Catholicism Vs. Christianity How do they differ?

[mitchellmckain 0]

My understanding of Christian is any religion who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Each Christian religion does not believe exactly the same thing, but they must believe the Bible to be the word of God. Catholics ARE Christian in this respect. Catholics do not adhere to mainstream Christian, but they are still technically Christian.

How bizarre. The most inclusive definition of "Christian" by the general public including non-Christians, are those who "believe in Christ". This includes the LDS, the Jehova Witnesses, the Moonies and many others. The only more exclusive definition of this that is of meaning to the LDS is to be a member of the LDS church, for they believe that they are the "true church" and their members are the "true christians". There is no group of denominations that share a definition of "Christian" between these two that includes the LDS, so the intimations of beatgammit that there is such a thing is his own imagination. The only more exclusive non-denominational definition of "Christian" is one of a very large group of Christian churches (nominally including the Catholic church) which I call the worldwide Christian consensus. According to this consensus, what is Christian is defined by the eccumenical councils of the fourth century in the Nicean creed and canon of the Bible. This is what most people mean by "mainstream Chritianity".

The Nicean creed, also represented by the doctrines of the Trinity and homeostatic union are a compromise on the issues of the nature of God and Christ which were not entirely clear in the Bible and therefore a source of division. Therefore it was essential for these eccumenical councils to come to a definative agreement on these issues in order to preserve Christian unity. As a result these doctrines were intended to embrace the widest range of Christian experience and scripture. Thus, although these doctrines connot be found in the Bible itself, they are the most Biblical and most Christian in the sense that any simpler solution results in the rejection of an important portion of scripture and the rejection of a historical range of Christian experience.

Therefore, since I believe that the purpose of these doctrines were to embrace the greatest range of scripture and Christian experience, I do not believe they should be used to exclude or condemn. As beatgammit perhaps hints, being Christian is not really about capitulation to a set of beliefs as much as it is about a personal relationship with the one mediator between God and man, in the person of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, I do not think that condemnation of the Jehova Witnesses and the LDS is matter of doctrinal deviation as much as it is their own condemnation of the rest of Christianity as "apostate" (by the LDS) and "inspired by the devil" (by the Jehova Witnesses). After all, "as you judge, so shall you be judged", is a golden rule in Christianity.

However, this is all primarily a matter of Christian fellowship. The work of salvation is God's and He alone is in a postion to judge regarding it. Christians are not only ill advised to usurp the postion of God in this but it is their duty to steadfastly point to Jesus and the word of God rather than themselves or their own opinions. But it is only natural to exclude the wolves who would bring division and strife, for our fellowship is not the proper venue for the LDS (or others) to attempt indoctrination or recruitment for their organization. Their behavior speaks volumes about the fact that for them it is all about being LDS or not LDS rather than Christian or not Christian. But of course this behavior may not be shared by all members of the LDS church and in seriously reading the Bible there is every reason to expect that there are members of the LDS church who may have indeed received Christ into their lives and have a personal relationship with Him. We are not saved by membership in any church and therefore I do not see how we could be condemned by such a membership.

Now in my first paragraph you may notice the parenthetical (nominally including the Catholic church) and may think that this is a lot like beatgammit's claim that the Catholics are not mainstream. But it is no such thing. It only acknowleges that the Catholic church itself are not fully a part of this consensus, for although they uphold the decisions of the eccumenical councils as essential, they do not recognize any consensus but their own. Nevertheless, it is the consensus that the Catholics do not deviate from what it defines as Christian significantly enough to be called non-Christian. The LDS on the other hand deviate significantly from the doctrines of the Trinity and homeostatic union. Because of this it is judged, that the Catholic can be welcome in Christian fellowship, if they would even stoop to seeking such fellowship, while the LDS cannot.

