Are Roman Catholics Christians?

[Thriller]

Hmm, no, I guess you're operating on assumptions and haven't really read my posts.

No, that's not what I've been saying. He mentioned a possibility and I attempted to demonstrate how that particular possibility clearly is NOT universally recognised. That is all.

Whether it can be defined or not, I have never addressed. Oftentimes, religious authorities define what is and what is not a member of their particular faith. You have created a whole new tangent, here. My original claim was that a major distinction between Roman Catholicism and many Evangelical movements is that one claims that the Pope is the ultimate earthly representation of religious authority and the other claims that the ultimate representation of earthly authority is the Bible.

Authority is admittedly a poor revealer of reality, but we are operating within the theoretical framework of a particular faith.


Agapooka

I was just assuming that was what you were getting at. True i didn't read word for word but i read everything you cited above.

And if you want to get nitpicky, that is false dichotomy. For catholics The pope is god's translator. Since the bible is the message of God, the will of God is difficult to understand, it is the pope who gets the job to give the proper context of Gods word to the people( as best he can). Protestants groups basically just believe there religious leaders( or themselves) can do it better then the Vatican hierarchy. Go to any religious service of any church which holds the bible as its book, and you'll hear somebody trying to tell someone else what god is saying.

[agapooka]

Not to be nitty picky, but the two don't compare.

The Pope is believed to be infallible, whereas the Protestant church leaders are not. Many times, the Pope can supersede the scriptures, for what he says is of higher importance to a Catholic than what is written.


Agapooka

[Thriller]

Not to be nitty picky, but the two don't compare.

The Pope is believed to be infallible, whereas the Protestant church leaders are not. Many times, the Pope can supersede the scriptures, for what he says is of higher importance to a Catholic than what is written.


Agapooka

No pooka, he doesn't supersede the scriptures, he understands their meaning better than you do, understand?

And who is being hyperbolic now, there are many preachers who believe their translation of god's word to be infallible. Look at Waco or the WBC

[agapooka]

No pooka, he doesn't supersede the scriptures, he understands their meaning better than you do, understand?

And who is being hyperbolic now, there are many preachers who believe their translation of god's word to be infallible. Look a the Waco or the WBC

Someone's getting pumped up. Fine, so perhaps he doesn't officially supersede them in the sense of contradicting them, but he is allowed to add to what is written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


As for preachers who believe that their interpretation is infallible and of the sects that build around them, who says that there may not be controversy concerning whether or not they ought to be defined as "Christians"? Who says that they represent the norm in the Protestant world? I'm only comparing what seems to be the norm within the Protestant world to what seems to be the norm within the Catholic world and here you are getting all pumped up...


Agapooka

[Thriller]

So in summary, i'm right.

and to what you consider the norm, is to be inferred as more logical than when Hitchcock does the same thing.

[agapooka]

You seem to be having your own dialogue, here, putting words in my mouth and all. Nowhere did I claim that the apparent norm is more logical. I chose two predominant brands of self-proclaimed Christianity and offered a comparison.

If I mentioned this when discussing with hitchkok, it may have been for clarity's sake.

And you're right? About what? I was hypothesizing over one concept and thus far you haven't successfully contradicted the concept that mainstream Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism have different forms of ultimate religious authorities.

It is quite clearly stated that papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church, whereas there is no similar dogma of Pastoral infallibility in mainstream Protestantism. I never claimed that the Catholic Church ignores the Bible completely, but if the Catholic's interpretation must first pass through the Pope, is the Pope's religious authority not greater than the text's if the average Catholic must accept the Pope's interpretation and not form their own from the text? Note the "if".

That is not to say that either party has the truth or the monopoly over the term "Christianity".

Cheers,


Agapooka

[Thriller]

I may not have demonstrated ideas to the goals you have just come up with. but i am not a fisherman of red herring.

Because it is clearly evident that protestants and catholics do have different religious authorities. But they also both center around the religious text of the bible. A book that each group cannot could not be removed from. A book that each believe they understand better than the other.

Dogma's also differ from group to group, The infallibility of the pope does in know way remove from center, the holy text of the bible from catholic worship. ( wasn't that what we were talking about?). It just allocates power to the position of being ultimate interpreter. The word of God is infallible, if your are catholic or protestant, Each group differ's on God's meanings.

I was raised catholic, just so you know pooka.

