So, what about the testimonies of the church fathers?

There's something we have to understand here. If Irenaeus, Gregory the Wonderworker, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the others listed on the Catholic Answers website were inspired writers of Scripture, then the point would have been carried. However, these gentlemen of yester-centuries were re-interpreting the Word of God in their own tradition as they did so many other things - and it is remarkable that whatever title they called Mary, none of them actually was directly quoting the inspired writings that constitute the Bible as we have it today. Let's see how this bears out:

Irenaeus said: "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]). Where did he get this idea from? The closest to it would be Luke 1:35, and this is the direct statement of Scripture as it appears there: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." What has happened is that Irenaeus has shortchanged us by dropping some words from Luke 1:35. The angel called Mary's child 'Son of God', but Irenaeus just disregarded 'Son of' and simply said 'God'. Is this important? Yes, indeed. Let's use another example of this type of diddle:

If someone attempted to quote I Tim. 6:10 and said, "For money is the root of all evil" we know immediately that he/she has done the same thing as Irenaeus by dropping some words ("the love of". So, this is how this dribbling would read: "For the love of money is the root of all evil" - and the crossed out words show why it is important to be careful.

Cyril of Alexander made an interesting remark: "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]). By the same rule, Cyril should be amazed that the very same people who call Mary 'mother of God' cringe back in horror when you ask them why it is that those who do God's will cannot as well be called the 'brother of God' or 'sister of God' or 'mother of God' according Mark 3:5.

It is remarkable that none of the church fathers listed on the website actually was backing up their statements by what the apostles had written, as Paul warned that we ought not to go beyond what is written (I Cor.4:6). The earliest on the website who made that inference was Irenaeus and his documents dates back to 189 AD - nearly a hundred years after the apostles had completed their testimony in scripture. All the others that follow Irenaeus wrote a couple hundreds of years after him, and yet none of them brought forth their arguments from the apostles writings. Apart from the fact that they were forcing an unjustifiable interpretation into inspired Scripture, none of them actually pointed to God's Word where Mary was clearly called 'mother of God' by anybody in the New Testament.

I have to sleep on all that.I have never questioned my faith
saying the hail mary is like saying the lords prayer.
I can even say it in my sleep.

Alright. No hassles meant. Enjoy your evening.

Hi everyone,

This is my first post, I hope I'm not joining this thread to late?

Catholics are Catholics,
Anglicans are Anglicans (or Episcopalians!),
Baptists are Baptists,
Mormons are Mormons
Pentecostals are Pentecostals (and repeat for every tradition/denomination)
Followers/Disciples  of The Lord Jesus Christ are Christians.

What do I mean?
Essentially that the questions raised about Catholicism, as much as they are valid (and I agree that they are) apply to every tradition/denomination that claims to be Christian.

The very first thing the Apostle Paul deals with in the letter to the Corinthians is sectarianism.
Its one of the most insidious of spirits. A many headed beast. Other heads include tribalism, racism, denominationalism and the like.

Scrutinise the practices and traditions of any denomination against the clear reading of scripture and the only real question is the degree of departure. Matthew 23 anyone?

The voice of one is pleased to be here, and I anticipates enjoying and learning even more from the discourse now that I am a participant and not just an observer.

God bless
TVO1

Very interesting observations. I actually went to Mark 3:35 (not verse 5) where Jesus said: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

Since Jesus is God (I do not doubt that for a second) and He said whosoever does the will of God is His brother, and His sister, and mother, I have a question for Catholics.

Question:
Do Catholics do the will of God? If yes, then according to Mark 3:35 -

     --  can any Catholic man who does the will of God be called the 'brother of God'?

     --  can any Catholic woman who does the will of God be called the 'sister of God'?

     --  can any mother who does the will of God be called 'mother of God'?

If not, what has happened to the syllogism on the Catholic Answers' website? And why did the church fathers shy away from Mark 3:35?

