anti-Catholic or not?

[RileyG]

None of which trumped apostolic teaching.

Which would have been determined by apostolic teaching.

What are nooks?

A Christian decision. . .

When did Christians begin calling themselves "Catholic"?

Around 107 AD per St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a companion of the apostle John.

 

[RileyG]

I do not consider the Catholic Chruch a Christian church although I believe there are Christians within the Catholic Church. The reason I would cite is that they preach "another gospel" which Paul wrote strongly against. The Catholic gospel puts salvation in the hands of the church with a mix of faith and works. They do not believe in salvation by faith alone. They have added many things to Bible claiming they have the authority to do so as "Christ's church on earth." They rest that authority on one passage in Matthew where Jesus addressed Peter as "the rock." That exchange is not recorded in the other three gospels including Mark's gospel which is universally agreed to be information from Peter. The NT is silent on Peter being the head of the church and being assigned an office that would be passed on. There are other reasonable understandings to what Jesus meant and there is no evidence Peter held a pope-like office. Yet, the Catholic understanding of that verse has been used to justify every non-biblical doctrine they have espoused. They take it to be a blank check to invent any doctrine claiming that God has revealed these things to them as the only legitimate church. They essentially put the church (their church) between man and God. Salvation is between man and the church. I say all those having been born and raised Catholic but having long since left.

You are misinformed. The Church doesn’t teach salvation can be earned. Period.

 

[Clare73]

Around 107 AD per St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a companion of the apostle John.

Why did they change from Christian?

 

[JSRG]

What are nooks?

A nook is "a corner or recess, especially one offering seclusion or security". The term isn't used much nowadays outside of the phrase "every nook and cranny". It's also the name for the tablet that Barnes and Noble sells.

However, I'm pretty sure they meant "books".

A Christian decision. . .

When did Christians begin calling themselves "Catholic"?

The first instance of Catholic (καθολικός) in surviving writings is found in Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaeans from a little after the year 100 AD, though we can be pretty sure that it was in use prior.

 

[concretecamper]

The first instance of Catholic (καθολικός) in surviving writings is found in Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaeans from a little after the year 100 AD, though we can be pretty sure that it was in use prior.

Exactly. Some on this thread don't think history is relevant unless explicitly referenced in the Bible.

Catholic reference was to the Catholic Church
Christians refer to members of the Catholic Church

 

[RileyG]

Why did they change from Christian?

Catholic simply meant universal. There were groups such as the gnostics showing up that denied the divinity of Christ and thought the material world was evil. They used the label Catholic to separate them from others.

For the record, we are Christians.

 

[Diamond72]

Exactly. Satan continues his attacks/influence even after someone leaves His Church.

We are still all ONE Church. That is what Catholic means is one Holy Universal Church.

The term “Catholic” indeed comes from the Greek word “katholikos,” which means “universal” or "general"1. It signifies the idea of a universal church that encompasses all Christians. This concept has been a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith since the early centuries12.

 

[concretecamper]

We are still all ONE Church. That is what Catholic means is one Holy Universal Church.

Sorry, we are not One Faith, One Church. I wish we were, but we are not.

 

[Diamond72]

Sorry, we are not One Faith, One Church. I wish we were, but we are not.

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) is a significant liturgical book used primarily in the Anglican Communion and by other Christian churches historically related to Anglicanism. It was first published in 1549 during the reign of King Edward VI of England and played a crucial role in the English Reformation12.

We are one church if you are a part of it or not.

The Protestant Church is not a single, unified entity. Instead, it consists of numerous denominations and independent churches that emerged from the Reformation in the 16th century12.

While they share some core beliefs, such as the authority of the Bible and justification by faith, they do not form a single organizational structure. Instead, they operate independently or within their respective denominational frameworks3.

 

[HarleyER]

That is the opposite of my interest here, which is to hear what others sincerely believe, without acrimony. Even those who believe things I strongly disagree with I want to hear spoken cleanly so that I can respond in kind, but argument, and not by emotion, by spiritual conviction and revelation, and not by intellect or pressure.

