Is Catholicism one of the Christian Denominations / Religions?

Monty.

From a recent thread, I was not aware that so many other Christian denominations / religions / philosophies do not view Catholicism as one of the Christian denominations / religions.

I find this interesting; I'm trying to understand people’s opinion / view on this matter.

So if you believe Catholicism is not one of the Christian denominations / religions, can you enlighten me as to why you think so ?

i.e. is it your personal opinion, or the establish view of your own denomination, either way, why is this so ?

Thanks, M.

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

The RCC confesses the Incarnation and the Trinity so yes its Christian. Also practices Trinitarian Baptism, so how could it not be?

Monty.

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

so how could it not be?

I've no idea, you'll have to ask antiskeptic etc.

JimiTime

In terms of headings and identity, then yes, of course it is. The objection comes when people apply value to the term 'Christian'. Personally, I don't think its worth the argument.

gimmebroadband

I voted no because I don't consider the Catholic Church (I'm Latin Rite) a denomination as it's the original Christian Church, all the rest are denominations!

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I voted no because I don't consider the Catholic Church (I'm Latin Rite) a denomination as it's the original Christian Church, all the rest are denominations!

Any Orthodox consider them to be the Original Church. Even in Rome, the Original Church was Greek, not Latin, There is Greek graffiti all over from from 1st century.

The Original Church was Greek and that is a historical fact. (unless you count Isreal first)

PDN

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

From a theological and sociological standpoint I voted 'yes' on the basis that the Roman Catholic Church holds to the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed.

From a spiritual standpoint I have my doubts as to whether God would consider it to be a Christian denomination - but thankfully that is His decision, not mine.

antiskeptic

No.

Although I'd agree with PDN that a 'yes' vote is supported in part by Romes Christian theological, sociological and creedal moorings, it is nonetheless to Christianity what chimpanzee is to human.

Sharing 96% of the our genome does not make a chimpanzee human.

In my (admittedly) fallible view.

gimmebroadband

soterpisc wrote: »

Any Orthodox consider them to be the Original Church. Even in Rome, the Original Church was Greek, not Latin, There is Greek graffiti all over from from 1st century.

I was reffering to Latin Rite Liturgy, I am a 'Roman' Catholic, loyal to the Holy See. I like the Latin form of the liturgy, though I am looking forward to the new missal out next month!

I still don't refer the any Catholic Church as a domination.

gimmebroadband

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.

Although I'd agree with PDN that a 'yes' vote is supported in part by Romes Christian theological, sociological and creedal moorings, it is nonetheless to Christianity what chimpanzee is to human.

Sharing 96% of the our genome does not make a chimpanzee human.

In my (admittedly) fallible view.

[There aren't 100 people in America who hate what the Catholic Church believes, but there are millions who hate what they think the Church believes. ]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

[There aren't 100 people in America who hate what the Catholic Church believes, but there are millions who hate what they think the Church believes. ]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

Does the Roman Church believe anything (positively) spiritual happens when a priest baptises an infant?

Does the Roman Church believe that praying for the dead has any effect on the deads position before God?

Does the Roman Church believe that so-called Marian apparations are anything other than; bogus claims / mass-hysteria / satan-at-work?

Does the Roman Church believe your actions (good/bad) can influence whether or not you are saved finally?

Does the Roman Church believe itself the ultimate earthly authority on interpretation of scripture?


Until Bishop Fulton Sheen (or a significant chorus of his churchs adherents) can answer all of the above in the negative, then I'll take the opportunity to become honorary-American number 101.

alex73

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does the Roman Church believe anything (positively) spiritual happens when a priest baptises an infant?

Does the Roman Church believe that praying for the dead has any effect on the deads position before God?

Does the Roman Church believe that so-called Marian apparations are anything other than; bogus claims / mass-hysteria / satan-at-work?

Does the Roman Church believe your actions (good/bad) can influence whether or not you are saved finally?

Does the Roman Church believe itself the ultimate earthly authority on interpretation of scripture?


Until Bishop Fulton Sheen (or a significant chorus of his churchs adherents) can answer all of the above in the negative, then I'll take the opportunity to become honorary-American number 101.

