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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You wrote:
'Just so you know that I did not make this up.'

I absolutely didn't mean to intimate that I thought that you were making it up, I just didn't know where that came from. The perpetual virginity is something that I am familiar with, but I wasn't aware of any claims of not giving birth to Christ.

Can you point out your source on this?

Thanks!

Eric




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


Which does not mean you actually "understand" the conversation .. see .. you fail to understand the question, you fail to understand how to answer it and you fail to understand what Catholicism is..

Every aspect of this thread is utter garbage. The question posed is as follows:

Is Catholicism Christian in Nature?

The answer is, by belief in the Mythology behind it, yes. The Dogma may be different, but that is only personal opinion as to the "correctness" of the fact, in reality, they are Christian by definition.

End of story.

Every denomination, regardless of political structure or dogmatic beliefs, if they believe in the Mythology they are a variant of the same thing. I cannot explain it in simpler terms.



quotes what
God asks us to do


Quotes from a book compiled by Catholics and Pagans. Your stupidity cannot be more transparent.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 



....I just didn't know where that came from. The perpetual virginity is something that I am familiar with, but I wasn't aware of any claims of not giving birth to Christ.



The papal definition of Mary's continued virginity during the birth of Christ refers to the event that at the appointed time of birth, Jesus left the womb of Mary without the loss of Mary's physical virginity. The Church understands Mary's virginity during the birth of Christ as an absence of any physical injury or violation to Mary's virginal seal (in Latin, virginitas in partu) through a special divine action of the all-powerful God. This divine act would safeguard Mary's physical virginity which is both symbol and part of her perfect, overall virginity; a virginity both internal and external, of soul and body.

The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the "miraculous birth" of Jesus that resulted in no injury to the Blessed Virgin Mary's physical integrity. St. Augustine stated: "It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity." Pope St. Leo the Great proclaimed in his famous Tome to Flavian: "Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him." Later, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's greatest theologian, would defend the miraculous (and therefore painless) nature of Christ's birth. So as light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary's womb and without any physical harm to the tabernacle of the unborn Christ.

totus2tuus.blogspot.com...
Here is what i found by googleing: perpetual virgin miraculous birth
This article gives some sources and some sort of interpretation of this doctrine.
My original comment was more my opinion, than a learned point of a debated argument.
What we do have is a miraculous birth, and figure it out for yourself.
How did Jesus get out?
Well, it does not explain that, but you have to guess that one second he was there, in the womb, and the next second he was outside.
It just happened and I would imagine he landed in his mother's arms.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


quote
Which does not mean you actually "understand" the conversation .. see .. you fail to understand the question, you fail to understand how to answer it and you fail to understand what Catholicism is.. Every aspect of this thread is utter garbage. The question posed is as follows:
Is Catholicism Christian in Nature?
end quote

its utter garbage? well I would not have responded if I thought it
were so, I know where to put my garbage, the truck comes by once
a week to pick it up, whereas you think it is garbage, yet you spend your
time to answer it. I see where you put your time every week!!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


The question is not.....
Is Catholicism Christian in Nature?
Which is the question often being answered

the question is....
Is Catholicism Christian in Origin?
Which is the question occasionaly being touched on.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
Catholics don't pray to saints in the traditional sense - its more to ask them for help in gaining forgiveness for sins, ask them to help protect against Evil and the work of the Devil and thank them for their efforts.

And worshiping Idols

The crucifix is not worshipped, its the person that is on it that is worshipped...ie Jesus. To Catholics, the crucifix represents Jesus, his struggle and death for anyone who believes.
As with statues of the Virgin Mary, they are not worshipped, they are there as a reminder to live a good life.

You are almost right on this one. The exact definition is that saints are seen as intermediaries and Catholics ask for their interception with God, rather than going direct. They are like a proxy so to speak. Same goes for the Holy Mary.




The Pope

This is also an issue that a lot of non-catholics seem to have all wrong. The pope is not our connection to God. 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.


