Are Catholics considered Christian???

[Jazmommie]

A friend & I were discussing this yesterday-she is a 'Christian " in that she believes Jesus died for her sins .
I was raised Luthern & became Catholic in 1997.

I also believe that Jesus died for our sins,( I also believe in reincarnation,that Jesus had past lives but was the Son of God-learned about this from Edgar Cayce stuff mostly---Jesus was born of Virgin Mary-suffered ,died & rose again)
Since I do believe Jesus died for my sins ,am I a Christian???

Sorry if this is confusing to some .

[Wildcrafter]

It is my understanding that all religions that encompass Christ as savior is Christian.

[PurpleBasil]

Are Catholics considered Christian???

Dunno if they are 'considered Christian' but they self id as Catholic and as I understand it, prefer it to stay that way, thank you very much!

Any religion where one is encouraged to pray to dead people isn't Christian in my holy book. Including Catholicism and it's santas...Bible forbades contacting the dead.

[chfriend]

Yes, Catholics are Christians.

[Amazlilith]

Originally posted by playdoh
Are Catholics considered Christian???

Dunno if they are 'considered Christian' but they self id as Catholic and as I understand it, prefer it to stay that way, thank you very much!

Any religion where one is encouraged to pray to dead people isn't Christian in my holy book. Including Catholicism and it's santas...Bible forbades contacting the dead.

This comment is ignorant and self-righteous. Yes of course Catholics are Christians. All others are called PRODESTANT religions, but are also Christians.

[Midnight Mom]

Interesting questions! I'd never thought about it this way. I was raised catholic, left and followed non-denominational christianity for a while.

My first reaction was of course catholics are christian, due to belief in jesus christ as savior. But at the same time they are separated from christians...like they [i]usually[i] aren't lumped in with all other denominations of christianity, when referring to christians. But I do think you are christian, if you're catholic.

[PurpleBasil]

I am not ignorant, nor self righteous in this area.

Website removed!

:hippie

In many areas of Catholicism, there is no Biblical basis for the practices. Does the Bible encourage bowing down or kissing statues? How about praying to saints? Or that Mary was a Virgin for life?

[Irishmommy]

Well in the US I've noticed that Christian usually means fundamental bible thumping, etc. people. Not being like that at all, I say Catholic, not Christian if I'm asked.

[DaryLLL]

Wow, playdoh, that website is kind of---wack!

Not sure it is respectful to post it, except as a curiosity, as I posted the Jack Chick one. I mean, the skulls and crossbones are a bit over the top.

The leaders of the Catholic Church have commited atrocities, it is true. Many in the long past. Fewer in modern times.

but as the Cath Ch defined Xtianity from 325 til Martin Luther invented Protestantism, I think we owe it to them to call them Xtians. Even if their actions often went against Bible teachings. After all, they admit to being sinners. They made mistakes. Protestants have too.

[bonbon mama]

Playdough, that website you posted is inflammatory with its use of crossbones on either side of it's title. You may not agree with Catholicism but it is not evil and deadly. Christianity is a broader term than Catholicism and it encompasses Protestants, Catholics, and many other groups.

[Meiri]

Someone(s) need to reread their European history.

Protestant relgions, aka Christian, broke off from Roman Catholic Christianity. They did not at that moment Become Christian, having been something else before. Through most of the Middle Ages, in Europe, one didn't say one was Catholic as there was no need. Roman Catholicsm was the only game in town. If you were Christian, that automatically meant you were Catholic. All other attempts at other forms of Christianity before the Reformation (again in Europe) were violently put down.

There were other churches even then: Coptic, Eastern Orthodox..., but I'm only talking about Europe here.

Now-a-days, Catholics say the are Catholic as a way to specify which of the many forms of Christian they are.

All Catholics are Christian, but all Christians are not Catholic.

Just because the RC church has doctrines that some think are not in the Bible, though growing up we certainly learned all those doctrines With their Biblical justification, does not make them not Christian.

[Amazlilith]

Originally posted by playdoh
I am not ignorant, nor self righteous in this area. Here is a good website that shows why the Catholic traditions violate the Christian Bible:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

:hippie

Just to clarify I didn't say you were, I said the comment was. Please do your research before you make comments as you did. You are apparently not catholic, nor do you have any knowledge of the catholic religion.

[PurpleBasil]

Oh, I totally agree, otbonmom, Catholicism is not evil nor deadly.

[Meiri]

I just thought I'd add, if I want to learn about a religion--like if it's Christian or not--I would go to a website from that particular religious organization, not one by those who are out to denigrate, insult, belittle, etc, it.

If I wanted to learn about Judaism, I'd look for a Jewish website rather than a Palestinian, or any other potentially hostile group's website, for information.

If I wanted to learn about some denomination of Protestantism, I'd not go a Catholic website, and vice-versa.

If I wanted to learn about Rastaferianism, I'd not be going to the DEA's website either!:LOL

If I wanted to learn about some form of neo-Paganism, I'd not be searching any form of Christianity's websites, and vice-versa.

....enough examples?:love

[DaryLLL]

playdoh, look around that website. Check out the homepage. It is hilarious. Actually it reminds me of the pastor of my church growing up, which is why I ran screaming from xtianity for about 30 yrs.


Are you pulling our leg(s) or what, dude?

[DaryLLL]

Here is a fun tidbit--

She provides links to pages on:

WICCA WITCHCRAFT, THE NEW AGE, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM AND OTHER PAGANISTIC MUMBO-JUMBO: Series of articles on the paganism and eastern mysticism so pervasive world-wide --including the Hebrew Roots Movement, Masonry, etc. Learn that modern Judaism is not Biblical Judaism--modern Judaism is based on the blasphemous Talmud which is the "traditions of men" that King Jesus spoke against.

:rotflmao

And this:

The Antichrist Slideshow

Starring: The Popes of Rome

and

The Great Whore of Revelation Chapter 17

The Roman Catholic Religion

Admission is free. Turn on your speakers and cut off the lights for a multimedia experience. Enter when you've gotten yourself situated and can spend some time. This is not a 5 minute presentation. Hellbounds, be prepared to confront the truth. A horrific tale of--

Blasphemy
Torture
Licentiousness
Cruelty
Damnation
Whoredom
The power of the Devil
The foolishness of men who are his dupes
The heroicism of Christian brothers and sisters who resisted to the BLOOD striving against sin. Hallelujah!

Enter The Antichrist Slideshow

Gotta make time for that! :laugh:

[bonbon mama]

poor jazmommie--this discussion is not meeting her question.

I think that you believing that Jesus (as God) died for your sins makes you a plain Christian--as if there were a such thing. Now, as for what denomination you would feel at home with; you would need to look at the theology of each sect...

[dado]

Originally posted by Meiri
If I wanted to learn about Rastaferianism, I'd not be going to the DEA's websiteeither!

:LOL

by any reasonable definition, catholics are christians. there are lots of c'ian denominations who refuse to accept this - eg the Bob Jones folks courted by the current president - but imo such a position is untenable.

[kama'aina mama]

Yes. Catholics are Christians. Always have been, always will be. Some other Christians who obsess over the faith vs works debate tend to claim that because Catholics differ with them on that issue they are not Christians. It is a petty way to behave toward fellow follwers of Christ.

[lilyka]

I don't believe going to anyone church or identifying with one specific denomination makes you a Christian at all. Both Protestants and Catholics are saved only by the grace of Christ. Anyrthing we claim as part of the way choose to worship Christ and wether or not it is cool with Him is up to Him. OI do think we need to be careful when we venture outside of the Bible for our theology.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by lilyka
. Anyrthing we claim as part of the way choose to worship Christ and wether or not it is cool with Him is up to Him. .

