• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Catholics Christians?

Neb

Active Member
First of all, it is not at all assumed nor taught in Catholic theology that the dead are "omniscient", which you should know since you used to be Catholic. .
In order for the dead, who are with God in heaven, to hear you they must be all-knowing, or they must be God. Only God can hear you because only God is all-knowing. Do you understand this?

Secondly, the Bible doesn't include all that Jesus and the Twelve may have believed,
How do you know this? Was it because of this?
but we do see certain actions coming out of the early church that had to originate somewhere.
But you’re NOT even where they came or “originate” from but rather believe them than the Bible.

Finally, since you believe it's not right to pray for or through the dead to God, then don't do it, but then realize that others will make their own choices, regardless as to whether you or I may agree with them.
So why use the Bible as a reference or a guide? We are here to debate and we use the tool God gave us and that is the Bible. I’m not here to get likes or just go along for a ride based on consensus without even knowing or understanding what am I following.
 

Neb

Active Member
There was no "spin" on my part since I said "the vast majority of the prayers at any given mass are said directly to God". How do you take that as being "spin", especially since if you were Catholic you should very well know that this is true.
It's true that all prayers were directed to Mary and the saints knowing or hoping that they will pass it on to God. "Directly to God" via Mary and the saints
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Mary should NOT be called the "mother of God" but the "mother of Jesus" while he was in the flesh.

It ought to be obvious that "mother of God" refers to God 'the Son', never to God 'the Father'. Or do you not believe the Jesus is the son of God, if not then I understand your point.
Mary is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
There has been no claim that she was.

We should celebrate the risen Christ and NOT the crucified Christ.

According to John's gospel, they are one and not separate. The D/R is His glorification.

This has been debated within the Church, too much Good Friday or too much Easter Sunday. It was decided by Joseph Ratzinger? that the cross has to be positioned on or above the altar and that is must be Jesus crucified. When Christians are gathered at the Eucharistic table it is believed that the risen Christ is among us regardless of which cross is displayed. In the 4th Gospel Jesus if lifted up on the cross; he is raised up from the dead; and he goes up to the Father, all as part of one action and one hour, Jesus' glorification.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
According to the Bible, the Lord Jesus is NOT nailed on the cross anymore so we should NOT always think the Lord Jesus still nailed on the cross but as the risen Christ who is in heaven sitting at the right hand of God. We should celebrate the risen Christ and NOT the crucified Christ.
Isn't that quite condescending, namely telling others how they should picture Jesus.

BTW, which denomination is your church affiliated with if any, and if not affiliated what is its closest match?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In order for the dead, who are with God in heaven, to hear you they must be all-knowing, or they must be God. Only God can hear you because only God is all-knowing. Do you understand this?
And how is it ever remotely possible for you to know this? Ever hear of a "fallen angel". In both basic Jewish and Christian theology, only God is viewed as being omniscient.

How do you know this? Was it because of this?
I'm not certain what you're asking here, but John's gospel at the end says there's so much more that Jesus taught that's not written.

So why use the Bible as a reference or a guide? We are here to debate and we use the tool God gave us and that is the Bible. I’m not here to get likes or just go along for a ride based on consensus without even knowing or understanding what am I following.
Again, you are assuming things that I am not assuming myself.

Secondly, I can use the Bible as a "reference" without slipping into a form of idolatry or the absurd concept of "inerrancy".

Thirdly, by and large we're dealing with interpretation and basic Christian tradition even if you don't recognize the latter as possibly being indicators of what else may have been taught. Neither of these can we claim perfection on since interpretations can vary. You keep claiming you know and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and I simply cannot take that position. As Confucius supposedly said (paraphrased), the more you know, the more you know you really don't know [that much]. IOW, humility should trump arrogance.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Do not let these citations from these Protestants, like they were supporting the adoration of Mary, misled you because what they were saying here was about the “virgin birth” and it has nothing to do with the article written above about how or why the rcc place Mary on a pedestal to be adored by these symphatizers.

Luther's beliefs concerning Mary pertain to more than the 'Virgin birth'.

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).


She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).


[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. ..She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace.. .Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ...Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521

In any event, during this holiest of weeks on the Christian calendar there is more found that unites all Christians rather than some of pettiness that divides us.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In any event, during this holiest of weeks on the Christian calendar there is more found that unites all Christians rather than some of pettiness that divides us.
Amen!

And don't forget the Jewish calendar.;) We're doing Passover at our daughter's this Friday evening and Easter at our place on Sunday. Diet on Monday.:(
 

Neb

Active Member
These verses say literally nothing about the issue of prayer to or for the dead. However, here from 2 Timothy:
[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph'orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,
[17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me --
[18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus...


Notice that Paul is appealing to God for the mercy of someone who has died.

Again, we know that the early church did believe that the living could pray for the dead and ask them to intercede, and that this was also done by Jews preceding Jesus as well as what shows up in 2 Maccabees 12, regardless as to whether you don't accept that as being part of the canon. Either way, it was done.
If you add the word “dead” then it will sound like Paul was praying for the “dead”, but if you add in the words “not there” then it will sound like Paul was asking God on behalf of Onesiphorus who was “not there” but was still alive at that time.

Remember Paul was writing from Rome to Timothy so he would NOT know where Onesiphorus was. Paul was just comparing Onesiphorus faithfulness with the two apostates, Phygelus and Hermogenes.

If you read verse 15, “You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.” 2 Timothy 1:15

Then comparing Phygelus and Hermogenes to Onesiphorus, Paul writes in 2 Timothy 1:16: “May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus,” Actually the word is “house” means the family of Onesiphorus including himself. It does not mean Onesiphorus is dead at all.

