Catholic - Christian (Same or Different)

[sojourner]

Maybe some of them can be. But, at least their leaders seem to have own doctrines and don’t seem to remain in teachings of Jesus, which is why I think they are not.

What might these “teachings of Jesus” be? How do you know? How are they categorized and arranged? Can you give textual references for these teachings?

 

[sojourner]

or me, as an adamantly non-denominational Christian, I cannot accept many dogma that are definitive of the Catholic church, and thus, with a clear conscience must remain estranged

Have you never heard of conscientious dissent?

For me, none are acceptable that I can regard the Catholic church as either apostolic or Biblical

First off, “being Biblical” has never been a defining characteristic of being a Christian, particularly. Second, that the church is apostolic is a matter of historic record, no matter what you may think.

 

[sojourner]

But, ecumenism is a compromise that should not necessarily be tolerated, depending on the factitious issues, of course.

A “compromise” of what, exactly? The church was born of ecumenism.

 

[sojourner]

I don’t deny the church is the body of Christ, nor the importance of relationship and fellowship amongst believers. I am just saying there isn’t one visible, organized church group that is the exclusive “true church”. I believe the church/ body of Christ is composed of all believers who have received salvation & new life in Jesus Christ.

Must the church be “exclusive?” Jesus taught inclusion. Why would you stress inclusion of all believers, yet exclude Catholics? Doesn’t make sense.

 

[sojourner]

I was born and raised a Catholic and there are many very nice people but I eventually awoke to the fact that doctrines like holy communion, baptism, confession, the trinity, penance and mass are all man made superstitions and so abandoned them

Who taught you this? Someone had to — or else your “self study” was misguided. You don’t present here as one who has been “awakened.”

not just blindly accept what smooth talkers say

Who are these”smooth talkers?” Why would you refer to them as such? Sounds like you just accepted what someone else said.

they worship the views and thoughts of the clergy

No. They don’t.

I think that they are stuck in the mindset that they are the one and only custodians of truth

They are not. But neither is your chosen faith.

 

[InChrist]

Must the church be “exclusive?” Jesus taught inclusion. Why would you stress inclusion of all believers, yet exclude Catholics? Doesn’t make sense.

Not excluding anyone. Besides, in my previous post I spoke against a group or church being exclusive. Just speaking from my own experience. I know, though I was raised in Catholicism, I wasn’t a regenerated Christian, until I personally put my faith Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation and was born again to new life in Him.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Who taught you this? Someone had to — or else your “self study” was misguided. You don’t present here as one who has been “awakened.”


Who are these”smooth talkers?” Why would you refer to them as such? Sounds like you just accepted what someone else said.


No. They don’t.


They are not. But neither is your chosen faith.

So you are unaware of the sacraments? Also, the Bible warns about smooth talkers.

Being a Catholic for many years I learned all about these superstitions from the priests. Regarding self study, priests are self appointed with no authority from God at all so they are no different to anyone who does self study. It is the conflicting and contradicting interpretations of the clergy which has split Christianity into 40,000 sects.

Romans 16:18

For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

Glad I used my God given mind otherwise I would have been led astray. We have been given our own minds by God for a reason. Not to follow blindly priests and pastors who’s main interest is wealth and control not truth. It’s always been the clergy who have persecuted the Prophets of God, Jesus being a prime example.

 

[sojourner]

So you are unaware of the sacraments

No. I’m fully versed in the sacraments, being an ordained minister. I still think you’re confused, because Jesus ordained the sacraments, and they are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace.

Regarding self study, priests are self appointed with no authority from God at all so they are no different to anyone who does self study

You couldn’t be more mistaken. Priests (and clergy of other mainstream denominations) are required to have degrees from accredited graduate seminaries. We are not “self appointed.” We, together with the church, discern a call from God to the office of presbyter. That call is affirmed by the larger church, and the postulant or candidate enters into a lengthy process of discernment, prayer, oversight, pastoral care, study, scrutiny, spiritual direction, and formal study. It’s a highly communal process that stresses both mutuality and intentionality.

It’s always been the clergy who have persecuted the Prophets of God,

I couldn’t disagree more.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No. I’m fully versed in the sacraments, being an ordained minister. I still think you’re confused, because Jesus ordained the sacraments, and they are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace.


