An honest question

[Britta]

mango_2003:

That passage messed me up only when used in a combination argument of passages in the Bible against my Arianism. It was only a matter of time before I gave up. I’ve learned a lot about the Trinity because of the whole ordeal.

Hope that helps…lemme know if you need more.

~mango~

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Arianism was one of the first heresies which disputed the divinity of Christ. I know it stems from there. Can I ask how the Holy Spirit finally brought you to the Truth?

 

[mango_2003]

Britta:

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Arianism was one of the first heresies which disputed the divinity of Christ. I know it stems from there. Can I ask how the Holy Spirit finally brought you to the Truth?

It’s a bit of a long (but wonderful) story. To make a VERY long story short…I ended up in some scary places in my life, and for some reason, God saw it fit that I should be saved out of the heresies of my faith and He brought me home. I haven’t been the same since.

~mango~

 

[Adam_D]

Hello again Mango,

It seems to me that most of these posts (including mine) rather than trying to answer your question (Why must one be a member of the Catholic Church) with positive answers on the subject, have instead chosen to attack your corollary statement regarding what is really necessary (sola fide). SwissGuard and Ralphinal have contributed positive, though broad answers. I hope that they elborate on them. But I also thought, with the intent to steer this thread back onto the track of providing a positive basis for accepting the Catholic Church (as unqualified as I am for the job) that I would chime in again even as I ask the apologists out there “Speak up guys! You get a post titled ‘an honest question’ from a Protestant who wants to know why one should be a Catholic and after 3 days it gets 20 responses? Where are all y’all?”

That said, here’s my humble contribution. It goes back to the beginning and concludes with the Eucharist.

Adam and Eve walked outside of the Divine Grace that God created them to live in by deciding they were qualified to decide for themselves what good and evil were, without having to rely on God to so direct them. All of their descendants also were thus born outside of this Divine Grace. As such there naturally exists a gap between us creatures and our Creator that needs somehow to be bridged. To this end, God accepted sacrifices. God makes it abundantly clear that it isn’t blood that he desires but a conversion of heart. Nonetheless, sacrifice remained a perpetual institution because we creatures could not perfectly offer up our own intentions to God. In the OT sacrifice one would pray over the animal and unite his intentions thereto before spilling its blood on the altar and burning some or all of the animal to symbolize its consumption by God and along with it His acceptance of the individual’s offering, followed (with some exceptions) by the partaking of the sacrifice, in a meal, by the priest and whoever offered the sacrifice. This is especially true of the Passover lamb, which sacrifice is intimately tied in to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Now when God finally gave us his Son in Jesus Christ, He declared that He came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In that vein he showed us most clearly how the perpetual institution of sacrifice was to be fulfilled, in the laying down of his own life. In so doing this, He put an end to the need for further bloody animal sacrifices, but did not radically change the nature of sacrifice. That is, the purpose of it, as it always had been, was that we could unite ourselves and our intentions thereto that they may be lifted up to God. Towards this end we must still, as the Israelites always had to as well, partake in a meal of the sacrificial offering. And this is where the Catholic Church comes in. It has perpetuated God’s ministerial priesthood. We offer up bread and wine that Jesus condescends to make of His own body so that we may unite ourselves to his sacrifice in the way that sacrifice has always been united to – in a meal. John 6 is so clear on this point. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood else we have no life within us.

I don’t by any means intend to say that this is the only way to look at Jesus’s sacrifice … it accomplishes more than just this. But I would put forward that in this way we see the necessity of the Catholic Church. You cannot receive the real body and blood of our Lord (as you most certainly should) in a Protestant church, as they have failed to perpetuate the ministerial priesthood, which makes possible the consecration of the Eucharist. I hope this makes sense, and that you receive better explanations for the necessity of joining the Catholic Church from those more qualified to give such answers.

God bless.

 

[BobCatholic]

mango_2003:

I would think demons would be a different case, being fallen angels and all.

That exception is not mentioned in that verse, so what you are doing is interpreting scripture.

