Why Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity

[paddymcdougall]

I don't know why one christian sect bothers saying another one is or isn't christian.

But I know it's a popular debate. Shall we throw the LDS church into the mix? is that christian or not?

I don't care since I'm an atheist. If the man down the block starts a church centered on jesus and tulips and declares it a christian church, I'm fine with that.

But it's always fascinating watching religions trying to claim they are the "true" religion and others aren't.

I would say if you did a poll almost everyone would say Catholics are Christians. Although jehovah's witnesses might not agree...

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

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 are an awful lot of Christians who ignore entire swaths of the Bible, depending on what is politically or socially convenient. Religion is what you make it. Catholics are just as Christian as other denominations.

 

[paddymcdougall]

There are an awful lot of Christians who ignore entire swaths of the Bible, depending on what is politically or socially convenient. Religion is what you make it. Catholics are just as Christian as other denominations.

Darn, you said it so much better...

 

[Jerry]

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.

Catholicism may be corrupt from it's original and intended structure, but it is the original Christianity as an organised religion, so if anything that means the verious denominations are corrupt versions.

 

[RGacky3]

There was no such thing as a Catholic Church, prior to the Orthodox/Catholic split, prior you had essencially Orthodoxy and bits of Heresies, infact, you didn't have a "pope," you had different bishops that had different amounts of authority. Peter wasn't the first pope, the first leader of the Jesus movement was his brother, James, in Jerusalem, Along with Peter and John, who later shared leadership with Paul (the apostle to the nations), the idea that Peter was the Pope isn't in the bible, it's a later tradition.

Catholics and Orthodox believe that the bible isn't the only authority, they don't believe in Sola-Scriptura, although as I understand they cannot contradict the scriptures.

I don't think Catholics are right, I'm a Sola Scriptura christian, of coarse what is IN the NT was made by biships in the early Orthodox Church, but of caorse God in the end in control of what gets in his scriptures.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

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.

not quite .... what about some of the eastern churches?

 

[Guy Incognito]

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".

Well, like I said it isn't polite. But it is true, much like it is true that Spanish and Italian are corruptions of Latin. It is not a very nice thing to say but it is true; and it doesn't necessarily detract from the beauty and validity of these languages. But Latin came first.

 

[Guy Incognito]

not quite .... what about some of the eastern churches?

The ones that haven't reconciled with the Church are in schism.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

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.

lols .... you didn't offend me! I'm just saying that as an atheist I am interested in this kind of thing.

I haven't really checked when the term pope originated - but I know there are various "popes" and it isn't unique to the Roman church.

The copts have popes - at least two at present (Shenouda is Egyptian, and I am not sure whether the Ethiopians have one or two at present, a few years ago there were two due to political divisions). Most orthodox churches call their head bishop a "Patriarch" - and there are a few of those (Russian, Greek, Ukranian, Syrian etc) .... either way, the "holy father" - is God the father's representative on earth - the most senior figure in the church .... whichever church. All older churches are based on a patriarchal model with a "father" at the top. when the "head" of the church began to be referred to as the pope (or "il papa") is probably irrelevant.

In fact, if I was going to argue which churches are "corrupt" I would say those that don't follow the hierarchical patriarchal model do not reflect the ideal of the early church.

The protestant churches are more "modern" in structure - which would have been quite alien to those living at the time of Jesus or in the centuries immediately after that.

 

[rathi]

Well, like I said it isn't polite. But it is true, much like it is true that Spanish and Italian are corruptions of Latin. It is not a very nice thing to say but it is true; and it doesn't necessarily detract from the beauty and validity of these languages. But Latin came first.

If you want to go down that route, you must also accept that Christianity is a corruption of Judaism if you want to be logically consistent. It did come first after all.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If you want to go down that route, you must also accept that Christianity is a corruption of Judaism if you want to be logically consistent. It did come first after all.

It's just an analogy, it was never intended to be taken to extremes. It obviously breaks down when extended too far.

Heretical sects that deviate from the True Church are not precisely analogous to the evolving dialects of languages.

 

[head of joaquin]

Catholicism is no more "corrupt" a form of Christianity than Protestantism, since both follow the doctrinal vagaries of Nicene, and that's the real diversion from the gospel.

The issue isn't denominational, but rather the fact that Christianity went off the track with the rise of systematic theology and doctrine.

