Oh wow…
I was raised Catholic and, though I am no longer one, view Catholics as the true christians and all the other christians as ripoffs. 
I was hoping for someone who can defend this view. If corruption means non-Christian, a lot of churches are in trouble. If there is an issue with combining secular and spiritual power, then what of places like England where the monarch is the titular head of the church? I was also interested in the problem that the Catholic church can trace itself back more or less directly to the actual disciples. (I don’t care about the historical accuracy of this claim.) So, it seems that the quoted Protestant claim is
<Donovan>
First there is a Christian, then there’s no Christian, then there is.
</Donovan>
From the perspective of someone who grew up Jewish, I have a hard time of telling all but the most wacko sects apart. I only care about the important differentiators, like if men and women can sit together in temple.
Bingo?
The problem with this and why most Protestants are ignorant of history is that Christianity wasn’t only in the Roman Empire. It had spread to the Parthian Empire, which would later become the Persian Empire, and as far as India. The first real schism, due to the Council of Chalcedon, didn’t occur until a century later. If what Chick and other thought were true, Christians would have rejected the Councils, such as Nicea, from areas that were relatively secure. The Persian Empire could match the Roman Empire and did encourage Nestoriansim to spread dissent.
My SIL’s pastor convinced her that the Catholic Church is the “Scarlet Whore of Babylon.”
The church that I grew up in (I no longer believe this way), the Churches of Christ, considers the Catholic Church “fallen” – it is the organization that the original church morphed into, over a process of several generations, as it became power-hungry, unscripturally hierarchical, and made too many compromises with paganism.
I do recall (when I was in my early teens, in the early 1970s) an elder in the Church of Christ, saying something along the lines of, “The men who are responsible for the corruption of the original Church – the ones who led the Church astray as they aided and abetted the formation of the Roman Catholic Church – will certainly be the recipients of some very special punishments when they arrive in Hell.”
So, I got the impression that God “don’t look too kindly” upon Catholics, especially those who are higher up in the Church hierarchy! (Popes, Archbishops, and what have you…)
Any individual Catholic could be considered Christian in the wider, cultural sense of the word, however.
Of course, the Churches of Christ believe that any and all other religious organizations are doomed to eternal damnation…
Just FTR, no white supremacists (nor black supremacists…hell, no green ones either) are allowed in the XTian church, as XT forbids such worthless trash from worshiping the True Faith™. Donations are always welcome, however, and we can always use more for the naked volleyball, smoking, drinking and general debauchery…
Just wanted to clear that up.
-XT
Well, that is one perspective, of course.
First, there was not simply one denomination for a millennium. There were numerous breaks with what we now perceive as mainstream Christianity going back at least as far as the second century, a few of which groups have survived to today, although some of the branches have reunited with either the Orthodox or Catholics. (There are several “flavors” of the Syriac tradition, for example.)
Next, the political battle actually began under Charlemagne, not the pope, when Charlemagne grabbed a phrase from an otherwise unremarkable Spanish synod and had his theologians declare that the Creed should include the filioque.
There had been a fairly constant tension between the East and West over the actual authority of the Bishop of Rome extending back nearly all the way to Constantine and declaring that some later pope was just grabbing power might be a comfortable way to describe it, but is fails to reflect the actual interaction among the various patriarchates, (along with the genuine confusion regarding the intentions of the earliest bishops on the topic).
The Orthodox tend to have the best of the argument regarding the filioque, but it tends to be more a line in the sand than a serious theological issue.
As to altering scriptures or Patristic doctrine: Nah. No scripture has been changed and the “changes” to Patristic teachings have been more the result of the Western church expanding into a world situation that the East never encountered. This is not a claim that the West got it right–the West might very well have blown it–only an observation that some of the “changes” were the result of new situations with which the East never had to deal. From an outside observers perspective, it might be claimed that the East simply ossified and never permitted any growth. I would not make that claim, but until God comes down and points out the specific errors on both sides, one’s judgment is going to be colored by which side one currently supports.
I am intrigued and would like to subscribe to your newsletter . church bulletin - but please talk about the temple harlots first.
And I trust the church bulletin has a centerfold.
Indeed it does, but it would be NSFW to display it here. 
As to the temple harlots (or cabana boys depending on your gender and or sexual orientation), all I can safely say is that we of the XT church like them well rounded and endowed. The skinny or overly exercise oriented need not apply, sadly.
The heavy use of fine Cuban Cigars, single malt or 100% blue agave tequila (well aged and smooth as the thighs of the non-virgins we use to roll the cigars with), and, um, non-tobacco smoking products are not mandatory, but are highly encouraged…
(sorry for the hijack, but I always get a kick out of the use of ‘XTians’ as a short for Christians…)
-XT
Some days I think Christ is to Christians the same way Carp are to Carpathians and Rocks are to the Rockettes.
[sub]apologies to the late B. Kliban[/sub]
If you go a bit later, Nestorianism made it as far as China! I’m very fond of that factoid. 
