s people by conversion–have anything to do with the persecution of other Protestants?
  1. Does he speak great things against God? Check, supposing it is a great thing to claim God’s prerogatives in the church.
  1. Where in the Bible can we find the definitive list of “God’s prerogatives”?
  2. If such a list can be produced, which of God’s prerogatives have popes been claiming?
  1. Is the pope involved in a falling away from the faith? Check. There’s lots of evidence of this, but I’m rushing. For now, let it be sufficient that Paul identifies the following as demonic doctrines that will accompany the falling away of the faithful: “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from [foods]”—that is, mandatory celibacy and mandatory fasts are demonic doctrines that mark the apostasy. Here’s the whole passage:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
This has to be one of the most preposterous arguments against Catholicism ever concocted.

Did Jesus teach an “eat, have sex, and be merry” worldview? Not in the least:

Matthew 10:38-39: “[A]nd he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Matthew 19:11-12: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Luke 5:33-35: And they said to him, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.”
And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?
The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.”

Do you know any layman in your denomination, whatever that may be, who skips lunch or dessert from time to time? What about a pastor who deliberately refuses to marry? (Both in accordance with Christ’s express wishes.)
 
Hi there,

Here are some quick, abbreviated answers to your questions:
approaching_arm: A few questions for you (if these are too tangencial, I ask a moderator to split this into a new thread):
  1. Of what Protestant denomination are you a member? You call yourself “Protestant”, but this is a purely negative form of self-identification–“I am Not-Catholic”. But then what are you instead?
–I am a Reformed Presbyterian, and the church to which I belong is the church in communion with the the historical Presbyterian church of Scotland in the 1640s.
  1. If the Early Church once held to sound doctrine but later went Catholic and thus “heretical”, what Christian group today most closely resembles the believers of 30-300 AD?
–The question here is a difficult one to answer. No church does or should completely resemble the believers of 30-300 AD. Many controversies have arisen since then, and the church has authoritatively adjudicated these controversies. Accordingly, the faithful church today should reflect the progress of the church throughout the ages. Sure, in many respects it will resemble the church of AD 30-300, but in many respects it won’t–and that’s a good thing.

My answer: the Scottish Covenanters and their descendants fit the bill, here.
  1. If a Christian should by no means be Catholic, how can he determine which Protestant denomination to join?
–He must submit to the authority of faithful, historical church courts. As I mentioned above, the church has adjudicated many controversies over the centuries. Insofar as these decisions were derived from the authority of God speaking in the Holy Bible, they are authoritative and forever binding. To join any church–Catholic or Protestant–that is unwilling to submit to the faithful decisions of church courts makes us liable to divine censure. After all, whatever these courts bind on earth is bound in heaven, etc. In other words, the Christian can determine which Protestant denomination he should join only if (i) he understands the word of God well enough to identify faithful church decisions and (ii) he knows church history well enough to know which decisions are binding. He doesn’t find the church by attending any body that agrees with him on any point of doctrine that he thinks is important. That’s irrelevant. He may think doctrine A is super-important, but if the church hasn’t officially settled the matter, it is impermissible for him to turn it into a reason for separation.
  1. If transubstantiation and other miracles are “evidence” that the Catholic Church is the “Antichrist”, what do you think of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches? And if such an example of beguiling “signs and wonders” as non-symbolic communion helps to render Catholicism “satanic”, are High-Church Anglicans and Lutherans (who believe in the real presence in some fashion) still under the sway of the Enemy?
Miracles and miracle claims by themselves don’t provide evidence that the Catholic Church is Antichrist. Scottish Covenanters and the reformers also performed miracles. John Knox, e.g., prophesied in print and the things he said came to pass just as he said. That doesn’t count against Knox. That counts for him. So why count Catholic miracles against the Catholic church? Because that is an important part of the complete case against Antichrist. Scripture says that Antichrist will deceive with miracles and lying wonders. If the Catholic Church didn’t depend so much on miracles, that would count against the claim that it Antichrist. It does make these claims, though. Since it otherwise is a perfect match for Antichrist, these miracles and miracle claims just strengthen the case against Rome.

As for others who advocate transubstantiation and the worship of the consecrated elements: they’re in very bad shape. They commit gross idolatry on a regular basis, whether they are Catholic or not. High church Anglicans and Lutherans, if they worship bread, are in bad shape. Their bread can’t save them, and God may just leave them to their bread for help in the day of His wrath.

Hope that helps. I probably won’t post again. I haven’t been following very closely, but I thought I’d answer this one.

Cheers,
Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top