What are you saying lilyka? Only Christ knows if you are a Christian? So if you worship him in the "wrong" way, you can't say, I am a Christian?

Are you a Christian then? Are you sure? Has he already told you you are, or will you find out at the judgement?

I just do not understand your reasoning.

[dado]

Originally posted by lilyka
I do think we need to be careful when we venture outside of the Bible for our theology.

we just had the sola scriptura discussion in the other thread. ;)

[Jazmommie]

Thank you for the replies to the question I asked --wow ,I did not mean to start a riot!

I liked Meiri 's reply-All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic!
Cool!

[SheBear]

Originally posted by Amazlilith
All others are called PRODESTANT religions, but are also Christians.

Meiri said:Protestant religions, aka Christian, broke off from Roman Catholic Christianity. They did not at that moment Become Christian, having been something else before. Through most of the Middle Ages, in Europe, one didn't say one was Catholic as there was no need. Roman Catholicsm was the only game in town. If you were Christian, that automatically meant you were Catholic. All other attempts at other forms of Christianity before the Reformation (again in Europe) were violently put down. :OT Stepping in here for a moment, just because it's a personal issue for me, so I always feel compelled when this issue comes up:

It is inaccurate to say that all non-Catholic Christian denominations are Protestant. There have been Christian groups since the time of Christ who never identified with Catholicism. Yes, they were often persecuted, and had to go into hiding, worship in caves and so forth, but they never died out completely. Not even in Europe during the Middle Ages. The denomination to which I belong (currently called Primitive Baptist, but known by other names in times past) is one that traces our roots through these groups of Christians. Because we were never part of the Catholic church, we never "protested" (split apart from) the Catholic church. Thus, we cannot be considered Protestant.

That said, I totally agree with Meiri's other statement: "All Catholics are Christian, but all Christians are not Catholic." I would simply add to it by stating "Not all Christians can automatically be categorized as Catholic or Protestant."

Okay, sorry for the interruption! Thanks for humoring me! :)

[lilyka]

SheBear,- thianks for pointing that out. I have always figured there had to be some people who went from early church to present without ever associating with the Catholic church. i have only studied church history from the right before the reformation forward but I have always felt there was a big Gap between the new testement church and the catholic church. I should definitely study more into that.

[Meiri]

I agree that there may have been small groups that were never RC and thus would not be Protestants that could have survived in Europe. Not having particularly researched it to that level of detail, I couldn't tell you what ever happened to the Albegensians and such.

I did acknowledge two of the other groups that I have half a clue about: the Coptics were/are mostly in Egypt I think, the Eastern Orthodox--I forget when they and the RC split apart, but they weren't a small sect leaving the large group, semantics maybe?:hippie

:lady

[DaryLLL]

Sure there are other Xtianities. Some survived in one form or another. As Sean said, they sprouted up like gnostic heretic weeds in 1-100 CE!

You can find a discussion of gnostic traces in books like Holy Blood Holy Grail and The da Vinci Code, to name 2 popular books.

I do not know if SheBear's sect is gnostic tho. She doesn't talk like a gnostic.


Interestingly, there is a small group of Mandeans in Iraq. They have always accepted John the Baptist as a prophet but reject Christ. they baptize daily or weekly.

[Elzabet]

Are Catholics Christian? Hmm. Most of the ones I know are. Are Protestants/non-Catholics/non-Orthodoxs christian? Most of the ones I know are. I also know some of each flavor that aren't. They go to church, they go through the motions, but they are no more a Christian than I am a car just when I'm sitting in my garage.

By the way, none of the Catholics I know worship saints nor statues. But then again none of the ones I know are sola scriptura either. That's just not a Catholic thing. If you are going to look at Catholic practices you have to keep that in mind or else you are not going to be able to really understand it. Keeping that in mind might also keep you from insulting people.

[Paxetbonum]

Originally posted by playdoh
I am not ignorant, nor self righteous in this area.

Website removed!

:hippie

In many areas of Catholicism, there is no Biblical basis for the practices. Does the Bible encourage bowing down or kissing statues? How about praying to saints? Or that Mary was a Virgin for life?

Sorry this is OT but is a pet peeve of mine. Um. . . this website claims the Catholic Church killed millions in the Inquisition. Just stepping into clarify something historically here.

There were only 100,000 tried in the Spanish Inquisition and of those only 2,000 were killed. The two thousand that were killed were tried by the Church but handed over to the state to receive sentance. So really the Spanish government killed 2,000 people in the Spanish Inquisition. This is one of the gross historical inaccuarcies that drives me nuts.

[cappuccinosmom]

I think there are many Christian Catholics, just as there are many Christian Protestants. Since I define "Christian" as one who believes Jesus is Messiah and trusts in Him for thier Salvation, that covers a lot of people in a lot of denominations.

OTOH, I do think a lot of Catholic stuff is unBiblical...and that's why I'm not one. :p But my parents are Catholic, and I know without a doubt that they are believers, and I really respect them for it!

And on the subject of religions torturing and killing others...well, actually, Protestants have that in thier history as well. I have a Catholic ancestor, John "Staker" Wallace (yes, that's what they called him posthumously! :eek ) who was burned at the stake by the Protestant leadership in his town in Scotland. I have an Anabaptist ancestor who was persecuted and driven out of Switzerland by Catholics. There was even an unfortunate episode where a sect of Anabaptists (forbears of the Mennonites and Amish) led by a wacko overtook Munich and did the rape and plunder thing. Ugh. It's called sin, and nobody's immune from it, I don't care what church they're in.

[Piglet68]

In response to the OP, I was raised Catholic in Canada and had never heard of Catholics not being considered Christian until I heard it in America.

Here in the US there is a different christian congregation on every corner. There is also a huge fundamentalist movement. I believe it is they who do the name calling, since they seem to be into the whole "I'm more Christian than you" mindset.

So my personal experience is that this idea that Catholics are somehow not Christian is an American thing, dredged up by those Christians who, in a totally un-Christian way, place judgement upon everybody who doesn't think exactly the way they do.

[Elzabet]

Originally posted by Piglet68
Here in the US there is a different christian congregation on every corner. There is also a huge fundamentalist movement. I believe it is they who do the name calling, since they seem to be into the whole "I'm more Christian than you" mindset.

New churches pop up like mushrooms after a rain around here. Everytime I look up, another one of those silly signs with some odd name is posted on a corner someplace. Not that I think the traditional denominations have it all wrapped up but I question people having personal revelations that no one ever had before and starting churches based on it.

Which is a weird position to have as I attend a non-denom myself. :rolleyes:

One of these days I'm going to actually take RCIA and convert to catholicism. Or Eastern Orthodox which is also very appealing to me.

[PurpleBasil]

Sorry for the rest of that website I posted, I didn't lok at the whole site content and absolutely should have before posting it...though I wouldn't have posted it!

My apologies, that site is pathetic.

[spatulagirl]

I am non-practicing but I was raised Catholic in an extremely small Lutheran Saskatchewan town. I was always told by my peers I wasn't a Christian. I came home crying a few times a week over that. It drove my parents crazy. I still have problems with Lutherans because of that awful experience with them! It wasn't just the kids either... their parents would try to remind me all the time. Who tells a kid that?

Yes Catholics are Christian!

[Sean]

Yes, Catholics are Christian. A lot of Fundamentalists do define "Christian" in such a way as to exclude most of the Christians on earth. That website was a particularly noxious example, but you'll see the same points more or less politely made in many Fundamentalist writings from the 1920's to today.