Yes, I think there is a linear curve indicating a move away from fundamental Christian beliefs from the time of the Reformation, both by Catholics and by Protestants. But neither am I sure that we can caricature either of these groups as necessarily following that curve?

Many can support Catholic resistance to Protestant arguments without doing anything more than protecting one's own sect. In other words, the argument may not involve truth at all, but only be a wish to protect the security of a particular organization.

Catholics today may hold to valid Christian dogma without being part of the dilution of doctrine carried on in Catholicism since the Reformation. At the same time, there are those whose resistance to Protestantism is more theological, with an interest in diluting truth. The same likely holds true for Protestants as well.

Yes, the Fundamentalists at the turn of last century wished to combat the trend towards Liberal Theology. And many since have seen the rise of the World Council of Churches as a step in the direction of accomodating aberrant Christian views, which is, after all, the essence of Religioius Liberalism.

As I said, the idea of "Faith Alone" is more complex than this simple statement. To one is meant that Christ alone is our Atonement. To another, Faith, properly, will include Works--not to self-atone, but rather, to obtain it from Christ as a gift. We must choose Christ above ourselves and repent of our own ways in order to respond in Faith to Christ's Word.

But for those who believe that Works and Rituals, like the Eucharist or belonging to the Catholic Church, are necessary for Salvation, we would offer "Faith Only" asw a remedy to this Socinian belief, or Pelagianism. It is either heresy or the approach of nominal Christianity to beliefs they cannot understand simply because they have not experienced it, or actually reject that experience.

Let me just say this about Armianism. I'm not Arminian--I'm much more on the side of Calvinism. But I'm also a believer in Free Will--much more so, perhaps, than either Luther or Calvin.

To explain this would require another thread, so I'll leave it at that. For now, I believe Christ alone is the virtue by which we are saved. But I believe God has endowed us in creation with His virtue to be able to respond to His Word. Thus, we can choose for Salvation without contradiction.

As I said, the idea of "Faith Alone" is more complex than this simple statement.

I really don't think it's complicated at all. To a true Reformed Protestant, faith alone means that God has granted us salvation through His Son. All our good works that we might achieve are generated through us by the Son. He is the vine. We are the branches. Without Him we can do nothing. Eph 2:10 says this best, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." God prepared our good works beforehand and the reason we are saved is so that we will perform the good works God has given us.

For a Catholic (and many others), good works constitutes going out and doing something for God. Thus, we throw some money in the collection plate, we help out at a homeless shelter, we even help little old ladies cross the street. These are all "feel good" works. It is nothing more than what the Pharisees were trying to achieve.

All works, all faith, all repentence, and everything else comes from our gracious and sovereign God. It is black and white.

We must choose Christ above ourselves and repent of our own ways in order to respond in Faith to Christ's Word.

This is a Catholic idea. Have you ever read Luther's book "Bondage of the Will"?

 

[Diamond72]

I really don't think it's complicated at all. To a true Reformed Protestant, faith alone means that God has granted us salvation through His Son.

Human faith, on its own, might seem insignificant compared to the Divine faith that God instills within us. This Divine faith is often seen as a gift and a fruit of God’s work in our lives, making it much more powerful and transformative.

 

[RileyG]

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) is a significant liturgical book used primarily in the Anglican Communion and by other Christian churches historically related to Anglicanism. It was first published in 1549 during the reign of King Edward VI of England and played a crucial role in the English Reformation12.

We are one church if you are a part of it or not.

The Protestant Church is not a single, unified entity. Instead, it consists of numerous denominations and independent churches that emerged from the Reformation in the 16th century12.

While they share some core beliefs, such as the authority of the Bible and justification by faith, they do not form a single organizational structure. Instead, they operate independently or within their respective denominational frameworks3.

Correct. And?

 

[Diamond72]

And?

And we are here to learn how to love one another. To be united not divided.

 

[HarleyER]

That is the opposite of my interest here, which is to hear what others sincerely believe, without acrimony. Even those who believe things I strongly disagree with I want to hear spoken cleanly so that I can respond in kind, but argument, and not by emotion, by spiritual conviction and revelation, and not by intellect or pressure.

