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]

>>The fact remains the words of the RCC catechism somehow caused netmilsmom to call them a “lie.” <<

Where?
Post 169 has been explained to you.

Want to look at it again?

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

Are you still getting FR when you click that link?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

She wasn't saying that the words you posted were NECESSARILY wrong, she was saying that she had never read that in the Catechism before

LOL. That is not what she wrote in the slightest. We have no idea if Netmilsmom has ever read the catechism. We only have her words declaring the exact wording from the RCC catechism to be a "lie."

By her post, she thought those words came from some anti-catholic website, which they did not. They are the exact words of the RCC catechism.

However, she is right to call those words a "lie" because men to NOT become "gods," as the RCC catechism foolish and blasphemously errs.

[FourtySeven]

I linked to vatican.org (which was clearly a typo since there is no vatican.org) and then I corrected the typo by linking to vatican.va.

You didn't do that from post #141-169 however, and that's a point you should consider.

The fact remains the words of the RCC catechism somehow caused netmilsmom to call them a "lie."

With all due respect to netmilsmom, the reason is probably the same reason you call it a "lie" even now: because of her ignorance of that portion of the Catechism, and what it really means.

The difference between her and you though is, I would be willing to wager, is that she no longer believes it's a lie, and probably will educate herself further via the explanation CTrent gave in post #498.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, Topcat. I can only assume you posted those words directly from some catholic website and not from vatican.org (which does not exist.)

They are foul words, indeed.

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -- Matthew 12:37

[FourtySeven]

LOL. That is not what she wrote in the slightest.

But that's clearly implied, that is, for anyone who objectively looks at her post #169.

[netmilsmom]

Are you still getting FR when you click that link?

[Petronski]

We only have her words declaring the exact wording from the RCC catechism to be a "lie."

That is false, as shown over and over.

[Petronski]

All "conditions" met.

Yes, all the conditions met. But the conditional is negative. She would call it a lie UNLESS you met the conditions. Since you met them, she did not.

[firebrand]

his Gospel certainly emphasizes the positive attributes of Gentiles (the Good Samaritan)

So much so that he missed the point of the parable. Is that a clue?

[Petronski]

What about those words made you feel uncomfortable, leading you to call them a "lie."

She did not. You continue to bear false witness against her over and over and over.

[topcat54]

While the western churches have sometimes been uncomfortable with the concept of theosis (deification), the idea is found throughout the Church Fathers.

Commenting on 2 Peter 1:4, John Calvin wrote:

4. Whereby are given to us. It is doubtful whether he refers only to glory and power, or to the preceding things also. The whole difficulty arises from this, — that what is here said is not suitable to the glory and virtue which God confers on us; but if we read, “by his own glory and power,” there will be no ambiguity nor perplexity. For what things have been promised to us by God, ought to be properly and justly deemed to be the effects of his power and glory. At the same time the copies vary here also; for some have δι ᾿ ὃν, “on account of whom;” so the reference may be to Christ. Whichsoever of the two readings you choose, still the meaning will be, that first the promises of God ought to be most highly valued; and, secondly, that they are gratuitous, because they are offered to us as gifts. And he then shews the excellency of the promises, that they make us partakers of the divine nature, than which nothing can be conceived better.

For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honor. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven. Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.

But the word nature is not here essence but quality. The Manicheans formerly dreamt that we are a part of God, and that, after having run the race of life we shall at length revert to our original. There are also at this day fanatics who imagine that we thus pass over into the nature of God, so that his swallows up our nature. Thus they explain what Paul says, that God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28,) and in the same sense they take this passage. But such a delirium as this never entered the minds of the holy Apostles; they only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow.

The Christian concept of theosis is nothing like the LDS heresy.

There is no reason to run away from the particular language found in the CCC when properly understood in its historical context.

[Petronski]

I could speculate this is a "diversionary tactic", but I don't want to be accused of reading minds.

It would be better for some if we discussed triviata rather than the centuries-old scholarship of Theosis.

[netmilsmom]

>>because of her ignorance of that portion of the Catechism, and what it really means.<<

Truly, the whole think came down to the footnote numbers. From my Baltimore Catechism as a child to my Daughters’ Faith and Life books, NEVER is there a citation of the CCC given that does not have footnote numbers. It just looked strange.

And while I may not have known it by heart (which I did say that I don’t have a photographic memory and use Google) it was the odd way it looked,

I put the words into Quotes and put that string into Google, the results you see in post 169. No Vatican website came up (because the numbers were missing)

I didn’t need the words to show something amiss. Just the missing footnote numbers. If a FRiend of mine had posted it, I would have done the same search.

[topcat54]

They are foul words, indeed.

Sorry, don't agree. See my comment #911.

[Petronski]

Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us. ---Jean Cauvin

Interesting. Where's the source link for this material?

[Petronski]

This seems to be an authoritative link to the words of Cauvin you quoted:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.ii.i.html

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Interesting. From Calvin...

"they make us partakers of the divine nature"

I think there is a great and vast difference between "partaking" of the divine nature and "becoming" the divine nature.

"to deify us"

I would believe here that Calvin referred to Christ's covering of us becoming our own. But that any sense of a "deity" remains Christ, given to us, but not becoming us.

Do you believe as Aquinas said that we become "gods?"

"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." -- Aquinas

If so, it sure isn't difficult to see how the LDS fell into this error.

One day, God willing, when we are in heaven, we will not be God. We will be redeemed spirits beholding God.

[netmilsmom]

I found it! On a Google search.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honor. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven. Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.”

Now that is John Calvin. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.ii.i.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Petronski]

I would believe here that Calvin referred to Christ's covering of us becoming our own. But that any sense of a "deity" remains Christ, given to us, but not becoming us.

That of course is precisely the Catholic view of it, as I posted way upthread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Men do not become “gods.”