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Sure there are other Xtianities. As Sean said, they sprouted up like gnostic heretic weeds in 1-100 CE!
No, I said they sprouted "at some point in the first century." You make it sound like I said there were Christian churches in the year 1 A.D., which is about three decades early. (And 'weeds' was a typo. I meant 'daffodils.')

[Sean]

Originally posted by playdoh
Any religion where one is encouraged to pray to dead people isn't Christian in my holy book. Including Catholicism and it's santas...Bible forbades contacting the dead.
Just to clear something else up. Catholics believe in what they call the "Communion of Saints." It's in the Creed. To Catholics, saints aren't dead people, they're people who live in Heaven.

Mark 12: 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

The Church of course forbids necromancy, astrology, divination, and other spiritist practices.

A lengthier discourse on this topic can be found here (http://www.catholic.com/library/praying_to_the_saints.asp).

[dado]

Originally posted by Paxetbonum
[quote]
This is one of the gross historical inaccuarcies that drives me nuts.

what drives me nuts is the idea a word like "only" in front of a number like "100,000" is appropriate.

[Midnight Mom]

:OT
Someone mentioned the Mandaeans in Iraq and I just read a very interesting article about this group in the Dallas Morning News. Here is the link if anyone wants to check it out.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/religion/stories/021404dnreliraqibaptists.2502e.html

Very exclusive group, I'd never heard of them before.

[Sean]

Oh, and to be fair, I should point out that while I did not care for the text of that website, I sure did like this little fella on the home page.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/knight.gif

[DaryLLL]

OT--In the 13th century, the Church/State organization of northern France waged a crusade against the peaceful, simple living Cathars (non-Catholic Christians) of southern France. It lasted approx 50 yrs. Thousands of Cathars were murdered in sieges or burnt at the stake. Many of their Catholic neighbors were casually murdered too, to let God sort out his own.

Jews, Pagans and Muslims (Moors) also suffered in the medieval period at the hands of the Universal Church of Rome.

What happened to the 100,000 minus the 2000 that were actually killed in the Spanish Inq, I wonder? Given milk and cookies?

Disclaimer: I do not think all Catholics are bad. I do not think other religious groups haven't committed atrocities. I just do not think we should downplay what happened in the name of Christ.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
What happened to the 100,000 minus the 2000 that were actually killed in the Spanish Inq, I wonder? Given milk and cookies?


her numbers are, to put it charitably, spun. a quarter million Jews were expelled and their property confiscated by both religious and secular authorities. no trial, simply told "leave and live or stay and die". so they aren't even counted towards the "only" 100,000. considering the population of all Europe then was similar to Germany alone today, those are enormous number.

and you're right, Jews weren't alone in this: before we got expelled, Muslims had their turn as the focus of attention.

[menudo]

I never heard this til I moved to NYC.I also started hearing that Catholic worshiped statues, etc. Some Catholics were ignorant and said "yes , we do". No, the statues are said to be symbols, reminders, etc. of the these revered people. Also, we do not pray TO Saints/dead relatives/etc. We pray THROUGH them. ie."Hey, Saint. babrbara, could yousaya prayer for me up there" I hope that is a good example. Or "Hey Mom (who is past), can you help me? Ask Jesus to give me strength". Anyway, it alwaysbothered me how misunderstood these things are, although I am not exactly practicing myself... But I did for over 20 years...

What adds to this is the cultural influences of Catholicism-like Santeria andd Catholicism-whole different twist, common where I used to live...

[barbara]

Originally posted by bebesho2
I never heard this til I moved to NYC.I also started hearing that Catholic worshiped statues, etc. Some Catholics were ignorant and said "yes , we do". No, the statues are said to be symbols, reminders, etc. of the these revered people. Also, we do not pray TO Saints/dead relatives/etc. We pray THROUGH them. ie."Hey, Saint. babrbara, could yousaya prayer for me up there" I hope that is a good example. Or "Hey Mom (who is past), can you help me? Ask Jesus to give me strength". Anyway, it alwaysbothered me how misunderstood these things are, although I am not exactly practicing myself... But I did for over 20 years...

What adds to this is the cultural influences of Catholicism-like Santeria andd Catholicism-whole different twist, common where I used to live... Thanks bebesho2, that is a good explaination that I had not heard before and I will pass along to some people I know that seem to be confused about Catholic pratices. :love

Can you elaborate on what Santeria is?

[dado]

Originally posted by bebesho2
Also, we do not pray TO Saints/dead relatives/etc. We pray THROUGH them.

how do you go "through" something without going "to" something first?

[Peppermint]

Thanks for clearing up how we ask the Saints for their Intercession and how they are not "dead" bebesho2 and Sean:thumb

Yes- Catholics are Christians.

[CharlieBrown]

i always identified myself as a Catholic until i met my husband who is from Turkey which is predominently Muslim. now i say i am a Christian when talking to people of other religions.

diane

[Elzabet]

By "through" what most catholics mean is they ask someone to pray for them. When I ask, for example, my MIL (who is alive) or my mom (who is in Heaven) to pray for me I'm not "praying to" either of them in the same sense that I am praying to God. I'm not worshipping either of them but I am asking them to join with me in asking God for <fill in request here>. Afterward I say thank you.

[Elzabet]

Originally posted by barbara
Can you elaborate on what Santeria is?

I found this site with a definition of santeria (http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri.htm)and it was pretty helpful. I thought it was another name for voodoo/voudou/voudoun (pick a spelling).

Santeria is a syncretistic religion of Caribbean origin. It incorporates the worship of the Orisha (literally "head guardian") and beliefs of the Yoruba and Bantu people in Southern Nigeria, Senegal and Guinea Coast. These are combined with elements of worship from Roman Catholicism.

Its origins date back to the slave trade when Yoruba natives were forcibly transported from Africa to the Caribbean. They were typically baptized by the Roman Catholic church upon arrival, and their native practices were suppressed. They developed a novel way of keeping their old beliefs alive by equating the each Orisha of their traditional religions with a corresponding Christian Saint. Many traditions within the religion recognize different equivalencies. One common example includes:

--Babalz Ayi became St. Lazarus (patron of the sick)
--Shangs became St. Barbara (controls thunder, lightning, fire...)
--Eleggua or Elegba became St. Anthony (controls roads, gates etc)
--Obatala became Our Lady of Las Mercedes, and the Resurrected Christ (father of creation; source of spirituality)
--Oggzn became St. Peter (patron of war)
--Oshzn became Our Lady of Charity (controls money, sensuality...)

I think the spellings of the deities are off though.

[dado]

Originally posted by Elzabet
I'm not worshipping either of them but I am asking them to join with me in asking God for <fill in request here>. Afterward I say thank you.

gotcha. i often have "pretend" conversations with my grandparents when i feel like i need guidance, what you describe sounds like maybe it's in the same ballpark.

[laralou]

Prayer can be interpreted to be a request. Have you heard the expression, "pray tell?" It isn't always a request of a god.

My understanding (from the nun who leads the conversion classes at our local Catholic church) is that praying to the saints is much like talking to one's dead relative. The assumption is that all of the saints are in heaven and you ask them to intercede to God for you. No more "sinful" than saying to your dead mother (for example), "Oh, Mom, I don't know what to do. Please ask God to help me."

There is no "worship" of saints endorsed by the Catholic church.

:supermod Putting on mod hat now:

I haven't read the entire thread so I hope that the thread is leading into the direction of discussing the different ways people see the Catholic church as opposed to making judgements on Catholics as to whether or not they are Christians.

