chart of anti-Catholic religions?

[Delraek]

A difficult question, no I do not believe so. One must separate Catholics as people and Catholism as a religion. Some of the major difference is that most Protestants read their bible daily and are well informed of is context unlike many of Catholics. What you might want to do is to look into what the Protestant religions believe and why and then you will be able to see more clearly why there are major differences between the two relgions.

Most of the the protestants I know do NOT read the Bible daily. Even when I was younger and not exactly an avid Bible reader I still knew more about the Bible than any of my protestant friends, probably because of listening to the Word at Mass every Sunday!

By the way, how do you look into what the protestant religions believe when there are so many of them and they’re not exactly all in agreement? At least the Catholic Church has a catechism that explains what Catholicism teaches.

 

[po18guy]

(continued)

“Jesus Only” Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize in “the name” (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. There may not be a single name that Jesus has in mind at all, just as when we say, “Stop! In the name of the law,” we do not have a personal name in mind. If he did have such a name in mind, it may have been something such as God or Yahweh or Lord.

“Jesus Only” Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized “in the name of Jesus,” but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say “Lord Jesus,” other say “Jesus Christ”), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase “baptized in the name of Jesus” is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).

The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The Didache

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]). Written while the apostle John was still alive!

Well said! See what happens when Sacred Tradition is discarded! Scripture, without historical and societal context, and the complementary Tradition, loses meaning until the Body of Christ is shattered into tiny pieces. We are then sheep without a shepherd, which is a big part of why He was sent to us.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Albmore]

Most of the the protestants I know do NOT read the Bible daily. Even when I was younger and not exactly an avid Bible reader I still knew more about the Bible than any of my protestant friends, probably because of listening to the Word at Mass every Sunday!

By the way, how do you look into what the protestant religions believe when there are so many of them and they’re not exactly all in agreement? At least the Catholic Church has a catechism that explains what Catholicism teaches.

It is easy to lead the Masses of people when few look into or question your interpetation. I was raised in the Catholic church and learned very little in service there. Last New Years I played music in the hall of a Catholic church for the New Years eve party. Most of the members were polish. I spoke to a large amount of them on the subject and all agreed they never read the bible themselves. As I remember it is taught by the Catholic Church that a normal man cannot understand it.

 

[po18guy]

It is easy to lead the Masses of people when few look into or question your interpetation. I was raised in the Catholic church and learned very little in service there. Last New Years I played music in the hall of a Catholic church for the New Years eve party. Most of the members were polish. I spoke to a large amount of them on the subject and all agreed they never read the bible themselves. As I remember it is taught by the Catholic Church that a normal man cannot understand it.

OOOOH! Not at all. We are incompetent to interpret scripture, but certainly not to read and study it. Guides are printed to assist in Catholic bible study, and many parish priests teach classes. Check this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115329&highlight=Catholics+when+did+you+last+read+the+bible%3F

We’re far from perfect, but we’re gaining!

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

It is easy to lead the Masses of people when few look into or question your interpetation. I was raised in the Catholic church and learned very little in service there. Last New Years I played music in the hall of a Catholic church for the New Years eve party. Most of the members were polish. I spoke to a large amount of them on the subject and all agreed they never read the bible themselves. As I remember it is taught by the Catholic Church that a normal man cannot understand it.

If a normal man cannot understand the Bible, why does the Church grant an indulgence to anyone who reads the Bible for half an hour on a day?

 

[Petergee]

A difficult question, no I do not believe so. One must separate Catholics as people and Catholism as a religion.

Impossible. “Catholic” is essential to our identity as full members of Christ’s Body. If you separate us from Catholicism, we are no longer Catholics, that is, we no longer have the fullness of Christianity.

Some of the major difference is that most Protestants read their bible daily

Some Protestants do. NOT “most” of them. Many Catholics do too, and the Church strongly encourages all Catholics who are able to read the Bible, to do so daily, and has done for a long long time.

and are well informed of is context unlike many of Catholics.

You’re quite wrong there. Most Catholics who read the Bible study its context, as the Church strongly encourages them to do. Protestants generally do not study the context at all. In fact many of them believe it is quite wrong to do so. They think that they should simply read the words as if they fell from Heaven in isolation from the cultural and historical context in which they were written.Many protestants even insist on reading a single verse in isolation from the rest of the book and from the rest of the Bible. In fact this is one of the major reasons leading to the foundation of many of the protestant denominations.

 

[po18guy]

Impossible. “Catholic” is essential to our identity as full members of Christ’s Body. If you separate us from Catholicism, we are no longer Catholics, that is, we no longer have the fullness of Christianity. Some Protestants do. NOT “most” of them. Many Catholics do too, and the Church strongly encourages all Catholics who are able to read the Bible, to do so daily, and has done for a long long time. You’re quite wrong there. Most Catholics who read the Bible study its context, as the Church strongly encourages them to do. Protestants generally do not study the context at all. In fact many of them believe it is quite wrong to do so. They think that they should simply read the words as if they fell from Heaven in isolation from the cultural and historical context in which they were written.Many protestants even insist on reading a single verse in isolation from the rest of the book and from the rest of the Bible. In fact this is one of the major reasons leading to the foundation of many of the protestant denominations.

