MERGED Why do some say the Catholic Church is not Christian?

[Rightlydivide]

See my post to CW. This line of reasoning is only persuasive for the few people who never read the history. Local synods were influential in some cases; I think that is a reasonable assumption. However, they cannot make something inspired that is not. They recognize it.
Asserting more exceeds your owns magisteriums statements on the matter.

 

[JustaServant]

Recently I’ve encountered several people who call themselves Christian, yet reject the status of the Catholic Church as a Christian entity…I’m really wondering why some people hold this view of the Catholic Church

I once heard a fundamentalist preacher say this about any association with Catholics:

“Ignoring their lost state, being tolerant of their false doctrine, and pretending they are one of us is not going to help them get saved.”

The bolded statement is an eye-opening glimpse into the dark pit of the fundamentalist soul. If one believes that he or she has experienced what no other has (being “born again”), and possesses what others other than them could not possibly have (the Holy Spirit), it creates an elitist world-view that allows only those to whom we agree with, to enter.
Over the years, as a fundamentalist myself, I have heard “that person is now a (insert opposition group here), so I had to ’break fellowship’ with them” This is the fundamentalist doctrine of “separation”. A superior, elitist attitude of belonging to a privileged group. Those who do not belong to the group are called “unrepentant brothers and false teachers”
The problem is, that encompasses quite a population if one takes that to its logical conclusion.
This encompasses people far beyond hated Catholics and liberals. It also includes people within their own ‘circle’ with whom they disagree. To belong to this ever shrinking circle becomes the object they strive for.
In rationalizing that Christians who don’t agree with you are all “compromisers,” they assume that is the indicator of true spirituality.
They truly believe they are superior.
This theological “rigidity” is more important than all other factors. And sadly, there is a trail of broken relationships in their past that is blamed on the actions of the people they “separated” from. Tragically, these broken relationships include family members and former friends…
I believe one of the reasons fundamentalists think this way has to do with living in a fantasy world of their own making.
They look to a reality that never existed, and hope for a Utopia that never will exist.
When struck by the fact that it does not, it destroys their illusions and they lapse into cynicism and depression. They deal with this by altering reality through ‘separation’ from whatever or whoever is not like themselves and an end-times fairy tale which allows them to press on in world that does not accept them.
“Fellowshipping” with a group who truly believe they are better than others can be a surreal experience. It leads logically to exclusion based on reasons that hardly fit into their “Biblical world-view”. Many times it is based on race, class, education, and sex.
The sad part is, the longer one “fellowships” with fundamentalists, “separation” from them becomes a relief.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Understood

 

[po18guy]

Councils approval was subsequent but scripture is scripture because God is the author.

How can we know this? No angel described the canon. It was not on stone tablets. Men with authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, had to separate the wheat from the tares. Nowhere did God Himself declare what scripture is or is not.

We trust in man even for the provenance of the Commandments. No one saw God give them to Moses. We have only Moses’ word.

You also are aware that prior to Carthage and Hippo a 27 book canon was recognized by some Christians. Now since we both know history, and know that what actual effect any synod had on practical use is conjecture based upon scant existing records, lets move on. You know that no one wrote in 500 AD that the whole church recognizes the 27 book canon based upon a local regional synod. That does not exist.

Does not your thinking here make the entire canon subject to individual approval? Where is the definitive declaration from on high that 66 books is the total, final, written revelation of God to man? You trust man for this determination. Since God Himself did not tell us what the canon was, or is, then someone must have had the authority to do so in God’s name. Are the reformers in prophecy?

What was this thread about, again???

 

[pablope]

I think this overstates your case. Our beliefs come from scripture. The degree to which the Catholic Church, althought the history of the Majority Text is that of the eastern church, gives us the Bible has been discussed.
On a side note, I did not turn my life around. Just to give credit where credit is due. I never had the desire or reason to.
take care and God bless you as well

If you do an honest, objective study and comparison, my case will not be overstated. Sure, your beliefs come from Scripture, but before the Scripture, there was the oral teaching (BigT) from which, when the scripture were written and compiled, were based on the oral teaching. So your denom’s basic Christian understanding (Trinity, baptism, ect) comes from the CC, though it has strained away from the CC. So you have some roots from the CC, whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or no.

