A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

Philipians 3:1-11

1Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
2Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Ephesians 2
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Why does Paul never teach that it is by faith and works?
Why does he say “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”?
He specifically said** NOT BY WORKS**. Is he a liar? Is this False Teaching?

 

[ni8_shadow]

St. Paul is speaking of works of the mosaic law of the OLD Covenant. Christ came to establish a NEW and everlasting Covenant. And in that newer version the Church Christ established is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He who hears the Church hears Christ.

James speaks of faith and works. And isn’t it Paul who said “faith WORKING through love?” (or someone else?) Catholics do not profess to lay out a list of good deeds in front of God and say “hey I did x, so you owe me God.” Faith and works go hand in hand. Faith without works is dead, and the opposite may be true as well. Many have asked Jesus what they need to do in order to be saved and I don’t recall Jesus saying something to the effect of “just believe and your all set.” Rather we see Christ speaking of obedience. If Christ tells us to do something (works of faith such as follow the commandments, cloth the naked, feed the hungry etc) then we MUST do so.

Now no Catholic, not even the Church itself can outwright damn anyone into hell. Excommunication is separation from the sacraments, which give you grace to live out your “faith working through love.” Without that grace it is REAL REAL hard to get to your destination.

Protestants are separated brothers of the Church. We share many similar beliefs and we share in the same baptism so you are considered fellow Christians. And as fellow Christians you are able to receive the ultimate reward. However, your path may be a harder and more “curved” path. Catholics profess to have the fullness of the Christian faith. Hence our path is more “direct” but since we have the fullness of the faith, much is required of us and by the grace of God I hope we can make it.

So does not being a Catholic automatically damn you to eternal hell? No. But being one sure helps

 

[protestantman]

If Paul’s statements do not agree with the stance of the church, do we Now argue his authority? As Paul was an Apostle converted by Jesus himself, and 14 years later was accepted by the Apostles.
I do agree that Faith and works are intertwined. A man of good faith will produce good works. Yet I will stand firm that It is by Faith that we are saved and not by works, as Paul wrote.

In my studies I also came across something that I would like to address.
In catholosism you call your priest “father.” Yet in Matthew 23:9
Christ specifically told his deciples never to do that. So who is in error?

9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ

 

[protestantman]

St. Paul is speaking of works of the mosaic law of the OLD Covenant. Christ came to establish a NEW and everlasting Covenant. And in that newer version the Church Christ established is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He who hears the Church hears Christ.

It does not say specifically that he was speaking of Mosaic law. Why do you assume this is true?
Why does Paul say,"…and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"
He also says in Galtions 3:22
22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Again he speaks nothing about works. Why would he omit it or neglect it, if it applied to salvation?

Ephesians 1:13
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Let say this. How can you do good works without the gift of God? Where do good works come from if Faith does not act first? Therefore, Faith gains salvation and righteousness, which in turn makes us capable of doing good works. How can you do good works, before you obtain salvation? Does a tree bear fruit before it plants its roots?

 

[mlchance]

Why does Paul never teach that it is by faith and works?

St. Paul does equate faith with obedience. That heavily implies the essential nature of good works.

Emphasis added:

Why does he say “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”?

See? We’re saved by grace, not by “faith alone”. The Apostle Paul says so. BTW, from what I’ve seen, no one is claiming we saved by works. The Church certainly makes no such claim.

In catholosism you call your priest “father.” Yet in Matthew 23:9
Christ specifically told his deciples never to do that. So who is in error?

You are.

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why does Paul never teach that it is by faith and works?
Why does he say “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”?
He specifically said** NOT BY WORKS**. Is he a liar? Is this False Teaching?

Sorry Protestantman - you either accept ALL of scripture or you accept NONE of scripture. Truth can not be divided against itself. Any attempt to do is is a sure sign of sect thinking and heresy that wants to carve out a special niche for itself.

