Do you have to be Catholic to be Saved?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Regarding apostolic succession: I would ask you to read the verse regarding Matthias youself and see if the Bible says he succeeded Judas as a Bishop. Make up your own mind. I’ll quote the verse for you now…

Acts 1: “Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. … For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. … And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

We are clearly told that Matthias “bishopric”. That he took the place of the “ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath… fallen”.

Clearly, this shows that Matthias assumed the office of Judas after he died. There are many other verses in the Bible that prove apostolic succession. I’m sure other will proved those verses for you. One final point is that, in the New Testament there are many other people besides the 12 apostles that are referred to by the title of “apostle”. How did these obtain that office if there is not apostolic succession?

Regarding confession: The verse from John 20:23 is very clear. In it, Jesus gives the apostles the ability to forgive sins. But that is not all. He also gives them the ability to NOT forgive sins.

John 20:22-23: “When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Now think about it, how is the apostle to determine if he is going to forgive the sin or retain the sin if he doesn’t know what the sin is? Thus, obviously, the person would have to confess the sin.

And to show that this has been believed since the beginning of the Church age, I’ll give a few quotes from the Church Fathers

John Chrysostom: “Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

St. Augustine: "When you hear a man lay bear his conscience to God, he has already come forth from the sepulchre; but he is not yet unboud. When is he unbound? By whom is e unbound? ‘Whatsoever you loose upon earth’, Christ says to his priests, "shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18, 16:19) … Let no one say to me ‘I do penance (confess) in my heart; I confess all my sins to God and to God alone: it is he who must forgive me’. Then in vain was it said to the apostles "whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained (John 20:23). Thus you make a mockery of the Gospel! (St. Augustine, Explanation of the Psalms, circa A.D. 400).

I could quote dozens of more quotes from the early Church to show that they understood John 20:23 the same way the Catholics still do, and that confession has been a practice of Christians since the beginning.

 

[Good_Fella]

Abbi, the early Church in the time of the apostles was already a visible, organized body with
a hierarchy on a mission to purvey both Word and Sacraments. After being commissioned
by the Church, Paul and Barnabas in turn ordained Presbyters in every Church they established
in Galatia. [cf. Acts 14:22]

In the New Testament it is evident that the Church was carrying out a divine mission. Leaders
appointed by Peter and the apostles dispensed both word and sacrament with an authority
they believed originated with Christ, and which they also understood could be passed
on to others: “They laid their hands on them and sent them off.” [Acts 13:3]

The “leading presbyter and spokesman of the Christian community at Rome”, Pope Clement,
one of the earliest Christian writers in the late first century, states the Church’s traditional case for the doctrine of the apostolic succession, tracing it back to Jesus Christ:

The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ…And so the apostles,
after receiving their orders…went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit to preach the good news…They preached in country and city and ‘appointed’ their first converts…to be bishops and
deacons (not merely preachers) of future believers. (#42)

Now our apostles…knew that there was going to be strife over the title of bishop. It was for this reason…that they appointed the officers we have mentioned. They later added a council to the effect that should these die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (#44)

The doctrine of apostolic succession was clearly held by the Catholic Church by the time
of Pope Clement in the late first century. Clement himself was the third Bishop of Rome, a successor of Peter. And this letter of his was written before the New Testament was ever written and compiled.

In his great work ‘Adversus Haeresus’ (Against the Heresies) St. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca.130-ca.200 AD) emphasized the role of the Church in handing down intact the authentic tradition of the apostles.Preeminent among all the Churches, according to Irenaeus, was the Church of Rome, with an unbroken succession of bishops going back to apostolic times. He speaks explicitly of Peter and Paul “preaching at Rome and establishing the Church”. He states plainly the belief of the early Church that the two great apostles “founded and reared up this Church and afterward committed unto Linus (our second pope) the office of the episcopate”. ( lll, 1,3.) A firm believer in the apostolic succession, St.Irenaeus’ list of popes went all the way to Pope Eleutherus (ca 174-189 AD)

Speaking of the lists of the bishops of the various apostolic Churches, Tertullian notes,
“in this form the apostolic churches do present their registers, such as the Church of Smyrna,
which shows that Polycarp was appointed there by John (the beloved disciple of Jesus), and the Church of Rome, which states that Clement was ordained by Peter.” De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 32.]

