Is this correct about Catholicism?

I think most everybody will tell you THEIR beliefs are the most pure faith, whether they are Catholic, Lutheran, Sunni, Orthodox Jew, etc

If any of this could be proved true, wouldn’t we all be Catholic?
It’s all speculation. Who knows.

(1) Catholicism is far from the purest form of Christianity, although it depends on your concept of Christianity. Paul’s letters detail the formal set up of the church. However, Christ himself was preaching a message that was meant to undermine the dogmatic interpretations of temple rulers. Therefore, the church in any form is, in many ways, an anathema to the central message of Christianity.

(2) Small neighborhood churches may be Catholic. However, if you’re talking about Protestants, the reformation was about, in some sense, giving the bible to the people for interpretation instead of the priests. Therefore, they came after the Catholic church, but may be closer to the original method. Maybe.

(3) The Bible has been found to be historically accurate in some ways. But of course – there were events that were described by writers of the time or near the time.

@iamthemob
groovey, thanks.

Technically, it’s true because it was there first.

I don’t know if that makes it “pure” so much as “first.”

It seems to me after reading Matthew 6:6 the purest form of Christinanity is to keep thy worship to thyself.

I think it is a good thing to go and worship in a group, but to pray quietly and humbly.
Catholicism is not the purest form of Christianity, tho it adheres to many of its tennents.

@theichibun honey Jesus was said to be Jewish, so it clearly wasn’t there first. Just saying, no offence meant honey. <hugs>. Too many evils and too much hurt in the world are caused by religion, or rather by any group trying to enforce their views on others. Think what a wonderful world it could be if people just kept their beliefs personal, and lived their lives just trying not to hurt anyone else.

@bunnygrl
Ah, interesting, keeping ones beliefs personal, does that mean there would be no forming of groups to worship together, partly for the social boon. Also, the idea that comes to mind is how different people from different belief groups/religions act a certain way almost on a spiritual level, from practicing their faith. That in turn would be impossible to stop, you would still have people interacting a certain way based on their beliefs that in turn could either create communication or conflict. What am I trying to say is, thanks for the responses, there is definately some bright people around here.

The Church of Rome, the Coptic and the Orthodox Churches all claim to be the originals by the right of Apostolic Succession. Also, parts of the Anglican church and the Lutheran church. These claims are based upon present-day bishops being able to trace their ordinations in an unbroken chain, back to the original Twelve Apostles.

As far as doctrine, given the biblical editing and the political shenanigans in all the churches over the past 2000 years, my guess is as good as yours as to which church is the real carrier of the message.

But I’m not cynical!

What @Yetanotheruser said, except to add all Protestant denominations stem from Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation of 1517. That’s when the parting of the ways with the Church began. It was pretty revolutionary.

The Essenes could be argued to have a purer version.

Okay, I know this will be long-winded, so I’ll put the direct answers to your exact questions in bold.

Only Catholics would say that Catholicism is the purest form of Christianity.

Small neighbourhood Christian churches may be Roman Catholic, Orthodox (Catholic), or Protestant (including evangelical, Anabaptist, those umbrella nondenominational churches, etc). Only Catholics would say the Protestant faiths are “derivative”: Protestants would say that Catholicism has moved away from true Christianity, and they themselves are the purer form.

The Bible is made up of books that were composed over a wide period of time (I suggest 3,000yrs+) at different times in different places by different people, passed along for generations, and not codified (organized into a consistent Bible like we have now) until the 400s. These books certainly do record history (places, events, social circumstances, reigning worldviews/philosophies), but I don’t think you can reasonably think of them as “historically accurate,” like a modern history text. Basically, the Bible records true history but interprets that history, frames that history, describes that history, even illustrates that history, from a religious (dogmatic, faith-based) perspective.

Some people believe the Bible foretells the future because they believe the Bible tells the truth, so anything said about the future in the Bible is true and will happen. Now, different people mean different things by “true.” There are many ways to find “truth” in literature.

