• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?

What do you think of the Catholic Church?

  • I love the Church

    Votes: 5 8.3%
  • I like the Church

    Votes: 9 15.0%
  • The Church isn't too bad

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • I dislike the Church

    Votes: 27 45.0%
  • I hate the Church

    Votes: 11 18.3%

  • Total voters
    60

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
How old are you? I know when I went to a Catholic retreat, one woman in her fifties said she was forbidden to read her bible.

Now, there was a recent pope (and in the link I gave you) that said those who have been baptized are considered part of the Church (as in the body/people of Christ). For example, when you go to RCIA and you have already been baptized you cannot be baptized again. They feel that you are already "saved" or in God's grace.

The sacraments of Catholicism specifically (well, they are sacred intitated acts just by a different name) are just what makes one able to take the Eucharist. One does not need the Eucharist to be christian. One needs the Eucharist to be a part of the body of Christ.

Whether we agree with this or not has no bearing on what their CCC and that website I gave you says. If you are baptized, you are saved. When you take the sacraments, you are one with the body.

That's why Catholics feel protestant are not in the "full" body because they haven't formally taken the sacraments of the Church (repentance, communion, vow to commitment, changing one's actions, living in christ). These are the sacraments.

You're thrown off by the gold.

Cite specifically so I can respond I have read everything, and specifically doctrine of the church prevails, and site completely, because it is easy to take the citations of Pope Francis out of context. You earlier statement was clear and accurate.

"Everyone who has been baptized, repented, shared in communion, and vowed that jesus saved them are the body of christ.

Those who are a part of the body of christ have already taken the sacraments (above listed).
. ."

What you said beyond this is opinion, the bottom line is those who sincerely take the Eucharist defines SALVATION within the Church only except those with no knowledge of the One True Church and those below the age of consent.

Still waiting. . .
 
Last edited:

Stalwart

Member
How can god share our misery when he is god?

He would have to be 100 percent human to totally understand human nature since according to christianity, we have inherited sin and god cant have our misery cause he cant be around sin.

Exactly right, actually. Ergo:

CCC 464: The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Be glad I'm bored and have some patience. ;)
How old are you? I know when I went to a Catholic retreat, one woman in her fifties said she was forbidden to read her bible.

I can't cite this. It's personal experience from the De Colores retreat near where I live. We were in workshops discussing our faith and how we felt about it while doing our workshop exercises in groups.

Now, there was a recent pope (and in the link I gave you) that said those who have been baptized are considered part of the Church (as in the body/people of Christ). For example, when you go to RCIA and you have already been baptized you cannot be baptized again. They feel that you are already "saved" or in God's grace.

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

Anyone baptized in christ is saved. Baptism according to the CCC anyone who receives the sacraments of christ: repentance Acts 3:19, saying one wants to be saved Romans 10:9, baptism Luke 3:16, communion John 6:48-51 among others. These are the sacraments of Christ (of the Catholic Church)

The sacraments of Catholicism specifically (well, they are sacred intitated acts just by a different name) are just what makes one able to take the Eucharist. One does not need the Eucharist to be christian. One needs the Eucharist to be a part of the body of Christ.

The sacraments above lets one be in union or one body or in Mass so that when more than one come together, Christ is present. Mathew 18:20

Whether we agree with this or not has no bearing on what their CCC and that website I gave you says. If you are baptized, you are saved. When you take the sacraments, you are one with the body.

That's why Catholics feel protestant are not in the "full" body because they haven't formally taken the sacraments of the Church (repentance, communion, vow to commitment, changing one's actions, living in christ). These are the sacraments.

Cite specifically so I can respond I have read everything, and specifically doctrine of the church prevails.

There you go.

You can read more here:

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church
2. The Bible (Catholic or Protestant)
3. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

You can reflect on what positive experiences you had in the Church. That, and you can kinda take interest in spirituality of Catholics and how they find their relationship with Christ in the Church without associating their relationship with paganism.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Exactly right, actually. Ergo:

CCC 464: The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

I don't understand how that agrees with my post. I'm saying jesus would need to be fully man not god at all for him to share in our misery. As long as he is one true god and true man, he cannot do that.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Cite specifically so I can respond I have read everything, and specifically doctrine of the church prevails, and site completely, because it is easy to take the citations of Pope Francis out of context. You earlier statement was clear and accurate.

"Everyone who has been baptized, repented, shared in communion, and vowed that jesus saved them are the body of christ.

Those who are a part of the body of christ have already taken the sacraments (above listed).
. ."

What you said beyond this is opinion, the bottom line is those who sincerely take the Eucharist defines SALVATION within the Church only except those with no knowledge of the One True Church and those below the age of consent.

Still waiting. . .

Baptism saves the person.
The Eucharist (communion) brings everyone into the body of Christ.

Christians believe you must be baptised (change your old habits and follow christ with new habits) in order to be christian.

Catholics take it extend it more that when you take the Eucharist, you are not just christian (as said by the CCC) but you are also in union with the body itself.

In my personal opinion, one needs to be in union with the body of christ to be christian. However, scripture doesn't say what is literal and what is not. So someone's identification as a christian is between them and god.
 

Stalwart

Member
I don't understand how that agrees with my post. I'm saying jesus would need to be fully man not god at all for him to share in our misery. As long as he is one true god and true man, he cannot do that.

He has two natures - one human and one divine - which are separate and operate in tandem, but are still part of the same being. In this way, God can take on the human burden of sin as a human. There's no other way I can possibly explain it.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Baptism saves the person.

Baptism is necessary for Salvation, because it frees them from the Original Sin they were born with. The Roman Church recognizes the valid Baptist of most churches if the Baptism follows the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

The statement is incomplete, and no Baptism itself does not save the person.

The Eucharist (communion) brings everyone into the body of Christ.

The Eucharist ONLY brings the sincere ones who believe into the Body of Christ and Salvation.

Christians believe you must be baptised (change your old habits and follow christ with new habits) in order to be christian.

True, but for most churches the 'Trinitarian baptismal formula' is necessary.

Catholics take it extend it more that when you take the Eucharist, you are not just christian (as said by the CCC) but you are also in union with the body itself.

'Just being a Christian' in the view of the Roman Church does not represent Salvation.

[/quote]
In my personal opinion, one needs to be in union with the body of christ to be christian. However, scripture doesn't say what is literal and what is not. So someone's identification as a christian is between them and god.[/QUOTE]

I do not believe that 'personal' opinion nor scripture addresses Salvation from the perspective of the Roman Church.

The bold above is more like the view of some Protestant Churches like the Methodists who consider the 'Catholic' (body of Christ) as all who are Baptized and sincerely believe in the Apostles Creed without regard to which church you belong to. Salvation includes those without knowledge of Christ, and below the age of consent.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
He has two natures - one human and one divine - which are separate and operate in tandem, but are still part of the same being. In this way, God can take on the human burden of sin as a human. There's no other way I can possibly explain it.

It's not too hard to explain only because god can't be around sin. Any sin he either destroyed or told people who have not sinned that they cannot see him because of his holiness. (Thinking of the Moses/bush thing).

A perfect human cannot be jesus unless the human had no inherited sin. Since in mainstream christianity christians do have inherited sin, it makes no sense (not complicated just illogical) for god to be a human, say he is human, but then say he is without sin that all humans are supposed to inherently posses.

His divine nature doesn't make him god. Being a creator makes him god. Many people are divine. Not all people are the creator.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't always have the time to quote. These aren't opinions, though. You just have to see pass the items and gold of the Church and actually participate it in to understand it spiritually.
Baptism is necessary for Salvation, because it frees them from the Original Sin they were born with. The Roman Church recognizes the valid Baptist of most churches if the Baptism follows the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation. Repentance, communion, and confirming one's vows are not. My other post with the citations does say that the Church recognizes (almost recently) that other christians are christians (aka are saved via baptism). However, their difference is that they don't see protestants as being part of the "full body" of Christ. Being part of his full body does not save someone. Though, I personally feel it is critical part in a christian's devotional life whether it be Catholicism (Roman or not) or any Church that comes together and actually worships with the sacraments (as cited and explained) of christ.

The statement is incomplete, and no Baptism itself does not save the person.

Repentance only tells god that you are sorry for your sins and you want to change

Communion only means you come together as one body of christ

The Eucharist is the lord's meal sot hat people can celebrate communion.

Confirmation is just saying "you want jesus to be your lord and savior."

These things isolated does not save.

Baptism actually washes away sins (saves a person) to where they have the grace and blessings of god. It is the only sacrament recognized by the church as a universal means for all christians saved by baptism (and yes, by the right formula but that wasn't my point).

The Eucharist ONLY brings the sincere ones who believe into the Body of Christ and Salvation.

I don't see how this has to do with either our points. When you are part of the body of course you are sincere. If not, why take the body?

True, but for most churches the 'Trinitarian baptismal formula' is necessary.

Catholics believe you are saved when you are baptized in the father, son, and holy spirit.

I was baptized "in the name of christ" and I had to basically fight to get baptized again (and was baptized again since the church didn't have my baptism-nor do they keep them-records) in the "right formula" as in scripture.

After that, the Church considers me christian and saved. Even if I go from the Church, I'm never divorced from her unless I do paperwork and divorce myself from the sacraments. I mean, yesterday the Legion of Mary visited me once a year to see how I'm doing, give me rosary, and offered for the deacon or priest to bless my home. What protestant church does that? I asked the protestant church for help with rent and they said they only help their own congregation. The Church paid my rent in full, gave me food, furniture, and clothing.

'Just being a Christian' in the view of the Roman Church does not represent Salvation.

Being Christian according to Roman Church means you've taken the sacraments of Christ. Being Catholic according to the Church means you have been baptized (in any christian church with the right formula) and taken the sacraments in the Catholic Church itself.

I do not believe that 'personal' opinion nor scripture addresses Salvation from the perspective of the Roman Church.

If you don't take the verses I cited into consideration, then of course you won't accept it. You're looking at gold. I am not.

Sacraments of Christ (sacred acts performed in devotion to christ)

1. Baptism (water and word-that is in scripture)
2. Confirmation (saying you want jesus to be your lord and savior-that's in scripture)
3. Confession (repentence to god is in scripture repeatedly)
4. Communion is in both OT and NT and repeated as a meal that brings brothers and sisters of christ and god together in one spirit.

Whether you believe this or not is your call. As a Bahai, I don't expect you to believe it as a Christian would. So...