In the Bible, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never for once 'mother of God.' I think the distinction is important for the following reasons:

(1) as welborn has rightly pointed out, it is important to understand that scripture is inspired and tradition is not. God who inspired the scriptures would have given Mary the title of 'mother of God' if He so wanted her to be called so that no one would be left guessing or forcing an interpretation of their own into it.

(2) Jesus is God, no doubt; but to call Mary 'mother of God' is to neglect the fact that the other divine Persons of the Trinity are the same one God. The title 'mother of God' is too broad a term as to suggest that Mary existed before Jesus (which is not true); and it would also suggest that Mary gave birth to God - which is what the church fathers have erroneous implied. But when you look at those verses in scripture that speak simply of 'God', you find that God the Father is there spoken of besides Jesus the Son. Examples:

 (a) Matt. 27:43 - He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

 (b) Mark 11:22 - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

 (c) John 14:1 - Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

 (d) Act 2:32 - This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Now to deliberately refer to Mary as 'mother of God' neglects the full meaning of who is God. Could these same church fathers have argued that Mary is the 'mother of God' in Acts 2:32 and several other passages where God is referring not just to Jesus the Son but to the Trinity?

(3) when Mary brought forth her firstborn son (Jesus) she did not call Him by any other name than what the angel had communicated to her - JESUS (cf. Luke 2:21). This shows that she did not assume the exalted title of 'mother of God' upon herself.

(4) In the magnificat, Mary did not say that all generations would call her 'mother of God' but simply 'blessed' (Luke 1:48). And the rest of Scripture calls her 'mother of Jesus' or 'Mary his mother' - speaking more about the humanity of Jesus than about His deity. Jesus never ceased to be God at any moment; but it is in His incarnation emphasizing His humanity that Mary is addressed as the 'mother of Jesus' rather than 'mother of God (see Rom.1:3-4 and Gal.4:4-5).

This is not to drag on an argument, but I would agree from the point of view that we draw our conclusions from the Bible rather than from traditions. Mary is a 'blessed' woman, the blessed mother of our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh - she who is called 'Mary, the mother of Jesus', honoured in God's Word as such and no more than what is written. I'm not a Catholic, but I know that Mary is called 'blessed among women' but not the 'mother of God.'

@welborn,

it seems you misread my earlier comments about Mary being God's birth vessel. Your summary here is a misrepresentation of my comments. Possibly my terminology threw you off.

welborn :

Luke 1:43 indeed mentions 'mother of my Lord' but is that the same thing as mother of God? And just what I feared you would conclude by that title is the idea that Mary was God's birth mother/vessel - it sounds like you're saying Mary gave birth to God!

@4get_me, thanks for that correction - I acknowledge the typo.

@mochafella, possibly I might've made the wrong inference and I apologise. I'll be glad to read your views, if it differs any from Jerome's commentary as posted on Catholic Answers website: "Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

mamaput:
And i did not call mary a vessel . I said she should not be seen as a vessel.

@mamaput, again I apologise to you for the mixup - that was supposed to have been mochafella's quote on the vessel and not yours. The mixup is regretted

cough cough

no where in the bible does it say pray for nigeria

so you better stop praying for things to change!

in the bible, it does say honor your father and your mother sha

Em. . .what about dis one? -

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

- 1Tim. 2:1-3

If I can pray for all men, could I not include my beloved country Nigeria?

@wellborn well said.

nope! after all you are not praying for nigerians, or the nigerian government, you are praying for nigeria!

u know me im just playing hehe, but pointing to the same quote, one is then also permitted to say the hail mary

‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye. (Mt. 7:1-5)

But test everything; hold fast what is good. - 1Thes. 5:21.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. - John 7:2

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. - Eph. 5:11

@welborn: good work. well done at all your postings. especially the most recent.

what everyone here, Catholics and Protestants alike, must realize is that this thread is not a means of judging Catholics but questioning certain aspects of Catholicism.

gbade. x:

what everyone here, Catholics and Protestants alike, must realize is that this thread is not a means of judging Catholics but questioning certain aspects of Catholicism.

