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

[tsering]

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’ve had the misfortune of being in the same room with people who were speaking badly of the Catholic Church several times…on one occasion, I was doing some work while a conversation was taking place beside me, and I could hear a friend of mine who is a member of a nondenominational church saying things like “we don’t consider the Catholic Church to be Christian” and “Catholicism is the reason why Christianity is looked down upon.” Even more disappointing than that was hearing another friend of mine, a Catholic, essentially agreeing with him, saying the Catholic Church “doesn’t make sense,” or something to that effect. Needless to say, I was incredibly angered and offended by these remarks, yet I chose to stay out of their conversation, knowing that I was not well-trained in apologetics, and not wanting to be backed into a corner by his aggressive arguments.

On other occasions I’ve heard bashings of the Pope, Papal infallibility, free will, faith and works, Catholic teachings on contraception/abortion, etc. but I know these objections are common and I hold the opinion that many people who have these objections are not fully informed as to the Catholic reasoning behind them. What really bugs me the most is people preaching that the Catholic Church is exactly what is wrong with Christianity, and that it is not Christian in its beliefs.

Could someone please be so kind as to explain why some people hold this view of the Catholic Church? I’m looking specifically for the point of view of members of other Christian denominations who think this way, but anyone with information or an opinion please feel free to post.

“But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

“…the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers” (CCC 817-819)

As individuals we must walk in holiness, and when we are wrong, we must be quick to correct it and humble enough to admit our failures. Don’t just know the truth, walk in it. Strive to be salt. Holiness of life and your love for others is the most important witness you have and is integral for the unity of the Church (CCC 2044-2046).

All to often we find hypocritical Christians who bear the name of someone and something they do not truly understand.

So why do some bash Catholics?

As is already pointed out, many believe that what Catholics teach is contrary to God’s truth. But here are some other reasons:

1. Catholics who not only sin, but approve of it.
2. Catholics who were not properly trained in their faith, and often times misrepresent it.
3. Focusing too much on the differences (which there are of course, I’m not saying to ignore them) between brothers, than enjoying the huge volume of similarities and shared values while working toward them (i.e. a poster on this forum has a great testimony of Jesus setting him free, and many Christians share this same value).
4. Neglecting to make Catholic truths available and understandable to all (I believe this means more than just posting a website and hoping for some “hits”).
5. Neglecting to correct false views and prejudices toward Catholic truths. You don’t have to be an apologist for this - just lead them to the right resources.
6. Neglecting the virtues…especially love.

“Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.” Mt. 5:44 - My whole view of Catholics changed when I was led to a friend’s facebook group who was devoted to this simple command - It started a year long journey which is now ending with me joining the Catholic Church.

Instead of focusing on their problem (anyone who’s not Catholic is not because they disagree, do not understand, or live in ignorance to Catholic truth) I say let’s work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Lets start walking and talking like Christians - in this way the truths of the Catholic Church will be more accessible and desirable. In other words, sprinkle some salt on it.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

You are a Christian, but your theology is reformed. Your theology is that of the Calvinist school. YOu can deny it, but that does not make it less true.

Most bible christians give no thought to the source of the footnotes.

 

[guanophore]

The authority comes not from man but from God. That is what Paul teaches. u.

Yes, all authority comes from God. And God gave it to His Apostles, and they to their successors. Paul also taught that this authority was given to the bishops through the laying on of hands, and that this should be done with great caution. He also taught that no one was to disregard the authority of the bishop.

 

[guanophore]

What would be inept is accepting the Reformation as not inspired by God in my estimation.

No, Rightly. Disobedience and rebellion is never inspired by God.

But to be accurate, that is not true. You could see traces of many theological schools in Fundamentalism. You actually do not know much of my theology CW. I do not think it matters too much. Lets not digress too much.

Yse, there are many traces through out Fundamentalism. We do not need to know that much about your theology to see there is an error. Claiming that your “church” did not come out of Catholicism belies a lack of knowledge about history.

It matters when you make false claims.