The bold above is more like the view of some Protestant Churches like the Methodists who consider the 'Catholic' (body of Christ) as all who are Baptized and sincerely believe in the Apostles Creed without regard to which church you belong to. Salvation includes those without knowledge of Christ, and below the age of consent.

If you read my posts and link the Roman Catholic Church recognizes other churches as christian via baptism not their initiation in the Roman Catholic Church.

Being Catholic means you are in full union in one body of christ all around the world with all christians who are baptized. The difference is Catholics have physical sacraments. Other churches has symbolic sacraments.

To me they are the same in spirit but I do agree with the Church having the physical sacraments means a lot more (and has much stronger emphasis) than symbolic. But it depends on the individual person.

To understand this you have to read my posts and click the links.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I don't always have the time to quote. These aren't opinions, though. You just have to see pass the items and gold of the Church and actually participate it in to understand it spiritually.

I have difficulty dealing with personal opinion, because as individuals there is too much variability.I primarily argue from the perspective of what the Roman Church believes and teaches.

I have no concern for gold, and this a poor analogy.

Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation. Repentance, communion, and confirming one's vows are not. My other post with the citations does say that the Church recognizes (almost recently) that other christians are christians (aka are saved via baptism). However, their difference is that they don't see protestants as being part of the "full body" of Christ. Being part of his full body does not save someone. Though, I personally feel it is critical part in a christian's devotional life whether it be Catholicism (Roman or not) or any Church that comes together and actually worships with the sacraments (as cited and explained) of christ.

Being sincerely a part of the full body of Christ is indeed the definition of Salvation within the Roman Church.

From the source of the Guidelines For The Reception Of Communion: "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion." There are exceptions given special permission.

Repentance only tells god that you are sorry for your sins and you want to change

Communion only means you come together as one body of christ

The Eucharist is the lord's meal so that people can celebrate communion.

True, but the Eucharist is not generally open to those outside the Roman Church, nor is Salvation within the body of Christ.

Confirmation is reaching the age of consent where one makes a sincere commitment to become a part of the body of Christ within the Roman Church

Confirmation is just saying "you want jesus to be your lord and savior."

These things isolated does not save.

Correct, but neither does Baptism necessarily 'Save.'

Sincere commitment to the beliefs and commitment to the sacraments

Baptism actually washes away sins (saves a person) to where they have the grace and blessings of god. It is the only sacrament recognized by the church as a universal means for all christians saved by baptism (and yes, by the right formula but that wasn't my point).

It was my point, and the fact that the Roman Church only recognizes the Baptism that complies with their criteria.

I don't see how this has to do with either our points. When you are part of the body of course you are sincere. If not, why take the body?

Not necessarily, considering human nature insincerity is a possibility.


Catholics believe you are saved when you are baptized in the father, son, and holy spirit.

Again too simplistic, Baptism is necessary, but being Baptized does not translate to Salvation,


If you don't take the verses I cited into consideration, then of course you won't accept it. You're looking at gold. I am not.

This Duck Bob and Weave Dodge. No one is looking gold. Citations form scripture are nice, but they do not address the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church:

[/quote]
Sacraments of Christ (sacred acts performed in devotion to christ)

1. Baptism (water and word-that is in scripture)
2. Confirmation (saying you want jesus to be your lord and savior-that's in scripture)
3. Confession (repentence to god is in scripture repeatedly)
4. Communion is in both OT and NT and repeated as a meal that brings brothers and sisters of christ and god together in one spirit.[/quote]

Listing sacraments does not address the issue. The sacraments as defined by the Roman Church are necessary for 'Salvation,' and beyond Baptism by the specific formula, they are not recognized outside the Roman Church.

Whether you believe this or not is your call. As a Bahai, I don't expect you to believe it as a Christian would. So...

Not relevant in this discussion.

[/quote]
If you read my posts and link the Roman Catholic Church recognizes other churches as christian via baptism not their initiation in the Roman Catholic Church. [/quote]

Not in dispute, but it is only Baptism by the formula that is recognized by the Roman Church. The other Sacraments necessary for Salvation, are only offered within the Roman Church.
Being Catholic means you are in full union in one body of christ all around the world with all christians who are baptized. The difference is Catholics have physical sacraments. Other churches has symbolic sacraments.

To me they are the same in spirit but I do agree with the Church having the physical sacraments means a lot more (and has much stronger emphasis) than symbolic. But it depends on the individual person.

Outside the Roman Church the 'symbolic sacraments' are not accepted as valid, and it is not a matter of having much stronger empasis, nor dependent on the individual. It is a matter that other than Baptism, the sacraments necessary for salvation are unacceptable outside the Roman Church.

To understand this you have to read my posts and click the links.

I have clicked all references and they only confirm; "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You asked me to cite and I cited from scripture, the CCC, and the Catholic Conference Bishop website. Whether you read it or not, I don't know. What I say is not opinion. I just think many anti-catholics have so much bias of the Church it's hard to see it for the spiritual experience rather than cross references it with Pagan sources.

That is judging a person's relationship with Christ with Paganism.

I have difficulty dealing with personal opinion, because as individuals there is too much variability.I primarily argue from the perspective of what the Roman Church believes and teaches.

Since it is not personal opinion, you would need to actually need to read and click on the citations I gave you from the sources above.

Being sincerely a part of the full body of Christ is indeed the definition of Salvation within the Roman Church.

