Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[JamesCaruso]

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!

I fully believe that if a legitimate Pope were about to proclaim a false doctrine something terrible would happen-- he would be paralyzed, struck dumb, lapse into a coma, drop dead on the spot, or otherwise be incapacitated. If I were Pope, even the worst Pope imaginable, I would not dare attempt to cross that line. :bigyikes:

 

[StillCatholic]

What you DON’T know about the Catholic Faith is a lot!.. You are going talk to a Catholic about comforting ideas that few people will let go of?

Once saved always saved!.. Are you kidding me?.. Sounds like the biggest, fattest, wide open path one could think of!

Faith alone!.. Scripture alone, and YOU get to decide what Holy Scripture means to YOU!.. Oh yea, I forgot, it’s the Holy Spirit interpreting Holy Scripture for you personally, in a way that’s acceptable for you personally.

Nothing unclean may enter heaven!.. Except if your Protestant of course! Then you may sin and sin boldly, because you have been Sanctified by Faith alone and it will never go away, and now you are clean and perfect enough to enter into heaven!.. Really? Sign me up!.. NOT!

Wow!.. It’s a wonder there is still a Catholic Church pushing out all those
(“What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”) bothersome rules!

Oh wait!.. There was that pesty little promise, wasn’t there?.. “And the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

PS- Jesus is not lost in the Catholic Church… Attend a Mass, you will be very surprised!

LOVE IT!!! Exactly why I finally found my way back into the Catholic church…accountability. And I’m so sick of the Jesus and me mentality! Absolute heresy! I’ve heard so many different interpretations of various scriptures. And the Mass!!! Oh, yes, not only do you find Jesus in the Mass but if one is open to it, one can be transported to the throne of God and join in with the heavenly host singing over and over again, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY Lord! God of host, heaven and earth are full of your glory, hosanna in the highest! And then there’s this: Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us.

 

[pocohombre]

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?

There is a million miles of difference between calling Peter the leader or even first amongst equals and claiming Papacy over them, and claiming that it is handed down to others, or that we can even choose a successor. So it is much more beyond what is in scripture. .Much much more. It has been contested way,way before Luther as evidenced by some councils,early patriarchs,the orthodox etc. Scripture plainly suggests so also.However, I understand and respect your views ,interpretation of scripture and history, just humbly disagree Convoluted is an uncharitable word to use against either view.

 

[pocohombre]

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

 

[pocohombre]

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?

St. Paul is mentioned more and wrote more and established more.Scripture plainly says our foundation are the twelve apostles in revelations.No special mention of Peter ( nor Paul).

 

[deepoctave]

pocohombre, after spending a good deal of effort defending the Protestant position, are you now going to take up the Orthodox position? Do you now accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, etc.? As to Peter’s authority at the first council in Acts 15, I quote from the Ignatius Study New Testament commentary: “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the Apostolic Church. He formulates a doctrinal judgement about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side.” The Petrine Office today appears differently than than it did in the New Testament, just as a mighty oak tree looks different from an acorn. One is a development of the other but they are organically the same.

 

[deepoctave]

Once again, pocohombre, You go to great lengths to deny the role of Peter in the New Testament, and you struggle mightily to find explanations that allow you to deny the Catholic position, but you ignore the plain sense of Scripture in many places, you refuse to take seriously the overall themes and witness of Scripture as a whole, and you pick out the parts of history that suit you without taking into account the entire historical record.

 

[Chez]

pocohombre, after spending a good deal of effort defending the Protestant position, are you now going to take up the Orthodox position? Do you now accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, etc.? As to Peter’s authority at the first council in Acts 15, I quote from the Ignatius Study New Testament commentary: “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the Apostolic Church. He formulates a doctrinal judgement about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side.” The Petrine Office today appears differently than than it did in the New Testament, just as a mighty oak tree looks different from an acorn. One is a development of the other but they are organically the same.

 

[Chez]

Once again, pocohombre, You go to great lengths to deny the role of Peter in the New Testament, and you struggle mightily to find explanations that allow you to deny the Catholic position, but you ignore the plain sense of Scripture in many places, you refuse to take seriously the overall themes and witness of Scripture as a whole, and you pick out the parts of history that suit you without taking into account the entire historical record.

 

[Chez]

LOVE IT!!! Exactly why I finally found my way back into the Catholic church…accountability. And I’m so sick of the Jesus and me mentality! Absolute heresy! I’ve heard so many different interpretations of various scriptures. And the Mass!!! Oh, yes, not only do you find Jesus in the Mass but if one is open to it, one can be transported to the throne of God and join in with the heavenly host singing over and over again, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY Lord! God of host, heaven and earth are full of your glory, hosanna in the highest! And then there’s this: Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us.

Welcome Home!!

 

[Chez]

I fully believe that if a legitimate Pope were about to proclaim a false doctrine something terrible would happen-- he would be paralyzed, struck dumb, lapse into a coma, drop dead on the spot, or otherwise be incapacitated. If I were Pope, even the worst Pope imaginable, I would not dare attempt to cross that line. :bigyikes:

You have a good intuition!

 

[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.

The emphasis on St. Peter is present in the bible. Who do we follow in parallel to Jesus during the passion narratives? Peter. Who do we follow in Acts 1-15? Peter. As for Galatians, who does St. Paul confer with when he starts his ministry? Peter
[BIBLEDRB]galatians 1: 18[/BIBLEDRB]

By the way, Paul criticized Peter for taking steps to satisfy the Jewish Christians in Galatians yet in Acts 16, Paul does the same thing when he circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews in Lycaonia. [BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:3[/BIBLEDRB]. And this was after the council of Jerusalem. It goes to the point that from a pastoral standpoint, to spread the gospel, both men had to be “all things to all people”. Remember, the point of Galatians was to convince them not to rely on the Jewish ceremonial laws for salvation. Peter had defined that doctrine himself in Acts 15. He didn’t renounce the doctrine, he just followed the Jewish ceremonial laws in the presence of Jewish Christians so as not to offend them. Paul rightly pointed out that this offended the gentiles instead. It was a difficult pastoral problem for both of them and since Paul was speaking to the Gentiles in Galatians, he was taking their side in the debate. But as we see, when Paul was talking to the Jews in Lycaonia, he took the other side. All things to all people.

 

[paul_c]

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.

Berk, what you don’t understand about infallibility is that the popes always reference their predecessors when making doctrinal statements. Feel free to check out any of the papal bulls to validate what I am saying (you can get them on the vatican website or by doing a google search.) You see, Popes pass on what they heard from the predecessors, going all the way back to Peter and ultimately, Jesus. Sure, they must apply those truths to new situations, but they always take great pains to show their reasoning. Explore a little bit, you will find they are very well researched.

This is why you will never see women priests, gay marriage. abortion, or divorce in the Catholic church, no matter what the popular opinion of the day is. The Catholic church teaches the eternal truths and they are unalterable.

As for people in the old testament turning away from the faith, they never were told that Jesus would be with them until the end of the age or that the gates of hell would never prefail against them. These guarantees were made to Peter and the Catholic Church.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
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?

A few points here. Lets say for a second that you agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, then you want proof of his primacy and that that role could be passed on. Well, as for the primacy, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose. (Matthew 16: 16-19). There is no higher power than that. And as for passing on a role, that was established in Acts 1, where Peter quotes scripture to show that church offices must be filled when vacated [BIBLEDRB]ACTS 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

It has been contested way,way before Luther as evidenced by some councils,early patriarchs,the orthodox etc. Scripture plainly suggests so also.

The fact that Papal authority is contested by men that want to claim the same power for themselves isn’t a valid argument that Papal authority doesn’t exist. Luther, for instance, installed himself as leader of his own church and following the great schism, the patriarch of Constantinople declared himself first among equals among the Orthodox. Please show where a council or scripture militates against Papal authority to support those points.

However, I understand and respect your views ,interpretation of scripture and history, just humbly disagree Convoluted is an uncharitable word to use against either view.

Thank you for the kind words. I would continue to appreciate discussion to resolve the differences in understanding. And I’m sorry if I offended you by calling your explanation convoluted.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
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?

Its helpful to consider the purposes of the various new testament books when discussing this.

The four gospels are the stories of Jesus and He is of course the focus of them. However, Peter’s story is also told in parallel in the Gospels. We follow Peter from the point of his conversion right up to his encounter with the Risen Christ in John 21, where the Good Shepherd turns the flock over to Peter, telling him three times to tend his flock.

Acts was written by Luke, a traveling companion of St. Paul. Luke splits Acts roughly in two. The first 15 chapters follow Peter and the establishment of the church, the remainder follows St. Paul and his missionary work with the Gentiles.

The Epistles are all letters from the Apostles to Individuals and Churches they founded addressing issues of the day. The majority are written by St. Paul because he was both a prolific missionary and the church’s first theologian. But he was clearly not the leader of the church.

Revelations was written a few decades after the deaths of Peter and Paul and was a revelation of heaven and encouragement for the persecuted church. It has nothing to do with church leadership because that wasn’t the point of the revelation.

 

[StillCatholic]

Berk, what you don’t understand about infallibility is that the popes always reference their predecessors when making doctrinal statements. Feel free to check out any of the papal bulls to validate what I am saying (you can get them on the vatican website or by doing a google search.) You see, Popes pass on what they heard from the predecessors, going all the way back to Peter and ultimately, Jesus. Sure, they must apply those truths to new situations, but they always take great pains to show their reasoning. Explore a little bit, you will find they are very well researched.

This is why you will never see women priests, gay marriage. abortion, or divorce in the Catholic church, no matter what the popular opinion of the day is. The Catholic church teaches the eternal truths and they are unalterable.

As for people in the old testament turning away from the faith, they never were told that Jesus would be with them until the end of the age or that the gates of hell would never prefail against them. These guarantees were made to Peter and the Catholic Church.

I often struggle in knowing how to answer this question of infallibility. Thanks for this. It is very easy and clear to understand.

 

[peace2u2]

To speculate a bit, I think the early Apostles just experiencing the descent of the Holy Spirit so strongly as to be visible as tongues of fire over their heads, and Paul, who had an amazing and unique personal encounter with the risen Lord, were all so greatly filled with the Holy Spirit that whoever they touched received the Spirit in a dramatic way.

In the sacrament of Confirmation we think of it as a strengthening of the Spirit in the person, who has already received the Holy Spirit in Baptism. Even today, "when adults are baptized, they immediately receive Confirmation, as was the case in the days of Saint Paul. "

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, and because many people, already on fire with the Holy Spirit, were praying for God to let me experience a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit than I had ever experienced before.

Was I born again by this experience? No. I had already been born again through Baptism. Was I re-born again? No. If, for example, every time a holy person prayed and received more of God’s Spirit he was considered “re-born again” he would be born again several times a day, There is no indication in the Bible that God wants us to be born again and again and again. It is once and for all. We can fall away from it, but forgiveness is always available. Believe me, since my experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit I have not lived a perfect life. Far from it! But I do see things more clearly, and it has made a dramatic difference in my life, and yes, I agree with pocohombre that Catholics need to more than just read the truth, they must put it into practice. But real Catholics know that. It’s the nominal Catholic who gives lip service to the truth. It’s the practicing Catholic who allows the Holy Spirit to bring his life into conformity with that truth by conviction and conversion.

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.

Thank you for sharing your beautiful testimony to God working in your life. These are powerful encounters with the living God revealing Himself to you, each in a very personal way, unique just as you are unique. I believe these encounters are not called being “born again” either, but a more fitting description would be conversion and I think that is where our Protestant bretheren get a little mixed up by calling conversions being “born again”.

James you talk about experiencing the type of baptism in the Holy Spirit like the kind spoken of in the Bible and what it did was stir up what was already within you, and released the Spirit to an even greater degree in your life…I too experienced this as well and I believe these conversions are the action of the Holy Spirit moving us and equipting us for ministry to do the Lord’s work. We are all unique and unrepeatable and each of us has been given certain gifts and talents to that ministry work. I have had 2 dramatic and powerful conversions, and never once did I feel like I had to leave my Catholic Church for a different religion or church. Quite contrary, those conversion experiences made me love my Catholic faith even more and brought me deeper and closer to God.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thank you for sharing your beautiful testimony to God working in your life. These are powerful encounters with the living God revealing Himself to you, each in a very personal way, unique just as you are unique. I believe these encounters are not called being “born again” either, but a more fitting description would be conversion and I think that is where our Protestant bretheren get a little mixed up by calling conversions being “born again”.

James you talk about experiencing the type of baptism in the Holy Spirit like the kind spoken of in the Bible and what it did was stir up what was already within you, and released the Spirit to an even greater degree in your life…I too experienced this as well and I believe these conversions are the action of the Holy Spirit moving us and equipting us for ministry to do the Lord’s work. We are all unique and unrepeatable and each of us has been given certain gifts and talents to that ministry work. I have had 2 dramatic and powerful conversions, and never once did I feel like I had to leave my Catholic Church for a different religion or church. Quite contrary, those conversion experiences made me love my Catholic faith even more and brought me deeper and closer to God.

Thank you for your testimony, too, and for you confirmation of what I said. And even now, many years later, I am still undergoing conversion. I don’t think the Lord is ever happy until we are totally his. Isn’t that great, when to stop to think about it!

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

Berk60 and pocohombre,

Who was Augustine of Hippo? Was he a Christian? Was he person who believed what 21st century Protestants believe? This is not an irrelevant question to our discussion.

 

[pocohombre]

Berk60 and pocohombre,

Who was Augustine of Hippo? Was he a Christian? Was he person who believed what 21st century Protestants believe? This is not an irrelevant question to our discussion.

My friend I feel quite comfortable in reading much of his Confessions and feel a kinship with his experience in Christ.The feeling isn’t perfect and perhaps it shouldn’t be,that is we follow Christ,and I would not demand that we see eye to eye on all 238 thoughts he puts forth. Much is the same and much is different with both the CC and P churches of today with that early church .But yes, he laid a foundation for much of what is Catholicism today, to some regret to Protestants. It is also quite clear some things have evolved in CC that he did not proport.