attacking religion (breaking off the constitutiional thread)

[fossten]

Is Catholicism not a Christian religion?

Catholicism has only been called "Christianity" recently, and that by the Catholic church itself.

For hundreds of years Christianity has been identified with the Protestant church.

And Christianity per se isn't a religion.

Act 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.

 

[foxpaws]

This might be the only thing I understood in this whole thread, FoxFoot, elaberate on what you believe in or on, so I can get what this is about. Not trying to be arrogant but I read it 3 Times and Im unsure about what is being discussed

Well, to tell you the truth Mr Ducky, I don't really have a very good idea of what this is about, but, perhaps at this point it is something to do with Christianity . However, if you are asking me on my personal faith based beliefs... this thread isn't really the place to discuss that.

And Foss, for over a thousand years Catholicism was pretty much the only brand of 'Christianity' there was. And they did refer to themselves as Christians (based on the bible passage you quoted). Belief in a single God, that Jesus is the embodiment of God on earth, and he absolves our sins is what most define what is Christian. The Catholic vs Protestant is an organized religion affiliation difference and not a basic 'belief' difference. I think Christian belief differences are along active, liturgical, cultural, etc. lines.

I am sure that if you asked any Catholic at any point of time if they were a part of 'Christianity' they would say they were.

And the Inquisition is a great example of intolerance of Christians against Christians (their religions were Catholic vs Protestant, but they were all Christians). And one of the most violent. Pilgrims were forced out of England for being Separatists and for their differences with the Church of England. In Revolutionary America Puritans were mistreating Episcopalians, Catholics were at odds with Quakers, Congregationalists were punishing Baptists... and more importantly it was becoming the 'norm'. Is it any wonder that the founding fathers wanted to keep religion (not God) out of their idealistic natural rights approach to government?

hrmwrm, so there is the whole Is the search for spirituality a 'part' of our human condition, or is it 'taught' ideal?. A chicken or egg sort of question don't you think?

And Mr Garage - I think you are doing fine - hopefully you can read a bit here and ask some questions and find some new ideas and viewpoints.

 

[fossten]

Well, to tell you the truth Mr Ducky, I don't really have a very good idea of what this is about, but, perhaps at this point it is something to do with Christianity . However, if you are asking me on my personal faith based beliefs... this thread isn't really the place to discuss that.

And Foss, for over a thousand years Catholicism was pretty much the only brand of 'Christianity' there was. And they did refer to themselves as Christians (based on the bible passage you quoted). Belief in a single God, that Jesus is the embodiment of God on earth, and he absolves our sins is what most define what is Christian. The Catholic vs Protestant is an organized religion affiliation difference and not a basic 'belief' difference. I think Christian belief differences are along active, liturgical, cultural, etc. lines.

I am sure that if you asked any Catholic at any point of time if they were a part of 'Christianity' they would say they were.

And the Inquisition is a great example of intolerance of Christians against Christians (their religions were Catholic vs Protestant, but they were all Christians). And one of the most violent. Pilgrims were forced out of England for being Separatists and for their differences with the Church of England. In Revolutionary America Puritans were mistreating Episcopalians, Catholics were at odds with Quakers, Congregationalists were punishing Baptists... and more importantly it was becoming the 'norm'. Is it any wonder that the founding fathers wanted to keep religion (not God) out of their idealistic natural rights approach to government?

hrmwrm, so there is the whole Is the search for spirituality a 'part' of our human condition, or is it 'taught' ideal?. A chicken or egg sort of question don't you think?

And Mr Garage - I think you are doing fine - hopefully you can read a bit here and ask some questions and find some new ideas and viewpoints.

Foxpaws, you really don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you do some research on not only the differences between Catholics and Protestants, but also on the Inquisition itself. Trying to compare the Spanish Inquisition to "Congregationalists punishing Baptists" in Colonial times is like comparing the Holocaust to a fraternity initiation. The Inquisition, which actually spread to other countries besides Spain and Portugal, killed millions.

You cannot come in here and claim "Catholics and Christians are essentially the same" and get away with it. There really are marked, irreconcilable belief differences between Christians and Catholics. We've been over this before in other threads. I've done quite a bit of study on the subject and I suggest you do the same before you comment.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I've done quite a bit of study on the subject and I suggest you do the same before you comment.

So, Foss, did you go to parochial school too? Or are you self taught in this?

I myself, am a product of many years of parochial school. Not that it makes any difference, but sometimes I find it interesting with the differences I note between people. But, believe me, I really know the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

I never said that the 'intolerances' that I listed were equal, I listed them as examples of intolerances.

And why I listed the intolerances in Revolutionary America (tell the Baptist ministers that were whipped by Sheriffs, or smothered or almost drowned with an early form of water-boarding that they weren't being persecuted for religious beliefs). The founding fathers knew where that was heading, they were great students of history - and they did not want to follow down the road of the Church/State backed atrocities of the Inquisition, or even (at the current time of the revolution) persecution of Catholics in Europe.

Intolerance is intolerance - if not stopped it escalates and leads to terrible events, as we have seen throughout history. The framers intended to never let organized religion have a foothold in government, for that very reason.

And yes, I can come in here and say that Catholics are Christians. Protestants are Christians. Mormons are Christians. Jehovah Witnesses are Christians. Christian Scientists are Christians. Greek Orthodox is Christian. However Catholics are not Protestants. Look up any non biased source on constitutes a 'Christian' and I believe you will find that Catholics meet all criteria.

There are huge religious differences between Catholics and Protestants. But they certainly both sprung from the teachings of Christ, and they both hold certain core beliefs.

 

[fossten]

And yes, I can come in here and say that Catholics are Christians. Protestants are Christians. Mormons are Christians. Jehovah Witnesses are Christians. Christian Scientists are Christians. Greek Orthodox is Christian. However Catholics are not Protestants. Look up any non biased source on constitutes a 'Christian' and I believe you will find that Catholics meet all criteria.

And in so doing you demonstrate your gross ignorance.

And I can come in here and say that you have ZERO idea what you're talking about.

 

[foxpaws]

And in so doing you demonstrate your gross ignorance.

And I can come in here and say that you have ZERO idea what you're talking about.

So, show me - I am pretty opened minded about most things - show me how, in a non-biased, non 'religion' definition of Christian, that Catholics don't qualify.

And I can state that you probably accept into definition just what your faith allows. And I accept into definition what many faiths allow.

How open minded are you Foss?

 

[fossten]

I'll show you how the Catholic Doctrine is at odds with the Bible. I will use Scripture and facts that no Catholic can dispute regarding what the church teaches.

I'll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter.


* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

1) It is devilish to forbid God's people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving.
1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).

Matthew
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Mark
1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Luke
4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.

1 Corinthians
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mark
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Worshipping the queen of heaven (which is not the Mary of the Bible) is worshipping another god and it provokes the Lord to anger.

Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the mother of God.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre-existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning.

Isaiah
43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.]
Psalm
93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Micah
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Philippians
2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Pope called Holy Father.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God's name.

John
17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Purgatory, nuns, popes.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible.

Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above).

One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord.

NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins--even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus....

When a person dies their eternal home is sealed--heaven or hell--no in between. Hebrews 9:27 ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.

Exodus
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God...
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh.

Hebrews
10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
John
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

1 Corinthians
11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works (like sacraments).

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples, however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don't make him saved, only the blood of Jesus can do that.

I John
1:7b ...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Acts 16:31b
...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

Romans
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What about James 2:20 "faith without works is dead"?

The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won't follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.


* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship.

Also remember what happened to King Herod when the people said he was a God. The Bible says he was eaten of worms and died on the spot.

1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.

I John
1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Matthew
6:9, 12 After this manner...pray ye: Our Father... forgive us....

1 Timothy
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

I John 2:1, ...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.


***

I could go on and on. But I'm open minded. Show me how I'm wrong. Please, dazzle me.

 

[fossten]

I'll add this: The Council of Trent itself drew a distinction between the Catholic church and Christians:

The Council of Trent was a Catholic council held from 1545-1563 in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. This council denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone, and grace alone. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians, including these:

"If any one shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually--let him be accursed" (Canon 1).

"If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation--let him be accursed" (Canon 2).

"If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters--let him be accursed" (Canon 6).

"If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will ... let him be accursed" (Canon 9).

"If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" (Canon 12).

 

[foxpaws]

Wow - I am impressed, mighty fine cut and paste job, it looks like it took 16 minutes - maybe you need to get it loaded on your desktop foss.

I unfortunately don't have such a canned reply as that, so my ability to Dazzle will be limited.

However, with your Biblical based ideals there - why not just use the ones that mention 'Christian'? The one you used earlier... "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.(Acts 11:26)

Or the other two...

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:28)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.(1 Peter 4:16)

The Biblical references you have listed above are used against the 'rules and regulations' which define Christian Religious Sects, in this case Catholicism. They aren't 'for' Christianity.

Oddly, many you quote are in Luther's 96 Thesus... The basis for modern Protestants, and a truly amazing document, especially when you read it today, there are amazing revelations there for a man who was indoctrinated into the Catholic faith.

A man who preached such core Christian values such as charity, patience, freedom, and most importantly love, as well as the fact that we should trust God's word rather than violence to bring about necessary change. Luther never claimed that Catholics weren't Christian.

Standard definition of Christian again - Foss, you keep giving me what the differences are between religious sects, but you haven't proved to me that Catholics do not fall within the standard definition of Christian.

Just because a religion doesn't allow their priests to marry, or calls them 'father' it doesn't follow suit that they don't believe in the core values that the Christian ideology is based on. It does show that they broke tradition with the Bible - and maybe that is where you are heading. But, that is a 'sect' decision.

Luther used the Thesus to argue religious differences, and to bring the faithful back to the actual Biblical teachings of Christ - especially the new Testament.

The Catholic Church has used its power to great harm throughout history, and depends on it's doctrine to keep their followers 'in line'. What better way to keep people subservient than to instill in them the belief that there are 'levels' to their belief structure. That saints will sit closer to God. What better way to insure that your followers won't question your religious doctrine than to make sure that one of the greatest sins is to question your religious structure. I am not defending the Catholic 'Church' at all, I am defending the Catholic 'people' as being Christian. They are Christian.

You might not believe in Catholic doctrine, and you can claim that the doctrine goes against the Bible, but to claim that people who are Catholic are not people who believe in Christ (the core value of Christianity) is false.

You don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore it can't follow that they could still be Christians. This same logic would have to follow onto Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. But, they all believe in a monotheistic religion, which is centered on the teachings of Christ, and the belief that Christ died to absolve their sins. The basic definition of Christian.

Now maybe you are uncomfortable with the label 'Protestant'. That perhaps the label is old fashioned now that they aren't 'Protesting' the Catholic Church anymore. That you feel the word "Protestant" should be replaced with Christian.

Where in the Canons of the Council of Trent does it say that Catholics are distinct from Christians - just one actual quote - not inference... I do know that in most Catholic documents the words 'Catholics' and 'Christians' are interchangeable (example II Vatican Treatise).

 

[fossten]

Wow - I am impressed, mighty fine cut and paste job, it looks like it took 16 minutes - maybe you need to get it loaded on your desktop foss.

I unfortunately don't have such a canned reply as that, so my ability to Dazzle will be limited.

However, with your Biblical based ideals there - why not just use the ones that mention 'Christian'? The one you used earlier... "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.(Acts 11:26)

Or the other two...

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:28)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.(1 Peter 4:16)

The Biblical references you have listed above are used against the 'rules and regulations' which define Christian Religious Sects, in this case Catholicism. They aren't 'for' Christianity.

No, it's used to demonstrate that Catholicism is contrary to the Bible. Christianity as mentioned in Acts 26:28 is New Testament Christianity, and is based solely on the Bible. You can play semantics games all you want, but you cannot deny this.

Oddly, many you quote are in Luther's 96 Thesus... The basis for modern Protestants, and a truly amazing document, especially when you read it today, there are amazing revelations there for a man who was indoctrinated into the Catholic faith.

A man who preached such core Christian values such as charity, patience, freedom, and most importantly love, as well as the fact that we should trust God's word rather than violence to bring about necessary change. Luther never claimed that Catholics weren't Christian.

Straw man. I never quoted Luther, so you cannot claim causation due to correlation.

Standard definition of Christian again - Foss, you keep giving me what the differences are between religious sects, but you haven't proved to me that Catholics do not fall within the standard definition of Christian.

I'm not interested in proving anything to you, as I'm convinced your mind is closed to the matter. I'm convinced that I've made a case to any other person reading that they cannot conflate Catholics with Christians with regard to the Inquisition. Moving the goalposts.

Just because a religion doesn't allow their priests to marry, or calls them 'father' it doesn't follow suit that they don't believe in the core values that the Christian ideology is based on. It does show that they broke tradition with the Bible - and maybe that is where you are heading. But, that is a 'sect' decision.

