1. 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?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by The Voice of Reason, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +51
    The FIRST CHURCH was the WAY, this is the only congregation named in the NT.They were first called "Christian" in Antioch!
    The Catholic Church carried the Christian Banner in the Roman Empire, from which most of the protesting daughters came out of. Most of them(Protestant Churches) kept the traditions of the mother Church. The Way remained as it was from the beginning at the Feast of Weeks/Shavuot/Pentecost. The Way believes in and follows the Messiah and obeys his Word. Paul admonishes "all", to imitate him as he imitates Yeshua/Jesus HaMashiach/Christ.
     
  2. harold e. rice

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    108
    Ratings:
    +8
    According to the Biblical text the disciples of Jesus were called Christians shortly after he died.



    Ac 11:26

    And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it

    came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the

    church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called

    Christians first in Antioch.



    The first Christians were Palestine Jew who reverted back to Judaism shortly after Paul came on the scene, teaching primary to the Gentiles.



    Had it not been for the Roman Emperor Constantine embracing Christianity, there would be no Christian Church period, because the put a stop to their slaughter and persecutions and organized the institution.



    Had it not been for Martin Luther who launched a protest against the Pope and Roman Catholic Church in 1517 for selling indulgences, there would be no Protestant Church. It was from this protest that the PROTESTANT CHURCH received its name. Therefore if you are a Christian you are either a Catholic/Orthodoxy or a Protestant.



    Bottom line – no Catholic Church = No Protestant Church
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +952


    So true.... the sad part is that many of the issues Luther was "protesting" are things of the past in the Catholic Church.
    The post-reformation bloom of new doctrines today would have Luther nailing lists all over the world... it's almost painful to see so many Christians who don't know the history of their faith for the first 1500 years of its existance.

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  4. Doc

    Doc Space Chief

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    500
    Ratings:
    +80
    Luther's cause was very just indeed. His arguements helped shape the the Catholic Church from its stubborn self to embracing a more accepting faith. We cannot fail to ignore that the Catholic Church was not always Christian and Christlike. The selling of indulgences and the murdering of those who were branded as heretics were very wrong indeed. Even though the Catholic Church did come before any protestant churches, we must keep in mind that when all those people began breaking away from Rome, it caused Church officials to look at themselves and discover what they were doing wrong and eventually begin to reform themselves and modernize the church.
     
  5. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    73,769
    Ratings:
    +34,028
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Competition is a good thing in politics, business, and religion.
     
  6. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    These churches weren't all different denominations, though. They were all Catholic in belief and practice.
     
  7. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Nowhere in the Bible does the word "remembrance" mean "symbolic." Look how the Webster's Dictionary defines remember and symbol.

    Remember - To think of again

    Symbol - An object used to represent something abstract

    These two definitions are clearly not the same. The point here is that "remembrance" does not mean "symbolic" and should not be used to wash out all the evidence supporting the Eucharist Yes, Christians are called to remember Christ during Communion but they are also called to receive His actual body and blood in the form of bread and wine. Take a closer look at the passage in Luke. The passage states, "do THIS in memory of me." There are two parts to this statement. Do THIS and MEMORY. You're focusing too much on the remembrance. What about the THIS? What is the THIS? It means to do what Jesus just did, to distribute his body and blood in the form of bread and wine. The remembrance comes in when the partakers remember that Christ died for them as they eat His body and drinkHhis blood. The Catholic position fulfills both of Jesus’ commands. By partaking in the actual body and blood Catholics are doing what the THIS means. Additionally, they REMEMBER Christ’s sacrifice while receiving Communion. In the Protestant practice, only the REMEMBER part is obeyed, not the THIS part. So as I've already said, the word remembrance in itself does not equate to symbolic. Rather, it points to what should be remembered. Either the real presence needs to be remembered or the symbolic presence needs to remembered. The last supper accounts and other supporting scriptures prove that Christ intended that Christians remember and receive His body and blood during Communion.
     
  8. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Mary gave birth to Jesus, so how can she NOT be His mother, regardless of whether or not He existed before her? You seem to think that she just gave birth to His human nature, but that's not true. Mothers don't give birth to human natures; they give birth to PERSONS. Mary gave birth to the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. Thus, Mary is the Mother of God.
     
  9. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    How do you know this?
     
  10. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Jesus said, "This IS my body," not "This represents my body." Same with His blood. Aramaic has about 20 different words meaning "to represent." So why would Jesus have chosen the verb "to be" when he could've chosen a plethora of other verbs? That would mean the authors of the 4 Gospels, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, recorded a word that didn't intend Our Lord's true meaning even though there were other words available.

    As for Jesus using symbolic language, let's take, for example, Jesus' description of Himself as a vine in John 15:1-5. Perhaps you may argue that Jesus wasn't saying that He was present in the vine. Well, that argument is invalid for 2 reasons:

    1. The entire context about the vine is symbolic. Jesus uses fruit as a metaphor to describe a person's works, and he uses a gardener as a metaphor to describe the Father. The context in which Jesus said the bread was His body was during the most sacred event for the Jewish people (the Passover). In addition, Jesus was not holding a vine in his hands when he said, "I am the vine" . In fact, He was holding the bread in His hands when he said, "This is my body."

    2. In the passage about the vine, no one asks, "How can this man claim to be a plant?" In other words, no one understood Him literally like the disciples did in John 6.