Nope - one must live by every word of God.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

So by what you say, I am not truly saved?
Then what do you say to Colossians 2
…

I am sure you know that there is no such concept as Once Saved Always Saved in Church Teaching. Sorry - no. We can toss you the life preserver but you must exert the perspiration to swim for it and put your arms around it and hold on for dear life while praying and waving to the rescue aircraft overhead as the sharks circle. But if you toss away the life preserver and start swimming toward an island on the horizon on your own or fail to work with Jesus chances are you are going down…

The passages you highlight and reference are referring to the old Jewish institutions and secular authorities. They do not speak against Christ as head of The Church or to His Church. The apostles always spoke in terms of a community of believers - “brothers in Christ”. There is no concept of a lone ranger, seperated from the flock Christian, except when speaking of those lost and wandered (all heretics and those not in full communion) and Christ going after them to get them back. Anyone seperated from Jesus’ protection is at risk of being devoured by God’s enemies.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

… but since we have the fullness of the faith, much is required of us and by the grace of God I hope we can make it.

So does not being a Catholic automatically damn you to eternal hell? No. But being one sure helps

Fellow Catholics this is the thing most Catholics fail to realize. This is a very sobering truth. We know from scripture (parable of the talents) that “to much that is given MUCH is expected”. Even the saints who where given special visions give us sobering accounts of how exacting God’s Justice is - every single penny offense even when forgiven must have its temporal debt paid. There seems to be a multiplier effect for those spiritually gifted. Priests, nuns, bishops, popes, religious orders etc. all are held to a very high expectation and standard. There is a concept of a greater reward in heaven for those bringing God more souls and doing His works but there is also a greater risk of displeasing God when one has been given great talents and spiritual insights and gifts of the Holy Spirit. God’s shed grace through Jesus is as precious as each drop of Christ’s blood. God wants a 200% return or more for the grace He spends or “invests” in each of us.
Matthew 25:24-30:

"He also who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. 25 I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours.’

26 "But his lord answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn’t sow, and gather where I didn’t scatter. 27 You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. 28 Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents.

29 For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn’t have, even that which he has will be taken away. 30 Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

James

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus was not in violation of the Old Covenant when he healed the blind man on the Sabbath. This is the point he argued with the Pharisees. The Pharisees had twisted the words of the old covenant. Remember, it was the Pharisees who were in violation of the covenant, Not Christ. To say that Christ can save a man outside of the covenant is impossible. Christ’s actions never violate his covenants. The New Covenant says that we must have faith in Christ in order to be saved.

All of this is perfectly correct.

Where it goes wrong is when you assume that faith is the only thing necessary for salvation under the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant; not a negation of it. The New Covenant has all of the same components of the Old Covenant, but in their fulfilled form.

The Old Covenant had sacrifices; the New has Sacraments.

The community of the Old Covenant was the nation of Israel, into which people were born physically. They grew older, received Bar Mitzvah, and began to participate in the sacrifices at the Temple, and to eat of the meat of the lamb of sacrifice at the Passover. The New Covenant community is the Church, into which people are born spiritually, by baptism. As they grow older, they participate in Reconciliation, and receive Confirmation and First Holy Communion (which is the meat of the Lamb of Sacrifice of the New Covenant).

The Old Covenant was exclusive to Israel; the New is available to the whole world - anybody can convert and be baptized.

There are many other parallels, as well.

Also, it’s important to understand that faith is not unique to the New Covenant. They had to begin with faith in God before anything else could happen, in the Old Covenant, as well.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Protestantman: OriontheHunter

Maybe you are right. But if you are, it poses a serious moral dilema. The scripture specifically says that there is only one loaf. (1 corinthians 10:17) This means that the purpouse and meaning is the same for you as it is for me. You are likening it as it were two loaves, with two different meanings. If this is true, then one of us is following a false teaching. If it is I, then the Spirit does not live in me, for if it does, then it would discern this Truth. And if it is you, then the Spirit does not live in you. So you cannot say that we are both right, unless you can say that the meaning is the same.

