Do Protestants consider Catholics to be Christians? [open]

5/16/08 | me

[netmilsmom]

Stemming from this comment

>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<

Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If in your Google search you realized, as you have shown by your link, that Vatican.org does not exist, why would you then accuse me of linking to a non-existent site?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Let me caution you though it may be necessary to review it with the help of a Professional Apologist.

Professionals know best.

We've been told footnotes and their interpretation are necessary to understanding simple, declarative sentences.

Did you get that, Old Reggie, or should we call in a professional? I know I had trouble understanding why footnotes had to be explained by an outside source before someone could understand the text.

[netmilsmom]

Network Solutions said there was no Vatican.org site, not me. I never went there. I looked it up on Network Solutions the domain provider and linked you to that.

>>So when you realized there is no site called Vatican.org in existence, why have you continued this charade of a thread accusing me of misquoting the catechism and using an anti-catholic site that does not exist?<<

Show me where “I” said Vatican.org is Anti-Catholic?

Maybe there’s a vast Catholic-wing conspiracy?

[netmilsmom]

>>why would you then accuse me of linking to a non-existent site?<<

Cause you said it? Twice?

Oh yeah, that’s right, a typo that’s it. A typo.

Kind of like that “th” after a number.

[Grunthor]

“Do Protestants consider Roman Catholics to be Christians? [open]”

It is not up to me as a protestant to decide if a catholic is a Christian or not. I go by the following standard; Do you accept the Jesus Christ of the Bible as your personal Lord and Saviour, without whom you are lost? If so, I will be glad to stroll through the gates of Heaven with you, arm in arm. If NOT, then you my FRiend have a bit of a problem.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You brought up Vatican.org not once but twice. A typo is typing an 's' instead of an 'a'. Not the same wrong extension twice.

lol. So now the typo police (or is it typo professional) tells us a typo must only be one letter long. Two letters cannot be construed as a typo, i.e. .org for .va.

And even when the typo makes no sense because it refers to a non-existenct website, we STILL must not assume it to be a typo, but some kind of nefarious plot.

When I was graduated from college with a degree in journalism and after getting my masters in politics and print journalism, and while being employed at a major daily newspaper in a great big city, no where was it mentioned in all that expensive education and employment that typos had to be one letter long.

It's probably too late to ask for a refund.

And along with the evidence that the original post at 140 was doctored

Nothing was "doctored." Word for word from the RCC catechism.

Why did you call the words of the RCC catechism #460 "lies?"

I smell CBS

Baking a pie?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Network Solutions said there was no Vatican.org site, not me.

Then how could I have linked to it???

Yeesh³.

[CTrent1564]

It is a interesting passage, where St. John refers to becomng “children of God”. Another passage that is consistent with the notion of “participation in the Divine Nature: (c.f. 2 Peter 2:4). I found and older Reflection of the Incarnation by Pope Benedict which refers to theosis and relates to CCC para. 460

http://www.zenit.org/article-19335?l=english

Pope Benedict’s Book “Jesus of Nazareth” in the Section “Vine and Wine” discusses the question about how we can “feed on God, live on God, in such a way that he himself becomes out bread...God becomes bread for us first of all in the Incarnation of the Logos: The Word takes flesh. The Logos becomes one of us and so comed down to our level, comes down to our level, comes into the sphere of what is accessible to us. Yet a further step is still needed beyond Incarnation of the Word. Jesus names this step..by stating his flesh is life for the world (Jn 6:51). Beyond the act of Incarnation, this points to the intrinsic goal and ultimate realization: Jesus’ act of giving himself up to death and the mystery of the Cross.” (pp.268-269)

Pope Benedict later links Incarnation and Cross together (p. 269) when discussing St. John’s Gospel by stating “In this Chapte the theology of Incarnation and the Theology of the Cross come together; the two cannot be separated. There are thus no grounds for setting up and opposition between Easter thelogy of the Synoptics and St. Paul, on one hand, and St. John’s supposedly purely incarnational theology, on the other. For the goal of the Word’s becoming-flesh spoken of by the prologue is precisely the offering of his body on the Cross, which the sacrament makes accessible to us”