    And as for Jesus' work being finished, you're absolutely right. Catholics don't believe that Jesus is resacrificed in the Mass! Rather, the Mass is the one sacrifice of Calvary made present once again on the altar. In Genesis 24:18, Melchizedek, King of Salem, was a priest, and he offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 109 predicts that Christ will be a priest according to the line of Melchizedek, that is, offering a sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine. And it would continue too, according to Malachi 1:11: "From the rising of the sun even to the going down my name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." The Mass is that sacrifice!
     
  11. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Writings from the early Christians prove this. And there are MANY such writings out there! They deal with topics such as the papacy, the Mass, the sacraments, Mary, purgatory, moral teachings, and so forth.
     
  12. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Whoa, Doc, wait a minute! You say you're a Catholic, but the stuff you've said contradicts Church teaching. Scripture isn't the only true religious authority; there's Sacred Tradition as well; and the teachings of both Scripture and Sacred Tradition are transmitted to us via the Magisterium -- the teaching authority, if you will -- of the Church.

    As for your claim that it doesn't matter which religion you are, that no religion has absolute truth, and stuff like that, that too is false and contradicts Church teachings. Christianity makes a series of claims about God and man: That Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, and that he died and was resurrected -- all so that we might be free from our sins. Every other religion in the world denies each of these points. So if Christianity is correct, then it speaks a vital truth to the world -- a truth that all other religions reject. This alone makes Christianity unique.

    But it doesn't end there. Recall Jesus' statement in John's Gospel: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." In Christianity, we have God's full revelation to humanity. It's true that all religions contain some measure of truth -- the amount varying with the religion. Nevertheless, if we earnestly want to follow and worship God, shouldn't we do it in the way He prescribed?

    If Jesus is indeed God, then only Christianity contains the fullness of this truth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Not true. The Church has NEVER erred. It cannot. Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. If the Church erred, that would mean Jesus was a liar, as the gates of hell would indeed have prevailed against it.

    The sale of indulgences, burning of heretics, etc. was NEVER the fault of the Church. It was the fault of certain individual members of the Church -- clergy and laity alike. But NEVER did the Church actually teach that such things were ok. If anything, Martin Luther got the Church to take note of the abuses that were occurring and crack down on them, but he was totally unjustified in being a heretic and promoting his heresies (sola fide, sola scriptura, to name a few).
     
  14. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    What about the bible? What does it say about these things?
     
  15. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    An interesting view that the Lutheran churches are poisoned by the RCC... It is repeatedly stated in the Lutheran dogma (The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, both Cathechisms etc.) that the true blood and flesh of Christ really are there, but not in a transsubstantiated form but coexistent with the real bread and wine.

    I would be very interested to know which Christian churches believe in the symbolic only interpretation.
     
  16. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    The Bible does deal with these subjects, although in many cases not specifically. Most of what I mentioned are most clearly taught through Sacred Tradition. However, they're also implicitly present it (and not contrary to) the Bible. You have to remember that the Church came WAAAAAYYYY before the Bible; it wasn't the other way around. And even if the Bible did exist since then, it wouldn't have made any difference -- the vast majority of early Christians were illiterate. So the teachings of Jesus and His apostles were handed down orally to them, and they, in turn, have handed them down orally for 2000 years, omitting nothing.

    In addition, we know that not everything is in the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of John, near the end, it says that Jesus did many things that are NOT recorded there.
     
  17. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Could you please show some passages?

    The church couldn't have come waaaaay before the Bible. It did form after the Jesus' death and before the letters of Paul and others, but the chronological gap there is nowhere near as big as what you are suggesting. The apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others wrote letters to churches all over the Roman empire. And they were alive when Jesus Himself was alive.

    The mere fact that Paul and these others wrote these letters suggests that they, or at least some of them could read. Besides you yourself said that
    were what handed down your traditions.

    Besides, the book of Acts is an outline of the history of the beginning of the church. And if all these traditions were around and in practice, then why does the book not mention them specifically?
     
  18. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    Where would you like me to begin? There are very many. Actually, I might be better off sending you an e-mail because I could get more info in. Tell me which topic you'd like to begin with.

    The Bible as we know it didn't come into existence until a few centuries AFTER the Church started. You say it couldn't have couldn't have come very long after the Bible, but it did. The books of the Bible weren't compiled and put together until many, many years after the Church started.


    I said the majority of people couldn't read, but that definitely doesn't mean EVERYONE without exception. Besides, the letters were read to congregations -- the literate and illiterate alike.

    Acts, while an outline of the history of the beginning of the Church, simply wasn't written as a means of telling everything there possibly was to know about the early Church.
     
  19. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    You can pm me with a list if you want.

    You are right, but some of Paul's letters to the churches were written in around the 50s A.D., only about 20 or so years after the death of Christ. So the individual documents, i.e. letters and accounts of certain events, although scattered, were still around (or at least copies of them were) at that time.

    It told us all that we needed to know. As did the rest of the Bible. Otherwise it would be incomplete.
     
  20. Doc

    Doc Space Chief

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    500
    Ratings:
    +80
    Many individuals of the church were responsible for burnings and indulgences, but what did the church authorities do to stop it? It was specifically decided that in the Council of Trent, indulgences were valid signs of faith as long as they were never used improperly. This continued for a very long time. This is all from a history book and a history teacher (who is Lutheran by the way). Luther had every right to do what he did! If God would not allow one to make their own religous choices, that would completely take away the whole meaning of free will and intellect which he gave us.
    If any member of the Church of any authority can sin and be at fault, so can the church itself. I think the Church is good today and is much better, but to say that an organization existing over 2000 years has never made one fault or error is crazy.
     
Loading...