Are Catholics Christians?

[pearl]

The religious leaders: the Pharisees, Scribes, the High Priests and the Sadducees were the theologians in the Bible.

The Pharisees, Scribes, the High Priests and the Sadducees did not write the Gospels.

God gave His word to the Prophets in the OT and to the Apostles in the NT also known today as the Bible or the Holy Scriptures.

The OT prophets enjoyed a divine pathos, they view the world from God's perspective, but the 'word' spoken by the prophet was both God and man's word. A good example is Amos: 1:1 begins with 'The word of Amos, it ends in 9:15 with "Thus says the Lord your God". God's word in Is. 2:1 contradicts His word to Joel; "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares", "Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears." The encounter, the message may be God's, the 'word' is human.

The Word of God was given directly to the Prophets and the Apostles to preach it to the people without adding and subtracting from the very Word of God

If that were true there be no reason for multiple gospels, there are four and no two are the same. Compare Mk and Jn. There is a very human Jesus in Mark, and a God coming down from heaven in John. Without the narratives supplied by the theology of these 2nd generation authors we would have less knowledge of the person of Jesus and his teaching.

 

[Neb]

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.

”not literal”? So if it’s “not literal” then it must either a metaphor or an allegory, right? I think it’s neither a metaphor nor an allegory but the literal son of David according to the Bible.

“son of peace” is not literal but a metaphor, “And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.” –Luke 10:6

See the difference now?

 

[Neb]

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".

You knew what I meant when I said “mother of God” so let’s not play semantics.

Do you know the four Marian Dogmas? Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption and I believe there is another one, the fifth dogma, i.e., “Co-redemptrix of humanity”. Mary the co-redeemer of humanity is unbiblical because it says: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5. The Lord Jesus is the only mediator that bridged the gap between man and God.

 

[Neb]

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."

I don’t have a problem saying Mary is of/from God at all.

 

[pearl]

When she started up in the new parish that autumn they made her start over.

That's both unfortunate and surprising as one thing the Church is exceptional at is keeping records. Its easy enough for one parish to forward these to another.

I don't think it's such a good idea to speak so glowingly about Catholic education programs

Everyone speaks from their own experience, what I stated is the norm.

 

[4consideration]

”not literal”? So if it’s “not literal” then it must either a metaphor or an allegory, right? I think it’s neither a metaphor nor an allegory but the literal son of David according to the Bible.

“son of peace” is not literal but a metaphor, “And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.” –Luke 10:6

See the difference now?

OK. I get it.

I think I was pretty clear I was talking about use of the word "of" in making a distinction that Jesus was of the House of David, was a descendant of David -- but not his direct, biological son...meaning, without other people being involved. But, ok, I'll acknowledge that one, and make the correction.

We can get as exact as you need.

Jesus was not the direct result of semen issued forth from David's penis, and used to impregnate Mary with Jesus -- but Jesus was a descendant of David, and in that way is "son" in term of lineage, but not in terms of modern conversational usage whereby "son" refers the man that impregnates the child's mother.

Hope that helps.

 

[Neb]

The Pharisees, Scribes, the High Priests and the Sadducees did not write the Gospels.

We are discussing who were the theologians of the Bible, right? None of the Prophets nor the Apostles were theologians as you have suggested here

The sacred writers of the Gospels were theologians.

Then I said: The religious leaders: the Pharisees, Scribes, the High Priests and the Sadducees were the theologians in the Bible. And NOT the Prophets and the Apostles because the word of God was given to them directly and unlike the theologians in the Bible, i.e., The religious leaders: the Pharisees, Scribes, the High Priests and the Sadducees they have to study the scriptures, right?

"If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” -Matthew 22:45

"No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. -Matthew 22:46

So, again, what is it that these theologians, the Pharisees, did not understand?

 

[Neb]

The OT prophets enjoyed a divine pathos, they view the world from God's perspective, but the 'word' spoken by the prophet was both God and man's word. A good example is Amos: 1:1 begins with 'The word of Amos, it ends in 9:15 with "Thus says the Lord your God".

