christian or catholic

I should point out that Catholics and Christians should really be lumped under the term Christianity...but whenever someone says "I'm Christian" they actually mean reformed-Christian or Protestant. A Catholic would say "I'm Catholic" as opposed to "I'm Christian." Now that's out of the way:

The difference between Catholics and Christians is what is called sola scriptura. The belief that scripture alone (namely the Holy Bible) is the sole source of information from which we will learn about God, heaven and the afterlife. It is given priority over what any human being could possibly tell or show us...they believe every human being has the potential to interpret the scripture correctly, since it is a gift from God. This is the "Christian" philosophy (although there are many denominations of Christian).

Catholics have a mixture of scripture and tradition. They claim lineage right back to Christ, through the papal administration, and so consider 'tradition' and ritual very important. They believe you need not only the scripture, but inspiration from Angels, Saints, spiritual leaders, and other lay people, in order to interpret said scripture in the best possible way. This is why they pay homage** to Mary, angels and saints, as well as God (the Father) and Christ.

**EDIT: This does not mean they 'worship' Mary, the Angels or Saints. They still believe in one and only one God (although the Trinity is a bit paradoxical in either religion).

 

I was baptized a year ago & became a christian. I have nothing against any other religions, especially Star, since she falls under the part where she don't believe that there is a hell. I read my bible everyday. I don't know anything about catholics, but I do know about them paying homage to Mary, who is the virgin mother of Jesus. I don't know about the catholic part, but Star may know more on that subject. Christians wants to save souls in order for others to have eternal life & not to dwell in hell for eternity. Christians watch out on what they do so that they won't sin & won't relive the same old lives again. Anyways, that's all I'm going to say because I have bible class in almost 15 minutes.

 

other branches of Christianity are watered down Catholosism. Thats all. What they believe in are the same, thats why they are all considered "Christianity".

 

been christian my whole life and that is that

 

I'm with Mike, Christians and Catholics are both under Chritsianity, meaning they should just be the same.

 

i agree with kiari and mike they r the same

 

They're fundamentally, actually quite different. I didn't mean to imply otherwise...

But at the core, they both 'follow Christ' and are hence Christians. I don't think any Catholic would claim they are not Christian, but you'd hear many denominations of reformed-Christian claimed that Catholics are not.

Putting what I said (about sola scriptura) into layman's terms...a Christian believes that one must follow the bible and strictly adhere to it. You would hear a Christian argue something along the lines of "Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior."

A Catholic on the other hand, is a little more relaxed (with scripture). They will say something along the lines of "Welcome God into your heart."

They're very different philosophies...and I suppose to the Christian viewpoint, since this necessity is important, one can understand why they would address the issues in the way that they do.

 

Even then, not all Christians believe that some parts of the bible are literal, parts that Catholics to believe are literal.

And example of this is the Holy Eucharist (sp?). Where they turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Catholics believe that the bread and wine are literally transformed into body and blood. Whereas Prodestants (I believe Lutherans see it this way in this next example) believe that the bread and wine don't turn into body and blood. That the bread and wine are supposed to symbolize body and blood.

 

Very true...to make a distinction:

"Adhering to the bible" does not mean accepting its literal truth. It means trying to follow its principles as closely as you can.


However...to be technical, the line "Do this in memory of me" is kind of ambiguous...exactly which perspective does it mean? How does one 'adhere' to the bible?

Christians believe that 'following it literally' is that it literally means, do this in memory of me...it's a ritual that represents what happened, and isn't actually a re-enactment of said events.

Catholics, as I mentioned before, are tradition based, as well as scripture based. They believe that since this ritual was passed down through the generations, it is the same ritual, and not just a representation.

 

I disagree, there are Christian Churches that don't stem from Catholosism at all.

The one i'v joined being one of them.

 

Your right, it just symbolizes the body and blood..

my body who art in heaven
hallow be thy name
by kinngdom come, I will be done
on Earth as it is in Heaven
Gives us this day, our DAILY BREAD

bread is just bread, it symbolizes it, yes the pastor blesses it and stuff, but it just symbolises it.


