Catholicism

[throughfiierytrial]

What is the difference between Catholicism or Catholicity and Christianity?

Catholics add to and thereby take away from Christianity by their reverence of the Pope, the saints (and they do not acknowledge that all true believers are saints as named such by Scripture itself) and Mary the mother of Jesus.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Hello, and may your prayers be answered. I admire your faith for it is always God upon whom we should rely to lead us through our journey. I was a non-catholic until God me into his Church. I was baptized into the Catholic Church in 1983 and have loved my time learning God's will.

Trust God as you have and when it is time, the veil will be remooved and your path will become clear.

God bless

Yarddog, thank you so, so much. May God bless you very much!

 

[JacksBratt]

I believe that our good works in Christ are an integral aspect of our salvation. And that faith and works through grace are the means by which we are saved by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I don't believe that works are necessary for salvation.
I believe that works are proof of salvation.
Also, Catholics believe that the bread is Christs actual body and the wine or juice is actually His blood and not "emblems" as they are recognized in protestant church circles.
Protestants don't believe that you need to confess to a Priest. It is much better, on some occasions, to confess to someone else. But, this is not necessary and Protestants believe that a direct prayer to Christ is all you need.
Protestants also do not pray to dead people, Saints or Mary.
Protestants also believe Mary had other children, sinned and needed salvation as all humans.
Her birth was a normal birth and she was not the second Ark who needed to be sinless in order to carry Jesus to term.
Protestants do not do "penance" or payments for forgiveness from sin... a repentant heart is all that is necessary.
Some Protestants feel that Catholics are idol worshipers due to the praying to crosses, statues and other man made objects which represent Christ, Mary, Saints or whatever.
The protestant cross is just the cross. Jesus is absent from the crucifix as He came down was buried, resurrected and ascended to His father. The cross, is then empty.
Some protestants do not believe that Christ was arrested on Friday and raised on Sunday morning.
Jesus Christ was crucified on Wednesday, April 25, 31 A.D. —in the middle of the week (Daniel 9:27). He died on the stake shortly after 3 PM that afternoon and was buried before sundown Wednesday evening. Now count three days and three nights—72 full hours. He arose Saturday, the weekly Sabbath, in the late afternoon, shortly before sunset at the same time of day He was buried. Sunday morning the tomb was found empty, before sunrise.

Hope this helps to see some of the differences.

I did not post to argue the validity of the different views.. just to present them.

 

[PeaceB]

Catholics add to and thereby take away from Christianity

Well, assuming that were true, which it is not, it would still not be nearly as bad as you taking 7 books of the inspired word of God, and throwing them into the trash. Good luck with that.

 

[PeaceB]

Protestants also believe Mary had other children,

I think a fair number of Lutherans still hold perpetual virginity.

The protestant cross is just the cross. Jesus is absent from the crucifix as He came down was buried, resurrected and ascended to His father. The cross, is then empty.

From what I understand, a fair number of Anglicans and Lutherans use the crucifix. We preach Christ crucified, as did St. Paul.

 

[Devin P]

What is the difference between Catholicism or Catholicity and Christianity?

Well, the main difference is the priesthood. This will be a long post, with many points, so bear with me! I will get a lot of hate for it, but you deserve all points of view to have your question answered.

Alright, so starting with the priesthood. So, God is very specific about who He allows to be priest, as we find out by Korah's Rebellion. Which was literally where Korah, family and friends thought that since they too had a relationship with God, and God also talked with them in dreams, that they had the right and authority to offer sacrifices and atone for their own sins instead of the priesthood that God established through Aaron. God quickly proved them wrong by having the ground swallow up their entire families, and instantly smiting down the ones in the tabernacle that were offering up sacrifices, and giving atonement for their own sins in the place of Aaron.

See, now back when the priesthood was still in the hands of Levites, of man, Aaron and his lineage (his sons) were the only priesthood God commanded, until Jesus came to earth. It was specific to Levites, and more specifically, the Levitical sons of Aaron.

Hebrews 7:12-15
12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

In the verses above, we see that although Moses didn't speak of the priesthood coming being given to one born of the tribe of Judah (Jesus, who was of the tribe of Judah), Jesus was made Priest.

Then, later in the chapter:

Hebrews 7:22-28
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Here, we see that Jesus was made Priest, because men being priest is temporary, and likely to become flawed. Their sacrifices are temporary, and their priesthoods are temporary, but Jesus's Priesthood is permanent, and His sacrifice is permanent.