Antiskeptic, I take it that you are Free Presbyterian or Evangelical?

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I take it that you are Free Presbyterian or Evangelical?

I find that as I go on, I'm less and less inclined to stick a name on what I am. I attend an evangelical church though - it happens to be the one I ended up at an alpha course and I stayed.

deman

It all depends on whether we are talking about the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. I would consider the Catholic Church to be the original church of Christ and therefore not a denomination, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of the Catholic church.

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I find that as I go on, I'm less and less inclined to stick a name on what I am. I attend an evangelical church though - it happens to be the one I ended up at an alpha course and I stayed.

So you won't stick a label on the Catholic Church to be Christian?

Evangelicals tie themselves very much to the bible, A Bible which was compiled by early father cerca 400. As the Church Grew and was formed many traditions followed going back to the apostles. Bible does not say much about Mary, but we know the apostles looked after her.

So the Evangelical focus on solo scriptura negates all what the Church originally was, a faith passed on generation to generation, You only have to read Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans to see how clear were many teachings in early church that your church has rejected. Most importantly the centrality of Eucharist. The faith that Christ is really present Body and Blood under the species of Bread and wine.

gimmebroadband

deman wrote: »

It all depends on whether we are talking about the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. I would consider the Catholic Church to be the original church of Christ and therefore not a denomination, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of the Catholic church.

You are in error my friend!

The Second Vatican Council was clear in stating that Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said.
It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches.



http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

So you won't stick a label on the Catholic Church to be Christian?

I would stick the label non-Christian on it.

I'm happy enough to identify as evangelical for the purposes of providing some kind of orientation for those I'm discussing with but would do so loosely - given the variety of views under that large umbrella-ella-ella.

Evangelicals tie themselves very much to the bible, A Bible which was compiled by early father circa 400. As the Church Grew and was formed many traditions followed going back to the apostles. Bible does not say much about Mary, but we know the apostles looked after her.

The bible existed as soon as it was written. I understand 'compilation' to mean 'rubber stamp what the church had all long taken to be the case'. That is not a reason to suppose the church fathers inerrant in their own views.

Since scripture itself warns of error and heresy creeping in at the very time of writing we have no particular reason to suppose the early church fathers/ early traditions are correct on any point not expressly supported by scripture - at least not on the basis of a proximity to events. Insights? Yes. Equality with scripture? No.

So the Evangelical focus on solo scriptura negates all what the Church originally was, a faith passed on generation to generation, You only have to read Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans to see how clear were many teachings in early church that your church has rejected. Most importantly the centrality of Eucharist. The faith that Christ is really present Body and Blood under the species of Bread and wine.

Since I don't agree that the faith is that which happens to be passed on from generation to generation (although I agree that lots was passed on from generation to generation), this point is moot. God has children, not grandchildren.

The trouble with tradition is that there's nothing to calibrate it off except more tradition. The trail peters out at the viewpoints of church fathers who may or may not be correct in what they say.

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You are in error my friend!

The Second Vatican Council was clear in stating that Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said.
It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches.

Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholic church says it is the Catholic church therefore it's the Catholic church.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholic church says it is the Catholic church therefore it's the Catholic church.

Historical fact!!!

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would stick the label non-Christian on it.

I'm happy enough to identify as evangelical for the purposes of providing some kind of orientation for those I'm discussing with but would do so loosely - given the variety of views under that large umbrella-ella-ella.


The bible existed as soon as it was written. I understand 'compilation' to mean 'rubber stamp what the church had all long taken to be the case'. That is not a reason to suppose the church fathers inerrant in their own views.

Since scripture itself warns of error and heresy creeping in at the very time of writing we have no particular reason to suppose the early church fathers/ early traditions are correct on any point not expressly supported by scripture - at least not on the basis of a proximity to events. Insights? Yes. Equality with scripture? No.


Since I don't agree that the faith is that which happens to be passed on from generation to generation (although I agree that lots was passed on from generation to generation), this point is moot. God has children, not grandchildren.

