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. Iacobus

    Iacobus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you misunderstood what Dave was seeking to convay. The Church is made up of two different elements, the Divine and the Human. The Divine element of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot err on matters of faith and morals, however, the human element is not afford this luxuary of infallibility. The human elements, the lay people and the ordinated, are alone faillible. But when united and combined with the Divine elements the Magisterium can teach.

    Kind of along the lines of a house divided.

    This isn't excalty logical. God gave me free will therefore I know best. God gave us free will yet still allows us to sin. Sin, we can agree, is wrong. Therefore, ill can come from the gift of free will improperly used. Thus, one could not have been intended to make one's religious choice, much like one was not intended to sin.
     
  2. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    I'm back after all this time. Sorry for leaving everyone hanging here. So let's see ... where were we?



    OK ... And I apologize for the delay -- don't think I forgot about you. I haven't been on this forum at all for the past several weeks.

    Whether the letters were in existence or not at that time is irrelevant. As I've said, the Bible as we know it still had not been compiled.

    Can you prove that the Bible tells everything a Christian needs to know? Where in the Bible does it say that?

    Oh, another thing from a previous post of yours ... you said that I said that writings from the early Christians were how the faith was passed on. I never said that. I said that writings from them show that the early Church was thoroughly Catholic in belief in practice, but never did I say that that was how the faith was passed on. It was passed on primarily through word of mouth. All the writings do is show us what had ALREADY been passed on.
     
  3. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    28,224
    Ratings:
    +14,733
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Protestants sometimes object to Catholics as idolaters or worshipers of graven images. They point out that Catholics spend more time praying to "saints" than to God or Jesus, and that their principle deity appears to be Mary-Mother-of-God. Mark Twain made a point of this over a century ago.

    I've seen several Protestant works refering to Catholics as "Maryists."
     
  4. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    Catholics do not worship mary at all. They simply honor her. And with the saints, let me ask you a question, do you ever ask someone to pray for you? Of course you do. That is all catholics do with saints, except instead of asking a living being who can only pray some of the time. They ask a being in heaven who can pray for them all the time. Even you cannot pray constantly to god, so catholics ask help in the saints. And I would say that protestants worship the bible more than they worship god. So in that sense the bible can be seen as a graven image. And in no way do catholics worship images. Ever been to a catholic mass? You will never see them worshipping any image, ever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    No worries. I almost forgot what we were talking about anyway :)

    How is it irrelevant? Those documents existed before the Bible as we have it today. The fact that they existed means that they could have been copied and spread throughout the Roman empire and elsewhere. The letters (and the teachings therein) were capable of slowly, but surely, getting around, being read by and to many christians.

    It doesn't say that exactly. Although John 20:31 says that the writings in that particular book are sufficient for belief in Jesus Christ. But a good passage is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It says that the scripture is given so that christians can be caomplete. Anyway, that is just my thinking on the subject. If those letters are incomplete then God's message to us is incomplete. But does that allow us to just fill in whatever types of worship and doctrine that we feel? I personally don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

    What I said was that the early writings of these christians are what passed on your traditions. The writings of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and others (along with Paul's missionary journeys and other preaching) are what passed on Christianity. The letters of the Bible give no indication of the catholic traditions such as glorification of Mary, the Papacy, rosaries, etc. Those things are traditions that have been passed on outside of the Bible. That is all I was trying to say.
     
  6. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +62
    christians follow christ, and most of the rcc members follow the pope.the bible makes no mention of a universal(catholic=Including or concerning all humankind) church.yet this is what they have become in adopting pagan traditions since their start.

    In AD 325, approximately 300 bishops from various cities journeyed to Nicea at the expense of the emperor. This was only about 1/6 of the total number of bishops in Christendom.The doctrine developed slowly over a period of over 200 years, and continued to be refined in the way it was explained for hundreds of years after.

    While Arianism dominated the theology of the empire because of the emperors’ acceptance and approval, Athanasius and a few others continued to fight for the Nicene position.. Athanasius was deposed from his bishopric in Alexandria no less than five times, but he continued the theological struggle even in exile.