Nothing wrong with personal interpretation of scripture, as long as it is infallible. Oh wait, Personal Infallibility (with one key exception) not found or alluded to in the Bible. Does anyone want to risk their soul on a FALLIBLE interpretation of scripture? I wouldn’t, that’s why I turn to the Pillar of Truth

Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Christ gave the Church to bind and loose (and such bindings and loosings are accepted in Heaven) If Heaven is accepting thse rulings, what does that mean about their infallibility?

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of who you should turn to for an infallible (and thus trustworthy) interpretation of scripture.

 

[_Christopher]

Jesus also said…

“Why do you call me Lord and not do what I command?”

We have to do what He says, not just believe in Him, because that kind of intellectual faith can’t save anyone…James calls it “dead.”

 

[promethius]

mango_2003:

Romans 10:9 (KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

well, granted that Christ personally told us that in order to have life we must also be reborn through spirit and water (baptism) and eat his flesh and drink his blood (participate in the holy communion of the faithful at Christs table) i would think its pretty clear that while faith is enough to be saved, that the public confession (sacrament of confirmation) is not an end to the growth of faith, but rather a beginning after which salvation is possible, although not guarunteed.

 

[kellie]

mango_2003:

This might be a tired and/or juvenile question, but seeing as I’m tired and/or a juvenile, I figure I’ll give it a go.

My question is…why? Why does it matter if one is Catholic or not??? I have found the following necessary for salvation through my own reading of the Bible. It seems to me that it’s all very simple.

Romans 10:9 (KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Maybe I’m wrong in saying so…but it seems pretty clear what’s necessary.

This is just my thought …
If you take that literally as it should be taken, then that means that you believe in God and Jesus.
Therefore if you believe in Jesus, you would want to follow His commands and teachings.
The Catholic Church is the true church that follows His teachings and follows what He told the Apostles to do.

 

[kellie]

I just had another thought…

Romans is after Acts I think, I am too tired to get up and grab my Bible.

So, first we are to follow Jesus’s teachings, that is, celebrate the Eucharist, confess our sins, all the Sacraments that He gave us, then if we do that passage from Romans as well, we will be saved.

I think that even though the Bible is not meant to be read like a novel, that is from page 1 to the end, the story of Jesus should still be put in a timeline.
And from the Gospels through to Revelations there is a timeline isnt there ?? Or am I way off mark here ?

I hope that is an ok thought

Love Kellie

 

[mango_2003]

BobCatholic:

That exception is not mentioned in that verse, so what you are doing is interpreting scripture.

Nothing wrong with personal interpretation of scripture, as long as it is infallible. Oh wait, Personal Infallibility (with one key exception) not found or alluded to in the Bible. Does anyone want to risk their soul on a FALLIBLE interpretation of scripture? I wouldn’t, that’s why I turn to the Pillar of Truth

Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Christ gave the Church to bind and loose (and such bindings and loosings are accepted in Heaven) If Heaven is accepting thse rulings, what does that mean about their infallibility?

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of who you should turn to for an infallible (and thus trustworthy) interpretation of scripture.

Forgive me for speaking so bluntly…but all I gathered from that was…“We differ in opinions…but I’m right, and that’s that.” I’m sorry if I am wrong, but I do not see how this is constructive.

~mango~

 

[mango_2003]

Adam D:

Hello again Mango,

It seems to me that most of these posts (including mine) rather than trying to answer your question (Why must one be a member of the Catholic Church) with positive answers on the subject, have instead chosen to attack your corollary statement regarding what is really necessary (sola fide). SwissGuard and Ralphinal have contributed positive, though broad answers. I hope that they elborate on them. But I also thought, with the intent to steer this thread back onto the track of providing a positive basis for accepting the Catholic Church (as unqualified as I am for the job) that I would chime in again even as I ask the apologists out there “Speak up guys! You get a post titled ‘an honest question’ from a Protestant who wants to know why one should be a Catholic and after 3 days it gets 20 responses? Where are all y’all?”