I want to remind everyone of this from the Spirituality Forum Guidelines (sticky at the top of this forum):
While we will not restrict discussions to persons of the faith being discussed we will be active in discouraging an individual from posting for the purpose of disagreement, with no interest in practicing the faith or belief in discussion, or to prove a faith or a person's belief to be wrong, misguided, or not based on fact.

[DaryLLL]

I'm confused on one point here.

Do Catholics believe dead humans are already resurrected in heaven? I have heard that some Xtians (Cath or not I do not know) believe dead humans are dead until the End of Days when all willl be resurrected, judged and either taken up to heaven or banished to hell.

And what about purgatory?

I could see formally recognized saints getting a get into heaven free card and being there, but one's own ordinary mother? Has she already been judged and transported heavenward, or does she have to wait?

[HeatherSanders]

I don't believe anyone one faith/belief system can claim to have the rights to the term Christian.

Isn't Christian - one who is a follower of Christ?

So, my impression is that any person that desires to follow Christ could 'label' themselves Christian despite religious affiliations.

[Elzabet]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
I'm confused on one point here.

Do Catholics believe dead humans are already resurrected in heaven? I have heard that some Xtians (Cath or not I do not know) believe dead humans are dead until the End of Days when all willl be resurrected, judged and either taken up to heaven or banished to hell.

And what about purgatory?

I could see formally recognized saints getting a get into heaven free card and being there, but one's own ordinary mother? Has she already been judged and transported heavenward, or does she have to wait?

I don't quite believe in Purgatory. It doesn't sit right. Could be my USA/evangelical upbringing but I'm still investigating it. That thought aside however, since I know my mom's beliefs at her death I think she went straight in and I work from that point of view. ~shrug~ I don't know, however I prefer to be an optimist because she was my mom. If she is in Purgatory then she can still pray (afaiak) and if "soul sleep" is true then the requests do no harm.

The Resurrection is something else entirely, it hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

[EFmom]

I just thought I'd add, if I want to learn about a religion--like if it's Christian or not--I would go to a website from that particular religious organization, not one by those who are out to denigrate, insult, belittle, etc, it.

I would look at both types of web sites (and much more) if I wanted to get a balanced picture of what any organization was all about. This goes for any church, not just the catholic church. The official web site will present the image that the organization wants you to see. It will not necessarily present a realistic view of what the organization is all about. Clearly, if The People's Temple had an official website, it probably wouldn't mention the poisoned coolaid. I'm currently a member of a Methodist church. Methodist missionaries have done some pretty crappy things, but you don't find that on the official Methodist web site. But when I research the organization before joining, I wanted to read those things so I knew what I was getting into.

I was raised catholic and had a catholic education. I don't think there is a simple yes/no answer to this question. I think the catholic church has a power structure, much doctrine, and all kinds of trappings that have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. Yet obviously many of the teachings are based on the word of Christ.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Do Catholics believe dead humans are already resurrected in heaven?

And what about purgatory?

I could see formally recognized saints getting a get into heaven free card and being there, but one's own ordinary mother? Has she already been judged and transported heavenward, or does she have to wait?
Broadly speaking, Catholics and Protestants all agree that the dead will be resurrected at, or near, the end of time. These resurrected people will be judged by Jesus, and sent on their way to eternal reward or eternal punishment.

But Catholics actually believe everyone is also judged immediately upon his own death. So everyone who's died in the past has already been judged, and is in Heaven, or Hell, or Purgatory. They are at the moment incorporeal, but will be reunited with their bodies at the resurrection.

(Purgatory is where people who are destined for Heaven but aren't pure enough to enter yet, go to get pure. Everyone currently in Purgatory is going to Heaven, guaranteed.)

So, there are two judgments, see? The "particular" judgment (of individuals when they die), and the "general judgment" (of everybody at the end of time). The resurrected folks who have already had their particular judgment already know where they're spending eternity, but they have to show up for the general judgment anyway, like a summons.

There are three people in Heaven right now corporeally, that is, with their bodies. Jesus, Mary, and the prophet Elijah.

There is a list, or "canon," of people the Church is pretty sure are in Heaven. (There are some angels on the list, too.) Catholics are allowed to venerate these "canonized" saints in public. You can pray privately to anyone not on the list (e.g., your own mother) if you think she's in Heaven.

While great pains are taken to make sure only holy people get canonized, the canon is not infallible, except for a handful of people we know are in Heaven, because the Bible says so.

[DaryLLL]

So, acc to Catholic (non-Biblical but Spirit inspired) doctrine, heaven has categories for different beings.

God--no body, right?

Christ, body and soul?
Maria Virgine--body and soul?
Elijah--body and soul?
(no Enoch?)

Angels--just a spirit type being?
Human saints--still just a spirit?
Prejudged humans (non-saints)--ditto?

I have seen early Renn paintings of Christ going to hell, standing on Satan, and bringing out Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc. (Gnostic gospels tell of Christ's 3 days in Hades completing this mission.) So I guess these patri-matri-archs are still just spirits too until the bodily resurrection time, just like anyone's dead grandmother?

I did always wonder how you could pray to a saint/grandmother if they weren't resurrected yet. I have more clarity now, thanks.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
So, acc to Catholic (non-Biblical but Spirit inspired) doctrine, heaven has categories for different beings.
(etc.)

Enoch too, I forgot Enoch. Thanks DaryLLL. Sorry, Enoch. Other than his absence, your categories were good enough (although, since Jesus is God, he should have been up there in that group).

And I wouldn't exactly call these beliefs "non-Biblical." There is scriptural warrant for every one of these beliefs, some more than others, to be sure. The Ascension of Christ, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the angels, Heaven and Hell, all of these are in the Bible plain as day. Purgatory is not so clearly stated, but implied, and about the Assumption of Mary scripture is silent.

The rescue of the pre-Christian saints from Hell isn't only covered in the gnostic texts; it's also mentioned in the Bible. These were the righteous men and women who couldn't get into Heaven yet, because Christ had not redeemed mankind yet. His death on the cross made it possible for them to leave Hell (although this was obviously not the Hell of the damned, but more like Purgatory), and I'll bet they were pretty anxious to get out of there, too. So it was a top priority.

1 Peter 4: 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

[spero]

Sean, not to step on your toes here, but I just wanted to clarify that Purgatory is classified by the Church as a state of being (purification), not an actual place. And nobody knows how long a soul is in that particular state. It certainly makes more sense, and seems less forboding, when you look at it that way.

Onward......:)

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Angels--just a spirit type being?
Human saints--still just a spirit?
Prejudged humans (non-saints)--ditto?
Wait, after looking more closely, I see you do have something a little wrong. The "Prejudged humans (non-saints)" line. There is no such thing and a prejudged human in the afterlife. The particular judgment occurs immediately after death, and the soul goes immediately to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. Every soul in Heaven is a saint, even the ones not on our list. Am I explaining this badly?

[Sean]

Originally posted by skellbelle
Purgatory is classified by the Church as a state of being (purification), not an actual place.
Yes, you are absolutley right, thanks. The Bible speaks of Heaven and Hell as places, because that's the easiest way for us spatially constrained beings to talk about them. I was using adverbs like 'where' to spend eternity, but only in the Biblical sense.
And nobody knows how long a soul is in that particular state.
I hope it's not long!!!

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Sean
[B]. Purgatory is not so clearly stated, but implied...

Where?

and about the Assumption of Mary scripture is silent.

