Well you have a point there. Since something like 85% of America is Christian, when I ask people their "religion" I'm usually wondering their specific denomination. If they answer "Christian", I say "Aren't most people? What branch?" and then I get their religion: "Dutch Reform" and so on. Of course if you ask a Catholic what religion, they almost always reply "Catholic". If you ask what branch they're probably say "Roman"
I think this is a fundamental difference. I am not a Free Methodist, I am a Christian who follows a Free Methodist doctrine. To me, Christianity is my religion. To many Catholics, Catholicism is the religion. Many can keep it straight, but too many start to worship the Church - their religion - and that is simply wrong.
All the other branches of Christianity stray from what Jesus intended (to varying degrees), and Catholicism is the closest to what Jesus wanted.
I would argue any denomination or Church that claimed it was the "closest" to what Jesus wanted was itself close to heretical. Simply put: Jesus wanted us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourself. Anything else is gravy, and should be just a way to express that love. And then we are to take that message of love to all of Jerusalem, Judea, and the Ends of the Earth.
THAT is straight from the mouth of the Lord, and should be without question. How we worship is much less important than who we worship.
are not listening to the guy who is the spokesman for Christianity -- namely, the Pope.
The Pope should not be the Spokesman for Christianity - WE, the believers, are called to be the spokesmen and representatives of Christ! The Pope may be the one who helps clarify doctrinal issues, but scripturally WE are the spokesmen of the Church. And it works REALLY WELL when that model is followed.
And John Calvin, John Wesley, they all had some good ideas too, but ultimately I think they were wrong on alot of things. Such is the failing of mortal men.
And we Protestants would be the first to recognize it! In fact, we hold NO MAN nor ANY POSITION above blame or as infallible. Jesus Christ is the only one who is blameless; all others are fallible. Putting a Pope or others in position who are considered infallible when they speak on some issues is a dangerous precedent. If a teaching or lesson does not align 100% with the Scriptures, it is simply wrong. Regardless of who said it or who did it (much like the selling of indulgences by the Papacy).
What Luther, Calvin, and Wesley did was re-emphasize that it is NOT works that save you; you simply cannot go to penance and communion once a week and be saved. There has to be a spiritual connection within. Look at the service of a Catholic mass some time through the eyes of an outsider - there is PRECIOUS little emphasis on a personal connection with Christ, it is all ritual.
Now go to an evangelical church service. You will hear about the sacrifice of Christ, you will hear about a personal connection with Jesus, you will hear that it is not works that saves you.
Different emphasis, different take on the same message. And that should be celebrated and encouraged. I know my church actually encourages people to attend a church that connects them best with Christ. Whether that is our church, another Protestant church, a Catholic church, or the "purists" in Greek or Eastern Orthodox.
You mention being bothered by the fact Protestants will usually refer to themselves as simply "Christian" but Catholics will refer to themselves as "Catholic".
Here's another one to chew on. Have you noticed in threads like these, those who oppose Catholic doctrine lump EVERYONE in with themselves? They talk about how "Catholics" venerate the Virgin Mary but "non-Catholics" do not. They talk about how "Catholics" believe Jesus is literally being consumed during communion but "non-Catholics" don't accept that. They not only assume ALL protestants share their opposition to the traditional Catholic viewpoint, but that the REST of Christianity does as well.
In fact, it's the other way around. We have a small faction WITHIN protestantism, CLAIMING they represent the majority of Christians. (You can see examples of it on this very thread) They do not. Here's what wikipedia says about the matter:
"Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute about two thirds of Christians,[18] hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ. Some Anglicans hold the same belief.[19]"
Clearly, the POV of the Catholic church is the prevailing view in overwhemingly most of the Christian world. Now, this is not to way we're right, but why does a certain faction of Protestantism want to pretend the entire Christian community opposes Catholic doctrine? You see the same thing on the Virgin Mary threads. Over and over again they claim that veneration of Mary is simply a "Catholic" thing that the rest of the Christianity rejects. If I was an Orthodox Christian I would be highly offended by some evangelical protestants trying to lump me in with them and ignore the fact that millions of non-Catholics hold the same beliefs about Mary as the Roman church does.
>> I would argue any denomination or Church that claimed it was the "closest" to what Jesus wanted was itself close to heretical. <<
Well unfortunately for you, I think most of them claim that. Your church might say "pick whatever church you personally feel brings you closest to Christ, even if it's those Catholics", but alot of churches are looking to recruit new members and all throughout Christianity you will find churches claiming they are maintaining the closest thing to what Jesus originally wanted. Indeed, that's why the whole "restorationist" movement in Christianity is such a growing denomination now.
>> The Pope should not be the Spokesman for Christianity - WE, the believers, are called to be the spokesmen and representatives of Christ! The Pope may be the one who helps clarify doctrinal issues, but scripturally WE are the spokesmen of the Church. And it works REALLY WELL when that model is followed. <<
This is one of the big sticking points why I'm not a protestant. The Orthodox reject the idea of a superpower leader with authority over the rest of the church and an infallible all-knowing boss, but they DO accept the idea of a "spokesman" for their church. They simply believe the archbishop who speaks for their church is "first among equals", but when their denomination wants a make a definitive statement about where they stand, they have a guy who does that. The LDS church, which I consider quasi-Christian and somewhat of a cult, is also one of the most unified and growing churches for the exact same reason.
