challenge question, who can answer this

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
I, personally, DO think that when people have “consecrated” a building by thinking of it as a place of God, that God does in spirit reside there, but He only resides in real presence, in His actual Body and Blood, where those authorized to make His presence known in that way have done so.

That is what’s special about a Catholic church-building.

I look at it a different way. If I walk into a Catholic church or any church for that matter I believe in GOD’s spiritual presence. I don’t then walk out and say: OK I’m not in GOD’s spiritual presence anymore.

We’re not talking about God’s spiritual presence. We’re talking about His actual Presence. His only actual (real) presence is in consecrated host, and if there is no such thing in a building then that building doesn’t contain that real presence.

GOD took up physical presence in the Temple in the form of smoke that was visible to everyone. GOD left the temple and as far as I know has not taken up physical residence in any building in that form. If you know of one please do tell. With that being said I believe GOD is everywhere spiritually at all times. To say that HE is not is to deny HIS Omnipresence.

He is omnipotent, which “contains” omnipresent, and He is spritually present everywhere at all times. But once again, the subject is His actual real presence, and not His spiritual presence.

Roman Catholic church buildings are no more special than non-Roman Catholic church buildings. Or any building in the world. GOD is everywhere. Roman Catholic churches don’t have a corner on GOD.

It not the building that makes the building special, but a particular content within the building, which are most generally ONLY found, though not exclusively from what I understand, though I don’t know what the rules are concerning the placement of consecrated host, in Catholic Buldings and other’s buildings who have real priests (Eastern Orthodox?).

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
My question to you is: Since we can do this and you can’t, do you think that we should be dis-allowed from doing it because it’s “not fair” to those who can’t do it?

What is the “this” thing you are referring to that you can do but I can’t?? I need some help here.

Consecrated host is the “thing” that we can “do” which you can’t, as you have no proper priests through whom to consecrate said host.

I get the impression that Roman Catholics have the sense that they ARE and HAVE to do more than non-Roman Catholics to get to Heaven.

Well, actually, in a way, you’re right! We know what the full set of rules are to have the best probability of preparing ourselves to choose heaven. We therefore, having been given more, are expected more from.

It’s almost as if you are saying “hey, why do they think they can go to Heaven and they do less than we do”? Is that a fair statement? And is that your question?

No, that’s not my question. My question is whether it’s evil, from your point of view, to do as we do by “doing” our sacraments, and whether we should be “discouraged” from doing them because they are evil?

 

[paidion]

Ok now i went to your site you sent me. It said the Catholic Church is ONE. It is ONE in origin. as the household of God built upon the foundation of Apotles and prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. ONE Body One Lord One FAITH ONE Baptism distinctive marks of the true allegiance to ONE Lord of a common creed and participation in the same SACRAMENTS. Now i agree with every word of this. This is what the church i got to preaches on. But where does it say that they are separated. Why doesnt it start out to the the church is 2, in 2 origins, see what i mean how are they separated and who separated them. Thats all im asking. Again this is the site you sent me to. And i do agree with what it said. But if anything it confirmed what i am saying no disagreeing with it. Do you see what i am seeing. And why im not seeing what you are trying to show me. I swear im trying but i cant see it.

rinnie:

Where the groups divide is that many non-RCs believe (erroneously or not) that the RC went off on a bad track years ago and so “they” (the non-RCs) became the defenders of the true faith, so to speak. (This is an over-simplistic statement, but I believe it is the essence of the argument.) In this way the “one” church was maintained because though there are various denominations, they agree on essentials of the Faith. (The Creed doesn’t address a division among believers because that happened long after the Creed was formed.)

This is why the non-RCs saying the Apostles’ Creed can say they are a part of the holy catholic church, because they believe that they are IT. Whether or not they are/aren’t has been a matter of debate for many, many years.

So it’s not so much about what IS/ISN’T right or true, as much as it is about peoples’ perceptions of what the truth is.

In any event, debating aside, my experience has shown me a unity of believers from many different backgrounds and denominations. This is what I would say is truly amazing about G-d’s Spirit; He is able to unite us - even in spite of ourselves and our (often) petty bickering/squabbling.

shalom

 

[EHRAM]

Lets start with protestants,… Do they believe in the Catholic church.