Well, we have this dilemma throughout our disunity. While there is much with which we agree, we have differences. But I’m not sure that you do yourself any good (and potentially grave harm) to receive at a Catholic Mass when it includes making a statement that is false. It appears to me that it shows a lack of commitment. Remember Revelation 3:15-16: “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

The Eucharist and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is a central component of Catholic (and Orthodox for that matter) theology. In fact, I once heard it said that all of Catholic Theology flows from the central Scripture teachings about the Trinity and Eucharist.

Thus, I don’t say we are both right. I believe at the core of my soul that Catholic Teaching accurately grasps the teaching of John 6.

Incidentally, I always find it ironic that the longest, most detailed unified presentation of Theology in Scripture is deemed insignificant or only symbolic by many non-Catholic faiths. Furthermore, it is the only place in Scripture which Jesus points out that people left Him over directly over the specific theology itself (verses the costs of discipleship ala the young rich man) further indicating that it is significant.

But you believe otherwise. As a Christian brother and me being called to celebrate what unites us, I respect your practice as it is not totally devoid of the Truth but just a partial understanding in my opinion.

However, I will not go as far as you in that the Spirit does not live in you as it appears you are willing to say about me. I believe that the Spirit lives in all people. Unfortunately, our sins place obstacles in our ability to perfectly discern the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.

This all goes to a big issue with regard to unity which I believe the Church greatly contributes. We believe that the Catholic Church was given by Christ the Fullness of Faith from which all Salvation flows. A person who pursues to live their life according to the Faith is pursuing the “normal and sure” path to Salvation. However, we don’t claim it is the only path. It is the exclusive perogative of Jesus Christ to make the ultimate judgment. Thus, we believe that Divine Mercy will properly apply Divine Justice to those who sincerely did their best to live their life in Love and Discipleship according to God’s Holy Will despite whatever obstacles they faced in their life. This is why “forgive them Father for they know not what they do” is such a common Catholic prayer. Much of your faith contains elements of the Truth for which we believe God will properly consider at judgment. I respect that in your faith.

Just because the Catholic Church doesn’t mean that Catholics believe a higher percentage of Catholics will see the Beautific Vision. We tremble when we contemplate that “to whom much is given, much is expected.” A great many Catholics fail to live up to the Teachings of our Faith. I too tremble when I reflect on my failings.

From Protestantman: I find it foolish that many catholics use the phrase “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Should you not say “the teachings of Christ”? You imply that the teachings of the Church are equal to the Teachings of Christ.

Well, I could say that “teachings of Christ” as I believe they are the same as the “teachnigs of the Catholic Church”. However, it would become a distraction between you and I as you would then focus on my claim to be interpreting Jesus.

Because of charity to you and a desire to have dialogue in the pursuit of unity, I think it best to just say “teachings of teh Catholic Church”. Based on my experience here, most non-Catholic’s react more adversely to always invoking “teaching of Christ” so I’ll have to take your characterization of foolish. Even if you don’t mind that I say it, there will be 25 non-Catholic posts which distract every subject to become an issue of Authority.

From Protestantman: Carefull to you who may boast, that your secure position might fall. The bible makes many references that indicate that anyone can fall from a secure position. Security is defined by being protected against danger or loss. Christ secures the position of the church, ONLY AS LONG AS THE CHURCH DOES NOT PLACE ITSELF ABOVE ITS CREATOR. This is an act of discipline that even the church is succeptable to. Unless you say that the Church need no discipline. But then why did Paul warn the church about Isreals past. It would be unneccesary if the Church cannot fall.

The Church does not believe that it has ever and in fact because of its Sacred Charism can not act above the Creator on matters of Faith, Morals, Dogma, and Doctrine. To grasp this concept, please don’t react to this summary. You really need to have a detailed understanding of the principles of infallibility and impeccability. Entire books have been written on it yet the Church doesn’t claim that it fully understands this Mystery.