Catholicism is not really the first form of Christianity. Brief history: In the first century of Christianity there were many different forms competing, you might say, for supremacy. In the 100s the term “Catholic” emerged, but not as we use it today, although it was as a way to distinguish the rising form of Christianity from the great many so-called heretical forms. “Catholic Christianity” was declared the state Roman religion in the late 300s, and there started to be ecumenical councils – conferences where Catholic authorities met up. As I said, the Bible was codified in the early 400s; in doing so, hundreds of other writings (gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations) were suppressed. Catholicism was gaining more and more power and authority, but there were still a great many heretical Christianities out there. Then, in the 1000s, there was a division in the Catholic church between the West (basically, what we now know as the Roman Catholic church) and the East (basically, what we now know as the Orthodox churches). In the 1500s, there was a division in the Roman Catholic church: the Protestant revolution. You could say that a plethora of protestant faiths have since sprung from this revolution.

This is a tough question to answer because every religion or denomination believes they are right. I was brought up as a Catholic but now I don’t conform with any religion. I consider myself to be a nonreligionist theist. I believe there is a God but this concept (of God) is so above us that none of us can claim to know the truth. I have my own opinions when it comes to my belief in the concept of God but this does not match any religious belief system (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc) or religious book like the Bible, Quran, etc.

I do believe there are certain elements to each religion that has some truth in them but I don’t think any single religion is the way. I’m telling you this from being a former Catholic. There is no answer to your questions here that will not be a matter of opinions rather than facts. Yes I’m a tough sell for both religionists and secular humanists.

Without actually attempting to answer your question(s), I would suggest posting your questions separately. The one about Catholicism could be one question. You could then post a second time with the one about the Bible. Just an idea—

@answerjill
Good idea

The earliest appearance of the Catholic Church was long after Jesus, lived and died.* The purest? Definitely not after the first counsel of Nicea, I think by that time true Christianity was on it’s way out already. Remember too, that Catholicism was a derivative. And as far as purity goes…. I cannot even think of purity and the Catholic Church in the same sentence, unless it’s: “The Catholic Church took my son’s purity from him!” Or something like that.

The bible is not historically accurate, and also I am sure you know this, not authored by Elohim. Why people believe it foretells the future, well, probably because there are prophecies in it that within the narrative “come true.” At least, come true, according to one person or another’s views.

*We are assuming that Jesus lived and died, which we really should not assume. There really isn’t enough evidence. That said… The book character of Jesus is a great guy and emulating him is not a bad idea -(besides of course, the whole getting himself killed part, don’t do that!).

I think that the bible is a very dangerous and disruptive document. The Catholic emphasis of interpreting the bible through the clergy has the effect of insulating the congregation from the most egregious and hateful parts of that book. In that sense, the Catholic church does a job much closer to the supposed teaching of Jesus. They are able to teach love, infer things like purgatory and hell while keeping firebrand preachers from teaching hate and retribution. I suspect that the worst things that happened to Christianity were caused by the council of Nicaea agreeing what papers belong or should be omitted from the bible compendium.

@everephebe I disagree, I think there’s more reason to believe Jesus lived and died than didn’t.

Far from it, there were many different sects of Christianity right off the bat, Catholicism just was able to get the most followers and begin killing off as many of the other denominations as they could get their hands on. (You should also note that Orthodox began more or less at the same time as Catholicism and had nearly just as much power as seen when the Roman Empire was divided into two, Western (Catholic), and Eastern (Orthodox).

@Winters
Oooooh, I get it now, thanks, that was a big missing piece. So many smart people here, I guess I show my smarts by what info I believe, almost like it’s not a choice, it’s like instinct, intuition, it rocks.