When I was a Protestant, I believed in the catholic Church. Note the capitalization. Church is capitalized, because there is only one Church, made up of all who believe in Jesus Christ and trust Him for their salvation. Catholic is not capitalized, because it is just an adjective indicating that the Church is universal. Our version of the Apostles’ Creed read, “one holy and universal Christian Church…”

 

[EHRAM]

Do you have a priest consecrate the host? If not then you don’t have consecrated host, and apparently DON’T know what consecrated host is, as it is consecrated only by a priest.

That brings up another question: Do you have Catholic Priests in your church/denomination?

Anglicans and Episcopalians have priests who consecrate the host. They believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated host. They do not have doctrines such as transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but they do believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the consecrated host, it is not just a symbol of his presence, and they demonstrate their beliefs via reverence. They genuflect to the tabernacle. They keep watch with Him on Holy Thursday. They have sacristies with sinks that drain to the ground. They often genuflect when leaving the pew to receive communion, and usually kneel to receive.

Some Catholic priests who have left the Roman Catholic Church have been received into the Episcopal or Anglican Church and may function as Anglican or Episcopal priests. To the best of my knowledge, the churches of the Anglican Communion recognizes ordination by the Roman Catholic Church, even though the Roman Church does not recognized ordination in the Anglican or Episcopal Church.

 

[EHRAM]

Ok, So what you are saying in a way is what the other person said at the beginning of this post is that there are 2 Catholic Church, One is ruled by the Pope and the other is ruled by the People, Or help me get on the right state of mine with this

No, most Protestants would say that there is one catholic Church, ruled by Jesus Christ. They would say that the Roman Catholics (mistakenly) believe that the Pope is Christ’s representative on Earth.

IMHO, the problem with this view (and this is one of the reasons I am no longer Protestant) is that without any teaching authority, Protestant Christianity becomes like Israel at the end of the book of Judges, where everyone did what was right in his own mind because there was no king. Also, Jesus spoke of the house built on a rock and a house built on sand. The Roman Catholic Church is built on Peter and Peter’s confession of faith. When Protestants decide for themselves what to believe, each version of the Protestant faith is like a grain of sand, and Protestantism is like a house built on all those shifting, moving, grains of sand. Of course, many Protestant’s would claim that their faith is built on the rock of Peter’s confession of faith, and that their authority is the Bible. However, the Roman Catholic Church was the authority that first determined which books should be included in the Bible, so when Protestants say that the Bible is their authority, like it or not, they are acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church and its traditions.

 

[rinnie]

Excellent Response. I can say now it does make sense. But could i be so bold as to interpret what you are saying is, no the Church can not be divided according to the Apsotles Creed and they do say it and do believe in it but dont either want to except thats its true, or wont but it is the truth and thats all they will admit to. Only because this is one of the few things in the bible that cant be interpreted differently. But my question how can anyone TRUELY say i believe in it but I just dont want to follow it. So for all of you who believe in it and follow it being that i dont you need to go my way because I cant so I wont let you. I mean doesnt it come a time in life that you have to say yes i do have a choice. Rather my choice is right or wrong its none of your business. And to say yes my choice is wrong you have proven that but you worry about yourself and let me worry about myself. On that note I agree. i agree a million percent. And its none of my business. But on the other side of the coin, dont lie and teach this lie to others,. and argue with me that im wrong. When you yourself admit you go by the scripture that was imspired by God and the words of these same Men. Do you see what i mean. Back to my question how can you say you believe in the Catholic church, You believe in the Creed and then turn around and say im not seeing it right. But now there are 2 Catholic Churchs when in fact there are not. Dont get me wrong i dont condem any Church any person who believes in the Trinity. And its not my place to tell them again how to practice but when they in turn say something thats not true I have to stand up for my Faith and my GOd because the bible tells me that. And in turn God says i will give you the words. Now trust me these words came from God. The Creed are not my words. And in turn there is no way to turn them around. Now like i said some scripture who are written by different apostles may tell us things different ways. and you may see it one way and i may see it another. But in the end when you really understand them ,they are the same words just one reveals something a little more or less. thats the mystery of the Bible. THats why GOds wants us to yes read it. But not change it. Its not our place. So again i dont believe that anyone can convince me that im wrong. Not that im perfect no way. Probally the worst in understanding some things in the bible ill be the first to admit that. But this one. no one has given me anything that makes sense. Except for the ones that admited you cant. On one more note when i say you all through this i dont mean you personally. God Bless you. You were the only person who like i said made at least sense to me. I can say, you point clicked… see miracles do happen thank you so much.