@gbade, you make sense to me and I especially like your being specific - "Catholics and Protestants alike" - rather than vague or polarised.

to me, catholics and muslims have a lot in common. they both pray with beads in a string and recite their prayers amongst many.

In response to the original question, 'are Catholics Christian'? I am sure people on this board must all answer 'yes' as to be Christian is to believe in Christ. So you can understand why people get offended when asked this question. I find it hard to understand why people don't believe Catholics believe in Christ - which is essentially what you are saying if u say Catholics are not Christian.

Anyway, I think what people mean to ask is; are Catholics worshipping God on the right way? This is a perfectly fine to think about I believe (as a Catholic myself). I believe you either believe in Jesus or you don't, but there are many ways to honour and worship him and ask God for help. In the same way people ask their pastors to help them pray for them and their families or congregations to pray for sister Kate etc, so too do Catholics ask Mary the mother of Jesus to pray for us. We do not say she is the one who will save us, the same goes for saints (people have given reasonable analogies here I feel). To be honest, no one here reserves the right to question another Christian's ways of worshipping God, as in essence it is judging. You do however, have the right to decide for yourself what you feel is the best way to praise your God, ask for His help.

When Judgement day comes what do you think God will believe is more important. That I was a Pentecostal who spent all my time criticising Catholics rather than converting Atheists and serving my fellow man (i.e. charity). Or that perhaps by your views, I was a Catholic, who spent my time opening my hearts to all humanity, all Christian faiths, always spoke well of God and believe in Him with all my heart, mind and soul. That I practised things that were a so-called "waste of time" whilst doing the things God wanted also! I am not trying to say all the traditions of the Catholic Church are necessary (nor am I saying they are wrong), but there are so many other things going n in this world, people enter a train to go to work to provide for their family and get bombed. People committing suicide, people going to war, poverty, famine, those who don’t believe in any higher power let alone God, or better still Jesus! My issue is that a man who goes to war stricken areas to feed people and instil hope in them my giving them verses from the bible, who cleans them, feeds them, clothes them and yes prays for them. Would you not call him a man doing God’s will? What if this man is a Catholic priest? Do you still feel the same? Do you feel, between he who puts his life on the line and opens his heart and Bible to these people along with his heart and you who stays at home at his desk writing about how Catholic’s have got it wrong, you will enter God’s graces before him?

Let no one take this personally because I am just upset at how many lost people there are in this world, people who need people who know the Word better than the back of their hand like you. You people here are truly blessed and have been filled with the spirit. I truly believe it because, I know you are only asking these questions because you don’t want God’s image to be tainted/misrepresented which is admirable it shows your love and commitment to God. But you are being blind sighted, only God knows what He finds important and even amusing, He may be laughing at us now ‘look how these children are fighting at who loves me most, and who shows it in the best way’. Or maybe he is crying ‘my children would rather rebuke each other as to how they worship me than as to how they live their lives and serve their fellow man’. I don’t know, only God knows what he is thinking. But one ting is for sure, the devil is laughing ‘ha-ha stupid fools, either they are atheists or Christian either way I win, because even the so-called Christians ridicule each other until they render all form of religion/spirituality obsolete’ (which by the way I have seen and heard happen). Please end this talk and let’s set up a new thread: “how to be better Christians, more united in saving the world”, after all, all men are not the same so why should we worship the same. But the most basic and fundamental ideals of Christianity I am sure we can all agree on.