Both Sacred Scriptures and early Church writings support the Catholic doctrine and tradition
of apostolic succession. There are so many more passages in the New Testament and in early
Church literature to support this Catholic Tradition.

---

“To be deep in history is to be a Catholic.”
Cardinal John H Newman

The Baptist church was founded by John Smyth, in Amsterdam, in the year 1609.
So, of course, Baptists, like all other Protestants, deny the Catholic doctrine
of apostolic succession. The Baptist persuasion has no direct link with the apostles
and the early apostolic Church which was founded by Christ in 33AD and is the Catholic
Church. Only the Catholic Church can claim having a direct link with Peter and the Apostles.

 

[napad]

Hi Abbi,
I have read most of the posts on this thread and in general its been civil. (which is hard considering how excited some people get about this subject)

I think you may not understand why the constant quotes of Popes and doctors of the Church (saints who are held up as exceptionally good teachers of hte Catholic Faith, ie dependable)
etc…

In Catholic thinking there always needs to be in Continuity. This means throught the ages popes and saints have taught, such and such going back to the Apostles ( which includes the Bible of course written by the Apostles) Even though you may not be Catholic, it makes sense in a historical understanding. The continuity issue is vital to understand Catholics. We believe that Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, so anything that can not be traced historically in continuity of doctrine back to the Apostles can not be believed.

The challenge id make to you and all on this thread is to pray this prayer with all your heart: " Please Lord reveal to me all your truth, let me know the truth, love the truth and follow the truth no matter the crosses involved"

Now God will answer that prayer in due time for all of us here. It may be difficult to understand but He will help us

 

[Good_Fella]

Abbi, Peter and the apostles ordained ministers, Paul and Barnabas, for example, Paul
in turn ordaining Timothy, to carry on what they had started. The Christians who were appointed
were essentially given a twofold mission: preaching the Good News and administering the
seven Sacraments to the faithful members of the Church.

The apostles and their immediate successors in the New Testament administered all
seven sacraments for a reason, one of them being Jesus himself set an example for them. And
they celebrated the sacraments as the Catholic Church has ever since as “a priestly community
structured by the baptismal priesthood and the priesthood of ordained ministers.” [CCC#1132]
From the time of the apostles, the Church has always believed that the seven Sacraments were
instituted by Christ Jesus. The New Testament illustrates the sacramental life of the early Church.

1. Baptism in the Church: St.Peter declared, “Repent and be baptised everyone of you in the
   name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
   [Acts 2:38] “Born with a fallen nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the
   new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of of the
   freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.” [CCC#1250: cf.Col 1:12-14] Recall
   the words of Jesus when he rebuked his disciples: “Let the children come to me, and do
   not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” After he placed his
   hands on them he went away. [Mt 19:14-15] The apostles heeded our Lord’s words. From the beginning of apostolic time, whole “households” received baptism which must have included infants and slaves. [Cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16] The ministers whom the apostles appointed to succeed them must have followed suit. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on. [CDF, instruction, ‘Pastoralis Actio’: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156]

Baptism is the sacrament of Faith…The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the Godparent is asked, “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!” [CCC#1253] Let us not confuse pure faith with knowledge or conscious awareness; nor must we judge who is mature enough to approach Jesus.The apostles were rebuked by our Lord for being so presumptuous. Baptism is the initial source of sanctifying grace which cleanses us from original sin and bestows on us a priestly and royal dignity in Christ. We must not deny any infant this gracious gift from our Lord, just as we should not deny this sacrament from a mentally retarded adult who is part of our household. It is their right to be cleansed from original sin and regain their spiritual dignity which was lost. The important thing is that the Sacrament is not forced upon them against their wills by coercion. As Catholics grow and become more mature in their faith and develop a true understanding, they have the free will to either accept or reject their baptismal calling. The Sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist are instruments of grace to help reinforce our baptismal commitment and help us truly live our faith.

The three Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist comprise the Sacraments of
Initiation. The latter two sacraments, not unlike Baptism, have a biblical basis. The practice of
these sacraments is also illustrated in the New Testament. Allow me to continue with Confirmation.