You couldn’t be more mistaken. Priests (and clergy of other mainstream denominations) are required to have degrees from accredited graduate seminaries. We are not “self appointed.” We, together with the church, discern a call from God to the office of presbyter. That call is affirmed by the larger church, and the postulant or candidate enters into a lengthy process of discernment, prayer, oversight, pastoral care, study, scrutiny, spiritual direction, and formal study. It’s a highly communal process that stresses both mutuality and intentionality.


I couldn’t disagree more.

My belief is in Jesus and the Gospels as the creative Word of God.

And that Jesus used many metaphors and parables to try and explain inner truths to those around Him. However it is my belief that He did not institute any rituals and what constitutes the sacraments today is a misinterpretation of various symbolical Words of Jesus.

When Jesus called Himself the bread come down from heaven and to eat He meant spiritual sustenance not to initiate a ritual of holy communion. And as to baptism with water. Again it means to believe with a pure heart not that a ritual of pouring water should be created because it is also mentioned to be baptised with ‘fire’ so clearly if that was done people would be killed or seriously injured. So Christ’s Words are deeper and for reflection not just as words one reads as one would a novel.

There were many similar pagan rituals at the time I believe were just basically copied and pasted without reflecting on the deeper meaning Jesus meant to convey.

Another major issue is that of divine guidance, infallibility and the priesthood. Jesus never clearly appointed a successor nor conferred infallibility upon anyone. What resulted is that because of a lack of an appointed interpreter, there are now over 40,000 sects of Christianity all disagreeing on the same Bible.

There’s the real confusion - will the real Christianity please stand up and 40,000 stand!

It was Caiphas and the high priests who engineered the Crucifixion of Jesus. Once they made a punishable by death case against Him then they handed Him over to Pilate. These religious leaders who were considered the most knowledgeable of the scriptures in the land not only failed to recognise Jesus but had Him crucified! So much for religious leaders being on God’s side.

Religious leaders also have condemned and done worse to no less than 3 Divine Messengers of God since Jesus.

 

[Truthseeker]

Are Catholic and Christian the same, of are thy different?

The churches that broke away from the Catholic church are not intrinsically better than Catholic, nor is the Catholic church intrinsically superior to those who broke away from that church. The Orthodox Christians when n they split with Rome were not superior, neither is the opposite true. I could find in any denomination better ideas perhaps, but they are both Christian. on the matter if Mormons are quite Christians. There's a certain claim of prophethood involved there. I am a Christian if you define a Christian as someone who believes in Christ, and Mormons believe in Christ, so Mormons are Christian also. Moslems are Christians. A Christian is someone who believes that Christ is from God, and spoke God's truth.

 

[pearl]

My only point is, much cannot be reconciled.

True, one of the areas is allowing the reception of the Eucharist. I think, and I may be wrong, that the RC is more accepting than the Orthodox.

 

[pearl]

because Jesus ordained the sacraments, and they are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace.

The NT never uses the term 'sacrament', or for that matter, nor any other common term to describe the actions that Christians regard as sacraments. Baptism and Eucharist are mentioned but they are never joined together under one term.

 

[metis]

Sorry, I thought all Catholic go by the Catholic doctrines. You have contradictory ideas and teachings?

The Church is not the Gestapo, thus there's always been dissent and always will be based on a more Italian versus German model. In Protestant history, if one disagreed with their church then splitting was commonplace.

As an educator within the Church, I teach what the Church believes, thus not necessarily my beliefs as that's my role. It's much like if I hire into a company, I do the work that I'm assigned to even if I don't like or agree with it.

 

[metis]

Maybe some of them can be. But, at least their leaders seem to have own doctrines and don’t seem to remain in teachings of Jesus, which is why I think they are not.

And I suppose that you think that you're the one who decides which the exact teachings of Christ are in detail, right?

Again, "interpretation" and "application" can be different from scriptural scholar to scriptural scholar.

 

[sojourner]

any rituals and what constitutes the sacraments today is a misinterpretation of various symbolical Words of Jesus

No they’re not. Jesus healed people and commanded the apostles to do the same. He forgave people and commanded his disciples to do the same. He participated in weddings, which, even in his day, were religious ceremonies. The Jews already had a ritual sharing of bread and wine, in which Jesus would have participated. He merely gave it new meaning. Baptism by water? Already a Jewish ritual in which Jesus participated.