The trouble with tradition is that there's nothing to calibrate it off except more tradition. The trail peters out at the viewpoints of church fathers who may or may not be correct in what they say.

The bible was part of the early church a united Roman/Greek Hellenic&Latin. There was no bible when Christ Died, no new testament, no St. Paul. We have writings about the early church even before the Gospels were written. The Eucharist was celebrated from the beginning. Before Sciptura was Church and Faith. Church, Faith,Tradition and Scripture all form part what what we believe. To pick 1 out and leave the rest is to reject the true faith.

There is lots to "calibrate" off if you are willing to look.

deman

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Historical fact!!!

It must be true then if you say so.

But it's not.

The protestant churches identify themselves as being part of the Catholic church but not as Roman Catholics. Just because a Roman Catholic comes out with something as vague as "historian fact" shows how little that person really knows.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

deman wrote: »

It must be true then if you say so.

But it's not.

The protestant churches identify themselves as being part of the Catholic church but not as Roman Catholics. Just because a Roman Catholic comes out with something as vague as "historian fact" shows how little that person really knows.

There is no such thing as 'Roman Catholics, it was a derogatory term invented by Anglicans!

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

The bible was part of the early church a united Roman/Greek Hellenic&Latin. There was no bible when Christ Died, no new testament, no St. Paul.

Indeed there wasn't. My comment merely stated that it existed as soon as it was written, not when folk decided to compile it at a later date.

We have writings about the early church even before the Gospels were written. The Eucharist was celebrated from the beginning. Before Sciptura was Church and Faith. Church

Just because something was practiced in the very early church doesn't mean it was correct to practice it. Knowing that error crept into the very early church (the authority of scripture says so) demands that you ascertain how it is that the practice was correct then (and from then, correct now)

How do you do that (without pulling yourself up by the bootstraps)?

Faith,Tradition and Scripture all form part what what we believe. To pick 1 out and leave the rest is to reject the true faith. There is lots to "calibrate" off if you are willing to look.

To calibrate off scripture is to assume scripture is inspired. We both do that. To calibrate off anything else is to assume it equally erroneous. I don't see the sense in doing that when finding the something else clashing with scripture.

Other than that it was the "very early church" (as if proximity itself instills something with authority) what solid ground does your position stand on?

JimiTime

Cybercelesta wrote: »

There is no such thing as 'Roman Catholics, it was a derogatory term invented by Anglicans!

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

JimiTime wrote: »

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Just ironing out a few misconceptions, and yes, we shouldn't be squabbling, that's what Satan wants - dissent!

deman

I think most terms were derogatory in their original meanings; Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants...

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

There are but two sides of the fence. On the right side and on the wrong side. The label "Christian" is merely being used as a convention to describe those who stand on the right side of the fence - whatever denomination (or none) they happen to adhere to.

When it comes to churches (as teaching authorities and umbrella organisations) some churches will stand on the right side and some on the wrong side. Islam is an example of one on the wrong side. My view is that Roman Catholicism is another example of one standing on the wrong side. And in so far as they represent teaching authorities and umbrella organisations, I'd include atheist, materialistic secular systems in there too.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Would you take a backseat position in Islams/Materialism/Atheisms attempt to spread it's message? I pose the question not intending to rile but because it's a perfectly valid question to ask.

If you think the Roman church is just like any other Christian denomination (erroneous at points but on the right track generally) then that's okay. I'm not coming from that position so it's not about petty inter-denominational squabbles.

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

Antisceptic when do you believe the majority of the Church both east and west stopped being Christian? With Constantine?

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not coming from that position so it's not about petty inter-denominational squabbles.

to be honest its hard to see where you are coming from, you say you are evangelical..

Its really a deadend thread.. Catholics are Christians.

gimmebroadband

The Catholic Church existed before Constantine, and the primacy of the Roman Bishop was affirmed before the Council of Sardica.

http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2011/08/myth-buster-constantine-founded.html

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

to be honest its hard to see where you are coming from, you say you are evangelical..

It's just a viewpoint which concludes the same about the Roman church as it does about Islam and a host of other systems. It comes from the position that there is such a thing a core Christian teaching that is essential in order that the proponant of that teaching be considered Christian.


