anti-Catholic or not?

RandyPNW said:

Catholics doubled down on their opposition to Luther's complaints...

Randy

Click to expand...

I watched a YouTube series about the formation of the various denominations -- UsefulCharts: Christian Denominations Family Tree. Very interesting, albeit long. If you have the time, I found it very educational.

The lesson I indirectly drew from his presentation is that there appears to be the following cycle:

1. First, there are some reformers that dissatisfied with the status quo ...
2. So they try to institute change within their organization.
3. The powers-that-be often resist change, and thus ...
4. the reformers break away and set up a new organization.
5. But then this new organization seems to crystalize into a new inflexible system until ...
6. the cycle repeats.

I think you raised at least 2 points:

1. Do Catholics have doctrines that you and others have disagree with?
2. Do Catholics have flexibility, ability, and willingness to change in response to doctrinal problems as they come to light?

Regarding point #2, I would argue that this is not a particularly Catholic issue. Every denomination -- including my own -- has this problem. I am SDA, which has a distributed governance type organization. Pastors are paid by the organization, and are thus answerable to that organization. So what will happen if a pastor has a doctrinal difference of opinion? I don't know all the details, and I'm sure there is due process. But ultimately a church is not going to pay for someone to teach things that are outside the accepted standard. I suspect this is true in many denominations. I think that many Baptist churches are congregational (pastor is answerable only to a board of elders), which may avoid some of these problems. Again, though, I don't know the particulars.

One particular issue my denomination has faced has been the ordination of female pastors. Church conferences on the west coast of the US have gone forward with the practice. But many more conservative conferences in Latin America do not feel this is right. There have been meetings between the conferences, but I don't think a unified resolution has come out yet. I try to stay away from such politics. This particular issue is felt to not be sufficient to cause a split in the way that the United Methodist church recently split. So perhaps my denomination is doing an OK job of trying to be flexible, and meet people's needs, but not tear itself apart.

A deeper questions would be, how SHOULD these things be sorted out? In the first recorded meeting of the Christian church, at the Council of Jerusalem, they gathered and debated the issue of circumcision etc. Ultimately a resolution was established, though perhaps all did not agree. This seems like a reasonable solution. And it is all these accumulated synods that make up Catholic traditional teaching. Much of it good, but I feel not all.

I don't have all the answers. Ultimately, if we are sheep and Jesus is our shepherd and leader, then He may lead his flock in circuitous paths. If any establishment decides that they have it all figured out, and circles the wagons around their established "truth", there are going to be problems when God has new plans.

Best wishes,

KT

RandyPNW said:

I won't call all Catholics non-Christian.

Click to expand...

Well thanks, awfully kind of you.

But I hope you are aware that there is a great deal of diversity within the Catholic Church. Some see that as unfortunate but others as a richness.

Both in theology and in spirituality there is a freedom to live and interpret the faith within basic parameters,

NotUrAvgGuy said:

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."

Click to expand...

Peter is "rock," and on that rock of faith in Jesus Christ expressed by Peter, his church (called-out assembly) is built.

I'm not anti-Catholic. I just disagree that certain Catholic dogma and tradition has a genuine foundation in scripture. I'd prefer it if the RCC just said 'this is something we came up with on our own', rather than apply eisegesis to try making it look scriptural when it really isn't.

ozso said:

I'm not anti-Catholic. I just disagree that certain Catholic dogma and tradition has a genuine foundation in scripture

Click to expand...

That's OK, we all can't be perfect.

One's beliefs do not "Make" one Christians.

Water Baptism makes one part of The Body of Christ and a Christian. That is pretty clear in the Gospel.

After Baptism, many choose the wrong path and believe novel ideas, but they don't cease to be a Christian.

netchaplain said:

Just wanted to share with you that Luther's primary goal was to expose Catholicism's false teachings.

Click to expand...

"I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics" (Martin Luther, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics).

concretecamper said:

That's OK, we all can't be perfect.

One's beliefs do not "Make" one Christians.

Water Baptism makes one part of The Body of Christ and a Christian. That is pretty clear in the Gospel.

After Baptism, many choose the wrong path and believe novel ideas, but they don't cease to be a Christian.

Click to expand...

Very well said. We as Christians love the Lord and desire to follow His teaching and obey His commandments and to love one another.

RandyPNW said:

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."

Click to expand...

It's ironic that the user you quoted identified the Immaculate Conception as the "most decadent" of Catholic doctrines, and that you called it anti-Christian, because it, along with the sinlessness of Mary, is one Martin Luther held himself:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Martin Luther, Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil." (Martin Luther, Little Prayer Book, 1522)

RandyPNW said:

the perpetual virginity of Mary

Click to expand...

This is another one Luther believed in and defended in his writings. The most easily accessible one online is titled something like "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew," if you're interested in looking it up.

RandyPNW said:

Mary being the "Queen of Heaven,"

Click to expand...

This is another title Luther used. Here's a Lutheran source on the subject:

zippy2006 said:

"I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics" (Martin Luther, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics).

Click to expand...

The idea that Luther was trying to be antagonistic toward the Catholic Church is a common misunderstanding among many later generations of Protestants highly removed from the Reformation itself. Indeed, Luther would have had far worse things to say about many Protestants today than he would have ever said about Rome. The quote you present is evidence of this. The "fanatics" in this context were the Swiss Christians under Ulrich Zwingli.

