Are Catholics Christian?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


So do you follow Christ by obeying His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood? If you are not a baptised Catholic you cannot observe His command, thus depriving yourself of the food of eternal life. Read St. Paul, where he refers to the Fathers of the infant Church. I suspect he had a better handle on what Jesus meant.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


"God does not change."

What point are you making, Josephine, when you quote Malachi, I don't quite follow?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
 


If you are not a baptised Catholic you cannot observe His command, thus depriving yourself of the food of eternal life.


thats what you say, who are you anyway? I only believe what Jesus says.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The full truth is Jesus was a Jew. A reformist Jew, a rebel Jew, a free-thinker Jew - but still at the heart and core - a Jew. The whole idea of being Catholic, or any other kind of Christian, is something he never envisioned. (or at least never said he did). He was like the Jewish Luther; trying to fix the old ways - not destroy them and create a new one.

If anyone can provide me a direct quote from the Scripture, where Jesus says: “I want you to stop being good Jews and come up with a whole new system. Just forget about all this Jewish stuff and make up some new ways as you go along!” - I’d like to see it.

Jesus taught from the Jewish scriptures. He went to the Jewish temple. He celebrated Jewish holidays. And pretty much did everything Jewish that he thought made him a good Jew. He didn’t try and destroy Judiasm, but to reform it. Just about everything Catholics do would be unrecognizable to him. And, by extension, most of what any Christian would do as well.

You can read about it in the Bible if you don’t take my word for it.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 


you say he changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, I'm
showing God tells us he does not change.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


your right, Jesus was a Jew, and real Christians are Jews that
believe in Jesus.
Jesus observed the Sabbath(saturday), Jesus did not eat pig and other
defiled meats.
why would Jesus spend his whole life behaving just like a Jew, just
to have his followers change it when he left .



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 


The verse about the rock is subject to much interpretation. The enitire concept of a so called Petrine Primacy lays upon the interpretation of that line. In fact the entire Primacy of the Roman Church falls upon the interpretation of that verse.

Even if somehow that meant Peter had some kind of special status how does that relate to:

One: to change laws, doctrine, etc.

Two: to connect it with Rome, especially considering that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch.

I should also mention that Peter did not preside over the Council of Jerusalem and James, Bishop of the Jerusalem Church seemed to be the one with the real authority.

This leads to a whole other debate about the Desposyni who were more likely the original authorities within the Church until the First Jewish Roman war which destroyed the Jerusalem Church. Attempts after the war to reattain primacy were ignored.

The Roman Church on the other hand does not recognize the existence of Jesus' siblings, relatives though since according to Dogma, Mary was supposed to be an eternal virgin. So the entire foundation of the Roman Church rests on the intepretation of a single verse and the Dogma of Mary being a virgin, so one could ignore his relatives in Jerusalem as being the actual leaders of the Church.

[edit on 5/7/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


Exactly, when the "real" Jesus expired, he died not even remotely questioning his status as a Jewish person.

"Are Catholics Christian?" My GOd, Yes!

Are Catholics good Christians? Ah... are they accurately adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ?






posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


"The Clergy would be alien, The Basilicas/Cathedrals would be alien, the imagery would be alien, The Latin would be alien, Sunday would be alien, and so many more things would just not connect."

Then you have little understanding of the Last Supper, of which only the Catholic Church and eastern Orthodox continue to observe in the liturgy of the Mass. Christianity being the fulfilment of the Faith of Abraham and Moses has obviously retained some of its Jewish liturgical practices, i.e. liturgical sacrafice within a sanctuary presided over by priests, but with this profound difference, the only worthy and perfect sacraficial offering to God, the sacrafice of the body and blood of Christ, the sacraficial Lamb of God. "Do this in memory of me." "You shall eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of Man." He ressurected on a Sunday, and that is why Sunday became known as the Lord's Day.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 



They freely admit they have taken the authority upon themselves to change the law of God....

It is not that they did something sneaky, then were caught and then forced to admit it.
What they (the Catholics, in your examples) are doing is to claim that they have authority over everything.
They did not change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
They acknowledged that there is a Biblical principal of one Holy day, in each week.
What they did was to decide that the Sabbath only applied to the Jews and created a different day, the Lord's Day in commemoration of Jesus rising from the dead, on Sunday morning.
In actuality, the "Catholic" church did not change the day, it was the non-Jewish, former pagan, converts to Christianity, who adopted their Holy Day straight away as Sunday, and never went through the transition from the Sabbath.
Once the Catholics established it's authority to make theological determinations and to be able to enforce those decisions, they went on a spree of passing religious Canon Law.
They codified the proper observance of the Lord's Day, but they are being conceited to say they created the Day.
What they did do was to outlaw anything that reminded anyone of a traditional Sabbath observance.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


The Roman Church on the other hand does not recognize the existence of Jesus' siblings, relatives though since according to Dogma, Mary was supposed to be an eternal virgin. So the entire foundation of the Roman Church rests on the intepretation of a single verse and the Dogma of Mary being a virgin, so one could ignore his relatives in Jerusalem as being the actual leaders of the Church.

