I'm not a Catholic, but I hear many Christians say Catholics (most, not all, depending on their specific beliefs) are not really Christian, and that they go to hell. I really don't have a big opinion on the matter though.
Any opinions on this?
Actually, I know a number of people who do not listen to their mothers and some of them have been better for it.
Why go through a mediatrix when one can go straight to The Man Himself?
There is no warrant in the Scriptures to do such a thing.
Again, I grant that there are a lot of Roman Catholics I consider Christian and there are a bunch that I do not consider Christians. t the same time there are a whole lot of Protestants that I consider not Christians. It's not where one pitches one's tent. It's all about who one serves and leans upon.
By the way, many of the Hispanic Roman Catholics I know do not even call themselves Christians. They call themselves Catholics. To them Christians are Protestants. If a family member starts attending a Protestant church or meeting they will say, "He became a Christian."
You just defined a Christian ans someone who meets your definition.
Sorry, but not every christian comes from and with a Northern European farme of reference.
OK. In the first place, His first recorded miracle came about from listening to His mother...Cannae, Wedding Reception, wine shortage...So there is ample evidence that He does listen to Mom. Nobody says He does everything she says, but He does listen to her.
Using intermediaries is in the Catholic tradition. We pray through them not to them.
As to whether or not Catholics are Christians, I humbly suggest you check out the Creed that is part of every Catholic Mass. Rather adequately answers the entire false premise that Catholics aren't Christians.
Once again, you're getting stuck on semantics. You are presenting Protestants as some sort of monolithic religous construct. My experience has been that the only commonality among Protestant faiths is that they're Christians who are not Roman Catholics. And Roman Catholic covers a huge range of territory, worship practices, local traditions, etc, etc, etc.
As to the "He became a Christian" comments,, please note that it was breaka way Protestants who started that little linguistic blip, about 600 years ago.
And you seem to have forgotten the incident while Jesus was in the Temple and Mary and his brothers came to the Temple to take him away from what the saw as a dangerous situation and Jesus said, (and I paraphrase) "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Those with whom I am are my kin."
The traditional definition of a Protestant is the doctrine is defined and blueprinted by Sola Scriptura. Remember it was the Protestants, beginning with Wycliffe (at least for those who spoke English) who first translated the Bible into the vernacular. If it had not been for Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther we would still have a Latin Bible which the common man could not read. It would be as useful as the Vedas are to the average East Indian. In other words, one would have to rely on a priest to tell one what it said.
Of course Protestants are not monolithic. They have never claimed to be. Using your definition Eastern Orthodox and Copts would be Protestants and no Protestant has claimed that those two groups are Protestant. A wit once wrote that Protestants, having once they realized that they could get away with protesting, never stopped doing so. To put it too simply, Protestantism is based on the Scriptures and the idea of the priesthood of believers.
And, of course I have a definition of what I think a Christian is. You do too. Otherwise you wouldn't bother to write on the topic. Everyone has a definition whether they are a believer or not.
To recite the Creed pro forma does not mean that one believes the Creed (whether Nicene, Apostles, or Athanasian). Members of very liberal Episcopal congregations that give the same creedence to the teachings of the Buddha and Mohammed and Lao-Tzu as they do to the Bible recite one of the Creeds every Sunday and yet hold the Creeds in no higher regard than the Tao Te Ching, the Koran or the Diamond Sutra. To recite a Creed does not mean that one actually believes them. And note that none of the accepted Creeds mention the Virgin Mary or the saints as conduits to Christ. Believers are the saints. Saints, are by definition, those set apart from the world.
Linguistic blip? An Irishman who moves from the Roman Catholic Church to a Baptist church is not described by his family as becoming a Christian. He is described as becoming a Protestant. The same holds true for a Frenchman, and American an Englishman or a Pole. Those people have not fallen for the linguistic trick. If you had ever seen a celebration of the Feast Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe at the cathedral in Mexico City you would see that for a lot of people the Virgin of Guadalupe has replaced Christ.
This is something on which we will have to agree to disagree. But I hope that if you and I should ever meet we'll be able to clasp hands as brothers in Christ and share fellowship.
OK, but... (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
If all the Hispanic Roman Catholics on earth say this, it still doesn't make it true. Many people making a mistake doesn't make it no longer a mistake.
Exactly what are you talking about?
Check out Mr. Payton's reemarks immediately preceding Mr. Maloney's reply.
I don't know why this was resurrected but this argument is as old as y'all's schisms. We should discuss a far more interesting question:
"Are Roman Catholics really catholic?"
A better question would be how many Protestants are Christians. How far can you deviate from traditional Christianity before you've left it altogether? I find it hard to consider any school of belief "Christian" once they have rejected the efficacy of Baptism.
Heh. "I know you are but what am I?". Always "a better question".
Oh, come off it. If we're coming up with a definition of Christianity that excludes some self-proclaimed Christians, it seems like part of that is going back and looking at what Christians have traditionally believed. Given the prominence that the Sacraments have played throughout the history of the Christianity, and given the near universal belief in Baptism.
The world has 1.2 billion Catholics, 230 million Eastern Orthodox, and 82 million Oriental Orthodox. There have been people following the basic teachings of these Churches for pushing 2000 years. When it comes to the basics of the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, we're basically in agreement with the majority of the 82 million Anglicans and 75 million Lutherans.
Repeatedly, small minority sects who invented themselves by inflicting Enlightenment or Romantic errors onto the Bible, who reject teachings that, though most of Christianity's history, were both universally accepted and considered to be core doctrines, and that continue to be held as such by the vast majority of Christians, come out and insist that Catholics are the ones who aren't Christians. It's ridiculous.
I don't generally waste time worrying about who can call themselves Christian. God can sort out who's who. But, if some Baptist or SDA preacher somewhere wants to argue about who's Christian, I think the burden is on him to demonstrate that his beliefs are in line with Christianity.
Tradition isn't the deciding factor. Salvation is.
Baptists do Baptism and Communion ... FYI.