I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, you catholics and your ad hominems!

It’s not ‘us’ Catholics and our ad hominems. You, seemingly, deliberately twisted what I say for what purpose, if not to inflame? It’s your ad hominem. Does the Holy Spirit lead you to use such tactics on a Christian forum, towards Catholics specifically?

 

[1beleevr]

He promised that to the men He chose and appointed over His Church. They were the only ones present when He spoke those words.

What I do believe about the disciples, is yes they were the only ones there, BUT, I believe that Jesus was telling them to pass on the good news to all those whoo believe; including us today!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not appoint myself, nor do I lead myself; but if you deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in me, then you, in essence deny my Christianity!

I deny your interpretation of scriptures, specifically your application of everything spoken by Christ to yourself, even if it was only spoken to the men He chose and appointed over His Church for the purposes of ‘tending His flock’, or leading the flock.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What I do believe about the disciples, is yes they were the only ones there, BUT, I believe that Jesus was telling them to pass on the good news to all those whoo believe; including us today!

Who said they were not to pass it on to us today? Not I. I say those of Apostolic succession are answering His call through His Church, that He established.

 

[1beleevr]

It’s not ‘us’ Catholics and our ad hominems. You, seemingly, deliberately twisted what I say for what purpose, if not to inflame? It’s your ad hominem. Does the Holy Spirit lead you to use such tactics on a Christian forum, towards Catholics specifically?

Well, of course not, but youse guys are the only ones who use that word(s). I do not aim to inflame, but people take things differently and interpret things differently, hence the division in the Christian family! Sorry if I hit a nerve, but I must defend myself against all attacks. And regardless of what anyone thinks or believes, I am firmly confident of the Holy Spirit in me!

 

[1beleevr]

I deny your interpretation of scriptures, specifically your application of everything spoken by Christ to yourself, even if it was only spoken to the men He chose and appointed over His Church for the purposes of ‘tending His flock’, or leading the flock.

And it is your right to deny me that right to believe that Jesus’s words spoken back then, apply to me today. But, I am rock solid in my faith, and belief that Jesus meant every word for everyone who believes. There was apostolic succession, but the Holy Spirit was not only reserved for catholic priess and popes

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, of course not, but youse guys are the only ones who use that word(s). I do not aim to inflame, but people take things differently and interpret things differently, hence the division in the Christian family! Sorry if I hit a nerve, but I must defend myself against all attacks. And regardless of what anyone thinks or believes, I am firmly confident of the Holy Spirit in me!

So you justify intentionally twisting my words?

Better look in the mirror and ask who is on the offensive on a Catholic forum.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And it is your right to deny me that right to believe that Jesus’s words spoken back then, apply to me today. But, I am rock solid in my faith, and belief that Jesus meant every word for everyone who believes. There was apostolic succession, but the Holy Spirit was not only reserved for catholic priess and popes

Jesus did not make blanket appointments of people. He specifically chose and appointed some over His Church. They in turn appointed others, who appointed others. There is no examples of anyone appointing themself or anyone else without being in the line of Apostolic succession in scriptures. There are no examples of anyone leaving the Church because they didn’t agree with the doctrines, in scriptures.

 

[1beleevr]

So you justify intentionally twisting my words?

Better look in the mirror and ask who is on the offensive on a Catholic forum.

When I looked in the mirror, I saw a whole host of posters, catholic and non catholic alike. When someone, anyone feels their faith is under attack, they rise up to defend said faith. If you search my posts, you will see that I do not defend Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Nazarene, or any other denomination. And I totally respect you, and your faith; but the bottom line is if I was going to be a catholic, I would have been one by now, don’t you think? And I apologized for my faux pas; but I don’t always use ad hominems.

 

[1beleevr]

Jesus did not make blanket appointments of people. He specifically chose and appointed some over His Church. They in turn appointed others, who appointed others. There is no examples of anyone appointing themself or anyone else without being in the line of Apostolic succession in scriptures. There are no examples of anyone leaving the Church because they didn’t agree with the doctrines, in scriptures.

I always wonder why people leave any church, let alone the catholic church! I know from other posters, that when some leave the cc, they are labeled as never fully accepting the faith, or being undercatechised. God does not just appoint catholics either.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I always wonder why people leave any church, let alone the catholic church! I know from other posters, that when some leave the cc, they are labeled as never fully accepting the faith, or being undercatechised. God does not just appoint catholics either.

There was only one Church in scriptures, and those men imposed hands to make appointments. There are NO examples of anyone appointing themself, or others, outside of those chosen and appointed.

People leaving Churches is sometimes because of the appeal of other doctrines or teachings that they find more in line with their own lifestyles. That’s the problem of having a ‘mall’ of Churches for people to shop through.

 

[1beleevr]

There was only one Church in scriptures, and those men imposed hands to make appointments. There are NO examples of anyone appointing themself, or others, outside of those chosen and appointed.

People leaving Churches is sometimes because of the appeal of other doctrines or teachings that they find more in line with their own lifestyles. That’s the problem of having a ‘mall’ of Churches for people to shop through.