The rescue of the pre-Christian saints from Hell isn't only covered in the gnostic texts; it's also mentioned in the Bible. These were the righteous men and women who couldn't get into Heaven yet, because Christ had not redeemed mankind yet. His death on the cross made it possible for them to leave Hell (although this was obviously not the Hell of the damned, but more like Purgatory),

More like Sheol...?

and I'll bet they were pretty anxious to get out of there, too. So it was a top priority.


I have no doubt this conflicts with Jewish teaching in a major way, but that would be OT.

[spero]

I hope it's not long!!!

Me too :LOL

And just to add to the confusion...
Actually, "time" (as we know it) ceases to exist when we die, so it shouldn't matter anyhow.


but still, I do hope that it doesn't take long for me to be purified, nonetheless

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Where (is the implication of Purgatory in the Bible)?
Here's a page with a pretty good explanation of it (http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp), and answers to Fundamentalist objections to the doctrine. It's got dozens of Bible quotes.

More like Sheol...?
Something like Sheol. Maybe something like the pagan Hades, too. But probably different enough that we can't equate the concepts.

I have no doubt this conflicts with Jewish teaching in a major way, but that would be OT.
No doubt.

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean

The rescue of the pre-Christian saints...


you mean Jews? just for the record, what you describe is almost completely incompatible with any of the commonly held beliefs Jews have regarding their ancestors.

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
you mean Jews?
All the saints who died before Christ did. That would include Jews, but not exclusively. Just for instance, Adam and Eve were there, and they were pre-Abrahamic.
just for the record, what you describe is almost completely incompatible with any of the commonly held beliefs Jews have regarding their ancestors.
So now we can summarize: Catholics are considered Christians.

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
Adam and Eve

just out of curiosity, are Adam and Eve saints in catholicism?

So now we can summarize: Catholics are considered Christians.

i said that 80 posts ago, don't know why people are still posting on this thread. ;)

[DaryLLL]

Me, b/c I am learning about the Catholic religion.

this:

1 Peter 3:18b--He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he also went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison 20 who in former times did not obey when God waited patiently in the days of Noah

gets made into this:

After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19).

And that proves purgatory exists? There must be more.

There is:

And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

When I read the passage and its context, I see that the trying of a man's work , whether it is worthy of its foundation (Christ) does not refer to an afterlife experience, but a here and now one, perhaps of another preacher.

10By the grace God has given me, I [Paul] laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.


Oh well.

edited to add quote from 1 Cor.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Oh well.
Oh well.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL

Oh well.

google "purgatory apocrypha".

[Elzabet]

Originally posted by Sean
Here's a page with a pretty good explanation of it (http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp), and answers to Fundamentalist objections to the doctrine. It's got dozens of Bible quotes.

Thanks for that link, Sean. Very informative.

[barbara]

I have nothing to add but I want to say thanks for all the explainations of Catholic pratices and beliefs. Also thanks for the info and link on Santeria. Very interesting!

[Paxetbonum]

The Catholic belief in the ressurection of the body is central to our understanding of theology. Because Christ sacrilized the material world by becoming human and the most perfect state of a human person is with body and soul together, we beleive that at the final judgment our souls will be reunited with our bodies and we will live in a glorified state.

After the final judgment there will be no more Purgatory also.

So after you die and have your personal judgment you are just a soul. After the end of the world you get your body back. Awesome.

Also as to the Inquisiton, I am going to start a thread on this topic.

[menudo]

Awesome site! Explains santeria well to someone who is not familar, as a web search can bring up alot of sites claiming it is evil...(A member of my household is a practitioner and it is a very guarded religion, many are more open now-but they were persecuted for many a years).

BTW, I am glad some others made my praying TO/THROUGH comment clearer. It never ceases to amaze me how many actual Catholics don't understand that.Shoot, several told me they DO worship statues (As Catholics). GEEZ!

By the way, I currently consider myself "Gnostic Chritian".

[dado]

Originally posted by Paxetbonum

Also as to the Inquisiton, I am going to start a thread on this topic.

please don't. nothing good can possibly come of it.

[Jazmommie]

I am learning so much from these answers--
I have friends who are in a Bible study & they have certain beliefs that I do not agree with but I feel we can all at least agree that Jesus died to save us from sin.

I feel we humans put to much emphasis on differences -every religion that is helping to make people here on earth better -is good for them .

God is limitless & we can not place so many limits on what God is /does & how it all works.

I just ordered a book on Jesus -
Jesus ,His Words Decoded -by John Van Auken that sounds quite interesting--I like to know about others views on religion-even if I do not agree.
Thank you all.

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
just out of curiosity, are Adam and Eve saints in catholicism?
Adam and Eve are not saints on the Roman Catholic canon. (Someday they might be; these things take awhile.) But the Eastern Christian tradition has regarded them as saints. As Genesis tells us, they sinned. But after that, they may have repented, and trusted in God's promise of a Redeemer, which would have been all that was required of them to be saved. Even in the West, where they aren't canonized, popular piety likes to think of them as first in line when Christ opened the gates. (Or maybe not first in line, since Abel died first.) Christian artists depicting the scene of Christ's Descent have always felt free to include an assortment of B.C. celebrities in the crowd, from Adam to Aristotle.

Interestingly enough, while we know infallibly that some people are in Heaven (because the Bible names them), we don't know that any particular person is in Hell. Even the worst characters in scripture, like Antiochus and Judas, are never explicitly said to be eternally damned. It is certainly dogma that Hell exists, that the fallen angels suffer there, and that all men and women would be there too if not for God's saving grace, and that they surely will be there if they reject that grace. But we don't know that any men or women actually are there, and Pope John Paul II has even expressed a hope that nobody's there! This caused quite a bit of controversy, as you might guess, with the critics accusing him of denying the existence of Hell or the efficacy of Baptism and all that, but that's not what he was doing. He was saying we just don't know whether the population of Hell is zero or billions of souls, and ceteris paribus, he hopes it's more like zero. If his hope is right, and nobody's in Hell, then the scene of Christ's Descent would have to contain everybody who ever died before that day, because they were all going to Heaven.

[urklemama]

DaryLLL, from an art history perspective (among others) those pictures are depictions of the Harrowing of Hell.

As Sean has stated, our current pope has expressed the hope that no one is in hell. Someone - I'm blanking on who but maybe it was Thomas Merton? - wrote that since all these states of being, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, are in eternity and therefore outside of time, perhaps one way to imagine a Hell empty of humans is to imagine that the harrowing is always happening. Christ is always dying, always rising, always desending to Hell to free the righteous, always ascending to Heaven to be with His Father. But that's not dogma in any way, just something I read once and liked.

[DaryLLL]

harrow:
To plunder; sack.
To inflict great distress or torment on.

Hmmm, to plunder Hades? To take out the souls as plunder from Satan?


plunder:
To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: plunder a village.
To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.

[Sean]

That's right, the Descent has been called the "Harrowing of Hell" in England since before 1000 A.D. Here the meaning of 'harrow' is indeed to plunder, or seize by force. In this sense 'harrow' is synonomous with 'harry', from the Old English hergian, 'to act as an army'. Icons usually emphasize the military aspects of the operation, featuring smashed gates and surrendering demons, and often Christ is armed with a spear or carrying a pennant.

(The other meaning of 'harrow', to torture, is actually from the Old English 'harowen', a farm implement with sharp teeth that was apparently sometimes put to non-agricultural use, and is not what is meant by the Harrowing of Hell.)

Most of the rest of western Europe just calls it the "Descensus ad Inferos," or vernacular words to that effect.

The Greeks actually call the Descent the Anastasis ('standing again', or resurrection), which has the exact opposite meaning from Descensus, and yet is still an apt term, because it is the rescued souls who are allowed to stand again. Their icons usually take the term literally, with Christ actually helping Adam stand up.

[DaryLLL]

So just let me get this straight.

All of the above, reclaiming the "saints," the spears, banners, smashed gates, comes from this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 3:18b--He [Jesus] was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he also went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison 20 who in former times did not obey when God waited patiently in the days of Noah...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because making a proclamation to souls from before Noah sounds (to me) like he was scolding the unrighteous who died before and in the Flood (all the ones God had given up on, only saving Noah and his family). It does not sound like rescuing the pre-or-post Noahide deserving souls.

Is this harrowing in some Apocryphal reference? Yes, it is. Acta Pliati (Acts of Pilate) aka the Gospel of Nicodemus.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111b.htm

Does one learn about the origins of the belief in Purgatory and the harrowing of hell in those RCIA classes I hear of?

Off to read Nicodemus.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
So just let me get this straight. All of the above, reclaiming the "saints," the spears, banners, smashed gates, comes from this:
No, not quite straight. All of the above doesn't come from that one verse in the Bible. All of the above comes from the Descent of Christ into Hell, held by orthodox Christians as doctrine from apostolic times. The orthodox interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 differs from yours. See also Acts 2:24. But a bigger point is, it doen't have to be explicitly taught in the Bible to be a true doctrine, unless you hold to sola scriptura. (For that matter, I think even Luther believed in the Descent into Hell, though you might have a better argument against him, since he did espouse sola scriptura.)

Is this harrowing in some Apocryphal reference? Yes, it is. Acta Pliati (Acts of Pilate) aka the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Yup. But that isn't the source of the doctrine, which predates the Acta Pilati. That work, by the way, is apocryphal, in the sense that all writing that isn't Scripture is apocryphal. What I'm writing now is apocryphal. It means it is not infallibly inspired by God, and may therefore contain error. But Acta Pilati isn't a bad piece of writing, and contains no heretical teaching, just some fictional embellishments on the Gospel truth, a lot like Mel Gibson's apocryphal movie.

The iconography with smashed gates, spears, and so forth is metaphorical, teaching cosmic truths with physical analogues. If you were an eyewitness to the actual Harrowing of Hell, you would have seen.... nothing. Absolutely nothing. Incorporeal spirits can't be seen by eyes.

Does one learn about the origins of the belief in Purgatory and the harrowing of hell in those RCIA classes I hear of?
I sure hope so.

Off to read Nicodemus.
Cool. I hope I haven't spoiled it by giving away the ending.

[DaryLLL]

So what is the source of the doctrine that predates Acta Pilati? Is it another document or imagined oral traditions?

I read some of it just now. It was written by a couple of guys who were sons of the Simon who held Jesus when he was born. They were raised up out of the grave when Jesus died on the cross. It says Satan killed Christ, prepared the cross, nails, and gall and vinegar even. Is this Catholic teaching? Why have we been saying all sinners killed Christ by their sins (and some still believe it was the Jews)? Was it God's plan, who ordered Satan to carry it out?

The Acta also says Hades (a person) now has Satan in his clutches, torturing him forever.

If apocrypha is fallible, how can it inspire infallible doctine like the "harrowing" of Hades' abode? Or is the belief in Purgatory and Jesus rescuing the souls of the patriarchs and prophets considered just an idea that may or may not be true, as it is based on fallible apocrypha? :confused:

I bet Sean will have some answers, and I wish a couple other Catholics would give their impressions as well. Surely this is all taught in Catechism class?

[Elzabet]

I'm not going to try to answer your questions as Sean is doing a much better job than I could but I need to ask something. Why must oral traditions be imagined? Are all oral traditions imagined or just Christian/Catholic ones? I can accept that some might be but the implication that oral tradition is imagined (that is a story, to put it nicely) makes it seem that they are therefore not worthy of consideration.

[DaryLLL]

Eazabet,
Not at all. If an oral tradition be not written down, I would need to have someone tell it to me to have it become real. Or hear a recording of it. An oral tradtion may exist, but until someone tells me it or writes it down (as the Jew did with their "Oral Torah" after the destruction and harrowing of Jerusalem for ex), it exists only in my imagination.

Sean said some "source" about the harrowing of Hades predates the Acta Pilati and I imagined it was an oral trad, as the Acta is pretty early, perhaps 4th century?

As far as an oral tradition being a story, well, it's all stories. Whether thought to be God-inspired (infallible) or just fiction. The Catholic Church itself insists even the canon is not meant to be taken as accurate history, but as a story about Christ's mission with a theological teaching. Sean said the Acta we are considering is fiction:

It means it is not infallibly inspired by God, and may therefore contain error. But Acta Pilati isn't a bad piece of writing, and contains no heretical teaching, just some fictional embellishments on the Gospel truth.

In other words, it is orthodox, not gnostic, but may or may not be truly factual.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Elzabet
Why must oral traditions be imagined? Are all oral traditions imagined or just Christian/Catholic ones?
Excellent question, Beth! I was curious about that myself.

DaryLLL, you can read Adversus Haereses by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Book V, Ch. 31 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103531.htm) to see that the Harrowing of Hell was already doctrine as of the writing of that document (between 180-199 A.D.), predating the Acta Pilati by over a hundred years. Now, Irenaeus isn't the source of the Harrowing either. It is quite clear that he is citing it as settled doctrine among orthodox Christians, and putting forth arguments in its favor to persuade heretics. So what was Ireneus's source? He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. These facts are not in dispute. The Tradition from John to Irenaeus may have been oral, or it may have been written but lost to us since. Either way, you have no basis to allege that it was imaginary.

[DaryLLL]

Thanks Sean.

Actually, I will not debate, but just mention "these facts" are, indeed, in dispute in scholarly circles.

[Sean]

You're right, I was speaking too broadly. Or too narrowly. Or something. I guess there are no facts which aren't disputed by somebody, somewhere. There are even scholarly sorts who dispute all facts, saying "fact" is a meaningless concept with no basis in "fact." Or something. I shall try to use words even more precisely henceforth. Thanks for not debating.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
As far as an oral tradition being a story, well, it's all stories.

didn't we just go through this discussion on another thread? :) it's *all* oral tradition. the fact that somebody, at some point, chiseled it into rock or inked it onto an animal hide doesn't change the fact that everything in the Abrahamic tradition is oral. even "historical" accounts of Jesus are ultimately oral because they are premised on a prophetic tradition that is, well, oral. one cannot read the bible in its native form without coming at it with millenia of oral tradition.

and since no tradition has an infallible document listing the canon, the best we can say about the infallibility of any of the stuff is that we have a "fallible list of infallible writings" - which is a pretty interesting statement if you think about it.

it is not correct to say the "descent into hell" is an "early" c'ian belief because the story predates c'ianity by at least several hundred years.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by dado

it is not correct to say the "descent into hell" is an "early" c'ian belief because the story predates c'ianity by at least several hundred years.

OK, I'll bite. Greek, Jewish, Persian or what? And by whom?

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
OK, I'll bite. Greek, Jewish, Persian or what? And by whom?

it's another of your universal stories. everybody from Krishna...

…went down to hell to preach to the inmates of that dark and dreary prison, with the view of reforming them, and getting them back to heaven, and was willing himself to suffer to abridge the period of their torment.

...to Quexalcoatl(!).

it makes sense, right? if the resurrection story is universal - which it clearly is - it doesn't take much imagination to fill in the "dead days" with a trip to where the dead hang out. it's hard to imagine what else they *could* do.

