It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Catholics Christian?

page: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





As much as I disdane Gnostics, I have to reluctantly agree with you.


I think the Catholics did,and still do,a great job of demonizing groups and sects of the early Christian era.Which is a shame because some of them have important and interesting teachings that are just as relevant today as they were then.



www.earlychristianwritings.com...








[edit on 29-7-2008 by jakyll]




posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 





the true apostolic Church.


An apostolic church is just one that was founded by an apostle.
The Catholic Church isn't the only one.

Others who make this claim are;Eastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox,Assyrian Church of the East,Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Armenian Apostolic Church,the Greek Orthodox Church,the Russian Orthodox Church,the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,the Anglican Communion and the six major Lutheran Churches of the Porvoo Communion.(those of Iceland, Norway,Sweden,Finland,Estonia,and Lithuania)


If all of these have been founded by one of the 12 apostles,wouldn't that make them all true??



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The Catholic religion Christian? well as one Pope said "We have profited well off the myth of the Christ"
but to mix it up further all religions that came out of Catholicism are based on a flawed Religion. Based on that pope's statement
especially any of them that were formed in modern times post 1850
which is most Christian Religions practiced in North America .
One look at Hagee and his band of misfits will convince any sane man they are certifiably insane.

oh how Hagee has profited by his Myth of the Christ
each in turn the modern preachers have invented their own bibles to cash in on the sheep
From the scofield to the modern bibles
Thou shall know the creator in your hearts and through your deeds you will be judged
Religion is a vehicle to coral sheep
those that know the creator in their hearts have no need or use of religion
in fact they disdain religions and see them as they really are
the only religions I believe that have not changed their doctrine with each season seems to me to be the reformist religions



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by solo1
 


"We have profited well off the myth of the Christ"

Who was the Pope, when did he say it, in what context, and where can it be verified?



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by solo1
 



especially any of them that were formed in modern times post 1850

Anything significant about this date?
Anyone in particular you think are in need of criticism?
What do you like? Evangelical, but not too much?
My own church that I belong to would fit into the group you condemn.
I think of my religion as post-reformation.
We do not endorse any particular brand of reformation line of doctrine, or loyalty.
That allows us to pick out the best parts from several protestant lines.
I do not see any advantage to having your church institution to be hundreds or thousands of years old.
We have all the writings from all the churches available to us.
There are not some secrets handed down from priest to priest that we can only benefit from if we go to these special priests.
That would be a scam.
I do not belong to a secret society.
Christianity is an open religion.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
reply to post by solo1
 


"We have profited well off the myth of the Christ"

Who was the Pope, when did he say it, in what context, and where can it be verified?


It is a canard attributed to Pope Leo X. You're not going to find context or verification because he never said it. It's one of those 'I saw it on the internet, so it's gotta be true'isms.

Eric



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by solo1
 



I frequently hear critics claiming that Pope Leo X once said "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" In fact, this quote originated with John Bale (1495-1563), an English playwright who had Leo X saying this in the play "The Pageant of Popes", a satire of the Catholic church, which he wrote in the mid-16th century. Bale's exact quote was "All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie". Bale himself was a protestant Christian who disliked the Catholics, and made up this quote for Leo X to say, based on his belief (perhaps true) that Leo X was actually an atheist. There is no evidence that Leo X ever said this quote in real life. Even if, hypothetically, Leo actually did say this, so what? All it would do is confirm the rumor that Leo was a closet atheist, and an atheist calling Jesus a 'fable' wouldn't be anything new.




One of those curious fictional statements where,if people say if often enough,it becomes "true."



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





We have all the writings from all the churches available to us.
There are not some secrets handed down from priest to priest that we can only benefit from if we go to these special priests.
That would be a scam.
I do not belong to a secret society.
Christianity is an open religion.



If only more believers understood this.
But too many want to be the special and the chosen,and they think only they have the right when it comes to God.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


The Eucharist.
Patty was writing about how becoming Catholic had so much to do with the Eucharist.
I think that if the concept about the symbolic meaning of eating bread is believed by all Christians, it would be universal among believers.
We have the Gospels to read and we can draw our own conclusions to how far to take the bread being literally the body of Christ.
Every single church you go to are going to say, "the body of Christ."
The important thing is what is going on in your own mind, about what that means, exactly.
If you think the Lord's Supper is able to be null and void because the thought in the mind of the person saying those words does not correspond to some sort of secret formula, then I think you are not Christian, but a mystic, of some sort.
Years ago, I read an official Catholic book on the Eucharist.
That does not make me an expert or anything but I remember that the subject is massive and involved and seems to be thoroughly understood. (in the minds of Catholic theologians)
All we need to do, in my opinion, is read the words of Jesus.
That's what my church does for communion.
We read the story, straight out of the Bible, then eat the bread.
That's it.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Jesus meant it literally. If he hadn't he would have corrected the disciples who said they could not follow him anymore, as they could not accept this revelation. Only ordained priests have the power to pray over bread and wine, to turn them into the sacred species of Jesus' body and blood. Martin Luther retained this belief, even after he had rejected papal authority.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


Just as I suspected, a bitter Protestant lie.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 

Even though we do not believe in transubstantiation, like Catholics do, we do show respect for the symbols used in communion.
All the "wine" that is not used gets poured out into the ground and the bread is burned.

