Is Catholicism the Same as Christianity?

[TillICollapse]

So a question: what does Catholicism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity", and what does Protestantism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity" ?

 

[Rhamiel]

So a question: what does Catholicism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity", and what does Protestantism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity" ?

Catholicism appeals to the history of the teachings of the Apostles
a historical and doctrinal connection to the Early Church

it uses the Bible and other historical texts to back this up

 

[TillICollapse]

Catholicism appeals to the history of the teachings of the Apostles
a historical and doctrinal connection to the Early Church

it uses the Bible and other historical texts to back this up

Yeah I almost added an ETA to my post just now lol ... it would have looked like this:

ETA: So I don't seem so vague … it's my understanding that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy for that matter, who claim to be the Catholic church AFAIK) appeal to tradition and scripture, where as Protestantism appeals to sola scriptura.

Responding to you, doesn't Protestantism make the same claims though ?

 

[Rhamiel]

from what I have seen, most Protestant denominations claim doctoral unity with the Early Church through Sola Scripture
they have no historical claim and most do not try to make it
some Baptists claim that their Church is truly ancient, some "trail of blood" that does not really hold up to historical scrutiny

edit, by historical claim, I mean they can not show that their group goes back more then 500 years or so

 

[TillICollapse]

from what I have seen, most Protestant denominations claim doctoral unity with the Early Church through Sola Scripture
they have no historical claim and most do not try to make it
some Baptists claim that their Church is truly ancient, some "trail of blood" that does not really hold up to historical scrutiny

Well, I don't know that I've seen many try to make an historical claim concerning "succession" either necessarily ... rather, it seems Protestantism often skips straight to the idea of "We are doing what Jesus told us to do, we are like the true disciples," ... in that regard, the historical claim is pointing directly to Jesus himself in tandem with their interpretation of scripture as to what that means via sola scriptura. So it almost appears like an attempt at a spiritual historicity claim, at least that's how it appears to me (not to misrepresent them, since you are not Protestant and here I am discussing Protestantism with you lol)

 

[Rhamiel]

well I think both historical and doctrinal succession is important

if we look at Acts, it is not just "print up a lot of Bibles and let these communities set themselves up however they see fit"
it is the Apostles, teaching with authority, setting up Christian communities around the Mediterranean

Jesus set up a community, and we were meant to listen to those in authority within that community
it makes me think of Acts 8:30-31
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Well, I don't know that I've seen many try to make an historical claim concerning "succession" either necessarily ... rather, it seems Protestantism often skips straight to the idea of "We are doing what Jesus told us to do, we are like the true disciples," ... in that regard, the historical claim is pointing directly to Jesus himself in tandem with their interpretation of scripture as to what that means via sola scriptura. So it almost appears like an attempt at a spiritual historicity claim, at least that's how it appears to me (not to misrepresent them, since you are not Protestant and here I am discussing Protestantism with you lol)

If I may jump into the conversation

I grew up as a protestant, became Anglican about 9 years ago, and then Catholic about 2 years ago.

Most protestant groups hold some variation on the following idea.

Jesus founded the Church, sent out his apostles and for about the first 100 years or so, things were good. Then over the succeeding centuries more and more man made traditions, compromises with paganism, and such were added in to Church practice and belief until in the middle ages you have Catholicism and Orthodoxy which in the protestant view barely resemble original "new testament" or "acts" Christianity.
Then in the early modern era, the protestant reformers broke away and started reforming the church according to their understanding of scripture to remake the church as it was originally in the Acts/New Testament era, before all the extra stuff got added in.

Depending on the protestant group, the point at which the new testament church was finally recreated gets later and later in history. So with strict Calvinist/Reformed, or Lutheran their respective original reformations fixed the problems and restored the church to its original form.

But for the methodist/Weslyan types, the new testament church wasn't really fully realized until they came along, and for the pentecostals, it wasn't until the pentecostal movement started etc.

With the branch that I came from, which was charismatic non-denominational, we basically believed that all of those others along the way were true moves of God to reform the church, but they each got derailed at some point by the traditions of men, until in the 1970's the charismatic movement hit and we finally realized the new testament church again.