 

[Good_Fella]

1. The Sacrament of Confirmation

The Lord himself affirmed that Baptism was necessary for our salvation. [Cf. Jn 3:5] He also
commanded his apostles to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and baptise them. [Cf. Mt 28:19-20] And on several occasions Christ promised an outpouring of his Spirit, the Holy Spirit who descended on Jesus when he himself was baptised in the river Jordan as a ‘sign’ that he was the expected Messiah. [Cf. Mt 3:13-17; Jn 1:33-34] This promised outpouring of his Spirit was fulfilled on Pentecost. [Cf. Jn 20:22; Acts 2:1-4] "Filled with the Holy Spirit the apostles began to proclaim “the mighty works of God”, and Peter declared this outpouring of the Spirit to be the ‘sign’ of the messianic age. [Acts 2:11; cf. 2:17-18] Those who believed in the apostolic preaching and were baptised received the gift of the Holy Spirit in their turn. [Cf. Acts 2:38] The Sacrament of Confirmation -this efficacious sign of God’s grace-originates with our Lord’s own messianic confirmation in the river Jordan and continues with the confirmation of the apostles on Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit also descended upon them before they would start their apostolic mission - just as Christ had been confirmed before begining his messianic mission.

“From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptised
by the ‘laying on of hands’ the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in ‘The Letter to the Hebrews’ the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the Sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church.” [Pope Paul Vl, 'Divinae consortium naturae 659; cf. Acts 8:15-17; 19:5-6; Heb 6:2] [Cf. CCC# 1285-1289]

“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem (not Amsterdam) heard that Samaria had received
the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them
that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but THEY HAD
ONLY BEEN BAPTISED in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they LAID THEIR HANDS ON
THEM and THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT.” [Acts 8:14-17]

The Sacrament of Confirmation perfects baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly in into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her ‘mission’ and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds. Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible character on the Christian’s soul. [CCC# 1316-1317]

Protestants contend that the Sacrament of Confirmation is unbiblical and unnecessary.
Yet Jesus chose to submit to his own baptism and confirmatiion in the river Jordan much to
the disapproval of John, who felt that it was unnecessary for our Lord to receive the sacrament.
But our Lord gently rebuked him by saying, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for ‘us’ to fulfill all
righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptised, he came up from the water
and behold, the heavens were opened ‘for him’, and he saw the Spirit of God descending
like a dove and ‘coming upon him’. And a voice came from the heavens saying, “This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.” [Mt 3:13-17]

Then he ‘breathed’ on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” [Jn 20:22]

Abbi, the Sacrament of Confirmation is both biblical and subsequent to the initial
Sacrament of Baptism, although the Baptist tradition contends otherwise. By consciously
and humbly submitting ourselves to this sacrament in the spirit of our Lord and by following his
example, we necessarily receive the graces this sacrament effectively signifies ‘ex opere
operato’ and complete our baptism, just as it had been completed for Jesus upon the subsequent appearance of the dove after he had left the water. The New Testament practice of the early Church has been traditionally preserved by the same Church, the Catholic Church, in accordance with our Lord’s will and experience. You speak of false teachers and prophets, so you have been warned. In that case, be wary of the teachings of John Smyth.

Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever listens to you
listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And
whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” [Lk 10:16]

This dictum applies to the true apostolic successors.

I’ll get back to you on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, our greatest spiritual treasure.

 

[napad]

111

 

[upbeatjonm]

Abbi, I am amazed at your interest in this topic. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit is driving that desire to know the truth.

One thing I haven’t seen in this thread is this:

The Church existed before the Bible,. The Bible wasn’t put into writing immediately, and was carried on by oral tradition, within the Church. The desciples were expecting the second coming to be within their lifetime, so they didn’t see the need to write it down immediately. The Catholic Church is the one which meticulously copied the Bible down through the ages, and even determined, with the help of the Holy Spirit, which writings would be put into the Bible. The average Christian did not have their own copies of the Bible until very recent times, since in previous centuries, most people were illiterate, and the printing press had not been invented. So how could Jesus entrust his growing Church to the written Bible alone? Doesn’t it make more sense to have a church to help proclaim the Gospel, and teach what was handed on by the apostles, whether in writing or by oral tradition?

So, Jesus knew that every Christian would not have access to their own personal Bible, so he created the Church, gave the Holy Spirit to guide it, and thereby lead the flock.

On Apostolic succession… why would Jesus not want to have succession in the leadership of His church? Did he intend that it would only last until the final apostle died? Or would He want there to be a Church which follows upon the original apostles?

Jon

 

[Good_Fella]

1. The Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Abbi, Catholics celebrate this sacrament primarily because of what Jesus said: “I am the living
bread come down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;…he who eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and…abides in me, and I in him.” [Jn 6:51, 54, 56.]