 

[rinnie]

When I was a Protestant, I believed in the catholic Church. Note the capitalization. Church is capitalized, because there is only one Church, made up of all who believe in Jesus Christ and trust Him for their salvation. Catholic is not capitalized, because it is just an adjective indicating that the Church is universal. Our version of the Apostles’ Creed read, “one holy and universal Christian Church…”

Now see that would make sense to me. The version is changed, now who changed it and why and we could go on forever…But see your church at the time when they read the creed i cant argue with that see what i mean. Its not up to me to fight and prove that its wrong. see what i mean, my stand is if thats what you want to go by and its okay with you and you dont care to quesion it who am i. But its when the first Creed they go by and then try to convince me that mine is right but its wrong. see what i mean. So i in turn i cant argue with this response. I cant say i believe in it, but i cant disagree with it. And if i did that church would say go where they have the creed you believe in then. And they would be right. Thank-you You have opened my eyes to another possibility. And you told the truth. have a wonderful day

 

[paidion]

G-d bless you, rinnie.

shalom

 

[EHRAM]

Ok lets put it this way the Aposles creed okay, its called that because its a summary of the apostles faith. … Now other churchs say this creed correct, see maybe they dont i dont know. Just trying to figure this out . .

Some Protestant churches (mostly the more liturgical churches) use the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, others (mostly the more “free” churches) believe in “no creed but Christ.”

 

[EHRAM]

Now see that would make sense to me. The version is changed, now who changed it and why and we could go on forever…But see your church at the time when they read the creed i cant argue with that see what i mean. Its not up to me to fight and prove that its wrong. see what i mean, my stand is if thats what you want to go by and its okay with you and you dont care to quesion it who am i. But its when the first Creed they go by and then try to convince me that mine is right but its wrong. see what i mean. So i in turn i cant argue with this response. I cant say i believe in it, but i cant disagree with it. And if i did that church would say go where they have the creed you believe in then. And they would be right. Thank-you You have opened my eyes to another possibility. And you told the truth. have a wonderful day

I suspect that it was changed so that people who did not believe in the Roman Catholic faith would not have to say that they believed in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Also, Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree about apostolic succession. Some Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession and believe that their clergy were ordained by those who were ordained by.(many generations).those who were ordained by the apostles, even though the Roman Catholic church does not recognize these ordinations as being in apostolic succession. Some other denominations might not think apostolic succession is important and denominations may have dropped “apostolic” from the Nicene Creed, if they use a creed at all.

Finally, some (but not all) Protestant denominations recognize the authority of the Catholic Church for the first thousand years of the church, at least up to the time the Orthodox broke away or until about the time of the Reformation. They acknowledge that some of the decisions made by early ecumenical councils, including the composition of the Bible, the creeds, etc., were made authoritatively.

Protestant denominations differ in their views of Church History, but most believe that at some point, the Roman Church drifted into some type of error and required reformation.

 

[rinnie]

Good Job guys. They did a survey about the who is the number one guy in America Today. Tom Brady was number one or two. But guess who was number one. Yep you Guessed it Your Hero and Mine JESUS CHRIST. Now here is the good one. How many people will go to church tommorow. But how many will watch the Super Bowl. God figure huh.

