What's the beef with Catholics?

[ithinkthereforeiam]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

[jmac2112]

disciplex wrote:

It is useful for correction any time anyone makes a claim or does something that is contradicted by what the Bible says.

Thank you! So here, you admit that the Bible is the standard.

There is nothing in what I said that implies that the Bible is the ONLY source for Christian belief. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and any belief that is in conflict with it must be rejected. There are many things that are touched upon in the Bible that are not explained fully, and I can't understand why you think that the teachings of the Apostles that were not written down are unimportant in this regard.

To take but one example, I am sure you are familiar with John chapter 6, where Jesus tells the crowd "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you". Whatever Aramaic verb Jesus used for "eat", John uses the Greek verb phagein, which is translated in my lexicon as "to eat; devour". It is also used in the Greek verb anthropophagein, meaning "to eat human flesh", i.e. to be a cannibal. The disciples were understandably shocked, and many of them went away and didn't come back.

Jesus often told the crowds a parable, and then explained it to the Apostles in private. But He makes no attempt to do so in this case. He doesn't say "Oh, by the way, I meant that figuratively. I just wanted to get rid of a bunch of my followers by telling them to be cannibals and drink blood."

Imagine the relief that the Apostles felt at the Last Supper! And yet, imagine their confusion. Jesus takes a piece of bread and says "this is my body", and a cup of wine and says "this is my blood", and tells them to eat and drink. What could Jesus possibly mean? Was his language figurative after all? Was He saying that all bread is his body and all wine is his blood in the sense that bread and wine can be turned into flesh and blood by the body? But what exactly is the point of that? Or did he mean it literally? But this is even more confusing. How can something that looks like bread be flesh, or something that look like wine be blood?

"Do this in memory of me." Who? Just the Apostles? People appointed by the Apostles? Anybody who feels like it?

Why does Paul say we must not eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, lest we eat and drink condemnation for ourselves? Sounds pretty serious. What exactly did he mean?

Now I ask you, do you really think that God just wanted to confuse us by tantalizing us with a few verses of Scripture? Clearly this is a major part of Christ's teaching, but the Scriptures alone are not enough to make us understand what it means. If they were, why is it not apparent to to all Christians what Jesus meant?

Fortunately, Jesus founded a visible Church with a hierarchical structure that is perpetuated through time, and which speaks with authority in defense of both Scripture and Tradition. The earliest Christian bishops surely did not understand all the implications of what Jesus said and did, but they guarded the truth without compromise, and handed it on.

A few quotes from the Fathers will make this clearer:

St. Ignatius of Antioch:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

St. Justin Martyr:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Irenaeus:

"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection."

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

St. Cyril (348-378 A.D.):

"`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]'. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

St Gregory of Nyssa:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Again, where were the "real" Christians who denied that the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Christ? Did the successors of the Apostles manage to drive them underground, where they kept the true faith alive until the Reformation?

No human is to interpret the Bible! God Himself explains to us what to understand, and we listen.

Then why is God playing games with us? Again, I ask you, why is the Holy Spirit guiding God's people into a thousand conflicting "truths"? Man's power for self-deception is boundless, and that is why Jesus gave us a real, substantial, solid, flesh-and-blood, hierarchically organized Church to guide us.

For centuries after Christ ascended, there was uncertainty about exactly which writings were inspired. Who might have the authority to settle such matters? It was in fact settled by councils of Catholic bishops.

The Church knew from the beginning which writings were from God. It was a bunch of heretic groups causing confusion among the Church that led to uncertainties.

How do you know who were the heretics? How did they know who were the heretics? Most of the writings that make up the NT were indeed from the beginning identified as being the teaching of the apostles and as being authentic, but there was legitimate disagreement about some of the books until it was settled by Church councils.

When it comes to His teachings, all four Gospel books are complete. If you say I'm wrong, then show us.

I've been trying to, through reason and the writings of the Fathers.

Well, if you study well all the books of the NT, they all doctrinally fit in together and make one definitive work. So no problem.