We believe that under the consecrated species of bread and wine, Christ is really present
in a substantial manner - in his divinity and soul and in his flesh and blood. Our celebration
of the sacrament is a response to our Lord’s invitation to receive him in the Eucharist: “Truly
I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life
within you.” [Jn 6:53] To respond to this sacred invitation, we must prepare ourselves by examining our conscience and confessing our sins; for we have been invited to receive the body and blood of Christ. St. Paul did not consider the words of Jesus figurative: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” [1 Cor 11:27-29]

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The sacrament is a
sign of the sacrifice of his body and blood, and our Lord instituted this sacrament to perpetuate
the sacrifice on the cross throughout the ages until he returns in glory. In the sacrament he
has also left us a memorial of his death,and resurrection. “The Eucharist is the efficacious
sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the people of God
by which the Church is kept in being.” [Eucharisticium mysterium, 6.]

We are all one at the table of our Lord just as the apostles were. The breaking of the bread at table was an expression used by the first Christians to designate their assemblies. [Cf. Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11] How fitting that we have preserved this gesture initially made by our Lord, for it was by his breaking bread at table together that the apostles recognized their risen Lord. [Cf. Luke 24:13-35]

The celebration of the Eucharist is much more than a memorial meal in our Lord’s name.
It is a ‘Holy Sacrifice’ because it makes present the one sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour
and includes the Church’s offering. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass surpasses and completes
all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. [Cf. Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5; Ps 116:13] The Eucharist
is our greatest treasure, because it is Christ truly and substantially present. In thanksgiving we receive the greatest source of God’s grace in the Blessed Sacrament.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Abbi]

Hey all!
This is a very late reply - sorry! Been a little busy - I’ll probably start a new thread, and just go through the other things that I don’t understand about Catholicsm.

Pax et Caritas: Okay, so I have got to ask… about the whole mortal/venial sin thing. Going by the same logic, if thinking about sin is a mortal sin, then is not everything a supposed mortal sin? thinking about stealing? thinking about murder? where do you draw the line? is there a line?

Okay, so I have to “knowingly reject Catholic dogma”? so by believing that it is wrong to pray to anyone other than Jesus, (eg. Mary, saints, people in heaven etc) I would be, according to you, going to hell?

I’m going to drop this whole apostolic succession thing… I don’t really see what the problem is - believing in it or not. I mean, obviously Jesus would appoint leaders to carry on his teachings, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a stand-in for Jesus until he returns, does it? Surely the Holy Spirit would do that job well enough?

John 20:22-23: “When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - I don’t see how this tells us to confess sins to a priest. All it says to me is that Jesus ties personal forgiveness of others to our own forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer. Here, he reminds us that the Holy Spirit was crucial in giving the gift of forgiveness in church setting. Clearly part of the work of the Spirit in this context is discernment and authority to forgive as God’s community. However, the Spirit, who forms Christ in us and brings to maturity spiritual fruit in us, is crucial in our power to forgive. So our prayer probably should be that the Lord continue to fill us, to guide us, to lead us, and to transform us by his Spirit so that we can truly be his agents of redemption, reconciliation, and grace.

“How is the apostle to determine if he is going to forgive the sin or retain the sin if he doesn’t know what the sin is? Thus, obviously, the person would have to confess the sin.” - Doesn’t this just mean that we should confess and forgive our sins to each other? I maintain that ultimate forgiveness - forgiveness from God comes from God, and praying or confessing to God alone.

Check out 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope). How does that work with Catholicism?

napad: Hey! Interesting. thanks. Prayer has been made…

 

[Abbi]

Good fella: Concerning infant baptism: Of course no one should be denied, and we should not judge who is and isn’t ready. But everyone already has the chance to accept Jesus - they don’t need to be baptised to be saved, and baptism doesn’t save them. John 3:5 means a personal commitment to me, and a baptism if possible. I still think a personal decision needs to be made, otherwise what does it mean? The child wont even remember it. The baby has always had the opportunity to enter God’s kingdom, and the opportunity is still there.

Acts 8:14-17: I would expect that the Samaritans for one reason or another were not gifted the Holy Spirit at their baptism - but that generally the Holy Spirit would enter anyone who has been baptised, had a genioune commitment been made .