So, my point, if Jesus is our Priest, and is flawless in doing His job, wouldn't attempting to make a priesthood out of men, again (the very same thing Jesus did away with) be denying Jesus's job that He's doing on our behalf?

God is very particular over who is acting on man's behalf as priest. Before Jesus's sacrifice, it had to be the Levitical sons of Aaron. Anyone that tried to do it aside from them, were considered heeding to demons, sacrificing to demons, and in some cases God just straight up smote down entire camps of people because of it. How much more would He be against people doing the same thing, but to Jesus's Priesthood, instead of man's priesthood?

--------------------------------------------------------
History

If you look into the history of catholicism, it's very popular for introducing paganism into the worship of God in order to make it "easier for them to come to Jesus".

You see, Rome back in the day (1st-4th centuries) was riddles with pagans. The emperors, constantine, etc, although history paints them to be christians, when you actually search the matters out for yourself, without relying on biased christian sources, you see that although some of them (constantine especially) professed christianity, they still openly worshipped their pagan "deities". Constantine worshipped the sun, hence him passing a law in 321 ad, that forced all christians to worship on the "venerable day of the sun".

If they didn't, and were found worshipping on the biblical sabbath, they'd be excommunicated (forced by humiliation, force, or public outcry and revolt out of the city), which then evolved into putting those found keeping the biblical sabbath to death. I can get into more of the history behind this, but the post is long enough. I'll at least post a quote from Constantine about this though, since I know the hatred and disagreement I'll get involving it.

First Sunday Law enacted by Emperor Constantine -
March, 321 A.D.

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].)

------------------------------------------------
St. Peter's square

There is also, blatant pagan symbolism in St. Peter's square. I'll upload a picture, and show you my point.

Now, in one of the pictures from far off, you can see the obelisk, and in the other from overhead you can see the sun wheel.

What's the big deal?

Well, paganism started essentially with the offspring of Ham. Egypt, came from Ham. My point is, there's ancient mythology regarding the sun god's death, and long story short, he was cut into 14 pieces, cast across the earth, and his penis was thrown into the nile river. His penis was believed to be the representation of his power, and his wife, Semiramis hers was her womanly equivalent. One, historically (and you can easily verify this by researching into it, this is what egyptians, and pagans every since that venerate the sun have and still do believe) they'd always use obelisks to represent the sun god's member, and circles, or wreathes to represent the womb. Why? Because, there have been, and still are people, that desire to bring about once more the sun god's coming. There is no sun god though, there is only the enemy.

What's even more weird though, is when you get into it, all societies that worshipped the sun god throughout history, all attributed the same exact birthday to him, all of them looked the same, all of them had the same customs, the same story, it's the same being that they're worshipping. You can verify all of this by looking into what I'm saying on google, it's fascinating, and gives us a look into the minds of these people.


Back to obelisks though.
In fact, there's actually an obelisk that came from egypt, that in 1587 pope Sixtus V found, had repaired, and placed in the Piazza S. Giovanni in Lateran. It literally still stands there today.

Even the cap that the popes wear, comes straight from the cap that sun worshipping priests wore in Egypt. We're supposed to be using the bible as our sole source of authority, where in the bible does it say to wear one of those? Not only does it not mandate any such thing, but it's actually against covering your head as a man during prayer, because our head is the glory of Jesus. Women are actually (according to scripture) supposed to cover their head, because their head is the glory of man, which is to be covered.

1 Corinthians 11:4-7
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

------------------------------------------------------
Pope

Now, the pope, is someone Catholics feel has a direct communication with God, and that disrespecting the pope, is straight up disrespecting God. That, the pope is an extension of God essentially, what he says is absolute, and you can't question it. Well, the pope today, is trying to get us to mix all religions together. Pope Francis himself has said that muslims and christians worship the same God, which obviously isn't true. Then, if you go back at some of the sayings of the popes throughout history:

Pope Innocent III "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God."

The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II (note, this is how they viewed their pope) - "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou has given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth"

Pope Nicholas: "I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do... wherefore, if those things I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God?"

The RC New York catechism states: "The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth... by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils;"

Where are any of the things said above in scripture? Absolutely, positively, nowhere.