If it’s an organization invented by humans, it’s anything BUT pure. That’s a given. Some may be more hypocritical than others, but none of them are “pure”.

of course not, otherwise it wouldn’t be involved in so many scandals

@nicobanks well, we must agree to disagree, between what you think and where there is actual proof is too far a gap for me to assume that Jesus lived. That said, if we take for granted that a man named Jesus lived, who inspired the religion of Christianity, we still no idea what he did during his life. No eyewitness accounts, and even eyewitness accounts are not even reliable as they have a clear bias. Perhaps Jesus did live and die, but between birth and death what happened? We can assume nothing about Jesus, because there is no evidence strong enough to be proof (or historical fact). The gospels were written long afterward and by people who didn’t know the guy personally. They didn’t interview anyone on record or cite their information sources. So we must assume this is all word of mouth. Would you want your life to be interpreted by people you didn’t know too well, who tell other people (many many people over decades and decades), who repeat not so verbatim your story, though people with a political agendas, and one day some scholar decides to write it down, so that people can interpret his work and translate a few times to be reinterpreted again and again? Think about it.

without reading all the responses

Catholicism came about first (among Christian religions). A man (if memory serves me he was a priest) named Martin Luther, got fed up with the corruption in the church and basically formed his own order. This caused the catholic church to get rid of some of the corruption, but not all of it.
That is one example of different sects of Christianity breaking off from Catholicism.
Catholicism came first, but that doesn’t make it the most pure. Catholicism has changed a fair amount (as have all forms of christianity), and these splits have helped shape Catholicism.
The fact that Catholicism came first does nothing in my mind to make it any better that the other religions, if it mattered who was first, all christians would be jewish instead.
Each separate religion has a different definition of what is a pure christian, so I don’t really know how to answer that.

How biased am I? I am curious.

That Catholicism is the purest form of Christianity, east and west, and that all those smaller neighborhood churches you see are derivitive (sic). I don’t want to offend anyone, but is this true?

“Catholic”, in its original sense, means “universal”. When they started calling themselves that, it was because they were the biggest game in town and it was just some good PR to use such a name. Even back when Christianity was merely an offshoot of Judaism (which it was, originally), there were sects and different beliefs pertaining to what different people thought Jesus actually said and what he meant. There’s the book of Thomas. There’s Arianism. There was a lot going on philosophically and theologically in those times, and Christianity was just one of many different religious ideas floating around.

Supposedly, Jesus’ disciple Peter is considered the first pope, because Jesus supposedly told him that ”Upon this rock, I will build my church.” (“Peter” means “rock”.) Catholic leaders use that verse as their proof that they are the only true church. A lot can happen in 2000 years, though.

And is the bible really a historically accurate book, and that’s one reason why people believe it also tells the future??

The Bible was written over a course of 1000 years by different people. The Jewish people at the beginning of the Iron Age had become a much more sophisticated group by 1 or 2 BCE. Some of it is historically accurate to an extent, but I think it’s mostly a book of stories and metaphorical writings. It’s a document starting from the Iron Age. Think about that. People didn’t have the knowledge and hadn’t made the discoveries or invented the things that today we take for granted. Not to say that there wasn’t beauty or wisdom in these books, there is, of course. But the mindset of a desert people from the Iron Age, people from the age of the Roman Empire, people who didn’t even know that landmasses like South America or Canada existed; their ideas about the world are much different than ours today, and I think such books need to be read and understood as products of their time, much like, say, Shakespeare or Dickens or tales of Anansi or Odin. I don’t believe the bible (or anyone who wrote it) had any more ability to predict the future than the shoes in my wardrobe.

@Whitsoxdude
I don’t agree that it’s possible to remove corruption because the nature of corruption leaves a stain that doesnt wash out. But you bring up an interesting point, that people believe what they believe because of where they are born, geographically. That’s a sweet point, and pretty darn true, not totally true though.

@truecomedian What I meant by that is that protestant reformation ultimately led to the end of certain corrupt practices, such as the sale of indulgences.
This in no way cleansed corruption, but it did stop some of it.

Roman Catholicism was in no way the original form of Christianity. It was the compromise of the early Christians with emperor Constantine to stop persecution that formed it. If it was the original pure form, it would follow the bible, which it doesn’t. I could be here all night explaining how it has deviated from the teachings of Christ, which is what a Christian is supposed to follow. And yes, the bible IS historically accurate.

No, it’s not correct.

And for the most part, the Bible is not a history book.

