Are Catholics Christian?

reply to post by passenger


Utter #e! Begins with sh ends in ite.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]

reply to post by jakyll


"By asking Mary to do this is to usurp the place of Jesus."

What if I ask you?

reply to post by jakyll


But that‘s a big part of the point: With the Catholic Church it‘s do as we say and not as we do. That’s one of the things Jesus contended against. They make up the rules and then give themselves exclusions and exceptions from them. It’s all legalese and pontification. That’s the kind of thing Jesus fought the Pharisees about and it shows why the Catholic Church is NOT the true heir of Jesus’ ministry.

Also, It’s not “everyone” that’s so eager and willing to throw homos into the fire. But the Catholic Church speaks out of both sides of it’s mouth on the issue: condemning it in the light and then accepting it in the dark. Again, that’s the kind of thing true Christians should not do. At least, not the Christianity that Jesus taught.

I agree with you but please don't give any wiggle-room on this issue - it's a solid rock for us.

reply to post by jakyll


"The life and death of Jesus made the sin of Adam & Eve obsolete."

Yes, Jesus overcame sin by His death on the Cross. But, man must be born again through baptism in the name of The Holy Trinity to be freed from the Original Sin.

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

Utter #e! Begins with sh ends in ite.

I'd do some research if i was you.I'll start you off.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

What if i asked you?

If i address God and closed in the name of Jesus i can quite easily pray for you.But if i were to address myself at the start of your prayer as you would Mary i wouldn't get anywhere.

You yourself said you say the Hail Mary,which begins Hail Mary,not Hail God or Hail Heavenly Father as it should.

reply to post by passenger


How dare you impute that all Catholics are hypocrites who engage in deviant sexual behaviour. I stand by what I say, you are full of bile, you have a filthy mind, and with each posting confirm more solidly that you are an idiot. It wouldn't make any difference to the truth of Catholic doctrine if not a single person lived by it. Jesus is Truth, and remains so, even if all mankind betrays Him.

reply to post by jakyll


"You yourself said you say the Hail Mary,which begins Hail Mary,not Hail God or Hail Heavenly Father as it should."

By the above you infer that St. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was making a blasphemous statement when she used the salutation "Hail full of grace, blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

Yes, Jesus overcame sin by His death on the Cross. But, man must be born again through baptism in the name of The Holy Trinity to be freed from the Original Sin

Babies are born innocent right? Not according to Original Sin.

Your theory also means that an unbaptized infant would go to Hell and it would go there having committed only one offence;being born.

The Bible also teaches us that sin can not be passed on.

Deuteronomy 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Only the souls that are wicked will die,the righteous souls,through Jesus' sacrafice,will live.


www.libraryoftheology.com...








[edit on 17-7-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

By the above you infer that St. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was making a blasphemous statement when she used the salutation "Hail full of grace, blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

The line is,

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Luke 1:42.

She is not offering up a prayer here.

Hail,as you point out is a salutation and it means rejoice,but when its the opening word of a prayer the following word(s) should be God or Heavenly Father.







[edit on 17-7-2008 by jakyll]

The problem I have with the Catholic practice of infant baptism has nothing to do with the fact that it is being done to an infant.
My problem is how they use it to rationalize a bit of bad theology, namely, free will.
They seem to think that if the infant is cleared of any guilt, as a result of Adam, then the infant is OK to go and can exercise the same free will that Adam would have continued to have, if not for his sin.
(Sorry, another long sentence.)
Maybe in theory, that could happen, but, in practice, no way.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

At risk of taking this thread off track…(further than it already is)

If we can go back a few pages there were comments relating to the Anglican Church and Saints.

"does the Queen as the head of the Church of England, have to appoint Saints, or they just not recognize anyone?

This is something I would like to know more about. If the Saints are a Catholic thing, why do the Anglicans acknowledge them. Many Anglican (Church of England) churches are named after Saints.

On the matter of the power of the Pope how much power doeas he have? Benedict is to my understanding pushing to have PJP canonised ASAFP. Before the designated ‘waiting time’ and claiming miracles preformed by him that have not been verified to my knowledge. 'Saint' Pope John Paul


On a different matter

So are you declaring yourself homosexual?




As Oscar Wilde once said...."i have nothing to declare except my genius!"

I am surprised nobody picked up on (Or pointed out) the fact that O.W. was blatantly homosexual himself and was jailed for being so.

reply to post by jakyll


It is a given, by logic, that she she is addressing Mary who is approaching. I don't agree with the spin you put on the word hail, it is used as a salute. When one hails a taxi one is not worshipping the car or driver.

reply to post by jakyll


"Babies are born innocent right? Not according to Original Sin."

All mankind icurs Original Sin, hence the necessity of Baptism. Babies who died in this state before the redemption did not go to heaven, as no one could enter heaven until Jesus made it possible. The patriarchs, babies, and saints were placed in limbo. Jesus commanded us to be baptised, and the infant Church baptised all, babies included. Only one person was created free of original sin, that is why she is called The Immaculate Conception.

reply to post by jmdewey60


My problem is how they use it to rationalize a bit of bad theology, namely, free will."