Protestants, who avoid such an idea, vary widely within their own denominations about what they actually "believe", which explains why they are constantly shattering into a zillion different factions, merging different churches, and inventing new denominations on whim. This is the precise reason the Anglican church is falling apart now -- they are passing the buck on ordaining gay bishops and it's tearing their denomination apart. They rule by committee, like all Protestants. Jesus, when he started the church, was THE central authority figure -- he didn't have the apostles deliberate and decide what to do. Jesus is no longer physically present in human form with us. Obviously no mortal man can equal Jesus, but Catholic and Orthodox have a "vicar" who stands in his place and issues doctrine, so they have a core set of principles. Are they perfect? No, they are human and make mistakes. But it's far perferable to Protestant churches with no core values that constantly fall apart.
>> we hold NO MAN nor ANY POSITION above blame or as infallible. Jesus Christ is the only one who is blameless; all others are fallible. Putting a Pope or others in position who are considered infallible when they speak on some issues is a dangerous precedent. <<
There are some protestants that allege that Catholics worship the Pope and think he can do no wrong. This is not true, though perhaps there are a small minority of Catholics who think that way, and that is a problem if they put the Pope above Jesus, they are not following Christian teachings. Now, that said, the infallibility doctrine is often misunderstood. It doesn't guarantee that a Pope will not make errors, or that he will always lead by example, or even that he will speak clearly and definitely when he IS giving the "correct" biblical interpretation. It doesn't claim the Pope will speak the truth on matters of history, science, or church hierarchy. (for example the Pope who condemned Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun was CLEARLY wrong) All it proposes is that Pope, when he is speaking OFFICIALLY on ONLY the matter of faith or morals, and speaking on behalf of the WHOLE Christian world and FOLLOWING Jesus' intent, cannot be in error. I would estimate that most people, Catholic and Protestant, don't understand what the "infallible doctrine" actually says, probably less than 10%. If the Pope is being divinely inspired to follow the EXACT teachings of Jesus, it will not be in error. The church doctrine on the holy trinity IS infallible. If the Pope gives an interview tomorrow and he says "I think George Bush is a scumbag and is going to hell for starting the Iraq war", it's NOT an infallible statement.
I agree the idea that one would believe an ordinary mortal man is incapiable of making mistakes or sinning, is a very dangerous precedent to set. There have been some terrible, sinful Popes in history who CLEARLY made statements contrary to Christ's teachings.
The Catholic Church does suffer from too many levels of bureaucracy (probably the worst in an organized religion), but sometimes I think they are not strict enough in their "chain of command". For example I'm in Illinois and we have a priest in good standing who I would consider a schematic hieratic. He's that white guy you may have seen on TV who worships Obama and teaches his congregation to hate Whitey and gave that sermon attacking Hillary for "white privilege". Now, 99% of Catholics priests are nothing like this nut, but as long as he is allowed to remain at his post and preach racial hatred from the pulpit, there is a seriously problem over here with the Catholic community in Chicagoland. This man has started his own heretic church on Catholic church property, and is certainly not teaching Christian doctrine to love your neighbor as your brother. It's problems like that which deeply concern me as a Catholic.
>> Now go to an evangelical church service. You will hear about the sacrifice of Christ, you will hear about a personal connection with Jesus, you will hear that it is not works that saves you. <<
That's another thing, as a Catholic I don't differentiate between "mainline" and "Evangelical" protestants, I just lump them all in together as Protestants. The differences are quite vague to me. Some have claimed the Evangelicals are more conservative and strict, but then in the same breath they say that Reagan was a mainline protestant and Jimmy Carter is Evangelical protestant, which confuses and muddles the issue even more. >>
>> Whether that is our church, another Protestant church, a Catholic church, or the "purists" in Greek or Eastern Orthodox. <<
Many Protestants have alleged that Catholics never read the bible and don't focus on Jesus. I don't see it that way. Sure, many Catholic kids don't bother to read the bible they get, but what these protestants hate to admit is that most protestant kids won't be caught dead reading the bible from cover to cover either (one of my favorite Simpsons episodes, being that they're supposed to an average disfunctional WASP American family, is that Bart quickly picks up a book when his parents come home to make it look like he was behaving himself, and says "I was just reading... the bible?! Eww" and puts it down) Certainly Mel Gibson is one of those schmatic Catholics who thinks the Pope isn't Catholic ENOUGH for him, and look at HIS movie about Jesus. Does it seem like he doesn't care about the sacrifice Jesus made for us sinners?
You know it's unfortunate that so many Christians denounce each other as heretics over minor issues, but the same thing happens in other faiths. Some orthodox Jews will tell you that Reform and Conservative Jews are "not real Jews", a Sunni Muslim told me that she thinks Shiite Muslims are hectics and she went to their mosque once and thought they were all wacky and their services were an insult to Muhammad.