What is really bizzare about beatgammit's post is that the only thing that really divides the Catholic church from this consensus is its similarity to the LDS church in their claim to have the authority from God to interpret scripture for the rest of mankind. For the rest of Christianity this hardly seems to be a Christian attitude at all, for it replaces Christ as the mediator between God and man with their human authorities and replaces the word of God with their human opinions. It seems to us that they would have us reject the rule of God in our lives in order to replace God with a human authority as did the Israelites when the demanded a king from Samuel (Samuel 8:5-10). Let the LDS and Catholics argue about who sits on the right hand of Jesus with their doctrines of authority, the rest of us prefer to keep our eyes on Jesus and word of God.
Edited April 10, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[Vue 0]

No, the main difference is we don't praise / worship (whatever you want to call it) Mary (I mean, she isn't God after all...), but we do believe she had the miracle virgin birth.

 

I think in Catholicism they pray through Mary to God, but we Christians pray and talk directly with God.

 

And before someone goes and jumps on it, no I don't mean we actually look at his face and talk to him, but we do pray directly to him and talk with him. Talking as in, we say something to him, and he replies, though it might not be right away, and it's not normally a voice in our head. There probably have been some times when it came as a voice in someone's head so to speak, but... I think you get what I'm saying.

Ah thanks for clearing that up.

 

I'm not sure, but I remember a school teacher saying that we could pray to Mary. But I remember also, that we could pray to just about anybody we wanted in prayer. I mean, I can't imagine one saying the "Our Father" in prayer through to Mary.

 

Hmmm this is confusing.

[SilverFox1405241541 0]

Catholics are Christians, lawl why would anyone think otherwise? They are a sect of Christianity and therefore Christian.

 

They:

Believe in Jesus Christ;

They believe in the Old and New Testaments;

They have a communion, baptism and other key Christian aspects;

They are the oldest sect of Christianity.

Sounds Christian to me. They pray to Saints, Mary included, to intercede with them to the Father. Therefore they pray to Christ Jesus by way of intermediaries. While most of us pray directly to Christ Jesus, or via him to God the Father. But its all the same. To say that Catholics worship Mary is wrong, Mary is blessed and honored because of her role in the Eternal Plan. She is holy and that's why they respect her, as all Christians should--be it Protestant, Mormon, Evangelical or Catholic.

 

The only more exclusive definition of this that is of meaning to the LDS is to be a member of the LDS church, for they believe that they are the "true church" and their members are the "true christians". There is no group of denominations that share a definition of "Christian" between these two that includes the LDS, so the intimations of beatgammit that there is such a thing is his own imagination.

I am LDS by the way, and I don't feel that's how we define Christian. Although that might be how it comes off its not how it is.

 

for the LDS (or others) to attempt indoctrination or recruitment for their organization. Their behavior speaks volumes about the fact that for them it is all about being LDS or not LDS rather than Christian or not Christian. But of course this behavior may not be shared by all members of the LDS church and in seriously reading the Bible there is every reason to expect that there are members of the LDS church who may have indeed received Christ into their lives and have a personal relationship with Him.

All LDS are urged to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. Also most LDS I've met, myself included hold that belief in Jesus is the most important thing. Here locally my LDS group rotates with another church in teaching at the Juvinillle Detention center on Sunday by giving non-denominational sermons. My only problem with the LDS is our overemphasis on works and not upon grace and charity. Edited April 19, 2007 by SilverFox (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

All LDS are urged to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. Also most LDS I've met, myself included hold that belief in Jesus is the most important thing. Here locally my LDS group rotates with another church in teaching at the Juvinillle Detention center on Sunday by giving non-denominational sermons. My only problem with the LDS is our overemphasis on works and not upon grace and charity.

You know when I read this my immediate reaction was to look at where you were from, thinking this person must not be a Utah Mormon. I was not surprised that I was right. It has been the report of many people that I have met that the LDS outside of Utah are different, you make me hope that they are a great deal more Christian as well.

I hope you don't come to find out that this is a bit deceptive. For you may encounter someone in the leadership of the LDS that will tell you that it is you LDS outside of Utah, who are "not very LDS". (I had an experience like this in a different religion)
Edited April 20, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[SilverFox1405241541 0]

I have heard reports from other members that those in Utah are not as Christian/true-LDS as us outside. And Yeah I live in Texas and always have. From the moment I read your post I noticed you lived in Salt Lake, so I am sure that you deal with a different kind of Mormon--one who is arrogant as they are the majority. Most Mormons I have met from Utah who have come to the better grounds of Texas have spoken rather poorly of the church in Utah, that's not a good situation really...a semi-divided church.