Only they leave a lot of big questions unanswered.

Strawman Argument: The Church did not become invisible. The Church is the assembly of all Christians. And as Christians are visible, the Church is visible.

Do you believe in the Apostle's Creed? Maybe even the Nicene Creed? How many churches did Jesus found? Do you think that God is indifferent to the truth? That He willed for there to be "one" church that is mysteriously broken into a thousand warring fragments, so that anyone looking for the truth will be unable to find it?

Show me one tradition delivered by Paul that I (and other Christians) reject.

No can do. You have already rejected out of hand the idea that the Apostles handed on some truths of the Faith that were not written down and preserved in what we today call the New Testament. You're really saying "Prove to me something that I won't accept."

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Ok. Thank you for showing us this verse. Roman Catholics are not in accord with the tradition received from the Apostles.

???

"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Yes, so I wonder why the Roman Catholic leaders do not accept what Paul taught to Timothy and to others by the grace of God.

What exactly would that be?

Let's say some professing Catholic comes up with a new unorthodox teaching and claims it's a Catholic teaching. Which source do you refer to for correction?

Scripture and the constant Tradition of the Church. The successor to Peter has the final say, of course. Christ knew better than to make his Church a democracy, knowing human nature as He did.

Well, then what's the difference between praying to Jesus and praying to Mary?

When we pray to Jesus, we ask him to give us some grace or favor by His own power. When we pray to Mary and the other saints, we are asking them to pray for us, the same as when you ask your neighbor to pray for you. Remember, God is the God of the living, not the dead. If we can ask those still on earth to pray for us, why not those who have already won the crown? Do you not believe in "the communion of saints"?

[ST_JB]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

When I was a little bit younger, i used to question the Dogma and teachings. It's hard to understand and sort of can't find the teachings in the bible. It's too complicated for me then. I was skeptics to but constructive skeptics if there is such a word to define my being skeptics.

I guess, most of those who left Catholicism and became members of other denominations would probably share the same sentiments.

Disagreements, based on my experienced with other denominations, are doctrinal issues.

Catholics and Protestants and other denominations disagree mainly on the following:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Salvation by grace
3. Devotion to Mary
4. Real presence
5. Infallibility of the Pope
6. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
7. Celibacy

The church of England has another story tell.

[Ooberman]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

When I was a little bit younger, i used to question the Dogma and teachings. It's hard to understand and sort of can't find the teachings in the bible. It's too complicated for me then. I was skeptics to but constructive skeptics if there is such a word to define my being skeptics.

I guess, most of those who left Catholicism and became members of other denominations would probably share the same sentiments.

Disagreements, based on my experienced with other denominations, are doctrinal issues.

Catholics and Protestants and other denominations disagree mainly on the following:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Salvation by grace
3. Devotion to Mary
4. Real presence
5. Infallibility of the Pope
6. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
7. Celibacy

The church of England has another story tell.

Is there a reason that God didn't create his religion on Earth to have these elements? Is it possible that God wants RC to be his true religion?

Or, has there been any clear indication from God that RC is wrong? Maybe people don't like RC because it is difficult, not because it is wrong?

[micatala]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

When I was a little bit younger, i used to question the Dogma and teachings. It's hard to understand and sort of can't find the teachings in the bible. It's too complicated for me then. I was skeptics to but constructive skeptics if there is such a word to define my being skeptics.

I guess, most of those who left Catholicism and became members of other denominations would probably share the same sentiments.

Disagreements, based on my experienced with other denominations, are doctrinal issues.

Catholics and Protestants and other denominations disagree mainly on the following:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Salvation by grace
3. Devotion to Mary
4. Real presence
5. Infallibility of the Pope
6. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
7. Celibacy

The church of England has another story tell.

Is there a reason that God didn't create his religion on Earth to have these elements? Is it possible that God wants RC to be his true religion?

Or, has there been any clear indication from God that RC is wrong? Maybe people don't like RC because it is difficult, not because it is wrong?