WHY?

Was it because Onesiphorus was nothing like Phygelus and Hermogenes both deserted Paul while he was in Asia? Yes! “because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains." –verse 16, unlike Phygelus and Hermognenes, right?

Then Paul continued in verse 17: “On the contrary,” Paul writes, Onesiphorus was nothing like these two guys because “when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me.” –verse 17.

“when he was in Rome,” means it happened in the past.

For example: “When John Doe was in Germany” it does not mean we are talking about a dead person, right? “When Onesiphorus was in Rome” means it happened in the past and not necessarily dead.

So, in verse 18 Paul writes: “May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day!”

Why? Because of all the help Onesiphorus [meaning a help-bringer] have brought Paul.

Then Paul continued in verse 18: “You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.” 2 Timothy 1:18

As Paul was writing this letter from Rome to Timothy he was making the comparison between Onesiphorus faithfulness and the two apostates Phygelus and Hermogenes that Timothy should learn from and then we can read in the following chapter 2 Timothy 2:1 “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.”

Just like who? Onesiphorus, that’s who.

These verses are NOT about praying for or to the dead. You guys would twist the word of God so you could justify your praying to/for the dead.
 

Neb

Active Member
And how is it ever remotely possible for you to know this? Ever hear of a "fallen angel". In both basic Jewish and Christian theology, only God is viewed as being omniscient.
Because I believed in God and only God can do such things.

I'm not certain what you're asking here, but John's gospel at the end says there's so much more that Jesus taught that's not written.
So you are filling those gaps with "old wives' fables"
 

Neb

Active Member
Isn't that quite condescending, namely telling others how they should picture Jesus.

BTW, which denomination is your church affiliated with if any, and if not affiliated what is its closest match?
Why you need to know? You should read the Bible and see if I'm wrong.
 

Neb

Active Member
Actually it's "young maiden/women" with no reference to being a virgin.
Yeah, you got that from the Masoretic text which Matthew did not get it from but from the Original Greek or the LXX or the Septuagint where it was translated very cleary to "Parthenos" means "virgin" and not the adulterated "neanis" or "young woman", your interpretation.
 

Neb

Active Member
Why should I, or anyone, accept your opinion on this?
It's not Scriptural or anything.
Tom
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
If you read the Bible then you will understand that this is NOT an opinion.
 

Neb

Active Member
It ought to be obvious that "mother of God" refers to God 'the Son', never to God 'the Father'. Or do you not believe the Jesus is the son of God, if not then I understand your point.
Until you understand the John 1:1 and John 1:14 you would never understand where I'm coming from so please read the Bible.

There has been no claim that she was.
As we speak millions of people are kneeling and praying in front of Mary’s statue. Now, do you think Mary could hear all those petitions all at the same time? Think


According to John's gospel, they are one and not separate. The D/R is His glorification.


This has been debated within the Church, too much Good Friday or too much Easter Sunday. It was decided by Joseph Ratzinger? that the cross has to be positioned on or above the altar and that is must be Jesus crucified. When Christians are gathered at the Eucharistic table it is believed that the risen Christ is among us regardless of which cross is displayed. In the 4th Gospel Jesus if lifted up on the cross; he is raised up from the dead; and he goes up to the Father, all as part of one action and one hour, Jesus' glorification.
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”

Do you read the Lord Jesus still nailed to the cross in this verse?
 

Neb

Active Member
Luther's beliefs concerning Mary pertain to more than the 'Virgin birth'.

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).


She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).


[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. ..She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace.. .Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ...Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521

In any event, during this holiest of weeks on the Christian calendar there is more found that unites all Christians rather than some of pettiness that divides us.
You could cut and paste all you want about Mary but I still think the Bible is the authority here so I appeal only to the Bible and NOT to some "Old Wive's Fables"
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
These verses are NOT about praying for or to the dead. You guys would twist the word of God so you could justify your praying to/for the dead.
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not Catholic, nor do I pray to or for the dead?

I've explained the theology on this, but all you do is to resort to the same ole same ole tactics of your know-it-all approach, and that anyone who dares to disagree with you is ignorant. Here at RF, we've see many who come through here using the same condescending and arrogant tactics. It gets really old after a while.
So you are filling those gaps with "old wives' fables"
Not if you actually studied theology, including early church history, to see where these "fables" actually come from.

You should read the Bible and see if I'm wrong.
I took courses in theology in college during my undergrad years, covered various aspects of theology in both my anthropology and comparative religious courses, and have literally read maybe 200+ theology books over the last 50 years, plus more magazine articles than I could even estimate. I've done more than my share of homework on this.

Yeah, you got that from the Masoretic text which Matthew did not get it from but from the Original Greek or the LXX or the Septuagint where it was translated very cleary to "Parthenos" means "virgin" and not the adulterated "neanis" or "young woman", your interpretation.
False, as I took if from the Jerusalem Text, which is in Hebrew.

BTW, I noticed that you didn't answer my question as far as your church affiliation is concerned. That surprises me not as I have asked many others who troll through here with their "my way or the highway" approach, and when I ask their affiliation I almost never get an answer.

So, are you going to answer my question or not, and if not, why not?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Until you understand the John 1:1 and John 1:14 you would never understand where I'm coming from so please read the Bible.

I have no idea whether you understand it literally or acknowledge the high Christology in John's gospel. Either way the Word took on flesh and was born of a woman whose name was Mary.

Do you read the Lord Jesus still nailed to the cross in this verse?

There is not one without the other.

Do you read the Lord Jesus still nailed to the cross in this verse?

There is always the shadow of the cross, without which there is no Resurrection. Its a given, the Crucified lives.
 
Top