Every man has free will, if not we would have no freedom to choose to worship or reject God. The angels were created with free will, and Lucifer and others engaged in open rebellion when God displayed a vision of a human creature who was to become their superior, "A woman clothed with the sun" , who was to be the mother of the hypostatic union. All things were created by and for Christ, and before the creation of the angels, heaven, or the material universe the mother of the Christ was the first priority in God's mind to fulfil the hypostatic union.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]

reply to post by VIKINGANT


"On the matter of the power of the Pope how much power doeas he have? Benedict is to my understanding pushing to have PJP canonised ASAFP. Before the designated ‘waiting time’ and claiming miracles preformed by him that have not been verified to my knowledge."

The Pope has the power, after due consideration, to declare as fact that a person's soul, immediately upon death, was in a state of absolute purity and thus entered and now resides before God's throne in heaven. Very few die in this state of spiritual purity, those that do the Catholic Church declares that undoubtably they are with the saints in heaven. The Church asks for signs of miracles to confirm the sanctity of the person in question. In the case of JP II, I believe there have been alleged miracles that await formal confirmation.

reply to post by VIKINGANT

This is something I would like to know more about. If the Saints are a Catholic thing, why do the Anglicans acknowledge them. Many Anglican (Church of England) churches are named after Saints.

If I understand this correctly, The Anglican Church was semi-autonomous, then became completely autonomous.
Theologically, there was no that much difference.
Whatever Saints were recognized before the break with Rome, are still recognized.

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

originally posted by Robhaidheuch
Every man has free will, if not we would have no freedom to choose to worship or reject God.

For us to agree on this, I would have to become Catholic or you would have to become protestant.
The free will versus predestination is what got everyone killed in the Reformation.
What I quoted from you, above would probably be agreed with by most Christians, today.
A lot of "protestants" do not have a good idea of what to be protestant means.
That is a result of the proper teaching of religion being let slip, from its past high standards.
I think if the Royals, somehow, suddenly ceased to exist, the Anglican Church would join Rome tomorrow.
There would be hold outs, of course, but I suspect those had become evangelical, a long time ago.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Robhaidheuch

It is a given, by logic, that she she is addressing Mary who is approaching. I don't agree with the spin you put on the word hail, it is used as a salute. When one hails a taxi one is not worshipping the car or driver.

You are missing my point.Its not the word hail that is important,but Mary.You are hailing someone who does not have the power or authority to accept your prayers and then pass them onto God.

All mankind icurs Original Sin, hence the necessity of Baptism. Babies who died in this state before the redemption did not go to heaven, as no one could enter heaven until Jesus made it possible. The patriarchs, babies, and saints were placed in limbo. Jesus commanded us to be baptised, and the infant Church baptised all, babies included.

Baptism is necessary for salvation,not to free us from original sin.
You are also missing the fact that along with baptism you have to believe;

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:15-18

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Babies and infants are incapable of such belief.
They are also incapable of repenting of sins;

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:19

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Matthew 26:27-28

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Early Christians opposed the idea of infant baptism.The view was that the soul is different than the flesh.

Barnabas (early second century) taught that the new birth heals the spirit so that it can become as it was in childhood: "He hath made us after another pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children, inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit."

the orthodox Pastor of Hermas (early second century) taught that it is impossible for evil to originate in the heart of an infant: "And they who believed are as infant children, in whose hearts no evil originates; . . . for all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him."The Apologists of the second century concurred in the belief that infant souls are held innocent before God.

St. Clement of Alexandria's time the proponents of "original guilt" were not "orthodox" Christians, but Gnostic heretics. Clement argued against the Gnostics:"It is for them to tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication or in what way the child who has never done anything at all has fallen under Adam's curse. The only thing left for them to say and still be consistent, I suppose, is that birth is evil not just for the body but for the soul for which the body exists."

The 3rd century was when the idea of original sin started to appear,although in the 4th century St. Cyril of Jerusalem was still preaching the original dogma.

"And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will."

It wasn't until the 5th century when it really became part of church doctrine.

Augustine saw the idea of infant baptism as proof of his doctrine of original guilt. But although he claimed all the unbaptized would be damned, he generously allowed that the damnation of unbaptized infants would be "the mildest punishment of all."

Compare with;

"the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 'As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

I find the Jesus quote within this paragraph interesting,it appears to me that they are admitting that keeping children from Jesus is wrong,yet they don't even reaslise it.



Regarding your comment on no one being able to get into Heaven before Jesus made it possible.

2 Kings 2:11

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

In the OT salvation came from faith in God alone.

2 Samuel 22:1-3

And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Isaiah 61:10

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,

reply to post by VIKINGANT

This is something I would like to know more about. If the Saints are a Catholic thing, why do the Anglicans acknowledge them. Many Anglican (Church of England) churches are named after Saints.

The earliest Saints were venerated by many people,not just the Catholics.
They were just the first to start cannonizing them.

I would have to say the Catholic church would be the trunk if Christianity was a tree. Once rome has converted the "papacy" never really changed aside from tenants the old popes name was to the effect of pope "Maximux Pontifex" basically the spiritual leader of the roman faith. From rome to the rest of the world Christianity spread. The pope is our holy father the faith. Christianity as a faith worships the book which was decided upon by all the cardinals and theologians along with the emperor of rome.