Hello,
Could you please inform me of Catholic beliefs, and how the differ from Christian belief?
Thank You!
browneyedfaith:)
|
Hello,
Could you please inform me of Catholic beliefs, and how the differ from Christian belief?
Thank You!
browneyedfaith:)
Catholicism is a Christian religion.
There are beliefs held as Christians that are generally the same for all Christian churches. There may be differences in certain traditions. Prayers, and ceremonies that are performed in church that even vary from catholic church to catholic church. J9 is right. Are you thinking about becoming a Catholic? Do you have a specific ideas that would fit well with your personal beliefs. That is the most important to go by.
Joe
Here is a good site for research:
http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10002.html
Yes as stated, The Catholic Faith is a Christian Church, and actually the first, The original Chrsitain Church after Christ spread and spread and as it did, local church leaders develped. As the larger churches developed, the leaders of the smaller churches looked to the larger churches for leadership and other help.
As time passed the churches of the East and the West ( rome) had various issues and the East ( Orthodox) and the West ( Catholic) broke.
This was the first split of the Christian faith ( first split of any real size and lasting)
I could bury you in pages on various subjects, if you have specific questions please ask.
Yes, Catholics are Christian.
The main difference between Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians is about Authority. We Catholics believe that Scripture AND the leaders of Christ's Church are the Authority for doctrine and practice whereas most non-Catholic Christians (Excepting some Orthodox groups) believe that the Bible is the sole authority.
For some good articles defending the Catholic position on this and some of the other differences, see the links in the upper left under "Library" here.
But do Christians believe in the pope and the virgin mary?
Cause I don't think so, while catholics do.
Yes other christian denominations believe there is a pope, he is this man who wears a white suit and lives in Rome, they believe he is the head of the Catholic Church. Each demoniation have a head of their church, or a group that leads the church, makes the rules for that church and changes doctrine as time goes by. You have the Southern Baptist convention and its president, you have the Arch Bishop of Canterbury as the leader of the Church in England( hope I got that right) the mormons have the 12 apostles who sit as their leaders, every group has its leader.
The Pope to the Orthodox is a Patriach, just like their churches, a desendent of one of the original 12 apostles ( not in blood line but in lines of succession)
And yes all Christians and even muslims believe Mary was a virgin and gave birth to Christ.
And I will just in before anyone goes there, no Catholics do not worship Mary, some fringe groups have gotten there in the past, but they merely have high respect to her.
And many churches other than Catholics, have saints, The Church of England, Epispopal, the Orthodox and in its early days the Lutheran Church all used the saints ( Lutherans still do if you get deep in their teachings, but the average church member never see it in practice.
As has been stated, one big difference between Catholics and the rest of us lies with the Pope. Read what Jesus said:
Matt 20:25-26
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
(KJV)
Another biggie is with the communion. Catholic dogma insists that to say the bread and wine are symbolic is anathema, but consider this; when Jesus made the following statement, His blood was still in His veins and He was still in His unbroken body, so it could not have been meant literally.
Matt 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(KJV)
There are many beliefs and practices peculiar to the Roman Catholic church that most of Christendom have never accepted.
Most? Very interesting how some things can be the norm for 1500 years, then a minority claim "most" don't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
All Roman Catholic Christians - who are the vast majority of the world's Christians - hold the pope to be the bishop of Rome and Peter's successor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krs
All Catholic Christians and all non-Catholic non-heretical Christians believe that Jesus was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of God.
If there are any Christians of any hue that do not believe the virgin birth of Jesus Christ as recorded in scripture, I would appreciate knowing which ones they are.
Before someone dings me about Galveston's post and what I said about the Eucharist - I am not agreeing with all he said - just offering an explanation of what I thought he was trying to say about the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic Church is no more peculiar or less peculiar than a Protestant church. If the word peculiar can be used at all.
About the Pope - someone is always designated as the one who is overall responsible for their particular demonination - whether the church is Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and so on. The buck has to stop somewhere, even in religious environments.
Response to sexybeasty's question. I refer to the dogma of transubstantiation. Yes, I do take communion. I believe in God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Ghost. At risk of being called intolerant, (again), I find Scriptural justification for so few of the dogmas of the Roman Church, that I personally see no resemblance of it to the Church that was born as recorded in the early chapters of the book of Acts. I am not alone in this belief.