Who said it wasn't?

Why take the body of Christ if one is not sincere?

I ask again.

From the source of the Guidelines For The Reception Of Communion: "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion." There are exceptions given special permission.

True. The Eucharist is the heart of the Catholic Church.

Again, I provided citation that recently The Church accepted that person who has been baptized is considered Christian.

What they don't accept is that this baptized Christ is part of the body of Christ without the Church sacraments.

True, but the Eucharist is not generally open to those outside the Roman Church, nor is Salvation within the body of Christ.

Who said it was?

Confirmation is reaching the age of consent where one makes a sincere commitment to become a part of the body of Christ within the Roman Church

Yes. It's when, in protestant terms, one says "Jesus I want you to be my lord and savior."

Who is disagreeing with you?

Correct, but neither does Baptism necessarily 'Save.'

That is your opinion.

One cannot be part of any Church (according to Roman Catholicism) unless one has been baptized. I have cited that. It is also in scripture. Whether you have a grievance on Romans or not is on you. The Church isn't Roman.

Sincere commitment to the beliefs and commitment to the sacraments

Who disagrees?

It was my point, and the fact that the Roman Church only recognizes the Baptism that complies with their criteria.

Yes, who disagrees?

Not necessarily, considering human nature insincerity is a possibility.

Regardless, why would one take the body of christ if one is not sincere?

See positivity. I notice you and another Bahai doesn't see that. I don't know what's up with that.

Again too simplistic, Baptism is necessary, but being Baptized does not translate to Salvation,

That is your opinion.

I cited from CCC and that Bishop website, and scripture that baptism washes away sins. Salvation is one's sins are washed to be in union with god. The other sacraments do not save but are part of the salvation process.

If anything, I feel the Catholic Church (and lurtigical Churches) are more strict on baptism than many protestant Churches.

This Duck Bob and Weave Dodge. No one is looking gold. Citations form scripture are nice, but they do not address the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church:

"Looking at gold" means you're looking at the outside and never looking at who the Church stands for. You're being blinded by the political nature of the Church. As a result, judging one's relationship with Christ.

Then why ask for citation if you don't consider them part of the doctrine of the Roman Church.

Also, dogma are practices. Doctrines are teachings. We can call it different names but the bias between those two words don't change the definition that applies to many religions as well as organizations.

Also, scripture does have dogma (jesus life and apostle's life and creation of the Church) and teachings (well, the whole bible has doctrine or is doctrine)

Listing sacraments does not address the issue. The sacraments as defined by the Roman Church are necessary for 'Salvation,' and beyond Baptism by the specific formula, they are not recognized outside the Roman Church.

Wait, you said they are not necessary and now you say they are.

Where are we disagreeing?

If you read my posts and link the Roman Catholic Church recognizes other churches as christian via baptism not their initiation in the Roman Catholic Church.
[/QUOTE]

Where are we disagreeing?

I gave you similar citations.

Not in dispute, but it is only Baptism by the formula that is recognized by the Roman Church. The other Sacraments necessary for Salvation, are only offered within the Roman Church.

Yes. Who disagrees?

Outside the Roman Church the 'symbolic sacraments' are not accepted as valid, and it is not a matter of having much stronger empasis, nor dependent on the individual. It is a matter that other than Baptism, the sacraments necessary for salvation are unacceptable outside the Roman Church.

We finally disagree here. It is not symbolic.

Who said that the physical sacraments are valid outside the Church?

I compared the sacraments as repentance, vow to be christian, changing old to new in christ, and communion with the body with the spirit of christ in the last meal.

All Christian churches I've been to-and they are more than one, JW included, have the sacrament.

I have clicked all references and they only confirm; "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

Who is disagreeing with you?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The Catholic Church is the body of Christ.

I'm confused with the question.
You seemed to draw a distinction with your question:

How can you judge the body of Christ based on the political history of the Church?
On the one hand, you have "the body of Christ" and on the other, you have "the Church". If "the Catholic Church" and "the body of Christ" are the same thing, then why are you acting like the "very human faults" with the Catholic Church that shunyadragon points out don't reflect on "the body of Christ"?

Also, you seem to be begging the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is in fact the body of Christ.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Also, you seem to be begging the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is in fact the body of Christ.

Well, from the perspective of the Roman Church it is the body of Christ, and the only way of Salvation. It is not a logical conclusion, but a belief established in the doctrine and dogma, and the origin is in the citations from the Church Fathers.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If I had not been Catholic - and liked being Catholic - it would be harder to answer questions because there are so many bias around the Catholic Church; and, I don't care for bias.
On the one hand, you have "the body of Christ" and on the other, you have "the Church". If "the Catholic Church" and "the body of Christ" are the same thing, then why are you acting like the "very human faults" with the Catholic Church that shunyadragon points out don't reflect on "the body of Christ"?

I never said there were faults in the Catholic Church. I never brought that up as my point. I said people see so much negativity in The Church that I wonder if people indoctrinated in it have ever experienced the spiritual and positive nature The Church (all liturgical Churches) are.

When I was Catholic, I'd be shocked and insulted (well I was) when someone dislike the Church I was in body with because of, say, a hand full of priest who molested little boys. I thought "how do they know my relationship with christ by the church by what other people did?" When you accuse the Church, you accuse the whole body of Christ. (Body meaning group of people-a mass). You are not just accusing priests, bishops, and popes (unless it was explicitly stated here in this conversation; it was not) but everyone who is part of the Church.