Ill give you the ultimate catholic heiarchy

GOD; it is a trinity; the father, Son, and holyspirit.
The word of GOD; just as important as GOD but you do not worship the word. this is the bible, and other writings believed written through god's revelations to men.
The Pope; Who is in charge of spreading and interpreting the word of god.

now there is some logical problems with that but for catholics it's the way it is.

[agapooka]

I didn't just make up that goal. Here are quotes from the varying posts I've made in this thread. The first quote is from my first post in this thread.

...a simple matter of observing what each party perceives as the ultimate earthly symbol of religious authority. Catholics claim that this is the pope, whereas Protestants claim that it is the Bible.

Similarly, many in the Protestant world claim that the Catholic Church strays from the scriptures through its worship of Mary, its teachings that one must pray to the saints or petition Mary in order to access God and so forth.

My original claim was that a major distinction between Roman Catholicism and many Evangelical movements is that one claims that the Pope is the ultimate earthly representation of religious authority and the other claims that the ultimate representation of earthly authority is the Bible.

The Pope is believed to be infallible, whereas the Protestant church leaders are not.

...thus far you haven't successfully contradicted the concept that mainstream Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism have different forms of ultimate religious authorities.

If he cannot be questioned, the final interpreter is, for all practical purposes, the final authority, because his interpretation overrides anyone else's, including direct examination of the text. If one's conclusions from directly examining the text can override anyone else's interpretation, then, the ultimate authority is the text.

My father used to be a protestant pastor and I grew up literally living in a church, but hey, I'm not condemning either group here. I currently consider myself an agnostic, if you haven't been able to gather that from my particular view of reality as unknowable with the tools we have as humans.


Cheers,

Agapooka

[Hitchkok]

An oddity... you claim that adherence to the Bible is not necessary to constitute a Christian, yet you insist that one must adhere to the Bible to obtain the definitions required to know who is and who isn't a Christian.

where is the oddity?
one does not need to know psychology to be paranoid, yet a knowledge ("adherence") of psychological writings is needed to define him as such.
one does not need to be a scholar of philosophy to be a rationalist, yet knowledge of philosophy is needed to define him as such.
similarily, one does not need to read the scriptures to be a christian (as, BTW, this comic and the like of it states repeatedly), however knowledge of the scriptures is required to define him as such.

Furthermore, you only repeat your claim that your definition of a Christian as an individual who believes that Jesus Christ is the messiah is universally accepted and you attempt to draw a distinction between a religious Christian and simply a Christian, whereas we are both likely to agree that Christianity *is* a religion. I know some who disagree.

this is true. however, in every religion, every person chooses his level of religiousnes. just as there are jews who believe in god, yet eat pig's meat, and just as there are muslims who believe in god, yet drink alcohol, there are christians who believe jesus is the messiah, yet fail to adhere to his teaching.

On another note, you failed to address my most relevant criticism of your definition of a Christian, which is that it is incomplete. It remains that, as a complete definition, it is far from universally accepted.

why? you failed to provide one point to justify this.

My original claim was that a major distinction between Roman Catholicism and many Evangelical movements is that one claims that the Pope is the ultimate earthly representation of religious authority and the other claims that the ultimate representation of earthly authority is the Bible.

true. however, representation of religious authority is not sinonymus with religious believe. catholics, protestants, evangelical, Jehowa witnesses and messianic jews (which, despite their name, are christians), all have different takes on the religious authority. all also consider jesus to be son of god, a part of the holy trinity, and the messiah.

Not to be nitty picky, but the two don't compare.

The Pope is believed to be infallible, whereas the Protestant church leaders are not. Many times, the Pope can supersede the scriptures, for what he says is of higher importance to a Catholic than what is written.

this is actually derived from jewish tradition. in the jewish tradition, once the bible was given at mount sinai, it is permitted to be interpreted, and those interprtation are considered to be just as valid as god's own words.

Nowhere did I claim that the apparent norm is more logical.

no you didn't. i, however, claimed it to be true, by definition.
as we're talking logical methodology and theological substance, the norm doesn't have to be rigidly logical.

It is quite clearly stated that papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church, whereas there is no similar dogma of Pastoral infallibility in mainstream Protestantism. I never claimed that the Catholic Church ignores the Bible completely, but if the Catholic's interpretation must first pass through the Pope, is the Pope's religious authority not greater than the text's if the average Catholic must accept the Pope's interpretation and not form their own from the text? Note the "if".

no. it is, as thriller very clearly explained, greater than the laymen's authority.

If he cannot be questioned, the final interpreter is, for all practical purposes, the final authority, because his interpretation overrides anyone else's, including direct examination of the text. If one's conclusions from directly examining the text can override anyone else's interpretation, then, the ultimate authority is the text.

that's false. say you are in a multi national military unit, where the commander only speak czech, and you only speak russian. the russian intreprater will be, for all practical purposes the final authority, because his interpretation overrides anyone else's, including direct examination of the text. this, however, does not mean he is the commander of the unit.

I was raised catholic, just so you know pooka.

My father used to be a protestant pastor and I grew up literally living in a church, but hey, I'm not condemning either group here. I currently consider myself an agnostic, if you haven't been able to gather that from my particular view of reality as unknowable with the tools we have as humans.

while were in the bussines of making personal statements, i'm a secular jew, my father was religious until he was 18, his family still is, i have some knowledge of judaism, and consider myself an atheist.

[agapooka]

A few quick points before I sleep:

1. The Russian interpreter analogy does not work, because the Russian interpreter is not "infallible."

2. Concerning this:

why? you failed to provide one point to justify [the criticism that hitchkok's definition of a Christian is incomplete].

In fact, I justified it by demonstrating that I can remain within the limits of the definition you provided and produce a situation that is far from commonly accepted. This tells me that the definition is not simultaneously complete and commonly accepted. Essentially, belief in Jesus Christ as the messiah does not suffice. One must also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as opposed to a reptilian warlord, for example. The Nicene Creed is one of the accepted methods of defining a Christian and it goes further than the simple belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

true. however, representation of religious authority is not sinonymus with religious believe. catholics, protestants, evangelical, Jehowa witnesses and messianic jews (which, despite their name, are christians), all have different takes on the religious authority. all also consider jesus to be son of god, a part of the holy trinity, and the messiah.

Two questions:

a. What if a group explicitly denies being Christian, despite fitting your definition? Let's imagine, for example, a group which believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God and part of the Trinity, yet they reject the Bible, believe that Samwise Gamgee wrote the true account of Jesus' story. According to this story, Jesus came down to earth and saved sinners by imparting the knowledge of nanotechnology to them, which they used to create replicator demigods that protect them from the Roman Empire and international communism. This group calls itself the Goa'ulds and are currently suing MGM for misrepresentation and libel.

b. If we claim that various systems are united in that they share a belief in the Bible, religious authority might bear relevance insofar as it adds to or takes away from the written doctrine, thereby no longer interpreting it, but changing it.


Agapooka

[Hitchkok]

A few quick points before I sleep:

1. The Russian interpreter analogy does not work, because the Russian interpreter is not "infallible."

if the commander decrees that the commands the interprter issues are as good as his (and this is the actual catholic dogma), he is.
of course, you only have the interpreter word for it, but this is the case with the pope aswell.
2. Concerning this:

why? you failed to provide one point to justify [the criticism that hitchkok's definition of a Christian is incomplete].

In fact, I justified it by demonstrating that I can remain within the limits of the definition you provided and produce a situation that is far from commonly accepted. This tells me that the definition is not simultaneously complete and commonly accepted. Essentially, belief in Jesus Christ as the messiah does not suffice. One must also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as opposed to a reptilian warlord, for example. The Nicene Creed is one of the accepted methods of defining a Christian and it goes further than the simple belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

point taken, and i'll ammend my definition to include the belief in jesus as son of god.

true. however, representation of religious authority is not sinonymus with religious believe. catholics, protestants, evangelical, Jehowa witnesses and messianic jews (which, despite their name, are christians), all have different takes on the religious authority. all also consider jesus to be son of god, a part of the holy trinity, and the messiah.

Two questions:

a. What if a group explicitly denies being Christian, despite fitting your definition? Let's imagine, for example, a group which believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God and part of the Trinity, yet they reject the Bible, believe that Samwise Gamgee wrote the true account of Jesus' story. According to this story, Jesus came down to earth and saved sinners by imparting the knowledge of nanotechnology to them, which they used to create replicator demigods that protect them from the Roman Empire and international communism. This group calls itself the Goa'ulds and are currently suing MGM for misrepresentation and libel.

this is actually two questions.
1) what if a group that fits my definition denies being christian?
2) what if such a group has an unorthodox take on christianity?