[Mandi 0]

Aren't they the same? catholics are just a type of christian's

[mitchellmckain 0]

I have heard reports from other members that those in Utah are not as Christian/true-LDS as us outside. And Yeah I live in Texas and always have. From the moment I read your post I noticed you lived in Salt Lake, so I am sure that you deal with a different kind of Mormon--one who is arrogant as they are the majority.
Most Mormons I have met from Utah who have come to the better grounds of Texas have spoken rather poorly of the church in Utah, that's not a good situation really...a semi-divided church.

You know in Utah most of the junior high and high schools have an LDS seminary next to them, where the LDS students go before school for a religion class. So when I first became interested in high school I started talking to the guy in charge over there and since I had a good impression I went to the class before school a few times. But the teacher was the "other kind" of Mormon, so I gave up on it. But don't worry I formed my opions of things based on completely different things and not on personality. But I have always been aware of these 2 sides to the Mormon church. Growing up here my best friends were usually Mormon and my best friend still is.

[mtnbluet 0]

OK. The title of this post is wrong. CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS. Period. They were the FIRST christians. if anything, it should be Christians vs. Protestants as it makes a lot more sense.
Sigh.

Catholics made a Religion out of Christianity. With the early Christian church, this wasn't so. The mass has so much in common with the Jew's temple worship and sacrifices. The Jews today actually read a certain scripture every Sabbath, they are all doing the same thing at the same time. So do the Catholic churches for the most part.

Alot of what Catholics do stems from the Jewish religion. Take the dress of the priests for example. They are wearing flowing gowns almost identical to the old testament time Jewish priests dress.

The Jewish temple sacrifice of the animals was presented to God every Sabbath and there were even daily sacrifices. Well, doesn't the priest hold up the cup and the bread, representing Christ, saying God accept this sacrifice. However, in all honesty, wake up---Jesus is no longer on the cross, He has risen!

Hence, he should no longer be on any crucifixes, nor should he be "sacrified" any longer. He paid the price for our sins once and for all. This is where True christians, catholic or otherwise, say that you must accept Jesus into your heart; you must be Born again, to be saved to be called truly a Christian.

[childofgrace 0]

This topic has been a very controversial one for many many years. And I have gotten persective from both sides, which has jusr lead to more confusion.My father is Catholic and has been raised that way his entire life. He considers himself a Christian. I love my father dearly, but I, however, do not. He like many Catholics have come believe that if they follow the sacraments set by the church they are fine and set for eternity. This belief truly bothers me. Mindlessly going through steps does not bring anyone closer to God. My mother, on the other hand, was raised Catholic but change her beliefs in prison. She attended a protestant Bible College where the found salvation. Salvation is something I do truly believe in. It is more than a mere prayer or set of "steps". It is calling out to God with your entire heart. You are letting Him know that you truly believe that Hegave his only begotten Son for our forgiveness. You are accepting that you are a sinner and do no deserve that salvation. You are laying out you life for God. Many might say that this taked place in certain sacraments, but does it really? Many sacraments are done without actual consideration of their meanings. Salvatio nis something that is judged my our Creator. He knows if we mean what we are telling HIm or if we are just faking it.Now it may seem like I side with Protestants. Truthfully I don't. Because EVERY organized religon has it's faults, after all it was created and run by humans. We have faults, thus our religons will too.I do believe that the only way to God is through His Son and His divine word, the Bible. The Bible wasn't meant for mass translation. It is a personal journey. God speaks differently though His word to each of us.If anything I have said has offended anyone I am sincerely sorry. I have not had that intention. As I am told to do, I love each of you and I do not wish to hurt you. And if you believe differently than me so be it. But I will be praying that more people stop making religon about church doctrines and who is right. It is about God and His relationship with us individually.

[mitchellmckain 0]

My father is Catholic and has been raised that way his entire life. He considers himself a Christian. I love my father dearly, but I, however, do not.