As for Jesus getting baptised, I don’t think he needed to be, but that he did so to show his hummanity - becoming like us in all but sin. I don’t think it was anything to do with confirmation - he did it for other important reasons: This baptism was a very public one and was recorded for all generations to know about and understand, and it is important for several reasons. First, it pictures His death and resurrection. Second, it symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Third, it marks His first public identification with those whose sins He would bear. Fourth, the event was a public affirmation of His Messiahship by the testimony that came directly from heaven (Matthew 3:17).

I believe that baptism is well… completed at baptism. I think the Holy Spirit is recieved then - I sure felt it then! I mean why wouldn’t it be? I fail to see what makes confirmation so necessary - or necessary at all.

upbeatjonm: hey hey. Thankyou! - sure! I have been talking to a variety of people with different beliefs lately - other christians, athiests, agnostics and a muslim! It’s been very interesting . I totally think the Church (as in any church saying Jesus is God’s son) is important - to guide etc.

Back to Good fella: Okay, we see communion as an important part of faith - however we don’t believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus’ flesh and blood - just a symbol of it. We say this because Jesus died once for our sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh, for according to Hebrews 10:12-18: “But this one offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For BY ONE OFFERING HE HAS MADE PERFECT THOSE WHO ARE BEING CONSECRATED. The holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying: This is the covenant I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord: 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them upon their minds, he also says: “Their sins and their evildoing I will remember no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, THERE IS NO LONGER OFFERING FOR SIN.”

And in Corinthians 11:24-26 it states that communion is to be done in remembrance of Jesus.

Haha wow… thanks for putting so much time into writing to me!

 

[Nino]

Hey all!
This is a very late reply - sorry! Been a little busy - I’ll probably start a new thread, and just go through the other things that I don’t understand about Catholicsm.

Pax et Caritas: Okay, so I have got to ask… about the whole mortal/venial sin thing. Going by the same logic, if thinking about sin is a mortal sin, then is not everything a supposed mortal sin? thinking about stealing? thinking about murder? where do you draw the line? is there a line?

Okay, so I have to “knowingly reject Catholic dogma”? so by believing that it is wrong to pray to anyone other than Jesus, (eg. Mary, saints, people in heaven etc) I would be, according to you, going to hell?

I’m going to drop this whole apostolic succession thing… I don’t really see what the problem is - believing in it or not. I mean, obviously Jesus would appoint leaders to carry on his teachings, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a stand-in for Jesus until he returns, does it? Surely the Holy Spirit would do that job well enough?

John 20:22-23: “When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - I don’t see how this tells us to confess sins to a priest. All it says to me is that Jesus ties personal forgiveness of others to our own forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer. Here, he reminds us that the Holy Spirit was crucial in giving the gift of forgiveness in church setting. Clearly part of the work of the Spirit in this context is discernment and authority to forgive as God’s community. However, the Spirit, who forms Christ in us and brings to maturity spiritual fruit in us, is crucial in our power to forgive. So our prayer probably should be that the Lord continue to fill us, to guide us, to lead us, and to transform us by his Spirit so that we can truly be his agents of redemption, reconciliation, and grace.

“How is the apostle to determine if he is going to forgive the sin or retain the sin if he doesn’t know what the sin is? Thus, obviously, the person would have to confess the sin.” - Doesn’t this just mean that we should confess and forgive our sins to each other? I maintain that ultimate forgiveness - forgiveness from God comes from God, and praying or confessing to God alone.

Check out 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope). How does that work with Catholicism?

napad: Hey! Interesting. thanks. Prayer has been made…

its always rather humorous when one says…gee the holy spirit does it all …leading us …so why is a pope etc needed? well that ‘holy spirit’ is one confused chap…since there are over .what, some 40,000 various protestant divisions…sects…etc all claiming to have the ‘truth’ satan has done his work well…If one follows the teachings of the RCC one is sure of making it to the promised land…if one follows any other church right down the line…I doubt it…for all other christian churchs get their info from the bible which was saved by the RCC…get the picture…no…well…wait till the world series…or better yet…join the skull and bones club like Kerry and Bush did and William Buckley and Pres.Taft…ahh…lets see what wonderful contributions to saving souls for Jesus they gave…Nino

 

[Abbi]

And that is why basing everything on the Bible is so necessary! different interpretations you say? Protestants dont rely on personal interpretation - or at least they shouldn’t - about anything important. We have church elders, an appointed pastor, and other people around us to discern right from wrong. Besides, you can’t go past misunderstanding one of Jesus’ most important messages - do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[christus_totus]

Pax et Caritas: Okay, so I have got to ask… about the whole mortal/venial sin thing. Going by the same logic, if thinking about sin is a mortal sin, then is not everything a supposed mortal sin? thinking about stealing? thinking about murder? where do you draw the line? is there a line?