-CryptoLutheran

RandyPNW said:

I said that I differed slightly from netchaplain, and indicated that what is "Antichristian" about this is not that particular believe, but rather, the fact it apparently led to attempts to have Luther put to death.

Click to expand...

I do see that distinction now, thank you for pointing it out.

concretecamper said:

Water Baptism makes one part of The Body of Christ and a Christian. That is pretty clear in the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Baptism of the Holy Spirit makes on part of the body of Christ and a Christian. Anyone can get water baptised, even those who do not believe. Water baptism does nothing if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

Water baptism is a sign and seal of Jesus uniting a person to Himself, and thereby making Him or Her visibly a member of His Church.
Baptism is a sign of three totally underserved, gracious things that Jesus does for Christians. First, it is a sing of being washed clean, because Christians have been washed clean from their sins by Jesus' death on the cross. Second, it is a sign of dying and rising to a new life, because a Christian's old self has died and they have risen to a new life with Jesus, and there will be a day when their bodies also will be raised from the dead, as Jesus was. Third, the poured water is a sign of Holy Spirit whom Jesus pours out on all who trust in Him.

Baptism does not automatically do any of these thins. But when a baptised person believes the promises contained in their baptism, God does somehow use it to do these things for them. Therefore for baptism to be of any value to the baptised person, they must love, serve and trust Jesus for the rest of their life.

Clare73 said:

Peter is "rock," and on that rock of faith in Jesus Christ expressed by Peter, his church (called-out assembly) is built.

Click to expand...

(The following is an excerpt from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16 .)

Peter is from petros, a masculine form of the Greek word for small stone, whereas rock is from petra, a different form of the same basic word, referring to a rocky mountain or peak. Perhaps the most popular interpretation is therefore that Jesus was comparing Peter, a small stone, to the great mountainous rock on which He would build His church. The antecedent of rock is taken to be Peter’s divinely inspired confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (vv. 16–17).

That interpretation is faithful to the Greek text and has much to commend it, but it seems more likely that, in light of other New Testament passages, that was not Jesus’ point. In his letter to Ephesus Paul says that God’s household is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). In all four gospel accounts Peter is clearly the leading apostle, and he remains so through Acts 10. He was most often the Twelve’s spokesman during Jesus’ earthly ministry (see, e.g., Matt. 15:15; 19:27; John 6:68), and he was the chief preacher, leader, and worker of miracles in the early years of the church (see, e.g., Acts 1:15–22; 2:14–40; 3:4–6, 12–26; 5:3–10, 15, 29).

It therefore seems that in the present passage Jesus addressed Peter as representative of the Twelve. In light of that interpretation, the use of the two different forms of the Greek for rock would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual man and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group.

It was not on the apostles themselves, much less on Peter as an individual, that Christ built His church, but on the apostles as His uniquely appointed, endowed, and inspired teachers of the gospel. The early church did not give homage to the apostles as persons, or to their office or titles, but to their doctrine, “continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). When the Jews outside the Temple were astonished at the healing of the crippled man, Peter quickly warned them not to credit him with the miracle, saying, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?” (Acts 3:12). Although it was he alone who commanded the man to walk (v. 6), Peter replied to the crowd in John’s behalf as well as his own.

Because they participated with the apostles in proclaiming the authoritative gospel of Jesus Christ, the prophets of the early church were also part of the church’s foundation (Eph. 2:20). In fact, as Martin Luther observed, “All who agree with the confession of Peter [in Matt. 16:16] are Peters themselves setting a sure foundation.” The Lord is still building His church with “living stones … built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5).

Therefore, whether one interprets Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter as a small stone placed on the mountainous stone of his confession of Christ or as referring to his being one with the rest of the Twelve in his confession, the basic truth is the same: The foundation of the church is the revelation of God given through His apostles, and the Lord of the church is the cornerstone of that foundation. Because it is His Word that the apostles taught and that the faithful church has always taught, Jesus Christ Himself is the true foundation, the living Word to whom the written Word bears witness (John 5:39). And “No man,” Paul says-not even an apostle-“can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). The Lord builds the church on the truth of Himself, and because His people are inseparable from Him they are inseparable from His truth. And because the apostles were endowed with His truth in a unique way, by their preaching of that truth they were the foundation of His church in a unique way.

Although Peter recognized himself as an apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed, … when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4).

RandyPNW said:

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

Click to expand...

Before Luther there was Wycliff and Johnathan Hess, among others who were persecuted and hated by the Church. Luther was simply a main focus of consolidating what others were saying, the just shall live by faith. Luther as others were saying, recognized that one cannot do good things for God to earn their salvation. This is still the believe of Catholics that, once you come into right relationship with God, you must continue to receive grace through the Eucharist and other works.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

Anyone can get water baptised, even those who do not believe. Water baptism does nothing if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

Click to expand...

Yes, this new idea you present has becomes popular with protestants within the last 100 years. However, I'll stick with Scripture and what His Church has taught for close to 2,000 years.

concretecamper said:

I'll stick with Scripture

Click to expand...

Ok let's look at Scripture.

John 3:3 ' Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Lord Jesus says you have to be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. The question, born again of what?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
We have to be born of the Holy Spirit. Unless one is born again of the Holy Spirit, one will not enter the Kingdom of God, no matter what they do. You can get water baptized every day, and it will be for nothing.
Now, the verse says we have to be born of water. What does that mean? It simply means being washed up by God who alone can wash away our sins. Again, you can be water baptized all you want, but unless God washes away your sins, it will do nothing.

If you don't trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour, water baptism does nothing.