Yes

welborn, am addressing u in particular cos i see u seem to have a fair enuff grasp of the bible from all ur postings (so far), but i wonder wat happened to u cos ur last posting was in april, hope nothing serious?
u have raised many salient points in ur postings but it seems to me dat it must be taken for granted that the simple answer to the question asked by the nairalander i.e "are catholics christians" is a simple "yes". i assume dat u agree with this cos if not please tell me what else they can possibly be (and in summary too).

as for many of ur reasoning they seem to be okay at face value but any simple person (i mean really SIMPLE) will see through them all.

before i continue, i would like to say here that i joined this discussion not to complicate issues or show that any one religion is better than the other, but to try and answer some of the questions raised by you and see if it makes any sense (to you). another thing is that i am not going to try to convince you that i am right but to simply show u that any revelation which is made by God will always be true, immutable and durable (or have an ability to stand up to scrutiny).

your question (i do not want to refer to it as a problem) paraphrased is "is mary the mother of God?" if it is not please let me know. and u are seeking evidence from the scriptures (ONLY THE BIBLE! u say)

permit me to point out to you that not everything pertaining to christianity -or as a matter of fact any religion in general, is ever completely found in the agreed book of revelation-the bible in this case. and the Bible attests to this fact also in connection to what Jesus did-refer to John's gospel chapter 20 verse 30 and chapter 21 verse 25.
at this point all i'm saying is u should maybe have a second look at your belief in finding every thing in the scriptures.

will continue on this later.

Hi Carlosein,

Whilst I am not holding brief for Wellborn or anyone else for that matter (Hi Wellborn, I hope all is well with you. Do visit us sometime), I'd like to post a response.

I speak as a Christian and not in regard to any other religion/faith, but pray tell why the Bible is not complete in itself for "instuction in righteousness". Also, if it is not what else is required? And who is to determine exactly what that is. (I disagree that the "point" you where attempting to make in the last paragraph of your post is an actual fact).

As to the question raised in this thread "Are Catholics really Christians", that a bit of a non question, in that it both misses the point and is somewhat misleading.

Simply put, Christians are those who put their faith in Christ Jesus. I suppose one could expand this a great deal, but lets keep it simple.

So any Catholic who does so is a Christian.
But that does not mean that all who denote themsolves Catholics are Christians.
And exactly the same could be said of Coptic, Orthodox, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, SDA, JW, or any of the other 37'000 odd denominations.

Your post also suggest certain things to me. But so as not to misread or ascribe anything to you, I shall allow the discussion unfold.

God bless

hello TV01,
nice to read ur posting.
i am trying to say this in the "SIMPLEST" way possible so that i am not mistaken for some kind of religious freak (or something worse ).
u see my point, (if u permit me to point out once more), is that the bible does not contain (and does not claim to contain) "EVERYTHING!" that pertains to christianity (see yesterday's posting), i did not say, neither can i say that the bible is "not complete" as u seem to think i did .

again to make my explanation clearer, keep in mind the question raised by Welborn, "is mary the mother of God?". this is what i am trying to answer and in reference to this, i can assure him that if he is an unbiased seeker of the Truth (with a capital T) as he claims in his postings above then he should not place restrictions to the source(s) of this Truth because the answer(s) may not be found entirely in the bible alone.

The Bible does contains and does claim to contain enough truths for mankind's salvation, no doubt about this. but if one is going to ask questions as the one above (which in all sincerity-apologies to my catholic friends, does not add to nor remove from the salvation and redemption of mankind), then one should be ready and willing to research other avenues of information.

TV01 u asked me what else is required if the bible is not complete and who determines what the addition(s) may be. i have answered a part of this question above i.e the bible is indeed complete for "instruction in righteousness".  as to other issues like the one above (is mary the mother of God?), and others like: purgatory; the rosary; and so many others which are not so clearly refered to in the bible then one who is truly seeking answers should have recourse to the one and only institutionn set up by Jesus to teach ALL TRUTHS and not just WRITTEN TRUTHS! and that institution is the Church (in this case the catholic Church) guided solely by the Holy Spirit. the major reason being that this is exactly the purpose the Church was founded for.

i'd like to agree with u on the simple definition of a christian which u gave and to say i really appreciate its "SIMPLICITY"

as to ideas my posting suggested to u, i'd just like to say hope they would not derail us from the path of simplicity in trailing after the truth always!
Bless u too.