@shunyadragon compared the Church with paganism. That means, to me and many Catholics, you are comparing a person's relationship with Christ to what they-Catholics themselves-feel are not of god. It's irony. Catholics do not believe in paganism because it is not part of Christianity.

Also, you seem to be begging the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is in fact the body of Christ.

Yes.

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ.

To simplify it.

A Church holds people who gather together in worship.
A body and mass means more than one person
Christ said if more than one person is present in his name, he is present
If you go to Mass (upper M) you will see more than one person.

Therefore the body of christ is present.

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ.

Whether you want to talk about if putting Roman in there invalidates the definitions, is up to you guys. I also told @shunyadragon that the Church isn't Roman.

I just happen to be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church and feel it does mirror scripture. That's me and thousands of Catholics etc. Not everyone agrees, but then thousands of denominations trying to hold the truth shocks me really. If I went off of who practices scripture, I'd say the Church hands down. If I said who knows more about scripture than any denomination I've been to, it would be JW.

I'm not bias about religion.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If I had not been Catholic - and liked being Catholic - it would be harder to answer questions because there are so many bias around the Catholic Church; and, I don't care for bias.

The razor edge strikes both ways.

@shunyadragon compared the Church with paganism. That means, to me and many Catholics, you are comparing a person's relationship with Christ to what they-Catholics themselves-feel are not of god. It's irony. Catholics do not believe in paganism because it is not part of Christianity.

I believe the comparison is valid, but of course, believers will not agree.

Queen of Heaven

Theotokos: How the Mother Goddess became Mary
Posted on September 1, 2010by Carisa

The Theotokos of Vladimir dates from the 12th Century. It is reputed to have been protecting Russia ever since.

Mary becomes Mother of God: The year 431 A.D. was a momentous one in the history of the Queen of Heaven. That’s the year the church fathers, meeting in Ephesus in modern day Turkey, officially declared that Mary is Theotokos, literally, in Greek, the one who gave birth to God. More commonly her title is paraphrased as Mother of God. This was an important political step, as it clarified for the theologians that Jesus was both God and man. Perhaps just as importantly, however, it pacified the people, who were demanding that Mary be acknowledged as a divinity.

Technically, the church denied Mary as divine, as a Goddess, but in practical terms, it conveyed a sense of holiness which made her a viable rival to that other popular Roman/Greek/Egyptian hybrid Goddess of the time, represented variously as Diana, Cybele, and Isis. As a result of their decision, Mary’s divinity has been able to shine through in art and writing and devotion of those who love her.

Beautiful artwork throughout the world depicts Mary holding her infant son exactly as Isis had done for thousands of years before her. Many a home today displays a Christmas creche with Mary tenderly watching over the babe who is God incarnate. Mary is referred to as Mother of God in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which together represent the majority of the Christian faithful.

Many people pray to this Queen of Heaven to intercede for them and miraculous cures and protections of entire countries in war are attributed to her and to her icons. The Vladimir Madonna, pictured above, is, for example, said to have saved Russia from Tamerlane in 1395, the Tatars in the 15th century, and even from Germany in World War II. A similar icon in Cosenza, Italy, has a spot which is said to represent the icon’s having absorbed the plague in the 16th Century and protected the city’s residents from that dread disease. And that’s just what her icons can do.

Here is a copy of what is claimed to be a very ancient prayer to Mary, dating to perhaps the 2nd or 3rd century:

We turn to you for protection,
Holy Mother of God
Listen to our prayers
and help us in our needs.
Save us from every danger,
glorious and blessed Virgin


Historical context of the year Mary was named Mother of God: The Roman Empire was in decline in 431 A.D. In just over 40 years, according to many historians, the Western Roman Empire, based in Rome, would fall. The West and East had split into separate empires by this time and the Eastern Empire would be ruled for another thousand years from Constantinople (now called Istanbul) in Turkey. We don’t hear as much about the Eastern half in school these days, but when we do, it’s usually referred to as the Byzantine Empire. The people who lived there, however, didn’t call themselves Byzantines. They called themselves Romans. Culture and learning continued there as the West sank into the Dark Ages and then developed the Medieval culture celebrated so often in legend and fairy tales. As the West declined, though, Christianity was on the rise.

How did Christianity take over the West? It started about 100 years before the church fathers met in Ephesus, when the emperor of a then united Rome, Emperor Constantine, converted after a successful battle which he attributed to intervention by the Christians’ God. The whole of Rome was converted officially under the later Emperor Theodosius in 391 AD. Then the empire split into eastern and western halves in 395 AD. The eastern empire was ruled from Constantinople, a city which had earlier been founded by Constantine (hence the name) as a Christian city. Much later, in the 11th century, the religion of the east, including Greece, Turkey, and southeastern Europe, was to split from Roman Catholicism, becoming the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox worshipers, like Catholics, venerate Mary.

