Are Catholics Christians?

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

I believe that is the gospel of Paul as opposed to the gospel of Jesus but even so the message is not as clear as it could be. Certainly Paul's Gospel pertains to salvation and the gospel of Jesus but one must understand what that means.

Catholicism gospel of Paul? The spokes person for Jesus through the Church is Peter.

I believe that is like the Muslims saying they believe in Jesus but then don't keep His word making lame excuses for not doing so. If a person is not born again then he doesn't have Jesus and is not in the body.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Though, people have different experiences in the Church. If one knows god, there is no bias nor discrimination between the body nor anyone outside of it. Spirituality knows no sides.

I don't believe baptizing people makes them Christians. I believe a person must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior to be a Christian.

A lot of people believe that: Catholics believe...

Confirmation (saying with mouth): receive jesus as lord and savior

Baptism (being born again): Being baptized by the spirit first before being baptized by water. If you don't believe jesus is your lord and savior, baptism by water means and does nothing.

Communion (Lord's Supper): Siting with the body of christ to celebrate the lord's supper through, in, and with christ himself

Confession (Repentance): Repenting one's sins to god once a person receives christ as lord and savior.

Maybe it's the word Catholic that throws people off. It's all in scripture.

I believe I am sure that happens in all faiths My mother-in-law did not believe the Paraclete has personal characteristics and she was raised Baptist although most of her life she didn't attend church.

Shrugs. Everyone has different views of the same faith. That's how I wonder why people outside of the Church and liturgical protestant churches would consider themselves as one body of christ when they are not part of the first Church who gathered together and made that one body present. The Church: before the split.

I believe I am not sure what that means in practice. Most Protestants who are serious about their faith recognize that there have been teachers associated with the Catholic Church who have a valuable testimony. It is rare for a person to think they are the sole authority on the Bible and we know what that is: vanity.

Well, The Church didn't stop being The Church after a certain time period. We just like to think modern. However, The Church has been around so long and it continues to be around. It influences our history (US for me), and it influences our government, and it has done so for thousands of years. Which year did this history automatically stop when people started to get cell phones and modernize christianity that now I'm not sure what they believe anymore?

I believe the reality is that both Luther and Calvin were products of the Catholic Church. There would have been no division in the church if it hadn't been so insistent that the Pope decides what orthodoxy is and all else is heresy. I can't say I have ever heard a protestant state that any Pope was a great contributor to a better understanding of the Bible.

I think Luther's brother, a Catholic, killed him because Luther thought the transubstantiation wasn't taught by christ. Luther taught a different way to see the Eucharist that doesn't say bread and wine are jesus himself. Basically, he tore apart the Eucharist but tried to keep its original meaning rather than making it grape juice and crackers.

I don't care for a lot of the popes history has portrayed them to be. However, when I went into the Church, that all washed away. Now I understand. While I don't want to be a part of Church history, I also do understand the meaning and experience behind the Church. Makes me irritated how anyone can see The Church so badly. That, and Roman Catholics don't speak for all Catholic and liturgical Churches. So, it's a lot of ignorance and bad personal experiences more so than leaving because of spiritual reasons rather than priests molesting boys and having bad upbringing as a former cradle Catholic.

 

[Neb]

I think you are claiming that Catholics worship idols. Nonsense.

What is considered idols to you that will make sense?

 

[metis]

i·dol
ˈīdl/
noun
an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Needless to say, this definition doesn't even get close to what Catholics are taught is right and proper.

 

[Neb]

Sorry. I find it hard to believe you were ever really Catholic if you say all prayers at mass were directed to Mary and the saints.

If you attended Catholic mass you would know that's not true. It's certainly not true about The Lord's Prayer, which is said at mass, and also used by most, if not all other Christian denominations.

I've found a link to the entire Catholic mass text. You can read it, and so can everyone else reading this thread.

It hasn't changed that much since I was a kid, or even in the last few decades, since I stopped attending mass. The changes between then and now, and variations between parishes, are minimal.