Wrong. Moving the goalposts here. I made that case in the part on how salvation is obtained. According to the Bible itself, Catholics who rely on works for salvation do not go to heaven. That is a fundamental difference.

Luther used the Thesus to argue religious differences, and to bring the faithful back to the actual Biblical teachings of Christ - especially the new Testament.

I never mentioned Luther, as already stated. You keep going back to this straw man argument.

The Catholic Church has used its power to great harm throughout history, and depends on it's doctrine to keep their followers 'in line'. What better way to keep people subservient than to instill in them the belief that there are 'levels' to their belief structure. That saints will sit closer to God. What better way to insure that your followers won't question your religious doctrine than to make sure that one of the greatest sins is to question your religious structure. I am not defending the Catholic 'Church' at all, I am defending the Catholic 'people' as being Christian. They are Christian.

And you're wrong. And the Catholic church has exterminated 50 million Christians throughout history. Christians don't do that.

You might not believe in Catholic doctrine, and you can claim that the doctrine goes against the Bible, but to claim that people who are Catholic are not people who believe in Christ (the core value of Christianity) is false.

No, actually it's correct. Your statement doesn't even make sense. It sounds like desperation, actually.

You don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore it can't follow that they could still be Christians. This same logic would have to follow onto Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. But, they all believe in a monotheistic religion, which is centered on the teachings of Christ, and the belief that Christ died to absolve their sins. The basic definition of Christian.

Mkay, you're really losing the argument here, because you keep asserting without evidence or proof. You might want to stop depending on Wikipedia for your information.

Now maybe you are uncomfortable with the label 'Protestant'. That perhaps the label is old fashioned now that they aren't 'Protesting' the Catholic Church anymore. That you feel the word "Protestant" should be replaced with Christian.

Your condescension tells me that I'm wasting my time. I've made my case, and all you've given me is some sort of weak argument about semantics. Most people know what I'm talking about when I refer to Christianity and Catholicism. The fact that you are ignorant of the history of both and don't want to learn further tells me this discussion doesn't need to continue.

Where in the Canons of the Council of Trent does it say that Catholics are distinct from Christians - just one actual quote - not inference... I do know that in most Catholic documents the words 'Catholics' and 'Christians' are interchangeable (example II Vatican Treatise).

Those were quotes. Keep moving the goalposts, it shows how closed your mind is. I don't have to come up with a quote. But I can show a preponderance of evidence that Catholics do not regard Bible-believing Christians to be part of the church.

 

[shagdrum]

So...let me get the straight, foxpaws..

Direct sources (The Bible, Council of Trent, ect.) are now not good enough for you? How is that not raising the burden of proof to an impossibly high level?

It also really goes against your claim of being "open minded" too.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, first the Luther analogy is correct - have you read the Theses? I find it odd that it mentions almost all of your examples (and a whole lot more), and yet, Luther, who may have known a few more things about this than certainly I do, (although maybe you claim you know more than Luther about the wrongs of the Catholic Church, I wouldn't know) never ever drew the conclusion that Catholics aren't Christians.

Same arguments as yours, different results. And I certainly am not one to discount Luther. Maybe you are. He just basically started our modern Protestant beliefs.

i can allow him into argument because he used the same premises, and then arrived at a different conclusion. And let's face it, he might be a little more respected in this particular arena than you are foss. Although, maybe you don't want to use Luther, oh wait, you do, you use the Bible as reference, and without Luther's work on translating the Bible into German, the KJV wouldn't be what it is today. Luther's work was heavily referenced when compiling the KJV.

My mind is not closed to the matter - I just want to see your vision of Christianity. Obviously the Bible plays as big a part of being a Christian as the belief of Christ - am I correct here? That belief in the word of God written by man (but directed by God) is as important as the concept that Christ died for our sins?

So, another tiny point, there are no Catholics in heaven? No Lutherans? No Mormons?

Direct sources are fine by me and certainly the Bible, Shag. I didn't contest any of Foss' references to the Bible - I questioned if they were what we judged 'Christians' on. Obviously he used them to great effect in questioning Catholicism, and I agree with him on those examples, I am just questioning his definition of Christian.

So is 2 Timothy 3:16 as important than Acts 16:31, 1 Peter 2:24, Romans 5:8, John 3:16?

