Catholic Church does not represent Christian Faith? (tradition, Gospel, Buddhism)

[TexasNick]

It is often said by Christian scholars that the Catholic church does not represent the christian faith or the bible. Can someone tell me why this is the case? S'pose I could do a Google search.....

[TexasNick]

I found this:

"Since we are searching for the historical Jesus, I notice that on this site and in many peoples opinions, there is a strong misunderstanding about Catholicism/christianity. The church which Jesus claims He was going to build (Spiritually in Matt. 16:18-21) began at Pentacost around 33a.d.. This church thrived and grew by the day. The church's which had been planted continued to grow as the Apostle taught them. However the Roman Empire began to see christianity first as a harmless jewish cult and then as a possible enemy that needed to be dealt with. A series of persecutions began which also resulted in the deaths of Peter and Paul the apostles and eventually all the Apostles were dead except John who was banished to the island of Patmos where he wrote the book of Revelation. Jesus had already stated in advance in 33a.d. that John would live on to do a special work for Him (John 21:22-here Jesus says He will come back to deal with John which was fulfilled when Jesus gave to John the book of Revelation). Eventually all the Apostles died and the early church fathers continued on. Rome continued to persecute the true christian church which included the horrible death of being fed to the lions in the roman coliseum. The persecution of the church failed however because christians were so strong in their belief that Roman citizens saw that they were willing to die for their faith and many would become converted. The Roman Empire under Constantine eventually decided to legalize christianity in 450a.d. and even make it the state church. However, getting Roman Pagans to go along with this was not easy. Constantine was adamant to make this work because he was convinced he had seen a sign in the sky which was a cross saying "under this sign conquer". The Roman Empire decided to merge its religious pagan idol system with christianity and join them into one church. The Roman Catholic Church. The traditon of celebrating Tammuz 25 of dec birthday was now given to Jesus who was never born on dec 25th. All the pagan idols were eventually given the names of catholic saints. The church grew to enormous proportions and when the political Empire of Rome began its decline, the church became even stronger. During this time, there were remnants and pockets of true christians who resisted this great compromise. This time period is known as the Dark Ages where the catholic church stifled science by saying the earth was flat even though scientists and the Old Testament clearly stated it was circular (Isaiah 40:22 written around 700b.c). The Catholic church began to take all bibles and keep them from the people not wanting them to read the bible. Therefore this merger of paganism and christianity continues to this day. The Protestant Reformation however broke the chains of Rome and lead to a resurgence of the true gospel which is salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. This is where we stand today. Therefore as far as the inquisition, crusades , etc, these were not christians who did this, it was lead by the Roman Catholic church. I even heard one person on this site say Hitler was a christian. He was not a christian, he was a pagan member of the Thule Society which was an occult group who believed in Pan-Germanic paganism which is where the aryan thing came from as well as from theosophy which is a complicated occult system made up of hinduism/buddhism/kabbalah mixed with science and evolution. Hitler did idolize the Catholic church especially the way the Jesuits were set up and he used them as a model for his dreaded SS. It is possible to be saved in the Catholic church but there obstacles because the catholic church teaches many things one must do to be saved which conflicts with what the bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9."

Source link.

"The bible is sufficient to establish that the RCC does not represent the Bible. Incidently, I grew up in the Catholic church and went to catholic school. I have been baptized, confirmed, etc. I know a little something about the RCC. I have been to the vatican many times with my family which is an Italian family. I can assure you that catholicism is not nor has it ever been bible based. I mean no offense to catholics. My points deal with catholic teachings and tradition not to catholics who love Jesus etc. But the cathoic church teaches works are necessary for salvation and this goes against the bible. The bible says anyone who adds to the gospel is to be accursed. This warning applies to the catholic church because it adds works to a gospel which the bible teaches is freely given and must be freely received. The bottom line is Martin Luther was correct.

Also, in Matthew 16 Jesus handed the keys of the Kingdom over to His church. This church began at pentecost. Not in 311ad.

I know that some catholics would disagree. I know this because I was once one. I went to catholic school for 8 years. I was never given a bible. This is common practice in catholicism. In catholic mass, there is no bible used, just quotations and bits and pieces to make sure that the conflicts between catholicism and christianity are never found out. Many priests like Martin Luther who read their bibles realized these conflicts and were forced to make the decision to leave the catholic church. Bottom line, catholicm became legal in Rome in 311 ad while christianity began in 33 ad. After this fact, what else is there really to debate?"

[weatherologist]

I'm sorry, is the question whether or not Catholics are Christians or what was the first recorded church?

[sun]

I glanced over the entire "source link" is there a difference between catholicsm and christianity? - "Danielle" Forums thread - I wonder if Ronald Reagan did too?

[Oakback]

I believe if Luther were alive today, he'd still be a catholic priest.

[mams1559]

As a non-Catholic, I believe the Catholic church is Christian. From my point of view they just have more ritual and doctrine attached to their style of worship. They have their reasons for that and are comfortable with that so I'm okay with that. They're of course still Christian. Oh, and they're more organized as a whole than most denominations, with the Pope at the top and so on and so on.

[arguy1973]

Originally Posted by mams1559

As a non-Catholic, I believe the Catholic church is Christian. From my point of view they just have more ritual and doctrine attached to their style of worship. They have their reasons for that and are comfortable with that so I'm okay with that. They're of course still Christian. Oh, and they're more organized as a whole than most denominations, with the Pope at the top and so on and so on.

I agree with mams Im not Catholic, but did go to several Catholic classes that were required (I think) to become Catholic.

[irishmom]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

I know that some catholics would disagree. I know this because I was once one. I went to catholic school for 8 years. I was never given a bible. This is common practice in catholicism. In catholic mass, there is no bible used, just quotations and bits and pieces to make sure that the conflicts between catholicism and christianity are never found out. Many priests like Martin Luther who read their bibles realized these conflicts and were forced to make the decision to leave the catholic church. Bottom line, catholicm became legal in Rome in 311 ad while christianity began in 33 ad. After this fact, what else is there really to debate?"

As for which church was first and how the Catholic church came to be...I'm not going to get involved with that because it's all easlily looked up if one wants that information (although the link you provided is just a post in another forum, I would suggest interested persons do research from actual historians rather than other opinion sources).

My kids are in Catholic school and they read daily from the bible. My oldest is in middle school this year and they are studying the gospel of John this year...line by line. So possibly you don't remember correctly or you went to a substandard school. But in my experience (I also attended Catholic school growing up) we are given our bibles (Catholic bibles of course) and study them along with catechism from the age of 6.

As for mass, again the bible is read aloud and then the sermon is guided by that day's reading. This may not be the style of all priests but the ones I have had contact with follow this pattern. All the churchs have bible study groups as well.

So while I don't think you need to believe or practice in the exact same way as any denomination, I don't think you should go stating information as if it pertains to an entire denomination when clearly it was really only your personal opinion that you speak of.

[TexasNick]

I found the original source (mentioned above) very very interesting because the guys were on top of their game and used all kinds of sources to make a point. It was much more involved than most historians get into, imho.

[coolcats]

I think there is a small but vocal minority of people who call themselves Christians that like to go around proclaiming that anyone who does not practice exactly as they do are not Christian. The problem is they are still relying on their imperfect interpretation of the Bible and Christ’s teachings. So undoubtedly, there are going to be some aspects where they have implemented practices that don’t correspond perfectly with what Christ would do, if only due to human nature. Would that make them non-Christians?

As someone who belongs to another denomination often accused of not being Christian (LDS), I see it this way. Jesus will decide who is and is not Christian, and we should do our best to live His teachings.