Are Catholics really Christian?

Great Debates
61

Ummmm. I think I agree with the sentiment, but as expressed it has some problems.

“The core doctrine, which comes from the Bible” simply has too many issues. In 40 C.E., there was no New Testament, so from that perspective, the “core beliefs” for Christians several years after Jesus had died (if they only come from the Bible) had no reference to Jesus, the crucifixion, salvation through faith, or Resurrection (unless you want to include II Maccabees).

The development of the canon was not a swift, sure process even after the books had been written. Look at the size of the New Testament Apocrypha some time to realize that there were many works written that were not chosen by the community of believers as a representative of doctrine.

The whole matter of Purgatory goes directly to the heart of the issue of the Bible vs Doctrine. II Macccabees (along with I Maccabees, Wisdom, Tobit, and several others) was considered Scripture by many members of the early Church. The discussion over whether they were “really” Scripture must address the issue of how any one knows what is (or should be) in the Bible. This results in discussions of (and disagreements about) the creation of the canon and whether one council or another had greater authority for its list of accepted works (or, if you’re a Jack Chick fan, whether there was “real” scripture–unattested except by those who mysteriously “know” it now–that was somehow corrupted by the chrch of Rome).

62

<hijack>
My mother was raised Catholic. When she married my father, she left the church. Her family disowned her for two years, until I was born when they finally decided that they were being petty. The whole not speaking two her for 2 years business did not go over well with my father, whose theory is something like “Catholicism is the world’s biggest cult.” And he didn’t hesitate to share his views with me, though not coming right out and saying they are “wrong.”

Anyway, when I was about 8 years old my great-grandmother asked me what sort of religions I knew the name of, so I listed all the ones I knew: Christian, Jewish, Budist, and Catholic. She was mightily displeased that I did not know that catholics are supposed to be Christians!
</hijack>

Despite what I was taught, I don’t feel that the Catholic religion is much more hypocritial than any other religion. However, the facts that they seem to worship statues, believe that the newly dead go to heaven or hell, and believe that the pope is infalliable do bother me somewhat. Only somewhat, though, I don’t believe in organized religion as a whole, so it doesn’t really affect me much unless I’m forced to go to a funeral or wedding in a Catholic chruch.

63

Elfkin,

I suggest you discover what Catholics do believe, as you might be surprised to discover that the “fact” that they worship statues is not very accurate and papal infallibility is terribly misunderstood by almost everyone (including some Catholics).

Reading over the former Catholics Christain thread linked to in the second post in this thread might give you a start.

64

Not interesting in the least. Tripe, through and through.

The cache of Gnostic gospels that included the gospel of Thomas was uncovered at Nag Hammadi in 1942, long before that ridiculous movie was ever conceived. Prior to that, the Gnostic gospels were known to exist and were not suppressed by anyone. After 1942, though there were many church-types who would have discredited the gospels, they were in the hands of the public to be studied freely and extensively.

A web search for the Christian Apocrypha will help you to find out more. Please do not rely on an Arquette sister (or even Gabriel Byrne) to provide an accurate account of history.

65

This may be a bit long, but please bear with me. First, Catholics are Disciples of Christ, (true or not?) Making them, by default and langauge, CHRISTians. As are the remainder of the off shoots, prods, bapts, and so on. Second, Anyway you cut it, all religion in existance today has it roots, somewhere, in paganism. Still, I hesitate to force my religious beliefs on anyone, I’ll leave THAT to the evangelists. The bottom line is, any religion, as it exists, is completely above reproach (with the possible exception of satanists, cause although I support their freedom, some o’ them folks is just icky) It’s when you add the human being that the turds hit the turbines. Of course, no humans, no religion, right? Maybe not. Are the Catholics hypocrites? Youbetcha. The Christians? uh-huh. The Jews, no doubt. The Bhuddists? Damn skippy. Pagans? affirmative. This draws a neat picture though, it says that PEOPLE are hypocritical, NOT their beliefs. Hmm, such a thought on a day like this one. I mean, something inanimate like a belief, animated by the masses, and given a life of its own. As we all know, anything with a life of its own, will eventually screw up. So where are we left? Simple. Yes, Catholics are Christians, and so are the rest of those who believe in Jesus CHRIST, no matter what they call themselves. Except the Jews, who have a 2500 year headstart on all of this nonsense. Except also, for the pagans, who have a 25,000 year headstart on all of this nonsense. Again, I resist the urge to promote my Witchy Ways, but will do so to say only this.
And It Harm None, Do What You Will.
This is a pretty tall order, encompassing everything else that most common religions cover, plus the aspect of nature, that we hold so dear. And, like any other religious law, it is broken on some level everyday. I submit to everyone, that whatever you so believe, that you do so with all of your heart and soul, with knowledge and reverence, and live a good life here in the mundane, and you will certainly be rewarded, by who, or what, may be waiting when the leave this veil. Blessed Be!
R

