Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do Protestants consider Catholics to be Christians? [open]
5/16/08 | me

Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology
KEYWORDS: christian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,121-1,140 next last
To: netmilsmom

It has nothing to do with ‘acting’ Christian, mom. I already know how to do that. Trouble is with these forums is when someone tries to show folks error, they put up a wall and won’t even try to listen. Instead they throw flames atcha.


821 posted on 05/19/2008 10:20:20 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

And btw, I did tell you that Vatican.org didn’t exist....Network Solutions actually told both of us.


822 posted on 05/19/2008 10:21:23 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Sorry; but that is what the Holy Word of Elohim says.

No it doesn't. It's what someone has inferred, and slapped a "thus saith the Lord" thereon.

And it's not a particularly insightful inference, either.

823 posted on 05/19/2008 10:22:27 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

>>Instead they throw flames atcha.<<

And they spit on Christ. Beat Him and hung him from a cross.

As a Christian, it doesn’t matter what “they” do. Does it?


824 posted on 05/19/2008 10:23:14 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

Believe what you want.


825 posted on 05/19/2008 10:24:34 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

Imagine a Jehovah’s Witness relentlessly following you around trying to show you your errors because they love you.


826 posted on 05/19/2008 10:27:21 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
his Gospel certainly emphasizes the positive attributes of Gentiles (the Good Samaritan).

A very long and detailed study can be done on why samaritans were discussed.

I could be a foreshadowing of the good news to be preached by Paul to the gentiles.

Some believe that Yah'shua spent two days in the land of the Samaritans
as a metaphor for two thousand years of preaching to the gentiles.

b'SHEM Yah'shua
827 posted on 05/19/2008 10:30:03 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; netmilsmom; Marysecretary
There are four quotations in CCC460, you posted two of them, and gave no indication you had omitted the other two.

Do you not see how this is becoming ludicrous?

I didn't post 459 or 461, either. And when asked, I linked to Vatican.va for anyone to read the entire 460.

Apparently the complete sentences I posted from 460 must be interpreted by footnotes and church fathers and other sentences and paragraphs and cannot stand alone under any kind of Biblical scrutiny.

And as anyone can see, the excerpt I gave were quotes from Athanasius and Aquinas so the RCC must have thought they could stand on their own as some kind of factual statements or proofs.

Here's #460 of the RCC catechism (footnote numbers and all)...

"The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

And when the excerpt from the RCC catechism was offered to Netmilsmom -- "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods" -- Netmilsmom responded that those words were a "lie" and that they must have been pulled from some anti-catholic website.

As we've seen, those words are a direct excerpt from the RCC catechism and they were referenced from Vatican.va, as I said, and they could not have come from Vatican.org because that site does not exist.

And they are a "lie."

828 posted on 05/19/2008 10:35:42 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Netmilsmom responded that those words were a "lie"

Interesting use of quotations. Show me where she said that.

829 posted on 05/19/2008 10:38:44 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
And btw, I did tell you that Vatican.org didn't exist....Network Solutions actually told both of us.

Then how could my typing "vatican.org" NOT have been a typo, as I said, if you knew the site didn't exist?

You've just proven my point.

830 posted on 05/19/2008 10:39:34 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Imagine a Jehovah’s Witness relentlessly following you around trying to show you your errors because they love you.

Free Republic posters with such an attitude should not post on "open" threads but should instead post to the "ecumenic" "caucus" "devotional" or "prayer" threads.
831 posted on 05/19/2008 10:40:02 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I didn't post 459 or 461, either.

You did not claim to do so.

You DID, in post 140, present part of CCC460 without indicating it was a truncation.

832 posted on 05/19/2008 10:40:33 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
XS> Sorry; but that is what the Holy Word of Elohim says.

No it doesn't. It's what someone has inferred, and slapped a "thus saith the Lord" thereon.

And it's not a particularly insightful inference, either.

YHvH's larger plan of salvation, where His People are blinded for a time,
in order to bring His salvation the the gentile nations.
NAsbU Romans 11:15 For if their ( His Chosen People ) rejection
is the reconciliation of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

And their ultimate salvation after a period of blindness is guaranteed by YHvH's covenant :
NAsbU Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren,
to be uninformed of this mystery--
so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--
that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake,
but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.


shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
833 posted on 05/19/2008 10:40:44 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Who cares what anybody thinks Catholics are? Not this Catholic.


834 posted on 05/19/2008 10:41:37 AM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get back down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; netmilsmom; Marysecretary; CTrent1564; Petronski
Again, please tell us why you labeled the verbatim words of the RCC catechism $#460 as a "lie." With or without footnotes, the words stand as RCC teaching. The footnotes merely support the assertion made in 460.

Given this request, I thought you ladies might be interested in CTrent's post #498.

What CTrent posted is a very good apologetic, IMO, for the particular section of the catechism in question. It's consistent in that it respects church history, and indeed, shows how vital a role it plays in the Church and Her Magesterium. Also, CTrent cites a website for further reading on the topic of "theosis", an understanding thereof seems to be relevant for full understanding of paragraph 460. Also of note, even before CTrent posted his 498, apparently Petronski also posted an article about the topic of "theosis", which also apparently was ignored.

This would seem to be the issue to focus on, if one wishes to thoroughly rebuke Catholicism on this point, (para #460 of the Catechism, i.e., is "theosis" contrary to Scripture and why? Obviously to answer this question, one must know what theosis is, and therefore, reading is required if one does not), rather than focusing on footnotes and who put them where.

835 posted on 05/19/2008 10:43:31 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I was not describing my attitude.


836 posted on 05/19/2008 10:45:18 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Obviously, but I do not want anyone taking your words to heart as their reason for filing abuse reports and pinging the moderators for such conduct on “open” threads.


837 posted on 05/19/2008 10:50:34 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; netmilsmom; Marysecretary
Dr.E - Netmilsmom responded that those words were a "lie"

Petronski - Interesting use of quotations. Show me where she said that.

Let us all remember fondly Netmilsmom post #169 on this thread (as I underlined)...

To: Dr. Eckleburg

>>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods<<

Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22For+the+Son+of+man+became+man+so+that+we+might+become+God.+The+only+begotten+Son+of+God%2C+wanting+to+make+us+sharers+in+his+divinity%2C+assumed+our+nature%2C+so+that+he%2C+made+man%2C+might+make+men+gods&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

169 posted on 05/16/2008 5:59:03 PM PDT by netmilsmom

I provided a link (many many times) to Vatican.va. showing that sentence to be a part of the RCC catechism straight from Rome.

I offered evidence that I was not posting from vatican.org (a singular and corrected typo on my part) since we all know vatican.org DOES NOT EXIST.

As anyone can read for themselves, Netmilsmom labeled the exact words of the RCC a "lie."

On that, we agree.

838 posted on 05/19/2008 10:53:42 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

>>Then how could my typing “vatican.org” NOT have been a typo, as I said, if you knew the site didn’t exist?<<

I didn’t know it at all until after you stated that you “lifted” verbatim from it.

Post 552 “The verbatim excerpt I posted was “lifted” from Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)

Post 533 “The bottom line, however, amidst all this deflection, is that you as a Catholic challenged the words which I posted which were verbatim from the catechism of the Catholic church, via Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)


839 posted on 05/19/2008 10:55:18 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As anyone can read for themselves, Netmilsmom labeled the exact words of the RCC a "lie."

Hmmm. Let's look at that again:

Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.

She did not state that, she stated that unless . . . That is a conditional.

Who is supposed to be fooled by post 838?

840 posted on 05/19/2008 10:57:02 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,121-1,140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson