Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[steve_b]

Given the account of Paul persecuting Christians would imply the believer defines the church.

The believer does not define the Church. Our Lord established His one and only Church. He defines it. And He did that before He ascended back to heaven. That Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

No individual can start a Church. That concept is condemned in scripture.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Wow!.. You’re a contortionist!

“I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom.”

That Peter was a lucky guy!.. He’s the only one who got the message!

Hey!.. What’s it like to be able to interpret Scripture all on your own?
It must get pretty daunting!

I hope you get it right!.. Better still, why don’t you let His Church handle that sort of thing.

You know, Jesus was a pretty smart guy! I think He knows, how fickle, stubborn, proud, indulgent and lazy we can all be. Why on earth would He leave us on our own to decern matters such as these?.. Think about it!

I beats all the bending and twisting you Protestants have to do in denying His One, True Church.

P.S.- you are still ignoring the name change, the binding and loosing and so on… Try again, but don’t break anything as you bend, twist and squirm!

I love you brother! And I’m praying for you!

I’m sure glad you added that last line. I couldn’t see the smile on your face when you were saying the rest. But like they say, all’s well that ends well. Your charity shows through.

BTW, what person does not become a contortionist when someone intelligently challenges beliefs they have held over a long period of time? That goes for Catholic and Protestant alike.

We, Catholics and Protestants, should invite the Holy Spirit into our discussion. He can change hearts set in their ways. He can enlighten minds afraid to step out from the dark. With him, we can find the truth. Without him, our arguments are a waste of time. But argue we must until the futility of our discussions becomes obvious.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Interesting testimonial !

Did this ‘Baptism of Fire’ come at occasion of your Catholic Confirmation by Priest / Bishop … like did for Apollos and friends, in Acts ?

Sounds like it happened later in life …

It definitely happened later in life.

I was just a kid when I was confirmed. I do believe that this baptism in the Holy Spirit at Confirmation was efficacious, but it did not result in any immediately noticeable manifestation.

 

[Chez]

I’m sure glad you added that last line. I couldn’t see the smile on your face when you were saying the rest. But like they say, all’s well that ends well. Your charity shows through.

BTW, what person does not become a contortionist when someone intelligently challenges beliefs they have held over a long period of time? That goes for Catholic and Protestant alike.

We, Catholics and Protestants, should invite the Holy Spirit into our discussion. He can change hearts set in their ways. He can enlighten minds afraid to step out from the dark. With him, we can find the truth. Without him, our arguments are a waste of time. But argue we must until the futility of our discussions becomes obvious.

Believe me… It’s something I have to constantly work on. Even with regards to “cafeteria Catholics”.

Too bad I can’t determine what loving my neighbor means to me! … Nah! I better stick with how the Church defines it.

Thanks for keeping me in check!

 

[pocohombre]

No one can help you if you won’t accept the simple reading of the text. Can’t you see what a convoluted explanation you need to deny that Peter was put in charge of the church. Notice also in John 21, Jesus, the good shepherd, tells Peter to tend his flock. How do you answer that? And how do you explain away Peter’s leadership in the first half of Acts, where he is shown replacing Judas, interpreting scripture, defining baptism as needed for salvation, speaking for the Apostles to the people and the authorities, excommunicating Simon Magnus and defining the doctrine that Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish ceremonial laws.

It is so convoluted half of Christendom believes it.

 

[Brendan_64]

I personally received the type of baptism of the Holy Spirit as done by Saint Paul. It was dramatic and it was a felt experience. I do not believe it rendered me saved. What it did was stir up what was already within me, and released the Spirit to an even greater degree in my life. Why, when I had already been baptized and confirmed? I believe it was because I was more ardently seeking a deeper walk with Christ

I experienced something similar, and like yourself do not believe that I was being saved, or ‘born again’. Unlike yourself though, I experienced this at a time when I had turned my back on the Church and was going deeper and deeper into pagan beliefs.

I was called back, out of the blue, in a way in which I couldn’t deny what had happened. How my car didn’t crash during that experience defies all natural logic. I was driving across a busy West London crossroads at the time, and then there was ‘brightness’ throughout the sky, a voice clearly asking me where I’m running to and what am I running from, a ‘feeling’ within me, and a clear recognition that this was God speaking to me, and then a realisation that I had been running from God for 15 years, floods of tears, a pretty feeble (given the circumstances) apology from myself, and then after what seemed like a long time, I’m on the other side of the crossroads. No pile-up, no crash, not even one car beeping its horn at me.