The key point in all of these is that it is dependent upon how the group in question interprets the bible. The people I grew up with saw basically no difference between Lutherans and Catholics, and they also viewed Calvinism as way off. Basically any church that had any kind of overt liturgy was viewed as being in the same man made boat.


What I began to realize, as I made the journey towards and eventually converted to Catholicism was that Protestantism was essentially a product of the modern age. What I mean by that is, in the ancient world and the medieval world, the philosophy refined and grew, but it was largely on the same ground, the same basis. But the transition to the modern world was the result of a dramatic shift in philosophy, literally a world altering shift. I eventually came to realize that Protestantism was simply the expression of that shift in philosophy as it applied to Christianity.

This is also why in each generation Protestantism shifts and changes its expression. Ironically, it is constantly changing BECAUSE it is sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura ignores the fact that the bible must be interpreted. There must always be a final arbiter of interpretation. In sola scriptura, the final arbiter, the ultimate interpreter is always you, the individual person.

In Catholic doctrine, we are bound by the Magisterium of the Church which is part of sacred Tradition. This means that we can not re-interpret the bible every generation we must build off of and not contradict what the Church taught in every generation. Thus again, ironically, it is Tradition that prevents us from constantly changing our doctrine and our understanding of the bible.

In each generation, the outlook and philosophy that individuals hold changes (or tends to). As a result the way that people understand and interpret scripture changes. As a result of that, the doctrine and practice of their churches changes and they ideal vision they have of what the New Testament Church was.. changes.

Of course, people are frequently convinced by various teachers... so if a person reads Luther and Melancthon (sp?) and finds them convincing, then they will end up being Lutheran and holding a Lutheran view of the church and scripture. Likewise with Calvin etc.

But at the same time, the number of people in any generation who read those older teachers gets fewer and fewer. Meaning that more and more even those churches begin to change from what their founders intended and believed.

Of course many people also hold to a given belief or denomination because they were raised in it. Which can end up with what philosophers call a lived contradiction. They hold a given belief, but they don't really live it out logically. So for example a Catholic may be thoroughly modern in philosophy, even though Catholicism itself is distinctly not modern in it's philosophy. They live out a faith that is actually at odds with aspects of their philosophy (usually because they don't realize it). But this usually only holds for a while.

 

[TillICollapse]

If I may jump into the conversation

I grew up as a protestant, became Anglican about 9 years ago, and then Catholic about 2 years ago.

Most protestant groups hold some variation on the following idea.

Jesus founded the Church, sent out his apostles and for about the first 100 years or so, things were good. Then over the succeeding centuries more and more man made traditions, compromises with paganism, and such were added in to Church practice and belief until in the middle ages you have Catholicism and Orthodoxy which in the protestant view barely resemble original "new testament" or "acts" Christianity.
Then in the early modern era, the protestant reformers broke away and started reforming the church according to their understanding of scripture to remake the church as it was originally in the Acts/New Testament era, before all the extra stuff got added in.

Depending on the protestant group, the point at which the new testament church was finally recreated gets later and later in history. So with strict Calvinist/Reformed, or Lutheran their respective original reformations fixed the problems and restored the church to its original form.

But for the methodist/Weslyan types, the new testament church wasn't really fully realized until they came along, and for the pentecostals, it wasn't until the pentecostal movement started etc.

With the branch that I came from, which was charismatic non-denominational, we basically believed that all of those others along the way were true moves of God to reform the church, but they each got derailed at some point by the traditions of men, until in the 1970's the charismatic movement hit and we finally realized the new testament church again.

The key point in all of these is that it is dependent upon how the group in question interprets the bible. The people I grew up with saw basically no difference between Lutherans and Catholics, and they also viewed Calvinism as way off. Basically any church that had any kind of overt liturgy was viewed as being in the same man made boat.


What I began to realize, as I made the journey towards and eventually converted to Catholicism was that Protestantism was essentially a product of the modern age. What I mean by that is, in the ancient world and the medieval world, the philosophy refined and grew, but it was largely on the same ground, the same basis. But the transition to the modern world was the result of a dramatic shift in philosophy, literally a world altering shift. I eventually came to realize that Protestantism was simply the expression of that shift in philosophy as it applied to Christianity.

