Is Catholicism Christianity?

[Saltmeister]

Question.

What does ANY religion need all these priests, pastors, nuns, etc, for?

Surely if, as most of you believe, there is some sort of divine creator, then all you need do is be a good person, open your heart to that, and voila, you are sorted.

Why does it have to be made any more complex than just that?

It's a historical thing.

I might even say it's a "bad habit" that Catholicism has.

Some "habits" die hard. It's like the difference between a kilobyte and a kibibyte.

A kilobyte used to be 1,024 bytes. Now they've changed it to 1,000 bytes because it confuses people. The kibibyte has replaced the kilobyte as 1,024 bytes. I don't like the change because I'm used to the old definition/tradition of 1,024 bytes. Shame on everyone who wants to change it to 1,000!

You're probably wondering why they made it 1,024. It's because 2^10 = 1,024. The number 2 multiplied by itself 10 times is 1,024. That's pretty close to 1,000. The number 1,024 is a pretty neat number. 1024*1024 is still pretty close to 1 million, and 1024^3 is also still pretty close to 1 billion, and so on and so on.

That's what makes the number 1,024 so special, much like a kind of mathematical elegance, in that the binary version of "kilo" is close to the decimal version of "kilo."

1,024 is a mythical, legendary number.

 

[seattlegal]

Briefly, how did the Catholi Church end up with a single head of heads (the pope). There is no equivalent of that really, not in Protestantism or Islam, for example?

Does it ever benefit the religion to have a single head in this manner?

From this non-catholic Christian's perspective, it was basically a product of the declaration of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. (The Christian church was then rendered and split into the Eastern and Western churches. Many don't like this idea, because of the civil authority associated with it.)
Pontiffs are basically a product of prechristian Roman culture. Wiki: College of Pontiffs

 

[Thomas]

What are the primary differences between Catholicism and Protestantism?
In an easy to digest manner, please.

OK. The first difference was in the theology of Martin Luther. The Church preached that man is a creature who is by nature good, but who, by a fault, renders his reasoning faulty, and does bad things — but that the fault can be healed, and right reason recta ratio re-established, and man is restored to his essential and intrinsic goodness. Luther believed that man is sin, that he is intrinsically and by nature a sinful thing.

Luther could not reconcile himself to the Church's view of man as good, and so broke with the Church. To do so, he argued that Scripture alone is the source of authority, and not Tradition (the Church's practices based on the interpretation of Scripture).

Luther, in rejecting the authority of the Church's tradition, nevertheless asserted the authority of his own interpretation of Scripture as sufficient for him to establish his own tradition. Basically the Church says "this is the way to think about 'X', and Luther said, "No, this is the way ... "

The row over indulgences, the public argument, was subsequent and shaped by this theology — there is no point in praying for the dead, because one cannot intercede with God and plead for mercy on their behalf. The Church argues that Jesus intercedes with God for us, He calls us 'friends' and asks His Father to forgive any offences by His friends. The Church believes that following Jesus' example, we should forgive 'those who trespass against us' and ask the Father to do the same.

So we get the "95 Theses" — Luther's rejection of the practice of indulgences because God alone saves, and man can have no say nor play any part in the matter.

Once Luther split with the Church, he opened the way for others to split also. So after him we have Zwingli, Calvin, et al. They disagreed amongst themselves on this point and that, but all agreed that:
1 — Man is a creature of sin.
2 — God saves whom He chooses, and damns who He chooses, and there's bugger all we can do or say about it.
3 — We are not perfected, rather our imperfection is politely ignored.
4 — All men are priests because the church is nothing but the collective name of a group of people who share a common belief.
5 — There is nothing man can do towards his own salvation. Church practice is just empty ritual — traditions are empty words and gestures.

The Catholic Church refutes all five points.

+++

The Scripture alone sola scriptura debate did not stop the new denominations telling their followers what to believe and how to behave.

Only later, after the Enlightenment, did the idea develop into the notion of personal piety, that one's own interpretation of Scripture, as an infallible and inviolate process.

Thomas

 

[enlightenment]

Well, if I happened to believe in a creator, and I believed that creator to be 'all good', I would simplify it down to being happy with that, without complicating it, and factoring in a lot of stuff that is needless and divisive.

Religion and spirituality should be simple.

Too many religions make it stuffy and complex.

Jmho.

 

[wil]

Question.

What are the primary differences between Catholicism and Protestantism?
In an easy to digest manner, please.


What does ANY religion need all these priests, pastors, nuns, etc, for?

Surely if, as most of you believe, there is some sort of divine creator, then all you need do is be a good person, open your heart to that, and voila, you are sorted.

Why does it have to be made any more complex than just that?

