A Question For Protestants regarding the Catholic Church...

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont.

Mikejw;
We need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.

Who is the head of the Church?
Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)
What is the foundation of the Church?
No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Is there any other Rock besides the Lord?
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock, I know not one (Isaiah 44:8).
The church of Jesus Christ is catholic (universal) because it is composed of all the people purchased with His blood from every nation of the world. The church is holy because its members are sanctified by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the Bible.

Gabriel of 12;
You have no disagreement here from Catholics, Jesus is the corner stone, Jesus is the Rock that gives living water etc… What we disagree on, is that scripture teaches that not all are called to be apostles etc… though we are many members doing different functions we belong to the one same body, because we are partakers of his divinity through the Sacraments Jesus gave us. To claim the Keys to the Kingdom of God, when God did not give them to you, makes one hard pressed to take away this interpretation from scripture, unless you are applying this as a child of God from your personal life, in a symbolic way. But no successor to the apostles possess the Keys to the Kingdom only those whom Jesus gave them too.

Mikejw;
Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Gabriel of 12;
Tell you what, lets hear what Jesus states about this;

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. This is baptism, which saves you now;1Peter 3:21

I dont know what you mean by being born again, if it means a kind of belief in Jesus let me assure you; Even satan and his demons believe in Jesus and have confessed him to be the son of God, and Son of David yet they are eternally damned.

NO ONE, Says Jesus can enter the Kingdom of God without Water baptism period. Anything else is a new gospel that does not come from God.

 

[phummel]

…
My question to you is, “When did this corruption occur?” What is it that the Catholic Church teaches that is evil, wrong, presumptuous, misguided, incomplete, incorrect, or whatever, and when did this teaching begin? When did what we teach now become different from what was taught by the Early Church Fathers?

Matthew 7:15-20
You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Waldenses
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Albigenses
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Inquisition

I grabbed these links from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Even though it has some unsavory history, the Catholic Church preserved this info with honesty. Praise God!

My mother was also raised RC in the 1950s. She tells stories of sadistic nuns during her schooling - it’s not nice.
I spent the first 18 years of my life as RC. I don’t have an axe to grind, but my spiritual journey has taken me elsewhere.
I know the good the RC church does in this world.

The truth is that most Protestants’ problem is the idea of submitting to Rome. Pride is a deadly sin, and we know this. Catholic submission is an act of humility. Every Catholic on this website submits to Rome specifically because we fully admit that we do not know everything, and we never will. On the other hand, for years now, I’ve read Protestant after Protestant admit that they reached their conclusions studying on their own, and that this was proof of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Yes, pride is a deadly sin. I submit to God, not to any man or men that claim to be God’s representative.

I believe power corrupts, and when it does, the character of God is damaged.
Power expressed in a theocracy, power of clergy over lay people, power of teachers over students.

If I was fortnuate enough to spend time with RC clergy, I know I would learn much.

Scripture is not open to interpretation. The belief that it can be is the reason for all these denominations in the first place. Understanding is not open, either. It is fixed, with one standard that will judge us all. Truth does not change for any reason. Scripture itself says that, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” ~1 Timothy 3:15~

You and I disagree on whether it is open to interpretation and also on the definition of church.

…At least I can trust my shepherd. Any herder can tell you that sheep on their own never do well, especially young, inexperienced sheep in small numbers. Remember Luke 15.
And that, my friends, is what it means to be Catholic.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

I like this! I trust Him too. I am glad that you are blessed as a Catholic.

-paul

 

[DLClark]

Jesus does not say we have the power to start our own churches. He says we have the power to perform miracles and such. He does not say we have the power to interpret Scripture, or exert authority over other believers. He reserves those authorities for his Church. A spiritual fellowship of believers alone cannot interpret scripture, because the fellowship is intangible and unorganized. A spiritual fellowship cannot exert authority over other believers because, as before, it is intangible. Only a physical church has this power. The True Church must be both spiritual and physical, so that the Faithful have something in which God’s power and authority are visible to the laymen. Which brings me, yet again, back to my first question.