At my Confession after that, it did feel as if I was being received back into the Church (even though I had been baptised and confirmed as a child) and at Easter Sunday service the following week the same priest who heard my confession made a point of absolutely soaking me with Holy Water when he sprinkled the congregation (I can still clearly picture the smile on his face as he did this).

Ever since I have asked myself, “Why me?”. Why did God stop and call me back like that? I wasn’t looking for Him at the time, quite the reverse. What does God want from me? I’m still trying to figure that out and try to fulfill whatever particular purpose he wants from me. Sometimes I think I know what He wants of me, most of the time I’m not sure. But I do try (maybe not that hard sometimes) to listen and act accordingly, even though I probably fail most of the time.

 

[adfraggs]

… some may be saved who have never heard of Jesus by following the natural law within their hearts.

I’d say what I’ve done then is mis-represent what “Catholic” really means. Clearly we agree that the truth of salvation is simply the truth regardless of what names you use to describe it, but I don’t understand enough of your faith to really have a proper dialogue. I underestimate what it means to be a devout Catholic and that’s actually a product of my own defensive reactions. I have much experience with people who would call themselves Christian and assert very clearly that unless you know the name Jesus and read the scriptures related to his teachings that you have no path to salvation. To extend that kind of thinking to all Catholics is my mistake and probably an insult to many deep thinking and devout servants of God.

The only point I had wanted to put forward is that it’s possible to find a path to salvation through communion with God and not know specifically of the body of people who would together call themselves members of the Catholic Church. For me that’s what a church is: a group of people with a common understanding and a common faith. I think what I misunderstand is a more broad definition of the church which is taken as simply the expression of God’s law. To me God’s law is entirely independent of what you call it, who teaches it to you and what rituals are practised. You can find your way to that truth without ever hearing the name Jesus because it’s simply always there, just waiting for you to act. If that’s what it means to be Catholic then of course, God wants everyone to be Catholic.

 

[brb3]

It is so convoluted half of Christendom believes it

Which half are you in ?

No reasonable reading of Gospels and Acts could miss the overwhelming evidence/testimony of scripture — to the supremacy, primacy of Peter, over the 12.

Now, the primacy of Mary, as queen of heaven … that one is not so clear, and still rumbling around in my mind … and being investigated.

 

[paul_c]

I’d say what I’ve done then is mis-represent what “Catholic” really means. Clearly we agree that the truth of salvation is simply the truth regardless of what names you use to describe it, but I don’t understand enough of your faith to really have a proper dialogue. I underestimate what it means to be a devout Catholic and that’s actually a product of my own defensive reactions. I have much experience with people who would call themselves Christian and assert very clearly that unless you know the name Jesus and read the scriptures related to his teachings that you have no path to salvation. To extend that kind of thinking to all Catholics is my mistake and probably an insult to many deep thinking and devout servants of God.

The only point I had wanted to put forward is that it’s possible to find a path to salvation through communion with God and not know specifically of the body of people who would together call themselves members of the Catholic Church. For me that’s what a church is: a group of people with a common understanding and a common faith. I think what I misunderstand is a more broad definition of the church which is taken as simply the expression of God’s law. To me God’s law is entirely independent of what you call it, who teaches it to you and what rituals are practised. You can find your way to that truth without ever hearing the name Jesus because it’s simply always there, just waiting for you to act. If that’s what it means to be Catholic then of course, God wants everyone to be Catholic.

Its not surprising that you were under misconceptions about what the Catholic Church really teaches. Recognizing that they were misconceptions is a major step. Hopefully you will see this as a sign to investigate further. We are here to help you with that journey. God Bless.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
No one can help you if you won’t accept the simple reading of the text. Can’t you see what a convoluted explanation you need to deny that Peter was put in charge of the church. Notice also in John 21, Jesus, the good shepherd, tells Peter to tend his flock. How do you answer that? And how do you explain away Peter’s leadership in the first half of Acts, where he is shown replacing Judas, interpreting scripture, defining baptism as needed for salvation, speaking for the Apostles to the people and the authorities, excommunicating Simon Magnus and defining the doctrine that Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish ceremonial laws.