Thank you for this. I appreciate it. I’m glad you see this as an honest question rather than a trap to set off some sort of hidden motives.

That said, here’s my humble contribution. It goes back to the beginning and concludes with the Eucharist.

Alright…I’ve got some questions here…I’ll address them further down.

Adam and Eve walked outside of the Divine Grace that God created them to live in by deciding they were qualified to decide for themselves what good and evil were, without having to rely on God to so direct them. All of their descendants also were thus born outside of this Divine Grace. As such there naturally exists a gap between us creatures and our Creator that needs somehow to be bridged. To this end, God accepted sacrifices. God makes it abundantly clear that it isn’t blood that he desires but a conversion of heart. Nonetheless, sacrifice remained a perpetual institution because we creatures could not perfectly offer up our own intentions to God. In the OT sacrifice one would pray over the animal and unite his intentions thereto before spilling its blood on the altar and burning some or all of the animal to symbolize its consumption by God and along with it His acceptance of the individual’s offering, followed (with some exceptions) by the partaking of the sacrifice, in a meal, by the priest and whoever offered the sacrifice. This is especially true of the Passover lamb, which sacrifice is intimately tied in to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Now when God finally gave us his Son in Jesus Christ, He declared that He came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In that vein he showed us most clearly how the perpetual institution of sacrifice was to be fulfilled, in the laying down of his own life. In so doing this, He put an end to the need for further bloody animal sacrifices, but did not radically change the nature of sacrifice. That is, the purpose of it, as it always had been, was that we could unite ourselves and our intentions thereto that they may be lifted up to God. Towards this end we must still, as the Israelites always had to as well, partake in a meal of the sacrificial offering. And this is where the Catholic Church comes in. It has perpetuated God’s ministerial priesthood. We offer up bread and wine that Jesus condescends to make of His own body so that we may unite ourselves to his sacrifice in the way that sacrifice has always been united to – in a meal. John 6 is so clear on this point. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood else we have no life within us.

I don’t by any means intend to say that this is the only way to look at Jesus’s sacrifice … it accomplishes more than just this. But I would put forward that in this way we see the necessity of the Catholic Church. You cannot receive the real body and blood of our Lord (as you most certainly should) in a Protestant church, as they have failed to perpetuate the ministerial priesthood, which makes possible the consecration of the Eucharist. I hope this makes sense, and that you receive better explanations for the necessity of joining the Catholic Church from those more qualified to give such answers.

God bless.

I understand what you are saying, to an extent. However I have a few questions. First…if the bread and wine are really Jesus’s flesh and blood…then how did they partake in communion when He was still sitting there among them? Second, while I understand partaking of the bread and wine as a command from Jesus and very important…I do not see it as grounds for salvation, or having any salvific properties at all.

~mango~

 

[Adam_D]

There’s no problem for me to believe in Jesus giving Himself to his apostles as their food. He is the second person of the Trinity and so he is omnipresent, even as he took for Himself a human body and a human nature. I don’t know why there should be any problem, logically, in believing that He can bi-locate, and take bread and wine for his body. Was there something you should point out by way of inconsistency in this idea?

Also: It is salvific in the manner described in my post. It is through a sacrificial meal that we ‘cash in’ on the sacrifice. If an Israelite in Egypt slaughtered a lamb for his Passover meal but refused to eat it (cuz, say, he doesn’t like lamb) well he would have woken up the next morning to find his oldest son dead. He must eat the lamb.

Further, and more to the point, it is salvific because Jesus said so. Unless you eat of his body and drink his blood you have no life in you John 6 53-54. I take the idea of ‘having life within you’ to be synonymous with being saved. I believe of course that Jesus is speaking normatively here. Which means, when one understands it fully he is obliged to act on what he knows. If someone knows he must accept Christ as his Lord and Savior, then that person better do so, else he rejects salvation. If one knows that he must be baptised to be saved, then he best get baptised. Likewise, if one knows that Jesus really wants to feed us his real body (and not only symbolically, but literally) then one must get fed. I believe alongside this that someone who has never heard of Jesus may be saved. Likewise Christians who don’t know that our Lord is calling them to his supper in the Catholic Church can still be saved … but we are all called nonetheless and I pray that we say “yes!” to Him.