The Lutherans, even if they believe in the reality of the Lord's body, do not require a priest to make it so.
It just has to be carried out in rather strict terms to be considered the Lord's Supper.

Calvin was against the Catholic version:

Heads of Agreement on the Lord's Supper
by John Calvin (1509-1564)

22. Explanation of the Words -- "This Is My Body"
Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call the precisely litered sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively -- the bread and wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonomy to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church.
23. Of the Eating of the Body
When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not to understand it as if any mingling or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation.
24. Transubstantiation and other Follies
In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body.


The Pentecostal viewpoint goes something like this:

Entering into worship and the Mystic Presence of Christ through taking communion daily is the key to experiencing the abiding Presence of God. You can do this in your private devotions. Take the bread and the juice from the grape, (grape juice or wine) and bless it. Then take it in faith and you will enter right in to the Presence of the Shekinah. The key to the Early Church's Power was that they "broke bread" from house to house and availed themselves of the power and the glory of the New Covenant blessing.
www.youthnow.org...


[edit on 30-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
[


He's just a religious leader, borne of a democratic vote by cardinals. He gives his views on how we should live morally (as any religious leader does) and we personally choose whether we agree or not.


[edit on 16/06/08 by Dermo] Funny you should say that, I would encourage you to seek out a knowledgeable priest or monsenior. It is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE that the pope is the only man with the indwelling of the holy spirit, and thus should be prayed to, worshipped, and treated as God because he is, literally, God in the Flesh. If you will read the Bible, you will find that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the fact of every believer, on conversion. The fact that you bow down to an idol does not necessarily mean that you accept that idol as a god, but your bowing down is by definition, worship. Playing with words and definitions is very legalistic, and lawyerly. Like Christ, I say 'Woe to you lawyers...'



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


"It is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE that the pope is the only man with the indwelling of the holy spirit, and thus should be prayed to, worshipped, and treated as God because he is, literally, God in the Flesh.2

Where do you get these strange ideas? Only Jesus is God in the flesh. Popes are enlightened by the third Person of the Trinity, The Holy Spirit, when teaching and instructing Christians, hence the declaration of papal infallibility rests on the belief that in serious matters of faith a Pope is the mouthpiece of God, and God can never be wrong. It is a totally logical position.

I was, for many years, under the false impression that the venom directed at the Catholic Church during the height of the Reformation had somewhat dissipated, but having read many of the comments on this thread I see that prejudice and bigotry against Catholicism is alive and well, and that the armoury of Protestantism remains well-stocked with the weapons of slander, half-truths, and lies.

Jesus proved who He is while on Earth, by displaying His power through the working of spectacular miracles. His Church still presents its credentials, as it has for the past two thousand years, in the spectacular miracles of Fatima, Lourdes, Gaudalupe, and thousands of others. The Protestant Church is quite impoverished by comparison; all talk, and little action.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
reply to post by Gregarious
 


"It is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE that the pope is the only man with the indwelling of the holy spirit, and thus should be prayed to, worshipped, and treated as God because he is, literally, God in the Flesh.2

Where do you get these strange ideas? Only Jesus is God in the flesh. Popes are enlightened by the third Person of the Trinity, The Holy Spirit, when teaching and instructing Christians, hence the declaration of papal infallibility rests on the belief that in serious matters of faith a Pope is the mouthpiece of God, and God can never be wrong. It is a totally logical position.

I was, for many years, under the false impression that the venom directed at the Catholic Church during the height of the Reformation had somewhat dissipated, but having read many of the comments on this thread I see that prejudice and bigotry against Catholicism is alive and well, and that the armoury of Protestantism remains well-stocked with the weapons of slander, half-truths, and lies.

Jesus proved who He is while on Earth, by displaying His power through the working of spectacular miracles. His Church still presents its credentials, as it has for the past two thousand years, in the spectacular miracles of Fatima, Lourdes, Gaudalupe, and thousands of others. The Protestant Church is quite impoverished by comparison; all talk, and little action.