 

[ni8_shadow]

Paul often does talk about work of the Old Test law when talking about salvation, since one is not saved by those works any longer. In the passage you mentioned, Paul mentions topics such as eating/drinking certain things, keeping Saturday, etc. These are examples of the Old way…Christ came and brought forth a new way. The book of Romans is a good example. “We are saved through faith, apart from works OF THE LAW…”

Paul is not in violation or at odds with Catholic teaching at all. Faith is important. For without faith how can one come to understand anything in the Christian religion and follow it with their hearts? But from faith comes other qualities. Such as the ability to work through love, to obey Christ AND His Church.

Heaven is NOT that easy to get into…many will try, few will get it. Like the Navy S.E.A.L.S

As for the call no man father business…well…I believe the other posts link covered it well. Basically it wasn’t against utter the word “father” since people in the OT refer to Abraham as FATHER Abraham…and I think Paul in scripture claims to be a “father” of sorts.

You must take ALL of scripture together to get it’s true message. Not just isolated quotes. Study it all… OT AND NT.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Hi Protestantman,

It appears from your posts (on this thread, anyway,) that your objections to Catholicism can be boiled down to about a half dozen of the more common ones, plus a few “side issues”, such as a lack of knowledge about Paul & his apostleship.

For example, the claim that Paul wasn’t ordained or “accepted by the other apostles for 14 years” is refuted by Acts 9, which shows that he was not only baptized by Ananias immediately after his conversion & stay at Judas’ house, he was presented to, and accepted by, several of the apostles several days later.

(When he received ordination as an apostle is not specifically noted in scripture, but it can be inferred that it was either at the same time as his baptism, or shortly after, when he was presented to the apostles by Barnabus.)

The others here are correct, the Bible must be read in it’s entirety, not as if each verse can be isolated apart from everything else to act as some kind of “proof text.” This leads not only to misunderstanding of scripture, as Peter warns against, but creates conflicts in the Bible.

The half-dozen objections you’ve brought up in this thread have been explained and refuted for a long time, & information to refute them is readily available. Here are some articles that can probably clear up some of your misconceptions.

1 - Church Authority
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

2 - Papal Authority & Infallibility/Peter’s Primacy
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp (Fathers)
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

3 - Apostolic Succession
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp (Fathers)
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp (Fathers)

4 - Call no man father
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

5 - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp (Fathers)

6 - Claim of “Faith Alone”
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

God Bless,

Chris

 

[protestantman]

To all who have been watching this thread.

First of all, may God Bless you.

I must make a few things clear, so as to be completely clear on my position and my intentions. I do not believe in the following things:
-Papal Supremacy
-Papal infallability (apart from impecability, for I do understand
what you mean by this now:thumbsup: )
-The True presence of Christ in the Eucharist

To understand what I do believe, I have written it below.
- I believe that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified and buried, and conquered death in three days. He was resurected and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. It is in this and ONLY this that I place my faith. By this act of Faith alone, I have recieved salvation. I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit prunes me every waking moment, so that I am slowly begining to be more like my savior every day. Praise be to God forever. The more my sinfull nature is pruned away, the more spiritual wisdom I am intrusted with. If my faith grows stagnant, and my good works are few, my Lord seeks me out and renews my faith. My faith is alive, let my fruits of the spirit be my witness. I do not label myself with any denomination, but the catholic church calls me a protestant. So I use that term when I speak to the catholic church. Yet, I do not protest against you.
I will never judge your intentions. I question you, so that I might fellowship with you, and that you will give testimony to your faith.