Welborn, still expecting .

Carlosein,

Thanks for your reply.

First, let me assure you that so far nothing you have posted leads me to believe that you are a religious freak. Listen, it took me numerous postings and many hard fought battles to attain that status - how dare you think you can simply waltz in here , make a few posts and join this elite club! But I see potential. Who knows, maybe one day, you too can have the letters RF after your name  .

Back back to the business at hand.

Would you be saying that the Bible is complete (for salvation), but does not contain everything (that pertains to Christianity)?

Further, you appear to be saying, that to facilitate the fullness of "Christianity" (not necessarily inherent in the bible), the Lord Jesus Christ set up an institution called the "Catholic church"?

You additionally seem to be saying that salvation does not require one to embrace Catholicism, but complete Christianity does.

I agree about salvation.

And I can see your point about fullness of Christianity. There are numerous debates and differences about non-core essentials (I won't even attempt to list any here), and things perhaps that the Bible hints at, touches on maybe, but does not explore in depth. But I must ask why any of these things pertain to or count towards the fullness of Christianity?

But I am not with you when you state that The Lord set up an "institution" to enable us to capture that fullness. Neither do I agree that the institution is the Catholic Church. But then I couldn't, if I don't believe there is one could I?

"The Lord knows those who are His! II Timothy 2:19

May I close by saying, "The fullness of Christianity and everything that pertains to it is to be found in Christ!

God bless

Matthew 16:18

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I am sure, every1 here is familiar with that saying. So I kinda get what Carlosein is saying. As Jesus did build the foundation for his Church he made his disciple (Peter) the rock upon which the Church would be built. Now one of the first Christian Churches was the Catholic Church, so it is the Church of Christ and no matter what, evil shall not change the Catholic Church (set up by Peter directly), and it shall not lose sight of the purpose of it being built, and I believe it has not. However, I don't think the Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ it is just the first one. A single layer, in the foundation if you will, it takes many layers to build a house or a fortress and I believe each Christian Church is a layer and as long as each layer is true the fortress will remain mighty.

So Christians alike can we end this discussion now, I know it is not getting heated yet but it will soon head in that direction.

Mmmmm, let me see

ell77:

Matthew 16:18
I am sure, everyone here is familiar with that saying. So I kind of get what Carlosein is saying. As Jesus did build the foundation for his Church he made his disciple (Peter) the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Yes I am familiar with it. But no, The Lord did not build the foundation for His church upon Peter.

I believe that interpretation is flawed, otherwise, Paul would have an equal claim.

1Corinthians 3:10 - According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

But that would also be wrong as the true foundation of the church is as follows;

Ephesians 2:20 - having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

(which nails all those who go around with the self-styled title Apostle & Prophet in this age!)

ell77:

Now one of the first Christian Churches was the Catholic Church, so it is the Church of Christ and no matter what, evil shall not change the Catholic Church (set up by Peter directly), and it shall not lose sight of the purpose of it being built, and I believe it has not. However, I don't think the Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ it is just the first one.

Again I don't agree.
There is only the one "True Church".
Peter never set up any Church. He was an Elder in "The Church" of The Lord Jesus Christ.
So, the Catholic church is not the first of many, it is the first of many to depart from the true church.

No heat sir, just truths. White hot truth

God bless

O brother!

No Muslims to attack, so 'Christians' do what they do best. Turn on each other. . .

I RARELY INSULT PEOPLE OVER RELIGION BUT THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS A FOOKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE



I apologise for that bit of madness but my intention remains the same. I shall only put it simply, if it is of God it will last. If not it will fall by the wayside. It was said in the bible when Jesus came along and the those uptight pharisees felt He was a hoax. If you feel Catolicism is not Christianity, goodun' you. God gave us free will, worship whatever you choose to worship but don't not slag off other religions. Maybe except Wiccans and Satanists.