@Harold the bible was compiled hundreds of years after the beginning of Christianity. What Constantine wanted to do was standardize the religion because that would make it easier for his rule. Remember a great many of his subjects became nominal Christians because he declared it the religion of his empire. It is very easy to rule if you have the power of the state and the law of God on your side. I think, that was the point of religion.

@everephebe I have thought about it – I spent my undergrad thinking about it – and what I think is based on scientific evidence, not faith. I don’t even believe in Jesus Christ. You’re right, everything we know about him is word of mouth. You’re right, there’s no evidence strong enough to prove anything. But there’s enough evidence to support the most basic of information: he was a real person, a Jew named Jesus, he died ignominiously at the hands of the state, he gathered followers as an itinerant preacher throughout Judea, probably sticking to rural places, likely there was some ambiguity or bad reputation regarding his paternity, likely he was a follower of John the Baptist at first, etc. I’ve never read any strong scientific argument against safely assuming these basic things (beyond the ultimate principal that we should never assume anything). Have you? I’d like to see some sources or at least hear the argument. I could go through my notes and flesh out my argument, if you’re interested.

@Ron_C – It may have been compiled as we know it as you say, but its contents and teachings were known from the beginning. The early Christians were persecuted by Rome, and Constantine said “I’ll become one, and make life easy for you, if you accept a few heathen teachings into it”. Those who accepted this started Roman Catholicism, and those who maintained the purity of the early church were subjected to continuing persecution.

@Harold all religions are man made. Successful ones usually reach a consensus and increase membership. The Mormons finally conceded that marriage is best between a man and only one woman and that blacks should have all the rights of white church members.

Christians were a little more contentious. First they made themselves unwelcome in Rome by proclaiming that they were the only ones right and everyone else was going to hell. For this they were prosecuted. When they gained power they felt free to meet out the same treatment to the heretics and pagans.

What goes around comes around and the Catholics got prosecuted by the protestants when Martin Luther complained about corruption. Things pretty much settled down when the various branches reached a mutually armed detente.

Now the disorganized Muslims jump in and start the brouhaha all over again. We will not have peace until the Muslims kill off enough of their own and decide that they would be better if they reach a consensus.

To me, there is no sense to religion. There may be a case for spirituality but I just hate to see people die because they have the “wrong” idea about god. What a waste of time and energy.

@nicobanks
Yes, I’d like to hear more from your notes, I’m honestly interested, feel free and cite! I don’t think much of what I’ve read on Jesus was peer-reviewed or widely accepted as safe to assume, but I have heard enough to not take much more for granted than: the story of Jesus was probably based on some Jew who may or may not have been named Jesus, and may have been a preacher of sorts.

@nicobanks me too. I would like to see some unbiased information about that time. There seems to be only two sources, those prejudiced for Christianity and those against it. I can’t think of a middle road fact based account.

Thanks for all the insight, can’t say I have a definitive answer but I have gotten a broader perspective. I just figured the apostles must have started a church and that since they were so close to Jesus, they would be more accurate.

@Ron_C – I think we have been reading different history books, but we can agree to disagree on that. I agree that religion causes violence in many forms. I am glad there is a difference between true Christianity and the religion that so many purported Christians follow. True Christianity teaches tolerance for homosexuals, atheists, abortion clinic doctors, and anyone else who disagrees. Religion would have them all dead.

By the way, early Christians did not teach hell at all. That was one of the perversions brought into it by Constantine and his followers. Hell is NOT a Christian teaching.

@Harold
“True Christianity teaches tolerance for homosexuals, atheists, abortion clinic doctors, and anyone else who disagrees. Religion would have them all dead.”

I disagree.

@Harold – The term true Christianity is a slippery slope. How about this

Most modern and enlightened forms of Christianity teach tolerance for homosexuals, atheists, abortion clinic doctors, and anyone else who disagrees.

@Harold – I also think it’s interesting that Lucifer, Satan, etc., are all inventions existing almost mutually exclusively from any Biblical reference.

Some more about the Essenes. And, from a “Catholic” source!

@Whitsoxdude – You are entitled to disagree, but I am not sure why you would.
@mattbrowne – yes, I can accept your way of expressing it.
@iamthemob – OK

Okay I sent you both a private message