Chatholic or not?

for starters, there was the indulgences sold by the church to shorten someones time in purgatory. the idea of purgatory its self is an idea never found in scripture and means that the death of Jesus wasn't enough, but that we must  still suffer in order to get to heaven. and even if purgatory is real, then there certainly wouldn't be any document man could make that could shorten it, which would again mean that man was doing something Jesus couldn't. and if you disagree with the indulgences or purgatory then you disagree with the catholic church not are therefore not a true catholic.  

 would also disagree with praying to saints as it is never found in scripture. Jesus told us how to pray, and he said in his name and to the father, not any one else

i think that the base of the catholic religion, which is the same of the protestant, that Christ died on the cross for our sins, is correct, and if there are catholics that are placing their hope in that and yet following some of the non-scriptural observances, i think that they still will be saved. however, once it comes to the point of placing their hope in the observances and not in Christ, that is the point in which i think it becomes a false religion and they are not saved.

I’m not Catholic but Catholics are absolutely my brothers and sisters in Christ! The indulgences thing is in the past (as far as I know). I must also make a couple other things clear. These are things on which I do disagree with Catholicism, but on which I still understand their position as a legitimate Christian one.

1. Catholics do believe that the physical aspect of baptism does in fact save, but they only mean that in the sense that it is the means through which God bestows grace. To Catholics and to most Christians throughout history, baptism is understood as a work of God and not of man. Non-evangelical Protestants think this way too, but this does not contradict sola fide.

2. I must distinguish justification (God forgiving our sins) and sanctification (God making us more like Him), which both are part of salvation. Luther’s complaint with Catholicism was about justification, and it’s much more nuanced than we realize.

3. Praying to the saints is in fact biblical if you believe in the Apocrypha as authoritative scripture. I believe that it is not scripture in the same way that the OT and NT are, but that’s a complicated debate as well.

As far the indulgence go, to my knowledge as well they are a thing of the past. But that is not particularly relevant since the pope was still the one who said to buy them, and if you disagree with thenlm that you disagree with the pope which means he's not the infallible mouthpiece of God, and that would mean no pope is, so therefore -whether they are modern or not- if you disagree with them then you're not a true catholic

And i am not saying that nobody who claims to be a catholic is a Christian. But if you truly hold to everything that the catholic church teaches then you have a false belief about some main points of salvation

And I believe the Apocrypha is a history book like any other, and is therefore not infallible

Catholicism does not teach that you have to agree with every pope on literally everything (that would obviously be impossible). There is a lot of debate about what papal statements are infallible (which I think is a legitimate problem for Catholicism), but Catholicism does not teach that you have to agree with everything every pope did. According to them, some things that the pope says are infallible, but far from everything.

Everything that he said from his holy office(so no, if he says the ham is dry at lunchtime that is not from God) and the indulgences were definitely supported from this holy seat. Also, what good is having a pope who supposedly is the mouthpiece of God when he came still be wrong? That's no different than any other Christian teacher

They believe that some statements are infallible, but not all. I agree with your concern, but I hope you see that Catholicism isn’t as outlandish as maybe you thought.

My view is unchanged. But as I have said, I believe that there are a lot of true Christians who claim to be catholic, just as with any denomination. But once again I don't think you can be 100 percent in agreement with catholicism and still be a Christian.

I will admit that i have had very little experience with people of the catholic faith since i don't know any in person

What leads you to say that Catholicism is not Christianity? I have some good Catholic friends in school, and they are some of the best Christians I know.

i'm confused. he has said that you can't be 100% in agreement with it and be saved, and you said that there are untruths in the catholic church. you are both in agreement in the untruths part, so what's the confusion here?

Everyone has doctrinal error. Catholics have fairly significant doctrinal error, but I’m arguing that they do not err enough to make them an illegitimate form of Christianity.

i would say that it is a big enough err (again, for those who are truly and fully in agreement, which as with any denomination, most are not) and Catholicism is very works based, which is why they often appear the most devout Christians. but devoutness does not mean truth. after all, there are plenty of Muslims that are devout enough to commit suicide in the name of their false religion

Official Catholic teaching isn’t as works based as you think. And I think one of the biggest reasons they are often so devout is because of the Catholic church’s connection to tradition, which evangelicalism simply does not have (that’s why you see so many people leaving evangelicalism today).

tradition is not always truth, and following it can often be wrong as Jesus pointed out. especially when it requires you do stuff not given in scripture

it is not sinful to do something for tradition, unless you believe that you must do it in order to secure salvation, or that it somehow makes God hear your prayers more or anything along these lines.

Tradition for Traditions sake is fine, Tradition for the sake of thinking it makes you more holy, is not

Yes I agree. I believe that tradition and church history is still absolutely an authority, but it must always be a lesser authority than scripture.

Hope your find this interesting…

I watched the part on catholics. First I would like to say that that is one man's view of how salvation works in the denominations and could therefore be wrong, but for the sake of argument we can assume he's right. Second, i would say that believeing that sprinkling water removes guilt and that you can somehow "kill" your faith and that you must still go through purgatory is completely unbiblical. These are some very major misconceptions about salvation. And if you believe that about salvation I'm not sure you can be truly saved, but i will not say anything for sure about Christian claiming people that i have never met