 

[wolfman24]

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church." Jesus The Christ
Simon (now known as Peter which is Greek I believe for Rock). So much for not in the Bible.
The hierarchy of the Church is based on the 12 Apostles.

Also, there is no mention of Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Zionists or any particular religion in the Bible except Judism.
the earliest "Christians" were considered a jewish sect until the 2nd century and the largest group among them were the Gnostics.
the Catholic Church did not really come about until the Conference attended by Constantine in the 5th century.

As far was customs and the like the same "COULD" be said for any other "Christian" religion EXCEPT for this. "Whatsoever you deem worthy on earth so shall it be in heaven" Jesus Which gave Peter and his alledged successors the right to instigate rules, customs, hierarchies, establish doctrine and rituals as well as decide who is and is not worthy or saintly.

 

[RGacky3]

It's just an analogy, it was never intended to be taken to extremes. It obviously breaks down when extended too far.

Heretical sects that deviate from the True Church are not precisely analogous to the evolving dialects of languages.

What you're essencially saying is "my concept only works when I want it to work."

When you say the eastern churches are in schism until they come back to the latin church, you're assuming they need to join the latin, rather than the other way around.

 

[RGacky3]

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church." Jesus The Christ
Simon (now known as Peter which is Greek I believe for Rock). So much for not in the Bible.
The hierarchy of the Church is based on the 12 Apostles.

Also, there is no mention of Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Zionists or any particular religion in the Bible except Judism.
the earliest "Christians" were considered a jewish sect until the 2nd century and the largest group among them were the Gnostics.
the Catholic Church did not really come about until the Conference attended by Constantine in the 5th century.

As far was customs and the like the same "COULD" be said for any other "Christian" religion EXCEPT for this. "Whatsoever you deem worthy on earth so shall it be in heaven" Jesus Which gave Peter and his alledged successors the right to instigate rules, customs, hierarchies, establish doctrine and rituals as well as decide who is and is not worthy or saintly.

The whole "Rock" thing obviosuly wan'st referencing a papacy, since directly after, in the first century church it wasn't peter that was a pope, he was just one of the 12, and the leader was james.

The largest group were not Gnostics, the Gnostics didn't really exist in christianity pre-second cenutry, gnostic thought did seep in near the end of the first century, but gnosticism as a form of christianity didn't exist in the first century.

For most of the first century the largest group was Jewish Christianity, i.e. the Jerusalem Church model.

"whatsoever you deem worth on earth so shall it be in heaven." Isn't a reference to the papacy, remember it was peter that brought christianity to the Gentiles first, and allowed non Jews to Join the Christian movement.

Peter was ONE of the leaders, not THE leader. Infact he took orders from both James and Paul.

 

[wolfman24]

What ever makes you sleep at night

 

[fmw]

I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds.

Atta boy!

 

[ChezC3]

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.

First the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, all those protester sects, by men. Second, the Church made the bible the bible didn't make the Church. Third. Nothing Christ taught told anyone to read the bible himself. Fourth. "If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings" He did ensure it, by founding His Church with Peter as it's cornerstone. What Church? The only Church, The Catholic Church.

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 

[RGacky3]

First the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, all those protester sects, by men. Second, the Church made the bible the bible didn't make the Church. Third. Nothing Christ taught told anyone to read the bible himself. Fourth. "If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings" He did ensure it, by founding His Church with Peter as it's cornerstone. What Church? The only Church, The Catholic Church.

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

No it wasn't, the first century church was founded to the apostles, commissioned by christ, the first century church wasn't the catholic church, the catholic church didn't exist until the east/west schism.

Also he didn't make (as the bible shows) Peter the head of the church in the sense of some pope. The bible says that the scriptures are inspired of Gods, not individuals.

 

[ChezC3]

No it wasn't, the first century church was founded to the apostles, commissioned by christ, the first century church wasn't the catholic church, the catholic church didn't exist until the east/west schism.

Also he didn't make (as the bible shows) Peter the head of the church in the sense of some pope. The bible says that the scriptures are inspired of Gods, not individuals.

I am sorry you are mistaken. The 1st Century Church was the same as the 21st century Church. I feel your pain, I was a protester out there listening to all those urban myths too. Then I did some studying.

Apostolic succession. Check it out...

 

[RGacky3]

I am sorry you are mistaken. The 1st Century Church was the same as the 21st century Church. I feel your pain, I was a protester out there listening to all those urban myths too. Then I did some studying.

Apostolic succession. Check it out...