In the year 431, though, the church was still more or less united and the church fathers met for the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus. Every time they met like this, theological ideas would be made into official dogma, churches with different theological ideas would be declared heretics and some churches would peel off from “mainstream” Christianity and generally fade into obscurity. This time, 250 bishops showed up to vote on whether Jesus was God and man both at the same time and, hence, whether Mary was literally the Mother of God. The pro-Theotokos (Mother of God) faction was backed, not surprisingly, by the Egyptians, who venerated images of Mary reminiscent of those of Isis. Bribes were given and fighting ensued in the streets in the lead-up to the bishops’ vote on this question. They voted yes, a group called the Nestorians went home really mad (also, heretics), and the crowds went wild, cheering in the streets when the vote was announced.


Model of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Photo by Zee Prime

Why the people loved it: To understand why church decisions are made and how they are received, it’s often very important to step outside the official documents and take a look at what else was going on at the time. It’s no coincidence, surely, that Ephesus was home to one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Temple of Artemis. Artemis (Roman Diana) was a powerful Greek Goddess, one of the 12 Olympians, a Virgin who protected mothers and children, a huntress often associated with the Moon. Her beautiful temple at Ephesus was reputedly torn down stone for stone by a Christian mob about 30 years before the Third Ecumenical Council met.


This statue of Artemis/Cybele shows her torso covered with breasts and her skirt covered with animals. It is from her temple at Ephesus and dates to the 1st century.


Artemis was, in Ephesus, merged, rather strangely, with the Earth Mother Goddess Cybele, who is the source of both the many breasted image of the Goddess (shown, left) and her association with animals. Perhaps most significantly, Cybele was the mother of a god-hero son Attis, who died and was resurrected by her. Cybele’s worship in Turkey may have been very ancient indeed. The Greeks considered her the Mother of the Gods, Magna Mater, and her symbolic images are consistent with those of a prehistoric Goddess worshiped in Turkey as early as 6,000 B.C. (That’s 2,000 years before some Biblical literalists believe the world began, and 4,000 years before Abraham became father of the Jewish people. Also, obviously, 6,000 years before the beginnings of Christianity.)

The simple fact of the matter, I believe, is that the people needed a divine mother. They had worshiped one for thousands of years here and with the church becoming increasingly male, patriarchal, monotheistic and intolerant of other religions, the people needed an outlet for their deeply felt desire to venerate the feminine divine. So it is perhaps no surprise that the people demanded that Mary be called Mother of God. And so she was. From 431 on, devotion to Mother Mary would grow in art and architecture, song and hymn. Prayers would go up to the Queen of Heaven, as they had for millennia, but increasingly it was by her new name, Mary, that the Great Mother would be called upon by the faithful."

Yes.

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ.

To simplify it.

A Church holds people who gather together in worship.
A body and mass means more than one person
Christ said if more than one person is present in his name, he is present
If you go to Mass (upper M) you will see more then one person.

Therefore the body of christ is present.

This is an assertion of faith ONLY believed by those who believe in the Roman Church

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ.

Whether you want to talk about if putting Roman in there invalidates the definitions, is up to you guys. I also told @shunyadragon that the Church isn't Roman.

If I were a believer I would call it the Roman Catholic Church, because I would believe it is the 'Universal' Church. but I do not believe this, therefore I believe it is the Roman Church headed by the Bishop of Rome.

I just happen to be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church and feel it does mirror scripture. That's me and thousands of Catholics etc. . .

Interesting, you consider the fact that you were 'confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church,' just happened to be. ? That's odd.

Not everyone agrees, but then thousands of denominations trying to hold the truth shocks me really.

Actually thousands of denominations do not all hold to the claims of the Roman Church, They each hold to one variation of the above.

If I went off of who practices scripture, I'd say the Church hands down. If I said who knows more about scripture than any denomination I've been to, it would be JW.

JW? Jehovah Witness? They take a harder line on the Trinity being pagan, and false beliefs than I do. In fact they command that their believers not even set foot in a Roman Church.

JW (Jehovah Witnesses) also believe in a literal YEC Creationist world view.

I'm not bias about religion.

Oh boy! If you expect me to believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you and you can go drive on any time you want, except in rush hour.

The bottom line is bias is a universal human attribute.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

I observed comments between a protestant poster who correctly pointed out that the RCC was not always a merciful and good organization in specific points of doctrine and practice, and a Catholic poster who pointed out that though the Roman Movement was indeed in, and part of “the Dark Ages”, still, it is changing and attempting to improve and that this should be expected. This point reminds us that other Christian movements are also in a similar, slow, and difficult process of evolution in their doctrines and practices. This "evolution" from one type of organization having certain characteristics into another organization having different characteristics is part of the phenomenon of history. Just as individuals change and evolve, organizations "evolve" and there are certain pressures, within and without, that causes certain evolutions of doctrine and practice.

For example, the various social pressures involving sexual orientation and its’ associated issues and the various reactions to these issues by certain religious movement provide us with examples of evolving doctrine and practices within some movements. (I am not trying to say what reactions are “right” or “wrong”, but simply that some churches and religious movements are adopting stances to these issues which they did not formerly have…they are “evolving” and “changing” in certain ways….) The Catholic posters' point regarding the concept to taking time to “mature” doctrinally is interesting and insightful to consider.

Christian movements such as the Protestants and Restorationists and other Christian religionists are allowed the great advantage of hind-sight and benefit from the other "older" religious movements in putting together their own base doctrines because they inherited multiple base doctrine from older religions who had to go through the very difficult and error prone process of working out certain points in their theological maturation. The “old Christianities” did (and are doing) a very, very, difficult thing.

It feels as though the certain threads become a systematic expose' of the deficiencies of Roman – type Christian theology (Perhaps sometimes the expose' started to counter historically inaccurate claims). Still there are some important HISTORICAL (if not religious) advantages of a study of “OLD” systems of Christian theology (i.e. The Coptic or Eastern orthodox; the Roman movement; or ANY of the older Judeo-christian systems of belief).

After the Apostles and Prophets died, certain amounts of theological confusion regarding details of the Christian religion and it’s unanswered details remained. What was one to teach in the face of a previously undescribed detail of doctrine? For example, Origen reminds us that in his day, the Christians did know whether God the Father had a body or not and so it had not been decided what they were to teach in this regard.

The various congregations were left to decide many such questions for themselves and as the different groups developed, their different answers to such questions with their differing theologies led to different Christian Movement developing different answers to the same theological questions just as new Movements nowadays have their own theologies and systematization of beliefs.

There was a time in the “earliest periods” of the Christian religious movement when a “proto-roman Catholicism” was also a very “young” Christian interpretation undergoing this same process of development as some protestants are now undergoing.


Many protestant Christian movements are still (historically) “young” Christian interpretational theories (i.e. in a relatively “young” stage of "maturation") compared to older theologies such as the Roman-type theology and the very old Coptic theologies and other equally old Christian movements.

The “older” Christian movements have had generations to develop and mature. They have had time to “think about” and work through and develop many doctrines which the “younger” interpretations have not yet worked out nor come to a consensus on what they are going to believe and teach as truth.

Another advantage of “older” theologies is that although older belief systems (such as the romans or the Coptic or the remnants of any of the earliest Christian congregations) may not possess all of the original doctrines and traditions, still, a few of their traditions and doctrines were created inside the milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and thus many of their traditions seem to retain distinct remnants of many of the earliest Christian traditions.

In contrast, the later Christian movements and their more modern interpretations that were developed in the more modern times were developed outside of that same ancient milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and some of them may not have ANY remnant of specific yet profoundly important early Judeo-Christian doctrines and early Judao-Christian traditions that formed much of the conceptual basis of early and authentic Judeo-Christian religion. For example, though the Catholic version of Purgatory as a “world of spirits” is not the same as the early Judeo-Christian textual version, still, they have a version that is a wonderful base doctrine while many of the younger Christian Movements seen among the several “protestant” Movements lack even a model for the base doctrine.

Some of the younger, or more “modern” Christian movement have less developed, more nebulous concepts concerning early doctrines, and often, they simply lack certain early doctrines altogether. To the degree that they lack the logical framework and concepts that underlie the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian worldview, they are left with less logical, less fair, less authentic versions of the ancient Judeo-Christianity. For these ”younger” Christian movement, some of these early orthodox doctrines have become “heterodox” or frankly “heretical”. Thus, some of the early “truths” have become “error” and “error” has become “truth” (in certain Christian religious system of belief).


For me, this is part of the great value of a study of the early Christian religions such as the Coptic movement and Roman movement and other older, earlier versions of Judeo-Christianity. At least they have remnants of certain doctrines; debris from an earlier theology (as well as some of the very solid doctrines as well). It does not bother me at all that the RCC is evolving away from certain errors and toward certain reforms. In fact, I honor them for any such efforts they make to correct and improve their theological stance.


Clear
ειδρσιακω
 
Last edited:

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
He has two natures - one human and one divine - which are separate and operate in tandem, but are still part of the same being. In this way, God can take on the human burden of sin as a human. There's no other way I can possibly explain it.
I would suspect the reason it's hard to explain is that it's a parroted "explanation" from church authorities. If Jesus had two natures, then unless he can turn one off or something for Plot Convenience, he must still have all abilities granted by those natures.

It's not too hard to explain only because god can't be around sin. Any sin he either destroyed or told people who have not sinned that they cannot see him because of his holiness. (Thinking of the Moses/bush thing).
He didn't have a problem visiting with the first few sinners in Genesis. I think ultimately God just got over visiting.

Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation.
Which goes to show that Jesus can be just as weird.

Fellow Jews: We have a bunch of rituals to make God happy about you.

Jesus: Bah! We don't need rituals!

Jesus' followers: How do we live?

Jesus: There are some rituals that will make God happy about you ....

Fellow Jews: *facepalm*
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I observed comments between a protestant poster who correctly pointed out that the RCC was not always a merciful and good organization in specific points of doctrine and practice, and Catholic poster who pointed out that though the Roman Movement was indeed in, and part of “the Dark Ages” but is still changing and attempting to improve and that this should be expected. This point reminds us that other Christian movements are also in a similar, slow, and difficult process of evolution in their doctrines and practices. This "evolution" from one type of organization with certain characteristics into another organization having different characteristics is part of the phenomenon of history. Just as individuals change and evolve, organizations "evolve" and there are certain pressures, within and without, that causes certain evolutions of doctrine and practice.

For example, the various social pressures involving sexual orientation and its’ associated issues and the various reactions to these issues by certain religious movement provide us with examples of evolving doctrine and practices within some movements. (I am not trying to say what reactions are “right” or “wrong”, but simply that some churches and religious movements are adopting stances to these issues which they did not formerly have…they are “evolving” and “changing” in certain ways….) The Catholic posters point regarding the concept to taking time to “mature” doctrinally is interesting to consider.

