Is Catholicism a true religion

[Forever_Catholic]

Outside of Catholicism there are 30,000 or so Christian denominations, depending on how they’re counted. They are so splintered, as new ones continuously spin off from others, it’s hard to tell. You might count the Baptist Church as one church, for example, or you might count it as 1500 churches, because that’s about how many varieties there are, none of which quite agrees with any other.

All of the many Protestant churches are unified only in rejecting the one and only Church that Christ established. Within that generalization, they reject the authority that Jesus gave to it, sacraments he initiated for it and the graces he gives with them.

They accept some apostolic teaching, as found in Sacred Scripture, but not all of it. The oral teaching of the apostles, recorded in Sacred Tradition of the early Church, has been so thoroughly dismissed by Protestants for so long that it’s not even a known reality to most of them.

Worst of all is that Protestants only believe some of what Jesus said, as he said it. In order to separate from Catholicism, it is necessary for them to redefine or explain away some of Christ’s clearly articulated statements. He may have begun with “Truly, truly, I say to you,” but what follows is nevertheless declared to be symbolic of something else; not to be taken literally.

And so it goes for everything pertaining to the Eucharist, by which Jesus desires to commune with souls, and everything about the Church that he called “My Church.” So it goes also for the various other conflicts between what our Lord communicated and what Protestants are taught to believe.

 

[columbus]

Does this bother you, as a non-Christian?

Religion bothers me more than most particular flavors of it. It usually teaches people to believe implausible things and trust other people more than your own sensibilities.
Christianity and Islam bother me more than most other religions.

I like Catholicism more than most versions of Christianity. That's largely a personal preference based on my upbringing. YMMV

That doesn't mean I am unaware of the huge flaws in Catholicism and it's culture.
Tom

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

I will state all that I know about the Catholic Religion and why I think it is a false cult
To become a Catholic you must attend classes /training that can last over a year or longer depending upon you local Bishop/Priest thinking you are ready to become a member.

True Salvation according to the bible is to hear/read the Gospel and then examine yourself and then change your mind from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ

yet I can not recall ever hearing about this when I was within Catholicism

My understanding of SIN AND DAILY SINS

SIN Which over 90 times in the Bible says we are to repent of this one SIN
Now the Catholic church say this SIN is our daily sins and those that are Mortal can undo your salvation.
Yet in rereading the Bible concerning our repenting of this SIN the Bible makes it very clear this one SIM
is UNBELIEF IN JESUS CHRIST and that no one will be save until they repent of this one SIN.

Further study shows that Christ came to be our Savior by shedding his innocent blood for all our daily sins
Thus all mankind's daily sins debt is already paid in full at Calvary but UNBELIEF can not be paid in full by blood or any other means except by a complete change of mind unto total belief in Jesus Christ

So while each Saturday most loyal Catholics and go to Confession to confess their sins and then have to do a penance concerning these daily sins that were in fact paid in full about 2 thousands years ago
Now to me says they don't really believe in Jesus Christ and I say their socalled befief in Jesus is suspect to say the least that is to say you believe in Jesus Christ and then go to confession each Saturday and confess your sins and then do a penance for the.m says to me that they don't really believe what Jesus did at Calvary

So here we have 3 conflicts between Catholicism and the Bible namely SIN (UNBELIEF) DAILY SINS AND SALVATION.
I have never heard of a catholic repent of their UNBELIEF TO BECOME A CATHOLIC.
DAILY SINS were paid in full by Jesus Christ at Calvary there are no instructions to confess these sins to any man and then this man says your sins are forgiven I seriously doubt he is able to remove any one sin by his own power. the closes we can get to this in Gal 5;17 'for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary, the one to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 'As born again believers. we have the option to sin or not to give in to the flesh or follow the Sprit. When we follow Jesus. then 1 john 3;8b is fulfilled. what happens if we do sin? 'If we confess our sins , He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.and cleanse us from all unrighteousness1 John 1;9
and then believing salvation is here today and gone tomorrow if we commit sins is total false
the bible says salvation can not be ended once given you have it for all eternity
The law is dead to all believers as all Believer are now under GRACE

Now I admit all Catholics say they believe in Jesus and believe they eat him at every mass./
there is no such thnig as a bloodless sacrifice which the Catholic church claims they can do at every mass
The Bible say without the shedding of innocent blood there can be no remission of sins
But since Calvary when Jesus paid our sin debt. Now believers have been freed from needing innocent blood to forgive themselves from their sin we just need to pray to Jesus for forgivness
Yet Catholicism denys all this and has made a religion out of sins
Jesus in John 10'28,29 promised the believers that once he save you it then became his responsibility to keep us saved until he returns Yet here the Catholic Church calls Jesus a liar and says your mortal sin destroys your salvation
So is Catholicism a true religion where its member are truly saved snd that pope is god upon this earth. hhhmmmm I say no I think they are all lost because what they believe contradics what the Bible says
I won't even get into the false worship of Mary and her ability by Catholic Doctrie to be able to hear and answer and forgive sins.

I don't think that your definition of "cult" is correct. It seems you saying that any religion that doesn't match your interpretation of Christianity is a "false cult."

 

[Kirran]

Outside of Catholicism there are 30,000 or so Christian denominations, depending on how they’re counted. They are so splintered, as new ones continuously spin off from others, it’s hard to tell. You might count the Baptist Church as one church, for example, or you might count it as 1500 churches, because that’s about how many varieties there are, none of which quite agrees with any other.

All of the many Protestant churches are unified only in rejecting the one and only Church that Christ established. Within that generalization, they reject the authority that Jesus gave to it, sacraments he initiated for it and the graces he gives with them.

They accept some apostolic teaching, as found in Sacred Scripture, but not all of it. The oral teaching of the apostles, recorded in Sacred Tradition of the early Church, has been so thoroughly dismissed by Protestants for so long that it’s not even a known reality to most of them.

Worst of all is that Protestants only believe some of what Jesus said, as he said it. In order to separate from Catholicism, it is necessary for them to redefine or explain away some of Christ’s clearly articulated statements. He may have begun with “Truly, truly, I say to you,” but what follows is nevertheless declared to be symbolic of something else; not to be taken literally.

And so it goes for everything pertaining to the Eucharist, by which Jesus desires to commune with souls, and everything about the Church that he called “My Church.” So it goes also for the various other conflicts between what our Lord communicated and what Protestants are taught to believe.

Where do Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of the East stand?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Where do Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of the East stand?

They are in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they don't view that communion as being quite as full as we do. We hope they will completely reunite with us someday so that we will all be one Church again.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They are in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they don't view that communion as being quite as full as we do. We hope they will completely reunite with us someday so that we will all be one Church again.

How can they be in full communion?

Eastern Othorodox can only take communion on Easter Vigil and Christmas. Full communion means they should be able to go to confession in a Roman Catholic Church and take communion any time at any Mass. Full communion also means they'd see the pope in the same way and head as Roman Catholics do. (Meaning, they should see the pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church not just the Church that the apostles established without them saying whether it be Roman, Oriental, Eastern, or Greek). Also full communion would mean they'd see the Eucharist the same as Romans do.

They would have to be Roman Catholic or believe in Roman Catholic doctrine to be in full communion. Since it would be rude and highly inappropriate to hope they join Roman Catholicism, how could they be in full communion?

For example, "Orthodox Churches, unlike the Catholic Church, have no Bishopric head, such as a Pope, and hold the belief that Christ is the head of the Church. However, they are each governed by a committee of Bishops, called the Holy Synod, with one central Bishop holding the honorary title of "first among equals." Google Source​

If Roman Catholic Church is in full communion, the Orthodox Church would see the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church as authority of The Church even though it's not in their specific doctrine. They also hold a more protestant position where Christ is the head of the Church not Peter.

 

[Stalwart]

And I couldn't care less about your arbitrary, imaginary ''labels''.

Then why be upset?

 

[Stalwart]

What? where did you get the idea that I was 'upset', about something?

You're obviously angry at the idea of being labelled.

This might actually make r.catholics 'Peterist's', as opposed to 'Christians'.

We recognise that the Successor of Peter is the head of the visible Church, but not the head of the Church - that is Christ.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This might actually make r.catholics 'Peterist's', as opposed to 'Christians'.

Interesting way to put it. Technically, yes. Though they feel Christ gave Peter his (Christ) authority to continue leading the body of Christ as Christ did.