Text of the New English Roman Catholic Mass

How about going to church every sunday and a devotion every tuesday to a saint, ie. going to church every tuesday and lighting up candles and kneeling in front of this saint and saying the rosary every day and collecting all the saints/statues and all of Mary's statues I could get my hands on for a start? Do you think I was not Catholic enough? You start reading the Bible with an open heart and see what happen to you.

After reading the Bible I crushed all these statues and the rosaries/plural in pieces and garbage them and I was not pressured by someone to do this but with conviction.

 

[Neb]

i·dol
ˈīdl/
noun
an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Needless to say, this definition doesn't even get close to what Catholics are taught is right and proper.

What is the definition of worship?

 

[metis]

What is the definition of worship?

[no comment]

 

[Neb]

[no comment]

Taking the Fifth

 

[4consideration]

So how do we follow logic? Was it from our own interpretation or from the Bible?.

I was talking about the logical steps you presented in the post I was replying to. It is only your post I was talking about.

You need to separate the Word/God, i.e., from ETERNITY, from the flesh, i.e., STEPPED INTO TIME, to avoid confusion.

I can take what I read in the Bible and believe it, or not...view it from one perspective, or another...but the most ridiculous use of it that I can think of is to try and cram my understanding of all of reality through the lens of your (or anyone else's) understanding of a book.

I am not confused. I simply disagreed that a Catholic who says the Hail Mary, or in any way reveres Mary is engaging in "blasphemy".

I believe the Word/God became flesh based on John 1:14. When the Word, who was God and “was with the God/Father” became flesh, He, the Lord Jesus, became the Son of Mary in the flesh and NOT the Son of Mary from ETERNITY where the Word/God was in the beginning with the God/Father. Here is a verse that you could read: “concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,” –Romans 1:3.

You need to see the transition from ETERNITY “and the Word was God” –John 1:1c, where Mary was NOT, to TIME “and the Word became flesh” –John 1:14, where Mary was, because if you don’t then it will be questionable, i.e., if Jesus is God why did He die, God does not die, so in order for God to die He must become flesh like us.

Read these verses as well:

Phil 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Phil 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Phil 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Phil 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

“even death on the cross” God does not die so the Word/God must become flesh to die.

Believe whatever you want to. You are welcome to your beliefs. Really. But...they are your beliefs. Holding a belief strongly does not transform it into objective reality. It may be real for you, but not necessarily real for everyone else.

The moment you take a verse from the Bible and apply it to any situation outside of the time and place in which it occurred within the Bible, or to any subject matter, you are applying your subjective interpretation to the use and application of it. All the verses you listed above are being subjectively applied here. They are not factual evidence of God's opinion on the subject of Catholic reverence for Mary.

You are posting in a thread about whether or not Catholics, who believe themselves to be Christian, are really Christian. You're acting like they're not.

It all boils down to your beliefs are your own. You are welcome to them. I don't really care what you believe about God.

What I am responding to is your personal opinion that the Catholic reverence for Mary amounts to blasphemy. That's it.

You're essentially telling me that I have to accept your personal belief and the logic you are applying to what you are reading in the Bible, in order to understand something about God's perspective on the matter.

No. I don't believe your opinion about what someone else is doing is more Godly, insightful, holy, etc. than what they believe they are doing.

If a Catholic believes they are showing respect and inclusion for the mother of Jesus, and that it is a good thing, I can accept that as that person's belief -- without saying someone else "should" do the same, if they do not believe it to be appropriate for them.

But...I think you cross the line about someone else's belief by saying "Mary, Mother of God" is blasphemy -- because you are taking something they think of as reverence and condemning it as blasphemy.

 

[4consideration]

You could parse it to whatever interpretation you want but if you base this assumption on the Bible your premise will not deduce to your own favorable conclusion, therefore, your logic is flawed.

The Word/God was not from/of any source like the Word/God was made by God/Father.