Too true Nosa, I once said something for which I got a lot of insult, but I will repeat it again because this thread has only proved me dead right:

No matter what people call Him, whether it is God, Allah, Jah or Chukwu, it is the same Person that created all of us. And I'm damned fucking sure that He is just as confused as I am about how come there are now so many factions of us claiming to have sole knowledge of Him. Bleep this!

It is said (by Christians) that the Bible is God's ultimate truth, and (by Muslims) that it is His own word, dictated by none other than Jibril to the Prophet Muhammed (SAW). In both publications, it is said that man is created in the image and likeness of God. I beg to differ with that statement. It is a big lie. The God I know is perfect, and while man may be a copy of Him, man is neither His image nor likeness.

Simple and short, if man is in God's image and likeness, then God must be completely messed up. Because man is completely messed up.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are not strictly based on the Bible. The Church existed without the Bible for almost four centuries. The point is, while most Protestants (and Pentecostals in particular) believe in Sola Scriptura (the Bible only), other denominations such as Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Christians have traditional practices not found in the scriptures.

Roman Catholic teaching states that the revelation of God is continuous. That is, God continues to reveal ‘Himself’ to men and women each day. Thus saying any practice which isn’t in the Bible is wrong is contrary to the tenet on which the Catholic Church is built. Pentecostals on the other hand believe only in the Bible.

In the Catholic Church, the Bible is called Deo Verbum (Word of God) but it is not seen as the only revelation of God to man. In the formative years of Catholic doctrine, not just the Hebrew scripture, the four gospels and the letters of the apostles were used. Greek philosophy (as laid out by the likes of Aristotle and Socrates) also played a role in the formation of Catholic theology and the understanding the nature of God.

The roots of Catholicism are not just scriptural. They are scriptural, traditional and philosophical. Someone on this thread said religion shouldn’t go with logic. Not in Roman Catholicism. Though largely based on faith, logic plays a significant role in the Catholic Church and in understanding of God.

For instance, the official position of the Catholic Church with regard to the creation of man lies somewhere in between the power of a Divine Being and evolution. A number of Pentecostals reject evolution outright because they see it as anti-scriptural. Well, at the time the scriptures were written people weren’t knowledgeable enough to understand scientific principles. Thus, the revelation they received was limited to what they could comprehend.

The focal point of Catholicism is Christ and the Church. In the official Catholic teaching (the Catechism of the Catholic Church), all believers in Christ are called Christians, all believers in God (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, traditional believers) are accorded respect. And non-believers are seen as brothers and sisters who yearn for God.

Catholicism has 2000 years of history, mistakes, inspiration and holiness behind it. It isn’t built on any one individual. The Pope may be powerful (though he never pronounces on matters of faith without consulting Bishops, who consult priests, who consult members of the church) but he doesn’t own the Church. Popes come and go but the church remains.

The core of Christianity should be a call to personal holiness and sanctification so as to be of better use to our fellow human beings and society at large. This message is being lost with the advent of American style charismatic Pentecostal movements. These movements are found not just in Pentecostal churches but also in the Catholic Church. Personal sanctification appears to be giving way to materialism and the gospel of salvation is gradually being replaced by a gospel of prosperity. This is what we should be fighting against to build a better society and not asking baseless questions such as ‘Are Catholics Really Christians?’

TV01, ur question and i quote: "Would you be saying that the Bible is complete (for salvation), but does not contain everything (that pertains to Christianity)?
SIMPLE ANSWER: YES! and i hope u do get it this time

again i want to remind u to kindly keep ur postings simple as i may not be able to keep up with an RF like ur royal highness (i mean u just in case u are wondering )
well i'm saying this cos i can't seem to comprehend wat u mean by the following
"Further, you appear to be saying, that to facilitate the fullness of "Christianity" (not necessarily inherent in the bible), the Lord Jesus Christ set up an institution called the "Catholic church"?