[Sean]

Dado:

You are right that all Christian Tradition is, at its source, oral. Could hardly be otherwise, since Christ left no writings, only oral teachings. You're also right that the Descent into Hell is a common story in several pre-Christian religions, and for pretty much the reason you cited: it's a really good story!

Your observation that the Bible is a "fallible list of infallible documents" is exactly what sola scriptura Protestants believe. (At least, that's exactly what Scott Hahn said his Protestant pastor taught him in Rome Sweet Home. I Googled the phrase, and got no hits.) At any rate, it is the logical deduction from the sola scriptura doctrine.

But Catholics believe that one "tradition has an infallible document listing the canon." Naturally, it's their own. The canon of Scripture was fixed in its current form by Pope Damasus I in 374 (it's sometimes called the "Damasan Canon" for that reason). Even so, it was not defined infallibly until the Council of Trent did so in 1546. Ever since that date, Catholics have what they believe to be an infallible list of infallible documents.

EDITING TO ADD: I found out the precise wording Protestants use is "fallible collection of infallible books." Do a Google search for "fallible collection of infallible books" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fallible+collection+of+infallible+book s%22) and you get quite a few discussions of this issue, from both sides.

[urklemama]

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but an important thing to keep in mind in discussions like this one is how very recent our level of literacy is. Most people who considered themselves to be Christians for most of history could not read or write at any meaningful level. How do you convert the illiterate? And even more to the point, how do the quasi-literate convert the illiterate? Not by sola scriptura, that's for sure. The whole concept of bringing every point of Christian belief back to something you can find in a text is a post-Reformation, post-printing press concept. It only makes sense in the context of both near-universal literacy and near universal availability of the sacred texts.

[DaryLLL]

That is why we have had temples, synagogues, and churches. So those with learning could preach the message to the illiterate. Paintings and statues and stained glass also serve in this purpose as teaching tools.

Unfortunately, even now, when most of the Western world is literate, they still don't really read and understand their texts. Too unintelligent and lazy.

What percentage of "Christians" in this country have actually read the entire Book front to back, and sought different ways to make sense of its esoteric code?

[Sean]

Every now and again the Gallup organization polls Americans about not just religious profession (What religion do you say you believe?) but also religious knowledge (Have you read the Bible? Who preached the Sermon on the Mount?). The results are always pretty much in accord with DaryLLL's worst fears. In 1997, George Gallup said, "The stark fact is, most Americans don't know what they believe or why." I can't access the actual poll results on Gallup.com, because they're "subscriber only" pages. But I got some of the results from reports in the news media.

80 percent of Americans believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

20 percent of Americans have read the whole Bible.

17 percent of Americans read the Bible daily.

50 percent of Americans read the Bible rarely, or never.
Of those: 59 percent said they "didn't have time," and 40 percent said the Bible was "too hard to understand."

[Elzabet]

Agreed. Sometimes I can have better conversations about Christianity with non-believers than with believers--in spite of having to go away and have a good scream afterward :LOL. It seems that most church-people are content with being bottle fed the "formulas" rather than desiring the true milk and meat of the Word (if I may mix my metaphors and verses and things).

That is why, btw, I have no problems with things like icons and statues and stained glass windows depicting the life of Jesus and the saints. At the very least they spark the imagination. At most Iwould hope they make one think deeply about what they represent.

I've always thought that if you didn't know why you believed what you do (or not) then what you believe is rather pointless because it doesn't mean enough to you for you to ask hard questions of it and expect answers whether they are to your satisfaction or not.

[DaryLLL]

Thanks for the stats, Sean.I know this is very OT, urklemama sending us down another rabbit hole... Actually I would question that 20% who claim to have read the entire Bible. Maybe they have read or heard a few verses preached about, but really read it all? They may say they have to save face or out of guilt.

My MIL who is a big fundie, told me recently she had never read the whole thing. She is about 70 yrs old and an ardent church goer, sunday and wednesday school goer too.

Yes, she thinks Gandhi and Mother Teresa are burning in hell as we speak. That New Agers have a big plan to wipe out all Xtianity inspired by a figure she imagines as Real called Satan.

Yet she never read the whole Bible straight thru, just in bits and pieces. So dangerous to take little verses out, out of context and get all het up about what they mean. Some kind of fear of annihilation usually.

So now she is finally reading it all, using some kind of computer plan that tells her how much to read each day...

[urklemama]

Usually you have to convert people before they will build the church. Not always, but usually. But I'll just pop back down the rabbit hole.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
... and get all het up about what they mean.
Would you believe, I have never before heard of anyone being "all het up" about anything? I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/het%20up), and found that 'het' really is a dialectical variant of 'heated.' But it didn't say what dialect. Is it Southern? I want to start working it into my own conversations.

[spero]

Originally posted by Sean
Would you believe, I have never before heard of anyone being "all het up" about anything? I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/het%20up), and found that 'het' really is a dialectical variant of 'heated.' But it didn't say what dialect. Is it Southern? I want to start working it into my own conversations.

I was thinking it was a New England thing - it's something my grandfather would have said :)

[barbara]

Thanks for the stats Sean. It is interesting that so many Christians have not read the Bible, which proves that it is really much more of an oral tradition/religion than one might think.

I'm no theologian, but I have read the Bible through several times in a couple of versions. My dh and and my teenagers have also, yet we have had many a 'discussion' with those who haven't read it, over verses they have taken completely out of context! :confused:

I guess if one is going to claim the Bible as a foundation to their faith, they ought to have read it.

[Sean]

Well, yeah! I mean, here you've got someone saying,

"My Creator and Lord gave me this book to instruct me about His plan for the world, and my part in it."

Great, what's it say?

"I dunno..."

As for me and my household, I've read the whole Bible. My wife hasn't yet, but then she's only been a Christian since 2001, and she's busy raising up all those arrows in my quiver. The kids aren't old enough to read anything, but the Scripture will certainly be part of their repertoire later.

:OT 'Het up' update: My wife read my previous post, and was amazed that I had never heard the phrase before, cuz she certainly knew it. (She's from Oklahoma.) She hinted that when the kids go to nap, I may 'find out' what it means. I hope it's good.

[Paxetbonum]

Catholicism places a huge importance on oral tradition. This is because we beleive in two sources of divine revalation instead of just one. God reveals Himself to humanity thru Sacred Scripture, but also thru Sacred Tradition. The two together are called the deposit of faith.

Okay that my Baltimore catechism talking there.

The nice thing about the Catholic liturgy is that the scriptures are worked into the Mass so that if you attend dailey mass for a certain period of time (I think its like five years or something) you will have heard the whole Bible.

The Liturgy of the Hours is also a beautiful way to pray the scriptures.

Dary LLL, your MIL's beleifs are shocking! We are not able to know for certainity if any soul is in hell. It is precisely that brand of Christianity which makes us all look so bad.
I will pray for her.

[SueZVudu]

Wow, this thread sure has taken an interesting turn! But on the whole Catholic/Christian topic...

When I was attending university at a fundamentalist Christian school, I converted to Catholicism. I was in the process of conversion when Mother Teresa died. I lived in the dorms and didn't have my own TV, so I watched her funeral in the common room of the dorm. It was like 3 a.m. and there were a few other girls watching it with me; I didn't really know any of them. So during the funeral, many people from many different religions spoke or performed ceremonies or whathaveyou. I tried to explain to the other girls what all these religions were (try explaining Zoroastrianism to someone who's never even walked through the door of another denomination's church!) There were Orthodox Christians and I think there were even some Baptists there. So anyway, toward the end of the funeral, one girl asked in a very serious tone, "But who's representing the Christians?"