Where does it say in the Bible that it is wrong starting churches? Please show me where it says in the Bible that certain church is correct over other churches?

 

[Mikejw]

Peter actually was the head of the Church. There is a reason for him being first in any Biblical list of the Apostles. Anyway, why would Jesus give him the tasks he did in John 21:15-19 if He didn’t mean for Peter to have power? And no, Jesus did not mean his words literally in that passage. It would be silly.

Even so, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven makes me think that Peter was more than an Apostle. Think about it. Giving someone the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven means that that person who posessed them would have the power to save many souls. Many are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Peter was the head.

Christ is the spiritual head of the Church. The Pope (in this instance Peter) is the earthly head of the Church. God left us the Catholic Church as a visible representation of his Grace and Power.

You contradict yourself. You said earlier that the Church was built on Peter’s Confession of Faith. As Catholics, we believe that:

• Peter is the earthly Head of the Church
• The Foundation of the Church is Peter’s Confession of Faith, which we all believe
• Christ Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church, meaning the most important part of an object. In older times the cornerstone was the stone that, without which, a building would fall apart. The Church would fall apart without Jesus. So, here Jesus is more important than the foundation

You misuse the term Apostolic. Apostolic means that it holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (meaning that the Apostles passed on their teaching authority to their successors in Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Catholic Church) in conjunction with belief in Apostolic teachings.

I disagree. What you describe is known as the Body of Christ. All Christians make up the Body of Christ. Only Catholics make up the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. There is a difference between the Body of Christ and the True Church of Christ.

"why would Jesus give him the tasks he did in John 21:15-19 if He didn’t mean for Peter to have power?

“Feed my lambs” The word “feed” conveys the idea of being devoted to the Lord’s service as an undershephard who cares for his flock. The word has an idea of constantly feeding and nourashing the sheep. This served as a reminder that the primary duty of the messanger of Jesus Christ is to teach the Word of God.

" And no, Jesus did not mean his words literally in that passage. It would be silly."

Hmm.

“Giving someone the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven means that that person who posessed them would have the power to save many souls. Many are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Peter was the head”

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Yes these"keys" do represent authority (and by extension all other believers) authority to declare what was bound or loosed in heaven, Jhn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Christ gave the other Apostles this authority also. But these judgments of “loosed and bound” must be in accord to Gods Word. Whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth is already “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God is saying about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.

" The Pope (in this instance Peter) is the earthly head of the Church. God left us the Catholic Church as a visible representation of his Grace and Power."

Sorry, misinterpretation of scripture on that one, any argument past this foundational error is to flog a dead horse, (If the foundations be destroyed.) so I suppose thats exactly what I’m doing… Oh well, I’ll go on.

“You contradict yourself. You said earlier that the Church was built on Peter’s Confession of Faith. As Catholics, we believe that:”

I do remember posting this. " In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ." Where is the contradiction here?

“You misuse the term Apostolic. Apostolic means that it holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (meaning that the Apostles passed on their teaching authority to their successors in Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Catholic Church) in conjunction with belief in Apostolic teachings.”

There’s that dead horse again.

“There is a difference between the Body of Christ and the True Church of Christ”

Give me scripture please.

 

[Mikejw]

You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church… and then he gave him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to bind and loose. I don’t know, the evidence is pretty one-sided in favour of the Catholic Church.

Christ is, but he left his earthly head, Peter, to “tend My sheep” “feed my lambs” and so on. He clearly designates Peter as the head of the Apostles and Church, and his successors are the Bishops of Rome today.

I fail to see how the two views are somehow contradictory. Christ did name him as head of the Church Because of his confession. It seems your twisting words again.

And Peter is His Prime Minister, with the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loosen.

I

Christ named Peter “Rock”, but only in a vicarious sense as representing Christ, the true Rock. That’s why Peter’s name means “Rock”.

Even though they all believe contradictory doctrines and are perpetually divided? This schismatic mindset is condemned by St. Paul. Also, they cannot be a part of the true Church because they hold errant doctrines (even different from one another) but the real Catholic Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” St. Paul says.