Nope. You’re mistaken.

When Jesus called Himself the bread come down from heaven and to eat He meant spiritual sustenance not to initiate a ritual of holy communion.

He didn’t. See above.

And as to baptism with water. Again it means to believe with a pure heart not that a ritual of pouring water should be created

Again: see above.

There were many similar pagan rituals at the time I believe were just basically copied and pasted without reflecting on the deeper meaning Jesus meant to convey.

These aren’t “pagan rituals.” They were already being practiced within the Jewish tradition. Jesus simply gave them new meaning.

Another major issue is that of divine guidance, infallibility and the priesthood

I agree. I don’t follow the dogma of ex cathedra — although it has only been invoked just a few times, and all of them (I think) concern Mary.

Jesus never clearly appointed a successor

Yes he did. He appointed his apostles. That’s what makes the RCC an apostolic Faith.

What resulted is that because of a lack of an appointed interpreter, there are now over 40,000 sects of Christianity all disagreeing on the same Bible

Nope. That resulted when people left the faith.

There’s the real confusion - will the real Christianity please stand up and 40,000 stand!

Spoiler alert: they’re all the “real church.”

These religious leaders who were considered the most knowledgeable of the scriptures in the land not only failed to recognise Jesus but had Him crucified!

That doesn’t mean that ALL learned people are “anti-Jesus.”

Religious leaders also have condemned and done worse to no less than 3 Divine Messengers of God since Jesus.

“Divine messengers” is a matter of faith, not historic record. We believe there have been no such people since Jesus.

 

[metis]

Yes, I'm familiar with the history and justification of the doctrine, but, of course, do not find the qualification duly substantiated. Basically, all the apostles were given the same authority and jurisdiction as Peter.

Each of them formed the leadership within the early Church even though Peter had a special designation, which really should be quite clear with answering the question on who did they say Jesus was, his "feed my sheep" order to Peter, and the fact that when there's a listing of the Twelve Peter's name is almost always put out there first. Also, when Paul had questions dealing with teachings, he said that he came to confront Peter about this.

The Apostles each had what we might call "different assignments", such as James being the main administrator and Judas the treasurer, etc. Peter became more the spiritual head after Jesus was gone, and that becomes quite clear when one reads these accounts in context and also what the very early Church believed.

 

[metis]

I was born and raised a Catholic and there are many very nice people but I eventually awoke to the fact that doctrines like holy communion, baptism, confession, the trinity, penance and mass are all man made superstitions and so abandoned them.

If that was even remotely true, I never would have converted to Catholicism to begin with.

 

[sojourner]

The NT never uses the term 'sacrament', or for that matter, nor any other common term to describe the actions that Christians regard as sacraments. Baptism and Eucharist are mentioned but they are never joined together under one term.

You’re aware that the church isn’t legitimately limited to “Bible names.” All the term “sacrament” means is “set apart.” The sacraments are set apart for special purposes. The Jewish faith had such rituals and ceremonies in which Jesus participated. The special purposes are as I indicated: outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. That’s all. They’re regarded as signs in which the work of the H. S. is especially prevalent.

 

[sojourner]

Each of them formed the leadership within the early Church even though Peter had a special designation, which really should be quite clear with answering the question on who did they say Jesus was, his "feed my sheep" order to Peter, and the fact that when there's a listing of the Twelve Peter's name is almost always put out there first. Also, when Paul had questions dealing with teachings, he said that he came to confront Peter about this.

The Apostles each had what we might call "different assignments", such as James being the main administrator and Judas the treasurer, etc. Peter became more the spiritual head after Jesus was gone, and that becomes quite clear when one reads these accounts in context and also what the very early Church believed.

I’ve always seen Peter’s primacy as a primacy of honor, and not of authority. But then ... I’m Anglican...

 

[metis]

I’ve always seen Peter’s primacy as a primacy of honor, and not of authority. But then ... I’m Anglican...

Yes, but that honor had responsibilities attached to it. IOW, he just wasn't a do-nothing "pretty face", and Jesus mentioned that more than once.

Even negating the partial primacy [it never was viewed as being absolute across the board], the real power rested in the laps of all the bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome. They kept up correspondence with each other and later got called in on numerus occasions to form councils to deal with important issues. Thus, that's where the real power lies.