|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Catholicism Christianity?
|
U
Shipmate
# 5930
|
Posted
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same so I would like to make clear that I am in no way passing any judgement whatsoever, I am asking.
There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church. This again seems to imply an ownership over the Way. The Way is inherently Jesus' given to Him by His Father and does not belong to any man (through the Son to the Father) and also brings about a semantic paradox of the catholic clergy of fathers being the guides into Heaven when it should be the Son people look to...
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
What are people's views?
[ 06. April 2006, 09:15: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
Today's post brought to you by the letter U because I like U
Posts: 176 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064
|
Posted
We've had lots of threads about this in the past, and I'm sure someone will nudge you in their direction at some point ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't have full answers to the questions you're asking, but do consider this:
-Catholicism doesn't hold the Bible to be the only authority, it also recognises the authority of the Church's Tradition. This is why there are some beliefs which evangelicals would hold to be unbiblical, though there is Biblical evidence to support many of them
-When the archangel Gabriel appeard to Mary, he did call her 'blessed among women'. In what way is that not a declaration of God setting her aside and placing her 'above' other women?
-In depictions of the Virgin Mary, she is usually pointing at her Son. She is 'the one who shows the way' to Jesus, and is not to be honoured for her own sake.
--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.
Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
From the OP: quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers?
What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same so I would like to make clear that I am in no way passing any judgement whatsoever, I am asking.
First, it helps to get your terms straight. When you say "catholicism" you presumably refer to the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines. However, "catholic" basically means something like "universal" and that the church is universal is held by more than just Roman Catholics. Second, the position of the Roman Catholic Church is a little bit more refined than just saying "we're the one and only". Here's the Catechism on the topic:
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church writes:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
---
320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
First, RCs do not pray to Mary in the sense of worshipping. Rather, they "pray" to Mary in the Old English sense of the word, as asking for a favour. Basically, they ask Mary to pray for them, to intercede on their behalf with God. Just as it was Mary who prompted Jesus to turn water into wine, so one hopes that Mary will put in a good word for oneself. It is good Christian practice to ask others to pray for one, as St Paul did as well. RCs also admire and honor the example of saintliness that Mary provides through their prayers. Both aspects go together, since mostly one would ask someone whose faith one admires to pray for one. For RCs Mary is perfectly saintly, so she's a highly popular choice to ask for an intercession. A lot could be said about why RCs believe that Mary was such a holy person and clearly God thought her worthy to bring His Son into flesh. Perhaps this will provide a beginning:
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church writes:
148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."12 Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14
149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God's word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.
---
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
As explained in the article linked here, it is a modern development that Protestants shy away from using the title "Father". Clearly, none of us feel that there is a problem in addressing our own father as "father" just because of Jesus' word. Finally, the use of the term "father" for the respected elders of the Christian faith is simply biblical:
quote:
1 John 2:13-14 (RSV):
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
Clearly then a literalist interpretation is not warranted. I think in meditating on Matthew 23:9, you will find that a much more profound meaning emerges when we do not see this as literally forbidding the address "father" for any further human use.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
I hope this has already been answered above. In addition you may wish to read here in the Catechism that the Roman Catholic Church is more optimistic about even the salvation of non-Christians than many Protestants.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
That would be a most unfortunate conclusion. True however is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying its utmost to establish a kingdom - that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
U
Shipmate
# 5930
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
From the OP: What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Carys
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me and honour thy mother and father keeps me away from my biological parents, but that's a whole different discussion and didn't really answer your mildly antagonistic question.
--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
Today's post brought to you by the letter U because I like U
Posts: 176 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
We had a fellow speak in church on Sunday who was a member of our (Anglican) congregation and had been for some time. He was also, until quite recently, the principal of a private Roman Catholic school in our diocese.
Some time during the course of his time in an RC monastery and subsequently he realized that although his beliefs were fundamentally Christian (Jesus is both Lord and God, his death and resurrection give complete assurance of the forgiveness of sins now and forever), his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
Carys said:
quote:
From the OP:
quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers?