Hey inchrist101 We did get the hard wood floors done. And now he thinks hes deserves a break for a week. So we made a bet he took Eli I took Brady. Sucker bet huh. So it looks like i will get all my trim up Mon. as soon as he gets home from work. Watch me lose. But i look at it this way you got to look at the facts Belicheck got the camera. (just kidding) For all who are watching the game enjoy. (but in my heart i want Eli to win) thats rough

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

I often hear Roman Catholics and Protestants for that matter claiming Apostolic succession. Where do you get this unbroken chain non-sense. Neither the Apostles creed nor the Nicene creed contain the words Apostolic succession. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. Not Apostolic succession. The church is based on the foundation of the Apostles not Aposolic succession. Being able to say you have 1 unbroken chain of Bishops that traces back to Peter although great for historical teaching hardly justifies the Roman Catholic church as the only church of Jesus. An Apostolic church means:

1. Pertaining to an apostle, or to the apostles, their times, or their peculiar spirit; as, an apostolical mission; the apostolic age.
2. According to the doctrines of the apostles; delivered or taught by the apostles; as, apostolic faith or practice.

I believe the Bible constitutes number 2. Any church that teaches the Bible is teaching what the Apostles taught. I’m pretty sure our church believes what the Apostles believed and teaches what the Apostles teach. I would say then that we are part of the Catholic (universal) and Apostolic church. We don’t need Apostolic succession. Besides that how do we know one of our founders couldn’t trace themselves back to the Apostles?? Or any church for that matter.

Yet I have seen many “churches” who claim to teach what the Apostles taught yet are so very far from Apostolic teaching due to their preconceived notions that to claim that they teach what the Apostles taught is laughable.

Logic would dictate that if a Protestant was confused or had questions about what the Apostles taught they would look to the Church that brought together the Bible and closed the canon: the Roman Catholic Church.

I ask you does your “church” follow the order of the Mass?

St Justin Martyr, First Apology to the Emperor Titus-135 A.D.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,
and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;
then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;
and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

And:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

These are teachings that Justin received. These are the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Church of Peter and the Apostles, the Church of Christ.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

The church does owe them something my brother. The church is responsible for saving those that are lost and for edifying those that are already saved. If you can’t get fed spiritually going to church then why go. To say you are a member?? Does Jesus just want members so the numbers can look great?? No he gave us the great commission which started with the Apostles. Go and make disciples. Sound familiar? The attitude you are masking for the church is the same arrogant attitude that is driving people away. If the church doesn’t offer anything then no one will come.

Given that I would definitely say when you come to church you better be ready to worship and Praise GOD. No one should just sit back and say “OK what do you have for me? ho hum ho hum, are we done yet” I think we both have probably seen plenty of that. But when you leave the feeling should be WOW I really heard a rich message and was able to join my fellow Christians in deep fellowship.

One, God owes us nothing. Two, what grace God gives us through His Body-the Church-He gives for our good. If you are a good Catholic Christian there is no reason to leave the Church because the grace that we receive at Mass every week is the gift of heaven itself-God can’t give us any more than that.

This is the problem with our culture: self-centered feeling of entitlement.

The only restriction that keeps people from receiving that grace which Jesus gives in the Mass is themselves and their ability to open themselves up to that gift. It’s not just some arrogant attitude, it’s the truth. And I pity those who feel that to be fulfilled that they have to turn away from that Gift which is the source of all love, grace, and happiness.

Therefore it’s not the Church’s fault, it’s the fault of the individual who leaves. I pray for all those that God soften their hardened hearts so that they return home. Amen.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

Agree 100%. The problem with you is that you see it as 30,000 bodies where I believe Jesus sees it as 1 large body with some differences of opinion within. Does HE like it? I don’t believe he does but he also knew it would happen. The differences though between us have no impact on our salvation. Keep it simple John 3:16. All Christians believe that.

To believe IN Jesus Christ is a lot different that Jesus is Lord and Christ. To believe IN Jesus Christ is to also believe in His Body-the Catholic Church.

Matthew 7:21 "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

And John 2:23] Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, **many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; **[24] but Jesus did not trust himself to them, [25] because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

Curious passages. But I think pretty telling.