 

[LourdesladyN]

Good Morning Adam. These are very insightful questions and I hope that I can give you an answer that is 1/2 as insightful!

Adam D: I don’t know why there should be any problem, logically, in believing that He can bi-locate, and take bread and wine for his body. Was there something you should point out by way of inconsistency in this idea?

The reason the Eucharist is consistent comes directly from Scripture. Look to John 6. When questioned about His meaning on Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood, Jesus NEVER rephrased the teaching or told a parable to correct what was a misunderstanding by the crowd. If Jesus had not meant His Body was REAL food He would have said-----“Hold up folks-----this is what I mean…” and then He would have taught them a different way. To rephrase was the “Jesus kinda reaction” to a misunderstanding. All through the Gospels Jesus rephrased, used parables and just plain simplified things that were being misunderstood. In John 6- Jesus allowed those who thought He meant real food to walk. If He were simply using a parallell He would have retaught the principle. That is Jesus’ MO.

Also look to His comparison of Manna. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Manna Real Food! Not something imaginary, something that would sustain us in the desert of our journey.

Almost all Christians Traditions understand that the Ark of the Covenant is a prefigurement of Christ. Let’s look at what was in the Ark:

1. The staff of Aaron (Jesus is the Good Shephard)
2. The Law (Jesus fulfilled -not abolished - the Law Mt 5:17)
3. The Manna (His Flesh is REAL food and His BLOOD real drink)

Also we need to understand the Jewish meaning of Passover. It is understood that the Suffering, Death and Ressurection of Christ is the New Covenant Passover where we are freed from the slavery of Sin! Jesus was a practicing JEW. When the Jews celebrate Passover they re-enact the Exodus event as a covenental people. They are not just remembering the Passover they are bringing the event into the present as the Exodus applies to all members of the covenant-past-present-and-future.

That is what Christ did at the Last supper. Christ gave His body as the Perfect Lamb for the New Covenant Passover (see Isaiah) only the Perfect Lamb could atone for our sins.In the Book of Exodus–at the Passover event-------the Lamb must be EATEN. Just as we do when we celebrate the Eucharist. It is the fulfillment of the Exodus from sin. The Eucharist is the New Covenant Passover Event that seals the deal identifies and strengthens the people of the New Covenant for their journey out of the slavery of sin.

This also answers your question of WHY the Church. For 2000 years this truth has been protected and defended. It is in the teaching of Mother Church that we have the fullness of truth that was given by Christ. The Eucharist is the biggie of those truths------it is the source and the summit of the Catholic Faith. The Eucharist is our SAVIOR- body, blood, soul and divinity.

Jesus is the Truth. We love Jesus. Jesus promised to send His Spirit to guide His bride the church in ALL Truth. If you know the teachings of the Church…You more fully know Him. Who would say that knowing the Fullness of Christ isn’t our goal?

Be in God’s Peace,

 

[heenan]

My question is…why? Why does it matter if one is Catholic or not???

Mango - hello.

I believe that all who are baptised in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, are all part of the Church. God wants us all to be one.

What seperates Catholics from all other is the Euchrist! You stated that you understand that Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood but do not realize why this is necessary for salvation.

If Jesus commanded us to do something, why would you reject His request? The sacrafice of the cross is the fulfillment of the Passover. The Lord God send His Son to die for our sins - and He commanded us to repeat this offering - and you say no - why?

Please realize that we do not look down on our Christian brothers and sisters. Our hearts are heavy knowing that we share in the body and blood of Christ at each and every mass. We pray that you will join us in our Celebration. We pray that God’s will be done and we all become one to worship Him as he commanded.