You are wrong on this one though. The Pope is seen as the representative of Jesus on earth. The heir to St Peter's throne so to speak. The Pope is also regarded as infallible during his papacy when it comes to religious matters. His word is final on religious dogmas and there's no room for disagreeing. If you disagree with what he says then you are failing as a Catholic.
There are however certain things which the Pope doesn't consider as dogmas of faith. Some examples that come to mind are the story of Adam and Eve, and the sightings of the Holy Mary in Lourdes. Since these are not considered dogmas of faith, then it is up to the believer whether to believe them or not.



So yes, I believe that when it comes down to it, Catholics are extremely Christian (with a lot of the unnecessary Frills that follow organized religion)


They are certainly Christian, as in they believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings. That's the basic definition of what a Christian means. These days, many confuse the term Christian for their own denomination as if it was the one and only and try to disqualify other Christian religions from the category. Catholics go one step further, they claim that all Christians are Catholics, so I guess we'll have to live with that.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by salvu]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


If I understand your reasoning correctly anything that uses the Christian Mythos is therefore automatically Christian. Meaning everything from Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Baptists, Catholics, and well anyone who uses Christian Mythos as their foundation should be labeled Christian.

I dont want to get into the semantics or pragmatics of the term Christian, but wouldn't supposedly non Chistian groups also fall under that Umbrella. There are many New Age groups and other new religous movements that use Christian mythos as their foundation.

Would you say that Christianity and Islam who both use Jewish Mythos as their foundation are technically Jewish? What about Gnostics or Satanists who also use Jewish and Christian mythos as a foundation?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view. I am assuming its an objective one from the outside of the whole debate from the choice of words.

[edit on 7/7/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Would you say that Christianity and Islam who both use Jewish Mythos as their foundation are technically Jewish? What about Gnostics or Satanists who also use Jewish and Christian mythos as a foundation?


They are in fact all referred to as Judaic or Abrahamic religions. Islam is included as well.
Satanists on the other hand differ. There are Le Vey Satanists who are atheists, however Traditional Satanists are certainly Christians.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by salvu]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by salvu
 


I'm familiar with that but would you call a Gnostic a Jew? There seems to be a miscommunication here.

[edit on 7/7/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robhaidheuch
tjetbone, your theory on Simon Magus has absolutely no historical foundation.

Legend tells that St. Peter was challenged by Magus to a display of power in front of the Roman Emperor. Simon Magus levitated, believing he was doing so by his own power. Peter knelt down, made the sign of the Cross, the demons supporting Magus fled, and he plunged to his death. I understand that the Church of St. Mary Major, Rome was later built over the spot where Peter had knelt.

I'm amazed at the number of postings that display little knowledge of early Church history, the development of liturgy, and tradition prior to the Catholic Church compiling the authoratative books of Holy Scripture that we call the Bible, or the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

The Protestant Reformation removed 1st and 2nd Book of Maccabees and the Book of Tobit from the old Testament. 2nd Maccabees contains the teaching on praying for the dead, thus indicating that some souls may be in a state not yet worthy of Heaven but saved from Hell. The saints who are now in Heaven can, like any other Christian, pray for others, and logic would presume that their souls being in a state fit for Heaven, and in the immediate presence of God, their prayers would be more efficacious than all earthbound Christians whose souls are as yet in a much inferior state due to the effects of sin. Requesting a saint in Heaven to join with one in prayer to God is not worship by any means.



i highly disagree... there is alot out ther about simon/peter.

simon
magus
AND A REAL GOOD SITE ABOUT HIM
simon magus



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Here's the defintion according to Websters:

Christian
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Now this would actually rule out at least the Satanists. So are we going to make the debate now an issue of Semantics instead of an issue of Doctrine?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Not Jew, but judaic. Jew has come to refer to one particular religion and so it cannot be confused with its descendants. I don't see any misunderstanding...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Traditional Satanism thrives on the belief that Christianity is true and the choice of Satan over God is done purposely as if to prefer carnal pleasures over heavenly ones. It also requires belief in Jesus to find any sense in hanging a cross upside down and the sacrilege of a holy host.
What is Satanism without Christianity, and vice versa for that matter? They go hand in hand and there cannot be one without the other. They're best friends and foes at the same time.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by salvu
 


Gnostics also originate from Platonists (Greeks) and Hermeticists (Greek/Egyptian) as well. Dont forget many believed Jesus was the Son of the "true god" as oposed to the Judaic G-d, who they thought was evil. So would that mean they are Judeo-Greco-Egypto Pagan Christians?


My point is if we get into a debate over Semantics it will turn into nonsense far faster than a debate over Doctrine.

[edit on 7/7/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Comforter
 



Some may consider this over the top but it is the truth of how I feel and see this subject.

Thanks for giving us your opinion on this subject.
I clicked on the posting you were commenting on.
I realized how much I had toned down my rhetoric, since that early post.
I would like to discuss a few of your points in a more appropriate thread.
Stick around and we may yet get around to some of that.
The current Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the successor institution to the Inquisition.
I have this sneaking suspicion that there is some connection between this "institution" and the Murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero.
How does someone pull the trigger on an Archbishop?
You would have to have someone very high up to give you absolution.
So, the pro-Church people can think how they are so benevolent, but how do you explain the rug being pulled out from the “liberation theology” movement.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


They would, and some say they were even influenced by Buddhism, but I still think that the essence comes from Judaism.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by salvu
 


Basically those are issues of Semantics. We could keep breaking origins down further and further until we are left with just the concept of Religion alone.

There's no point in that. The debate at hand is not an issue of Semantics. Its a debate of Doctrine. My point of view is that the Apostles would find Catholicism for the most part Alien. I should mention I think they would find most of Christiandom, from Protestants to Mormons pretty Alien. So I'm not picking on the Catholics, I am just stating that the pre Constantine early Church, aka Pauline Christianity, and especially Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem Church would find much of current Christianity odd. I'm not saying evil or wrong. I am just saying Weird.

Probably about as odd as modern Jews do. Which would include me.


Now there are a few Papal Bulls issued that I will state unequivocally as being completely Errant. They are not justified, cannot be justified, period.
These are some of them:
Cum nimis absurdum
Caeca et obdurata
Editto sopra gli ebrei



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by salvu
 



Catholics go one step further, they claim that all Christians are Catholics, so I guess we'll have to live with that.

This statement would be true if you used the small "c", as in, all Christians are catholic.
At least that is my opinion.
Unfortunately, that is not an official opinion, though some Catholic theologians would agree.
Sorry about that.
You could have a hundred of your Catholic friends gathered together and have them all agree.
But you do not belong to a democratic institution, so your opinion means nothing.
"Have you ever read the Catechism?"



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You're right about the capital C, however it's a fact that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church recognises only itself as the truth and all other denominations as having part of the truth and so one can only be a true Christian according to the Church if he is Catholic.

Anyway, enough with that. I agree with the rest that you say that it's definitely not a democratic institution. Many Catholics, as with other religions tend to disagree on certain crucial issues with the Church which technically render them non-Catholics, but their opinions are by no means respected by the Church itself.

I do not understand whether you are referring to a general "you" or me personally but if it's me who you're referring to, I've read the Catechism, in fact I was examined on that, and no, I'm not a Catholic, only an ex-Catholic.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


That's right, but Christianity is understood to refer to the Christian religions of today when used in general terms. There's no doubt that its dogma veered way off the tracks of its predecessors which only provide the gist of the whole package. There is one thing that's never changed though. The following of Jesus' teachings. Whether his mother was a virgin or saints should be venerated, or whether he was truly a son of god or merely a man who might not even have existed is syntactical.

The one true thing that really distinguishes all Judaic religions is the vilification of all that is instinctive in human nature.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join