Well, you made the decision to get away from alcohol, right? It was your decision, with the help of Jesus, your free will to get away from your bad habits. And don’t you strive to continue that today? You have not fallen back, I presume.

 

[StTommyMore]

Local synods cannot “establish” a canon. And in fact, it didn’t. Segments of Christianity, as I am sure you are aware, recognized different books for years after that. Revelation being a good example.
The correct canon is recognized. Man cannot establish a canon. In fact, even Vatican One agrees with me. Councils approval was subsequent but scripture is scripture because God is the author.
You also are aware that prior to Carthage and Hippo a 27 book canon was recognized by some Christians.
Now since we both know history, and know that what actual effect any synod had on practical use is conjecture based upon scant existing records, lets move on.
You know that no one wrote in 500 AD that the whole church recognizes the 27 book canon based upon a local regional synod. That does not exist.

The Chruch does not write statements to affirm the status quo, just as the Old Testament Prophets never uttered a prophecy affirming the status quo. Statements get issued at crises, that is at turning points. No official list needed to be issued because all agreed on the 73 book canon until Luther came along

 

[pablope]

Three things…

1. thanks for this info
2. can you (or anyone) recommend a book on this info that might provide more detail?
3. I couldn’t help but think “man this is just like when a group of people decides to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon!”

amazon.com/Spirit-Forms-Protestantism-Louis-Bouyer/dp/1889334316

 

[Barbkw]

Local synods cannot “establish” a canon. And in fact, it didn’t. Segments of Christianity, as I am sure you are aware, recognized different books for years after that. Revelation being a good example.
The correct canon is recognized. Man cannot establish a canon. In fact, even Vatican One agrees with me. Councils approval was subsequent but scripture is scripture because God is the author.
You also are aware that prior to Carthage and Hippo a 27 book canon was recognized by some Christians.
Now since we both know history, and know that what actual effect any synod had on practical use is conjecture based upon scant existing records, lets move on.
You know that no one wrote in 500 AD that the whole church recognizes the 27 book canon based upon a local regional synod. That does not exist.

I watched a program recently about the gospels that didn’t make the canon. It wasn’t the “Banned Books of the Bible” program but something similar. They talked about the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

For whatever reasons, there were unauthorized authors of gospels, and the Councils found it important to take a look at all the liturgical reading material being used at Mass during the Litury of the Word and to determine which items were authentic and which were not.

Sacred Scripture, in a round about way, talks about unauthorized application of the Sacred when Simon Magus in the Acts of the Apostles 8:18-24 offers Peter and John money so that he could have the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Chruch does not write statements to affirm the status quo, just as the Old Testament Prophets never uttered a prophecy affirming the status quo. Statements get issued at crises, that is at turning points. No official list needed to be issued because all agreed on the 73 book canon until Luther came along

I am posting under this but really my response is appropriate for many of the ones directed at my statements.
First of all, no. CW what you wrote is not historically accurate. But before I get into that, lets look at the larger apologetics.
That is the crux of what I am saying. The Catholic Church did not set the canon for all of Christianity at Hippo/Carthage.
Prior to these local synods, people recognized and called certain books scripture?
Yes, absolutely.
In our Bible, are certain other books referred to as scripture?
Yes, absolutely.
So…lets admit that Christians recognized scripture AS scripture prior to Hippo and Carthage.
So what about AFTER those local synods?
This is where we have to look at Christianity and what actually exists. No apologetical arguments not based in history.
CW you know that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and
Catholics have a different canon. So how can you state that everyone agreed prior to Luther? Did Luther influence the Oriental Orthodox? What about the Eastern Orthodox?
The fact remains that different groups recognize different canons. And we are not even talking about just Protestants.
The Catholic Church may have recognized a canon different from the rest of Christianity, this much is true.
They certainly did not make ours.
The proof is obvious. We have different canons. Just like those who Catholics even admit have Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist have a different canon.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you do an honest, objective study and comparison, my case will not be overstated. Sure, your beliefs come from Scripture, but before the Scripture, there was the oral teaching (BigT) from which, when the scripture were written and compiled, were based on the oral teaching. So your denom’s basic Christian understanding (Trinity, baptism, ect) comes from the CC, though it has strained away from the CC. So you have some roots from the CC, whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or no.

Well, you made the decision to get away from alcohol, right? It was your decision, with the help of Jesus, your free will to get away from your bad habits. And don’t you strive to continue that today? You have not fallen back, I presume.

Honest check
objective check
study check
comparison check
Our views come from scripture alone.
God rescued me. It was not my will but His. Glory to God.

 

[StTommyMore]

I am posting under this but really my response is appropriate for many of the ones directed at my statements.
First of all, no. CW what you wrote is not historically accurate. But before I get into that, lets look at the larger apologetics.
That is the crux of what I am saying. The Catholic Church did not set the canon for all of Christianity at Hippo/Carthage.
Prior to these local synods, people recognized and called certain books scripture?
Yes, absolutely.
In our Bible, are certain other books referred to as scripture?
Yes, absolutely.
So…lets admit that Christians recognized scripture AS scripture prior to Hippo and Carthage.
So what about AFTER those local synods?
This is where we have to look at Christianity and what actually exists. No apologetical arguments not based in history.
CW you know that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and
Catholics have a different canon. So how can you state that everyone agreed prior to Luther? Did Luther influence the Oriental Orthodox? What about the Eastern Orthodox?
The fact remains that different groups recognize different canons. And we are not even talking about just Protestants.
The Catholic Church may have recognized a canon different from the rest of Christianity, this much is true.
They certainly did not make ours.
The proof is obvious. We have different canons. Just like those who Catholics even admit have Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist have a different canon.

The Canon was closed in the 5th century. The fact remanis Luther acted on his own and did not have the authority to remove 7 books from the OT, large portions of 2 others and attempt to edit several books out of the New. If the Easter Orthodox have a different Canon, so be it. But Protestant denominations, since they are descended from the Western Church, must accept the Catholic Canon to be in submission to God. The Canon of the Eastern Church is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that Protestants are rebellions children of the Latin Rite.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Canon was closed in the 5th century. The fact remanis Luther acted on his own and did not have the authority to remove 7 books from the OT, large portions of 2 others and attempt to edit several books out of the New. If the Easter Orthodox have a different Canon, so be it. But Protestant denominations, since they are descended from the Western Church, must accept the Catholic Canon to be in submission to God. The Canon of the Eastern Church is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that Protestants are rebellions children of the Latin Rite.

The canon was not closed in the 5th century. If that were the case, people would have the same canon. That simply did not occur. You are aware that some Christians, long before a Reformation, for example did not continue to recognize Revelation after the local regional synods in Africa.
We do not have to recognize the same canon as you. And the fact is we do not. The Catholic Church can recognize the canon they do. However, it is simply a fact that the Eastern Orthodox recognize a different canon. Something I am sure you know. I am also certain you are aware the Oriental Orthodox recognize a different one as well.
Likewise, Protestants have a different canon. No one is going to be persuaded about the arguments about Catholic canonical authority…well accept Catholics!
Which really only makes sense. Catholics are not going to be persuaded that their smaller canon needs to be larger. Likewise we are not going to be persuaded that your larger canon is correct.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Hopeless.
I was a fundamentalist for a very long time. The believers are void empty inside from my experience. It is both sad and tragic. I’m thrilled to be Catholic, a place where education is truly valued.

 

[pablope]

Honest check
objective check
study check
comparison check
Our views come from scripture alone.
God rescued me. It was not my will but His. Glory to God.

Looks like you have not lost your pride and prejudice.

It is enough to say that an objective observer who diligently studies facts/history and its roots and finds commonality, is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt such commonality, and its roots.

To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

God rescued me. It was not my will but His.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you had the choice/free will to take Jesus offer to change, and you took it.

And I presume you have not fallen back into your old self, right? And you continue to strive to keep your self clean, right?