This is also why in each generation Protestantism shifts and changes its expression. Ironically, it is constantly changing BECAUSE it is sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura ignores the fact that the bible must be interpreted. There must always be a final arbiter of interpretation. In sola scriptura, the final arbiter, the ultimate interpreter is always you, the individual person.

In Catholic doctrine, we are bound by the Magisterium of the Church which is part of sacred Tradition. This means that we can not re-interpret the bible every generation we must build off of and not contradict what the Church taught in every generation. Thus again, ironically, it is Tradition that prevents us from constantly changing our doctrine and our understanding of the bible.

In each generation, the outlook and philosophy that individuals hold changes (or tends to). As a result the way that people understand and interpret scripture changes. As a result of that, the doctrine and practice of their churches changes and they ideal vision they have of what the New Testament Church was.. changes.

Of course, people are frequently convinced by various teachers... so if a person reads Luther and Melancthon (sp?) and finds them convincing, then they will end up being Lutheran and holding a Lutheran view of the church and scripture. Likewise with Calvin etc.

But at the same time, the number of people in any generation who read those older teachers gets fewer and fewer. Meaning that more and more even those churches begin to change from what their founders intended and believed.

Of course many people also hold to a given belief or denomination because they were raised in it. Which can end up with what philosophers call a lived contradiction. They hold a given belief, but they don't really live it out logically. So for example a Catholic may be thoroughly modern in philosophy, even though Catholicism itself is distinctly not modern in it's philosophy. They live out a faith that is actually at odds with aspects of their philosophy (usually because they don't realize it). But this usually only holds for a while.

Well worded post ... and it's pretty much how I would describe my own understanding and perspective from my vantage point, with adding the following questions:

First the question: Catholicism may appeal to tradition and an attempt at unaltered interpretation, however there is the Pope and/or those whom are recognized in authority who are considered to receive divine revelation and instruction and be considered inspired, yes ? So those individuals have recognized authority to guide and make changes, yes ?

Second question: How do you reconcile the differences between the Orthodox (Eastern IOW) and the Catholics, since both appeal to tradition, succession, etc ?

Third question: why not Messianic Judaism lol ?

 

[Rhamiel]

wow, VERY good questions

as for the third question, why not Messianic Judaism
well I am not a Jew
if I was of the Jewish Race, there might be an argument that I should follow some kind of Hebrew Catholic Church (with a Liturgy, traditions based around Hebrew Culture and the Hebrew language given special place of honor in prayer life and in forming theological ideas)
to the best of my knowledge, no such Church exists
we have the Byzantine Church that is based on Greek culture and language and has a grand liturgy that grew up from the presence of the Emperor being moved to Constantinople
We have a Latin Church, that is based on Latin culture and language, more austere, with a simplicity about it, and the Roman legal tradition being the back drop for a lot of theological ideas
We have Oriental Churches that have Syriac as their main language for liturgy and theology, I am less familiar with them, but they have their own styles and traditions

 

[tz620q]

First the question: Catholicism may appeal to tradition and an attempt at unaltered interpretation, however there is the Pope and/or those whom are recognized in authority who are considered to receive divine revelation and instruction and be considered inspired, yes ? So those individuals have recognized authority to guide and make changes, yes ?

To make an analogy, the President of the United States has authority and power to change; but he is voted into office and takes an oath to uphold already existing laws and organizations and to stay true to the intent of the office of President. In other words, if he were voted in and then tried to make himself a dictator, he would be violating the very principles that allowed him to become President. Similarly, the Pope is there more to safeguard the faith as it was handed to him, than to make major changes.

A famous quote is that of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This quote was a response in 1870 to the declaration from Vatican I of papal infallibility. Yet, in the 145 years since Vatican I, this absolute power has been used once, and then it was in response to a hue and cry from the lay Catholics to declare a proposition of faith to be a dogma.

 

[TillICollapse]

A famous quote is that of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This quote was a response in 1870 to the declaration from Vatican I of papal infallibility. Yet, in the 145 years since Vatican I, this absolute power has been used once, and then it was in response to a hue and cry from the lay Catholics to declare a proposition of faith to be a dogma.

Huh interesting.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Well worded post ... and it's pretty much how I would describe my own understanding and perspective from my vantage point, with adding the following questions:

First the question: Catholicism may appeal to tradition and an attempt at unaltered interpretation, however there is the Pope and/or those whom are recognized in authority who are considered to receive divine revelation and instruction and be considered inspired, yes ? So those individuals have recognized authority to guide and make changes, yes ?