As for it being correct via scripture, I have to say no. Christ would be the head of the Church. The apostles are roles that keep the body together and pass on the tradition to which in Christianity started from jesus father and onto the gentiles. Christianity should be all hebrew teachings as Christ was hebrew and his teachings are hebrew. However, because of Roman influence and Roman deciding what scriptures are divine, Christianity took a dive even if protestants don't want to, cough, admit it.

My observation, study, and experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We recognise that the Successor of Peter is the head of the visible Church, but not the head of the Church - that is Christ.

The visible Church/the heart of it-the Eucharist Is Christ. There isn't two Churches. Either it's Peter or Christ.

The conflict is, Catholicism says the keys or authority of the Church is given from Christ to Peter but then says that the Church is built on the sacraments of Christ and the Eucharist being the center of it. Both are visible.

So, who is the head? Peter or Christ.

 

[Stalwart]

The visible Church/the heart of it-the Eucharist Is Christ. There isn't two Churches. Either it's Peter or Christ.

The conflict is, Catholicism says the keys or authority of the Church is given from Christ to Peter but then says that the Church is built on the sacraments of Christ and the Eucharist being the center of it. Both are visible.

So, who is the head? Peter or Christ.

Christ is the founder, centre, and head of the Church. The Successor of Peter is His vicar, leading the visible, worldly element of the Church, as its servant.

 

[Desert Snake]

Christianity should be all hebrew teachings as Christ was hebrew and his teachings are hebrew. However, because of Roman influence and Roman deciding what scriptures are divine, Christianity took a dive even if protestants don't want to, cough, admit it.

My observation, study, and experience.

That would be a language issue, imo, more than anything. And there are Churches that use languages of the region; perhaps it could be said, that you are describing Messianic Judaism...?

Aside from that, it would vary by group. I am familiar with Christianity that might be more Israelite, /less other influence, or what have you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Christ is the founder, centre, and head of the Church. The Successor of Peter is His vicar, leading the visible, worldly element of the Church, as its servant.

Why would some Catholics look to Peter as if he were Christ? (Thinking of a few who actually feel [verbatim said] that being around the pope and talking to the priest is talking to Christ directly).

 

[Forever_Catholic]

How can they be in full communion?

Eastern Othorodox can only take communion on Easter Vigil and Christmas. Full communion means they should be able to go to confession in a Roman Catholic Church and take communion any time at any Mass. Full communion also means they'd see the pope in the same way and head as Roman Catholics do. (Meaning, they should see the pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church not just the Church that the apostles established without them saying whether it be Roman, Oriental, Eastern, or Greek). Also full communion would mean they'd see the Eucharist the same as Romans do.

They would have to be Roman Catholic or believe in Roman Catholic doctrine to be in full communion. Since it would be rude and highly inappropriate to hope they join Roman Catholicism, how could they be in full communion?

For example, "Orthodox Churches, unlike the Catholic Church, have no Bishopric head, such as a Pope, and hold the belief that Christ is the head of the Church. However, they are each governed by a committee of Bishops, called the Holy Synod, with one central Bishop holding the honorary title of "first among equals." Google Source
If Roman Catholic Church is in full communion, the Orthodox Church would see the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church as authority of The Church even though it's not in their specific doctrine. They also hold a more protestant position where Christ is the head of the Church not Peter.

“Full communion” in this context means that the Latin rite and Eastern Churches still share essential doctrines.

They both have validly ordained priests and bishops who celebrate the same sacraments. If a Roman Catholic happens to be in a place or situation where there is no Catholic parish at which he/she can satisfy a Mass obligation, then he/she may attend an Eastern Church for that purpose. Or he/she may attend just for sake of visiting an Eastern Church, in which case it would not satisfy a Mass obligation. In either case, Catholics are not to receive the Eucharist or other sacraments from Eastern Orthodox clergy except in situations of particular urgency when no Catholic priest/bishop is available.

As I understand it, Eastern Churches have similar limitations on when and what their people can do in Catholic parishes, but I don't really know about all that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But Catholics are not to receive the Eucharist or other sacraments from Eastern Orthodox clergy except in situations of particular urgency when no Catholic priest/bishop is available.

As I understand it, Eastern Churches have similar limitations on when and what their people can do in Catholic parishes, but I don't really know about all that.

That's truly unfortunate, though. They agree on doctrine but have limitations of who can do what at either Church. It sounds like a protestant/Catholic separation where Catholics can go to protestant sermons but they can't take communion. Though, I'd think because Orthodox (and other Catholic sects) are in the same boat as Roman since they have the same sacraments; so full union, I'd see not just sharing doctrine but taking sacraments as well. What keeps them from being in that full communion as one Church?

