@ImTheMostManlyMan

Catholicism is the oldest form of christianity. How can you worship god without worshipping the Christ? That doesn't make sense. It's just that at some point, some found it funkier to worship explicitely Jesus, but also because they disagreed with some doctrines of the Catholics and had to start their own fanclub; that doesn't make them more christian than the others. Catholics are just much more ritualistic than protestants, that's all.

Though it's funny how that distinction seems to be an American thing. I don't know for the rest of the world, but around here in central Europe, Catholicism and Protestantism are the two main branches of christianity, and if you said here that catholics aren't christians, you'd be laughed at by pretty much everyone.

Catholicism is the oldest form of christianity.

no because the earliest form of Christianity followed Jesus' and the apostle's teachings

no because the earliest form of Christianity followed Jesus' and the apostle's teachings

Yeah but that form is dead now. Besides, if you wanna go far far back, the first real trace of christianism is a Judaism offshoot from people originary from Canaan. No trace of Jesus back then as far as I know.

Yeah but that form is dead now. Besides, if you wanna go far far back, the first real trace of christianism is a Judaism offshoot from people originary from Canaan. No trace of Jesus back then as far as I know.

Christianity is Christianity, and nothing less than that. The church is the church, no matter what sector or denomination you are in. Isn't that the point of this thread?

Besides, we still follow the teachings of apostles of that era. Christianity was still in its early stages at that point, so there was not really any such thing as denomination. People believed and interpreted differently; that much is evident from Paul's letters (false teachers). Catholicism may be the oldest denomination that has followed through to this day, but as far as we know Protestant churches may follow the beliefs more closely than the Catholic church did. Either way, the Christians are still a part of the church.

Also, about the Judaism offshoot, that may be correct... There were likely false prophets who claimed they were the Messiah even before Jesus came to this earth (I mean, even the apostles thought he was going to return in a few days, and he hasn't returned in these two millennia). However, modern Christianity stems mostly off of the New Testament and the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and was resurrected.

Either way, doesn't really matter.

Anyways, Catholicism does have some pretty skewed teachings, I think. Take, for example, their tradition of transubstantiation is believed to transform the wine and the bread into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. This occurs at every mass. So, at every mass (which could even take place every day - think, that's a lot of Jesus' flesh) they perform transubstantiation. Jesus was raised into heaven after his resurrection, so wouldn't his body be in heaven, technically? I'm not sure how that all works.

Also, Catholics pray to Mary, or through Mary. They believe that Mary was without sin, since she gave birth to Jesus, who was without sin. Wouldn't she be in part the Messiah, though? She couldn't be a normal person and have not sinned. It's human nature. Else, if she was truly perfect, wouldn't her heritage would have also been perfect, without sin? The Bible doesn't really support the fact of Mary being sinless, nor give any evidence of it. (Either way, praying to Mary or the saints would contradict the commandment to not pray to anything other than God. Reference.)

Sins aren't any worse than other sins, I don't think, contrary to what Catholicism teaches. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, but either way if you sin you go to hell. If you ask for forgiveness, all your sins are forgiven.

Then there's also the part where they taxed the people so that they could get into heaven, or get their dead ancestors into heaven... I'm not so sure if they follow that through now, though.

... that doesn't make them more christian than the others. Catholics are just much more ritualistic than protestants, that's all.

It depends how the rituals affect their beliefs. Some of them contradict what the Bible teaches.

Christianity is Christianity, and nothing less than that. The church is the church, no matter what sector or denomination you are in. Isn't that the point of this thread?

Yeah, you're right of course.

However, modern Christianity stems mostly off of the New Testament and the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and was resurrected.

One more thing bizarre to me.. not recognizing both testaments as equal integer part of christianity (which they are).

Anyways, Catholicism does have some pretty skewed teachings, I think. Take, for example, their tradition of transubstantiation is believed to transform the wine and the bread into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. This occurs at every mass. So, at every mass (which could even take place every day - think, that's a lot of Jesus' flesh) they perform transubstantiation. Jesus was raised into heaven after his resurrection, so wouldn't his body be in heaven, technically? I'm not sure how that all works.

Wouldn't be the first miracle claimed, eh?

Also, Catholics pray to Mary, or through Mary. They believe that Mary was without sin, since she gave birth to Jesus, who was without sin. Wouldn't she be in part the Messiah, though? She couldn't be a normal person and have not sinned. It's human nature. Else, if she was truly perfect, wouldn't her heritage would have also been perfect, without sin? The Bible doesn't really support the fact of Mary being sinless, nor give any evidence of it. (Either way, praying to Mary or the saints would contradict the commandment to not pray to anything other than God. Reference.)

I think you are not supposed to worship anything else than god as a deity. Which catholics don't do. They pray to god but address their prayers to Mary and the saints in hope that those in turn get the prayers to god directly. About them being sinless, they're considered saints, humans through which some of god's divine essence channels (or whatever); how could they sin if they're transfused by god?

Then there's also the part where they taxed the people so that they could get into heaven, or get their dead ancestors into heaven... I'm not so sure if they follow that through now, though.

Wasn't this done during the churches darkest chapters? Not trying to defend it, but no, it's not done anymore since a long time. And it was wrong, just as is auto-flagellation and other stuff like that.

One more thing bizarre to me.. not recognizing both testaments as equal integer part of christianity (which they are).

Not that they aren't, but I was saying that Christianity is mostly defined by the New Testament. The Old Testament, while equally important, shares the foundation and history of the earth, and the Pentateuch which Judaism so embraces.

Speaking of which, the book of Maccabees doesn't necessarily follow along with the rest of the Bible. Just putting that out there.

Wouldn't be the first miracle claimed, eh?

Transubstantiation is based off of the last supper, objective to the first miracle Jesus performed. I'm not sure if I really understand what you said.

I think you are not supposed to worship anything else than god as a deity.

Yes.

Which catholics don't do.

I don't suppose you read the reference?

Anyways, one of the points it made was that for the saints and Mary to hear all the prayers of the people, they would have to be practically omniscient. They are also humans like us, born in sin. Here's a verse they used to back it up.

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," (Rev. 19:10)

Sounds kind of relative, doesn't it? Plus, praying to the saints is sort of objective to God's nature - he is omniscient, and praying to the saints to get it heard better means that you probably think that God won't hear, and distances humanity from God. As well as being omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that doesn't really seem to fit.

About them being sinless, they're considered saints, humans through which some of god's divine essence channels (or whatever); how could they sin if they're transfused by god?

Paul sinned - he killed Christians, and God still used him. David was a man after God's own heart, yet committed adultery and murdered a man to cover it up, while he was king. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had their problems, as well as Samson... Yes, God uses people, but that doesn't mean that they're sinless. Considering them sinless  puts them on par with God, which is practically blasphemy.

Wasn't this done during the churches darkest chapters? Not trying to defend it, but no, it's not done anymore since a long time. And it was wrong, just as is auto-flagellation and other stuff like that.

Aye. Didn't think so.

Transubstantiation is based off of the last supper, objective to the first miracle Jesus performed. I'm not sure if I really understand what you said.

Simple.. if god can make a statue cry or stuff like that, why couldn't he transform bread to flesh? So many things are claimed being miracles that I wonder why you question this thing specifically ;)

Plus, praying to the saints is sort of objective to God's nature - he is omniscient, and praying to the saints to get it heard better means that you probably think that God won't hear, and distances humanity from God. As well as being omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that doesn't really seem to fit.

I must say, I have always asked myself why we need saints, for exactly those reasons you stated. Well, from a theological viewpoint at least. It does make sense for the church to declare some people saints as "good examples". It also makes sense to do so post-mortem, which means they were humans during life, and saints in the afterlife, which relativates the issue.

Simple.. if god can make a statue cry or stuff like that, why couldn't he transform bread to flesh? So many things are claimed being miracles that I wonder why you question this thing specifically ;)

Why would he?

I see it as the same reason as the one paradox... Could God create a rock that is too big for him to lift? The theological answer is that it isn't in God's nature to do so (he wouldn't do something out of his character). Why would God perform miracles around the world consistently? It would seem just as reasonable or even more reasonable to heal all of the sick. Just a thought. Plus, transubstantiation goes a bit against this verse:

"Act 3:21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."

How can his actual flesh and blood be transubstantiated when he must remain in heaven?

I must say, I have always asked myself why we need saints, for exactly those reasons you stated. Well, from a theological viewpoint at least. It does make sense for the church to declare some people saints as "good examples". It also makes sense to do so post-mortem, which means they were humans during life, and saints in the afterlife, which relativates the issue.

I have no problem with saints. The Bible even supports earning more 'jewels on your crown' in heaven, somewhere in Revelations, I think. Praying to them just seems rather controversial.

He pope: the position of the pope is never once mentioned in he New Testament. In that verse where they claim to have proof for it, the word rock that's used to describe Peter means a small rock like a pebble, the word rock that Jesus said he would build his church on is like a foundation, a big rock, not a pebble. And hen they take that, say that he's setting up the position of he pope, and let their minds run free with ideas as to what he does.

In the original aramaic, both are called cephas, which means rock, the greeks had multiple rocks, but it did not seem right to give Peter a feminine word, so they made it the more masculine sounding one instead.

Anyways, Catholicism does have some pretty skewed teachings, I think. Take, for example, their tradition of transubstantiation is believed to transform the wine and the bread into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. This occurs at every mass. So, at every mass (which could even take place every day - think, that's a lot of Jesus' flesh) they perform transubstantiation. Jesus was raised into heaven after his resurrection, so wouldn't his body be in heaven, technically? I'm not sure how that all works.

Also, Catholics pray to Mary, or through Mary. They believe that Mary was without sin, since she gave birth to Jesus, who was without sin. Wouldn't she be in part the Messiah, though? She couldn't be a normal person and have not sinned. It's human nature. Else, if she was truly perfect, wouldn't her heritage would have also been perfect, without sin? The Bible doesn't really support the fact of Mary being sinless, nor give any evidence of it. (Either way, praying to Mary or the saints would contradict the commandment to not pray to anything other than God. Reference.)

When Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."

for your second point, Jesus said His Church is of the living, not the dead (might of used a different term), and when we pray to the saints, we are asking them, in the same way that you would ask your neighbor, to pray for us to God, since they are already in Heaven they are closer to God.

As for Mary being sinless, that is Church Doctrine, and we can believe it because of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, "the Church is the pillar and foundation (ground) of truth." Matthew chapter 18 verses 17 and 18, which shows the church in position of authority and gives it power to bind and loose things (like beliefs), Jesus also said in the petra vs petros verse that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, indicating that the only Church that has existed from Peter up till now (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) is the one true church.

Then there's also the part where they taxed the people so that they could get into heaven, or get their dead ancestors into heaven... I'm not so sure if they follow that through now, though.

Something that was caused because corrupt sinners got into positions of authority, and was abolished after the council of Trent (Catholic reformation or whatever it is called).

Sounds kind of relative, doesn't it? Plus, praying to the saints is sort of objective to God's nature - he is omniscient, and praying to the saints to get it heard better means that you probably think that God won't hear, and distances humanity from God. As well as being omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that doesn't really seem to fit.

The saints have already proven themselves worthy to be in Heaven, and who would you trust, the thief who recently repented after trying to steal everything you own, or the good man who always helped you in time of need.

Before you complain about the "idols" in Churches that we "worship", the statues are there to help us recall Jesus, Mary and every other person (Peter, Paul, St. Francis, St. Dominic, and others) that the Church has deemed fit to use as a model.

~~~Darth Caedus

"Act 3:21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."

How can his actual flesh and blood be transubstantiated when he must remain in heaven?

Wouldn't that mean that he isn't Omnipresent?

p.s. so there are no posts for days, I get back and all of the sudden there is a whole page for me to respond to.

~~~Darth Caedus