66

There are actually two somewhat different works known as the Gospel of Thomas. Both are (inadequately) discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia - Apocrypha (which predated the 1942 discoveries, being completed by 1919).

When that movie came out, we also had a thread (two threads?) discussing the fairly silly premise that included what actually is known about the “hidden” works and their history. (I’ll try wandering back in search of them, this evening, but the MB Search is currently limited to 90 days and it is too slow to go back manually during the day.)

67

[nitpick]

An It Harm None, . . . (If it harms no one, . . .)

The word an is a very old synonym for if, much beloved by Victorian and Edwardian poets and incorporated into the Wiccan Rule when the New Wicca was created in the last century.

[/nitpick]

68

Am I the only one here who thinks papal infallibility is a much bigger deal to some Protestants than it is to most Catholics? I can hardly even remember it being mentioned in my 16 years of Catholic education. Many Protestants seem to obsess over it though.

69

Hello, GoodWitch and welcome to The Straight Dope.

You wrote:

Anyway you cut it, all religion in existance today has it roots, somewhere, in paganism.

Exactly, how do you define paganism? Are you referring to the modern Neo-Pagan movement (started in the 20th century, CE) or the Archaic Pagans (the last organized pockets destroyed with the temples at Uppsala in the 12th century, CE)?

Except also, for the pagans, who have a 25,000 year headstart on all of this nonsense.

25,000 years!? Can you give us a citation for an organized religious practice from 25,000 years ago?

70

Hoo, boy! That sounds like a real groaner! Do I want to read it? I always feel dirty afterwords. (Which Doper was it who identified it as fundie porn?) I can’t resist. Tell me which tract you’re referring to, Tom.

71

Sheeesh! I don’t keep track of the titles of his drivel. Search his site for “King James Bible,” I think, to see that one.

72

Well, Catholics can be christians, obviously.
But I liek to think Chrsitians go by the Bible and it only.
2 things that bother me are where it says not to call any man Father, that is for God only.
And there is one mediator between man and God, Jesus.
Priests cannot forgive your sins.
Once a religion starts saying one man speaks for God, then soemthign is wrong.
We are all “priests”, as it were.

73

KJV:

John 20:
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
RSV:

John 20:
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
NIV:
John 20:
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
So, if you claim that no man has authority to forgive sins, I guess that would mean that you don’t actually believe the words that Jesus says in the bible?

If you go to the link I provided in this thread on 06-29-2001 03:27 AM and scroll down that thread to my post of 08-01-2000 09:35 PM, you will find my inadequate attempt to explain the forgiveness/confession/purgatory business from the perspective of the RCC.

I do not claim that my statements are definitive.

I do note that to get past John 20:23, you have to choose a) to not believe Jesus meant what he said, or b) that his commission died with the Apostles, or c) that somehow, the RCC has lost the commision that Jesus gave to the Apostles. There are arguments that can be made for each of those three positions. (Being a good mackeral-snapper, I reject them, of course.) However, you simply cannot claim that the bible does not support the concept of a human forgiving sin; you have to come up with a reason why Jesus’s words are no longer in effect.