Yes there is a line.

Here’s from the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding mortal sin. In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions have to be met :
1.The sin must be grave matter
2. Committed with full knowledge
3. Committed with deliberate consent.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”[131]

Okay, so I have to “knowingly reject Catholic dogma”? so by believing that it is wrong to pray to anyone other than Jesus, (eg. Mary, saints, people in heaven etc) I would be, according to you, going to hell?

Only God and you knows how invincible or vincible your ignorant is. Myself as a Catholic do not have a power to decide whether you are going to hell or not, only God has that power and only God knows. However, if God knows that you truly “knowingly reject the Catholic dogma”, then yes, you are going to hell. I wouldn’t know whether you are going to hell by judging individually but you may have a big chance.

I’m going to drop this whole apostolic succession thing… I don’t really see what the problem is - believing in it or not. I mean, obviously Jesus would appoint leaders to carry on his teachings, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a stand-in for Jesus until he returns, does it?

The Bishops and priests (those who are ordained and have apostolic succession) are appointed by Jesus Christ himself. They do not substitute Jesus Christ but are given an authority on earth to act as representatives of Jesus Christ. So this means there are visible representatives chose by Jesus Christ Himself through the Sacrament of Ordination.

Surely the Holy Spirit would do that job well enough?

Yes the Holy Spirit would do that not only well enough, but perfectly, and the Holy Spirit has guided the people of God through the Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years.

John 20:22-23: “When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - I don’t see how this tells us to confess sins to a priest. All it says to me is that Jesus ties personal forgiveness of others to our own forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer.

The word them only refer to the apostles. It doesn’t say anything about personal forgiveness of others. It clearly says that the apostles are given an authority to forgive sins in Jesus Christ.

“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained”

Here, he reminds us that the Holy Spirit was crucial in giving the gift of forgiveness in church setting. Clearly part of the work of the Spirit in this context is discernment and authority to forgive as God’s community.

This is clearly taken out of context, the passage doesn’t say anything about “community”, Jesus obviously was talking to the apostles and obviously only the apostles are given the authority, not to all human beings in the planet.

 

[christus_totus]

However, the Spirit, who forms Christ in us and brings to maturity spiritual fruit in us, is crucial in our power to forgive. So our prayer probably should be that the Lord continue to fill us, to guide us, to lead us, and to transform us by his Spirit so that we can truly be his agents of redemption, reconciliation, and grace.

This interpretation is already out of context, no where in the passage it is written like how you interpret it.

“How is the apostle to determine if he is going to forgive the sin or retain the sin if he doesn’t know what the sin is? Thus, obviously, the person would have to confess the sin.” - Doesn’t this just mean that we should confess and forgive our sins to each other? I maintain that ultimate forgiveness - forgiveness from God comes from God, and praying or confessing to God alone.

The bible says different.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed.

Check out 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope). How does that work with Catholicism?

It works exactly like what the bible tells us, which there is only one mediator, and the mediator is Jesus Christ. However, it doesn’t mean that we cannot act as mediators IN Jesus Christ. We are members of the Body of Christ, the ONE Christ, the ONE mediator between God and men.

12 Corinthians 12:12-14
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

By praying for one another we become mediator IN Christ.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good fella: Concerning infant baptism: Of course no one should be denied, and we should not judge who is and isn’t ready. But everyone already has the chance to accept Jesus - they don’t need to be baptised to be saved, and baptism doesn’t save them. John 3:5 means a personal commitment to me, and a baptism if possible. I still think a personal decision needs to be made, otherwise what does it mean? The child won’t even remember it. The baby has always had the opportunity to enter God’s kingdom, and the opportunity is still there.[Unquote]