Yeah ... So did I ... And you're wrong, there is no evidence there was a papacy, nor is there any evidence that any aostolic sucession was put in place. The Catholic Church didn't exist pre western/eastern schism ... even if you accept all the Orthodoxy of the catholic church, and the assumptions fo sucession papal authority and so on, there is no reason one should take the western church over the eastern or oriental orthodox church.

But either way, papal authority and singular apostolic sucession isn't biblican or part of the first century church.

 

[ChezC3]

Yeah ... So did I ... And you're wrong, there is no evidence there was a papacy, nor is there any evidence that any aostolic sucession was put in place. The Catholic Church didn't exist pre western/eastern schism ... even if you accept all the Orthodoxy of the catholic church, and the assumptions fo sucession papal authority and so on, there is no reason one should take the western church over the eastern or oriental orthodox church.

But either way, papal authority and singular apostolic sucession isn't biblican or part of the first century church.

No. I am not wrong, you are wrong sorry to tell you. You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings. Yes apostolic succession is part of the 1st century Church, does the words"apostolic succession" show up in the bible, no, but does that mean it wasn't there? No. Was the bible around in the 1st Century? No. What are you talking about now, trying to add things with your "singular apostolic succession" did you think I wouldn't have caught that? there certainly was a papacy, was it called a papacy? refer back to the previous comments.

If you would like there is a book on the subject. Best one I've come across. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library): Stephen K. Ray: 9780898707236: Amazon.com: Books

but of course, if your only looking to read things that match your current point of view, don't bother...

It should clear things up for you.

 

[RGacky3]

No. I am not wrong, you are wrong sorry to tell you. You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings. Yes apostolic succession is part of the 1st century Church, does the words"apostolic succession" show up in the bible, no, but does that mean it wasn't there? No. Was the bible around in the 1st Century? No. What are you talking about now, trying to add things with your "singular apostolic succession" did you think I wouldn't have caught that? there certainly was a papacy, was it called a papacy? refer back to the previous comments.

If you would like there is a book on the subject. Best one I've come across. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library): Stephen K. Ray: 9780898707236: Amazon.com: Books

but of course, if your only looking to read things that match your current point of view, don't bother...

It should clear things up for you.

Yes the bible was, all of the NT are first century writings.
Show me where there was apostolic sucession in the bible, or the NT documents.
When I say "singular apostolic succession" I mean a specific sanctified line of apostles.
Where was there a papacy? Where in the NT was there a papacy? According to Acts teh apostles worked as a Unit, perhaps with James being a figurehead, but by no means authoritative, Peter and John were at the forfront, but by no means infallable authorities.

Peter took discipline from Paul, and Paul took instructions from the apostles, and James, there was no papacy.

Don't tell me to read a book, if can show me from scripture then show me from scripture.

 

[ChezC3]

Yes the bible was, all of the NT are first century writings.
Show me where there was apostolic sucession in the bible, or the NT documents.
When I say "singular apostolic succession" I mean a specific sanctified line of apostles.
Where was there a papacy? Where in the NT was there a papacy? According to Acts teh apostles worked as a Unit, perhaps with James being a figurehead, but by no means authoritative, Peter and John were at the forfront, but by no means infallable authorities.

Peter took discipline from Paul, and Paul took instructions from the apostles, and James, there was no papacy.

Don't tell me to read a book, if can show me from scripture then show me from scripture.

But they weren't the "bible" Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. All seperate books, the Church put those bad boys together

Acts 1:21-26

New International Version (NIV)

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Matthew 16:17-19

New International Version (NIV)

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

To answer a few directly, and if that doesn't convince you (which I know it won't) Scripture Catholic - APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION

Now, I don't recall "telling" you to do anything, I gave a suggestion, and here's another, if you'd like to continue this conversation you should tone down your rhetoric.

 

[RGacky3]

But they weren't the "bible" Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. All seperate books, the Church put those bad boys together

To answer a few directly, and if that doesn't convince you (which I know it won't) Scripture Catholic - APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION

Now, I don't recall "telling" you to do anything, I gave a suggestion, and here's another, if you'd like to continue this conversation you should tone down your rhetoric.

Acts 1:21-26 was just to replace Judas ... that isn't apostolic succession.

Matthew 16:17-19 I already explained, what the actual outcome of that was was just Peter opening the way for gentiles ... no special authority, he (in acts and the epistles) had NO special authority.