Or perhaps God understands that different people need different kinds of religions? Perhaps RC is the best religion, for some people.

For others, maybe it is Baptist, or Lutheran, or UCC, . . . , or Hindu or Buddhism.

The Bible certainly allows that believers can disagree on matters of religious practice and belief, and still be believers in good standing. See Romans chapter 14 for example.


This is why I find it so disappointing when some Christians say "Catholics are not really Christian" or "the only true Christians are [fill in favorite denomination or doctrinal statement, etc.].

I don't think one can make a very compelling case that any certain denomination has the "corner" on what it means to be Christian. In fact, of all the denominations that Catholics probably have the best case to be made, based on longevity and tradition.

[Ooberman]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

When I was a little bit younger, i used to question the Dogma and teachings. It's hard to understand and sort of can't find the teachings in the bible. It's too complicated for me then. I was skeptics to but constructive skeptics if there is such a word to define my being skeptics.

I guess, most of those who left Catholicism and became members of other denominations would probably share the same sentiments.

Disagreements, based on my experienced with other denominations, are doctrinal issues.

Catholics and Protestants and other denominations disagree mainly on the following:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Salvation by grace
3. Devotion to Mary
4. Real presence
5. Infallibility of the Pope
6. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
7. Celibacy

The church of England has another story tell.

Is there a reason that God didn't create his religion on Earth to have these elements? Is it possible that God wants RC to be his true religion?

Or, has there been any clear indication from God that RC is wrong? Maybe people don't like RC because it is difficult, not because it is wrong?

Or perhaps God understands that different people need different kinds of religions? Perhaps RC is the best religion, for some people.

For others, maybe it is Baptist, or Lutheran, or UCC, . . . , or Hindu or Buddhism.

The Bible certainly allows that believers can disagree on matters of religious practice and belief, and still be believers in good standing. See Romans chapter 14 for example.


This is why I find it so disappointing when some Christians say "Catholics are not really Christian" or "the only true Christians are [fill in favorite denomination or doctrinal statement, etc.].

I don't think one can make a very compelling case that any certain denomination has the "corner" on what it means to be Christian. In fact, of all the denominations that Catholics probably have the best case to be made, based on longevity and tradition.

I guess it all hinges on what you believe God requires from his adherents. If a god existed, would he require people to follow one religion, or not.

Certainly, many people claim God doesn't like it when people stray from that one religion (whatever it is).

I guess before you believe in God, you have to decide if god is tolerant or not. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe an exclusive religion (if you believe God isn't tolerant) or no reason to believe religious text when it says that "this is the only way to God" (if you believe God is tolerant).

After all, if you don't decide first, there is no way you can determine the truth of scriptures. That's a lot of Faith in yourself to choose the right answer!

[jmac2112]

micatala wrote:

Or perhaps God understands that different people need different kinds of religions? Perhaps RC is the best religion, for some people.

For others, maybe it is Baptist, or Lutheran, or UCC, . . . , or Hindu or Buddhism.

The Bible certainly allows that believers can disagree on matters of religious practice and belief, and still be believers in good standing. See Romans chapter 14 for example.

I don't think this view holds up very well to a study of what Jesus said and did, and what His followers said about Him. "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me" doesn't sound negotiable, to quote just one passage (Jn 14:6). I think that God is very merciful, and that He doesn't judge people based on things they can't know, but I also don't think that He is indifferent to the truth. Even when it comes to the differences among fellow Christians, I have a hard time imagining Jesus saying "Well, I don't really care whether or not you think that I'm really present in the Eucharist, or that the sacraments in general are truly efficacious means of receiving My Life into yourselves, or that I'm really divine (or human), or that I actually, physically rose from the dead, or that you need to do more than answer an altar call to be saved." In other words, I can't see Jesus dying on the cross for love of man and then saying "You know...whatever."