I was flabbergasted. It took me a minute to reply, "Um...Catholics *are* Christians."

She just said, "Huh," and asked no more questions. Keep in mind, this was the same campus where I heard comments like, "Mother Teresa was a good person. Too bad she's burning in hell." And they said it so darn casually, too.

[Ilaria]

Back to th eOP...Of course Catholics are Christians!
It never occurred to me that someone would think otherwise until I moved to the US and met fundie Christians...:eek I couldn't believe it!

[Wildcrafter]

I gotta ask....what's the deal with Mother Theresa burning in hell? I've never heard this before......why would someone think this?

[Elzabet]

Because a lot of evangelicals don't know anything about catholicism they listen to half-truth and assume catholics don't know Jesus and therefore will be going to hell. It's ignorance, sometimes willful sometimes not.

[DaryLLL]

bump

[Jazmommie]

I was in a Catholic bookstore Saturday & saw a book called something like -Did Adam have a Belly Button & other questions teens might ask--
I turned a few pages & saw ARE CATHOLICS CONSIDERED CHRISTIANS?

It said --Yes,Catholics are Christian BUT Not all Christians are Catholic!


Love that quote!

[steff]

Anyone that believes Jesus Christ is our saviour is a christian. Religions have different ways of doing things. But if you believe that Jesus Christ is your saviour, your religion rules and ways are different but it all leads to that one important factor.
Alot of chriatians are forgeting this important factor. If you are a christian you are not to judge no one. Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for WHATEVER point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Romans2:3 So when you, a mere man pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? SORRy, when I say something I have to back up with scripture. And I felt I had to say the bit about judging, I don't know why But I did.
My DH is catholic christain and I am christian. LOl if you want to put it that way.

Yes,Catholics are Christian BUT Not all Christians are Catholic! I like this saying too!!

Steff:innocent

[KoalaMommy]

Some of the best examples I've seen of Christians are Catholic. They clearly show God's love to others and aren't afraid to talk about Jesus. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are the original Christian churches, all others split off from them (I won't even start on who split from whom when it comes to Catholic and Orthodox, hard to say and best to stay out of it). I went to a church for a little while that believed all Catholics were going to hell, that's a major reason I left. My Godmother is Catholic and if she's not going to make it to heaven, we're all doomed! I believe faith in Christ is the key to being Christian.

[DaryLLL]

The Catholic and Orthodox churches are the original Christian churches, all others split off from them.


This is incorrect. The original churches (followers of The Christ or his Way, of the type Paul wrote to) were loosely organized groups of people, who each had differing gospels (many of which were eventually left out of the final Xtian canon), met in private homes and had widely diverging beliefs.

The attempt to catholocize (universalize) the religion, or to claim orthodoxy ("straight thinking," thereby rendering others crooked) started very late in the first centruy CE but didn't really get going until the 2nd-4th centuries. And this struggle continues til this day. It was led by bishops and Roman Emperors and involved land and power grabbing.

[Meiri]

Some of the best examples I've seen of Christians are Catholic.

Same here, and one of the worst too. Same for most of the rest of the denominations I've run across.

IME, people who are loving and kind use their religion to strengthen themselves in being that way. IME, people who are bigoted and hateful do the same thing.

The religion either type is expressing or twisting is almost beside the point.

[Paxetbonum]

This is incorrect. The original churches (followers of The Christ or his Way, of the type Paul wrote to) were loosely organized groups of people, who each had differing gospels (many of which were eventually left out of the final Xtian canon), met in private homes and had widely diverging beliefs.

The attempt to catholocize (universalize) the religion, or to claim orthodoxy ("straight thinking," thereby rendering others crooked) started very late in the first centruy CE but didn't really get going until the 2nd-4th centuries. And this struggle continues til this day. It was led by bishops and Roman Emperors and involved land and power grabbing.

There are differing historical takes on this.

The early Christians met in houses largley to avoid persecution. There are actually secret chapels built into early Christian homes complete with alters for the celebration of the sacrifice of the mass.

Also let's keep in mind that second century Christian are still living within the parameters of the living memory of the followers of Christ. One of the requirements for historically accurate information is that the information be organized by those who have contact with people who have living memory of the events. The Gospels are actually not that far removed from the actual events. The organization of Christ's teachings is within a highly tracable short line of oral tradition, in my opinion much more reliable than historians who are out there pulling stuff out of a hat from a handful of archeological mishaps.

The great English literary figure, G.K. Chesterton once made the interesting point that people immedieatly assume from Cave drawings that "primitive" man was making some pitiful attempt at evolving into artistic and spiritual dimensions. Nobody ever looks at the ancient cave paintings and thinks that perhaps the painter was simply entertaining his child, or sitting around waiting for a deer to pass by and got bored. We forget that human nature is universal and much as modern historians love to complexify things, the reality of much history is simply the drama of human nature.

[DaryLLL]

There are differing historical takes on this.

The early Christians met in houses largley to avoid persecution. There are actually secret chapels built into early Christian homes complete with alters for the celebration of the sacrifice of the mass.

Actually the early Xtians spoke Greek and shared entire meals, called agapes, (mass being a Latin word) or love feasts, as Paul attests. They met in private homes b/c they were seen as off-center Jews not welcome at the Temple. After the Temple was destroyed, they dispersed as well, to places like Alexandria. The gospel spread from the Jews to the Greeks. Their persecution is highly exaggerated, it was sporadic. Before Constantine's stamp of approval, they were sometimes persecuted as rebels against the Roman gov't, not for their religious views. Their refusal to acknowledge the Roman state gods was seen as treason.


Also let's keep in mind that second century Christian are still living within the parameters of the living memory of the followers of Christ.

This assumes a HJ and the Catholic idea of apostolic tradition, which is in question. The canonical gospels were 4 chosen out of dozens, which had differing ideas of Christ. The gospels themselves differ on many points, and were not meant ever to be seen as accurate history as we see it today. They were tracts meant to exhort about the good news of the Jewish/pagan dying and rising godman. They were also highly redacted by men with political aims in the Roman gov't.

The organization of Christ's teachings is within a highly tracable short line of oral tradition, in my opinion much more reliable than historians who are out there pulling stuff out of a hat from a handful of archeological mishaps.

Please name your sources.

The great English literary figure, G.K. Chesterton once made the interesting point that people immedieatly assume from Cave drawings that "primitive" man was making some pitiful attempt at evolving into artistic and spiritual dimensions. Nobody ever looks at the ancient cave paintings and thinks that perhaps the painter was simply entertaining his child, or sitting around waiting for a deer to pass by and got bored. We forget that human nature is universal and much as modern historians love to complexify things, the reality of much history is simply the drama of human nature.

I do not understand where you are going with this.

[Meiri]

Nobody ever looks at the ancient cave paintings and thinks that perhaps the painter was simply entertaining his child, or sitting around waiting for a deer to pass by and got bored. We forget that human nature is universal and much as modern historians love to complexify things, the reality of much history is simply the drama of human nature.

"Nobody ever"?? wrong.

But maybe that's not the theory one hears most about because so many of the cave paintings are so deep in the cave, inaccessable except by crawling and/or climbing, that that deer could pass 10 times over, mate or have a fawn in the time it'd take that doodling "while waiting for a deer to pass by" hunter to crawl back out!:LOL Obviously not the case with all paintings, but with enough that this suggestion for all is ludicrous. Location, location, location.:)

Everything we do is not complex, but everything we do is not simple either.

[CharlieBrown]

i am Catholic and Christian thank you very much!!!