 

[Pax]

Mango,

You started this thread with a quote from Romans Chapter 10, and to this verse we can all say, “Amen.” In responding with “Amen” we in no way affirm that salvation is that simple and that the catholic church is unnecessary.

Think about it. This is but one verse out of 16 chapters in the book of Romans. To isolate this one passage as the full answer and explanation of salvation is to ignore everything else that Jesus, Paul, John, James, and Peter had to say on the subject.

The apostle Paul opens his letter to the Romans by stating that through Christ “…we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all nations,”(Romans 1:4-5). Later Paul asks the question, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or obedience which leads to righteousness?”(Romans 6:16). Paul goes on to add “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles,”(Romans 15:18). Finally, Paul concludes Romans by giving glory to God and includes the phrase, “according to the command of eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith…”(Romans 16:26).

So the obedience of faith seems pretty significant. Your single quote doesn’t begin to touch on this whereas it is the big theme in Romans. How many other things do you think need to be said here. Believe me, there’s plenty and the catholic church is the only reliable source to get it all. That’s why it’s necessary to be a catholic. In the church Jesus established is the fullness of the truth. Without it, you’re on your own and you are your own teacher and you are your own pillar and bulwark of the truth as opposed to the church as pointed out by Paul in 1Timothy 3:15.

 

[CD4]

****Others have given you good answers to this question, so I will only tell you why I believe it DOES make a difference which church you belong to.

It is the Eucharist…The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that believes that the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinty of Jesus Christ.

I am a convert of about sixteen years, and have tried to “leave” three times. It was the Eucharist that brought me back each time.

 

[Chief]

mango_2003:

It says (my paraphrase) "Believe and confess orally that Christ is your Lord and your God…and that He was raised from the dead, and you shall be saved.

I think that is the problem. Too many people are paraphrasing. Catholics don’t try to paraphrase and parse scripture by themselves, we rely on those who understood the original intent and meaning of the words, not an interpreattion of someone who lived some 2000 years later and knows not the culture or the language. Speaking personally, I am not qualified to answer your question, but the answer lies in the teaching of those who heard these words originally. I could read a texxtbook on performing brain surgery, but I would have no idea whet it really meant, without the help of an expert to interpret it for me. I didn’t live in first century Palistine, I don’t speak first century Aramaic or Greek. So my understanding must be assisted by those who did, and did understand the true teaching of Jesus, in contemporary context, the early Church Fathers.

Peace.

 

[Chief]

mango_2003:

It says (my paraphrase) "Believe and confess orally that Christ is your Lord and your God…and that He was raised from the dead, and you shall be saved.

I think that is the problem. Too many people are paraphrasing. Catholics don’t try to paraphrase and parse scripture by themselves, we rely on those who understood the original intent and meaning of the words, not an interpreattion of someone who lived some 2000 years later and knows not the culture or the language. Speaking personally, I am not qualified to answer your question, but the answer lies in the teaching of those who heard these words originally. I could read a texxtbook on performing brain surgery, but I would have no idea whet it really meant, without the help of an expert to interpret it for me. I didn’t live in first century Palistine, I don’t speak first century Aramaic or Greek. So my understanding must be assisted by those who did, and did understand the true teaching of Jesus, in contemporary context, the early Church Fathers.

Peace.

 

[STJOMO]

And, Mango, don’t think that the thoughtful posts here are designed to educate only Protestants. They are Godsends to ardent Catholics, such as I, who are looking to grow their own spirituality in Christ.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Iggy_Ting]

Hi all…St Paul was writing to the Church then and calling the believers to deepen their faith in knowing and following Jesus Christ. Even now the message for us believers is the same. The Church then and now has alway been one, apostolic, n catholic. The writing was not meant as a condition to be saved.

regards, Iggy Ting

 

[cjaubert]

This is not a joke response: Many protestants and fundamentalists read the Bible in a literalist way - the words mean EXACTLY what they say, nothing more and nothing less. For those people, I have never understood the passage quoted above. Now for the serious question: What if one is unable to speak? How, then, does one “confess with thy mouth”? Are they damned to hell?