What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Not only Roman Catholic clergy - also Orthodox and Anglican clergy (except in Sydney, perhaps). One of the ironies of this is that Army chaplains are also usually called "Padre", regardless of gender (or protestant leanings) which of course is Spanish for "father".
The OP raises some good questions about Catholicism, and in practice I suspect that some Catholics may, in fact, pray to Mary and are guilty of thinking that salvation is limited to Roman Catholics. Fortunately, the official Catholic position is somewhat different to that, and I can happily join in communion with Roman Catholics.
[Side note - in this Anglican province, the title for priests in pidgin, from one of the indigenous languages, is "Mama" (which means priest, not Father). The word in pidgin for "mother" is "mummi". Since we do not yet have women priests, there are no mamas who are mummis. Perhaps "Father" removes some ambiguities for English speakers here!]
[ 13. February 2006, 09:49: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
This attitude is, sadly, far too common among a wide range of Christian groups. There are some charismatics who would claim that unless you speak in tongues you're not really saved. There are some evangelicals who would say that unless you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (as they understand those words) you're not really saved. Many more follow the approach that, as I understand it, is the official Roman Catholic view of "We know God saves if you adhere to our teaching. He may well save others, but we can't be sure".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same.
...
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
I have found this attitude to be uncommon within the RC church since the Second Vatican Council (a large and influential church council that took place in the early 60s, and had far reaching effects on the RC church's outlook).
You will find that the attitude is non-existent within Catholic members of these boards (what with this being an interdenominational discussion forum and all that).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
What? That if someone comes to a considered conclusion that they can no longer submit to their church's teaching that they leave? I don't think that's the case here. People may not like people question Roman Catholic's Christianity, but that is a separate issue to an individual person's decisions.
Re "Father", note that Paul uses the term to describe himself:
quote:
For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1 Corionthians 4:15
As Ingo noted, this also seems to go against a literal interpretation. To me, at least.
Jesus also warns to call no-one "Teacher" (Matt 23:10): I don't see people coming down on that. [Though I did have one friend who refused to: I had respect for him as he at least took everything literally: as much as I may've disagreed with him.] I have a suspicion it's yet more anti-Romanism than anything else.
[ 13. February 2006, 11:13: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
Speaking for myself, I don't mind whether people on this board agree with Catholic teaching or not. What I do mind are the misconceptions which have led to the kind of questions U is asking. There's a difference between informed disagreement and ignorance (not meaning to antagonise U, but I feel s/he has misunderstood some central Catholic teachings).
--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.
Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charam
Shipmate
# 10979
|
Posted
The way I see it, Catholics are Christians like any other denominations, to me none of the theological, doctrinal differences are in any way fundamental. I happen to disagree with some Catholic doctrine, but then I've never found a denomination which I completely agree with.
As for the teacher/father thing I always assumed that it meant that we werent to put anyone in the place that only God should have in our lives, not that we literally can't use those words.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
What are people's views?
I'd suggest that the Roman Catholic style of Christianity has its plus points and minus points, which we can and do discuss.
But God doesn't love institutions, he loves individual people. So, hard though it is, I think we should try to take all individuals seriously and all institutions lightly.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
We had a fellow speak in church on Sunday who was a member of our (Anglican) congregation and had been for some time. He was also, until quite recently, the principal of a private Roman Catholic school in our diocese.
Some time during the course of his time in an RC monastery and subsequently he realized that although his beliefs were fundamentally Christian (Jesus is both Lord and God, his death and resurrection give complete assurance of the forgiveness of sins now and forever), his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
Gordon, you may like to check out The Coming Home Network. It may come in handy for you someday ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . If we want to play who's collected the most scalps, my lot beat your lot any day of the week.
As to your silly little last sentence - people on these boards, I find, usually react against bigotry in whatever form it takes. Very, very often the views expressed here do not accord with my own and, sometimes, I engage in debate. I think you will find most of the discussions here relate to challenging and disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church, not trying to provide it with some sort of cosy haven.