It is so convoluted half of Christendom believes it. If it was 90%, it wouldn’t make it any more true. No matter how many people are deceived, the plain reading will be there for all that are open to the truth. What do you have to gain by denying that Peter was the leader of the Apostles? Do you think such a denial of an obvious fact somehow justifies your Protests against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Isn’t it common sense that denial of the truth is not from God? Why do you think St. Peter was mentioned so many times more than any other Apostle in the Gospels?

 

[berk60]

No one can help you if you won’t accept the simple reading of the text. Can’t you see what a convoluted explanation you need to deny that Peter was put in charge of the church. Notice also in John 21, Jesus, the good shepherd, tells Peter to tend his flock. How do you answer that? And how do you explain away Peter’s leadership in the first half of Acts, where he is shown replacing Judas, interpreting scripture, defining baptism as needed for salvation, speaking for the Apostles to the people and the authorities, excommunicating Simon Magnus and defining the doctrine that Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish ceremonial laws.

So then it would seem that all the other Apostles would have to fall under Peter’s leadership and we will see that throughout the New Testament text? Correct? In fact if he was the first Pope he would be infallible. Right?
But we read in Galations 2 the following;

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

I just think too much emphases is but on Peter in order to justify Catholic authority.

 

[pablope]

So then it would seem that all the other Apostles would have to fall under Peter’s leadership and we will see that throughout the New Testament text? Correct? In fact if he was the first Pope he would be infallible. Right?

Yes…because he made a doctrinal decision that circumcisiojn is not needed for Gentiles in Acts 15.

Do you understand what infallibity means? Do you equate it with impecability/

Infallibity means incapable of error, in terms of the faith and morals. Peter, and any pope throughtout 2000 yrs of the CC, were sinners, just like everyone else.

Let me ask…do you listen to your pastor every Sunday? Do you follow what he teaches, correct? Is he sinless or not?

But we read in Galations 2 the following;

 

[Chez]

So then it would seem that all the other Apostles would have to fall under Peter’s leadership and we will see that throughout the New Testament text? Correct? In fact if he was the first Pope he would be infallible. Right?
But we read in Galations 2 the following;

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

I just think too much emphases is but on Peter in order to justify Catholic authority.

Just so everyone knows… I write this with a great big smile, and with love in my heart:love

That said… It doesn’t matter what you “think”!

You do not understand the role of Peter and his successors!
The Pope is not a perfect human being. Peter denied Christ thee times!

Do you think that if a Pope today did something that was less than charitable, a Bishop wouldn’t take him to task on it?.. Would that negate his role as the vicar of Christ? No!

Let me make something clear to all my Protestant brothers and sisters… If by some cosmic accident, the most miserable, retched man in the world was elected to the position of Pope, and this man believed there was nothing wrong with fornicating, abortions, or homosexual marriage… And say he wanted to disrupt all of Catholicism by proclaiming that female Priests are okay, or that contraception is fine, and so on… HE COULD NOT DO IT!

Not because “he” is infallible, but because the “Papacy” is infallible!

Think about it!.. I’m sure all you diehard Protestants know every illicit thing any Pope has ever done. Why would a man who’s “title” is infallible, not just declare his sinful ways no longer sinful???.. HE CAN’T, God won’t let him!

Do you realize what pressure is put on the “man” who is Pope, with regards to contraception, female Priests, homosexual marriage… All the things that have become common place in today’s secular society, and far too many Christian denominations?

All he has to do to relieve himself of all that pressure is to declare all of it acceptable…
HE CAN’T DO IT!.. No more than Peter could have said it was perfectly fine to separate himself from the Gentiles!

It truly amazes me that Protestants don’t find incredible comfort in seeing that!

I’m telling you people, take a good look at what’s happening to all your denominations! All splitting off from one another, who doesn’t like this interpretation, who doesn’t like that one!
Don’t you think it’s getting a bit ridicules?

If you truly love the Christian Faith, there is only one Church that is just as it was when Christ established Her… And we Catholic’s are all waiting and praying for you to come home.

 

[Chez]

Yes…because he made a doctrinal decision that circumcisiojn is not needed for Gentiles in Acts 15.