I, however, do consider him a Christian. I think you confuse being Christian with being saved. Whether he or anyone else in particular is saved is not something I would ever presume to judge. That is something for God alone to say. You are not saved by virtue of what church you are a member of or what religion you subscribe to. You must not make the mistake of thinking that the path on which you found God is "the path to God". There is no path to God. He reaches down to us on whatever path we take. Salvation is wholly a work of God.
"Christian" is a word describing a group of people and the definition of words is always determined by consensus. The largest consensus identifies the word "Christian" with those who consider themselves a follower of Christ. However that is a consensus that includes non-Christians and so there is another consensus that is important. The largest consensus of Christians identifies the word "Christians" with beliefs that were formalized by the eccumenical councils of the fourth century. That includes all the varieties of Catholics and a majority of the Protestants.

He like many Catholics have come believe that if they follow the sacraments set by the church they are fine and set for eternity. This belief truly bothers me. Mindlessly going through steps does not bring anyone closer to God.

But what is it exactly that bothers you? Is it a belief that doing these things save him, or is it your belief that he needs to do more? It is Christian belief that salvation comes by a work of God alone, and so it would indeed be non-Christian for him to think that by doing these sacraments, he comes to merit salvation. But it would be just as non-Christian for you to think that he doesn't do enough to merit salvation. No one merits salvation and there is nothing you can do to earn it. If he thinks that he is saved by virtue of being a Catholic then I can very much understand why you are "bothered."

My mother, on the other hand, was raised Catholic but change her beliefs in prison. She attended a protestant Bible College where the found salvation. Salvation is something I do truly believe in. It is more than a mere prayer or set of "steps". It is calling out to God with your entire heart. You are letting Him know that you truly believe that Hegave his only begotten Son for our forgiveness. You are accepting that you are a sinner and do no deserve that salvation. You are laying out you life for God. Many might say that this taked place in certain sacraments, but does it really?

Who can say? Salvation is an act of the grace of God. But perhaps we should ask if one is experiencing the work of God in ones life to conform one to the image of Christ, for that is the real substance of salvation, is it not? It is the relationship with Christ, as our most intimate teacher and friend, where He works upon our heart, understanding and character to bring change from the habits of sin, unlove, and irresponsibility to habits of righteousness, love and responsibility. If we experience this then I hardly think it matters what we do on Sunday (or Saturday).

Many sacraments are done without actual consideration of their meanings. Salvation is something that is judged my our Creator. He knows if we mean what we are telling HIm or if we are just faking it.

We are all sinners. We are all fakers. Salvation is a gift to accept, not a standard which God measures us against. God gives us the free will to choose whether to accept Him into our life or not. It is true that we must confront our sin and accept the fact that we have made a mess of it and beg God to intervene in our lives, but it is a mistake to think that this is a performance by which God will measure us. This experience will vary from person to person, for the understanding we have of our sin varies, and it may be that we will have to repent again as our understanding increases, opening ourselves more and more to God.

Now it may seem like I side with Protestants. Truthfully I don't. Because EVERY organized religon has it's faults, after all it was created and run by humans. We have faults, thus our religons will too.
I do believe that the only way to God is through His Son and His divine word, the Bible. The Bible wasn't meant for mass translation. It is a personal journey. God speaks differently though His word to each of us.

Yes. I think you meant "mass interpretation" rather than "mass translation". But this is my sentiment as well. That the Bible is the word of God must mean that it says exactly what God intends and no human interpretation is needed to fix it, and thus no human interpetation has any more authority than any other.

[iGuest 3]

Hello! Well I was raised Roman Catholic. Catholics believe in saints and that you basically need to "go through" other people (ie. priests and such) to "get to", talk or repent to God. Catholics believe in purgatory where, after death, you go to this place and people pray for you to get you into heaven (rosarys held before funerals). Recently I was saved in a Christian (Baptist church)and now am proud to say I am a christian. Christians don't believe in saints, first of all. God commands you to worship no other idols; so it seems praying to saints would be putting them before God, which is wrong. Second, we live our entire lives and have all this time to glorify God. If we go through our entire lives sinning, why would God ever want us in heaven if we didn't truly repent? If when we die, other people pray to get us "into" heaven, I don't see why it would matter at all. OUR salvation depends on our direct relationship with God and how we serve him. If we live our lives in sin without repenting, then die, we go to hell. It doesn't matter at all if OTHERS pray for us and try to get us into heaven after the fact.So thats the biggest difference I see. hope it helps:)-nicole