As for Salvation - It is by faith in Christ alone.
As for Grace - It is Gods promise to those who are saved.
As for Works - A testament to all, that my faith is alive in Christ.
As for The Church - The body of Christ, containing all who are
saved.
As for Denominations - Man-made labels that seperate the body
of Christ.
As for the Apostles - The first teachers of the New Covenant
called by Christ, suffered for Christ.
As for Authority - All was given to Christ, who gives in measure
to those he calls.
As for Law - Living in the Spirit
As for Teaching - Anything of value is revealed by the Spirit. All
else is foolishness and is useless to me.

 

[ibetrippin07]

Why do Catholics put such emphasis on works when Christ saved us through grace alone? almost as if you can work your way to heaven or something, I just dont understand it

 

[protestantman]

…continued

Now I also have this to say:

If you rebuke me, please pray for me. I will search the scriptures to see if I have made an error. If I offend you, bring it to my attention so that I can repent. If you dissagree with anything I have said, then you can tell me. I am learning to choose my words more carefully, so that I might not create a sinfull situation. Sometimes my competitive nature kicks in, and allows sin to creep in.

I hope that I might serve each of you somehow. If you have questions, I will answer. If you have a prayer request, I will pray.

Again, God Bless you.

 

[mlchance]

Why do Catholics put such emphasis on works when Christ saved us through grace alone?

Because Christ Jesus himself placed such emphasis on works.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why do Catholics put such emphasis on works when Christ saved us through grace alone? almost as if you can work your way to heaven or something, I just dont understand it

Have you ever pondered why there are no cases in the bible where faith alone in God was not accompanied by some act or some work? Can you point to any?

Did Mary who was infused full of God’s grace not only have to have faith in God when she uttered the words “let it be done according to your Word” but also had to do her part to labor for 40 weeks and cooperate with God’s grace to conceive and give birth Jesus?

During the Agony of the Garden did not Christ who had full faith in God not ask Him to take the cup of suffering from Himself if possible?

Did not the ancient Jews who put their faith in God and Moses as deliver from bondage in Egypt not have to walk the walk and suffer the trials of 40 years in the dessert to reach the promised land?

Did not every single one of the Apostles save Judas (the betrayer who had the truth and abandoned it) who placed their faith in Jesus have to suffer severe persecution even to the point of death (save John) for works of faith to spread the good news?

Did not Jesus even have to labor to walk up the hill of Calvary under extreme persecution while faithfully carrying His cross to do God’s will?

The only question remaining to ask is why do those who profess “by faith alone” remain slothful and disobedient to Jesus’ word, His commandments and His example?

Take a lesson from the parable of the talents (Math 25:14-30). What happened to the lazy steward of God’s talents who did not invest nor working the talents that God gave him when he was asked to give an accounting for his life and time and had NOTHING to show for it save himself? That servant was condemned to Hell ( '…throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’).

James

 

[Orionthehunter]

To all who have been watching this thread.

First of all, may God Bless you.

I must make a few things clear, so as to be completely clear on my position and my intentions. I do not believe in the following things:
-Papal Supremacy
-Papal infallability (apart from impecability, for I do understand
what you mean by this now:thumbsup: )
-The True presence of Christ in the Eucharist

To understand what I do believe, I have written it below.
- I believe that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified and buried, and conquered death in three days. He was resurected and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. It is in this and ONLY this that I place my faith. By this act of Faith alone, I have recieved salvation. I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit prunes me every waking moment, so that I am slowly begining to be more like my savior every day. Praise be to God forever. The more my sinfull nature is pruned away, the more spiritual wisdom I am intrusted with. If my faith grows stagnant, and my good works are few, my Lord seeks me out and renews my faith. My faith is alive, let my fruits of the spirit be my witness. I do not label myself with any denomination, but the catholic church calls me a protestant. So I use that term when I speak to the catholic church. Yet, I do not protest against you.
I will never judge your intentions. I question you, so that I might fellowship with you, and that you will give testimony to your faith.