"Even though they all believe contradictory doctrines and are perpetually divided? This schismatic mindset is condemned by St. Paul. Also, they cannot be a part of the true Church because they hold errant doctrines "

The Lord knows his own.

 

[Mikejw]

" Or do I search for the Church Jesus personally built upon Peter and his apostles? From his revealed Word?"

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

Peter is not the universal bishop of the Church, from the pretense that you assume. Peter and his successors is the Bishop of Rome. Peter and his Successors in the unbroken line of Popes on the Chair of Peter, Is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, who alone with the successors to the apostes possess the Keys to the Kingdom.

This authority place over the sheepfold of God does not apply to all the members from the biblical context. So for one laity to claim from the context of scripture that he possesses the Keys to the KIngdom, is a far cry from biblical interpretation. Lets us be realistic here. From a symbolic view of this text, a lay person does possess the keys to the kingdom from his personal life, to bind and loose on a personal level but not from the Universal (Catholic) level of the whole church. Only Peter who is always named first ahead of the apostles throughout scripture along with the apostles and their successors possess the Keys to the Kingdom and Authority to bind and loose.

Mikejw;
The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

Gabriel of 12;
Interesting, Jesus named Peter “Kephas” which translates massive “Rock”, Paul and I believe St. Luke calls Peter from their writings the name Jesus gave Peter “Kephas”. So, if Paul calls Peter by the name Jesus gave him. Why do think Jesus was speaking about Peters confession? How do you get that when Jesus renames him “You are Kephas (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build my church”? True the bible does not list all the Popes who succeeded Peter, only 2 popes, then Apostolic Tradition and historical records record all the successors of Peter to today. Both secular historians and religious historians have proven this as fact. When did your church start up, if you are not made aware of this knowledge of historical documentation?

"Peter is not the universal bishop of the Church, from the pretense that you assume. "

What I did post was this, you may want to read it again.

"The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was

made the universal bishop of the church is false."

“This authority place over the sheepfold of God does not apply to all the members from the biblical context. So for one laity to claim from the context of scripture that he possesses the Keys to the KIngdom, is a far cry from biblical interpretation. Lets us be realistic here. From a symbolic view of this text, a lay person does possess the keys to the kingdom from his personal life, to bind and loose on a personal level but not from the Universal (Catholic) level of the whole church. Only Peter who is always named first ahead of the apostles throughout scripture along with the apostles and their successors possess the Keys to the Kingdom and Authority to bind and loose.”

As I posted once before. Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Yes these"keys" do represent authority (and by extension all other believers) authority to declare what was bound or loosed in heaven, Jhn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Christ gave the other Apostles this authority also. But these judgments of “loosed and bound” must be in accord to Gods Word. Whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth is already “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God is saying about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.

“Both secular historians and religious historians have proven this as fact.”

Do you believe the theory of evolution because it is “proven” a fact? Oh wait, the pope does so I guess you would.

“When did your church start up”

At pentecost.

"Jesus named Peter “Kephas” which translates massive “Rock”, " ???

Cephas = “stone”
petra pe’-trä rock
Petros pe’-tros Peter, stone blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=peter&t=NIV&sf=5#
blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=rock&t=NIV&sf=5#
blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Cephas&t=NIV&sf=5#

 

[DLClark]

The hard part is in convincing Protestants that the Church is physical. And you can’t create an argument based on Tradition/Church authority, since they reject that anyway.

The answer to the second question may be this: Protestants only believe that God will keep his INVISIBLE church from major errors, not necessarily the physical. Some Protestants would say that the Catholic Church isn’t even Christian, so this question is senseless.

I am a Protestant that wants to convert to Catholicism, but still knows the popular Protestant retorts quite well. =)

Paul said Acts 16:31

They said, " Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved
NASU

If a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will he be saved?

 

[DonLeon]

After reading all the posts in this thread I would like to ask my Protestant brothers as to why there are so many sects and factions (approximately 30,000 world wide) in Protestantism with each one claiming to be the true church which Jesus founded?