Catholic means universal...this is the group that combined the various Christian beliefs at the time to create a unified, universal Church...a little ego and fisticuffs involved in doing so yup, and a little terrorizing of the heretical (those that didn't agree with the universal, yep). And then we have the group that disagreed, the protestors, the protestants. Overly simplified for ya...

And yes imo we don't need all the priests and nuns etc. but we do have folks who want to study more, who want to contemplate more, who want to not be so stuck in them material world and spend time in concert with spirit.

Think of them as your electrical engineers, your PHD's of whatever discipline...they have the time energy and devotion to set the things in motion that allow discovery...

Lets see everyone could go it on their own..and a few would get there...but without all your engineers working in concert for the past decades would we have the internet or the cell phone, or a man on the moon?

 

[enlightenment]

All these priests and pastors, etc.

Are they even needed?

Surely, as I say, if god is real, and his message is simple, we do not need these men in frocks, that insist that people call 'father'?

 

[wil]

All these priests and pastors, etc.

Are they even needed?

Surely, as I say, if god is real, and his message is simple, we do not need these men in frocks, that insist that people call 'father'?

Seems, I just tried to explain that...

I don't know, don't speed, don't sell drugs, don't murder, simple rule...why do we need cops other than to remind us?

1+1=2 why do we need teachers?

You've got a job to do at work, why do you need layers of management to get it done?

There are those that don't need preachers...or think they don't need preachers...they don't go to church. There are those that think they do...I am one of them, (now for decades I was one that didn't think I needed a preacher, a building, a congregation, I was perfectly comfortable in my belief....and then I found that I thoroughly enjoy a preacher, a building, a tradition and a congregation...)...so that's why we have them.

Did you ever see the movie 'Field of Dreams'? Build it and they will come? Same with churches, if you build it, and 'they' want it, they will come. Who is they? They is me.

Now is Catholocism for me...no. That church is built for others...as are Bhuddist and Hindu Temples, and Mosques...now I have found a synagogue I like too...

 

[enlightenment]

Our posts crossed over. That was all. The point is that just because someone has attended a college that specialises in theology, just because someone is a nun or priest, that does not make them any more connected to god than a person that does not even attend a formal church.

On the contrary. The priesthood and nuns have historically attracted some very ungodly types. A disproportionately high number, might I add.

 

[lunamoth]

Our posts crossed over. That was all. The point is that just because someone has attended a college that specialises in theology, just because someone is a nun or priest, that does not make them any more connected to god than a person that does not even attend a formal church.

You are right. It is not the education or even the ordination which makes a person more connected to God. Priests, Bishops, even the Pope would agree with that. They are not claiming such.

On the contrary. The priesthood and nuns have historically attracted some very ungodly types. A disproportionately high number, might I add.

People are people, quite fallible and ordination is no protection against that. You are right that they may face even greater temptations in some ways (and I do not mean sexual sin). But I don't think you can find evidence that a disproportionately high number fall into ungodly behavior, most likely the opposite is true but I don't think either of us have figures on hand for that.

More likely they just get our attention because of their calling. We all have failings, some of us fall in spectacular ways, and if you're visible because of your occupation, whether Priest, Prophet, CEO, or President, your failings are much more public than they are for the rest of us.

 

[enlightenment]

Over institutionalise anything, and it attracts creeps and paedo's.

The schools in Ireland that were run by Nuns etc, had a terrible history of physical and sexual abuse, as does the priesthood.

Perhaps the 'trusted' nature of those positions actually makes them attractive to sadists?

The Vatican and the Pope seem to have pre con for wanting to sweep these abuses under the carpet, would you agree?

 

[lunamoth]

Over institutionalise anything, and it attracts creeps and paedo's.

The schools in Ireland that were run by Nuns etc, had a terrible history of physical and sexual abuse, as does the priesthood.

Perhaps the 'trusted' nature of those positions actually makes them attractive to sadists?

The Vatican and the Pope seem to have pre con for wanting to sweep these abuses under the carpet, would you agree?

Well, there may be some substance to this. Things like a celibate lifestyle devoted to God, a monestary, etc. may attract people who are trying to get away from some part of themselves. And there may be some who do think that the trusting relationship will get them closer to the victims they seek. I'm sure this happens where there is not due viligence.

But there are far more priests and nuns etc. who seek to serve and give pastoral care, and help people. The potential for abuse is in any system, and so there must be screening and education and effort put into protecting against abuse.

The RCC and Christianity as a whole operates on a different paradigm. One of forgiveness and trying to heal, rather than punish. The world does not typically understand this and heck, I also have some righteous anger over the suffering caused to children and others. Lots of pain.

Religious organizations in general have caused lots of suffering. So many people hurt by a thoughtless or even cruel word at a critical time.

Was there sweeping? Sure there was. And that was wrong. Nothing is healed until it gets pulled out into sunlight.

But it's not all bad and it's a mistake to think it is.

 

[enlightenment]

Well, there may be some substance to this. Things like a celibate lifestyle devoted to God, a monestary, etc. may attract people who are trying to get away from some part of themselves. And there may be some who do think that the trusting relationship will get them closer to the victims they seek. I'm sure this happens where there is not due viligence.

But there are far more priests and nuns etc. who seek to serve and give pastoral care, and help people. The potential for abuse is in any system, and so there must be screening and education and effort put into protecting against abuse.

The RCC and Christianity as a whole operates on a different paradigm. One of forgiveness and trying to heal, rather than punish. The world does not typically understand this and heck, I also have some righteous anger over the suffering caused to children and others. Lots of pain.

Religious organizations in general have caused lots of suffering. So many people hurt by a thoughtless or even cruel word at a critical time.

Was there sweeping? Sure there was. And that was wrong. Nothing is healed until it gets pulled out into sunlight.

But it's not all bad and it's a mistake to think it is.

I am only really interested in the law and the welfare of the abused child.

The vatican has pre con of covering up for the actions of paedophile priests.

That can never be right.

I am sure if there is a god, he would not approve of someone avoiding our laws, notwithstanding his laws.

Right?

 

[Dream]

OK. The first difference was in the theology of Martin Luther. The Church preached that man is a creature who is by nature good, but who, by a fault, renders his reasoning faulty, and does bad things — but that the fault can be healed, and right reason recta ratio re-established, and man is restored to his essential and intrinsic goodness. Luther believed that man is sin, that he is intrinsically and by nature a sinful thing.

Maybe so, but Luther was not just a pied piper. There were scads of people just waiting for a Martin Luthor -- any Martin Luthor. Him, Zwingli, and Calvin are considered leaders but they were more like opportunists. There was a terrific surge of grassroots dissatisfaction behind them, so they did not themselves cause the split from the RC. It was already happening.

 

[enlightenment]

Some of the poorest nations in the world are predominantly RC.

These people live with no education.

In a perverse twist, we will then see Catholic churches filled with gold and precious gems, not to mention all the priceless works that 'belong' to the Vatican.

Something not v godly about that.

Those in charge are not silly.

They live as kings, while preaching to the herd that to live in poverty is somehow noble.

 

[lunamoth]

Some of the poorest nations in the world are predominantly RC.

These people live with no education.

In a perverse twist, we will then see Catholic churches filled with gold and precious gems, not to mention all the priceless works that 'belong' to the Vatican.

Something not v godly about that.

Those in charge are not silly.

They live as kings, while preaching to the herd that to live in poverty is somehow noble.

It seems that with every post you want more and more to criticize and cut down your mother's church.

You are free to dislike the RC and see only the problems.

Your choice.

 

[enlightenment]

It seems that with every post you want more and more to criticize and cut down your mother's church.

You are free to dislike the RC and see only the problems.

Your choice.

It is.

My mother and I are different people, so I do not feel a special duty to not speak about the ugly side of Catholicism, should the need take me.

As it goes, for all her supposed leaning toward the religion, she knows v little about it when questioned.

 

[lunamoth]

It is.

My mother and I are different people, so I do not feel a special duty to not speak about the ugly side of Catholicism, should the need take me.

As it goes, for all her supposed leaning toward the religion, she knows v little about it when questioned.

And so your whole OP was just a set-up so you could air all your grievances against the RCC?

 

[enlightenment]

And so your whole OP was just a set-up so you could air all your grievances against the RCC?

Um...no, I am not sure where you got that?

My OP was what it was.

A question as to whether or not RC's are regarded as Christian, and indeed, regard themselves as such.

Don't be so paranoid!

 

[lunamoth]

Um...no, I am not sure where you got that?

My OP was what it was.

A question as to whether or not RC's are regarded as Christian, and indeed, regard themselves as such.

Don't be so paranoid!

I got it from observing that while you set your OP as apparently neutral on the question, you've taken every opportunity to discuss the manifold problems and weaknesses of the institution of the RCC. You've got lots of company. It's nothing new.

But none of this has anything to do with whether the RCC is Christian.

 

[enlightenment]

I got it from observing that while you set your OP as apparently neutral on the question, you've taken every opportunity to discuss the manifold problems and weaknesses of the institution of the RCC. You've got lots of company. It's nothing new.

But none of this has anything to do with whether the RCC is Christian.

I wasn't ever neutral re the central point. I said right off that I agreed with my mum that RC are 'Christians'. I know there are some that do disagree with that.

Threads evolve.

That is natural, happens here, happens on forums all over the net.

In this instance I happened to be speaking about the manner in which the Catholic Church have defended paedo priests.

I really do not see what is wrong in stating that.

Are you denying that they ever have?

If not, what is the problem with that being cited?

Thanks