Second question: How do you reconcile the differences between the Orthodox (Eastern IOW) and the Catholics, since both appeal to tradition, succession, etc ?

Third question: why not Messianic Judaism lol ?

As Rhamiel said, good questions.

#1 - We believe that there is such a thing as personal revelation. IE the idea that God speaks to any individual Christian and can give them visions, dreams, or prophecies, messages etc. However, no Catholic is ever bound to believe in a personal revelation. Even apparitions that are approved by the Church are not required articles of belief.

The Catholic Church teaches that direct personal inspiration, such as the Apostles experienced when they wrote the scriptures no longer occurs. The canon of scripture is closed and nothing new can be added to it.

The idea of papal infallibility is very often misunderstood. It does not mean that the Pope, as a man, is personally inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor does it mean that everything he says is right and true. The Pope is a human being just like the rest of us.

The idea of papal infallibility ultimately goes back to the statement by Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. In other words, the Church will never be overcome. This means that the Church as a whole can never be lead astray. Individual parts, even large parts of the Church CAN BE and HAVE been lead into error in the past. But never the WHOLE Church.

Because the Pope has legitimate authority over the Church, that protection of the Church extends to his authority. As a result we believe that God will prevent the Pope from ever leading the Church into error. Thus, if the Pope makes an authoritative "Ex Cathedera" (meaning from the chair of Peter) declaration of doctrine, then we consider it to be infallible, because the Holy Spirit would not allow it to happen if it were false.

As has been pointed out, this has only happened once since the 1st Vatican Council.

But, even given Papal infallibility, the Pope has no power to change the Magisterial teaching of the Church. The Magesterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church, and it includes all that has been taught by the whole Church going back to the beginning of the Church. The Pope's own authority is simply an extension of the Magesterium and he can not contradict it.

Here again there is a kind of irony that the Pope, in a very real sense, has less power than most protestant ministers. He is bound by 2000 years of tradition and understanding that he can not contradict, where as they, are only bound by what they can get the majority congregation to accept.

Catholic doctrine and theology does change in a sense, but it can only change in the sense of growth. The Catholic Church believes that one of the jobs of the Church is to grow in understanding and to therefor make more and more clear the truth about God.
The kind of change that we allow is often referred to as development, and described by the image of a seed growing into a plant, or an acorn growing into a tree.
But it can never change in the sense of contradicting what went before. What was true in the past is always and will always be true.

For example, the idea of the Trinity was present from the very beginning but our understanding of the Trinity and our doctrinal statements about the Trinity have grown significantly in their scope and depth. But they do not contradict anything that went before, rather they expand it.

#2 - The Catholic Church views Eastern Orthodox as valid Churches, with valid apostolic success and valid sacraments. We recognize their tradition as valid etc. There are many thematic differences in understanding of various doctrines, and there are differences of emphasis, but the real substantive differences between Catholic and Orthodox are VERY few.

The major issue between Catholic and Orthodox is that the Orthodox do not accept Papal supremacy. They see the Pope as the 1st among equals. In other words, his position should be respected because of its history etc. but he has no real authority over any other bishop.

Another major point of contention was that the Catholic Church added the phrase "and the Son" to the nicean creed in the section on the Holy Spirit where it says "He proceeds from the Father (and the Son)". This is known as the "filioque" which means "and the Son" in Latin. Catholics generally don't view this as a major difference, but Orthodox often do.

From the Catholic view point, the important differences between East and West derive from the fact that they rejected papal authority. That Authority is a protection for the Church. I can honestly say that if you look at the history of the Church there have been a number of times at which the Pope was the leader and the bulwark against errors that crept into the Church. In other words, it's not just theoretical or doctrinal. It has been lived out in history.

#3 - Messianic Judaism, in most of its forms today, is a very modern phenomenon. There have always been Jews who converted to Christianity, but in the past they simply became Catholic, or Orthodox, or after the Reformation they may have joined some other Protestant denomination.

The idea that they form their own group is relatively new. Perhaps not surprisingly then, the majority of messianic Jews around today are just mainstream protestants in doctrine and theology, and then they add on some cultural Jewish trappings.