As for Salvation - It is by faith in Christ alone.
As for Grace - It is Gods promise to those who are saved.
As for Works - A testament to all, that my faith is alive in Christ.
As for The Church - The body of Christ, containing all who are
saved.
As for Denominations - Man-made labels that seperate the body
of Christ.
As for the Apostles - The first teachers of the New Covenant
called by Christ, suffered for Christ.
As for Authority - All was given to Christ, who gives in measure
to those he calls.
As for Law - Living in the Spirit
As for Teaching - Anything of value is revealed by the Spirit. All
else is foolishness and is useless to me.

Protestantman, well, you probably should have picked a different name as we Catholics see it as a statement of Protest against us. But really no big deal. Just ribbing you.

Thank you for your summary. It is good and concise and gives a good base with which to understand you. And, you have done a good job to discern on your own (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) many important “essentials”. Of course, we Catholics don’t think you have them all right because of your individual limitations but we Catholics don’t say that with an air of superiority but gratitude that we have Magisterium to provide greater clarity of what the Holy Spirit really intends. I hope you understand the spirit in which I say this. I DO NOT MEAN TO IMPUGN YOU.

In effect it is your own Catechism. Catholicism is a little more developed since it takes us almost 1,000 pages to present ours. I know you will find it surprising but we find 1,000 pages good and concise too. Now, when you have read the Catholic Catechism, we will be on equal footing with regard to understanding. Just kidding.

You will be surprised that there is few substantial disagreements with your Catechism and ours. But the ones that we have are significant.

Essentially, they are:

1. 
   *]Teaching Authority of the Church
   *]Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
   *]Faith Alone, OSAS
   *]Grace and works: This is pretty minor overall because when I use all your words in context, there is a great deal of saying the same thing only differently. But there is some distinction.
   
   And to some degree, these differences impacts some of the others (obviously view of Apostles but also discerning the Spirit.
   
   I don’t aspire to convince people with regard to our differences. Only the Holy Spirit does this. I just pray that I’m open to be an instrument if He calls on me to be a cooperator.
   
   Welcome PROTESTANTman . If you want to discuss these items, open an apologetic thread. Or you can go to the proper forum and ask questions and we’d be happy to give you a more detailed explanation. However, if you just want to learn the “what and why” we think/do as we do, the Catechism is more authoritative and concise than what happens here.
   
   Because you have a prayerful and gentle heart, you might want to explore the Spirituality thread. Except for those exercises that focus on the Eucharist, you might find good ideas to adopt for you to better develop your Sprituality (not implying I am more advanced than you but we all can do better). Catholics don’t mind if you plagiarize us.
   
   May God Bless You on your walk with Christ. See you around.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus left but sent the Holy Spirit to act in his place. The Holy Spirit is still among us.

He did, and He was clear that the fullness of that Spirit is found where unity is found.

This is where I find the biggest problem with Papal authority. What you say is true, but likewise Christ never gave clear, unmistakeable authority over the other Apostles.

I disagree. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Although all the Apostles were to fall away, Jesus prayed specifically for Peter. All the Apostles in union with Peter participate in the ministry of the Keys. Jesus was clear that authority in the Kingdom is based in service. That is why, to this day, the Pope refers to himself as the “servant of the servants of God”. It is not authority “over” others, as the Gentiles (unbeleivers) “Lord” it over them. Petrine authority comes from God’s appointment,and in the unity that follows obedience.

Scripture never ever clearly makes that distinction. It is a possible interpretation, but nothing more.

Scripture is clear that there is to be complete unity among the servants of God.

My problem is that despite the scriptures telling us not to quarrel over whether or not we follow Paul or Peter, the Catholic church makes a point to say they follow the succesion of Peter. Why?

Because he is the one to whom Jesus gave the Keys, and he is the one God appointed to feed the sheep. It is not a “we are better” type of loyalty, but being obedient to the authority that Christ appointed.

Why not say that we follow the succesion of Christ through the Apostles, not just Peter?