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:3

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[4consideration]

How about going to church every sunday and a devotion every tuesday to a saint, ie. going to church every tuesday and lighting up candles and kneeling in front of this saint and saying the rosary every day and collecting all the saints/statues and all of Mary's statues I could get my hands on for a start? Do you think I was not Catholic enough? You start reading the Bible with an open heart and see what happen to you.

After reading the Bible I crushed all these statues and the rosaries/plural in pieces and garbage them and I was not pressured by someone to do this but with conviction.

You said ALL the prayers in the mass were directed to Mary or the saints. That's just wrong.

Why won't you admit it?

Whoopeee do about what you do.

I don't care if you were or weren't "Catholic enough". I think it's wrong to represent yourself as having been Catholic, say ALL prayers in the mass are directed through Mary or the saints as though you're speaking truthfully and with some level of knowledge on the subject, refuse to acknowledge that assertion you made as being untrue, when challenged. How "Catholic" you were is not the point. The point is you are perpetuating an untruth, and not being decent enough to acknowledge that it is untrue.

The last person whose interpretation I would want to take on an issue is someone unwilling or unable to be truthful about what is so, and what can easily be seen as not so.

I'm so glad you started reading the Bible and are now seemed convinced your interpretation is infallible.

I don't think you're being honest, and are misrepresenting Catholic beliefs and practices, and that is what I am addressing. If you believe what is true and good is right, then why not acknowledge what is true as a starting point for debating on the subject?

 

[Neb]

I was talking about the logical steps you presented in the post I was replying to. It is only your post I was talking about.

This one, right? God/Word became flesh, right? Mary, became the mother of Jesus in the flesh, right? Therefore, Mary is NOT the mother of God but the Mother of Jesus in the flesh, right? So, calling Mary the mother of God is a blasphemy, right?

Blasphemy? No, not even by the logic you are using. If you believe God became flesh as Jesus, and Mary was his mother, it follows that Mary was the Mother of God in the flesh, Jesus.

Your logic “Mary was the Mother of God in the flesh” does not follow my premise at all. That’s why it says: “according to the flesh” the Lord Jesus is the son of Mary and NOT your argument, i.e.,“the Mother of God in the flesh”. Before the “Word/God” became “flesh” this “Word/God” from ETERNITY does NOT have a “Mother” at all and only after the “Word/God” became “flesh” Mary became the Mother of the flesh but NOT as “Mother of God” at the same time as the “Mother of the flesh”, therefore, your logic “Mary was the Mother of God in the flesh” is flawed.

 

[tayla]

That's not altogether true. Most, if not every parish provides a continuous adult ed program. For smaller parishes there are programs facilitated by the diocese. Scripture is a priority. There are Catholic colleges and universities that offer online ed programs, some of which offer a collaborative with a parish which helps with the cost.

My wife tried for years to join the Catholic Church (and finally succeeded). We kept moving from town to town due to my job, and she couldn't finish RCIA. When she started up in the new parish that autumn they made her start over. In all of these (and I mean "all") they taught an unChristian and unCatholic view. I don't think it's such a good idea to speak so glowingly about Catholic education programs.

 

[Neb]

I can take what I read in the Bible and believe it, or not...view it from one perspective, or another...but the most ridiculous use of it that I can think of is to try and cram my understanding of all of reality through the lens of your (or anyone else's) understanding of a book.

That’s why we have verses in the Bible to prove what is false or true and if you read it again it’s very clear that the Lord Jesus is the son of David according to the flesh.

I am not confused. I simply disagreed that a Catholic who says the Hail Mary, or in any way reveres Mary is engaging in "blasphemy".

Mary was just like you and me, we are mortals and to say a mortal woman is the mother of God is blasphemy but to say Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh is biblical. This is not an opinion only but it’s the truth and it’s in the Bible.

 

[Neb]

You said ALL the prayers in the mass were directed to Mary or the saints. That's just wrong.

Why won't you admit it?