FYI: The Catholic Church (which includes Eastern, Oriental, Byzantine, and Roman Rite
Churches) has come down through the ages unchanged in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Many have tried to prove otherwise and all have failed. Many in their endeaver, after much research into the church’s history, have converted to Catholicism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Mikejw]

After reading all the posts in this thread I would like to ask my Protestant brothers as to why there are so many sects and factions (approximately 30,000 world wide) in Protestantism with each one claiming to be the true church which Jesus founded?

FYI: The Catholic Church (which includes Eastern, Oriental, Byzantine, and Roman Rite
Churches) has come down through the ages unchanged in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Many have tried to prove otherwise and all have failed. Many in their endeaver, after much research into the church’s history, have converted to Catholicism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

"with each one claiming to be the true church "

This is an absurd statement, all bible believers know the body is made up of true born again Christians. Do you claim Mormons or JW’s are part of the 30 000 you mentioned?

 

[DonLeon]

"with each one claiming to be the true church "

This is an absurd statement, all bible believers know the body is made up of true born again Christians. Do you claim Mormons or JW’s are part of the 30 000 you mentioned?

It is NOT an absurd statement! Maybe you or your church may not claim it, but many do and also claim the apostacy of the Catholic church.

As for the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Christian Science, and other pseudo-Christian
cults, they are not part of the Church of Christ and are in deep error. But that is another subject.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ahollars]

Matthew 7:15-20
You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Waldenses
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Albigenses
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Inquisition

I grabbed these links from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Even though it has some unsavory history, the Catholic Church preserved this info with honesty. Praise God!

My mother was also raised RC in the 1950s. She tells stories of sadistic nuns during her schooling - it’s not nice.
I spent the first 18 years of my life as RC. I don’t have an axe to grind, but my spiritual journey has taken me elsewhere.
I know the good the RC church does in this world.

Now I get it.

I will not bother posting the misgivings of Christian leadership from people outside the Catholic Church. I’m sure you can think of a few of them on your own.

The point, however, is even if I did, that is not a valid argument on the authenticity of teaching. I wanted to know what was it that we taught that was in error from what was taught in the beginning.

For comparison, let’s say that after a divine revelation, a person lives the remainder of their life in fidelity. After death, followers pick up the teaching to carry on, but fail to live up to the standard. Does this relieve them of their responsibility for carrying the standard?

According to your answer, yes it does. You have examples here of a failure of leadership, not a teaching of heresy. If anything, the mistakes were made in trying to correct the heresy. There will always be flaws in the men of religion, as their are flaws in us all, but that does not mean there is a flaw with the religion of men.

This is why attacks on Martin Luther and other Reformers work best when focused on theology. Questioning his personal credibility on his piety is pointless (especially since he wasn’t exactly a bad person). Many of the items on his “95 Thesis” were not related to doctrine, but to discipline.

We Catholics are supposed to focus on what the Catholic Church teaches. Many of us here are actually dissatisfied with our current USCCB leadership, since they appear to have forgotten why they wear red. That does not mean that we will leave the Church, because we still believe what is preached, but some people have, for different reasons, especially if their trust is broken.

That is a good quote, and our Church leaders are definitely in the group of people “to whom much is given”. The collars and habits will only improve their chances if they carry out their duties faithfully, and this is part of the reason their numbers have suffered greatly in the last 50 years.

Your turn.

 

[oberyn3]

After reading all the posts in this thread I would like to ask my Protestant brothers as to why there are so many sects and factions (approximately 30,000 world wide) in Protestantism with each one claiming to be the true church which Jesus founded?

I think that’s a very interesting question.

Perhaps one way to view it is the concept of a “priesthood” of all believers. In that sense, individual denominations aren’t laying claim to being the one, true church. The one, true church, from that standpoint, would be the entire body of believers in Christ and not a particular denomination.

I personally think that denomination is a more accurate and certainly less pejorative term than sect or faction.

 

[DonLeon]

I think that’s a very interesting question.

Perhaps one way to view it is the concept of a “priesthood” of all believers. In that sense, individual denominations aren’t laying claim to being the one, true church. The one, true church, from that standpoint, would be the entire body of believers in Christ and not a particular denomination.