It sounds hypocritical to tell you honestly. Wouldn't it be logical to deny union (as Catholics do protestants and visa) with Othrodox sacraments if sacraments since the Eucharist is the highly important and I'd assume confession in a Roman Catholic Church would satisfy taking Roman Catholic sacrament/Eucharist? Or can they confess at their Church and still take the Eucharist in emergencies?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It sounds like a protestant/Catholic separation where Catholics can go to protestant sermons but they can't take communion.

Well, there are big differences here. One is that the sacrament of Holy Orders transfers Christ's authority to ordained priests to consecrate the bread and wine used for communion (along with the authority to absolve sins, etc). Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests have this power because they are all validly ordained within direct apostolic succession. Protestant ministers are not, so they do not have Christ's authority to consecrate.

Another reason is that most Protestants do not even believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist or in their own bread and wine (or grape juice). Many of them regard receiving communion as nothing more than a commemoration of the Last Supper. But when Jesus told the apostles to "Do this in memory of me," he was establishing a sacramental remembrance in the same way that God established the Passover remembrance as an ordinance for the Jews in Exodus 12:14 - “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. As a lasting statute, you should celebrate it."

And "Do this" did not mean to have some bread and wine now and then. It meant for them to do what he was demonstrating -- to give his body and blood to the faithful. And in that statement, the sacrament of Holy Orders was also initiated.

The Catholic Church does not permit us to to receive communion in Protestant churches because it would falsely demonstrate that we regard it as a valid alternative to receiving the body and blood of Christ. They do not permit non Catholics (aside from Eastern Church people) to receive communion in the Catholic Church because non Catholics do not discern the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. As Saint Paul said about that in 1 Corinthians 11:29, "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." He also said that we are not to receive the Eucharist unworthily. No one, including a Catholic, who is carrying any mortal sin is to receive communion, because that in itself is a sin. A Catholic who has committed a mortal sin must go to confession and receive absolution before receiving communion again.

Though, I'd think because Orthodox (and other Catholic sects) are in the same boat as Roman since they have the same sacraments; so full union, I'd see not just sharing doctrine but taking sacraments as well. What keeps them from being in that full communion as one Church?

I guess the central issue is Eastern Orthodoxy's opposition to papal supremacy, but there's way too much in that history for me to take a shot at really summarizing. The Great Schism, as it's called, goes all the way back to 1054.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand why both protestant and Catholic are at odds with each other given I've been on in both. What I don't like on both sides is that on one side, Catholics do not allow confession and communion to other Christians outside the Catholic denomination. So that is breaking up the body of Christ as his ministry was not built on the apostles but of his father and his son's passion. If anything, the universal Church would help to promote unity among all Christians without requiring them to be Catholic in order to actually literally not just symbolically experience the passion of Christ and his Mass.

The other side, I disagree with because the protestant Churches see a lot of what Christ said as symbolism and it sounds new agish to me compared to my experience in Catholicism. That, and they have more bias and negativity than Catholics do towards them (from my experience).

Morally, isn't the point I'm making though, since I don't identify as Christian even though I am confirmed. It just makes sense logically and scriptural. But many protestants forget that scripture isn't the only thing that dictates "truth" in Christianity according to Catholics; so, that's a dead argument there.

I guess the central issue is Eastern Orthodoxy's opposition to papal supremacy, but there's way too much in that history for me to take a shot at really summarizing. The Great Schism, as it's called, goes all the way back to 1054.

That is really unfortunate. Like above, I'd assume both parties as Christians would unite regardless the history.

But then that's just me.

Then I think again, does god see just the Church or does he see all baptized Christians whether water or in faith (which are both in the bible); and, does he judge their salvation based on who they worship with and how they take the sacraments rather than seeing that they have taken the sacraments as protestants and Catholics regardless of the method of doing so.

So there are many "issues" that break up the body of Christ. If I were god, I'd probably be shaking my head now.

 

[metis]

The main issue is "apostolic succession", which clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles, although the a.p. label was assigned later. It was the mark of the true church that was to consist of only "one body", as Paul repeatedly emphasized, and the apostles and then their appointees were the continuation of that process.