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

I think that more of history demonstrates the interpretation of Scripture according to the Sacred Tradition handed down by the Apostles.

And fortunately, the meaning of scripture is not decided by the “majority” but by the revelation of God through which it was given. When it is interpreted outside of the faith that produced it, the results inevitably stray from the meaning of the authors.

 

[pablope]

But…I know as much or more about history than most on this forum. Curious statement then.
I am sure you are familiar with the rebuttal. The doctrines, beliefs, and actions of the Apostles found in scripture are those found in our churches.

Don’t you think the Apostles, and their successors, that preserved the writings now in the Bible, were originally Catholic? Or you just do not want to acknowledge that? I see that you do not want to acknowledge that fact, for to acknowledge it, then you would unwittingly be admitting to the truth that the CC gave you, promulgated what is taught you in your church today. It just shows your bias against the CC.

It is enough to say that the historical evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that about the teachings of the CC as the root of Christianity.

To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

 

[tsering]

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

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.

Unfortunately, I saw this very clearly after leaving my previous Church - a pseudo Baptist fundamentalist Church. When someone asked about my move to the Catholic Church, he made the comment that at least he believed in faith alone. When I explained to him why Biblically I didn’t accept the teaching of faith alone anymore - he made some very interesting comments - one, that it was a very convincing argument, and two, that he had never had Catholics be able to explain it that way (i.e. with a Biblical defense). But instead he made another defense and in it he appealed to two things: 1) That at least he believed in the Bible as his sole authority, 2) That at least his church wasn’t as hypocritical and false as the other churches in his city - he specifically mentioned the name of another pseudo evangelical fundamentalist Church down the road whom he has family members in. :dts:

Peace

 

[StTommyMore]

Unfortunately, I saw this very clearly after leaving my previous Church - a pseudo Baptist fundamentalist Church. When someone asked about my move to the Catholic Church, he made the comment that at least he believed in faith alone. When I explained to him why Biblically I didn’t accept the teaching of faith alone anymore - he made some very interesting comments - one, that it was a very convincing argument, and two, that he had never had Catholics be able to explain it that way (i.e. with a Biblical defense). But instead he made another defense and in it he appealed to two things: 1) That at least he believed in the Bible as his sole authority, 2) That at least his church wasn’t as hypocritical and false as the other churches in his city - he specifically mentioned the name of another pseudo evangelical fundamentalist Church down the road whom he has family members in. :dts:

Peace

His defense made 2 errors. His first defense is self-refuting, as nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to rely on the Bible as our sole authority, and his second defense is merely deflection. Pointing out the weaknesses of others does nothing to minimize your own.

 

[JustaServant]

Unfortunately, I saw this very clearly after leaving my previous Church - a pseudo Baptist fundamentalist Church. When someone asked about my move to the Catholic Church, he made the comment that at least he believed in faith alone. When I explained to him why Biblically I didn’t accept the teaching of faith alone anymore - he made some very interesting comments - one, that it was a very convincing argument, and two, that he had never had Catholics be able to explain it that way (i.e. with a Biblical defense). But instead he made another defense and in it he appealed to two things: 1) That at least he believed in the Bible as his sole authority, 2) That at least his church wasn’t as hypocritical and false as the other churches in his city - he specifically mentioned the name of another pseudo evangelical fundamentalist Church down the road whom he has family members in. :dts:

Peace

That bolded last part is part of the real tragedy. Which I mentioned in my post:

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…

Early on in fundamentalism I noticed when I would ask about another’s family members they would go on in a negative drumbeat about how they were “still Catholic” or go to a “liberal church” (Protestant) and therefore not saved.
The fact that they are not ‘one of them’ becomes the crucial factor in their relationship with them. Many times there is no relationship at all with mom, dad, brothers, sisters, even wives and children. The “fellowship” of thier new church replaces that. Because they are “true christians”.
Loyalty to the group replaces loyalty to the family.

 

[jlhargus]

But…I know as much or more about history than most on this forum. Curious statement then.
I am sure you are familiar with the rebuttal. The doctrines, beliefs, and actions of the Apostles found in scripture are those found in our churches.