And I believe that these differences have everything to do with our salvation. They’re the difference between saying ‘yes’ to God and saying ‘no’ to God. How many claim to say ‘yes’ to God yet have divorced and remarried another this committing adultery thus saying ‘no’ to Jesus’ commandment on marriage. This is only scratching the surface and I don’t want this to turn into something other than the topic we’re discussing. Just think about it, how many Christians claim to follow Christ yet day after day follow their own will and say ‘no’ to God.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

Brother I appreciate your affinity for Peter but let’s be very clear on why they stopped. Peter had been at the home of Gentiles for which the Jews seriously objected and criticized Peter. Peter basically said no wait let me tell you what happened. He then went on to describe his vision which ultimately led him to the house of the Gentiles. As Peter so candidly states:

Acts 11: 15 “As I began to speak,” Peter continued, “the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as he fell on us at the beginning. 16 Then I thought of the Lord’s words when he said, ‘John baptized with[e] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 And since God gave these Gentiles the same gift he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to stand in God’s way?”

They (the Jews) were amazed at THIS (what GOD was doing) and that’s why they stopped OBJECTING to Peter visiting the house of Gentiles. They realized what GOD was doing not what Peter was doing.

Acts 11:18 When the others heard this, they stopped objecting and began praising God. They said, “We can see that God has also given the Gentiles the privilege of repenting of their sins and receiving eternal life.”

Why can’t you see this? I’m not degrading Peter I’m praising GOD. It seems you’re so caught up that this was Peter’s doing and instead you should be glorifying GOD. You’re so worried about defending Peter’s primacy because you’re viewing my take on it as disrespectful. Do you know how incredible this story is? Do you know how much respect and admiration I do have for Peter for obeying GOD?? But this is about GOD and I think it’s absolutely incredible how GOD works through us to reach people. Peter’s recall of the Lord’s words was definitely the Holy Spirit guiding him. But the Holy Spirit guides us all, not just Peter and I think Peter would tell you that himself.

I praise God IN Peter. As I praise God IN All of the Saints that have done his will through the ages. In prasing Peter I AM praising God because not only was Peter made in His image and likeness but Peter was given and abundance of grace as well as the charisms to carry out God’s will even to his death in Rome. I honor Peter because God in Christ has honored him first. Peter is the Steward of Christ’s house as fortold by Isaiah:

Is 22:15] Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:
[16] What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?
[17] Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,
[18] and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house.
[19] I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20]** In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,
[21]and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. [22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. **

Sound familiar? Remember Matthew 16?

Mat 16:16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
**[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

I see everything you’re saying. But I’m telling you as far as biblical theology goes there is much MUCH more to Peter than which you are willing to accept. I pray for God’s grace for you that He may allow you to see the deeper mysteries of His kingdom that is the Catholic Church.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

But the churches they left them in charge of did not constitute the only Catholic churches. How about all the other churches that were formed not by the Apostles but by those who heard the Gospel being proclaimed? Paul visited many of these churches and their leaders were not appointed by him or any Apostles for that matter. Just like the leaders at our church may not have been appointed by a disciple of an Apostle.

What churches were these? Where is the evidence for this claim?

And even if they weren’t founded they still had to be proved by Paul to be true to the Apostolic teaching.

Just the very fact that Protestant Churches do not hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church proves that they do not teach what the Apostles taught therefore they are in error.

Jesus gave authority that was rightly His to Peter and the other Apostles. Their authority comes from Him. So to follow them is to follow Him who sent them.

Now read this:

1 Corinthians 3:5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters work together with the same purpose. And both will be rewarded for their own hard work. 9 For we are both God’s workers. And you are God’s field. You are God’s building.

Some very strong words from Paul here. It doesn’t matter who plants the seed and waters it, Roman Catholic or Protestant. GOD as Paul says will make it grow. AMEN. This is why Roman Catholics need to be careful about their attitude toward Protestants, and vice versa. The church doesn’t make us grow. They merely plant and water the seed of Christ. For me the Roman Catholic church planted the seed and watered it. Now my current church is watering it but believe me GOD is making it grow.

You also mention how to worship making it seem like there is only 1 correct way to worship. You can’t tell someone that their method of worship is wrong. Paul tells us not to get in the way of what makes another feel close to GOD. If someone finds a Christmas tree pagan worship then I would say don’t get a Christmas tree. But don’t then tell someone else who may get a Christmas tree that they are worshiping wrong.

I would agree there may be limits. We certainly don’t want satanic rituals being used to worship GOD. But please tell me what non-Roman Catholic churches you’ve been to that worship wrong as you say and tell me what it was they did/do.