And today, that “church” is everywhere people are. WE are the hands and feet of Christ. And I too am saddened by the “mall” of churches, and the disdain many Christians have for each other. Not exactly what our Saviour haad in mind!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And today, that “church” is everywhere people are. WE are the hands and feet of Christ. And I too am saddened by the “mall” of churches, and the disdain many Christians have for each other. Not exactly what our Saviour haad in mind!

The Church is everywhere? Which Church? Give me an example of the early Churches in the Bible being similar to Protestantism today, in that there were many Churches with different teachings.

 

[Khrystyne]

And today, that “church” is everywhere people are. WE are the hands and feet of Christ. And I too am saddened by the “mall” of churches, and the disdain many Christians have for each other. Not exactly what our Saviour haad in mind!

Well, not exactly. It all comes down to obedience to the Church Christ established, that is what He had in mind, whether you agree or not. It’s a fact. I was born a cradle Catholic, knew nothing about the faith, went to several non-denominational churches for a few years and had a profound God moment. I wanted the truth, and it is in the Catholic Church. Period. You have to do some studying and be open to what Christ has to teach you. If you are willing He will, but if you keep going around and around and around He’ll let you. Believe me, after surrendering my “self” I gained an enormous amount of wisdom from His Holy Spirit.

After a lot of searching and head-butting I layed down my stubborness, prejudices, issues, cultural differences…the list goes on. I decided that “I” was the one who needed to change and conform. I did not want to follow dissenters, the first dissenter was Satan. In black and white.

Yes, God is with the other denominations and non-denominations etc… BUT do you want only a morsel of what Christ came to give?? I really don’t think anyone argues the Catholic faith to supercede anyone personally, it is a passionate, desperate attempt to HELP open your eyes, BUT you need to be OPEN to seeking AND READING AND RESEARCHING.

For me personally, my mind gets boggled over those who do not take seriously ALL the protestant pastors and people who convert to the Catholic faith AND they have ALL researched the truth and it has led EACH and EVERY ONE of them straight into the Catholic Church. They submitted themselves and accepted it even when they didn’t want to believe it.
They are elated after they come home, I’ve witnessed some of their journeys and their first communions. It is profound to see the unfolding and blossom of a soul.
And I have wondered and asked God why hasn’t this particular person been led to your church? I cannot divulge this personal revelation, but I will tell you He is working it all out in His good time.

Please understand and relax. Christ is showing you the truth, BUT you need to submit, you need to be obedient and do some serious research and reading so that Christ can connect the dots for you. Try seeking out for one Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberely Hahn, that was a pretty powerful conversion story…Let Christ teach you, take His hand and LET Him lead you down this path, He wants to show you some things. You will be ever grateful! I promise.

Scott Hahn’s Journey to Catholicism
www.youtube.com

God Bless You!

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Church is everywhere? Which Church? Give me an example of the early Churches in the Bible being similar to Protestantism today, in that there were many Churches with different teachings.

Every church mentioned in Revelation had different teachings! Thats in the Bible. Why do some people consistently ignore the Book of Revelation in forming doctrine. Matthew 16:18 is no less or more important than any other verse in the Bible. And they were wrong to have incorrect doctrine. Its just like today with many churches not following the true teachings of Christ and His apostles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Every church mentioned in Revelation had different teachings! Thats in the Bible. Why do some people consistently ignore the Book of Revelation in forming doctrine. Matthew 16:18 is no less or more important than any other verse in the Bible. And they were wrong to have incorrect doctrine. Its just like today with many churches not following the true teachings of Christ and His apostles.

Were those Churches not given instructions of corrections, from the ONE cornerstone? Does the examples you’re using from Revelation show acceptance of multiple teachings?

Your example is not of many acceptable teachings, but corrections to put them all on the same track. There was only one Church, in many locations, all with the same instructions, teachings, doctrines, etc.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Were those Churches not given instructions of corrections, from the ONE cornerstone? Does the examples you’re using from Revelation show acceptance of multiple teachings?

Your example is not of many acceptable teachings, but corrections to put them all on the same track. There was only one Church, in many locations, all with the same instructions, teachings, doctrines, etc.

The one cornerstone being…
Yes, I also believe that there should be "one church’ in terms of following the teachings of Christ and His apostles. That church must be based upon scripture because innerant “tradition” does not exist. Different churches have different traditions. They cannot agree. I agree with you. The big problem is that I do not think that church is that church. It is ours and others like it who are fundamentalists. If Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians do not agree with us, you need to get with the program then. We actually believe the same thing! Big problem being that we do not agree what that one Church should be teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The one cornerstone being…
Yes, I also believe that there should be "one church’ in terms of following the teachings of Christ and His apostles. That church must be based upon scripture because innerant “tradition” does not exist. Different churches have different traditions. They cannot agree. I agree with you. The big problem is that I do not think that church is that church. It is ours and others like it who are fundamentalists. If Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians do not agree with us, you need to get with the program then. We actually believe the same thing! Big problem being that we do not agree what that one Church should be teaching.

When we read the scriptures, it’s clear the ‘traditions’ are to be held to, whether by word or epistle. Now if the inspired word of God tells us to hold to traditions, whether spoken or written, those traditions should be considered as inerrant. Both come from the Church and one is not excluded over the other, at least Paul gave us no distinction. Those distinctions are based on a more ‘modern’ thinking, or interpretation.