JL: Then why do you hide the name of your faith group. Don’t you think it is kind of unfair to discuss history when you won’t allow the same courtesy for us to discuss your faith groups history. I notice you have deliberately ignored my posts twice on this line, and even on other lines, asking if you believe God is a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I think your faith group follows the teaching of Hubert Armstrong, will you confirm or deny that? From reading you on other lines I would guess your faith group is called Philadelphia Church of God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

JL: Then why do you hide the name of your faith group. Don’t you think it is kind of unfair to discuss history when you won’t allow the same courtesy for us to discuss your faith groups history. I notice you have deliberately ignored my posts twice on this line, and even on other lines, asking if you believe God is a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I think your faith group follows the teaching of Hubert Armstrong, will you confirm or deny that? From reading you on other lines I would guess your faith group is called Philadelphia Church of God.

I do not reveal personal information on the web. I promised. And I do not break promises…anymore.
I am a fundamentalist. My user name would tell you everything you needed to know about what particular beliefs I have.
You never hear right division associated with Armstrong related churches. Talk about random…
I do not wish the thread to be about me however I would hate to be rude and not answer a direct question.
Yes, scripture teaches that the Three are One.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well…then quit talking to me.
When you belong to an independent church, you reveal everything personal about yourself. I have always shared our churches history and any doctrinal beliefs for a long time.
But like I said, no one has to talk to me.
Either way is fine. The good thing about the Catholic Church is there is a billion of you. Plenty to go around and discuss things with.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by pablope
Where did you get the Trinity? The Bible (NT if you will)? Who spread Christianity beyond the confines of Jerusalem, of Palestine?

Originally Posted by Rightlydivide The Bible has God as its author. Which is of course Catholic doctrine as well
But yes, the majority text has its origins in Anglicanism and prior to that Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
Of course there is thousands of years of history but our church itself does not come from the Catholic Church. Of course prior Christians existed but any relationship is quite small.

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: Does your church teach God is a Trinity?

Originally Posted by jlhargus JL: I thought I woud repost this in case you really missed it

JL: Since you have deliberately ignored my question in two previous post on this line, as you have also done in other lines I will ask again. Does your faith group teach the Trinity.

But our church is not from the Catholic Church…

After reading you on several lines I believe your faith group is a split from Herbert Armstrong’s World Wide Church of God. My guess would be you belong to the Philadelphia Church of God. Don’t you think it is unfair to discuss others history when you don’t extend that same courtesy to others?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

No. That meeting added to the Old Testament and we do not use the later developing canon that you use.

I don’t think that is right. The Septuagint is “A Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures that dates from the 3rd century B.C.”

answers.com/topic/septuagint

 

[kaid100]

No, Rightly. Disobedience and rebellion is never inspired by God.

Out of interest, would you describe Jesus whipping the money lenders out of the Temple as an example of rebellion?

 

[StTommyMore]

Out of interest, would you describe Jesus whipping the money lenders out of the Temple as an example of rebellion?

I would call it divine correction.

 

[gmcbroom]

I suppose so, yet he showed zeal for his Fathers House is what’s written. So in essence you could say he didn’t want the place profaned. You could say he rebelled against the actions of the world taking over his Father’s House.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[StTommyMore]

I suppose so, yet he showed zeal for his Fathers House is what’s written. So in essence you could say he didn’t want the place profaned. You could say he rebelled against the actions of the world taking over his Father’s House.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

If it is the Creator of the Universe, is it truly rebellion, especially since the moneylenders were disobedient to God?

 

[Roy5]

Most Protestants I know certainly accept that Catholicism is Christian. However, they also think that Catholicism has been infected by various pagan teachings and superstitions that have become part of the core of the faith.

For example, many would see the emphasis on Mary as an importation from Greco-Roman and mystery religions. They might also cite the hierarchy as coming more from Rome and Greece than from scripture. 