Yes, I think there is a linear curve indicating a move away from fundamental Christian beliefs from the time of the Reformation, both by Catholics and by Protestants. But neither am I sure that we can caricature either of these groups as necessarily following that curve?

Many can support Catholic resistance to Protestant arguments without doing anything more than protecting one's own sect. In other words, the argument may not involve truth at all, but only be a wish to protect the security of a particular organization.

Catholics today may hold to valid Christian dogma without being part of the dilution of doctrine carried on in Catholicism since the Reformation. At the same time, there are those whose resistance to Protestantism is more theological, with an interest in diluting truth. The same likely holds true for Protestants as well.

Yes, the Fundamentalists at the turn of last century wished to combat the trend towards Liberal Theology. And many since have seen the rise of the World Council of Churches as a step in the direction of accomodating aberrant Christian views, which is, after all, the essence of Religioius Liberalism.

As I said, the idea of "Faith Alone" is more complex than this simple statement. To one is meant that Christ alone is our Atonement. To another, Faith, properly, will include Works--not to self-atone, but rather, to obtain it from Christ as a gift. We must choose Christ above ourselves and repent of our own ways in order to respond in Faith to Christ's Word.

But for those who believe that Works and Rituals, like the Eucharist or belonging to the Catholic Church, are necessary for Salvation, we would offer "Faith Only" asw a remedy to this Socinian belief, or Pelagianism. It is either heresy or the approach of nominal Christianity to beliefs they cannot understand simply because they have not experienced it, or actually reject that experience.

Let me just say this about Armianism. I'm not Arminian--I'm much more on the side of Calvinism. But I'm also a believer in Free Will--much more so, perhaps, than either Luther or Calvin.

To explain this would require another thread, so I'll leave it at that. For now, I believe Christ alone is the virtue by which we are saved. But I believe God has endowed us in creation with His virtue to be able to respond to His Word. Thus, we can choose for Salvation without contradiction.

It occurred to me that while I often quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian) and the London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist), I have been remissed in looking up to see what the original Lutheran fathers had to say which is documented in the Book of Concord of 1580. These documents of the early Protestants never contradict one another on major points of doctrine and vary slightly on their interpretation of things like church formation or the Eucharist. Not unexpectedly, my statement above on faith and good works is consistent with what the Book of Concord states.

Of faith and good works the Book of Concord (1580) states the following:

Article XX. Of Faith and Good Works (in part)​

[27] It is taught further, that good works should and must be performed, not with a view of placing confidence in them as meriting grace, but in accordance with his will, and for the glory of God. [28] Faith alone constantly secures grace and forgiveness of sins. [29] And because the Holy Spirit is given through faith, the heart becomes qualified to perform good works. [31] For before this, while it is without the Holy Spirit, it is too weak; [32] besides it is in the power of Satan, who urges frail human nature to many sins: [33] as we see among the philosophers, who resolving to live honorably and unblamably, were unable to effect it, [34] and fell into many great and open sins. So it happens with all men who attempt, without true faith and without the Holy Spirit, to govern themselves by their own strength alone. [35] Wherefore, the doctrine concerning faith does not deserve censure as discouraging good works, but should much rather be applauded as teaching the performance of good works, and as offering assistance by which good works may be performed. [36] For without faith, and out of Christ, the nature and ability of man are much too weak to do good works, [37] to call upon God, to have patience in sufferings, to love his neighbor, faithfully to execute commissions, to be obedient, to avoid evil lusts. [38] Such exalted and righteous works cannot be performed without the assistance of Christ, [39] as he himself says, John 15:5: "Without me, ye can do nothing."​

​

The Book of Concord of 1580 - Articles of Faith and Doctrine (I-XXI)

Written in German by Philip Melanchthon (1530) English Translation by Ambrose and Socrates Henkel (1851), Revised by C. P. Krauth (1854) Link to Bente/Dau Translation from Latin (1921) Article I: [Of God] [1] Our churches unanimously hold and teach, agreeably to the Decree of the Council of

www.1580boc.org

The problem today is that Protestants very rarely will go back to these great Protestant doctrines developed by great men to keep their faith on target. Consequently, their is constant confuse as to what people believe. What's worst is that people frequently unknowingly reject what the Protestants leaders taught on the manner. I might hasten to add, that our Protestant forebearers didn't make this stuff up in a vacuum. Rather they frequently referred to the writings of the early church fathers. What they taught is the gospel rediscovered. To stray from their doctrine is to stray from the gospel.