1 cor 13:[8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

matt 7:[20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24- 29 go one with the illustration with the house built on the rock mass being like the person who "heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them"

lets put this into perspective. the isrealites were cut loose everytime they disregarded the law and went to worship idols to taint true worship. why would it be any different for the catholic church. they claim they are of god (like the isrealites), yet they disregard god's word.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 


That looks like Gregarious is just quoting another poster who, in turn was quoting from some sort of paranoid forum.
I have some copies of old anti-Catholic books and it seems like they have to look far and wide to find any legitimate Catholic quotes that say the Pope is God.
And if you take them in proper context, they seem to back up your point, Robhaidheuch.
Jesus said that the people of Judea should listen to the Pharisees because they sit in the seat of Moses.
The Pope sits in the seat of Peter and when he makes certain pronouncements, he speaks with a certain authority.
Now the Pharisees were not literally Moses but they carried on the tradition of Moses, who was the lawgiver to his religious community.
The Roman Church has a tradition of the man, Peter bringing the faith of Jesus to their city.
They consider Peter's successors to carry on in the manner of Peter and being a special receptacle of God's grace.
If you want to become Roman Catholic, this is one of the things you buy into.
If you do not want to accept it, right now, no one is twisting your arm and you, currently, are free to join a different religious institution with other tradition.
Meanwhile I do not think it to be productive to throw false slanders against someone else's beliefs.
When the RCC army comes marching into your town to force conversion, that would be a good time to start with the accusations of whatever conceived blasphemy that will best rile up the masses to take up arms.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 



Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
…but having read many of the comments on this thread I see that prejudice and bigotry against Catholicism is alive and well, and that the armoury of Protestantism remains well-stocked with the weapons of slander, half-truths, and lies.


That actually made me laugh. Am I mistaken, or did these words come from the same person who called me an “idiot”? A person whom, when challenged with a quote from Scripture, replied with not Theological rebuttal but name calling and “slander”; A person who has attacked others with the same sort of “venom” and yet provided little, if any, quotes from the Word itself to defend their position; A person who has repeatedly resorted to bluster, sarcasm and verbal bullying and then proclaimed themselves a True Christian. Again though, I cannot say that you are hypocritical because that is the true Catholic Way. You are obviously trained well in the methods of a Church that has killed in the name of Love; A Church that has tortured in the name of Peace.; A Church that has stolen in the name of Charity. True Catholic you are indeed.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


"Jesus said that the people of Judea should listen to the Pharisees because they sit in the seat of Moses."

That is a very good point, jmdewey. Caiphas held the legitimate Office of High Priest, and the Jewish High Priest had the gift of prophecy. "Better that one man die for the people, etc." was a prophetic utterance, although Caiphas was not cognisant of the fact that when he spoke in that instance he was speaking prophetically.

Christianity is the fulfilment of the Jewish Faith, and the Catholic Church has retained much in its liturgy that is essentially Jewish. Priests existed to offer sacrafice to God, but all earthly sacrafice was insufficient. Only the sacrafice of God's only begotten son could ever be the perfect offering to the Father. It was foreshadowed in the command given to Abraham to sacrafice Issac, but the angel was sent to stop him after his faith had been tested, as Jesus was the only truly worthy and perfect sacrafice that could be offered to God. The Catholic Mass is the central point of Catholicism. No prayer, or personal sacrafice, can ever be equated with Christ's passion and death on the Cross, and the precious body and blood of Jesus is offered to the Father at every Mass.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


Blah, blah, blah.... I still think you are an idiot.

"A person whom, when challenged with a quote from Scripture, replied with not Theological rebuttal but name calling and “slander”;"

First, I'm not slandering you if it happens to be true. Secondly, I don't make it a habit of using Holy Scriptures for rebuttal. I learned a long time ago that reliance on this alone is usually ineffectual when faced with intransigence that is found in extreme Protestantism, e.g. Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, who declare themselves Christian yet reject every central doctrine of Christianity, the most central being that Jesus is the Man-God.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 



The Catholic Mass is the central point of Catholicism. No prayer, or personal sacrifice, can ever be equated with Christ's passion and death on the Cross, and the precious body and blood of Jesus is offered to the Father at every Mass.

Kind of twisted logic.
Not yours.
You seem like a fairly normal person who is rationalizing your religion to the point of making it tolerable to yourself.
If you were to sit down and try to figure out how all these different parts of your religion comes from, you can come up with something apparently plausible.
The problem is that your invention will not be true.
Who was it that made the sacrifice?
Did God sacrifice something of Himself by giving His son, as a sacrifice?
Was it Jesus, who said he had the power to lay down his life?
Or is it us?
How do we use Jesus as a sacrifice?
Was he our son that we gave up?
Did we live his life of perfect obedience?
What claim do we have on Jesus to give his blood and flesh as a sacrifice?
I think we play a passive role in the activity of our salvation.
Kind of like the stones in an alter soaking up the blood of the sacrificial animal that is slain on top of the alter.
We did not give birth to the lamb and raise it.
We did not put ourself in the alter but had to be put in place by other's hands.
We benefit from a work of another and have as much right to claiming the sacrifice as the stone.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join