When was the last time you was inside a church?

Whoopeee do about what you do.


I don't care if you were or weren't "Catholic enough".

Didn’t you say this?

Sorry. I find it hard to believe you were ever really Catholic if you say all prayers at mass were directed to Mary and the saints.

Fully devoted catholic, if that’s what you wanna hear.

I think it's wrong to represent yourself as having been Catholic, say ALL prayers in the mass are directed through Mary or the saints as though you're speaking truthfully and with some level of knowledge on the subject, refuse to acknowledge that assertion you made as being untrue, when challenged. How "Catholic" you were is not the point. The point is you are perpetuating an untruth, and not being decent enough to acknowledge that it is untrue.

I am telling the truth. You should go to places, I mean rcc churches like in South America and see what they do there with their statues.

The last person whose interpretation I would want to take on an issue is someone unwilling or unable to be truthful about what is so, and what can easily be seen as not so.

I based the truth from the Bible, how about you? Opinions, consensus, likes.

I'm so glad you started reading the Bible and are now seemed convinced your interpretation is infallible.

Based on your opinion? I can’t argue with that.

I don't think you're being honest, and are misrepresenting Catholic beliefs and practices, and that is what I am addressing. If you believe what is true and good is right, then why not acknowledge what is true as a starting point for debating on the subject?

What truth are you talking about? You would not know the truth even if it was staring at you. The only truth I know is in the Bible or are you afraid of the truth.

 

[Neb]

This doesn't even make sense.

What the preposition "of" and "from"? Do you think they make sense at all?

 

[metis]

In all of these (and I mean "all") they taught an unChristian and unCatholic view.

Could you give some examples?

 

[4consideration]

That’s why we have verses in the Bible to prove what is false or true and if you read it again it’s very clear that the Lord Jesus is the son of David according to the flesh.
Mary was just like you and me, we are mortals and to say a mortal woman is the mother of God is blasphemy but to say Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh is biblical. This is not an opinion only but it’s the truth and it’s in the Bible.

If you would apply the same definition for the word "of" that you are using regarding David to "of" relative to Mary, you would probably see what I am saying.

I'll try again.

Jesus is not the literal son of David. Jesus is of the house of David, FROM (the lineage of) David. That is key.

Catholics do not believe that Mary preceded God in existence, and therefore would be the "real" God, which is along the lines of what you seem to be thinking, in calling it blasphemy. Mary is not considered somehow "above God".

Within Christian belief, whether one believes Jesus is One with God (part of the Trinity) or one believes Jesus is the Son of God, it still follows that if Mary was the mother of Jesus chosen by God, she is a representative, a forwarder of God's will on earth, and as such in her role as the mother of Jesus, is considered "of God'.

Just like a minister might be described as a "Man of God". She is the Mother who agreed to forward God's will by bearing Jesus.

If one does not believe that Jesus came from God, then I can see someone having issue with Mary being identified as one "of God."

 

[4consideration]

When was the last time you was inside a church?.

OK. Let's just deal with the first issue here. I think this is the fourth time I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that all prayers in mass are not directed to Mary or the saints. I'm sticking with it.

I said.

You said ALL the prayers in the mass were directed to Mary or the saints. That's just wrong.

Why won't you admit it?

You replied.

When was the last time you was inside a church?

This implies you are sticking with that assertion, as though it is true.

Now.

I posted a link to the actual wording used in Catholic masses. Here it is again: Text of the New English Roman Catholic Mass

I used the link to save space because it would be too bulky, and a violation of the rules, to post all the wording, especially when I think most people are familiar enough with prayers, like The Lord's Prayer, to know -- it is not, in any way, shape or form, directed to Mary or the saints.

I mean, how can you possibly interpret this prayer, and the priest's addition to be directed to Mary and/or the saints?

"A: Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Doxology
P: Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil,
graciously grant peace in our days,
that, by the help of your mercy,
we may be always free from sin
and safe from all distress,
as we await the blessed hope"
and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

I'll give a few more examples, starting with the beginning of mass.