I am not being closed minded, I really am trying to figure out what you define a 'Christian' as.

And I don't see the correlations of where the Catholics remove themselves from Christianity in the Canons of Trent that were quoted. I am asking you to explain them - I am obviously missing something. I am not moving any stupid goalposts - I am asking a real question 'Where does is say that Catholics are distinct from Christians?"

 

[fossten]

And I don't see the correlations of where the Catholics remove themselves from Christianity in the Canons of Trent that were quoted. I am asking you to explain them - I am obviously missing something. I am not moving any stupid goalposts - I am asking a real question 'Where does is say that Catholics are distinct from Christians?"

The definition of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. The Catholic church most certainly does not. The council of Trent actually condemned many (most?) of the teachings of Christ. The pope has often referenced the Council of Trent as an accepted authority even today. If that's not enough evidence for you, then you ARE moving the "stupid" goalposts.

 

[foxpaws]

So, just trying to read those Canons is difficult - my knowledge of 16th century English is limited... and I would imagine the original is in Latin.

The first two Canon seem to discuss the communion, and that the communion is the true blood and body of Christ and not just sacrament, or symbol? And if you declare that it is just a symbol that you will be 'accursed'?

Is that how you read it?

 

[Maxb49]

Catholicism has only been called "Christianity" recently, and that by the Catholic church itself.

For hundreds of years Christianity has been identified with the Protestant church.

And Christianity per se isn't a religion.

Catholicism has been Christianity since it's inception. I appreciate your enthusiasm for discussion in these forums, but come on, keep it real! LOL

 

[ford nut]

Wow - I am impressed, mighty fine cut and paste job, it looks like it took 16 minutes - maybe you need to get it loaded on your desktop foss.

Looks like a touched up version from here.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

I kind of like this link.
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/arecatholicschr.htm

Today in America, there are more than 1500 different faith groups professing many diverse and conflicting beliefs. It would be an understatement to say that Christianity is a severely divided faith. You get an idea of just how many denominations there are when you view this national directory for Christian denominations.

So...let me get the straight, foxpaws..

Direct sources (The Bible, Council of Trent, ect.) are now not good enough for you? How is that not raising the burden of proof to an impossibly high level?

It also really goes against your claim of being "open minded" too.

Dont you have some unfinished business here ?

 

[fossten]

Catholicism has been Christianity since it's inception. I appreciate your enthusiasm for discussion in these forums, but come on, keep it real! LOL

Way to NOT keep up with the thread! LOL

 

[fossten]

I kind of like this link.
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/arecatholicschr.htm

Yeah, right. The guy doesn't even answer the question. Nor does he have any knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and the fact that Catholicism is in fact a distortion of Biblical Christianity as taught by the Apostles.

Pretty much a FAIL link. He doesn't even use Scripture. Can you say Anecdotal Information?

Quoting David Cloud:

It is wiser to approach the subject from another direction--from the Bible. The Scriptures use terms such as "apostasy," "false teacher," "false prophet," "error," "seducer," "heretic," and "doctrines of devils" to describe impure doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Church meets every Bible criteria for heresy and apostasy, which is a turning away from and rejection of the truth. Its gospel is a false combination of grace and works and sacraments, and it is thus cursed of God (Gal. 1:8). It has exalted its own man-made traditions to the level of Holy Scripture, and thus worships God in vain (Matt. 15:1-9). Its leaders are false prophets; its dogmas are doctrines of devils; its Papacy is antichrist.

Dont you have some unfinished business here ?

You want some cheese with that whine?

AGAIN, for those of you who are off topic, let's get real about what is being discussed here. It was alleged that Christians were responsible for the Inquisition, which murdered 50 million Protestants. It was in fact the CATHOLIC CHURCH that did this, not Christians.

 

[fossten]

Although, maybe you don't want to use Luther, oh wait, you do, you use the Bible as reference, and without Luther's work on translating the Bible into German, the KJV wouldn't be what it is today. Luther's work was heavily referenced when compiling the KJV.

I knew there was something fishy about this statement.

In fact, you got it backwards. Luther used the Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus, to translate the Bible into German. You are implying that it was the other way around.

A man who preached such core Christian values such as charity, patience, freedom, and most importantly love, as well as the fact that we should trust God's word rather than violence to bring about necessary change. Luther never claimed that Catholics weren't Christian.