And if the baby or child dies before his eventual baptism? What then? He dies without ever having received sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace we as individuals cannot be fully reunited with God and adopted as the sons of God. Baptism is birth into new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by baptism (CCC#1277). Baptismal grace includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit (#1279). Jesus said,“He who believes and is BAPTISED will be SAVED.” (Mk 16:16) Our Lord is telling us that believing in him is not enough. Baptism is also required, because it is SALVIFIC, not merely symbolic. In Acts 2:38, Peter exhorts people to repent and BE BAPTISED in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin. Peter is responding to his Master’s command that he BAPTISE all nations (Mt 28:19-20). In Acts 22:16, Aninias tells Paul, “Arise and be baptised, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS,” even though Paul was already converted by Christ himself on the road to Damascas. This shows that Paul’s ACCEPTANCE OF JESUS AS his PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOUR was NOT ENOUGH for him to be forgiven of his sins and saved. JESUS AND BAPTISM SAVES! BAPTISM IS NECESSARY! Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn 3:5). The Greek word for “born again” is ‘anothen’ which literally means “begotten from above.” See John 3:31 where ‘anothen’ is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is apparent from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when “whole households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptised. (CCC#1252: Cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16) Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to infants and children, for it is a grace and a gift from God that DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE ANY HUMAN MERIT (why you don’t believe baptism saves); children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom (freedom from original sin.) (CCC#1282) Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called (Col 1:12-14). The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particulary manifest in infant Baptism. (CCC#1250) Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them. (CCC#1251)

Abbi, I shall continue to address your recent objections concerning the sacraments of initiation.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Okay, so I have to “knowingly reject Catholic dogma”? so by believing that it is wrong to pray to anyone other than Jesus, (eg. Mary, saints, people in heaven etc) I would be, according to you, going to hell?

I wanted to touch on this quickly. When a Catholic says they “pray to” Mary or saints in heaven, it is just like when you ask your friends/family/church members to pray for you. Prayer is “talking to” someone, it is NOT worship. A few hundred years ago, people would say, “I pray thee, cease from this frivolity!” and it just meant they were asking the person to “knock it off!” No worship involved. Catholics still go by the original definition of the word, not the modern “pray = worship” definition that evangelicals have given it.

But no, if you don’t feel comfortable asking for Mary and the saints to pray for you, it’s not going to send you to hell. Though, think about this: the Bible says that the “effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much” so why wouldn’t you want someone in Heaven - who has been made completely righteous - to be praying with you and for you?

 

[Good_Fella]

Good fella:

As for Jesus getting baptised, I don’t think he needed to be, but that he did so to show his hummanity - becoming like us in all but sin. I don’t think it was anything to do with confirmation - he did it for other important reasons: This baptism was a very public one and was recorded for all generations to know about and understand, and it is important for several reasons. First, it pictures His death and resurrection. Second, it symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Third, it marks His first public identification with those whose sins He would bear. Fourth, the event was a public affirmation of His Messiahship by the testimony that came directly from heaven (Matthew 3:17).

I believe that baptism is well… completed at baptism. I think the Holy Spirit is recieved then - I sure felt it then! I mean why wouldn’t it be? I fail to see what makes confirmation so necessary - or necessary at all. And he did bear our sins when he died on the cross.

In Acts 8:14-17, the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within his Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood. At Baptism we are touched by the Holy Spirit, but when we receive Confirmation, we are marked by Him and are sealed by Him in Christ. In Acts 19:5-6, the people of Ephesus were baptised in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of Confirmation. In Ephesians 1:13, Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to Confirmation. In John 6:27, Jesus says that the Father has set his seal on Him. As the Father sets his seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets his seal on us in the sacrament of Baptism, and later in the sacrament of Confirmation to reinforce that seal as we mature. We read in Revelation 9:4 that the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. This verse alludes to the significance of the sacrament of Confirmation. Abbi, how can you be sure you “felt” the Holy Spirit when you were baptised? How is the Holy Spirit supposed to feel? Does the Bible tell you how he “feels”? Your experience is purely subjective and hence unreliable. The Holy Spirit felt just like you thought it would right? You are reasoning in a circle: hidden tautology.

Abbi, on the contrary, you do believe that the Baptism of our Lord “confirmed” who Jesus was and his mission on earth. It confirms his role as the Messiah who would come into the world to die for our sins and then rise from the dead so that all who believe in him will have eternal life. After Jesus left the water, the Spirit descended upon him to confirm that our Lord was the Word made flesh, the possessor of an essential and uncreated sanctity bestowed upon Him from the Father. The dove confirmed that the Son of man was sanctified from the beginning, at the moment of his conception (there was no need for Jesus to be baptised like us) when the Word was made flesh. And so he could begin his mission to redeem the world. The sacrament of Confirmation marks and enables us to carry out our baptismal calling as members of a royal priesthood in Christ. Of course, we are in need of baptism to retrieve our sanctification and be pleasing to God as his adopted sons.