When the Copts, Orthodox, and Anglicans split, the reason was political in nature, but these churches continued on in the same mandate of apostolic succession. However, when the Protestants splintered off, they didn't continue that tradition, thus eliminating the "one body" approach.

When the Orthodox split off over the issue of whom was going be the pope, there was tremendous anger out of Rome over that, but eventually it was easier to accept over time since the a.p. tradition was still continued. The Protestant split, however, was not acceptable because it violated that 1500 year tradition, plus there was some other quite radical changes in other areas as well. And the wars of religion certainly didn't help matters any either.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I will state all that I know about the Catholic Religion and why I think it is a false cult
To become a Catholic you must attend classes /training that can last over a year or longer depending upon you local Bishop/Priest thinking you are ready to become a member.

True Salvation according to the bible is to hear/read the Gospel and then examine yourself and then change your mind from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ

yet I can not recall ever hearing about this when I was within Catholicism

My understanding of SIN AND DAILY SINS

SIN Which over 90 times in the Bible says we are to repent of this one SIN
Now the Catholic church say this SIN is our daily sins and those that are Mortal can undo your salvation.
Yet in rereading the Bible concerning our repenting of this SIN the Bible makes it very clear this one SIM
is UNBELIEF IN JESUS CHRIST and that no one will be save until they repent of this one SIN.

Further study shows that Christ came to be our Savior by shedding his innocent blood for all our daily sins
Thus all mankind's daily sins debt is already paid in full at Calvary but UNBELIEF can not be paid in full by blood or any other means except by a complete change of mind unto total belief in Jesus Christ

So while each Saturday most loyal Catholics and go to Confession to confess their sins and then have to do a penance concerning these daily sins that were in fact paid in full about 2 thousands years ago
Now to me says they don't really believe in Jesus Christ and I say their socalled befief in Jesus is suspect to say the least that is to say you believe in Jesus Christ and then go to confession each Saturday and confess your sins and then do a penance for the.m says to me that they don't really believe what Jesus did at Calvary

So here we have 3 conflicts between Catholicism and the Bible namely SIN (UNBELIEF) DAILY SINS AND SALVATION.
I have never heard of a catholic repent of their UNBELIEF TO BECOME A CATHOLIC.
DAILY SINS were paid in full by Jesus Christ at Calvary there are no instructions to confess these sins to any man and then this man says your sins are forgiven I seriously doubt he is able to remove any one sin by his own power. the closes we can get to this in Gal 5;17 'for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary, the one to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 'As born again believers. we have the option to sin or not to give in to the flesh or follow the Sprit. When we follow Jesus. then 1 john 3;8b is fulfilled. what happens if we do sin? 'If we confess our sins , He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.and cleanse us from all unrighteousness1 John 1;9
and then believing salvation is here today and gone tomorrow if we commit sins is total false
the bible says salvation can not be ended once given you have it for all eternity
The law is dead to all believers as all Believer are now under GRACE

Now I admit all Catholics say they believe in Jesus and believe they eat him at every mass./
there is no such thnig as a bloodless sacrifice which the Catholic church claims they can do at every mass
The Bible say without the shedding of innocent blood there can be no remission of sins
But since Calvary when Jesus paid our sin debt. Now believers have been freed from needing innocent blood to forgive themselves from their sin we just need to pray to Jesus for forgivness
Yet Catholicism denys all this and has made a religion out of sins
Jesus in John 10'28,29 promised the believers that once he save you it then became his responsibility to keep us saved until he returns Yet here the Catholic Church calls Jesus a liar and says your mortal sin destroys your salvation
So is Catholicism a true religion where its member are truly saved snd that pope is god upon this earth. hhhmmmm I say no I think they are all lost because what they believe contradics what the Bible says
I won't even get into the false worship of Mary and her ability by Catholic Doctrie to be able to hear and answer and forgive sins.

In some ways it is true. Belief in Jesus and the Bible.

But I don't believe its present day form and practices were revealed by Christ. It has become I feel, a very ritualistic religion which Christ never intended.

 

[metis]

In some ways it is true. Belief in Jesus and the Bible.

But I don't believe its present day form and practices were revealed by Christ. It has become I feel, a very ritualistic religion which Christ never intended.

But didn't Jesus say that he would guide the church through to the end of time and that the HS would help in such a manner? And what's wring with rituals, especially since I'm quite certain you use them.