Now how about me engaging in some bigotry and see whether I am popular: protestants are silly heretics who need to wake up and see the errors of their ways and get back into the bosom of the Catholic Church so they can be saved. How long do you think I would last here making such a statement? Would it be popular on these boards?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by U:
quote:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
I think there is something wrong with any theology which regards the Mother of our Lord as being merely an oven into which God placed a celestial bun, as it were. The relationship between mother and child is somewhat more fundamental than that.
ETA: Nice one TT!
[ 13. February 2006, 11:55: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Gordo quoth: quote:
his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
( my bold)
So repalce Roman Catholic with any other denomination and you will get takers. Gordon you are sounding more like a one trick pony than usual these days. Something wrong? Assimilations down this month?
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Jesus also warns to call no-one "Teacher" (Matt 23:10): I don't see people coming down on that.
And I have only rarely seen Protestants object to the title "reverend", meaning "he who is to be revered".
[ETA tangent: I know a priest who signs himself "Father X, your brother in Christ".]
[ 13. February 2006, 12:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
That's an interesting link Triple Tiara. It talks a lot about people converting to Catholicism from other denominations. I didn't realise a change in denomination was a conversion.
It makes it quite difficult to condemn those who say Catholics aren't christians, when many Catholics would say they have a different faith to the rest of christendom.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If moving from one church to another out of conviction isn't conversion, what is it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yes, surely it is evident that Catholics (in theory) do have a different faith from Protestants? They have different sources of authority, for one thing.
They're just not major differences. Catholics and Protestants agree on most things. There's no reason for either to chuck the other out of the Christian fold.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If moving from one church to another out of conviction isn't conversion, what is it?
In smaller churches it can easily be a matter of falling out with the leadership on personal grounds.
Around here I sometimes think we have more churches than we have Christians. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm finding this conversation absolutely mind-blowing, and not in a good way. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. How much more Christian do you want to get?
And that's all I'm going to say, before something Hellish is transmitted by my keyboard.
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<stuff>
Good to see you back on board, Gordon.
Does this mean to say that you'll be able to respond the various threads that waited for you? How's that Catechism going?
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I actually agree with you LutheranChik (for once!) My point was that, from the way some RCs speak, they shouldn't really be surprised when other Christians say they are Not Real Christians™. I'm not saying people who say these things should be excused, just that the rhetoric from both sides is often unhelpful.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I am not of the "anything goes" variety of Catholic. I believe truth matters and we need to pursue it. I believe the Catholic Church is the Lord's will and his foundation. I am very firm in my belief that we need to continue to work towards that goal of one Church. So I don't go along with "it doesn't matter what Church you belong to. It's okay if we are just nice to each other".
Which is where misunderstandings arise! That is NOT saying "the rest of you are damned! Damned I tell you and on the way to perdition!" As A Catholic I am clear that all my fellow Christians are my brothers and sisters. When it comes to communal arrangements, we brothers and sisters need to work out how we belong together. The Catholic Church is not happy with "personal Lord and Saviour" theology, because it's not just individuals who matter - we matter together as well. That's an OT and NT insight. The Church is not just an institution - it's the Body of Christ.
It is important that we as Catholics work with other bodies of believers to make that restoration of one Church a reality. But, since the Christian pilgrimage is both personal and communal, when individuals come to a point in their pilgrimage of faith where they believe as we do, we are duty bound to make them welcome. The Coming Home Network recognises this reality and seeks to make the transition into full communion easier for individuals.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
The best answer to granting special status to Mary that I can give is (particularly the first half of) the Magnificat: quote:
Luke 1:46-55
46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Add to that the concept of intercessionary prayer (praying to someone specially blessed to intercede on your behalf - in much the same way you would ask a lawyer to plead your case rather than do it on your own as a layman).
quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven.