Jesus did not have siblings. If he had the Blessed Virgin would not have been given over to the custody of St. John, from the Cross. It's called the Roman Catholic Church because Peter was the Bishop over the Christians in Rome, where he suffered his martyrdom. Rome, being the See of Peter, retained the Petrine Office for subsequent Bishops elected to that See. Protestants have remained so unified since the Reformation, not: there are more than fifty thousand Protestant denominations in the USA alone. That's what happens when every man becomes his own authority, interprets Holy Scripture for himself, and will not recognise the Primacy of Peter. Luther and Calvin left quite a legacy.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by djerwulfe
Exactly, when the "real" Jesus expired, he died not even remotely questioning his status as a Jewish person.


Your post actually brings up a painful memory, from my Parochial School days, that probably explains why I am no longer Catholic - or Christian for that matter.

One day in my tender youth, gazing upon the crucifix, for the umpteenth time, I queried the Nun Commandant as to what the “INRI” on the crucifix stood for. “Well, it is Latin for: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”. Well, I continued, not realizing the mine-field I was innocently skipping into. “Why, would they put that?” Answer: “Because Jesus claimed He was the King of the Jews and the Romans wanted to mock him for it”. Naïve as I was, I could not possibly see the dangers ahead from asking the next logical questions. So, I did. “Well, if He was claiming to be King of the Jews and the Romans killed him, why are worshipping Him? Aren’t we the ROMAN Catholic Church. He sounds like the enemy!”

Sister Ironsides changed about four shades of red before she could even talk. I don’t have to go into the details of what transpired next, but I still have the callouses to prove it did. Despite all the Hail Marys and Our Fathers I wrote over the ensuing days, I never did get an answer.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


"thats what you say, who are you anyway? I only believe what Jesus says."

It was Jesus who said it; why don't you believe Him?!



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


Seriously, I doubt if you have ever read much of the Bible. Be honest, you're just not motivated to go to Mass, have never properly studied the Catholic Faith, and fasten on to any excuse to justify your apathy. Ever heard of Hell? If you don't love God, you should fear His judgement!



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
[The Roman Church on the other hand does not recognize the existence of Jesus' siblings, relatives though since according to Dogma, Mary was supposed to be an eternal virgin.Jesus did not have siblings…That's what happens when every man becomes his own authority, interprets Holy Scripture for himself, and will not recognise the Primacy of Peter.




Have you ever read the New Testament? Try Matthew 13: 55-56 for a start. But then, I see where your intellectually impaired response is coming from - you used the word “Dogma”. That’s what it’s all about to the Holy Roman (Empire’s) Church - DOGMA. Forget about what you just read in the Bible people; just listen to our interpretation of what it really means. Don’t be fooled by the actual words; we’ll tell you what you need to think they mean. No other manifestation of Christianity has taken the metaphor of a flock of sheep so literally, or used it to such great effect. No other church has trudged so blindly on in the face of it’s own guidebook telling it to go the other way. Enlightenment through ignorance, it is the Catholic Way.

I see the Spirit of Torquemada still lives on.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


why would Jesus spend his whole life behaving just like a Jew, just
to have his followers change it when he left .


Check out St. Peter's vision of the 'unclean' animals and the instruction from Heaven that it was now permissable to eat them.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


I never used the word 'dogma'.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 


Read St. Paul, where he refers to the Fathers of the infant Church

I do not know what version you are reading, but mine does not say "Fathers", plural.
Paul says that he was the Corinthian's father through the Gospel.
He meant that he brought them up from being pagans, or whatever, and made them into Christians.
He was not establishing a priesthood or system where certain people would be called Father.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 


How does those things being alien equal not being familiar with the Last Supper? What does that have to do with Roman clergy, Basilicas, Roman imagery, Latin and Sunday?

I dont see how any of this supercedes the Sabbath.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
I never used the word 'dogma'.


Ahhhh. I see now, that was part of a quote from a previous poster. Well, I'll take that as a mistake on your part for not correctly putting it in quotes and a mistake on my part for not catching it. So, we draw even on that one.

Still, you accused me of possibly not reading the Bible. I have.
How do you explain away the issue of Jesus' brothers and sisters? What's your answer for Matt. 13:55?



new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join