As to two of your other points:
There is a problem with “go[ing] by the Bible and it only” that I mentioned, above. “The Bible” for at least 100 years after the death of Jesus and, (depending on your perspective), possibly up to 300 years after the death of Jesus, did not include the New Testament. What did all the early Christians “go by.”

Finally, the sharing of all Christians in the Priesthood of Jesus is a strong teaching of the RCC, one which is occasionally opposed by some Protestant groups.

74

<apologetics hat on>

The answers are a bit “folksy” at this site…but they are a starting point.

  1. use of term Father

“Jesus’ instruction when viewed in the context of the entire passage shows that what he was forbidding was giving honor and recognition reserved for God alone to men. If taken literally, we would all be sinning by referring to our biological fathers as “father.” This was not the intention of the Lord, rather it was to remind us that God is the One Father, Teacher, and Master of us all.”

also see http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q25

  1. Forgiveness of sins

“No mere man can forgive sins; only God can (Mark 2:7), which is why the priest performs the absolution “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” One of the primary reasons Jesus wanted the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be a personal encounter was so that the penitent would hear the words of absolution and truly believe he was forgiven. We sometimes wonder if God really hears us when we tell him we are sorry. During the absolution we hear not the priest but Jesus Christ himself telling us we are indeed forgiven.”

also see

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q18

</apologetics hat off>

75

sigh…tom wizzes by as I hack through my preview…grumble…grumble

76

Regarding Stigmata and the Gospel of Thomas, our two earlier threads were:
Stigmata and the Gospel of St. Thomas

which has a non-fuctioning link (since it points to the old UBB address) to this thread:
The Gospel According to Thomas- Fact or Fraud??

77

[don’t mind me]
Thank you, beagledave and tomndebb, I have very much enjoyed your articulations on this topic both in this thread and in past threads. You both say things much better than I ever could
[/back to regular programming]

78

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freyr *

Thanks for the welcome.

You wrote:

Exactly, how do you define paganism? Are you referring to the modern Neo-Pagan movement (started in the 20th century, CE) or the Archaic Pagans (the last organized pockets destroyed with the temples at Uppsala in the 12th century, CE)?
To answer your question, yes. Mostly all forms of organized religion today has pagan DNA, and pagan or paganism, meaning that the worship is based on the goings on in the the natural world, rather than the Worship of Jesus.

25,000 years!? Can you give us a citation for an organized religious practice from 25,000 years ago?
Organized, no. records, as you know, cannot be trusted as far back as yesterday, so a citation I cannot give. However, I can tell you that Margaret Murray has done some research that suggests that 25,000 years ago marks, in some form or fashion, the dawn of paganism, and thus, religion. I will find more and post it here. I think, though that for the most part, worship of any natural deity (i.e the sun etc.) can be construed as paganism, a broad brush, to be sure, but only, alas, an opinion.

R

79

Goodwitch,

Proposing the entire history of spiritual thought to be the “head start” of Twentieth Century Pagans in some sense that implies an exclusivity to that religion over all others is a rather self serving view. American Paganism is certainly not related in worship practices to any set of continuous ritual, or spiritual heritage beyond the previous century.

If it makes you feel better to claim that any primitive spiritualist, in prehistory is your religious forerunner, that is fine, but they are no less the forerunners of every other spiritual viewpoint, as well. Proof of even spoken language beyond twenty thousand years is relatively paltry, and those interpretation we hear of the such artifacts as the Lasceaux paintings, or early burial goods, are made from a modern prospective which presumes much in predicting the intent of the practices.

Every person believes his understanding of the nature of God includes the beginning of all. That’s sort of the whole point, you know, the beginning, and end, and how we fit into that? Besides, if you really think that its about all of life, and nature, and being, where do you get your twenty five thousand year cutoff? Johnny come lately, any way you look at it, dear. There has been life on this planet alone for three billions years, or more.

Now that’s a spiritual heritage. Want me to claim it as mine?

Tris

“I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads.” ~ George Santayana ~

80