Protestants and Restorationists and other Christian religionists are allowed the great advantage of hind-sight and benefiting from other religious movements in putting together their own base doctrines whereas those they inherited base doctrine from older religions who had to go through the very difficult and error prone process of working out certain points in their theological maturation. The “old Christianities” did (and are doing) a very, very, difficult thing.

It feels as though the certain threads become a systematic expose' of the deficiencies of Roman – type Christian theology (Perhaps sometimes it was to counter historically inaccurate claims). Still there are some important HISTORICAL (if not religious) advantages of a study of “OLD” systems of Christian theology (i.e. The Coptic or Eastern orthodox; the Roman movement; or ANY of the older Judeo-christian systems of belief).

After the Apostles and Prophets died, certain amounts of theological confusion regarding details of the Christian religion and it’s unanswered details remained. What was one to teach in the face of a previously undescribed detail of doctrine? For example, Origen reminds us that in his day, the Christians did know whether God the Father had a body or not and so it had not been decided what they were to teach in this regard.

The various congregations were left to decide many such questions for themselves and as the different groups developed, their different answers to such questions with their differing theologies led to different Christian Movement developing different answers to the same theological questions just as new Movements nowadays have their own theologies and systematization of beliefs.

There was a time in the “earliest periods” of the Christian religious movement when a “proto-roman Catholicism” was also a very “young” Christian interpretation undergoing this same process of development as some protestants are now undergoing.


Many protestant Christian movements are still (historically) “young” Christian interpretational theories (i.e. in a relatively “young” stage of "maturation") compared to older theologies such as the Roman-type theology and the very old Coptic theologies and other equally old Christian movements.

The “older” Christian movements have had generations to develop and mature. They have had time to “think about” and work through and develop many doctrines which the “younger” interpretations have not yet worked out nor come to a consensus on what they are going to believe and teach as truth.

Another advantage of “older” theologies is that although older belief systems (such as the romans or the Coptic or the remnants of any of the earliest Christian congregations) may not possess all of the original doctrines and traditions, still, a few of their traditions and doctrines were created inside the milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and thus many of their traditions seem to retain distinct remnants of many of the earliest Christian traditions.

In contrast, the Christian movements and their more modern interpretations that were developed in the more modern times were developed outside of that same milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and some of them may not have ANY remnant of specific yet profoundly important early Judeo-Christian doctrines and early Judao-Christian traditions that formed much of the conceptual basis of early and authentic Judeo-Christian religion. For example, though the Catholic version of Purgatory as a “world of spirits” is not the same as the early Judeo-Christian textual version, still, they have a version that is a wonderful base doctrine while many of the younger Christian Movements seen among the several “protestant” Movements lack even a model for the base doctrine.

Some of the younger, or more “modern” Christian movement have less developed, more nebulous concepts concerning early doctrines, and often, they simply lack certain early doctrines altogether. To the degree that they lack the logical framework and concepts that underlie the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian worldview, they are left with less logical, less fair, less authentic versions of the ancient Judeo-Christianity. For these ”younger” Christian movement, some of these early orthodox doctrines have become “heterodox” or frankly “heretical”. Thus, some of the early “truths” have become “error” and “error” has become “truth” (in certain Christian religious system of belief).


For me, this is part of the great value of a study of the early Christian religions such as the Coptic movement and Roman movement and other older, earlier versions of Judeo-Christianity. At least they have remnants of certain doctrines; debris from an earlier theology (as well as some of the very solid doctrines as well). It does not bother me at all that the RCC is evolving away from certain errors and toward certain reforms. In fact, I honor them for any such efforts they make to correct and improve their theological stance.


Clear
ειδρσιακω

I also study the history of ALL religions of the world to understand their evolving nature over time, and they all have this in common. They retain many of their cultural rituals, and in some ways try evolve in some aspects of the changing world around them.

I consider this more a humanist effort as you are describing it to change and reform in response to a changing world, and not rooted in Revelation, In fact, what happens is the religion divides and morphs when different groups disagree on the need for change, some believe there is no need to change, and the result many variations of the religion. The different religions deeply rooted in a scripture retain a strong cultural identity rooted in ancient mythology and legends, which make it difficult to represent the diverse natural universal spiritual nature of the evolving nature of being human. This is compounded by each religion or division claiming to be the only 'True Way' in one way or another. Over time it becomes very difficult to rationally and logically to choose one over the the multitude of possibilities.

I believe there are two ways to view this: (1) The humanist view that this simply represents a natural human evolution of cultures and societies as expressed in the different religions and diverse beliefs. (2) There is a spiritual natural evolution of humanity, based on Progressive Revelation with a purpose of Creation by God. I at present am a Baha'i and believe in this option.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What I presented were honest objections,

Beliefs in the Fall and Original Sin are also problematic, and also based on ancient mythology.
Why "objections"? Why "problematic"?

Don't you think that anyone can do exactly the same with your religious beliefs? Are you so certain that yours are so correct that all deviations from yours must be "problematic"? Even if your view of Mary being a "goddess" as supposedly taught within Catholicism were to be true, which it is not, so what? Why is that supposedly "problematic"?

Personally, I disagree with probably about 99.9% of all Catholic theological teachings, but I certainly don't consider what they do teach and believe to be "problematic"? My view tends to be more of a "live and let live" approach.
 
Top