Romans chapter 14 is about an inessential practice rather than a belief. Some of the Jews couldn't get past the idea that meat itself could be tainted if it had been sacrificed to idols, so Paul is basically saying "OK, that's fine, don't eat that meat if you feel that you are betraying God by doing so." In other words, Paul was not going to argue with simple people about something that didn't really matter, and just told them to follow their consciences. Those who understood that the meat itself was not tainted were preserved from idolotry because of their greater understanding, while those who were misled by their feelings were told that it was fine not to eat the meat. Paul doesn't compromise on the issue of idolotry itself.

This is why I find it so disappointing when some Christians say "Catholics are not really Christian" or "the only true Christians are [fill in favorite denomination or doctrinal statement, etc.].

I don't think one can make a very compelling case that any certain denomination has the "corner" on what it means to be Christian. In fact, of all the denominations that Catholics probably have the best case to be made, based on longevity and tradition.

At the risk of dissapointing you, I have to state my own belief as a Catholic that the Catholic Church has the fulness of the faith. That doesn't mean that other churches (or even non-Christians) don't have any of the truth. It just means that we believe that Jesus didn't found a multitude of conflicting churches, but rather one Church that would safeguard the deposit of revealed truth that He left with it. Nor does it mean that we think we are "special" or better than others. All will be judged according to how well they have sought to know the truth and act on it. How God will deal with those outside the Church is His business, and the Church only says that people will be condemned if they know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but refuse to join it or to remain in it. In a sense, Catholics are perhaps in even more danger of damnation than others, because they have been entrusted with so much. But again, we trust that God must know what He's doing.

Anyway, I hope that doesn't come off as arrogant. If anyone is the least bit curious about Catholicism, you can always come to Mass on Sunday, and even attend the RCIA classes (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) at most parishes. I must warn you, however, that the Catholic Church is in bad shape throughout most of the developed world, especially in the U.S. You may find that Father Bob doesn't care much about converting anyone, and may even be hostile to the idea. You may attend Mass and find it hard to recognize anything distinctively Catholic about it. This is one of the great scandals of our times, in the true sense of the word. Anyway, I've included a few links to solid sources in case anyone wants to find out more:


Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/


The Vatican Web Site:

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm


The Catholic Catechism online:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/


CatholiCity:

http://www.catholicity.com/

[tlong]

What is the beef other Christian denominations have with the Catholics? What do you have in common? What are the disagreements?

When I was a little bit younger, i used to question the Dogma and teachings. It's hard to understand and sort of can't find the teachings in the bible. It's too complicated for me then. I was skeptics to but constructive skeptics if there is such a word to define my being skeptics.

I guess, most of those who left Catholicism and became members of other denominations would probably share the same sentiments.

Disagreements, based on my experienced with other denominations, are doctrinal issues.

Catholics and Protestants and other denominations disagree mainly on the following:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Salvation by grace
3. Devotion to Mary
4. Real presence
5. Infallibility of the Pope
6. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
7. Celibacy

The church of England has another story tell.

Is there a reason that God didn't create his religion on Earth to have these elements? Is it possible that God wants RC to be his true religion?

Or, has there been any clear indication from God that RC is wrong? Maybe people don't like RC because it is difficult, not because it is wrong?

Or perhaps God understands that different people need different kinds of religions? Perhaps RC is the best religion, for some people.

For others, maybe it is Baptist, or Lutheran, or UCC, . . . , or Hindu or Buddhism.

The Bible certainly allows that believers can disagree on matters of religious practice and belief, and still be believers in good standing. See Romans chapter 14 for example.


This is why I find it so disappointing when some Christians say "Catholics are not really Christian" or "the only true Christians are [fill in favorite denomination or doctrinal statement, etc.].

I don't think one can make a very compelling case that any certain denomination has the "corner" on what it means to be Christian. In fact, of all the denominations that Catholics probably have the best case to be made, based on longevity and tradition.

I guess it all hinges on what you believe God requires from his adherents. If a god existed, would he require people to follow one religion, or not.

Certainly, many people claim God doesn't like it when people stray from that one religion (whatever it is).

I guess before you believe in God, you have to decide if god is tolerant or not. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe an exclusive religion (if you believe God isn't tolerant) or no reason to believe religious text when it says that "this is the only way to God" (if you believe God is tolerant).

After all, if you don't decide first, there is no way you can determine the truth of scriptures. That's a lot of Faith in yourself to choose the right answer!

John 8:31-32 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him,' If you abide in my word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." John 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

It is a shame that so many people refuse to study the word of God because they fell they are not able to understand it. We are talking about our eternal souls here. it is not time to be lazy.[/u]

[Ooberman]

It is a shame that so many people refuse to study the word of God because they fell they are not able to understand it. We are talking about our eternal souls here. it is not time to be lazy.[/u]

I think many people study the Bible and understand it quite well.

However, you bring up an intersting issue. (Assume: the Bible is the word of God.)

Have you studied the very word of God? In the language it was written? (It is said that reading the Bible in English is like watching a movie in B&W, whereas reading it in the original Greek and Hebrew is like watching in full color).

Also, have you taken seriously all the recommendations of Jesus/God? Which ones are hardest? Giving away all your possessions? Refusing unclean meat? Making Disciples? Giving a significant amount of your wealth? Giving anything that is asked of you? (Please give me $10,000 ) Being perfect? Not being Lustful? Letting your "yes" be "yes" and "no", "no"? Not swearing on anything? etc.

After all, as I have said, if Warren Buffet gives you a serious investment tip, do you pass it off as just a vague suggestion, or take it seriously.

God has given you Commandments and "suggestions". I imagine a suggestion from God is more serious and valid then one from Buffet... if you believe in God (Me, I'll trust Warren Buffet!)

As you said, it's not time to be lazy. There is an awful lot of work expected of the believer. By your works we shall know whether you are a true believer.

And more to the point of the OP, WHICH interpretation do you take from the Bible? The Catholic, Protestant or Other?

[scottlittlefield17]

The beef;

1. Sola scriptura

2. Sola Fide

3.Mary nonsense.

4. Prayers to saints

5. Revelations nonsense.

These don't negate any of Christs teaching do they? Do they in any way explicitly violate His teachings?

Yes they do violate his teachings. They literally bow down to other gods. They pray to Mary instead of Jesus. They bow at her feet and kiss them. They expect to get to God through her which not only does the Bible not say that you can but it says Jesus is the only way. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life. NO MAN gets to the Father BUT BY ME" They pray to the saints for protection and guidance instead of Jesus. That I believe is blasphemy against God to pray to others than God.

[micatala]

The beef;

1. Sola scriptura

2. Sola Fide

3.Mary nonsense.

4. Prayers to saints

5. Revelations nonsense.

These don't negate any of Christs teaching do they? Do they in any way explicitly violate His teachings?

Yes they do violate his teachings. They literally bow down to other gods. They pray to Mary instead of Jesus. They bow at her feet and kiss them. They expect to get to God through her which not only does the Bible not say that you can but it says Jesus is the only way. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life. NO MAN gets to the Father BUT BY ME" They pray to the saints for protection and guidance instead of Jesus. That I believe is blasphemy against God to pray to others than God.

Here is one interchange arguing the "prayer to saints" point.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea2.asp

Now, I am not Catholic but I think there is enough of a case to be made that praying to saints is not biblically prohibited that I would not go to the extreme of labeling Catholics blasphemous on this basis.

In addition, to say that Catholics "bow down to other gods" is frankly incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and practice. Catholics are very clear that the designated saints and Mary are not god or gods. To assert that Catholics worshiop Mary or the saints as God is to reveal an ignorance of Catholic teaching.

Now, I certainly accept that one can legitimately differ with Catholics and their rationale for praying to the saints and Mary. However, labeling them as blasphemous or not really Christian is going too far.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I think the proper Biblical attitude is to simply allow that Catholics differ with other Christians on a disputable matter, and to leave their relationship with Christ between them and Christ.