 

[berk60]

Just so everyone knows… I write this with a great big smile, and with love in my heart:love

That said… It doesn’t matter what you “think”!

You do not understand the role of Peter and his successors!
The Pope is not a perfect human being. Peter denied Christ thee times!

Do you think that if a Pope today did something that was less than charitable, a Bishop wouldn’t take him to task on it?.. Would that negate his role as the vicar of Christ? No!

Let me make something clear to all my Protestant brothers and sisters… If by some cosmic accident, the most miserable, retched man in the world was elected to the position of Pope, and this man believed there was nothing wrong with fornicating, abortions, or homosexual marriage… And say he wanted to disrupt all of Catholicism by proclaiming that female Priests are okay, or that contraception is fine, and so on… HE COULD NOT DO IT!

Not because “he” is infallible, but because the “Papacy” is infallible!

Think about it!.. I’m sure all you diehard Protestants know every illicit thing any Pope has ever done. Why would a man who’s “title” is infallible, not just declare his sinful ways no longer sinful???.. HE CAN’T, God won’t let him!

Do you realize what pressure is put on the “man” who is Pope, with regards to contraception, female Priests, homosexual marriage… All the things that have become common place in today’s secular society, and far too many Christian denominations?

All he has to do to relieve himself of all that pressure is to declare all of it acceptable…
HE CAN’T DO IT!.. No more than Peter could have said it was perfectly fine to separate himself from the Gentiles!

It truly amazes me that Protestants don’t find incredible comfort in seeing that!

I’m telling you people, take a good look at what’s happening to all your denominations! All splitting off from one another, who doesn’t like this interpretation, who doesn’t like that one!
Don’t you think it’s getting a bit ridicules?

If you truly love the Christian Faith, there is only one Church that is just as it was when Christ established Her… And we Catholic’s are all waiting and praying for you to come home.

You putall your faith in a human being who is a sinner as you said like all the rest of us. You seem to be saying that God will not allow him to error even though he has the free will to error. The bible is full of accounts of people who were following Gods direction including the nation of Israel that chose to not continue to follow God. But the pope is not capable of having this happen to him.
Boy you better hope your right especially as we approach a time when God will send a strong delusion so people will believe the lie. When I think of this delusion coming that’s when I want to spend more and more time in Gods word so I will be certain of the truth.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It is so convoluted half of Christendom believes it.

A preacher once said, a half-truth is like a half-brick, you can toss it twice as far.

The fact that men have tinkered with the truth to fit their own agendas and started new religions, should come as no surprise. It has been happening since the first days of Christendom. The fact that the leaders of Protestantism only did so after 1,500 years must mean either (1) they were a brilliant new species of genius or super spiritual men divining new truths, or (2) the Christians of the first 1,500 years were ignorant and possibly blithering idiots, or (3) the Christians of the first 1,500 years had it right from the start. In good conscience, in good common sense, and in good rational thinking, I can only opt for the third choice-- the Church that taught what Jesus taught and followed what Jesus instructed it from day one, and still teaches and follows the same to this day, is the true Church of Christ. The reformation was needed, but it did not happen outside the Church, it happened within the Catholic Church. Those who left the Church were not reformers, they were rebels and deniers, and they did not reform the Church, They abandoned it and began their own false religions. The Protestants of today are not really Protestants, because they did not abandon the Church, they, in most cases, were merely born into certain false doctrines and believed them because that was all that they knew, all they had been taught, and because the seeds of Catholic distrust and sometimes worse had been sown in their minds. I do like the term “separated brethren” far better than Protestants for that reason.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

So then it would seem that all the other Apostles would have to fall under Peter’s leadership and we will see that throughout the New Testament text? Correct? In fact if he was the first Pope he would be infallible. Right?
But we read in Galations 2 the following;

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

I just think too much emphases is but on Peter in order to justify Catholic authority.

My friend, you are mistaking impeccability with infallibility. When Peter spoke first on the matter of gentile circumcision, his decision stood. When Peter was hypocritical, and making no proclamations regarding faith and morals, he was being human.

This is nothing new. There have been very many imperfect popes, but none have been able to proclaim false doctrine officially, because Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the guidance of the Spirit.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You putall your faith in a human being who is a sinner as you said like all the rest of us.