[iGuest 3]

MajesticTreeFrog, I find your comments very interesting. Catholicism came long after Christianity, so how you can call Catholics the 1st Christians really confuses me. Christians are the first Christians, and the first "church" was formed in Acts. Christianity is not a religion, it is about a relationship with God. The Bible is very specific about the church and the branches, we are all to be one. There should never be any of this us vs them, we need to unite. As long as all the churches compete with each other, Satan will dominate! We need to unite in our love for God and his children.-Confused

[iGuest 3]

I am Jewish/Catholic. So, I really don't know much about being CHRISTHAN. I always thought they were the same. Either way, I think that they are still all on the same branch. Oh, My father is JEWISH and my mother is CATHOLIC, in case you were wondering. Regardless, it's hard for my family to go to church because I am Half-Jewish. I have really looked into the differences recently because that same question hit me not too long ago

[ChrisAF071405241549 0]

The Catholic Church was the first Christian church, and was pretty much the only one ('cept for the Orthodox churches) until Luther broke off.

How so?

It was indeed, for quite some time, practically the only Christian church. However, it was not the first. The book of Revelation refers to at least seven early churches in John's time. The church of Ephesus, the church of Smyrna, the church of Pergamos, the church of Thyatira, the church of Sardis, the church of Philadelphia and the church of Laodicea. We read of some of these in earlier books starting with the book of Acts.

There were many other churches in John's time too and many Christian churches were persecuted until Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The Catholic church was, however, the first universal church. It early on tried to monopolize Christianity, persecuting those who continued the practices of earlier churches, such as keeping the seventh day sabbath.

if anything, it should be Christians vs. Protestants as it makes a lot more sense.
Sigh.

As I said, it was one of the only churches for so long, not as a result of continuing the Christian tradition, but as a result of force. Therefore I don't feel that Christians vs. Protestants makes any more sense than Christians vs. Catholics. Granted the latter doesn't make sense either and I would've pointed that out myself had nobody else beaten me to it.
Edited November 12, 2007 by ChrisAF07 (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

It was indeed, for quite some time, practically the only Christian church. However, it was not the first. The book of Revelation refers to at least seven early churches in John's time. The church of Ephesus, the church of Smyrna, the church of Pergamos, the church of Thyatira, the church of Sardis, the church of Philadelphia and the church of Laodicea. We read of some of these in earlier books starting with the book of Acts.

Yes but these churches were united by the eccumenical councils which remains the practice of the orthodox churches. So if any church today has a good claim on being the "first church" it would be the orthodox churches. It is the Roman Catholics who broke away by contradicting the decisions of the eccumenical councils and refusing to recognize their authority, taking all the authority upon the church of Rome alone.
However I am not Orthodox and I would even prefer the Roman Catholic church to the Orthodox, for I really do not see that much significance in being the oldest church and the closest in practice and thought to the earliest chruches. This attitude that all truth is to be found in the past alone is rather medieval. I don't think God is confined by any of the churches and I see all the diversity in Christianity as typical of the way that God works in the natural world and has dealt with mankind since Genesis chapter 11.

There were many other churches in John's time too and many Christian churches were persecuted until Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The Catholic church was, however, the first universal church. It early on tried to monopolize Christianity, persecuting those who continued the practices of earlier churches, such as keeping the seventh day sabbath.As I said, it was one of the only churches for so long, not as a result of continuing the Christian tradition, but as a result of force. Therefore I don't feel that Christians vs. Protestants makes any more sense than Christians vs. Catholics. Granted the latter doesn't make sense either and I would've pointed that out myself had nobody else beaten me to it.

This criticism, however, DOES apply to the orthodox church as well because it was a part of the Roman empire's reshaping of Christianity into a state religion (and thus a tool of Roman power). Nevertheless it is the consensus of Christianity that the unification of Christianity in the fourth century eccumenical councils was a work of God rather than the Roman empire.