I personally think that denomination is a more accurate and certainly less pejorative term than sect or faction.

Thank you very much for your answer. That is one way to look at it. What bothers me most is the psudo-Christian ( Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Christian science, etc.)
organizations,primarily, who each claim to be the continuation of the true church. Too many people fall victim to their claims without checking into each of them and then are practically trapped forever (viz: Way International, Jones’s church, etc.) at the cost of losing their souls. I deeply grieve for them. :bighanky:

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichm

 

[Mikejw]

It is NOT an absurd statement! Maybe you or your church may not claim it, but many do and also claim the apostacy of the Catholic church.

As for the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Christian Science, and other pseudo-Christian
cults, they are not part of the Church of Christ and are in deep error. But that is another subject.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

“many do and also claim the apostacy of the Catholic church.”

It’s a foregone conclusion that true born again Christians are going to argue the legitimacy and claim the apostacy of the cc.

 

[SonofMonica]

Protestantism is horribly mistaken about the entire nature of the covenant relationship. One cannot truly understand Judaism and remain Protestant.

 

[Jeeda555]

So here’s the real question. If (for the sake of the argument) the Catholic Church is NOT the True Church:

1. Which Protestant denomination is the True Church? Remember, the True Church is a physical church, not a spiritual fellowship of believers. James 5:14 pretty much says that the True Church is a real, physical church.
   COLOR]

Hello.

This is a subject that really bothers me. First I don’t agree with the above statement. James 5:14 says “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (NIV, but pick your translation) How is this proof that the Church isn’t a spiritual fellowship of believers? Of course it is. That’s what God cares about: people.

The true Church? Isn’t anyone who believes in who Jesus is, what he did for us, who lives their lives modeled after him, repents of their sins, helps others, and acts in love a part of the Church? Is the question “which is the true Church?” or “which is the true denomination?” The true church is Christianity (AKA those who follow Christ), which is made up of people whose lives mirror what is listed above (whether Catholic or a protestant denomination). But the true denomination? I honestly don’t believe there is one. They all have it right and they all have it wrong, depending on what doctrine/theology we’re talking about. Protestant denominations are more worship styles really. Oh sure, there are differences on things like Baptism or when to take communion, but do these things matter as much in the grand sceme of things? How can we be sure ANY Of us has it right? Because this sounds a lot like the whole story of Jesus and his disciples eating grain on the Sabbath and the Pharisees screaming “You’re working on the Sabbath! You’re working on the Sabbath! I’m telling on you!”, with Jesus like “Dude, you missed the point.”

Also people keep saying “When protestants really study Church history, most convert”, but the same can be said for Catholics to Protestantism. My little church is made up of a lot of hurting former Catholics who were burned, abused, or just questioned the church’s teaching and/or tradition. Does that mean “Protestants are winning?” because they have all these new “converts”? No, of course not! No more than “Catholics are winning” because protestants are converting to Catholism.

It’s a sad thing, because I except my Catholic brothers and sisters with open arms. I may not understand all of the Catholic Church’s traditions or agree with every doctrine I hear, but I certaintly don’t know everything, and I don’t judge. God will deal with all of our misunderstandings of his Word (and we *all *have them). And some Catholics except me as a fellow sister. Others don’t. That’s their choice and they will have to face God about it (just like I will have to face God about my choices, the good and the poor).

Bottom line: Where is the love? Where’s the love, on *either *side? Protestants are certaintly to blame for fueling the fire of this gap between Catholics and Protestants, but Catholics are as well. Anything said on this thread and this forum NOT stated in love (AKA “A good heart motive and said in love”) is a poor example of Christ, whatever “side” you happen to be defending. Why can’t we just love each other where the other is at?

It’s time we stopped treating our relationship with our Lord and Savior as a special club with an “us” or “them” mentality. And anyone who thinks this sort of thing pleases God needs to get on their knees and find some answers. Because this doesn’t please God. We’re hurting one another and we need to stop.

 

[Mikejw]

Protestantism is horribly mistaken about the entire nature of the covenant relationship. One cannot truly understand Judaism and remain Protestant.

Come on now, we need scripture, not just opinions. Prove how we are “horribly mistaken.”

 

[jake23]

I was once a protestant who went to school to become a pastor and instead came out Catholic! I believe the Catholic church is Christ authentic church, however there are truths in protestant beliefs that make them brothers and sister in Christ. Interpretaions are misconstrude out of personal beleifs when it comes to protestant Bibles however God loves them the same as us. It is our responability as Catholics not to argue but love those of denominations and to pray that they will find there way to the mother church, not for the sake of there salvation but for the sake of there spiritual maturity. All should have there own personal journey to find Gods church without oustide influince, it is then that one can authenticly become part of the holy church. Instead of questioning protestants lets pray for them and show them unconditional love for it is only then that they might find there way home! God Bless!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Come on now, we need scripture, not just opinions. Prove how we are “horribly mistaken.”

No valid priesthood, (All of Hebrews)

No stewards of the mysteries of God,(Colossians 1: 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, 25 of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, 26 the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,) (1 Corinthians 4: 1 Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.)

No “parousia” (real presence of Jesus) of the eternal Passover celebrated with bread, wine and lamb in the fulfilled celebration of the Eucharist. (1cor.10:16, 1 cor.11:23-29, Luke 22;14-20, Matt.26:26-28, John 6:6;53…)

No valid holy orders deacons, no prebyters, no bishops to hand down the Tradtional teachings of the apostles. (2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

2Thess.3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who 7 was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

1Corinthians11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.

The list continues to grow… I dont think its horrible that you dont have Apostolic Tradition, or 2000 year old biblical interpretations from Jesus and the apostles. I think you are mistaken to think you are the Church without the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Any thing other than the true presence of Jesus is mistaken for another gospel.

No apostolic succession to the apostles,( Acts 1;15-26)

 

[Mikejw]

No valid priesthood, (All of Hebrews)

No stewards of the mysteries of God,(Colossians 1: 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, 25 of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, 26 the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,) (1 Corinthians 4: 1 Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.)

No “parousia” (real presence of Jesus) of the eternal Passover celebrated with bread, wine and lamb in the fulfilled celebration of the Eucharist. (1cor.10:16, 1 cor.11:23-29, Luke 22;14-20, Matt.26:26-28, John 6:6;53…)

“in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.”

Paul’s motivation for enduring suffering was to benefit Christ’s church. No argument there.

26 the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.

“Mystery” Divine revelation previously hidden.

“25 of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God.”

All believers are responsible for managing the abilities and resources God gives them.

“But now it has been manifested to his holy ones”

And now by extension, all believers.

1 Corinthians 4: 1 Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God

And now by extension, all believers.

"1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? "

“communion” To have in common, to paticipate and have partnership with.
Commemorating the Lord’s supper by which believers remembered their saviour’s death and celebrated their common salvation and eternal life which reflected their perfect spiritual oneness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Cr 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the [same] night in which He was betrayed took bread;
1Cr 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said, “Take, eat; [fn] this is My body which is broken [fn] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Cr 11:25 In the same manner [He] also [took] the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink [it],** in remembrance of Me**.”
1Cr 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
1Cr 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks [this] cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood [fn] of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner [fn] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s [fn] body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“1Cr 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks [this] cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood [fn] of the Lord”

It is necessary to set all sin before the Lord, then partake, so as not to mock the sacrifice for sin, by holding on to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luk 22:14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve [fn] apostles with Him.
Luk 22:15 Then He said to them, “With [fervent] desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
Luk 22:16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
Luk 22:17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide [it] among yourselves;
Luk 22:18 for I say to you, [fn] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
Luk 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke [it], and gave [it] to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this** in remembrance **of Me.”
Luk 22:20 Likewise He also [took] the cup after supper, saying, "This cup [is] the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“This cup [is] the new covenant in My blood”

Clearly the cup only represented the New Covenent. If the cup is claimed to be literal blood, why don’t catholics claim the cup to be the literal Covenent.