English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

No where in the Bible does it remotely suggest that the apostles followed the teachings of the Catholic Church such as infant baptism or special devotion to Mary. The origins of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was more of a political move by Constantine, which was centuries later. The apostles were neither Protestant nor Catholic, because it's not membership in an organization or church that saves, but faith in Jesus. If Catholicism was the true Christianity, why would they contradict themselves and their history by now saying that Jews and Muslims, or even members of non Judeo-Christian religions are fellow believers because they are simply finding God in their own way. Inclusion of other faiths might seem like a noble idea from a wordly standpoint, but doesn't the Bible warn against being friends with the world.

2007-04-20 18:42:19 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

31 answers

The same could be argued about protestant religions too.

2007-04-20 18:47:45 · answer #1 · answered by serialcoyote 4 · 1 0

The Catholic Church predates the Bible, and the only reason many of the most basic practices of the church don't seem to be detailed in scripture is because they were always a part of the practices of the living church ... and no one ever thought they needed to be written down.

Most people couldn't read until the late 19th century, anyway.

Your belief system came about 1500 years after the birth of the authentic Christian church ... the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, established by the apostles, nourished by the blood of the martyrs, and that, by the grace of God, eventually converted most of the known world for Christ, and saved western civilization, long before the first protestant ever thumped a bible.

You have no idea what the early church believed and practiced, because no protestants existed at that time, the bible provides only very limited information about those things, and protestants choose to deny all that came before (tradition) as a matter of doctrine.

The Catholic Church experienced all the new testament events and persons, and lived the authentic Christian faith, from the very beginning.

Quit fooling yourself.

You've been sold a bill of goods, and you know so little about the true church that you actually think the guys who established the late-day protestant denominations actually knew something that all the others who came before did not.

That sounds a lot like the old heresey of gnosticism, and it's only one of the great heresies that the "reformers" embraced when they separated themselves from the only church that Jesus ever founded, authorized, empowered, and guaranteed ... the Catholic Church.

2007-04-20 19:26:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Christ said to Peter "Upon this rock I build my church" in Matthew 16:18. This is a pun sort of because Peter is the Greek word for rock. Anyway, The Catholics claim a line following from Peter as the first pope so to speak (leader of the church). It is called the catholic church because catholic means universal, and in the beginning it was the universal church. It had a somewhat continuous line of tradition with the Catholicism of today. The Protestant movement branched off in the 16th century because of corruption. It was the original church and Constantine's political move was to embrace this religion and spread gain the blessing of the bishops.
They do not really contradict themselves by saying that Jews, Muslims, etc. are fellow believers because they might actually be fellow believers. How is a mortal to judge the heart and mind of another mortal? Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart. Those people could be fellow believers.
There are lots of beliefs that Christians have that are not necessarily explicit in the words of Christ. The prohibition against homosexuality is an example, but these have become tradition and Christianity must also affirm tradition in some way.
True, it is not membership in a church that saves, but if these churches affirm the basic tenents of Christianity then it seems like it is more a personal preference if one be Catholic or Protestant than an issue of their salvific stance.

2007-04-20 18:53:59 · answer #3 · answered by wonbongkim 2 · 2 1

Now let us be clear on the Catholic Claims r/e being the first.

1. The first pope/bishop of Rome was not Peter but Prince Linus, the son of Queen Boudica of Britain. When Linus was executed after the christian arson attack of Rome to try and free Paul around 64 CE, Queen Boudica launched once of the most vicious attacks against all Roman settlements in history.
see: http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/succession/succession_0010.htm

2. Peter was a Nazarene, not a christian. Jesus founded the Nazarenes, not christianity. It was Paul who founded Christianity and was the arch-enemy of Peter and everything that Jesus really stood for. Because of the orchestrated arson attack and evil of the Paul christians, the Romans made being a christian a capital crime from 64 CE.
See:
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/josephus_wars/josephus_wars_0010.htm

3. No Pope, no bishop of Rome existed to at least late 2nd Century. In fact, the most important Jesus preaching person in Rome by 150 CE was Valentinus, who had thousands of followers, several schools and official sanction by the Emperor- he was of course a Nazarene, a gnostic and held copies of the true words of Jesus through the gnostic gospels.
So, if any pope did exist at the time, you would have expected something about Valentinus.

4. James, the Just, the brother of Jesus was the first Pope and head of the Jerusalem Church. In the first five hundred years, no one dispute the Eastern Churches had the power and Rome never made any ficticious claim to be first- but after the splits of the 7th and 8th century, the Vatican created a completely ficticious past to claim legitimacy and primacy.

Any general research of historic works can start to find these threads of truth. Unfortunately people don't read as much these days and the Catholic Church gets away with a few more years of porky pies.

2007-04-21 21:05:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The followers of Jesus were first called those who followed "the way", a short time later they became know as Christians. As the church grew they had Bishops in each city and all the Bishops were equal. Because the seat of Peter was in Rome the Bishop of Rome was seen as "first among equals". So there was only one church in all of the world until 1054. This is when the East and West split. This is when the church at Rome started calling itself "Catholic" and the rest of the church called itself "Orthodox". Both branches of the church followed the same customs that were handed down in the oral traditions and practices that are called "Holy Tradition".

I am truely shocked by some of the other answers here. I can't believe that so many people do not know anything of the history of the church.

2007-04-20 18:57:46 · answer #5 · answered by tonks_op 7 · 3 2

The reason that mama claims Peter to be the first pope was in hopes of getting more people (and money) into the cat-aholic church. Otherwise, they could care less. In truth, the catholic church is nothing but a lie.

When current Catholics' learn what I did as a Catholic, they will leave mama too. I'm only sorry that it takes so long for some to learn what I did and realize they are not being lie to about the history of mama.