    Athanasius was aware of the hesitancy of many to accept the homoousios terminology because it lent itself toward modalism, so he came to accept the use of the term homoiousios, meaning "of similar substance," to speak of the relationship of the Son to the Father. This was a very important step, since he had previously argued that the use of homoiousios was just as heretical as Arianism.

    rcc-christian or pagan

    changes in scriptural names or words(god,lord,bible)

    popes
    Formerly, when the papal dominion was coveted, the aim was directed solely to the Roman chair, but now it was quite different; for, instead of according to Rome, the honor of electing the pope, as had always been the case heretofore, they of Avignon, in France began, without regarding the Romans or Italians, to constitute themselves the electors of the pope; insomuch that they for this end elected a certain person, whom they call Benedict XIII, notwithstanding the Roman chair was occupied by a pope called Gregory XII; thus setting not only pope against pope, but France against Italy, and Avignon against Rome.*

    Of this, P. J. Twisk gives the following account"At this time there reigned two popes, who were for a long time at great variance with each other; the one at Rome in Italy, the other at Avignon., "When Pope Innocentius at Rome was dead, Benedict XIII still occupied the papal chair in France. Then Gregory XII was elected pope." Chron. P. .I. Twish, ISth Book, for the year 1406. page .758. col. z. ex Chron. Platinae, fol. 396. Fasc. Temp. fol. 187.

    The same writer, after narrating successively several other things which happened in the five subsequent years, again makes mention, for the year 1411, of this Pope Benedict, who was elected at Avignon; as well as of two others, who arose during his reign, namely, Gregory and John; and

    * After pope Anastasius, Symmachus was elected pope in a tumult; and immediately also Laurentius was elected, with whom he had two contests, yet came off victor, as the papists say, for the clergy and king Diederik were on his side. But after four years some of the clergy, who lusted after uproar and contention, and some Roman senators, recalled Laurentius; but they were sent into banishment. This caused a fearful riot at Rome.-. J. Twisk, 5th Book, Anno 499. page 171. col. 2 ex Platinal Chron, fol. 101. Fasc. Temp. fol. 114.
    Page 56
    also of their mutual contentions. These are his words, "At that time. there were three popes at once, who incessantly excommunicated one another, and of whom the one gained this potentate for his adherent, the other another. Their names were Benedict, Gregory, and John., "These strove and contended with each other, not for the honor of the Son of God, nor in behalf of the reformation and correction of the adulterated doctrines or the manifold abuses of the (Roman) church, but solely for the supremacy; to obtain which, no one hesitated to perpetrate the most shameful deeds., "In brief, the emperor exerted himself with great diligence, and traveled three years through Europe, to exterminate this shameful and pernicious strife and discord which prevailed in Christendom. Having, therefore, rejected these three schismatic popes, he brought it about, that Otto Columnius was made pope by common consent; for, within the last twenty-nine years there had always been at least two popes; one at Rome, and the other at Avignon. When one blessed, the other cursed.* See aforementioned Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1411. page 765. Col. r, a.

    Concerning the overthrow of these three popes the same author gives this statement, "In this year, Pope John XXIV, having been convicted in fifty four articles, of heresies, crimes, and base villainies, was deposed from papal dignity, by the council of Constance, and given in custody to the palsgrave. When these articles were successively read to him, he sighed deeply and replied, - that he had done something still worse, namely, that he had come down from the mountain of Italy, and committed himself under the jurisdiction of a council, in a country where he possessed neither authority nor power.

    After he had been in confinement at Munich three years, to the astonishment of everyone, he was released, and made cardinal and bishop of Tusculum, by Pope Martin V, whose feet he submissively came to kiss at Florence. Shortly afterwards in the year 1419, he died there, and was buried with great pomp and solemnity in the church of St. John the Baptist.

    After he had thus received his sentence, the other two popes were summoned; of whom Gregory XII, who resided at Rimini, sent Charles Maletesta thither, with instructions to abdicate voluntarily in his name the papal dignity; in reward of which he was made a legate in Marca d'Ancona, where he subsequently died of a broken heart, at Racanay, a seaport on the Adriatic Sea.