Here is the best rebuttal I can find. In summary, the problem is that English does not differentiate between your (singular) and your (plural). You can call individuals Father as a title of respect (alternatively there's a person I have to call my mother's sperm donor...) - but don't confuse that with being the father of the nation or the like.
quote:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
It is said where? Who by? IngoB has already given the views of the Catholic Catechism - there are Catholics who believe otherwise, but they are heretics and as such are not representative of Roman Catholicism on this point. (Or possibly they are people trying to slander the Catholic Church - in which case take them with a pinch of salt).
And Gordon? What ever gave you the impression that people would dislike the idea of conversion based on principles. What is not looked on favourably is people denying that others are Christians and trying to do what is right (even if they are less than perfect).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The whole idea of a thread such as this is irritating and insulting to Catholics. It would be more appropriate to ask if Protestants are really Christian. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace their lineages to the Apostles themselves. While they affirm certain things which can't be found in Scripture that is no surprise because Scripture was formulated by the Church not the Church by Scripture.
All the Church Fathers from the second century until Nicea affirmed a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice at Calvery made for the living and the dead. This was the belief of the universal church for its first 1500 years and is the view of the majority of Christendom to this day. There are more than a billion Catholics worldwide and while that doesn't make them right, it, along with their ancient tradition means there is no need to doubt their Christian credentials.
Protestantism started around 1500. The reformers want us to believe that they discovered new things such as the awful doctrine of penal substutionary atonemnet which those who lived in the century after Jesus had failed to discover. They want us to believe that the whole 1500 years of Christianity, in which most of the core beliefs had remained unchanged, were in error and they got it right. They want us to believe that we are able, on our own, to interpret the Bible when it is full of contradictions and ambiguities.
I think history stacks up much more in favour of Protestantism being in error and when asking who, if anyone is a real Christian, those who have affirmed the creeds of the Church for close to two millennia have every right to look others squarely in the eye with confidence.
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her.
Pity he didn't make that clear to Gabriel, who calls her highly favoured. And clearly Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptiser, was waaaaay off base when she said to her, "Blessed are you among women" (which, if you know any Hebrew, you know is the normal way of saying, "the most blessed of women"). You err because you do not know the scriptures.
But maybe I'm just feeling snarky because I tire of hearing my RC brethren (and sistren) denigrated and spoken falsely of.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I trace my Protestant lineage back to the apostles, too. My tradition didn't begin in 1500, we and the RCs merely diverged at that point. As a Baptist I belong to a tradition that has affirmed the Christian faith for 2,000 years.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by U:
?
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
'And call no-one teacher' according to Jesus in the same passage in Matthew. And 'only God is good, so why do you call me good?' in another place in the same gospel. Any difficulties with describing some people as 'good', or referring to some others as 'teachers', or is this blasphemy too? No? This is because we've put a proper context on the above. Similarly, with 'Father'. Jesus had a clear context in mind.
Just as we can use words like 'good' and 'teacher' without danger of blaspheming, so it's possible to use 'Father'. Context is everything in this case, imo.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The whole idea of a thread such as this is irritating and insulting to Catholics. It would be more appropriate to ask if Protestants are really Christian. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace their lineages to the Apostles themselves. While they affirm certain things which can't be found in Scripture that is no surprise because Scripture was formulated by the Church not the Church by Scripture.
All the Church Fathers from the second century until Nicea affirmed a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice at Calvery made for the living and the dead. This was the belief of the universal church for its first 1500 years and is the view of the majority of Christendom to this day. There are more than a billion Catholics worldwide and while that doesn't make them right, it, along with their ancient tradition means there is no need to doubt their Christian credentials.
Protestantism started around 1500. The reformers want us to believe that they discovered new things such as the awful doctrine of penal substutionary atonemnet which those who lived in the century after Jesus had failed to discover. They want us to believe that the whole 1500 years of Christianity, in which most of the core beliefs had remained unchanged, were in error and they got it right. They want us to believe that we are able, on our own, to interpret the Bible when it is full of contradictions and ambiguities.