The message was given to Amos and this message from God started in verse 3

Thus says the LORD,
“For three transgressions of Damascus and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron.” –Amos 1:3

God's word in Is. 2:1 contradicts His word to Joel; "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares", "Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears." The encounter, the message may be God's, the 'word' is human.

It does not contradict at all if you read the whole context in Isaiah, Joel, and Micah.

In Isaiah, it says: “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.” So instead of using their swords for killing or war beat them into a plowshare and their spears into pruning hooks because “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.”
The same message in Micah 4:3 and in Joel the message is the opposite, i.e., the basic agricultural tools like plowshare and spears were to be fashioned into weapons: “Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, “I am a mighty man.” –Joel 3:10.

 

[Neb]

If that were true there be no reason for multiple gospels, there are four and no two are the same.

Syn·op·tic Gos·pels: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which describe events from a similar point of view, as contrasted with that of John.

Compare Mk and Jn. There is a very human Jesus in Mark, and a God coming down from heaven in John. Without the narratives supplied by the theology of these 2nd generation authors we would have less knowledge of the person of Jesus and his teaching.

So the question now is the authenticity of the gospel because they were written by the 2nd generation authors.

 

[Neb]

OK. I get it.

I think I was pretty clear I was talking about use of the word "of" in making a distinction that Jesus was of the House of David, was a descendant of David -- but not his direct, biological son...meaning, without other people being involved. But, ok, I'll acknowledge that one, and make the correction.

We can get as exact as you need.

Jesus was not the direct result of semen issued forth from David's penis, and used to impregnate Mary with Jesus -- but Jesus was a descendant of David, and in that way is "son" in term of lineage, but not in terms of modern conversational usage whereby "son" refers the man that impregnates the child's mother.

Hope that helps.

You could use the word genetically related and it will perfectly explain the whole thing without being so gross while at the same time defending your belief.

 

[Neb]

Idolatry is really inadmissible as a concept to non-Abrahamic religions-

What is non-Abrahamic religion? Can you give an example?

and I think inadmissible to the Catholic view. Catholics are only using the 'idols' as a focus to direct them.

The word "idol/s" in the Bible literally means "graven image" in Exodus 20:3-4.

 

[Neb]

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

I said


and you said

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

What is it that you cannot understand? All prayers mean NOT just part of the whole but the whole thing.

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.

Do you think this is just an isolated case? You are so naive just like the other guy.

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.

No, I mean the whole thing in and out of the church. They all praise, kneel, ask petitions to Mary and the saints.

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

It's not just in SA but all over and you knew it.

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.

To Mary and the saints then to Jesus then to God is the belief here and every catholic knew this.

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.

You can cut and paste all these prayers all day the long and still not gonna change anything about where these prayers were going to.

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?

What's all this q&a, huh? Thinking of changing for the better? You should abandon your belief while you still have the time.

 

[Neb]

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 replied.


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

Not implying at all but explicitly saying it's true.

 

[pearl]

I believe there is another one, the fifth dogma, i.e., “Co-redemptrix of humanity

Many times a Catholic doctrine is not initiated from the hierarchy, but from believers of diverse cultures who request their belief raised to the level of official doctrine. Concerning the possibility of naming Mary as Co-redemptrix, the official response to the request was given by - then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“ I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.
"The word 'Co-redemptrix,'" would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."

The Church has consistently insisted that Christ is the ONE mediator.

 

[4consideration]

You could use the word genetically related and it will perfectly explain the whole thing without being so gross while at the same time defending your belief.

Oh, please.

I originally referred to Jesus as being from the lineage, from house of David, which means they are genetically related. You made an issue that I used the word "literal" regarding "son" when using the conversational meaning for son, meaning the physical mate of the mother.

 

[Neb]

The OT prophets enjoyed a divine pathos,

Does God needs to persuade the Prophets with pathos? I thought the Prophets, the Apostles, and Mary were just “earthen vessels,” “so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;” 2nd Corinthians 4:7

 

[Neb]

Oh, please.

I originally referred to Jesus as being from the lineage, from house of David, which means they are genetically related. You made an issue that I used the word "literal" regarding "son" when using the conversational meaning for son, meaning the physical mate of the mother.

and I have explained what is literal, metaphorical, and allegorical, didn't I?