There was no division. This concept of separation is not of God. All the Apostles were in union with one another.

Why has a single interpretation become Law? Paul called these kinds of dissagreements to be worldly and of no value.

He was speaking of petty bickering. Paul was in perfect unity with all the other Apostles. He worked hard to make sure that his ministry did not work at cross purposes.

He also said the same of geneology. You trace your history back to Peter, but isn’t that the geneology of the body of Christ. What is our goal then./quote]

I think the goal is obedience to Jesus, and the authority that He appointed.
protestantman;3372804:

If I follow Paul’s teaching and you follow Peter’s, do we not recieve the same message. Why does it seem that the Catholic church puts as much importants on their tradition as they do the Holy scripture? Which has greater weight?

Yes, same message. No disunity between Peter and Paul. The disunity is a modern invention. We are commanded to accept the Sacred Tradition equally with the Scripture. The two were never meant to be separated from one another.

2 Thess 2:15
5 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

It was rebellion against authority that resulted in their separation from each other.

Peter was confronted by Paul, because Peters actions also led Barnabus and other Jews to sin. They sinned because Peter sinned. If Paul had not contested him, to what levels of sin would Peter have taken his followers? On the same principle, should we not contest the Pope if he fall into the same Pattern?

Sure! If you are with the Pope, and he falls short of the infallible teaching that he represents, then by all means, take him to task!

I want to say again that I am not striking out at your doctrine, merely yearning to have a deeper understanding of your doctrine. Sadly I had to bow out of the other thread, as it was begining to appear quarrelsome. I do not wish to see that happen here.

I don’t think you are attacking. I do think you do not understand Catholicism. Thanks for participating.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I do not believe in the following things:
-Papal Supremacy
-Papal infallability (apart from impecability, for I do understand
what you mean by this now:thumbsup: )
-The True presence of Christ in the Eucharist

As for Salvation - It is by faith in Christ alone.
As for Grace - It is Gods promise to those who are saved.
As for Works - A testament to all, that my faith is alive in Christ.
As for The Church - The body of Christ, containing all who are
saved.
As for Denominations - Man-made labels that seperate the body
of Christ.
As for the Apostles - The first teachers of the New Covenant
called by Christ, suffered for Christ.
As for Authority - All was given to Christ, who gives in measure
to those he calls.
As for Law - Living in the Spirit
As for Teaching - Anything of value is revealed by the Spirit. All
else is foolishness and is useless to me.

Protestantman it is actually a pleasure to interact with you since you actually have a very rational and reasonable mind rather than a completely shut one like so many of the fundamentalist minded Protestants have. I think there is real hope here to get you to a fuller truth and proper teaching.

Let me just hit one of the topic areas that you have issues with:

The term “Papal Supremacy” is a strange term to Catholics. We do not think of the pope as “supreme”. We see him as a kind and loving and gentle paternal figure who has special authority and also very heavy responsibility that weighs mightily on him. He is first and foremost very human and also very likable (as were all the recent popes). So our beloved Pope is respected as an authority but we more love him for the fact that he is our earthly “rock” with a real presence that we anchor ourselves too here on earth. So the term “supreme” comes across as strident to Catholics and suggests almost an irrational fear or loathing for authority in general. But there is absolutely no question that the early church fathers as well as the scripture give unassailable testament to the notion of one head of the Church (in union with the Bishops) possessing the power to serve The Church through Christ’s explicit conveyance of the authority to loose and bind. All the arguments against papal authority (and infallability) have all been presented and debated for many centuries. None has prevailed against The Church Teaching.
More here:
catholic.com/library/Pete…the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp (Fathers)
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Read these references. Many enemies of God and those who are enemies of The Church have tried to counter these iron clad references and none have been able to defeat The Church’s insight here. And that should not be surprising since Christ told us that The Holy Spirit would guide His Church and no evil (slander, heresy etc.) should prevail against her.

James