Most here would accept that Islam and Hinduism aren't Christian. I just go one religion further.

Its really a deadend thread.. Catholics are Christians.

Doubtlessly some are. My position pertains to the Roman church, not individuals

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Antisceptic when do you believe the majority of the Church both east and west stopped being Christian? With Constantine?

I wouldn't know about that side of things detail in order to be able to comment constructively.

I'd be supposing the 'when' question is like asking a person when did they start getting wrinkles. It's a gradually evolving thing in practice, but at some point you can state with certainty that this person has a wrinkly old prune of a face.

Error has been there from the start so I don't suppose there was a time when the church ever was fully Christian. Quite how you draw a line in the sand between not-Christian and "yet-another-denomination that might be in error around the edges but which is sound on the core" I don't know.


Again, it's probably something that only becomes apparent when the deviation is screaming out loud deviant.

lmaopml

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

I am a Catholic and I would like to believe a Christian too. Perhaps like many others... Although, I think it's true that not all professed Catholics may be very 'Christian'
and not all professed 'Christians' may be Christians either - but who knows the heart of another? I'm not perfect, but I try, and I have a hunger inside..

I think a Christian, no matter who or where they start off will eventually sit before God and find out anyway, but yes absolutely the Catholic church imo ( for what it is worth) is teaching the Gospel and has very very many Christian followers, saints and sinners too...Obviously, for me the Catholic Church IS the Christian Church - it doesn't mean that I believe we are better collectively as Christians though..

As a side note, it's not really all about the 'traditions' or following 'rules' imo. If a person is truely Catholic they experience on their journey a change of heart a 'new' heart - I think there can be a danger sometimes of living on the surface of oneself in todays world especially, and never really experiencing the hungers of the heart, questions of the mind, where faith begins, where God calls, and where you learn to know yourself better; people sometimes live with so many prose that they never find their own poetry.

gimmebroadband

The Term 'Roman Catholic'.

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

more.....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

PDN

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Term 'Roman Catholic'.

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

more.....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Hmm, so when the Vatican, on its own website, repeatedly refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean that the Vatican is run by dissidents unwilling to accept the claims of the "one True Church"?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, so when the Vatican, on its own website, repeatedly refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean that the Vatican is run by dissidents unwilling to accept the claims of the "one True Church"?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Most none Roman Catholics know exactly what Catholic means. The one true Church has 23 Church's or Rites in communion with Rome. Greek Catholic is also a Catholic Church, part of the one true church which accepts the Jurisdiction of Pope as successor of Peter. Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch is also part of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church which expanded into the new world with Spain and Portugal is the largest church. But the "One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church" that Roman Catholics Believe is the whole church in communion, Greeks, Maronites, Byzantine.

Monty.

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Term 'Roman Catholic'.

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

more.....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

How dare you, you dirty uppity ROMAN Catholic breeder you.
You will pay homage to MY church, the Church of Ian
Or you can go back to ROME you ROMAN Catholic

gimmebroadband

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, so when the Vatican, on its own website, repeatedly refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean that the Vatican is run by dissidents unwilling to accept the claims of the "one True Church"?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Not in the same sense that it was intended by anglicans. It was 'adopted' so to speak indicate that it is not one of the other sister churches.

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, it's probably something that only becomes apparent when the deviation is screaming out loud deviant.

Well you said that the RCC is not a Christian Church because it teaches a works based salvation, so when do you believe roughly that that started to be thought?

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Well you said that the RCC is not a Christian Church because it teaches a works based salvation, so when do you believe roughly that that started to be thought?

When did certain Christian men/churches start to deviate from the faith (on essential issues)? From near the beginning, it seems:
Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

The apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church did not happen overnight, but by bits, as antiskeptic pointed out. Little by little corrupt doctrine and practice entered, until it had departed from the faith in reality, as a body. Individual Christians remained - like the just men among the Pharisees.

Certainly the Established Church of the Empire was not the Bride of Christ.

