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.

[netmilsmom]

>>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.<<

What does that mean?

[papertyger]

YHvH's larger plan of salvation, where His People are blinded for a time, in order to bring His salvation the the gentile nations.

And so, the point of countering "Catholic Church Fathers" with "Jews for Jews" remains...

silly.

[Petronski]

Understood.

I did not mean to complain of the behavior, or tell her to stop. I only wanted to provide a kind of “thought experiment” that might help us all understand how our own actions might be perceived.

Open forum, public square...I accept that completely.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You challenged the words of the RCC catechism, calling them a "lie," and attributing them to an anti-catholic website that does not exist.

Why do you think the words of the RCC catechism were lies?

[netmilsmom]

>>Who is supposed to be fooled by post 838? <<

No one, because the link to the Google seach is posted.

(Had the “quote” been lifted from the CCC, with the numbers, then it would have linked to Vatican.va on that Google search with “...”)

[Petronski]

Perhaps my post 843 could clarify it for you.

[netmilsmom]

>>You challenged the words of the RCC catechism, calling them a “lie,”<<

Where?

>>and attributing them to an anti-catholic website that does not exist.<<

Where?

>>Why do you think the words of the RCC catechism were lies<<

I never did.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>YHvH's larger plan of salvation, where His People are blinded for a time, in order to bring His salvation the the gentile nations.

And so, the point of countering "Catholic Church Fathers" with "Jews for Jews" remains...

silly.

Mazol Tov.

Have a nice journey !

I'm just not sure of your destination.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua

[Religion Moderator]

See post 831

[Petronski]

Incidentally, I normally didn’t go to vatican.va for the Catechism. The background image is hard on my eyes.

Then I figured out how to use “adblock” to remove the background. Much better.

[netmilsmom]

I still don’t get it, but Okay!!!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

LOL. Thanks. And I provided a link. First to Vatican.org which was a typo since the site does not even exist.

Then I posted a link to (and many times since) Vatican.va. where anyone can read for themselves the foul words of the RCC #460 (which Netmilsmom labeld as a "lie."

Netmilsmom was correct on that one. Men do not become "gods" and Aquinas and Athanasius and the RCC magisterium are dead wrong on this.

[netmilsmom]

>>Then I figured out how to use “adblock” to remove the background. Much better.<<

Have you tried Vatican.org? I hear it’s free of those annoying footnote numbers.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

(((wearying sigh)))

Post 169.

[FourtySeven]

As a point of curiosity, apparently the CCC that the Vatican website has is simply the result of the work that Saint Charles Borromeo did for their website http://www.scborromeo.org/ IOW, it seems to just be a copy of the http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm and all the contents therein.

So, IOW, there’s no reason, if anyone doesn’t like the Vatican’s background image, to try various ways to block it. One can simply go to St. Borromeo’s website and read it there.

[Petronski]

LOL. Thanks. And I provided a link.

And in doing so negated the conditional statement "I would say it’s a lie."

Thank you for helping me prove she did not call CCC460 a lie.

[Petronski]

The Vatican website has a nifty hypertext concordance to the NAB. As much as I love having a concordance, I don’t care at all for the lukewarm NAB, which has all the poetic beauty of a “Nutritional Facts” label.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I NEVER posted from Vatican.org because Vatican.org does not exist.

Therefore when I said I posted from Vatican.va you had no reason to question that fact and instead accuse me of posting from some anti-catholic website. By your own admission, I couldn't have posted from Vatican.org since it does not exist.

Again, why did you label the exact words from the excerpt I posted from the RCC catechism 460 as a "lie?"

[netmilsmom]

>>Netmilsmom was correct on that one. Men do not become “gods” and Aquinas and Athanasius and the RCC magisterium are dead wrong on this. <<

Can you give a post on that one too? Because the only place I see that phrase is attributed to you.
Show a post where I say that.

[netmilsmom]

You mean this?

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

Gee, no where do I mention the WORDS.