 

[Being_Brave]

I think it’s the age, rather than the gender, that people are more bothered with. In any case, it’s always wrong to stereotype anyone on the basis of a few bad eggs.

I’m not sure it has to do with age or gender, it’s about people not holding each other to the same standards out of hatefulness. In the John Jay study they found that the Priests who were accused of sexual abuse had same-sex victims in 80% of the cases, but only 4% of those cases were minors (not that any percentage is acceptable.) It wasn’t just about child abuse, it was about the media grasping for any hint of immorality they could within the church, while having a special on the benefits of gay-rights in the next segment of the show. I’m not an activist for this cause, I just think it’s stupid that there’s a double standard that’s blown out of proportion.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**The thread topic is:

Why do some say the Catholic Church is not Christian?

Return there and stay there.**

 

[cooterhein]

The bolded statement is an eye-opening glimpse into the dark pit of the fundamentalist soul. If one believes that he or she has experienced what no other has (being “born again”), and possesses what others other than them could not possibly have (the Holy Spirit), it creates an elitist world-view that allows only those to whom we agree with, to enter.

Did you decide that elitism is a bad thing, or did you decide that Catholics are just better at it?

 

[Revert_43]

Did you know when I looked at tradition, big T, seriously, I found them to be later developing and differing amongst the different strands of churches claiming apostolic succession. Some things are the same to be sure! But enough major things that I certainly see the same problems that are also part of my view of scripture.
The only reason there was not more division earlier on is the lack of information in my estimation. People did not have the resources to investigate things so they stayed with all they knew.
There is a reason why when the Bible became readily available that Protestantism formed. And that we do not see things the way you do.
Outside of traditions, liturgy and so forth, I do not believe your interpretations of scripture are what most people would believe.
And history rather shows that

RD,

I left the Catholic Church for 6 years and worshipped at a Fundamental Christian Church but returned to the Catholic Church after an open minded and prayerful look into history and the claims of the Catholic Church.

Your point about divisions (and you username) don’t make sense to me from a Biblical perspective.

What does the Bible say about divisions?

1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17-18 Division In The Church

What is the Catholic Biblical defense of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

As far as if most people believe the Catholic interpretation of scripture, here are the USA demographics.

teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm

World demographics shows half of the World’s Christians are Roman Catholic. You can google this yourself if you wish.

I don’t wish to argue or offend you, I just ask you to take an open minded and prayerful look at the claims of the Catholic Church. Just you and God.

God Bless

 

[JustaServant]

RD,

I left the Catholic Church for 6 years and worshipped at a Fundamental Christian Church but returned to the Catholic Church after an open minded and prayerful look into history and the claims of the Catholic Church.

Your point about divisions (and you username) don’t make sense to me from a Biblical perspective.

What does the Bible say about divisions?

1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17-18 Division In The Church

What is the Catholic Biblical defense of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

As far as if most people believe the Catholic interpretation of scripture, here are the USA demographics.

teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm

World demographics shows half of the World’s Christians are Roman Catholic. You can google this yourself if you wish.

I don’t wish to argue or offend you, I just ask you to take an open minded and prayerful look at the claims of the Catholic Church. Just you and God.

God Bless

Welcome home.

 

[StTommyMore]

Did you know when I looked at tradition, big T, seriously, I found them to be later developing and differing amongst the different strands of churches claiming apostolic succession. Some things are the same to be sure! But enough major things that I certainly see the same problems that are also part of my view of scripture.
The only reason there was not more division earlier on is the lack of information in my estimation. People did not have the resources to investigate things so they stayed with all they knew.
There is a reason why when the Bible became readily available that Protestantism formed. And that we do not see things the way you do.
Outside of traditions, liturgy and so forth, I do not believe your interpretations of scripture are what most people would believe.
And history rather shows that

What makes you think that Scripture can be interpreted out of the Liturgy and away from the Church. Furthermore, even if the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is in the minority, what is the relevance? Truth is not up for popular vote. Even f a tiny minority of Christians accept that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, it does not make the teaching any less true. There are not multiple truths, and there has been only a single Church to safeguard that Truth since the time of Jesus Christ, and that is the Catholic Church.