In fact, Luther called these teachings heresy. And the Emperor at the Diet of Worms declared Luther a heretic for his 95 Theses. Case closed. You need me to look up the definition of "heretic" for you?

 

[foxpaws]

Of course it was the Catholic Church that instigated the Inquisition. I thought you were arguing that Catholics aren't Christians.

If that is what we are really discussing, the whole who is responsible for the Inquisition - well, "Never mind..." I thought we were talking about Violins on Television.

But...

There really are marked, irreconcilable belief differences between Christians and Catholics.

You still throw me on that one - there are marked differences between Catholics and Protestants but they are both Christians.

I still don't get that part - are there Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc? Catholics and Christians aren't grouped together in a listing of the worlds religions? Aren't Catholics just a 'sect' - like the myriad of Muslim sects, the three types of Judaism, various Buddhist affiliations, or like Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists. Why would you separate Catholics from other Christian faiths?

As far as the Bible part... Tyndale (the man who most believe is responsible for the amazing beauty of the language in the KJV, and if you read his version of the Bible, you can read whole sections that are word for word with the KJV). Tyndale was 'inspired' by Luther's translation of the bible and then later worked alongside Luther in Cologne and Worms. Tyndale credits Luther with solving many difficult translation points. He used Luther as a contemporary 'translator in arms'.

And yes, Luther called many of the teachings of the Catholic Church heresy, and I believe correctly so. However, he never claimed that the Catholics weren't Christians. He was excommunicated from the church because of the 95 Theses and for years lived in hiding. and he still never claimed that Catholics weren't Christians.

Foss, I was a little disappointed with Ford Nuts link. I was looking forward to reading your ideas, not pasted stuff from another site. Since you have studied this closely, I was hoping to come across something different.

So, case closed. Unless you want to explain those Canon to me - I am still at a loss at those, whew.

 

[shagdrum]

Dont you have some unfinished business here ?

Relevance? Oh wait. You are just flaming and demonstrating your childishness.

 

[fossten]

Of course it was the Catholic Church that instigated the Inquisition. I thought you were arguing that Catholics aren't Christians.

If that is what we are really discussing, the whole who is responsible for the Inquisition - well, "Never mind..." I thought we were talking about Violins on Television.

You think you're really clever, but you're not funny. If you look back in the thread, you'll see the post that triggered my response to the Inquisition accusation.

You still throw me on that one - there are marked differences between Catholics and Protestants but they are both Christians.

More proof by assertion. No evidence on your part yet. You think you know this, but in fact I'm the only one who has examined these differences in this thread. You have yet to counter my evidence or even offer an alternative explanation. You're simply saying, "Nuh-uh!"

I still don't get that part - are there Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc? Catholics and Christians aren't grouped together in a listing of the worlds religions? Aren't Catholics just a 'sect' - like the myriad of Muslim sects, the three types of Judaism, various Buddhist affiliations, or like Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists. Why would you separate Catholics from other Christian faiths?

No, Catholicism is a cult by definition. The differences between Catholics and other Christian "denominations" such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, are so many and so significant as to create a chasm that cannot be bridged. If you take the Bible as authority, virtually every Catholic doctrine is heresy. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be Christianity, since Christianity is based on the Bible.

On the other hand, the differences between the denominations often come down to slight interpretive variances regarding baptism and communion.

As far as the Bible part... Tyndale (the man who most believe is responsible for the amazing beauty of the language in the KJV, and if you read his version of the Bible, you can read whole sections that are word for word with the KJV). Tyndale was 'inspired' by Luther's translation of the bible and then later worked alongside Luther in Cologne and Worms. Tyndale credits Luther with solving many difficult translation points. He used Luther as a contemporary 'translator in arms'.

Doesn't matter. Do you even know what KJV stands for? King James and his dozens of Bible scholars in 1611 used the Textus Receptus, which preceded Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Luther. In other words, Tyndale did not write the KJV. You're using correlation to prove causation. Case closed.

And yes, Luther called many of the teachings of the Catholic Church heresy, and I believe correctly so. However, he never claimed that the Catholics weren't Christians. He was excommunicated from the church because of the 95 Theses and for years lived in hiding. and he still never claimed that Catholics weren't Christians.

More moving the goalposts, as well as a straw man argument. I never once claimed Luther did. In fact, your repetition of this already discredited argumentative flaw is tiresome. You're a broken record.