    Benedict XIII, the pope at Avignon, remained obstinate in his purpose, so that neither entreaties nor threats, nor the authority of the council could move him, to submit, or lay down his office, for the tranquillity of all Christendom. See the afore

    * So writes Jan Crispijn. mentioned Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1415 page 773. Col. a. and 774. Col. z.
    NOTE -Pope Benedict XIII, through the incitation of the Ring of France, and the University of Paris, sent his legates to Pope Boniface IX; but they received as an answer, that their master could not properly be called a pope, but an antipope; whereupon they refuted him. See De Ondergang, 15th Book, Anno 1404. page 757. Col. z.

    Here it is proper to note what the last mentioned author narrates concerning the plurality of the popes, who existed at one and the same time., "Besides this," he writes,"it is related that there were sometimes four, sometimes three, and sometimes two popes at the same time."

    Victor, Alexander III, Calixtus III, and Paschalis, possessed together the papal authority, at the time of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa; and also Benedict VIII, Sylvester II, and Gregory V were popes together, till finally, Henry III deposed them.

    Likewise Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and Alexander V arrogated, by excommunications, the papal authority.*

    Further, how Stephen III and Constantine, Sergius III and Christophorus, Urbanus V and Clemens VII, Eugene IV and Clemens VIII, and many other popes, whom to mention it would take too long, strove and contended with each other for the triple crown, their own historians have sufficiently elucidated. See in the 9th Book o f the Chronicle for the year 891. page 315. Col. 2. from the tract, Den Onpartiidigen Rechter.
     
  7. SPIIRIT

    SPIIRIT New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ya, well when I did a histroy search online it became apparrent that the "Mother Church" is not mis-named. All evidence seemed to point to the Catholic Church in Rome as the root os all Protestant religions...all the rest are either sanctioned or wildroots it seems.
     
  8. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    Since all of christianity was taken from pagan ideas (not just the roman catholic) I see no justification for attacking solely the Roman Catholic church on that matter. And since that site you gave
    rcc-christian or pagan
    is not completely accurate in its information, especially due to the fact that not all catholics worship the same way. Such as the idea that Jesus did not pay the full penalty for sin upon his death. I've actually never met a catholic who had that idea. And NOWHERE is mary worshipped. She is honored as being the mother of Jesus. Do you disrespect her? If not, than you feel the same as catholics. Also with salvation, not all catholics or catholic priests feel that salvation is only achieved through the Roman Catholic Church. Do more research next time. And more of this worship nonsense with the bread and wine. Yes, catholics believe it is turned into the body and blood of Jesus. Through the power of god of course. But in no way do catholics worship the bread and wine. It is the eucharist, not an idol. Again, do more research. Also, they do not all, actually again I've never met one, who believe that everyone goes through purgatory. Wow, who wrote that site. Not very credible are they?
     
  9. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +62
    as your opinion, i have no objection.there is an itty bitty cult you might say that believes christianity is not pagan, but the true religion.
    then i suppose i may address nothing?i did say and bold the word most at the beginning of my post.if anything, this was at least an indicator that i wasn't referring to every individual.
    well i have met catholics who told me their way is the only way(not that their religion is the only one to claim this).the world does not revolve around your experiences.few religions if any teach universal salvation, it is obviously argueable that anything else is teaching that which you mention.

    i'm glad that your post was directed towards a 4 word hyperlink rather than the bulk of my post.
    the problem here is you do not state what they claim, which is that she is 'the mother of god'.this is how they feel, and not how i feel.so even though i do not disrespect her(even though she was a mere sinner as your or i are) has nothing to do with how i/catholics feel about her being remotely similar.
    i'm sorry i cannot adress every angle the rcc takes on different issues, i like the irony in that they are not always the same.

    i didn't claim to agree with everything on that site, nor does your disproving a catchphrase discredit everything else found there.<in light of the first part of that sentence, i will address your post no further.but i do appreciate your input.

    If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?


    -shawn
     
  10. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    "i did say and bold the word most at the beginning of my post."

    I'm just here sticking up for all the catholics who do not subscribe to what is only seen on the surface of catholicism. I am sorry I only discussed a link you gave, but I had nothing to say about the rest of your post. I found the site interesting, and decided to bring light to some of the claims it put forth. Indeed the Roman Catholic church is fallible. But all relgions are, for they are formed, and passed on by fallible humans. This does not negate the fact that Catholics are Christians.
     