Jesus gave us the way to worship. And I already spelled it out in Justin’s First Apology. It’s also all over the Acts of the Apostles. And in 1 Corinthians. Remember, Jesus said that the Father desires a people to worship Him in Spirit AND Truth. There cannot be 30,000 truths and all of them be true. There can only be one truth. And that One pure truthful worship that came from the Apostles, Hollowed, by time only exists in the Catholic Church.

But please tell me what non-Roman Catholic churches you’ve been to that worship wrong as you say and tell me what it was they did/do.

Any which does not follow the Didache or does not recognize the Eucharist as the real presence of Christ is in error in it’s worship.

 

[EHRAM]

The post had to be broken in 2 Sorry

I often hear Roman Catholics and Protestants for that matter claiming Apostolic succession. Where do you get this unbroken chain non-sense. Neither the Apostles creed nor the Nicene creed contain the words Apostolic succession. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. Not Apostolic succession. The church is based on the foundation of the Apostles not Aposolic succession. Being able to say you have 1 unbroken chain of Bishops that traces back to Peter although great for historical teaching hardly justifies the Roman Catholic church as the only church of Jesus. An Apostolic church means:

1. Pertaining to an apostle, or to the apostles, their times, or their peculiar spirit; as, an apostolical mission; the apostolic age.
2. According to the doctrines of the apostles; delivered or taught by the apostles; as, apostolic faith or practice.

I believe the Bible constitutes number 2. Any church that teaches the Bible is teaching what the Apostles taught. I’m pretty sure our church believes what the Apostles believed and teaches what the Apostles teach. I would say then that we are part of the Catholic (universal) and Apostolic church. We don’t need Apostolic succession. Besides that how do we know one of our founders couldn’t trace themselves back to the Apostles?? Or any church for that matter.
.

“Apostolic” is another one of those words that is understood differently by Protestants and Catholics. Here is a good definition of the Catholic understanding:

"CCC Section 857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

• she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles,” the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
• with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
• she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”:

You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles
you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son. . . . "

And these are the definitions from www. dictionary.com:

“1. of or characteristic of an apostle.
2. pertaining to or characteristic of the 12 apostles.
3. derived from the apostles in regular succession.
4. of or pertaining to the pope; papal.”

I don’t understand why you believe that the Church could be built on the foundation of the Apostles without also recognizing the importance of apostolic succession. It is as if you thought a building could be built by laying the foundation and then building the penthouse without having anything in between. Could you please clarify how a church could be sure that it is handing on the teachings of the apostles unless the leaders were taught and ordained by those who were taught and ordained by those who were taught and ordained by… the original apostles.

Also, early in Church history, the term “apostle” was applied to men other than the Eleven plus Matthias, e.g. Paul was an apostle as was James the Just. But soon it came to mean only certain men who were present for the first generation of Church history and the title and office of apostle was not transferred to the next generation.

The original apostles taught by preaching, teaching, and writings. Much of what was preached and taught was not written down in their lifetimes.

May I encourage you to read (or reread) the writings of the early Church Fathers to learn how what these men believed and taught during the first few centuries of the church? You can find the writings at newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[EHRAM]

I thought Linus was given Peter’s chair after his death??

Most early church historians (e.g. Irenaeus, Eusebius) list Linus as Peter’s immediate successor. Tertullian wrote that Clement was head of the Church at Rome and was ordained by Peter. newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

But please tell me what non-Roman Catholic churches you’ve been to that worship wrong as you say and tell me what it was they did/do.

Any which does not follow the Didache or does not recognize the Eucharist as the real presence of Christ is in error in it’s worship.

I would add that in the Gospels Jesus said that the Father desired a people that would worship Him in Spirit AND in Truth.

I have a certain amount of respect for some Protestants because their prayer services certainly are full of Spirit but they do not worship in accord with the true worship as ascribed by Christ and His Apostles. Some divisions baptize people multiple times, others while demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible try to pass off the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 as metaphorical. I could go on.

In turn there are many within the Catholic Church who come to Mass and worship down to the very letter of the Truth but lack the Spirit of love and fellowship that Christ desires. Again that is not the fault of the Church or it’s ministers but those who refuse to open themselves up to receive the Gift of the altar.