I think history stacks up much more in favour of Protestantism being in error and when asking who, if anyone is a real Christian, those who have affirmed the creeds of the Church for close to two millennia have every right to look others squarely in the eye with confidence.
Of course, most Protestant Denominations haven't demonstrated the Simony, the Inquisition and the outright corruption that prompted Martin Luther to nail some theses to a church door. Holy Tradition was thrown out by many (although not all) the reformers because it had lead to the corruption of Christianity.
Sure, you can claim greater authority for yourself than for those who saw that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church, but I'm going to wonder whether you really think those 1500 extra years you have were a good thing - or whether it was the shock to the system provided by the reformation that got the Catholic Church back on to some sort of moral path.
(Translation of the above: almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose.)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. How much more Christian do you want to get?
Well, the thing is, when I was pentibapticharisevangelistic (that's not my making up a word, folks, that's exactly what the church called themselves), they did NOT affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. The bishop of that particular church (bishop being approximately equal to priest-in-charge), when I asked him once about how the Nicean Creed pretty much contradicted everything he'd just preached about, blinked at me for a few seconds in utter confusion. Then the lightbulb dawned and he told me that, because it was a council called by the Roman church, it was invalid and not real, 'primitive' Christianity.
If they hadn'tve kicked me out, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have stayed much longer.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
"that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church." This is not founded on historical evidence. In fact, the historical evidence is against you on that one. Your being totally ignorant on Church history is no excuse for embracing the Protestant heresy.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Dear Justinian
I have no doubt that much corruption had found its way into the medieval church. All of the 95 theses which Luther nailed to Wittenburg Church were subsequently conceded by the Roman Catholic Church. So in that sense the Luther was right. His maniacal anti-Semitism disqualifies him from any criticism of Inquisitions etc, but futhermore, his changes to the theology of the ancient church and those of Calvin and Zwingli, had no basis in the undivided Church and can only be regarded as innovations. I don't regard them as in any way superior to the insights of the Church Fathers.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Bears repeating:
[quote]almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose.[quote]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Karl, would you use that phrase with regards to the councils of the church that rejected different heresies throughout the centuries? Does it apply to Gnostics, to Arians, to monophysites, to monothelites, to iconoclasts, to nestorians also, or does it only apply in the dialogue between the Protestants and those that reject Protestantism?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
'U', as said above, there a few older threads on this; sadly little was gained in those discussions (at least from my point of view). I think the short answer to your question is 'yes'.
In a previous thread, I had raised the point that much Marian veneration (the Salve Regina and others) came from the discredited 'gospel' of Pseudo Matthew (N.B. the Roman church realised that is was a fraud and dropped it from the canon, but retained many of the devotions and traditions contained therein). But many non-Roman churches continue to use some of these traditions too (though, I think, ones that pose far less serious theological problems) such as the three wisemen, just to give an example. So the RCs are not the only church guilty of this.
This is point where arguments ran out of steam. As Digory (?) said above, the Roman Catholic church places a greater emphasis and value on those traditions than on providing any basis for them in scripture. So one side said 'but that's not in the BIble!' and the other said 'so what, it's tradition and many things aren't in the Bible', etc.
There are a large number of RCs who do pray to Mary, despite claims here otherwise. I had mentioned a Latin-American petition from several decades ago that asked Rome to elevate Mary to co-redemtrix; and this was rejected by Rome. The reason? Jesus is the only and only redeemer. I find this commonality to be greater than the differences.
So it is Jesus that remains at the centre of the Roman church and most other Christian church, that , methinks, is what makes one Christian.
More interesting would be to ask, what about those who just think Jesus is nifty, but not God; are they Christians? (Mormons, etc.).
As ever,
K.
[ 13. February 2006, 16:03: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Of course, why have I never figured it out before the protestant church has it all right and has all the answers. It has never made a mistake, never flirted with heresy, never misinterpreted scripture, never abused power, never chased after the cheap whores of revival and never preached a gospel that smacked of hatred or injustice.