If a Person,(Catholic or not) asks a saint to pray for them it is no different then asking other people to pray for them. Catholics as far as I know,do not worship anything but God. Requesting (praying) or asking a Saint who they believe is now with God is not Idolatry.
And if Catholic’s aren’t Christian, then no other sect is, All religions follow the New Testement, that was gathered by the early Bishops of the Roman and Orthodox churchs in the 300’s because of Constantine wanted a united religion. If one excepts the Bible then they must also accept the RCC as Christian. It was those bishops who decided what was God’s word, and what was not, they also decided what was inspired and who authored the writings.
I have been to places or have had Protestants ask people to pray for them, that is the same as asking a Saint who RC’s believe is in Heaven with God!
The Bible also states that Faith without works id dead! So it would seem both are necessary!
As a post script to my other posts. I would add so many So called Christians or those that claim to be Christian do not act as they say they believe, and are more like the Pharisee’s of Jesus days, who follow the letter of the law,but not the spirit of the law.
It seems to me that any of them, can use the Bible to support anything they want to believe. In our small community there are numerous churches, and many people who go to them do not agree on doctrine even in their own denomination.
Catholics use the verse that Jesus made Peter head of His church and also was said to say the gates of hell would not prevail against it! If this was added by some monk centuries ago it is not known, or proven, but all is the word of humans and I believe that is why there is so many Christians teaching different things.
Catholics pray to saints to ask them to pray to God for them/help them. It is no different than asking your mom for help or for her to pray for you. A Catholic does not consider a saint ‘divine’/God but as someone you would very much like to have on your side. 
Also, different saints specialize in different things so you might have better luck praying to the ‘appropriate’ saint (much like you don’t want to go to a doctor for legal advice). You can also pray to specific angels for the same reason, though that is less common. Angels in Catholic mythology are not necessarily the nice, warm, fuzzy creatures of other Christian religions. Better to go for a saint.
True - however, it is also the case that Catholics ask the various saints directly to intervene on their behalf. I suspect this is more of an abuse than official doctrine, but one of the objections of Protestants to Catholic practice is that praying to saints is a temptation to do what I described - ask the saint to intervene directly.
Another issue is that veneration in particular of the Virgin Mary shades off rapidly into a belief that she was part of the redemption that Protestants ascribe uniquely to Christ.
To Protestants, this is blasphemy, ascribing the qualities of God to created beings. To Protestants, only the suffering and death of Jesus brought about redemption. Hence “solus Christus”, once of the catchphrases of the Reformation.
Regards,
Shodan
This actually is a bit complicated. Do we believe the Saints are divine? No, they are not Gods. On the other hand, we also admit they are vastly more like God than we are, and frankly, far beyond human. But whatever divine authority they have (and we accept that they do) it is excercised on God’s behalf. You can’t pray to them and they can do no more than watch over us, however.
Also note that they are just unusual from our perspective, and that Heaven is filled with holy people we don’t know specifically. In fact, the Saints have their associations with mortal activities specifically because we asked them to, more or less.
Of course, they probably haven’t heard an actual Catholic sermon, which they’d probably find pretty ordinary.
Continuing the quote from the very next paragraph in the same article:
There are valid concerns among Protestants as to the Catholic approach to Mary, but it is also important to note that this stuff has never gotten close to becoming Catholic doctrine. Even John Paul II, who received the original petition because he was perceived to be most attuned to the petitioners, never acted on it and Benedict XVI has done nothing to promote it.
It is somewhat like the issue of the veneration of the saints, in which the church doctrine and the vast majority of church members are careful to distinguish between asking the saints for intercession vs worshipping God while a smaller but noticeable number of members actually do treat the saints as a minor pantheon.
Then as I understand you, If one asks a favorite child to ask a parent for a favor it is not right? For a RCC to ask a saint who has favor with God asks the saint to pray for them it is Blasphmey??
I personally think prayer is a lack of trust in a powerful or supreme being, who is said to know all things, and love all of His children. One(in my opinion) should just trust that this supreme all knowing loving being will give what is needed, and not hold back anything that is for His childs good.
Since it is only faith that states a person needs redemption, or why a all knowing being would punish a being he created with flaws then punish them because of the flaws(,even of their parents) doesn’t seem like a very good being to follow, it makes this being sound very egotistical and unloving, to punish a being for His mistakes!!
I am not RCC but since the Protestants get their teachings from a book that some humans considered to be God’s word, they are just believing in those humans and not in God, I see no difference in the NT and the Koran, there is no way to tell if God sent an angel to Muhammad or inspired the writers of the NT (or old for that matter).Belief is one thing, fact is another, and people have the right to believe as they wish as long as it doesn’t harm another!
And of course the Psalmist states that all are gods and children of god. Jesus seemed to back this up when accused of blasphmeywhen he is quores as saying,“why do you say I blaspheme when I call God my father, when your fathers did?”