 

[Servus]

Some Catholics would say we have accommodated Protestants too much.

You mean those who go Lone Ranger in deciding what Vatican policy should be?

 

[Servus]

Sorry, we are not One Faith, One Church. I wish we were, but we are not.

Isn't One Faith, fath in Jesus Christ?

 

[Sunflower39]

All I see on these forums are debates between Catholics and Protestants. Personally, I believe that we’re all Christians, despite our differences. Even within Protestant groups, there are diverse views. We all hold our beliefs to be true, but at the end of the day, we’re more alike than different. We all believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and that should unite us in love rather than divide us.

 

[Servus]

All I see on these forums are debates between Catholics and Protestants. Personally, I believe that we’re all Christians, despite our differences. Even within Protestant groups, there are diverse views. We all hold our beliefs to be true, but at the end of the day, we’re more alike than different. We all believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and that should unite us in love rather than divide us.

Yes so true. And the thing is we're all allowed to post in the "Christians Only" section because we all agree on the foundational doctrines of Christianity.

 

[Blaise N]

I don't really want this post to be an anti-Catholic screed, but I was raised a Lutheran and have recently been approached with anti-Catholic sentiments. On another forum, I received the following, and I replied. So if it is on the "harsh" side, I wish only to represent history as I read it, and present my feelings as I've felt it...

I would only differ slightly. Luther's original purpose was not anti-Catholic. But it ended up being there specifically because Catholics vehementy opposed what for Luther was explicit biblical doctrine.

Luther felt he found the key to avoiding Christian Nominalism, aka a "dead faith." To know Christ personally by faith was central to the Christian faith, and took place simply by submission to the fact Christ can do what we ourselves cannot do. We accept his Justification by his Atonement, and not by anything we can do without him.

Catholics doubled down on their opposition to Luther's complaints, in particular his concern about "Indulgences." Even worse, they were duplicitous and tried to maneuver Luther into coming into a trap where he would be burned at the stake.

Luther realized how corrupt Catholic leadership had become in his time, and perhaps wrote off all Catholics for all time at that point? He identified them as "the Antichrist."

Those who departed from this Nominal Faith, replete with "substitutes for Christ," could find regeneration in his doctrine of "Faith Only." In other words, Salvation by "Christ Only," and not by the Works and Traditions of Catholic exclusivity.

My own view of Catholicism is that it is not "the Antichrist," though some elements of it are, to me, Antichristian. As you suggest, Mary's Immaculate Conception is non-Christian and can lead some to a virtual antiChristian proposition that any non-Catholic view is corrupt and lost. That is "Antichristian."

There are a number of wrongs in the Catholic Church, the absolute authority of the Pope when he speaks "from his throne," the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary being the "Queen of Heaven," prayers to the saints, and the veneration of religious tradition as a substitute for genuine Faith, etc.

However, many churches have problems with their congregations and with their own exclusive traditions. Where do we draw the line? A "High Church" is a State Church and naturally includes believers and unbelievers in its Congregation!

I would say that Protestants did the right thing in drawing a line between them and the Catholic Church. One must reform traditions that create non-biblical guidelines to living in Faith.

I won't call all Catholics non-Christian. But I would warn them of the sectarian spirit within Catholicism, because clearly, Paul condemned that!
Randy

Personally it’s not the Catholic people I’m against it’s the numerous things entailing Catholicism that worry me.The worship of Mary,Removal of the second commandment,requiring priests be addressed as father,etc

I don’t want this to sound like a critical opinion of Catholics.i love them deeply,but I can’t help but feel like something is completely wrong with these Catholic doctrines

 

[concretecamper]

Isn't One Faith, fath in Jesus Christ?

Yes, Christ and His Church are One. Unity in His Church is Unity in Him.

Unfortunately, we have many who put themselves ahead of Him and His Church.