You additionally seem to be saying that salvation does not require one to embrace Catholicism, but complete Christianity does. ?

all i'm simply saying is the bible does not contain all that pertains to christianity for there are references IN THE BIBLE concerning non written teachings handed down by the Apostles as seen in the following passages:
"so then, our brothers, stand firm and hold on to those TRUTHS which we taught you, BOTH IN OUR PREACHING AND IN OUR LETTER" 2nd Thess. ch.2 v.15.

"i have so much to tell you, but i do not want to do it with pen and ink. i hope to see you soon, and we will talk personally." 3rd John v.13

"i have so much to tell you, but i would rather not do it with paper and ink; instead, i hope to visit you and talk with you personally, so that we shall BE COMPLETELY HAPPY." 2nd John v.12

please note the use of the word "BOTH" above in the first passage and also the word "COMPLETE" in the third passage.

now if i decided to call all of the teachings done by preaching alone "TRADITION" how would that make them less efficacious and effective TRUTHS!

TV01, i do agree with u that "The fullness of Christianity and everything that pertains to it is to be found in Christ" But i'd like to add that Christ founded a Church through his Holy Spirit to preach (not to write!) the gospel to all nations (mark 16:15) and  one of the fundamental teachings of the catholic church is that Christ is the Head of the Church while the Church is the Body of Christ. this is further corroborated by Jesus' word "I am the vine, you are the branches." my point being that the church and Christ are one.

Finally, i find it out of place that u should have quoted that particular passage, i mean "The fullness of Christianity and everything that pertains to it is to be found in Christ" when u should be saying something like the fulness of christianity is to be found  in the BIBLE! (ur initial point)

anyway, i still have much more to say to you but i rather wait to see ur reply to this and hope this simple explanation is not confusing to u before i continue.
remain blessed

olex i just read ur posting and i musst say it gladdens my heart to know there are still people like u out there who can see beyond their noses (especially on non-issues like this).

Dominus Vobiscum !

Dominus vobiscum means The Lord be with you, before una start to dey scatter yarn for here. Olex and Carlosein thanks jo. But I must commend you guys, you have patience. Jaizuz!!!

To all those dissing the Catholic church, do you get any brownie points for this? I thought the bible said anyone who obeyed His commandments and loved his neighbour as himself was for Him? Why try to divide the church with fine lines?
If you need an audience for your bible quotes, numerous atheists and polytheists (is that word correct?) throng this forum and real life. Why shy away from a meaninful confrontation?
The painful thing is that most of these people work on hearsay, spouting half-truths that they heard from someone high on paraga. I'm a catholic and i was shocked when my roommate told me that "You Catholics worship Nimrod'. WTF? I didnt even know who Nimrod was, yet this fellow was damn sure of himself. probably his Pastor told him so. Despite strenous talk that we do not worship 'images' people still bring it up.
These same people blithely forget that following the logic of the Jehovah's Witnesses (which in itself is an advancement of their logic) we all are Idol woshippers for singing the National Anthem with our hands over our breasts. isn't it?

Tread carefully, lest you be seen as trying to divide the fabric of the church. Then your self-righteous actions will end up digging a fast route to damnation,

The Issue is not the denomination in Christainity that is worth it, Its ur personal relationship with Baba God and his Son that matters. I use to be a Catholic and i felt "Hell, am tired of this Mary sh*t" and i quit.Now i went over to a pentecostal church and for the first 3 weeks all i heard was "This is ur month of Breakthru,, or Prosperity, or Success or similar lines and i wanted to hear about salvation, about the club i went to last night,about the double life, but it seems those werent the pastors priority, i have even toyed with the idea of being a Witness (not dead yet), the thing is not the church, its Jesus and Jehova God and the state of ur life with him.Everybody should just stop this church talk and concentrate and rectifying the anomalies in their lives.Shikena!