As for Mike, there are different christians, like what SB said,

Lutherans believe Jesus's died on the cross to forgive all or our sins, meaning we'll all go to heaven, where say methadist may not.


_____Christianity
_____/---------\
Protestant---- Catholics
//////\\\\\\\
A bunch of other little religions
like Lutheran, Methadist, so on



That's how the christianity tree is set up, I remeber learning it during Confirmations

 

No, it does not symbolize body and blood. It is body and blood (Obviously I'm Catholic). It may look and taste like bread and wine, but it is, quite literally, body and blood.

 

See that right there is a (reformed)Christian vs Catholic conflict.

The Christian is putting the scripture above all else. She has quoted a verse from the bible, and is using it as her method of deduction. The Eucharist is not real, it is simply bread.

The Catholic on the other hand, places value on scripture as well as tradition and that is what comprises their method of deduction.

-------------

To address Kairi's point about the bolded daily bread you'll have to note that this is a translation...and one can argue that its effect is lost in translation (certainly one can believe that the effects of translation on such a sacred text have a negligible effect...and what's precisely what part of being a Christian and following sola scriptura entails).

I'm sure you've heard countless times, the whole fear of the Lord thing. It doesn't literally mean fear, as in to be frightened of God...but sure enough, taken literally, it says "fear of the Lord" a few times, if I recall correctly.

------------

And to Akira: Which denomination are you?

 

Didn't they ever told you that in the bible that: "Jesus says that the bread is his body (NOT LIKE THAT0 & the wine was his blood. (NOT LIKE THAT)." to show you about what Jesus was doing to save everyone from sin? That what Christians read & remember to know that this is one of his wonder working powers & that he will come back. Well, that's my opinion, since my older cousin, Demetris, was trying to make me cry & be scare from drinking & eating a tiny bread & wine at my other grandmother's church. <.> Anyways, you can say that Catholics falls under Christianity, since we both believe in the same holy father. Our ways are different, but I don't have anything bad against them. Um... the fearing of the Lord part: if you read Lamentations, I guess that's where you will understand why it says fear the Lord.

 

No SB, I'm saying the word 'fear' isn't literal...I'm not asking why it says it.

If you go back to the bible's predecessors (in say, latin) 'fear of the Lord' has a meaning more like 'don't disappoint the Lord.' Yet, there it is, the phrase 'fear of the Lord' which has a different literal meaning than its pre-translation's literal meaning. This is the problem when you translate any book, and the bible is no exception.

Unless, as I said before, you have faith and believe the effects of translation on the bible are negligible.

This is the debate (although I suppose it really shouldn't be much of a debate**). You either have faith in the infalliability of the scripture (sola scriptura) or you don't.

If you don't, then you take your proof from other sources, like what was passed down through generations by word of mouth.

From what I understand, the Catholic viewpoint of the literal body and blood of Christ, is saying that Christ's body and blood have been sacrificed for every one of us, and we all get to experience that miracle first hand.

To the 'bible thumpers': I think SB was alluding to this part...Pop open Matthew 26: 20-30, ish, to see why the literal meaning of the bible can suggest it is literally His body/blood as well. It says word for word, when refering to the cup from the last supper "This IS the cup of my blood" and not "This wine represents my blood."

The problem is: is this a problem of translation? Catholics like to believe not, since they are tradition based...they have faith and believe their rituals date back to what Christ Himself did.

**I never understood why people 'debate' these things. You are either moved to believe one thing, or believe the other, by something within you. Neither philosophy is correct for everyone, since pulling some math out of my butt, no formal system is consistent and complete. Sure enough, each religion comes with a set of beliefs, assumed true without proof (Axioms) and some rules of deduction...so it can indeed be compared to a mathematical object called a formal system (I'm writing a book about this!)

-----------------

EDIT: I also just realized, Kairi Star quoted The Lord's Prayer, as evidence to support the theory that it's just bread...

"Give us this day our daily bread"

What makes you think this is referring to communion? Because I was under the impression we literally need, daily bread, a.k.a. food, to survive. It's surrounded by "peace on earth" (thy kingdom come, thy will be done) and "Forgive us our trespasses" (which is self-explanitory), neither of which is directly linked to communion...so contextually, there's no reason to infer that it refers to communion.