The mass begin with the opening of prayer: "In the name of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Then a greeting.

The next portion may include a request for Mary and the saints to pray for us.

Next.

"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.
We praise you,
we bless you,
we adore you,
we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world,
receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father,
have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father.
Amen. "

(Nothing there about Mary or the saints. Addressed directly to God.)

There is a First Reading (of scripture)
A Responsorial Psalm (no reference to Mary or saints)
A Second Reading (of scripture)
Alleluia (no reference to Mary or saints)

Then a Gospel Reading.

Then the Homily (teachings from the Gospel read).

Then The Nicene Creed or The Apostles Creed (neither are directed to, or through, Mary or the saints)

Then The Liturgy of the Eucharist begins with:

"P: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us the bread of life..."

That section continues on with no reference to Mary or the Saints.

I think that's enough examples, but there are more if anyone cares to look.

There are plenty of places in the mass that is directed to God, alone. It hasn't changed that much since the time I used to attend mass regularly.

To answer your question, the last time I was at mass was for a wedding during the summer. I only go for weddings and funerals. Hasn't changed that much in my lifetime, except I can remember Latin masses. That was a big change.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What is considered idols to you that will make sense?

Idolatry is really inadmissible as a concept to non-Abrahamic religions- and I think inadmissible to the Catholic view. Catholics are only using the 'idols' as a focus to direct them.

 

[4consideration]

@Neb, you're changing the subject with your response to me.

I said

I think it's wrong to represent yourself as having been Catholic, say ALL prayers in the mass are directed through Mary or the saints as though you're speaking truthfully and with some level of knowledge on the subject, refuse to acknowledge that assertion you made as being untrue, when challenged. How "Catholic" you were is not the point. The point is you are perpetuating an untruth, and not being decent enough to acknowledge that it is untrue.

and you said

I am telling the truth. You should go to places, I mean rcc churches like in South America and see what they do there with their statues..

I'm talking about your assertion all prayers in the Catholic mass are directed to Mary or the saints.

What individuals in certain regions (or certain parishes) of the world may do with statues has nothing to do with the official content of the mass.

It's pretty standard, but with some variations. Some parishes may deviate from it, but that doesn't make it the official content of the RC mass. I think you are really talking about other things that people do outside of mass.

It's fine if you object to some South American Catholics use of statues. I see no reason you should use them.

I'm not getting why you are connecting statues to the wording of prayers in the mass.

I'm not talking about statues. I've been talking about the wording of prayers during mass, and who those prayers are directed to.

What truth are you talking about? You would not know the truth even if it was staring at you. The only truth I know is in the Bible or are you afraid of the truth.

That's hilarious. It was a punch line I expected, but it still brought a smile to my face.

The only truth I was referring to was whether or not all prayers in a Catholic mass are directed to Mary or to the saints. They're not.

I gave you the actually wording of the masses, and you're telling me I wouldn't know the truth of it if it was staring me in the face.

It is staring you in face, and you have thus far refused to admit it.

If you can't read and properly interpret who a prayer like the "Our Father" (Lord's Prayer) is directed to, I find it hard to think you can interpret the Bible, or anything else, in any way that qualifies you to be making assertions about what Catholics believe and do.

Do you think every thing you say is true just because you can't find a reference to you being wrong in the Bible? Is that really the only truth there is?

Let's use a different word. Let's use "accurate" instead of "true".

Please look at the wording (in blue) in my post #158 -- to make it simple, just what's in blue -- and answer these questions:

1. Do you agree these words (or something very close) are part of the Roman Catholic mass?

2. If so, do you agree these parts of the mass are directed to God, and not to Mary or the saints?

3. Do masses in South America change these parts of the mass (change the wording,) so that instead of those words being directed to God, they are directed to someone else, like Mary or the saints?

4. Is it accurate to say all prayers in the Catholic mass are directed to Mary or the saints?