All Catholics are Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by browneyedfaith
Nor all Christians are Catholic.
See the difference?
As stated, there are those like many catholics who don't believe protestants are christian either because they broke away from the catholic church and started believing new ideas
Just as there are those in the far right of Christianity that call Catholics satan worshipers.
But it is just that many of each group refuse to reconcise the truth of both groups.
They are all christian since they believe in Christ as the path to salvation.
They merely have various methods of showing that love, and differnce in order of service.
And there is no church I know of today ( any major denomiation) that is anything like the 1st century church, since they were basically Jewish in nature following jewish traditions and practice but merely had Christ as the head of the church. In fact you had to at first convert to be a Jew to be a Christian in many of the early churches.
After that it was merely meetings with meals at peoples homes.
As the Church developed there was only one church, until it spit 1000 year latter into the Catholic and Orthodox, So all of today's churches come out of those early churches in just the 500 years, and most in just the last several hundred years.
But since the Orthodox and the Catholic were separated for 1000 years, it is interesting to see the similar teachings and beliefs still held true within the Orthodox church which was not dulted with what many of the right wing christians blame in the Catholic Church.
So closer review shows that in all fact, although it was a hard track, most of the basics faith still hold true after the 1000 years
So although a lot of the ritual is not for everyone, much of the symbolism is still the same.
The denomination to which a person belongs is a matter of personal choice, and as such each person's selection of which particular theological route they follow ought to be respected by everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Whether someone is concinced that seven sacraments are essential, or if two will serve adequately ought not to be made the cause of an unholy war of words, name calling, or persecution of any kind, because none of these are calculated to persuade anyone of anything other than underline the fact that the name caller, etc. is a brick short of a stack, and that he ought to be busy getting himself right with God and not making the lives of other Christians uncomfortable.
There is more than 500 years of angry words, denunciations, exposures etc. etc. marking the differences and distinctions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and almost as long a history of the same between various of the thousands of discrete Protestant sects and cults, and just about everything that can be said or charged has already found its way into print, and sometimes into clubs, knives, fists, and blood.
The Bible speaks words of utter condemnation for the sin of pride, because the mechanism of pride is to elevate the prideful at the expense of those they put down. Therefore, Pride runs directly counter to what Jesus said was the second greatest commandment and is, therefore, direct rebellion against God and Jesus, and no true Christian will be found with such words issuing from his mouth or his keyboard.
I do not care whether a man or woman is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or whatever he chooses as his way to God. Every one who chooses their way to follow Jesus Christ is headed in the right direction and it is not the work of other Christians to cause him to stumble by attacking him on his journey.
That does not mean that no discussion can take place about various aspects of religion, because such discussions are helpful. But their usefulness is directly proportionate to their accuracy. Inaccuracies do violence to God and Jesus, to the one against whom they are used, and to the one who uses them.
The most important work done in forums such as this one is the shedding of light on differences and similarities that we might come to understanding, even when we cannot come to agreement.
How welcome it would be if there was no flaming or slamming; only a search for information and understanding.
M:)RGANITE
While I take your point regarding the similarity of the NT Church with the present day RC Church, do you imagine that any church would suit the NT Church comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Good question! The Bible record says that God worked with the Apostles, confirming the Word (their preaching) with signs following. I know a few old fragments omit this particular reference, but it is concise, and many other passages attest to the fact that the early church was marked by the supernatural. Glimpses of these "signs" have appeared from time to time down through the years. In 1900 (first day of the year, in Topeka Kan. I believe) there began a fresh outpouring of the Holy Ghost in this country, and the supernatural was restored to the church. Not all accepted, and not everyone prayed for was healed, but many have been. It seems that the supernatural has waned during the last half of the last century, but there are still miracles occurring. You just don't find them in every church every day! The Church that began on that long ago day of Pentecost is still alive and well. It is not in numerical majority, and never has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I have been reading a monthly journal of theology, in which one of the contributors discusses the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, stating that they were common in the NT Church. If that is so, why did they stop? According to the Bible, Jesus spent some of the forty days following after his resurrection with his disciples, "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3) and opening "their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," namely, what is "in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning [him]" (Luke 24:44-45).