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT.
Thank you, my life is now complete, I have disengaged my brain and am willing to be assimilated, tell me oh Great Ones, what am I to do now?
At times it seems to me that the only effective ministry the protestant church can summon up is tainted with fear and bitterness. No not the cattle prod to the genitals I shall behave I will not doubt, please don’t hurt me.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Pyx_e and Paul ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
The impression I get it is, that other than the externals. some churches are full of art like the RC, the orthodox, etc, these churches are litirgical and others take a more plain approach to worship, or what denoms choose to emphasize, there really at the core is not that much difference. But I think when it comes to these other denoms like the Mormons their theology is far more out there on the edge, it is very much out of the mainstream of say, the Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists Presbyterians etc etc, I read in their beliefs that they don't consider themselves Protestants, because to be Protestant is to be originally an offshoot of the reformation which was a protest against the RC. They consider themselves an original organic religion that came from no other.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So do some Baptists (eg: Successionists). But they do tend to be on the lunatic fringe of the movement. Trail of Blood , anyone?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity.
Of course, some Protestant Christian denominations are non-credal. In my experience, they've harbored a lot of anti-Roman Catholic bigots.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
If you allude to Luther, he was an Augustinan, not a Franciscan.
And could you explain about your numbers, please?
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
"that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church." This is not founded on historical evidence. In fact, the historical evidence is against you on that one. Your being totally ignorant on Church history is no excuse for embracing the Protestant heresy.
I fail to see anything you say there that is other than completely wrong. (And your ideas about my embracing the "Protestant heresy" are simply amusing).
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Dear Justinian
I have no doubt that much corruption had found its way into the medieval church. All of the 95 theses which Luther nailed to Wittenburg Church were subsequently conceded by the Roman Catholic Church. So in that sense the Luther was right. His maniacal anti-Semitism disqualifies him from any criticism of Inquisitions etc, but futhermore, his changes to the theology of the ancient church and those of Calvin and Zwingli, had no basis in the undivided Church and can only be regarded as innovations. I don't regard them as in any way superior to the insights of the Church Fathers.
Dear Paul,
The state of the Roman Catholic Church after 1500 years was absolutely dreadful, creating the need for Martin Luther and the Reformation. I don't personally agree with many of the reformers - but change was necessary. Therefore to claim those 1500 years as something that gives the Roman Catholic Church greater legitimacy is somewhat ironic. By their fruits shall ye know them.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
GoodCatholicLad: Luther was an Augustinian, not a Franciscan. You really should get the details right before you start beating up on my faith tradition. Actually, you should get up to speed on your own tradition's positive ecumenical dealings with Lutherans, since a couple of years ago the ELCA and the RCC issued a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification that has done a lot to resolve one of the major issues of the Reformation. Pope Benedict, who was one of the movers and shakers of the JDDJ, has a cordial working relationship with Lutheran leaders, including my presiding bishop.
And I guess you probably don't want to know about the covenant relationships that some Lutheran, Anglican and RCC congregations are developing on this side of the pond.
It sounds like you're still happy to be fighting the Reformation, but I'd suggest to you that, as the song says, "War is over if you want it." Remember, I'm on your side's side in this particular discussion.
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lioba:
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
If you allude to Luther, he was an Augustinan, not a Franciscan.
And could you explain about your numbers, please?
Touchy touchy! If i said 2 BILLION sects that didn't give you just a teeny weensy hint I was exagerrating? Just a little?? Excuse me, Augustinian mea culpa. Oh hell I am a liberal in comparison to some I know who thought Luther was an instrament of the devil for breaking up God's church. I figured any institution who had a monoply for 1500 years needed some competition it gets dusty you know? He was uppity and a troublemaker what's wrong with that? The only problem was Luther let the cat out of the bag and all kinds of crackpots came out of the cucina, he even had a problem with some.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