And the prayer actually begins "Our Father, who art in heaven" not "Our body, who art in heaven."

 

To start off i want it known that i have nothing against the Catholic Church, but it was for the very fact that there were changes from the chuch Jesus established that most other sect originated trying to get back to the chuch he started. the for i'd like to bring up the theory that only a restoratioalist church could have its routs back to the lord

Oh and its my belief that the bible was perfect when it was first writte in its diffrent books but that its purity of the work has lessened with the translations as well as when it was first compiled by an Pagan Emperor where books were left out.

 

Even if it has become corrupt over time (a valid hypothesis), it was still the literal church that Christ established. Changed or not, there is direct lineage right back to Christ...a restorationalist sect wouldn't have that.

See now they (EDIT: the restorationalist) would believe that they're going back to the fundamentals, that Catholics have strayed off course from what Christ taught...but that doesn't change its roots. Someone decided "The church is corrupt" and that's where its roots lie, regardless of its teachings.

One can claim the teachings are closer to what Christ gave us, but you can't change history.

 

Some restorationalists believe that there church is lituraly the restored church of Christ that Heavenly messengers restored the pristhood poweres that Christ gave to his appostles

The Chatholic history Hingges on the Diedakey, spelt wrong for sure sorry about that. Wich states that Peter gave the power to Linus.
And from wich point the organisation of the church of Christ was changed, the organisation is found in Ephesians 4.

And it means that when Chrisrt states that apon this rock will i build my church, he ment apone Peter but if you take it in its full contex Peter recieved revelation that Jesus was the Christ that, and it was on this rock[Revelation] that Christ built his church.

History is only as accurate as the records that are alloud to be kept. Wich are hardly ever unbias.

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is...like I'm not saying these are the only two perspectives, I'm simply explaining these two. I'm finding it kind of hard to follow your argument since you're being kinda dodgy about precisely what denomination you are (it's my understanding there are several types of 'restorationalist Christians').

History can certainly be biased...and that's why I went to such pains-taking efforts to bold, italicize and underline the words faith and believe:

Did Alexander the Great exist? Most modern people believe he did...but no one knows for sure, because they didn't experience it for themselves. The same goes for Christ Himself.

People can claim to be descendents of Alexander the Great, for instance, and believe it is true. You can't exactly go and take a DNA sample from ol' Alex and verify (under the laws of science) that it is true...you have to use a 'family tree.' You can't one prove that the Catholic Church really dates back to Christ...No one can prove the Islamic movement dates back to the prophet Mohammed.

But since the Qu'ran has been handed down, and through word of mouth it has been passed on, there is sufficient reason to believe Mohammed is the father of Islam. (Islam also believes it is the 'restored church.') That is their version of the 'family tree.'

Just as Catholics have documentation of every pope to sit in Rome tracing back to Peter, which is sufficient reason to believe such linearization is valid...it does not mean someone didn't tamper with the documents...that is their 'family tree.'

That's why I italicized, bolded and underlined the words faith and believe. Because you really have no proof of anything when it comes to the supernatural (or history, as you mentioned), and it comes down to willingness to believe.

Any of the afformentioned facts in this thread come down to that...even science comes down to it. Bias, gut instincts, and blind faith. And the bottom line is, the beliefs of someone else do not hinder, or discredit, your own beliefs.


I mean I could go right now, start a church in which I believe all Christians are evil, and suppose that I've somehow been granted leadership. (I'm not being dumb here, I mean suppose I truly believed this with all my heart)

Then does my belief discredit other christian denominations? Absolutely not...in 'my' beliefs, they would be misguided individuals...however in theirs, I would be. Who is right?

It's like how the (restorationalist)Christians believe they have been given a new doctrine by some higher authority (I'm still not sure what denomination you are) and so Catholics are misguided...

I apologize if I'm being presumptuous here, but like you personally, you haven't seen this transfer of power right? So you, yourself have faith that it occured...without proof, without having witnessed it for yourself. Someone else may have faith in the exact opposite...also without proof.

NOTE: Please see my next post...for some reason this post got cut off after I posted for reasons unknown S: So I tried to reconstruct it from memory.