However, you've acknowledged that Luther called the church teachings heresy. That is tantamount to calling them un-Christian. You're just unwilling to make that easy connection, probably due to your lack of open mindedness.

Foss, I was a little disappointed with Ford Nuts link. I was looking forward to reading your ideas, not pasted stuff from another site. Since you have studied this closely, I was hoping to come across something different.

So, case closed. Unless you want to explain those Canon to me - I am still at a loss at those, whew.

Suit yourself. I don't have to transcribe every verse I know on the subject. Your thirsty need for sources is flawed, based on its tunnelvision and your own closed-mindedness. My ideas mirror the ideas from the site I pasted, thus why should I bother retyping them? That's very nitpicky and shallow on your part. If you want to whine about that, knock yourself out. Frankly I don't care, as all you've done in this discussion is argue the same thing over and over, despite any evidence presented by me, move the goalposts, and try to prove by assertion. Consider yourself unconvinced, I'm sure Jesus Christ himself would not convince you. Unless you had the open mind you so blithely and falsely claim to have.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[ford nut]

Yeah, right. The guy doesn't even answer the question. Nor does he have any knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and the fact that Catholicism is in fact a distortion of Biblical Christianity as taught by the Apostles.

Pretty much a FAIL link. He doesn't even use Scripture. Can you say Anecdotal Information?

Is that how you act when you get caught with a trash post ? You can't even own up and add the link from were you got the BS .....no surprise fossten your such a fine person

Relevance? Oh wait. You are just flaming and demonstrating your childishness.

This thread foxpaws put up to keep the constitutiional thread clean so you two could debate...but hold on the debate must be over you seem to have time to post here.
Come on Shag is that being child like....or calling you to task.

 

[foxpaws]

Christians - "The definition of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ."

So, are all the differences from the teachings of Christ (i.e. the books of Mormon) that Mormons follow eliminate them from the label 'Christian'? I really am trying to find a point of definition. When doctrine becomes overwhelming and then the followers of that 'sect' are no longer considered Christians.

I would assume most Orthodox religions would fall into the 'not Christian' categories - right? Most of them pretty much fall in line with Catholicism.

And are the teachings of Christ that you equate with Christians mostly found in the Gospels, or do you include the entire New Testament? I have always felt that is what 4 books were concerned with, documenting the life of Christ, and certainly give a more 'undoctrined' viewpoint of his life and work.

Sorry, I know I ask a lot of questions - but this is really interesting to me. I actually hadn't ever run across the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. And I really don't want to go to that site you quoted - it seems pretty antagonistic and rebarbative.

KJV-King James Version - I happen to have one in my desk drawer, I read it often, it is written so beautifully, it is my favorite version of the Bible. First published in 1611. And no, Tyndale did not write it, he died in 1536. James had a group of experts, theologists and others working on the Bible, one that would conform to the Church of England's view of Christianity, and they used many resources, but for the 'feeling of the language' they often went with Tyndale's translation, along with the Great Bible and the Geneva version (both of which use Tyndale's style of language), that were very popular at the time.

Consider yourself unconvinced, I'm sure Jesus Christ himself would not convince you. Unless you had the open mind you so blithely and falsely claim to have.

My faith allows me to have an open mind. I can look at all sorts of different ideas and concepts, my faith won't diminish, it will just strengthen. There are lots of faith based ideals I haven't even been exposed to, but I don't discount them out of hand because they aren't Christian in origin. My faith allows me to question, seek, explore, grow, change.

So, I am trying to understand, is this closed minded? I am asking questions, I am looking at your answers and trying to compare them to other things that I have unearthed in the past.

You never did answer my question if Catholics are in heaven. Or is that non sequitur?

 

[shagdrum]

This thread foxpaws put up to keep the constitutiional thread clean so you two could debate...but hold on the debate must be over you seem to have time to post here.
Come on Shag is that being child like....or calling you to task.

To respond in that other thread is going to take more time then I currently have to develop a response. Gonna have to wait until at least Thursday...

What I have posted here was quick but relevant in pointing out some...questionable arguing tactics.

What you have done is attempt to somehow counter the point I made here with an irrelevant point. Weather or not I have responded yet in the other thread says nothing about weather or not my point I made here is accurate and relevant.

Your point is totally irrelevant to this thread and is nothing more then an attempt to flame. It is childish and everyone who knows the context of it knows it.