 

[4consideration]

What is it that you cannot understand? All prayers mean NOT just part of the whole but the whole thing.
Do you think this is just an isolated case? You are so naive just like the other guy.
No, I mean the whole thing in and out of the church. They all praise, kneel, ask petitions to Mary and the saints.
It's not just in SA but all over and you knew it.
To Mary and the saints then to Jesus then to God is the belief here and every catholic knew this.

You can cut and paste all these prayers all day the long and still not gonna change anything about where these prayers were going to.
What's all this q&a, huh? Thinking of changing for the better?.

We're obviously not going to get anywhere in this conversation if you're going to insist that prayers to God said in mass are somehow really being sent to saints and Mary, when they are clearly worded and directed to God.

You should abandon your belief while you still have the time.

I'm curious what you mean by that. Sounds to me we've got another self-appointed Heaven's bouncer on our hands. Did God give you the job of determining who is and isn't going to hell?

I don't believe in hell as a place one is sent to, so your statement of "while there's still time" doesn't even matter to me, and I certainly don't think if God exists that God would be petty enough to reject a person for error of belief.

You don't get to apply your personal beliefs to my life, and determine what I "should" do. That isn't the point of this conversation, and you don't know anything about me.

I've got other stuff that needs to be done today, so that's all the time I'm going to waste here for now. See ya around.

 

[Neb]

We're obviously not going to get anywhere in this conversation if you're going to insist that prayers to God said in mass are somehow really being sent to saints and Mary, when they are clearly worded and directed to God.

I'm moving along right on schedule, it is you who can't understand and that's the reason you are where you are right now.

I'm curious what you mean by that. Sounds to me we've got another self-appointed Heaven's bouncer on our hands. Did God give you the job of determining who is and isn't going to hell?

No, not really, only God can judge. I'm just debating you and the other guy. You know who I find hard to argue with? Atheists and Agnostics. I stayed away from this people.

I don't believe in hell as a place one is sent to, so your statement of "while there's still time" doesn't even matter to me, and I certainly don't think if God exists that God would be petty enough to reject a person for error of belief.

So ignorance is an excuse now, huh? Pascal's Wager, are you familiar with this?

You don't get to apply your personal beliefs to my life, and determine what I "should" do. That isn't the point of this conversation, and you don't know anything about me.

We are just debating, aren't we?

I've got other stuff that needs to be done today, so that's all the time I'm going to waste here for now. See ya around.

Learning something is not really a waste of time and I know you've learned a lot today.

 

[InChrist]

I was raised a Catholic and all I know is that I was not a Christian during my years in the RCC and although my relatives are still Catholics, none of them are Bible-believing or living Christians.

It is one thing to recognize that some Catholics are truly saved in spite of the system, but it is another thing entirely to accept the unity promoted today, which lends legitimacy to the system itself. We love Catholics, just as we love all mankind, and want them to know Christ. But to be saved, they must believe the gospel – not what Rome teaches. Furthermore, Catholicism itself has made it very clear that it will never change. The more than 100 anathemas that have been pronounced against biblical Christianity are found in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Therefore, any unity with Rome would involve an abandonment of the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). May God deliver us from such concession. –TBC
Apples of Gold - March 15

In my 48 years as a Catholic and my 22 years as a Catholic priest I believed in the Catholic Church. Consequently I thought that as I had the Sacraments by means of which, when I died, I would have everlasting life. Like other priests, I taught the people that once they were faithful to the Church as Catholics and died in the state of “sanctifying grace,” they would go to heaven. With deep respect for these who have been so misled, I now write on the topic of Catholics and eternal life. As an Irish Catholic, I remember the grip that Catholicism had on my own soul; in a sense, it was second nature to me. So it is with sensitivity that I write on a Christian’s relationship with God the Father and a Catholic’s relationship with the Holy Father in Rome.

A Christian’s relationship with God the Father is a crucial topic. Jesus Christ declared, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.”1 Not to know and believe in “the only true God” is to be deprived of “life eternal.” However, a Catholic is first required to believe and know that the “Church is the mother of all believers.” This is because, according to the Catholic Church’s official teaching,

‘Believing’ is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. ‘No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother’ (Para 181).2
Do Catholics Possess Life Eternal? | Berean Beacon