  11. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think that what arouses this kind of heated debate is simply a definition of "christian" as a formal organization rather than an ideology . Dictionary definitions show that a "church" is an organization (in the U.S. and other democratic nations this usually means formal recognition by the government - generally for a tax status) while a religion is the day-to-day practice of one's moral principles. Hence why there is an Aetheist Church but not all atheists belong to it and there are several organizations amongst the Buddhists but you do not have to belong to one to be one. Also why I may say that listening to Country Western music is against my religion though the Church to which I pertain forbids no such thing.

    If we define Christianity as a Church then we're in a lot of trouble beause that means that one church is Christian and the remainder are imitators or non-Christians. IF a group of Churches ban together to label themselves as the true Christian Church then there is a claim that other Christian-claiming churches can challenge - and have a right to.

    However if Christianity is an ideology then there is no singular claim on it. In my mind when you say Christian I think of the principles that most of Western Civilization is familiar with: penitence before god, reverence to salvation through Jesus of Nazareth and faith in the power of God to save, etc.

    In this sense it is ludicrous to claim that Catholics are not Christians. They have, as has been established here, as much a claim as anyone else.

    However I would like to comment on the post that all Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian religions are off-shoots of Catholicism.

    LEt's remember that there is a very hazy period between the martyrdom of Jesus and the Apostles and the establishment of Linus, a Roman Bishop as the Rome-sanctioned representative of Christians in the Roman territories. With only John the Revelator surviving the official Twelve and no successor, there is a question of whether Linus assumed this religous authority or simply received it by default. Jesus never expalined the point of succession of the apostles in any of the Gospels and there are only slight references to it elsewhere. In this right, there is a valid argument that there is a break in the descendant authority of the Catholic papacy as the direct heir of St. Peter. If that is the case then there really is no point in claiming that all Christianity is an off-shoot of Catholicism. For example, both the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Mormons believe that their religions were re-established by ancient authority and hence are not Protestant Christians but actually Restored Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses were founded as a Bible Study group and use a version of the Holy Writ not based from the Catholic Vulgate. The Church of England and the majority of Protestant religions defined their principles according to the King James Version of the Bible which was catered to the Reformist Era in England to establish itself as independent from Roman Catholicism, not a break-away of it.

    Regardless, the ideology that has been passed down by scripture from various sources including - but not limited to - the Vatican itself validates the Catholics' claim to be followers of Christ.

    Good posts, guys.

    Peace,
    Horatio
     
  12. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +62
    as i said, some/many catholics follow the pope or oral tradition over(as in when it opposes) the word(messiah/christ).some catholics are christian imo.the topic is too broad.

    love
     
  13. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    No teaching of the pope or oral tradition oppose Christ in any way, shape, or form. Why do you think that some do?
     
  14. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +62
    in this era or in the era of the inquisition?the pope is in charge of the catholic church's activity right?so how is the christmas celebration(for starters) unopposed to the messiah's teachings?
     
  15. Dave

    Dave Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +2
    In all eras. It doesn't matter the era; no Church teaching has ever gone against Jesus despite the fact that there have been individual popes, bishops, priests, and laity who haven't exactly lived as Christ would have them live. And pray tell, how could celebrating Christmas possibly be opposed to Jesus' teachings? He's our Savior, so isn't it only appropriate that we celebrate his birth?
     
  16. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    His birth into the world is important, But would you not agree that His death is more imortant? Maybe that's why we commemorate it every Sunday with the communion. How do we know the exact date of Jesus' birth anyway? Does that come from early christian writings as well? Just curious.
     
  17. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    More important? How about equally important. Not sure if you could calculate such a thing.... Jesus could not have died for our sins if he was never born... see what I mean?

    Catholics celebrate communion every day. About 500,000 times worldwide... every single day.

    I pray we can all celebrate communion together someday!

    Scott
     
  18. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Good point SOGFPP. It is something we need to focus and reflect on every day of our lives because it is the most important thing to remember about our salvation.
     
  19. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    I'm sorry... I missed what you are refering to: what's the most important thing?
     
  20. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    I was referring to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I said that we commemorate it every Sunday, but you said that you celebrate it daily. I was saying that that is an appropriate thing to do.
     
Loading...