Are Catholics really Christian?

Great Debates
81

**GoodWitch wrote:

To answer your question, yes. Mostly all forms of organized religion today has pagan DNA, and pagan or paganism, meaning that the worship is based on the goings on in the the natural world, rather than the Worship of Jesus.**

Sure, there are some practices in Christianity that have roots in Archaic Paganism. It’d be more accurate to say that there are popular cultural observances that modern Christians still practice which have Pagan roots. As an example, take St. John the Baptist Day (June 24th). As it’s observed in Europe, it shows clear pagan roots.

But you used the phrase Mostly all forms of organized religion today has pagan DNA, and pagan or paganism, meaning that the worship is based on the goings on in the the natural world, which implies other faiths, like Buddhism, Islam, Shinto and Tao-ism. Do you still maintain that?

Organized, no. records, as you know, cannot be trusted as far back as yesterday, so a citation I cannot give. However, I can tell you that Margaret Murray has done some research that suggests that 25,000 years ago marks, in some form or fashion, the dawn of paganism, and thus, religion.

The Murrayite thesis (the survival of archaic pagan practices as an underground witchcult) has been thoroughly discredited. Check Ronald Hutton’s Triumph of the Moon (Oxford Press, 1999) for a thorough history of modern Pagan and references that discredit Murray’s thesis.

I don’t recall her claiming that Paganism has roots going back that far. Can you give us a cite on that?

82

But the Catholics bend and break the rules so bad. They also add and take away from the Bible. What is up with this?

83

To which rules are you referring?

Examples? The Catholic Church compiled the original canon that Protestants use. Protestants have since rejected some of the books. The group doing the adding and taking away sort of depends on your perspective.

It is hard to say, if I don’t know what you are talking about.

84

Thank you tom.
BTW, my asnwer to the op is yes.

85

The newbie has returned. I remember reading somewhere in the gospels that the “First Protestants” were those who refused to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Jesus said that a person must “eat the body and drink the blood” to be saved since he is the person who is going to save mankind from damnation. This particular group of people thought Jesus Christ was proclaiming cannibalism to be a good thing when in reality he was teaching about his role in the world which is to save God’s people (the entire human race). I believe God saw this as a problem and chose Melchizedek to bring the bread and wine as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

For those who don’t believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, a priest back in the 1100’s in Italy found out the hard way. The bread and wine were transformed in body and blood. The body was transformed into actual heart tissue and the wine actually turned to blood. It shows the world that God does exist and God means what God says.

I am a Catholic and my beliefs are very evangelical and centralized. I believe all Christians should reunite under the flag of Jesus Christ. We all believe that he is the Son of God and he died to wipe the sins of mankind. The fracturing of the Church has caused war and death. Let’s let the war and death end and reunite.

One more thing (this is for the for all the bible thumpers), I believe were are saved through our faith in God and Jesus. When you have faith, you believe God has sent Jesus to save us from our sins. Doesn’t that mean I have taken Jesus Christ as my personal savior? I believe it to be that way. I also believe that your actions also save you. When you have faith in Jesus, you live your life according to how God and Jesus want you to. Going to church, reading your Bible, praying, going good deeds for your neighbor, etc. for God and Jesus, that is showing your faith. If you do good deeds and don’t have faith (taking Jesus as your personal savior), you won’t get anywhere. As St. Thomas said, “Faith without works is dead.” To me, that means if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and you don’t live your life according to His will, where is your faith then?

Let’s recap:

  1. The First Protestants disagreed with Jesus Christ on the body and blood issue because they thought our Savior was preaching cannabilism but he was not.

  2. The Christians of the world should unite as one body.

  3. If you believe in God and Jesus Christ as our Savior, that is one part of faith. The other part is living your life according to their will. Doing what God wants you to do on Earth and believing in him and his Son as the Savior (or vice-versa) is the main key.

-“This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the Gospel.”-Mark 1:15

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

86

kenny777? A few not very minor points:

The original issue of the Eucharist was a philosophical one between the Platonic (Augustinian) Luther who described the action as Consubstantiation and the Aristotelian Dominicans who described the action as Transubstantiation. It is a philosophical argument that is beyond the care of the vast number of Christians. Once that particular breach was made, then other opinions were formed, varying from minor disagreements on language (e.g., between the RCC and the Anglicans) to complete disagreements over every aspect of the event, with some groups seeing Communion as a mere commemorative ritual and others seeing even that as too pagan and rejecting any apparent ritual completely.

I have no idea what your statement regarding Melchizedek means. The (extremely brief) story of Melchizedek was seen by the ancient Hebrews as a prefigurement of the holy nature of Jerusalem (and, by extension, their charter from God to take it and hold it in His name). The story has been taken by Christians as a prefigurement of the Eucharist, but the story works equally well regardless whether you see it as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist or as a foreshadowing only of the Last Supper. Using the story to “prove” the concept that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ gets you nowhere, as anyone who does not believe in the latter can show several different interpretations.

I strongly suspect that your twelfth century priest story is simply an ancient version of an urban legend (provided Sister Mary Dragontemper did not make it up out of whole cloth, herself). There are a few ancient urban legends (or Catholic legends) about a broken Host bleeding to persuade some skeptic that it was truly the body of Christ, however, the Church recognizes them as legends and does not use those “events” to “prove” the reality of the Transubstantiation. Bringing such a tale, here, will simply get you mocked.

I’m afraid that your call for unity is rather more than offset by your language. Calling all to join together after addressing some portion of your audience as “bible thumpers” is not really conducive to actually encouraging unity.

Attributing a line of Scripture to St. Thomas (which Thomas?) that is clearly taken from the Epistle of James is going to get you scorned for ignorance.

I appreciate your concern for Christian unity. I suspect you just might have to work on your delivery and your hisory before your call is heard in this forum.

87

BTW, you won’t find any reference to cannibalism (pro or con) in the gospels. either. You may be thinking of the people who took the phrase “born again” literally. You might want to read the gospels to check on your thoughts.

88

Tomndebb,

Thanks for the help! :slight_smile:

You know your stuff! :slight_smile:

89

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freyr *

But you used the phrase *Mostly all forms of organized religion today has pagan DNA, and pagan or paganism, meaning that the worship is based on the goings on in the the natural world, which implies other faiths, like Buddhism, Islam, Shinto and Tao-ism. Do you still maintain that?

In the context of eastern religions, I would be foolish to assert that claim , so no, I do not maintain it. I certainly should have been more specific and said all forms of organized western religion, and specifically Christianity. I find nothing wrong with the idea, though, that eastern religions are pagan (loosely defined) in their practices and rites being that most eastern religions are vested heavily in the spirituality of nature.

The Murrayite thesis (the survival of archaic pagan practices as an underground witchcult) has been thoroughly discredited. Check Ronald Hutton’s Triumph of the Moon(Oxford Press, 1999) for a thorough history of modern Pagan and references that discredit Murray’s thesis.

I don’t recall her claiming that Paganism has roots going back that far. Can you give us a cite on that?
I was unaware of her theory being discredited, so I must read on it.
I haven’t the source in front of me, however I will locate it, and post at a later date.