I
- Status
I
iheartdance
Guest
Because I want to someday obtain heaven and I want to know, love, and serve God in this world for he is the one who gave you and me life.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Tons of people failed…only through the grace of God does anyone succeed.
D
Della
Guest
What makes the Church different is her divine character. She is the body of Christ, after all. Certainly, in her humanity–her individual members’ weaknesses, she can err, but not in her teachings. Jesus promised that she would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit because she is his voice in the world. He only has one authoritative voice–all who speak the truth speak with his voice, of course, but he appointed only one body, founded on his Apostles, to speak infallibly for him.
S
steve_b
Guest
True.
At the last supper:
- Satan enterd Judas [Luke 22:3 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 22) . He obviously failed as an apostle
- Satan got the apostles in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM (i.e. an argument over who has primacy) And Jesus said Satan is the one sifting all of them [Luke 22:31 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 22) but He prays especially for Peter that he would be the one to strengthen his brothers through the sifting so THEY wouldn’t ultimately fail.
H
Heart_Foam
Guest
But it can.Christ founded the Church…
- Define “the Church” - do “the called of Jesus Christ,” “beloved of God,” “partakers of the heavenly calling” include unbelievers? A protestant can say “no, of course the Body of Christ is only constituted of true believers.”
By contrast, if you think the Church for which Christ died, and whose members are partakers of the heavenly calling is the RCC, your answer is “yes, this Church, the body of perfectly holy Christ obviously has some unbelievers - it is membership in an external society, not faith, that matters: extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
"rinnie:
There’s a few passages with that reference of the Church as the bride (because like a good Protestant, I encourage anyone to check up on what I say): - Ephesians 5:22-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 19:7-9 and Revelation 21:1-2,10. They talk about the Church, yes, not the RCC. Ephesians 5:22 says “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” And there is the wheat and the chaff in any congregation, even in the RCC. So ask yourself if Christ is the head and the saviour of unbelievers. If what I’m saying is true, Christ isn’t one with the RCC at all. He said he is united to the Church, which must be a spiritual body of believers. Christ are the RCC are not one, and they do disagree on teachings.
Do you eat red meat on a Friday? Jesus made it quite clear that you can eat what you like and it wouldn’t affect your righteousness before God.
Mark 7:18-19: “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
I understand that the mortal sin of eating a hamburger is perceived to be of disobedience to the RCC (I try not to misrepresent RC doctrine) not that the hamburger is ‘unclean’, but it’s nevertheless a strange discipline when all dietary restrictions were lifted by Christ. It isn’t even in place everywhere - and surely something that affects salvation should be the same for everyone? This sort of arbitrary legalism should be foreign to Christianity. Christmas is another example. I always celebrate Christmas, and a time of love and goodwill is only a good thing. But it is a man-made feast day and it wasn’t instituted by Christ. Catholics must nevertheless observe the day on pain of mortal sin! Paul’s letter to the Galatians is all about the Judaisers who were adding legalistic requirements to the gospel, and he was not amused. I find the RCC completely at odds with the very spirit of Christianity.
- Define “apostle” - You are assuming the perpetuity of the apostleship, which is Rome’s claim. Perhaps start by looking at what Paul felt it necessary to prove when he claimed to be an apostle.
(1.) That he had been appointed not by man nor through men, immediately by Jesus Christ - Galatians 1:1.
(2.) That he had not been taught the gospel by others, but received his knowledge by immediate revelation - Galatians 1:12.
(3.) That he had seen Christ after his resurrection - 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8.
(4.) That he was inspired, or infallible as a teacher, so that men were bound to recognize his teachings as the teaching of Christ - 1 Corinthians 14:37.
(5.) That the Lord had authenticated his apostolic mission as fully as he had done that of Peter. Galatians 2:8.
(6.) “The marks of an apostle,” he tells the Corinthians, “were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” - 2 Corinthians 12:12.
H
Heart_Foam
Guest
- Show me where Christ established sacraments that confer grace.
- And where do you stand on the “sacrament of penance and reconciliation”? Penance has changed completely since the early church. If sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, then there is clearly a specific formula or ritual that is required - why did it change? I thought “Tradition” would prevent such change. Was the original sacrament correct and did it confer grace - or is it correct now? And bear in mind how devastating this is to to what you just said, because presumably you wouldn’t change something established by Christ. Your current version of penance dates to the 11th century.
I was addressing the logic of concretecamper’s reply which presupposed the conclusion - the truth of Catholicism - in the premise. No more or less.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s right after the verse that says that Jesus gave us the Bible, and that the Bible alone is all you need.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Awesome!It’s right after the verse that says that Jesus gave us the Bible, and that the Bible alone is all you need.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How penance has been practiced has changed.
The teaching on the sacrament, however, has never changed.
J
jmcrae
Guest
And it is still - as always - the priest who gives the Absolution.
I find it interesting that those non-Catholics who have retained the Sacrament of Reconciliation do it the same way we do it. Obviously, they don’t find anything in the Bible that forbids it.
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
Judas failed, but his office remained. One of the first business decisions the apostles made was who would be the man God had chosen to take the office that Judas had held (Acts 1:15-23).
J
jmcrae
Guest
Prior to 1050 AD, Rome (the Catholic Church) was the sum total of Christianity.
It was only after that date that schisms arose in which people separating themselves from Christ’s Church dared to continue to call themselves “Christians.” Prior to that, schismatics knew themselves to be outside the sheep gate, but somewhere around that time a spirit of rebellion entered the world, and the disobedient fancied themselves “prophets” and “correctors of the Church.” Doubtless they had good intentions - and equally doubtless, those who follow them will arrive where zealous but disobedient good intentions always lead - but for the mercy of God.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.And it is still - as always - the priest who gives the Absolution.
I find it interesting that those non-Catholics who have retained the Sacrament of Reconciliation do it the same way we do it. Obviously, they don’t find anything in the Bible that forbids it.
And on that note, I think a great apologetics tool/question I often appeal to is this: I ask a Protestant, “Is your paradigm, ‘If it’s not in the Bible it’s forbidden’? Or is it ‘If it’s not in the Bible it’s permitted’?”
For it seems to me that the Protestant accedes to both of these paradigms, based on the practice they want to permit/forbid. However, it ought to be one or the other that is their rule of faith, right?
One cannot say for a particular practice such as, say, contraception, “Well, the Bible doesn’t forbid it, therefore it is permitted”…
while also saying, regarding, say, praying the rosary, “Well, the Bible doesn’t say you can do this, therefore it is forbidden.”
One ought to apply the same rule of faith to both. Either it’s permitted of forbidden, whenever the Bible is silent.
Just sayin’…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
rotfl, rotfl, rotfl - my smiley doesn’t work but how true this is. I mean it is all there in the Bible or rather, the Church.It’s right after the verse that says that Jesus gave us the Bible, and that the Bible alone is all you need.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Actually, the schism that is conveniently dated at 1054 was not the first. The Assyrian Church left communion in 424, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches left communion in 451. By the way, the Catholic Church calls them Christians, furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that they, together with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, are true Churches, with true sacraments.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I was actually thinking of the Waldesians - but if you are being convicted, you should pray about it.
V
vincent10395
Guest
“The difficulty in explaining ‘why I am a Catholic’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.” -GK Chesterton
R
RyanBlack
Guest
1050 is more than 100 years too early for the Waldensians.
I don’t know what you mean by this, with respect to my post.
M
Michael57
Guest
- Status