The Bartholomew massacre at Paris was because people would not bow down to the catholic church and become catholic. "Died or become Catholic!", they proclaimed! The catholics' were so proud of themselves for killing off everyone in that town they painted a portrait on the ceiling in the royal saloon of the vatican at Rome, with the following inscription: "Pontifex, Coligny necem probat, i.e., 'The pope approves of Coligny's death.' " Not so surprising, the public is not allow in that room anymore unless the painting is cover up. And the catholic church also denys that Hilter was ever a catholic and that the vatican funded the Nazi war machine.

During WWII, Hilter was quoted saying that Christ Jesus could not be the savior of the world because he was a Jew. Isn't that funny, look at many of the historical writings of mama, they "ALL" claim that Mary is "our" saviour.

In truth, Hitler primary function was to enforce "Council of Trent". That simply means, destroy any country or any Christian church or any individual that contradicts the vatican.

This is also why in 1588 catholic spain attack Protestant England because Queen Elizabeth denounced catholicism. For this reason--and many, many others--is why no one who is born in England to be a King or Queen is allowed to marry anyone who is roman catholic. It is against state law.

When was the last time you heard a pope pray in the name of Jesus Christ?

Up date:

Punter (5 above me), the apocrypha was added to the Bible by the catholic church. Take note of these simple facts: Jesus never once quoted the apocrypha. If he did, where in the Gospels of Christ was he quoted reading or quoting from it? (Mattew, Mark, Luke or John) Then, name just one book in the Old Testaments where it for tells of the apocrypha? Of course, the apocrypha makes references to the OT & NT. The apocrypha was added to the Bible during the 400 hundred years that God was silence about adding words or books to His Bible. Last but not least, find a version of the apocrypha that was written during Christopher Colmbus days at sea while seaching for the New World. Remember, God makes no mistakes. And the people that God had writing His Word for us over a 1,600 years didn't misquote God at anytime either. That said, we all know that the sea vs. land is 70-30. The apocrypha claimed that sea vs. land was 50-50. Proving that the apocrypha is nothing but a fraud.

2007-04-20 18:47:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Well said brother John! However as a "protestant" Christian taking Catholic theology cources (at a Catholic university--not my choosing) I have often asked myself this also.

The word catholic was really meant to say "universal" rather than a "religion" and nowadays is specifically meant to distinguish from any other denomination. All the believers had one faith and it was Christianity. I belive it was Tertullian that 1st mentioned the word anyways.

2007-04-20 18:49:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

+ Catholic +

The Church has referred to itself as the “Catholic Church” at least since 107 AD, when the term appears in the Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans:

"Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html

This was about 10 years after the book of Revelation was written.

There are non-biblical documented sources starting in the second century (101-200 A.D.) telling of infant Baptism.

All of this was long before the Emporer Constatine, the Council of Nicea, and the Nicene Creed from 325 A.D. which states, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

+ Sources of Docrtine+

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

The Catholic Church does not use Holy Scripture as the only basis of doctrine. It could not. The early Catholic church existed before and during the time that the New Testament was written (by Catholics).

There were hundreds of Christian writings during the first and second centuries. Which New Testament writings would become official was not fully decided until about 400 AD.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church (and is guiding the church today) to make the correct choices about things like:
+ The Holy Trinity (which is also only hinted at in the Bible)
+ Going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday (which is actually directly against one of the Ten Commandments)
+ The Communion of Saints
+ Which writings include in the New Testament?

Things that are even more modern like
+ Slavery is bad. Slavery is never declared evil in the Bible. This was one of the justifications for slavery in the Confederate States.
+ Democracy is good. The Bible states that either God should be the leader of the nation like Israel before the kings or kings should be the leader, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." This was talked about a lot during the American Revolution.

This second source of doctrine is called Apostolic Tradition.

Do Christians who do not allow the continuing guiding force of the Holy Spirit to make their beliefs more and more perfect, still endorse slavery as Colossians 3:22 commands, "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything"?

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm#80

+ With love in Christ.

2007-04-21 17:50:09 · answer #8 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 0 1

The Catholic church from its beginning was Satan's counterfeit for Christianity. Constantine was the father of the Catholic church and he wasn't even born until 313 or thereabout. What kept the Christian church alive for almost 300 years before the inception of the Catholic church?

2007-04-20 18:49:10 · answer #9 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 2 2

As Paul stated, and I paraphrase, "Men surreptitiously came into our midst, learned our teachings, then went out to start their own form of Christianity. If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. The only thing good I can say about them is that they preach Jesus. Unfortunately, they mix that with lies in God's name."

Revelation's great whore is papal Rome, and her harlot daughters are Pagan and Protestant. Christ's church is not of a building hewn by man and neither is it a denomination where they teach "man's commandments and traditions" in God's name.

Not one of the denominations making up "corporate Christendom" come any where near fulfilling the Biblical description of Christ's church. His church is made up of people who have followed God's call to "come out of her, my people, that you not partake of her sins and her plagues." They meet in each other's homes, online, on the phone, and anywhere else they can come together; for "where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, so shall He be." This church follows only God's Doctrine as well as having the faith of and in Jesus Christ: as stated 3 times in Revelation.

You might want to check out the sources I have noted below.

My love and prayers in Christ dear one,
BonnieQ
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truthseekersandspeakers

2007-04-20 21:02:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

In Foxe's Book of Martyrs the word to decribe the so called 'Protestant' movement was often referred to as the "Reformed". As in reformed from the past, even to the days of Jesus walking on the Earth. To me that is the original and true church. The more I understand the application of the word, the more I like it. ( :

2007-04-20 18:51:35 · answer #11 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers