• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well I am sure the Pope will resign and the Catholic Church dismantle now that someone has rejected them on the interwebby.

Celibacy for Priests is a discipline of the church not a part of the doctrine of the faith.

I do not recall a Pope in my lifetime (the whopping 3 of them) saying that they were not human and not subject to the human condition, including weaknesses/frailty.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
58,136
Reaction score
29,177
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually I think celibacy for priests is Biblically supported.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
Modern day: Christianity is considered the main belief system under which Catholicism, Wesleyanism, Methodism, Zionism (etc etc) - all these belief systems fall. The difference? How they interpret and enact the Bible's teachings. . .Some have different teachings that the others don't follow, such as Catholicism. Their religious views formed on different holy books and stories. (or should I say - additional)

They're all, in basic structure, Christian faiths.

Now: everyone looks to the Bible as the standard comparison for "what is your religion" or "how religious are you" - but before the Bible, which was slowly collected and put together over centuries, how was one defined as a Christian? In one area of Europe things were defined by ABC, in another area, they were defined by XYZ. Only now, after all the tumult and craziness was settled, do we have one solid, unified religious book to refer to and anything outside of that book is considered to be unimportant to most.

There's probably a huge difference between Christians, now, and Christians of 50 AD - It's most likely that no one can understand what it meant to someone back then to be seen as Catholic or to be seen as Christian.

"___ is a corruption of ___" is probably the same thing said of various religious branches for - oh - almost 20 centuries and counting. That discounting view is what kept the 100 year war going for over 100 years - and what fueled the Catholic spite for so long, and what drove so many to be tied to a stake and burned.

From an outsider who no longer identifies with any of it: the worst thing for anyone is to declare their view trumps all others. To me: one is no more or less believable than the other.
 
Last edited:

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
umm.. how can the church founded by the top dog of the 12 apostles to Jesus Christ himself be a corruption of Christianity?

the idea that the pope is top dog comes from Peter.... he founded the church in Rome, he was the first Pope, right hand man to Jesus... the Bishop of Rome was ,from then on, the head of all of Christianity... it's called Petrine Authority.
this authority stems from scripture... Matt 16:17-19.. the continuance of this authority through subsequent generations is found in Is. 22:20-24

some of the Dogma formed through the centuries is a bit off to me, but I surely don't see the Catholic church as being a corruption of Christianity.. that's absurd.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,473
Reaction score
20,328
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
I accept your factual statements regarding the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy. Jesus never said anything about such a system.

However, the only "bible" existing at the time of Jesus was the Hebrew Torah. There was no such thing as a "New Testament." That was a collection of writings of various followers, including a few of his apostles, but mostly writers who came well after his passing. Then these testimonies were severely edited by the Catholic Church, through councils (like the Council of Nicea) of Bishops and other church leaders. What was collated as "correct" was called the "New Testament," while all the rest was set aside and labeled "Apocrypha" (statements or claims considered of dubious authenticity).

Sooo, you denounce the Catholic Church, but you accept the "New Testament" that they created as a valid guide for what Jesus said?
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
58,136
Reaction score
29,177
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
There is plenty of Catholic doctrine I disagree with but I do not believe Catholicism is a "corruption of Christianity". It's "sect" of it (can't think of a better word), in fact it's the largest sect by a lot.

I do agree though that people should read the Bible for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually I think celibacy for priests is Biblically supported.
meh, Peter, the fist Pope, was a Married man.

it wasn't until 300+ years after Christ, at the Council of Elvira, that celibate priests became a discipline ( as opposed to a doctrine)
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I accept your factual statements regarding the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy. Jesus never said anything about such a system.

However, the only "bible" existing at the time of Jesus was the Hebrew Torah. There was no such thing as a "New Testament." That was a collection of writings of various followers, including a few of his apostles, but mostly writers who came well after his passing. Then these testimonies were severely edited by the Catholic Church, through councils (like the Council of Nicea) of Bishops and other church leaders. What was collated as "correct" was called the "New Testament," while all the rest was set aside and labeled "Apocrypha" (statements or claims considered of dubious authenticity).

Sooo, you denounce the Catholic Church, but you accept the "New Testament" that they created as a valid guide for what Jesus said?
well, to be fair, the "system" is found in scripture... Isiah and Mathew to be specific.... both of which are ancient Jewish composite authorship scriptures
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
umm.. how can the church founded by the top dog of the 12 apostles to Jesus Christ himself be a corruption of Christianity?

the idea that the pope is top dog comes from Peter.... he founded the church in Rome, he was the first Pope, right hand man to Jesus... the Bishop of Rome was ,from then on, the head of all of Christianity... it's called Petrine Authority.
this authority stems from scripture... Matt 16:17-19.. the continuance of this authority through subsequent generations is found in Is. 22:20-24

some of the Dogma formed through the centuries is a bit off to me, but I surely don't see the Catholic church as being a corruption of Christianity.. that's absurd.
No - it's not absurd. Peter was never a Pope within his lifetime. He was only later declared to be a Pope (much later). To put it simply: the established leaders of the Catholic Church decided it sounded like a good idea to declare things came directly from Peter considering his relationship with Jesus.

Peter's connection with the Catholic Church is only found if you take "Peter's actions in life - and then followed them - and followed them - and eventually you arrive at how they had some sort of a long-distance hand in developing the Catholic Church"

Apparently it worked wonders when people, now, consider it absurd to think otherwise. But it's just an appointed belief that was given to him long after his death.

The Catholic Church outright declares the Jesus Christ founded it himself - nevermind Peter.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,473
Reaction score
20,328
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
well, to be fair, the "system" is found in scripture... Isiah and Mathew to be specific.... both of which are ancient Jewish composite authorship scriptures
Well, whatever you found in Isaiah would apply to the Jewish faith, not how to set up a Christian hierarchy. There is no book of Mathew in the old testament. Matthew is a New Testament book; there you find Jesus telling Simon, called Peter, that he would be the rock upon which his church would be founded, and Peter would have the keys to the kingdom (of Heaven).

Peter never founded the system of the Catholic Church. The New Testament has no examples I am aware of showing Peter setting up such a system. The Emperor Constantine, on the other hand, was very instrumental in creating the system we see in use today.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
Yes, there is nothing about the Pope in the bible but then again, the bible isn't the religious constitution that defines how organized religion should run, giving powers and limitation on branches of government.

So hence, your denouncement not only is it grounded in stupidity, it is also nonsensical.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No - it's not absurd. Peter was never a Pope within his lifetime. He was only later declared to be a Pope (much later). To put it simply: the established leaders of the Catholic Church decided it sounded like a good idea to declare things came directly from Peter considering his relationship with Jesus.

Peter's connection with the Catholic Church is only found if you take "Peter's actions in life - and then followed them - and followed them - and eventually you arrive at how they had some sort of a long-distance hand in developing the Catholic Church"

Apparently it worked wonders when people, now, consider it absurd to think otherwise. But it's just an appointed belief that was given to him long after his death.

The Catholic Church outright declares the Jesus Christ founded it himself - nevermind Peter.
the Episcopal Jurisdiction of the Catholic church is called " the Holy See" or "See of Rome" which was founded by Peter.... Peter was the very first Bishop of Rome.( yes, while he was alive)


know who else is the Bishop of Rome?... every single pope, or person that holds petrine authority, since Peter....coincidence?

now, primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all of Christendom is another matter...at the very least , he was concerned equal to the other bishops of other churches founded by Peter ( through epistles).. but that was settled later ,when the Bishop of Rome was consider the "universal" Bishop, mostly in honor of Peter, the founder and top apostle to the big guy
Catholic, the word.. is derived from a greek word... which means "universal"...the universal Bishop of the universal church... coincidence?

anyways. it is absurd to say the catholic church is a corruption of Christianity.. it was ultimately formed by the top apostle to Jesus Christ..who was, indeed, the acting Bishop of Rome at it's inception.

the title "Pope" didn't come around until the 10th century ( it means "father").. so of course Peter wasn't called the Pope.. he was simply the Bishop of Rome.. a title that has remained unchanged since Peter held it...every person in succession after Peter has held the title of Bishop of Rome
of course, atheists and agnostics find all of this absurd...so, meh.
 

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I accept your factual statements regarding the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy. Jesus never said anything about such a system.

However, the only "bible" existing at the time of Jesus was the Hebrew Torah. There was no such thing as a "New Testament." That was a collection of writings of various followers, including a few of his apostles, but mostly writers who came well after his passing. Then these testimonies were severely edited by the Catholic Church, through councils (like the Council of Nicea) of Bishops and other church leaders. What was collated as "correct" was called the "New Testament," while all the rest was set aside and labeled "Apocrypha" (statements or claims considered of dubious authenticity).

Sooo, you denounce the Catholic Church, but you accept the "New Testament" that they created as a valid guide for what Jesus said?
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,473
Reaction score
20,328
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
Aaahhhh, no one more fanatically "anti-something" than a "former follower" of that something. LOL jk ;)
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
oh.. an atheist thinks the catholic church is a corruption of Christianity...

makes more sense now.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
So in other words, you're like a rabid dog who turned on his master, metaphorically speaking.
 