Mentioning ‘interpretation’ of course returns us to an older argument of, ‘where does scriptures give anyone single individual, or group of individuals, the authority to interpret those scriptures?’ Scriptures, themself, cannot interpret scriptures for everyone, as evident in all the different interpretations. This is where all the different traditions, that you mentioned, of the different Churches come from. In fact, ‘private interpretation’ of scriptures is a tradition, that as you say, ‘cannot exist.’ This is not an inerrant tradition and is not taught in the spoken or written word.

Scriptures clearly shows the Church to be authoritative, through the men chosen and appointed to have authority over the Church.

This puts us into a position of researching the history of those Churches. The fundamentalist history is much more modern than the Catholic/Orthodox history and it’s based solely on scriptures, or an interpretation of scriptures, while ignoring the spoken tradition, passed down through Apostolic succession. Do all fundamentalists agree among themselves, on every doctrine? My guess is no, or there would not be multiple groups of those claiming to be fundamentalists. Now which group of fundamentalist have the ‘program’ we need to get with?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Oh, come on now, you know: Not eating meat on Friday, confession every week, rosary, calling the pope Holy Father, praying through Mary, etc.

1 Catholics can eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent.

2 Catholics are only required to go to Confession once a year. I go a minimum of once a month, (or when needed) but that’s MY choice.

3 No Catholic is required to pray the Rosary. Eastern Catholic Christians don’t pray the rosary. Never have. (Though they may pray it in private as part of their personal devotion. That’s THEIR choice.)

4 I often just refer to the Pope as the Pope. But is it any less legalistic to call the Queen Your Majesty? Or a judge Your Honor?

5 No Catholic is required to ask Mary to pray for her. But we do, not out of a sense of obligation, but we believe that Mary is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. Catholics don’t see Mary or the Saints as some kind of burden, but a great gift from God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

When we read the scriptures, it’s clear the ‘traditions’ are to be held to, whether by word or epistle. Now if the inspired word of God tells us to hold to traditions, whether spoken or written, those traditions should be considered as inerrant. Both come from the Church and one is not excluded over the other, at least Paul gave us no distinction. Those distinctions are based on a more ‘modern’ thinking, or interpretation.

Mentioning ‘interpretation’ of course returns us to an older argument of, ‘where does scriptures give anyone single individual, or group of individuals, the authority to interpret those scriptures?’ Scriptures, themself, cannot interpret scriptures for everyone, as evident in all the different interpretations. This is where all the different traditions, that you mentioned, of the different Churches come from. In fact, ‘private interpretation’ of scriptures is a tradition, that as you say, ‘cannot exist.’ This is not an inerrant tradition and is not taught in the spoken or written word.

Scriptures clearly shows the Church to be authoritative, through the men chosen and appointed to have authority over the Church.

This puts us into a position of researching the history of those Churches. The fundamentalist history is much more modern than the Catholic/Orthodox history and it’s based solely on scriptures, or an interpretation of scriptures, while ignoring the spoken tradition, passed down through Apostolic succession. Do all fundamentalists agree among themselves, on every doctrine? My guess is no, or there would not be multiple groups of those claiming to be fundamentalists. Now which group of fundamentalist have the ‘program’ we need to get with?

Yes but a study of history will show that absolutely no traditions outside of scripture can be traced to Christ. There are no doctrinal statments or teachings that can be proven to come from Him outside of scripture. That is why it is all conjecture and guesswork trying to figure out which church contains the correct traditions. That non-fundamentalists (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc) disagree with one another proves my point. All of these churches rely on their traditions. But their traditions cannot be reconciled with one another.
You mention groups claiming to be fundamentalists that are not. A group claiming to be fundamentalist no more negates Truth than a group claiming to be Catholic negates your claim. People will always attempt to attach themselves to Truth. There are groups who claim to be Christian if you want to use a different term that clearly are not. Every so called philosophical appeal you are trying works against your claims as well.
The Church is the Pillar of Truth. That is why when you are attempting to find that church one must rely on the only innerant God breathed truth: scripture.
Your attempt to claim that modern Catholic teachings are the teachings of the Apostles is also not accurate. If that were the case, everyone would read the scriptures and see that your church is true. Obviously they do not. God always works in God’s time. Ancient Isreael floundered for thousands of years until God finally showed them the Truth. God always gives a choice and too often people reject that. That is the story of ancient Israel, prophet after prophet revealed the Truth and yet she rejected it. Now, the same thing happened to His church. People started to fall away in Revelation and nothing historically indicates that it got any better. Corinth threw out the elders who adhered to correct doctrine and replaced them with ones who did not according to Clement.
Private interpretation is a sin and incorrect you are right. That is precisely what allowed people to fall away from the clear teachings of the Apostles. You and I agree on so much. You just came to a completely different conclusion about where to find that church.
That church has to follow all the teachings though. They are known by their works and their rejection of the world. His Church has always been opposed by the world and cannot have corrupt influences. If it does, it is not His church, it cannot be. I think we would agree on this as well.