**********************************************************************
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

alex73

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

wolfsbane wrote: »

The apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church did not happen overnight, but by bits, as antiskeptic pointed out. Little by little corrupt doctrine and practice entered, until it had departed from the faith in reality, as a body. Individual Christians remained - like the just men among the Pharisees.

Wolfsbane, As part of the discussion can you list some bullet points as to why the Catholic Church is corrupt, Which elements do you believe to be corrupt. Leave out the whole Authority of the Pope, every church seems to take exception with it.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Wolfsbane, As part of the discussion can you list some bullet points as to why the Catholic Church is corrupt, Which elements do you believe to be corrupt. Leave out the whole Authority of the Pope, every church seems to take exception with it.

Key ones:
Separate priesthood
The Mass as a sacrifice for sin
Justification by faith+works
The veneration of Mary and the saints
The position of Mary as a mediator and/or redemptrix

******************************************************************
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

gimmebroadband

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A commonly leveled charge against the Catholic Church is that she “just makes stuff up”. An often circulated list is a series of dates, together with the doctrines that the Catholic Church “invented” on that date. How, the critics say, are we to understand that the Catholic Church is eternal and unchanging when she changes her teaching?
The truth of the matter, of course, is that the Church has never changed a teaching or a doctrine. Doctrines may develop over time, but this is not the same as the changing of a doctrine or the invention of a new one.

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1f.htm

.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Well you said that the RCC is not a Christian Church because it teaches a works based salvation, so when do you believe roughly that that started to be thought?

As stated, (and which Wolfsbane supplied scripture for) that error has been there from the start - before there was a Roman Catholic church. Consider it a genetic mutation that was carried along in the evolution of the church and which proved 'fit' for a time - due to the predominance of the Roman church.

What's the significance for you in tracing the history of this?

alex73

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

As stated, (and which Wolfsbane supplied scripture for) that error has been there from the start - before there was a Roman Catholic church. Consider it a genetic mutation that was carried along in the evolution of the church and which proved 'fit' for a time - due to the predominance of the Roman church.

What's the significance for you in tracing the history of this?

When? From the start after christ died?

ISAW

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.

Although I'd agree with PDN that a 'yes' vote is supported in part by Romes Christian theological, sociological and creedal moorings, it is nonetheless to Christianity what chimpanzee is to human.

Sharing 96% of the our genome does not make a chimpanzee human.

In my (admittedly) fallible view.

Interesting. What 4% in your view make the RCC non human?

ISAW

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

The bible existed as soon as it was written.

It was not all written at the same time.
It didn't all exist in a single book when it was written.

so, in your view...

Who decided what books went in and what didn't?
When did that happen?
Did other books later get added?

TravelJunkie

ISAW wrote: »

Interesting. What 4% in your view make the RCC non human?

:pac:

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly the Established Church of the Empire was not the Bride of Christ..

Do you confess that there is only one Person in Christ, who is the Divine Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, of one Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost who took on a human nature from the Virgin Mary who gave birth to God in the flesh and so can rightly be called the Mother of God? And if you do how can you say the post-Constantinian Church's judgements were correct if it wasnt the Bride of Christ?

Also whats wrong with the veneration of the saints essentially, as long that is if it doesnt distract souls from Christ who is the only Saviour of humanity?

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's the significance for you in tracing the history of this?

Because Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and if it disappeared for centuries well than they did.

If you dont feel a connection to Christians who have gone before you which includes having an interest in Church History...

ISAW

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Most here would accept that Islam and Hinduism aren't Christian. I just go one religion further.

No you don't!
Islam and hindu do not believe in core Christian beliefs that Roman Orthodox and Anglicamn Christians do. And they comprise about 90 per cent of all the people claiming to be christian.

You seem to think half the people in the world claiming to be christian ( Roman Catholics) aren't really christian at all if they actually believe what Roman Catholics believe.
this is about a billion "Christians"
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/catholicprofile.htm
I assume the same applies to Orthodox
about 300 million adherents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

If you keep going down that road who are you going to claim are the only true christians?
the Peoples' Front of Judea?
Splitters!



Doubtlessly some are. My position pertains to the Roman church, not individuals[/QUOTE]