The New Testament mentions the forty-day ministry but provides only limited detail. For example, during this time Jesus appeared to the Twelve with Thomas present (John 20:26-29), spoke of "things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3), "and many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30). Paul mentions that on one occasion Jesus "was seen of above five hundred brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6).
Finally, before his ascension Jesus commanded the apostles to go "into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15-16; see also. Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-48; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:4-5).
As these appearances were such an integral part of post-resurrection Christianity why did they suddenly stop, and why are they not happening right now?
M:)
You ask 2 questions. First, they suddenly stopped because Jesus went back to the Father. Second, you have to understand that when Jesus went back to the Father, He requested the Father to send the Holy Ghost to the believers. Now, when Jesus was present in the flesh, He could only be in one place at a time. Through the presence of the Holy Ghost in the believers, He can now be present any place there is a Spirit-filled believer. The Apostles and even the first deacons performed miracles, attesting to the fact that Jesus had "returned" via Sprit-filled men and women. Look at these verses:Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
I Jn 4:2-3
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
(KJV)
To my knowledge, the KJV is the only English translation that uses the words, "is come". This is a continual present tense, others using "has come", past tense. The point being, what Jesus did 2000 years ago (other than His sacrifice for our sins) is not as important to us today as what He is doing now. He lives through His Church today, and will do so until He comes back personally. So in a very real way, He does appear to believers today. If you doubt it, I can give referrals.
Many of the post resurrection appearances were made after Jesus went back to the Father. This is evident from the texts I supplied previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I take your point about the Holy Spirit, but the provision of the Spirit to the Church did not prevent Jesus from appearing as recorded. In John cap 14, Jesus promises the faithful that not only he, Jesus, but also the Father would come and dwell with faithful disciples.
"Is come" is an archaism. It is not improper to render it as "has come" if the context warrants it. The AV term 'is come' is translated from the Greek erchomai, having the following possibilites:
1) to come
1a) of persons; to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving; to come i.e. to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
2) to come, metaphorically
2a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence; be established; become known; to come (fall) into or unto
3) to go, to follow one
We ought not to be too pedantic when referring to a translation, for every translation is an interpretation that depends on the understanding, and sometimes the theology, of the interpreter.
However, the fact of the Holy Spoirit coming after the ascension of Jesus is not in dispute. But we are then left with the fact that Jesus continued to make personal appearances to Paul, Peter, and John, and possibly to others.
OK. I see what you are saying. I believe that these occurrences you point out were in the form of visions, and there are those in recent times that have had similar experiences. Never had a vision myself, but have met those who have had a vision of Jesus. It may be as common as it was in Bibilical times, because not everyone then had such an experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
Back to faith's original question. It presupposes a difference between Catholic belief and other Christian beliefs. From the perspective of a non-Catholic, I see several significant differences. Papal authority, the Mass, transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, prayers to Mary and other saints, absolution of sins by a priest, and the belief that belonging to the Catholic church or being baptised as an infant constitutes salvation. Now, don't get sore about what I said about Mary. I honor her for the righteous lady that she was.
You don't believe in the immaculate conception? Hmm, I'm not a Catholic Christian but a Pentecostal Christian, and we believe the whole miracle & birth. You're sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I don't think you know that Catholic dogma says that MARY had an immaculate comception. According to them, Mary was born withhout an original sinful nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
Wrong on both counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by freakingkansas
Catholics are Christian & Catholics can talk directly to God.
It would be clearer if espressed as "Mary was also conceived immaculately, so that she was born without the taint of original sin."Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
As it stands, it appears that you are saying that Jesus was not born without sin, which is not what you intend, I am sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakingkansas
Come off it. Where did you find this mega bit of false information? If you ever were a Cathiolic, you will know that you were also a Christian. And not only were you a Christian as a Catholic, but superlatively a Christian. If you were not, then you were not a Catholic.
Find me a Catholic who prays to the Pope and who is not insane and I'll stand you a chicken dinner! I never heard such nonsense even from dedicated Catholic haters.
It is a wise person who does not believe anything that comes from the pea-sized bigoted brain of Jack Chick.
M:(RGANITE
A 'vision' is something or someone that is seen. It is not deception, but a real actual person. Jesus was not a phantom after his resurrection, but a real, actual, three-dimensional person who actually existed, occupied space, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luke 24:40
This was the resurrected Jesus, not a ggost or spirit or an amorphous mass, and when he appeared to the Eleven they r4ciognised him but thougght he was nothing but a spirit. Jesus contradicted their erroneous belief and proved that he was a real, actual, physical presence, although resurrected and glorified and raised immortal.