The Protestants who are farthest from traditional Catholicism are the mainline Protestants, millions of whom are basically 'free-thinkers' and reject or modify many core Christian teachings. They might even question whether the God of Jesus would actually require a blood sacrifice to win our salvation. Many would find this 'paganish'. Somehow, God killing his only Son to gain redemption for us simply sounds too far-fetched. Ironically, such mainline Protestants are more likely to work with Catholics and accept them as Christians, despite these major differences. This is because they seldom are dogmatic, ready to accept and respect other religious faiths, including Catholicism as well as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

 Evangelical Protestants are nearer to Catholicism both in terms of core doctrines as well as on such social issues as gay marriage, abortion, etc. These same people, however, are less likely to accept Catholicism as Christian because the worship patterns are so differerent along with certain doctrines re Mary and the Eucharist as well as the role of the Papacy, etc. And, unlike most mainline Protestants, they usually insist upon doctrinal purity as Catholicism also does. They frequently view mainline Protestants are less than full-Christians, too!

 

[gmcbroom]

Yeah my evangelical relatives are that way. They’re good people though. In a weird way I have to apologize to them. For when I was younger I always thought they were being over zealous and close minded when it came to their views on faith. Who would figure that as a new catholic I also seem to be vocal when it comes to catholism. Though I am prudent and not as close minded I do patiently correct people when they discuss their views of the catholic church if its not quite correct. After all didn’t Bishop Sheen say that many people don’t hate the catholic church, they hate what they perceive as the catholic church. Or something similar.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[XinMinny]

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’ve had the misfortune of being in the same room with people who were speaking badly of the Catholic Church several times…on one occasion, I was doing some work while a conversation was taking place beside me, and I could hear a friend of mine who is a member of a nondenominational church saying things like “we don’t consider the Catholic Church to be Christian” and “Catholicism is the reason why Christianity is looked down upon.” Even more disappointing than that was hearing another friend of mine, a Catholic, essentially agreeing with him, saying the Catholic Church “doesn’t make sense,” or something to that effect. Needless to say, I was incredibly angered and offended by these remarks, yet I chose to stay out of their conversation, knowing that I was not well-trained in apologetics, and not wanting to be backed into a corner by his aggressive arguments.

On other occasions I’ve heard bashings of the Pope, Papal infallibility, free will, faith and works, Catholic teachings on contraception/abortion, etc. but I know these objections are common and I hold the opinion that many people who have these objections are not fully informed as to the Catholic reasoning behind them. What really bugs me the most is people preaching that the Catholic Church is exactly what is wrong with Christianity, and that it is not Christian in its beliefs.

Could someone please be so kind as to explain why some people hold this view of the Catholic Church? I’m looking specifically for the point of view of members of other Christian denominations who think this way, but anyone with information or an opinion please feel free to post.

I would like to answer the OP in a neutral way. If the question is simply, “Why do people think this way?”, then some of us who have been there can answer. (However, if the question is more like, “how can they be so foolish as to think that?”, then I don’t think I have an answer…)

So, as to why some people claim Catholics aren’t Christians: I once hung around with a fairly large group of teenagers, most of whom came from a perspective like that. One would often hear, “Did you know so-and-so is a Christian?” The difference is in how they use the word “Christian.” I would call these people fundamentalists, although someone else would feel free to disagree with that. They have an idea of Christians as people who outwardly profess a belief in Jesus’ sacrifice as being everything to them. They would think of “Christians” as those who had no spiritual life in the past, and then there was a change, and a new life came and they were ‘born-again.’ It is this sort of eye-opening experience of an awakening of a confidence in Jesus and nothing else which defines Christianity to them. Now, from that perspective, examine what Catholicism looks like (and, I am not judging either way here, merely trying to explain what I have seen). It looks like there is a big confidence in the ceremonial part of the sacraments. It looks like Mary is important. It looks like the traditional teaching of the Church has more emphasis than does Jesus. Again, I am not saying this is true, only that for this group of people, looking from their perspective, it seems that way. So, it looks like Catholics don’t meet their understanding of Christianity as they have experienced it, and therefore Catholics are not Christians.
Sorry if this is not the idea of the OP

All for now,
Minny