Abbi, I will continue to discuss the Holy Eucharist another day.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[HailMary]

In Heaven there is one truth.

If a person with a Protestant mindset grew up thinking nothing of Mary (or worse) and lets assume he got to Heaven, saw all the Angels and Saints bowing at her throne; this would not be heaven for this person.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

This is a theological statement not a point of evangelization.

On this same topic (from the link above):

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

    It is known to us and to you that those who are in **invincible ignorance** of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, **attain to eternal life**; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good fella:

Back to Good fella: Okay, we see communion as an important part of faith - however we don’t believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus’ flesh and blood - just a symbol of it. We say this because Jesus died once for our sins, never to be repeated.

Haha wow… thanks for putting so much time into writing to me!

Abbi, Jesus assured us of His Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Alluding to the promised Real Presence in the Eucharist, Jesus explains his metaphorical use of the term “bread” in Matthew 16:12. In John 6 our Lord removes any metaphorical possibilities.

In John 6:4,11-14, on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (2 Kings 4:43) and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is him. In John 6:35,41, 48, 51 Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is he himself who is the eternal bread from heaven. In John 6:27, 31, 49 there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

In John 6:51-52, Jesus says that the bread he is referring to is his flesh. The Jews take him literally and immediately question such a teaching before abandoning our Lord because of his words. They asked themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Protestants have been asking themselves the same question for centuries. But the Jews are not recorded as saying Jesus must be speaking figuratively. Nor did our Lord speak to them in the form of a parable. In John 6:53-58, Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating his flesh. Indeed, Jesus says four times we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Thus we believe that Jesus makes present his real body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. (Please see “transubstantiation”.)

Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue with no authority (the Bible belongs to us, as the Quran belongs to Muslims.) that Jesus was speaking symbolically.( “If your right eye should cause you to sin pluck it out.” ) There was no need for Jesus to advise the Jews not to take him literally on this occasion, for they would not have done it anyway. In John 6:23-53, however, a symbolic explanation is not plausible. Throughout these verses the Greek text uses the word ‘phago’ nine times. ‘Phago’ literally means “to eat” or “physically consume”. Like today’s Protestants, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat”. What does Jesus do? He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo” which means to gnaw, chew, or crunch. He intensifies the literalness of his speech to get the point across. Jesus literally gives us his flesh and blood to physically consume. The word “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. The Holy Spirit inspired the author of the text to present the true meaning of our Lord’s words.

In John 6:61-63, Jesus acknowledges the disgust of the unbelievers. His use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand his words. Finally, please keep in mind that Jesus always explained to his disciples the real meaning of his teachings. He never would let them go with a false impression, especially when his words bore directly to their salvation. (Mark 4:34)

Abbi, it is getting late, so I will reply to the rest of your objection about the Eucharist and the Mass another time. God bless.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Jesus didn't only give this power to the Apostles he gave it to the entire church which is all believers in Christ.

Matthew 18: 15
Was Jesus speaking to just the apostles? NO he was addressing this to everyone. Notice how he says take it to the church. To think that Peter has the ultimate authority in the Church because Jesus mentioned bind and loose is ridiculous.

You can argue all you want about authority but tell me this oh great Roman Catholics, what power or authority do you have to tell me or anyone that our souls are not saved unless we are part of the Roman Catholic church. I’m a devout Christian which makes me part of the universal church of Jesus which is Christian not Roman Catholic. And tell me this, when I went through my divorce what authority did the Catholic church have to tell me that I could not come back unless it was annulled. And by the way I was supposed to pay $2000 for this ridiculous thing which I didn’t of course. Show me that in the Bible.

I attend a non-denominational church which preaches straight from the Bible. Our congregation is approaching almost 4000 people, 80% of which are former Catholics. 7-8 of every 10 new members are from the Catholic church. Why? Because they are sick of the power and authority trip the Catholic church is on. At the end of the day our salvation is dependent upon our belief and acceptance of Jesus as our savior. And I don’t mean just saying it, I mean really living it day to day. Someone who professes their belief in Jesus and then murders or steals doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t need any authority to tell me how to believe in Jesus. You either do or you don’t. And I certainly don’t need the authority of the Pope which is nothing but a political office created by Leo the Great to tell me I’m saved or not saved.