It was this resurrected Jesus that appeared to paul, Peter, and John as their records and testimonies show beyond any scintillae of doubt.
Revelation 1.10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Revelation 1:11
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 1:12
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Revelation 1:13
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Revelation 1:14
14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
Revelation 1:15
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Revelation 1:16
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.
Revelation 1:17
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Revelation 1:18
18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Revelation 1:19
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
This was not an imaginary 'vision' or a dream, but an actual 'vision' or 'sight' of the presence of the real living resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, whose permanent reality should never be doubted.
Likewise the appearances of the risen Lord to others were just as real as that to John and that to the Eleven. The resurrection of Jesus is not an imaginary happening and ought not to be 'spiritualised' into a legendary or fictitious event. Either the resurrection of Jesus was a real event following which he was a real person with a real presence or else the whole resurrection story is a fake and an imposition foisted on the gullible.
Paul said:
" ... like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom 6.4
1 Corinthians 15:12
12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
20 ¶ But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Where is room for doubt. Why then do some still doubt the reality of the resurrection and the reality of the post resurrection experiences?
M:)RGANITE
Well, I agree, but the appearances of Jesus to His disciples after His resurrection was BEFORE His ascention. Did I read you wrong? I thought you placed these appearances after the ascention. (Not talking about His appearance to John on Patmos, of course.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
Now, I'm a bit confused. (you probably think that's an understatement). I know that I have never heard of anyone praying to the Pope, and never said so, but don't Catholics pray to the various saints, especially Mary? If this is true, how do you square it with this?
1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(KJV)
There is no worship involved. It is asking for intercession, not unlike a person asking for another person to pray for him/her.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Here is an excellent article on the subject:
Praying to the Saints
And here is another article citing Biblical and early Christian references:
The Intercession of the Saints
I never said the saints were worshipped. I said they were appealed to as intercessors, and that is extra-biblical.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
I wasn't implying you were, really :)
... just adding a reference on the biblical and historical end of it.
... now that I read back further, I see it wasn't the best place to put it :o :)
:p :p
Technical foul is correct... I fumble fingered the quote!
I'll fix it ;)
... done.
Some of his appearances were during what has been called his forty day ministry, which were prior to the ascension. Others were post-ascension. Regardless of the timing of these appearances, the fact that he did appear is significant for several reasons, but chief among which is his continuing witness to mankind that he lives, and because he lives so shall we.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I know this might be crossing into new territory so I do not anticipate an answer, but it is decidedly odd to me that Jesus appeared after his resurrection as a physical being, but I am expected to believe that he died again [or somehting like it] and thathem is now in heaven without his resurrected body.
M:)
Is there anyone who believes that Jesus died again? I never heard of it. He took His resurrected body with Him when He ascended, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
I'm temporarily hung up on this prayer to the saints thing. First, as per a previous post, we only have authorization to pray to the Father (by the authority of Jesus). Secondly, if we are praying to DEAD saints (those no longer with us) could that be construed as communicating with the dead? That is specifically forbidden. Of course, I doubt the saints make any reply, so it may not be communication. If they did, you wouldn't be talking to a saint, but to an unclean spirit (demonic). Third, if there is no real communication with the departed saint, then you are talking into the air, wasting your breath at best, and possibly communicating with the dead at worst. We have access to our Heavenly Father so why bother with some middle man, so to speak?
We do not believe that members of the Body of Christ who die are no longer "with us". Of course they are not physically with us, but we do believe that the Communion of Saints is not broken by death. (for more on the Communion of Saints, a very ancient idea professed in the Apostles Creed, see here)
Why ask one of them instead of God directly?
We don't "skip" God at all. We just include those closest to him in those we ask to pray for us. I think it not odd to presume that the prayer of one very close to God is "more effective" than the prayer of one not so close to God.
To use extremes as an example: I'd ask my Pastor to pray for me before I ask a struggling Christian to pray for me.
I know that this does not address "can they hear us", but do you find the above at least reasonable?
Good solid Biblical advise, Brother. AMEN!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 AM. |