As I alluded to earlier, many of the Protestants here seem to have the Calvinistic view of human nature (Total Depraved/evil), which is why the Calvinisms soteriology is purely legal, i.e. God covers the Totally Depraved person in Grace, but nothing changes. Catholicsm sees in Christ the truths about human nature that God intended in Creation before the Fall of Adam and Eve (i.e. Original sin) and thus through the Incarnation and the Cross and Resurrrection, God’s Grace restores and transforms us back to our True Human nature.

Regards

[netmilsmom]

>>When I was graduated from college with a degree in journalism and after getting my masters in politics and print journalism, and while being employed at a major daily newspaper in a great big city, no where was it mentioned in all that expensive education and employment that typos had to be one letter long.<<

You’re part of the MSM!
That explains a lot.

[netmilsmom]

>>Then how could I have linked to it???<<

You tell me, MSM poster.

[OLD REGGIE]

"...but Christ started His Church 1900+ years ago, and the scholarship is a bit more thorough than some recent splinter group."

Rather a smarmy comment but you will learn to expect nothing better.

This same Church started "1900+ years ago" also taught that the sun revolved around the earth (1600+ years ago). Of course their scholarship was far more thorough than recent "splinter group" scientists.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep. Just like Robert Novak, William Buckley and Ann Coulter are part of the MSM.

Perhaps I missed your answer, but why did you refer to the word-for-word excerpt from #460 of the RCC catechism as a "lie."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The fact remains you accused me of excerpting from a non-existent website.

Still waiting for that apology.

[Uri’el-2012]

;-)

[evangmlw]

I believe the catholic church has twisted the Scriptures and made it very difficult for an indvidual to genuinely accept Christ by faith alone. With that said, it is certainly possible that someone who is a member of the catholic church to have been born again by calling out to Christ alone for salvation. A genuine Christian is one who has received salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.

[Judith Anne]

Heh. :D

Sometimes, an explanation might be incomplete....there could be a fictional source, a real source, and a purported source. Much like Dan Rather’s little problem. Arguing the fictional source and purported source, and concealing the real source.

Just a thought.

[CTrent1564]

Actually, you are factually incorrect. Gallileo was only teaching the Copernican theory, who by the way was a Catholic Priest. The Church has never made a dogmatic statement about Science. The Church did say that Gallileo could teach his development of the Copernican theory as a hypothesis, but not as a fact since it had not been proven yet. Furthermore, Gallileo’s major mistake was when he crossed over into Theology. The Church’s concern over the Copernican hypothesis was not as big an issue (after all, the CHurch is the institution that published Copernicus’s works and he was employed by a Catholic University) as Galileo’s belief in the reality of number in that the universe was a mathematical entity.

This view attacked the philosophical/theological view of the Church, backed by both Plato (whom St. Augustine used) and Aristotle (whom St. Thomas Aquinas used), that there was an ultimate purpose and goal to the existence of the human being. So, on these grounds, Galileo crossed over into the theological realm.

And if the CHurch was so opposed to Science, why did Rome have perhaps the most advanced observatory, staffed by the Jesuits, during this time, who of course, where the scientists who corrected the calander (Gregorian Calander) by adding Leap year, which all the advanced world recognizes is the most accurate calander.

Here is a nice link that explains more on the issue

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101prof.asp

Regards

[Philo-Junius]

Your argument is with Christ, not me.

[OLD REGGIE]

So I’ll let others see for themselves....

Remember what I told you Mom. You can't win on this one. There are very few humans on this earth who can unfailingly interpret the Catechism.

Code Of Canon Law and Catechism is a field left to the experts who seldom agree with each other.

[OLD REGGIE]

Just as many times I'm called anti or hater and then point out that there are some here that show me disdain, read my mind and attribute motives to me.

Why it even happened with one of your hair-trigger,slash and burn, hit and run compatriots who mistakenly read one of your posts.