You, in fact, do this. Whatever interpretation you have of Scripture, whether someone else’s or your own, is based on a fallible, imperfect human being. Scripture cannot speak to you literally. If it did, there would be no division in Christianity. This is not the case.

The office of Pope (the Vicar, Petrine successor), along with the combined collective magisterium, has the promise of infallibility (as the apostles did, and they are their successors). We (the Catholic Church) have been able to come to a unified proclamation of doctrine on all matters of faith and morals. Protestants have not. It follows by logic that, if the promise of Jesus has been kept, it has been kept for the unified Catholic faith.

Remember, it is not the man we place our faith in, but the office that he holds, and Jesus Christ’s ability to guide us through the Holy Spirit. If God has not guided the Church, and Christians are unable to make definitive statements on faith and morals, then Christ has not kept His promise, and is a liar. Since I proclaim that Jesus is Lord, I cannot believe that He has failed.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I experienced something similar, and like yourself do not believe that I was being saved, or ‘born again’. Unlike yourself though, I experienced this at a time when I had turned my back on the Church and was going deeper and deeper into pagan beliefs.

I was called back, out of the blue, in a way in which I couldn’t deny what had happened. How my car didn’t crash during that experience defies all natural logic. I was driving across a busy West London crossroads at the time, and then there was ‘brightness’ throughout the sky, a voice clearly asking me where I’m running to and what am I running from, a ‘feeling’ within me, and a clear recognition that this was God speaking to me, and then a realisation that I had been running from God for 15 years, floods of tears, a pretty feeble (given the circumstances) apology from myself, and then after what seemed like a long time, I’m on the other side of the crossroads. No pile-up, no crash, not even one car beeping its horn at me.

At my Confession after that, it did feel as if I was being received back into the Church (even though I had been baptised and confirmed as a child) and at Easter Sunday service the following week the same priest who heard my confession made a point of absolutely soaking me with Holy Water when he sprinkled the congregation (I can still clearly picture the smile on his face as he did this).

Ever since I have asked myself, “Why me?”. Why did God stop and call me back like that? I wasn’t looking for Him at the time, quite the reverse. What does God want from me? I’m still trying to figure that out and try to fulfill whatever particular purpose he wants from me. Sometimes I think I know what He wants of me, most of the time I’m not sure. But I do try (maybe not that hard sometimes) to listen and act accordingly, even though I probably fail most of the time.

Why did he want you? It does not necessarily mean that you have some stupendous role to play on the world stage, but it absolutely does point to the immense love that God has for you, and may also point to someone else who had been praying for you. When I recount his passion and death, I try to put myself in his place. If I had the power to stop the pain and suffering by blinking my eye, how long would I have lasted? Not very long, I can assure you. To suffer for someone is one thing, but to go step by step through a prolonged ordeal having the power to stop it at any time defies imagination. That is how much he loves you. But don’t be like me and wait until you’re getting old to seriously put your house in order. Better late than never, but better yet, now! The kingdom is now.

But what an amazing testimony you have! It must give you goosebumps to think about it. And a warm feeling inside to be singled out like that. God bless you.

 

[Chez]

You putall your faith in a human being who is a sinner as you said like all the rest of us. You seem to be saying that God will not allow him to error even though he has the free will to error. The bible is full of accounts of people who were following Gods direction including the nation of Israel that chose to not continue to follow God. But the pope is not capable of having this happen to him.
Boy you better hope your right especially as we approach a time when God will send a strong delusion so people will believe the lie. When I think of this delusion coming that’s when I want to spend more and more time in Gods word so I will be certain of the truth.

Either you are stubborn, or I am horrible at explaining things.
Maybe a little of both!

We do not put all our Faith in a human being. We put our Faith in Jesus Christ, and the promise He made to Peter!

The Pope, as a human being, has all the free will to sin as anyone else… He does not have the free will to destroy the Church that Christ entrusts him with!

Why is it so hard for you to believe that God would set up His Church that way?

Why is it so difficult for you to see that for the past 2000 years, the Pope has never taught anything, with regards to Faith and morals that was in error?

You write that you want to spend more and more time in Gods word… But you ignore much of it, and distort most of the rest!

Don’t worry about weather or not I’m right… I don’t make it up as I go!
I follow the Word of God as defined by the Church He gave us, not as I define it!

I’m still praying for you, with a great big smile!