SMTA

Ketsu no anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
7,757
Location
OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
That explains a lot.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,316
Reaction score
19,369
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am also a former Catholic. In fact, in a "past life" (meaning prior to one of those times when I had to redefine my life again), I studied for the priesthood for 2 years and was a candidate to enter the Franciscan order.

Jesus, in fact, never went and said he was starting a new religion. In some ways, every version of Christianity is a corruption of Jesus' vision which was more about changing Judaism. We are clearly not all Jews. A "church" - any church - is a human institution. As such it is subject to human failings. For some people, the idea of a heirarchy makes sense to them, and everybody should be free to join whatever human institution makes sense to them.
 

marywollstonecraft

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
538
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
just curious ... have you seen some stats on literacy rates from 2000 years ago?

my understanding is that it may have been pretty difficult for most people to read the bible themselves.
 

marywollstonecraft

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
538
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the Episcopal Jurisdiction of the Catholic church is called " the Holy See" or "See of Rome" which was founded by Peter.... Peter was the very first Bishop of Rome.( yes, while he was alive)


know who else is the Bishop of Rome?... every single pope, or person that holds petrine authority, since Peter....coincidence?

now, primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all of Christendom is another matter...at the very least , he was concerned equal to the other bishops of other churches founded by Peter ( through epistles).. but that was settled later ,when the Bishop of Rome was consider the "universal" Bishop, mostly in honor of Peter, the founder and top apostle to the big guy
Catholic, the word.. is derived from a greek word... which means "universal"...the universal Bishop of the universal church... coincidence?

anyways. it is absurd to say the catholic church is a corruption of Christianity.. it was ultimately formed by the top apostle to Jesus Christ..who was, indeed, the acting Bishop of Rome at it's inception.

the title "Pope" didn't come around until the 10th century ( it means "father").. so of course Peter wasn't called the Pope.. he was simply the Bishop of Rome.. a title that has remained unchanged since Peter held it...every person in succession after Peter has held the title of Bishop of Rome
of course, atheists and agnostics find all of this absurd...so, meh.
ummmm .. I am an atheist and I don't find it absurd. What you are saying fits with my understanding - although I did think the term "pope" originated earlier than that, but know that I may well be wrong on that.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
The Biblical support for the papacy can be found in Matthew 16:18. But it is wrongheaded to think that the Bible is the sum total of Christian faith. After all, the Church predates the Bible by about 300 years. So it is totally wrong to call the Catholic Church a corruption of Christianity, since the Catholic Church is Christiniaty.

It is much more accurate to say that all other branches of Christiantiy are corruptions of the Catholic Church, although that wouldn't be very polite. But it would be true.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
60,355
Reaction score
33,044
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
just curious ... have you seen some stats on literacy rates from 2000 years ago?

my understanding is that it may have been pretty difficult for most people to read the bible themselves.
In the beginning was the Word.

The written Word came later. ;)
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Biblical support for the papacy can be found in Matthew 16:18. But it is wrongheaded to think that the Bible is the sum total of Christian faith. After all, the Church predates the Bible by about 300 years. So it is totally wrong to call the Catholic Church a corruption of Christianity, since the Catholic Church is Christiniaty.

It is much more accurate to say that all other branches of Christiantiy are corruptions of the Catholic Church, although that wouldn't be very polite. But it would be true.
I don't think i would characterize other denominations as "corruptions" either.

who was a "true" Christian and who was a "corruption" ?..Apostle Peter or Apostle Paul?
( I use these two examples because they both founded churches which didn't see eye to eye on everything.. east v west was the early "divide" in Christianity.)

it get really interesting when get to denominations such as the LDS... which was founded by Joseph smith... who was, as the story goes, ordained by Peter, John, and James.. all of whom had a hand in forming their own sects.... are they a "corruption" too? even though that particular denomination stems from the same dude who formed the Catholic church?
I don't find it very productive to entertain these things, but it is interesting nonetheless.

despite differing disciplines, I'm not feeling that these churches ( outside of the catholic church) are "corruptions".
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ummmm .. I am an atheist and I don't find it absurd. What you are saying fits with my understanding - although I did think the term "pope" originated earlier than that, but know that I may well be wrong on that.


I was kinda being a dick when I typed that... sorry if it offended you.

you may be correct on the term "pope".. my understanding of the origin of title is born from Wiki.
I knew "Bishop of Rome" = "Pope.... but I had to do a lil looking into the time frame the title actually came into use.
 
Top Bottom