Amen! This is a good profile of those Catholics on these forums. Just because many Catholics are not well catechized, how on earth does that affect the validity of the teaching? It’s like condemning pianos because so few can play them well. Some who come here seem to think we invented the church, or we somehow exhibit conceit in it. It was, is and will remain Christ’s church. We boast only in the Lord. That is why we are confident and call all who seek the truth in its fullness to Christ’s church.

His peace be always with you.

 

[Petergee]

It is easy to lead the Masses of people when few look into or question your interpetation.

LOL! It’s almost impossible for a Catholic to have a conversation about any aspect of his religion, or to open a newspaper or watch TV or a film, without confronting a (usually angry, insulting and ignorant) pseudo-authoritative condemnation of some or all Catholic beliefs.

I was raised in the Catholic church and learned very little in service there.

How much effort did you make to learn?

Last New Years I played music in the hall of a Catholic church for the New Years eve party. Most of the members were polish. I spoke to a large amount of them on the subject and all agreed they never read the bible themselves.

yes, Catholics tend to freely admit to their sins. How many of them resolved to resume reading the Bible in the New Year?

As I remember it is taught by the Catholic Church that a normal man cannot understand it.

You “remember” this from what? A fundamentalist hate-site? As another poster mentioned here, unlike nearly every other religion the Catholic Church provides a clear, extensive and freely available compendium of all its major beliefs and teachings in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. So if you want to know what the Church teaches on any subject, refer to the CCC, instead of insulting both your and our intelligence with nonsensical assertions about what you “remember” is taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[jnt29904]

I was going to prepare a lengthy response. But, I must know where your beliefs come from. Nothing can be established here until we know:

Q… Is God Divine, or not?

A… Yes God is divine.

Q… Is Christ Divine, or not?

A…Christ mean anointed on, annointed with what, with Gods Spirit which is the Holy Spirit. Jesus the Man was not divine but the wholeness of the Holy Spirit (yes God) was and is divine.

Q… Is the Holy Spirit Divine, or not?

A… The Holy Spirit is God so still the same answer.

Q… Do you possibly worship three separate gods?

A… No I do not worship or believe in three gods, I already stated I disagree with the trinitarian doctrines where God is changed into a god with a multiple personality disorder. God, who is the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus Christ, after the ascension that same Holy Spirit of Jesus indwelt the Born again followers with His Spirit. I am not a trinitarian but I dont agree with the pentecostals on God-Head either.

God Bless,

Jason

 

[Metaron]

Q… Do you possibly worship three separate gods?

A… No I do not worship or believe in three gods, I already stated I disagree with the trinitarian doctrines where God is changed into a god with a multiple personality disorder. God, who is the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus Christ, after the ascension that same Holy Spirit of Jesus indwelt the Born again followers with His Spirit. I am not a trinitarian but I dont agree with the pentecostals on God-Head either.

God Bless,

Jason

Oh, but how do you explain the fact that there was no-one with that belief for, oh, 1,000+ years? I have yet to see evidience of a community existing in earlier times with views exactly as you have described, and extending all the way bay to the early Church. Therefore, your belief, is, in effect, completely void of historicity. Afterall, Christ promised that His Church would never disappear off the face of the planet.

 

[Steadfast]

YES. You don’t have to deny that Catholics are Christians to be an anti-Catholic. Only to hate Catholics. You do seem contradictory though. How can “a Christian Church” have an essential leadership which is “evil?”, "anti-Christ’ and “against Christ”?

I don’t hate Catholics.

I even like the current Pope quite a lot (have you read Spe Salvi yet?) but I believe the office of the papacy to be antichrist.

 

[Delraek]

It is easy to lead the Masses of people when few look into or question your interpetation. I was raised in the Catholic church and learned very little in service there. Last New Years I played music in the hall of a Catholic church for the New Years eve party. Most of the members were polish. I spoke to a large amount of them on the subject and all agreed they never read the bible themselves. As I remember it is taught by the Catholic Church that a normal man cannot understand it.

I agree that the catechizing process in the Catholic Church needs help. I have learned so much about my faith, what it teaches and why, within the last 10 or so years. There’s an excellent Bible class out on dvd now called “The Great Adventure” series by Jeff Cavins. It’s really made the Bible come to life for me. Are you aware that nothing the Church teaches contradicts the Bible? Some of the her teachings may not be explicit, but *never *in contradiction.

Just an FYI, the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that we should not read the Bible. There may have been a few priests in the past who said this, but if so, I most certainly have never heard them. St. Jerome himself quoted “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t hate Catholics.

I even like the current Pope quite a lot (have you read Spe Salvi yet?) but I believe the office of the papacy to be antichrist.

The Anti-Christ is not the Office of the Papacy. I think the Anti-Christ is has a Jewish background.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t hate Catholics.

I even like the current Pope quite a lot (have you read Spe Salvi yet?) but I believe the office of the papacy to be antichrist.

OK, I’ll take your word for it that those are your beliefs. But your beliefs do contradict each other.

 

[jnt29904]

Oh, but how do you explain the fact that there was no-one with that belief for, oh, 1,000+ years? I have yet to see evidience of a community existing in earlier times with views exactly as you have described, and extending all the way bay to the early Church. Therefore, your belief, is, in effect, completely void of historicity. Afterall, Christ promised that His Church would never disappear off the face of the planet.

Actually their is a very reliable source that you can read for free. I believe that you one, its called the book of Acts and the Book of Romans and this belief that you call void of historically is also backed by the rest of the Bible. It never has disapeared, its just not usually noticed by people that follow man instead of Gods instructions. The book of Acts is clear and so is paul in Romans, One baptism and it is in the Name of Jesus. The trinitarian baptism contradicts the teaching of the Bible. Not only that but some denominations hold to this truth as well, pentecost and many non-denominational churches, they must have read Mathew, Acts, and Romans and chose to be obedient.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually their is a very reliable source that you can read for free. I believe that you one, its called the book of Acts and the Book of Romans and this belief that you call void of historically is also backed by the rest of the Bible. It never has disapeared, its just not usually noticed by people that follow man instead of Gods instructions. The book of Acts is clear and so is paul in Romans, One baptism and it is in the Name of Jesus. The trinitarian baptism contradicts the teaching of the Bible. Not only that but some denominations hold to this truth as well, pentecost and many non-denominational churches, they must have read Mathew, Acts, and Romans and chose to be obedient.

Really. Jesus told his Apostles explicitly to baptized them in the Trinitarian formula.

Matthew 28:16-20 makes this very clear as crystal:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him but some have doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The earliest Non-Biblical document called the Didache instructed the proper form of baptism. The Didache was written around 70 AD. Some scholars believe it was written as early as 40-50 AD.

Here what it said:

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

The concept of baptism of “Jesus Only” is rather a new concept.

 

[Mannyfit75]

From CARM wesbite though, I disagree with it issue with Catholicism but the website gives a good insight of proper form of Baptism:

Let’s take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, “in the name of the Lord” is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, “Stop in the name of the Law!”. We understand that the “name of the Law” means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism “in Jesus’ name.” To baptise in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Consider the following:

"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health” (Acts 4:7-10). See also the following verses:

Acts 4:17-18, “But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.”
Acts 5:28, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
Acts 5:40, “And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them.”

Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”

Acts 9:27-28, “But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord.”

Acts 16:18, “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.”

We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is particularly clarified Acts 16:18 above. Let’s look at it again. “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus’ name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15).

Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula “In Jesus name.” Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matt. 28:19).

The proper way to baptize in Jesus’ name is to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Steadfast]

OK, I’ll take your word for it that those are your beliefs. But your beliefs do contradict each other.

How odd that you can differentiate between substance and appearance in the Sacrament of Our Lord’s Body and Blood but when it comes to the Papacy you cannot distinguish between the office and the man who holds it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How odd that you can differentiate between substance and appearance in the Sacrament of Our Lord’s Body and Blood but when it comes to the Papacy you cannot distinguish between the office and the man who holds it.

Office is the position the man holds. That’s what the Pope’s role is. It’s much like Presidential Office. His role is the run the country. The Pope’s role is to take care of the spiritual welfare of Catholics worldwide, conduct dialogue between other Christians especially with the E. Orthodox on possible unity.

 

[jnt29904]

The concept of baptism of “Jesus Only” is rather a new concept

’

Here are some quotes that are very interesting, but your right not very old thats funny, LOL

Britanica Encyclopedia.
11th edition., Vol 3, Pg. 365-366
The Baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the second Century.

Britanica Encyclopedia.
Vol 3, Pg. 82 Every where in the oldest sources

it states that Baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion.
The early church always Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

until the development of the Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Pg.53

Catholic Encyclopedia.
Vol. 2, Pg. 263 Here the Catholics acknowledged

that Baptism was changed by the Catholic church.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion.
Vol 2, Pg. 377 Christian Baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus.”

Vol 2, Pg. 378 The use of the Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early church history.

Vol 2, Pg. 389 Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when triune formula used.

Catholic Encyclopedia.
Vol 8, Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic church.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion.
Vol 2, Pg.377

Acts 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being Baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. " Ye are Christ’s."

New International Encyclopedia.
Vol. 22, Pg 477

The term “Trinity” was originated by Tertullian, A Roman Catholic Church Father.