My family was very into all things Israel growing up. I actually had my conversion experience in a messianic Jewish synagogue, and when I was 15 I went to Israel with some of my family etc.

There are also some messianic Jewish groups around where they try to live out more of the Jewish aspect and end up going back to the Old Testament Law. In my opinion most of these groups tend towards what St. Paul referred to as Judiazers in the New Testament.

This is actually another area where I was rather surprised once I really dug into Catholic teaching and Catholic understanding of scripture. The Catholic Church is actually much more like Old Testament Judaism than most messianic Jews are.

The Catholic view is that the Old Covenant was meant to foreshadow the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant not only fulfills but also renews and transforms the Old. So, for example, the Eucharist is Passover. The Eucharist is also the Todah sacrifice of the Old Testament. The priesthood of Church is a new Priesthood, but it is also based on and is a transformation of the Old priesthood.
The Church itself is the renewal and transformation of the Temple, and so on.

In short, the Catholic/Orthodox Churches are based on Temple Judaism. Where as Protestantism, and almost all Messianic Jewish groups are based off of Synagogue Judaism.

 

[Theatreguy18]

But don't they go against some things of the bible. Like they do things that God says not to do?

No that's very ignorant u sound very uninformed on this topic I'm sure u have good intentions though

 

[Root of Jesse]

But don't they go against some things of the bible. Like they do things that God says not to do?

Can you provide an example of going against some things of the Bible? If you don't have a concrete example, better not go there...

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

So a question: what does Catholicism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity", and what does Protestantism appeal to in order to claim it's status as "True Christianity" ?

It's all Christianity- 'Christianity' is an umbrella term for faiths which hold to Christ as it's prime directive. 'Catholicism' is within this, as Protestants are.

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is actually pretty simple if one can settle for a plain, general answer.
Catholicism hinges on apostolic succession from St. Peter, and Protestants hinge on the Scriptures.

They fight over which is 'true Christianity' in that one believes the succession is the final authority whereas the other believes scripture is the final authority.

 

[Simon_Templar]

It's all Christianity- 'Christianity' is an umbrella term for faiths which hold to Christ as it's prime directive. 'Catholicism' is within this, as Protestants are.

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is actually pretty simple if one can settle for a plain, general answer.
Catholicism hinges on apostolic succession from St. Peter, and Protestants hinge on the Scriptures.

They fight over which is 'true Christianity' in that one believes the succession is the final authority whereas the other believes scripture is the final authority.

Apostolic Succession isn't really the defining difference between Protestants and Catholics. There are Protestant churches that recognize and claim apostolic succession. Further, while most protestants don't put sacred Tradition on the level of scripture, there are many protestants who give credence and importance to Tradition, particularly the Early Church Fathers.

There are a number of distinctive doctrines that differ between Catholics and Protestants, but the defining difference, the one thing that all things come back to is the Eucharist.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Apostolic Succession isn't really the defining difference between Protestants and Catholics. There are Protestant churches that recognize and claim apostolic succession. Further, while most protestants don't put sacred Tradition on the level of scripture, there are many protestants who give credence and importance to Tradition, particularly the Early Church Fathers.

There are a number of distinctive doctrines that differ between Catholics and Protestants, but the defining difference, the one thing that all things come back to is the Eucharist.

The Presbyterians have a sort of leadership, but as far as I know that's about it, and comparing it to an apostolic succession is a bit over the top. Half the Presbyterians will turn their back to it as well, such as the prebyter's acknowledgement of homosexual marriage- I could go down the street to a Presbyterian church and they'd look at you like you're crazy if you told them they hold to it.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up of the last couple of pages.

Just a reminder of a few of the Flaming and Goading rules:

Flaming and Goading
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed..

You can not state or imply someone is not a Christian when they have identified themself as one. This includes a group of members. Doing so it also considered Goading. Please be mindful of this and the rest of the rules when posting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[justrobin]

Catholics were the first Christians. Catholics are Christians.

Actually, the first Christians were Jewish. On the day of Pentecost when the church began, there were no Catholics.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Actually, the first Christians were Jewish. On the day of Pentecost when the church began, there were no Catholics.

Jews and Gentiles were converted..don't muddy the waters.