my answers are:
1) such group would need to explain why they believe they are not christian, and what differs them from christianity. having said that, if they believe jesus to be the son of god and the messiah (messiah being sinonymus with christ), i will most likely classify them as christian, as much as it will not be to their liking.
2) mormons also has an unorthodox take on christianity, (just read the book of mormon). they are, however, widely accepted as christians. why? because they believe Jesus is the son of god and the messiah.

here's what wikipedia has to say about the book of mormon
[spoiler]The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement. It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi. According to Smith, the book was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" on golden plates that he discovered in 1823 and then translated. The plates, Smith said, had been buried in a hill near his home in Manchester, New York, where he found them by the guidance of an angel, a resurrected[2] ancient American prophet-historian named Moroni.[/spoiler]

b. If we claim that various systems are united in that they share a belief in the Bible, religious authority might bear relevance insofar as it adds to or takes away from the written doctrine, thereby no longer interpreting it, but changing it.
Agapooka

yes, but there is still a common base.

now, let's clarify.
i claim that a belief in jesus as the son of god and a messiah is a sufficient term to define a christian. you claim it is a neccessery term, but not a sufficient one.
my main argument is that this definition is universally accepted, and seeing that it is a tehological debate, and not a logical one, the criterion of common acceptence is a sufficient one.
you claim it is not universally accepted as sufficient term. i will agree to this if you can produce an adequte qoutes from a reliable source, which defines another terms.

[agapooka]

I found interesting things in my search.

This Book

This Page

A quote from the above page may explain our current conundrum.

Below is an article defining once and for all what is a Christian. It's such a quagmire that even believers themselves cannot agree. I find it absolutely hilarious that any of these apologists has the gall to tell anyone else what is a Christian. ;-)

Honestly, it's an entertaining post.

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

I've had a read through these arguments and a few things jumped out that I would like to clarify:

Catholics broke the rules by worshipping Mary and praying to Saints. Not true. There is a difference between veneration and worship. If you recite the Hail Mary, you will notice that it is a request for the Blessed Mother to pray for us. The same goes for the so-called "praying to Saints", which is also a simple request for intercession on our behalf. The bond of Christian brethren is not broken by Earthly death. We ask other living Christians to pray for us in times of need. Why can we not ask a dead one? Especially one we know is close to God.

The Bible is the only rule of Christianity. Catholics know this concept as 'Sola Scriptura'. The early Church survived without what we know as "The Bible" for a few hundred years (can't remember exactly how long). The Old Testament is used by the Church as a historical account of the faith of man. The New Testament contains the teachings of Christ and the following formation of his Church. The Church decided to compile a book, containing the texts they considered to be most inspired by the Holy Spirit. They have (or did have) other texts, which are equally profound, yet not found in the Bible. The Canon and practices of the Catholic Church are based on many teachings and writings that were not eventually included in the Bible. As I have said previously, if every profound act of Christ and his followers were put into the Bible, it would be incomprehensibly massive. I hate it when other Christians leap around, waiving Bibles in our faces... when it comes to the New Testament, we literally wrote the book.

I question the validity of the Bible, because parts of it contradict each other. This trait is also common amongst every subjective/interpretive science in the world. Do all of the Sociology books in your library represent society in the same way? Do all philosophical works portray the same understandings of the universe? All knowledge is subjective. If anything, the inconsistencies throughout the Bible show that man is not perfect in his interpretation of the word and will of God. It makes me think about the reason behind my faith. I have to think for myself, rather than follow a homogenous instruction manual.

Papal Infallibility is rubbish. The concept does not mean that the Pope is never wrong. It refers to the idea that the Pope is incapable of willfully teaching against the doctrines and interests of the Church. Example: The Church teaches that Christ was Pure God, yet also Pure Man. One particular heretical Catholic sect decided to believe that Christ was Pure God posing the illusion of man. They had the ear of one Papal candidate, who promised that he would teach their heresy (he obviously didn't call it that if he agreed) if he were to become Pope, which eventually came to be. But when it came time to teach the heresy, he reneged and said that he could not teach against the beliefs of the Church. That is Papal infallibility, not some misguided idea that the Pope is never wrong.

Hope that clarifies some things.

[agapooka]

Why do Catholics use an intermediary such as Mary or a Saint instead of praying directly? Is it common practice to also pray to God directly?

Agapooka

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

It is indeed common to pray directly to God. "Our Father, who art in Heaven...." and so-forth.

I'm only arguing against the claim that asking other Christians to pray for us is wrong. It is equally common to ask other Christians to pray with us in times of need.