There are so, so, SO many more of these, that I can't even begin to type them all. My point is, catholicism, is the biggest deception in all of christianity. Based on that last quote, it's more of a cult, than anything. Because anything the pope says, even if it's contrary to scripture, people blindly eat it up, because the pope said. We've been conditioned and indoctrinated to believe that the pope is, as that quote said "infallible" that anything and everything he says is truth, when most of what RCC does contradicts scripture. It has caused christians to continually break the 4th commandment, with no other support other than the catholic church demanding it be kept on the sunday.

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921),
in a signed letter.

"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the church change the event day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day? I answer no!

Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons."

 

[disciple1]

What is the difference between Catholicism or Catholicity and Christianity?

Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholic's go more by human tradition than the bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

I think a fair number of Lutherans still hold perpetual virginity.


From what I understand, a fair number of Anglicans and Lutherans use the crucifix. We preach Christ crucified, as did St. Paul.

I agree. I was just commenting on the fact that many of the crucifixes that they use and are the topic of idol worship, are still depicted with Christ on them... no big deal though.

 

[Athanasius377]

Well, assuming that were true, which it is not, it would still not be nearly as bad as you taking 7 books of the inspired word of God, and throwing them into the trash. Good luck with that.

That is not true. The Old Testament apocrypha was included in protestant translations of the bible until 1800's due to pressure from bible societies and missionary groups to lesson the cost of printing. What we protestants state is that is that the OT apocrypha is not scripture, period. The books originally we separated into an appendix and placed at the end of the OT. We regard them as edifying, but not scripture. The reasons why we reject the books are because they were rejected by the Jews of the first century, they are historically (almost laughably) inaccurate, the books do not make the claim they are inspired. Jerome who translated the Vulgate (Latin version) bible states in the introduction that the books in questions are NOT to be included in the canon. Athanasius denies the books are to be included in the canon in his 39th festal letter. Pope Gregory the Great also denied the inspiration of these books. Lastly, Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther's also denies the inspiration of these books.

The books were never part of the Jewish canon according to Josephus. They were never laid up in the Temple nor did they make the hands ceremonially unclean. The so-called council of Jammnia theory is largely rejected by scholars today as it was likely an academy. What we do know about the debate regarding the canon of the Jews was largely whether Lamentations was to be included with Jeremiah or not and whether Ester was inspired. At no point was the subject of these books ever debated during the first century.

Two sources I would recommend are "An Introduction to the Apocrypha" by Bruce Metzger and "Antiquities" by Josephus. That later is available free on the web, the Metzger work, like his others are pretty pricey brand new but can be found used around the internet.

 

[Devin P]

Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholic's go more by human tradition than the bible.

Infinitely more on human tradition. Everything from pope, priest, to the designs and decorations of the pagan sun gods in their churches and buildings and courtyards, the rooms built entirely out of dead bones of popes under certain churches and the vatican, the hat that the pope wears, the change from saturday to sunday, venerating mary, etc.

 

[Devin P]

I think a fair number of Lutherans still hold perpetual virginity.


From what I understand, a fair number of Anglicans and Lutherans use the crucifix. We preach Christ crucified, as did St. Paul.

Why do people believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin? I think that's what you're saying, I'm not sure. Jesus had brothers though.

 

[Athanasius377]

Why do people believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin? I think that's what you're saying, I'm not sure. Jesus had brothers though.

It is a pious opinion held by some even in my church body. Theab belief has more to do with the influence of gnostic texts being read by early Christians than anything else. The term "Mother of God, or better put as Theotokos (God Bearer) refers to Christ not any special virtue possessed by Mary. Specifically, the Protevangelium of James chapter 19 is where you first find mention of the perpetual virginity of Mary. You can find a translation of the text here:
Infancy Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

 

[PeaceB]

That is not true. The Old Testament apocrypha was included in protestant translations of the bible until 1800's due to pressure from bible societies and missionary groups to lesson the cost of printing. What we protestants state is that is that the OT apocrypha is not scripture, period. The books originally we separated into an appendix and placed at the end of the OT. We regard them as edifying, but not scripture. The reasons why we reject the books are because they were rejected by the Jews of the first century, they are historically (almost laughably) inaccurate, the books do not make the claim they are inspired. Jerome who translated the Vulgate (Latin version) bible states in the introduction that the books in questions are NOT to be included in the canon. Athanasius denies the books are to be included in the canon in his 39th festal letter. Pope Gregory the Great also denied the inspiration of these books. Lastly, Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther's also denies the inspiration of these books.

The books were never part of the Jewish canon according to Josephus. They were never laid up in the Temple nor did they make the hands ceremonially unclean. The so-called council of Jammnia theory is largely rejected by scholars today as it was likely an academy. What we do know about the debate regarding the canon of the Jews was largely whether Lamentations was to be included with Jeremiah or not and whether Ester was inspired. At no point was the subject of these books ever debated during the first century.

Two sources I would recommend are "An Introduction to the Apocrypha" by Bruce Metzger and "Antiquities" by Josephus. That later is available free on the web, the Metzger work, like his others are pretty pricey brand new but can be found used around the internet.

Every Bible from the Vulgate to the reformation included the books. Over a period of one thousand six hundred years you have found a total of 4 people who expressed doubts about the books. That is weak sauce.

The canon was not closed at the time of Christ, and what Jews consider canon is quite irrelevant in any event, because they reject Christ and the entire New Testament. They have no authority or mission from God concerning the Scriptures. Whatever authority or mission they may have had they lost when they rejected Christ. And obviously they would need to reject a book such as the second chapter of Wisdom because it contains a clear prophecy of Christ.

Certain books such as Judith in particular are not meant to be read as literal history. What is laughable is when people attempt to read them as such when on the face of them they are not intended as such.

As far as not claiming to be inspired, you could throw out half of the Bible if that is your reason for throwing out books. What books will you remove next?

Jerome is of no help to you because he ultimately accepted the decision of the Church.

Athanasius is also of no help to you because he included Baruch in his canon.

The Church that Jesus founded had authority to declare what is the canon and what is not in the canon. And the same Church that declared the 27 books of the NT canon also declared the 7 books that you reject canon. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had no legitimate authority or mission from God to remove the books from the Bible.

I just hope that you all are not done removing books.

 

[PeaceB]

Infinitely more on human tradition. Everything from pope, priest, to the designs and decorations of the pagan sun gods in their churches and buildings and courtyards, the rooms built entirely out of dead bones of popes under certain churches and the vatican, the hat that the pope wears, the change from saturday to sunday, venerating mary, etc.

Jack Chick?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What is the difference between Catholicism or Catholicity and Christianity?

Well, none. Catholicism is a form of Christianity; this is a bit like asking what the difference is between roses and flowers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why do people believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin? I think that's what you're saying, I'm not sure. Jesus had brothers though.

It's an extremely ancient and pious opinion of the Church. It's not a uniquely Catholic belief, it's accepted by all the ancient churches, and it's also mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions. Jesus' siblings are, by the ancient opinion of the Church, step-siblings, Joseph's children from a previous marriage; some later writers, such as Jerome IIRC had the opinion that they were cousins and interpreted adelphoi more broadly to mean "kin" rather than the more strict meaning of "brothers".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Devin P]

It's an extremely ancient and pious opinion of the Church. It's not a uniquely Catholic belief, it's accepted by all the ancient churches, and it's also mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions. Jesus' siblings are, by the ancient opinion of the Church, step-siblings, Joseph's children from a previous marriage; some later writers, such as Jerome IIRC had the opinion that they were cousins and interpreted adelphoi more broadly to mean "kin" rather than the more strict meaning of "brothers".

-CryptoLutheran

Well, no. Not all the ancient churches believed that. Catholicism believed that, but the churches that weren't catholic didn't believe that at all.

Luther was a break away from catholicism, but still believed in the office of the pope, meaning he was an offshoot, or a sect of catholicism. And his confessions came 1500 years after the fact, going off the same evidence we have - but the text doesn't support that. The text supports Jesus having actual brothers.

 

[Basil the Great]

Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are all Christians. All four groups profess Jesus as Lord.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, no. Not all the ancient churches believed that.

Name one that doesn't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Devin P]

Name one that doesn't.

-CryptoLutheran

Any church that wasn't catholic. I stated that in the message.

Name a verse that says Mary was perpetually a virgin?

Galatians 1:19

Paul believed Jesus had brothers.

Matthew 13:55

The Jews believed too.

You and catholicism say half-brother, but nowhere i scripture is it mentioned or proven. Its am assumption to propagate her perpetual virginity. Mary isn't the bride, we, Israel, we, believers in messiah are. Mary probably is counted amongst the bride though as a believer.

But yeah, the church catholics killed and put to death didn't believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary. The apostles, etc.