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

[Jimmy_B]

It means they are not applicable to the New Covenant Church. As PR indicated, the regulations of the Old Covenant were fulfilled by Christ, because He kept the regulations perfectly and thus fulfilled the Covenant, thereby ending it.

Hello again FantomScholar,

I hope I’m not beating a dead horse here, because I tend to do that from time to time.
What I would like to know from you is -

In your opinion, did the New Covenant throw out all of the old rules? Which ones do we keep, the Ten Commandments, the Sacraments…?

As a Catholic, I believe in the New Covenant in Christ but we also believe that "Jesus did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. He (Jesus) come to fulfill those things…

Do you believe this?

Matthew 5:17-20

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Continued on next post -

 

[Jimmy_B]

It means they are not applicable to the New Covenant Church. As PR indicated, the regulations of the Old Covenant were fulfilled by Christ, because He kept the regulations perfectly and thus fulfilled the Covenant, thereby ending it.

Continued from last post -

FantomScholar,

It appears that, what some people here are trying to understand, is, in your opinion, how do your comments regarding the “old-law”, apply to your denomination and how is it different in their denomination.

For example, in the Lutheran Church, or in Catholicism one would expect a more complicated rule-set, for the lack of a better term, than one might see in Evangelical Christianity.

Additionally, in Catholicism, Holy Scripture and Holy Traditions are important and we have all Seven Sacraments and the Catechism and so on… Catholics are connect to the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I understand that we have a New Covenant in Christ. It is recited by the priest at ever Catholic Mass (See: the Eucharistic Pray I below).

However, that doesn’t mean that we reject all the preceded and lead up to Christ. Some Christian denominations, have a somewhat minimalistic approach to Christianity and some do not. Much of what is seen in Catholicism today, comes from early Church and Sacred Traditions, many rooted in the Old Testament era.

So, I’m not trying to split hairs here but we all know that the reason there are different denominations, is because there exist different beliefs and different rule-sets.

Can you please define these differences and explain why you chose your beliefs and how the “old Law” is defined, or talked about, or applied in your faith and how your beliefs might be different on this subject, than those in another denomination?

Eucharistic Prayer I
The day before he suffered he took break in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

 

[Jimmy_B]

“On the third day he rose again* in fulfillment*** of the Scriptures”

This is recited at every Catholic Mass -

Nicene Creed (Profession of Faith)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation, he came down from heaven:

(All bow during these three lines)
by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life: who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified:
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[1beleevr]

So doesn’t that mean that you feel like your faith is* better* than the faith of the person to whom you’re evangelizing?

Otherwise, your “evangelizing” conversation is akin to one person saying, “I like chocolate (i.e Christianity)!” and the responder saying, “Well, I like vanilla (i.e. Hinduism)”

What you’re really saying is: “Here’s a fact, not an opinon. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.”

If you don’t think iyour faith is better (i.e. “superior”), then you’re merely stating an opinion.

Which brings us, again, full circle, to the topic I’ve been addressing with Larkin: is there an absolute Truth?

Well, for the umpteenth time(how much is that anyway?) my faith is not superior to anyones, just different! And, I am not a part of this discussion about absolut truth; that would be yourself, Larkin31, and benedictus! Personally, I do not believe that any doctrine formulated by mortal man can have absolute truth! There are too many variables, which make it impossible to get an absolute reading! Everything sounds good on paper, but in practice, it’s a whole different story! Sounds good that men can forgive sins, but in reality…???

 

[PRmerger]

Well, for the umpteenth time(how much is that anyway?) my faith is not superior to anyones, just different!

Well, you’re being like Larkin then and saying, “It’s not this” but your arguments keep supporting that “It IS this”.

You* say* that “my faith is not superior”, but then you say that you are evangelizing. Clearly, then, you believe that what you know/feel/understand about God is better than the pagan’s/Hindu’s/non-believer’s understanding.

Better = Superior.

Personally, I do not believe that any doctrine formulated by mortal man can have absolute truth!

Who said anything about a “doctrine formulated by mortal man”? All Absolute Truth comes from the Absolute Truth-Giver!

Sounds good that men can forgive sins, but in reality…???

Catholics don’t believe that men can forgive sins. Not in the way you mean, anyway.

(Of course, in another sense we do forgive sins. I’ve forgiven Larkin! )

 

[larkin31]

Well, for the umpteenth time(how much is that anyway?) my faith is not superior to anyones, just different! And, I am not a part of this discussion about absolut truth; that would be yourself, Larkin31, and benedictus! Personally, I do not believe that any doctrine formulated by mortal man can have absolute truth! There are too many variables, which make it impossible to get an absolute reading! Everything sounds good on paper, but in practice, it’s a whole different story! Sounds good that men can forgive sins, but in reality…???

There are many paths up the mountain, brother.

 

[PRmerger]

There are many paths up the mountain, brother.

Yes, but there’s only ONE path in which *God *came down the mountain to show us the way up.

All other religions are* our* meager attempts to make our own way.

 

[PRmerger]

There are many paths up the mountain, brother.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity: “Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about ‘man’s search for God.’ To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse’s search for the cat.”

God reaches down and becomes the “hound of heaven”, passionately pursuing us. Yet, sadly, we often turn away and try to make our own path. <sigh!> It never ever ever leads to happiness.

 

[benedictus2]

There is a distinction. The word “law” has multiple meanings in Scripture:

1. Law regulation (The Old Covenant Mosaic contract at Sinai, i.e., everything from Exod. 20 to the end of Deuteronomy).

1. Law revelation (Old Testament Scripture. Everything from Genesis to Malachi. Usually coupled with other OT writings, such as the phrase “the law and the prophets”).

Those 2 distinctions in the word “law” are clearly demonstrated in these 3 verses…

“…whatever the law says (as Old Testament revelation) it speaks to those who are under the law (as Old Covenant regulation)…” (Rom. 3:19).

“But, now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (as Old Covenant regulation), although the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets (as Old Testament revelation) bear witness to it.” (Rom. 3:21).

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law (as Old Covenant regulation), do you not listen to the law (as Old Testament revelation)?” (Gal. 4:21).

Once this distinction is understood, the verse you quoted above is clear. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Gen. - Deut.) or the Prophets (Josh.- Mal.)”

Yes, Christ did not come to destroy the law or prophets. And, what is the meaning of the phrase “law or prophets?” It never once means “Ten Commandments, ceremonial law, civil law and prophets.” It always means the “Pentateuch and prophets,” a.k.a. “Genesis - Deuteronomy and the Prophets,” a.k.a. the “whole Old Testament.”

Sorry, but wrong again. This is YOUR distinction and YOUR interpretation. There is no support anywhere for such a distinction.

The law given at Mount Sinai was given by God the Father. Do you think God the Son would abolish something that God the Father had established? Would He go against the Will of God the Father? No, what the Son has come to do is to FULFILL the will of the Father.

So now I come to the explanation that I promised (indebted to Fr Barron here. For those who wants to get a more detailed explanation order the Eucharist DVD from WordonFire.org).

You need to situate this in terms of covenant.
In the beginning God was in covenant with man (Adam & Eve). But through our first parent’s disobedience that covenant was broken and so God then re-establishes that bond through a series of covenants : Noah, Abraham, Moses, David.

The Israelites though would only be obedient / faithful to the covenant for short times and they would go back to their errant ways because they see the law as an external imposition. But God desires this union with us and in Jer 31:31 says that to enable them to obey the law (which is God the Father’s Will) He will write His law into their hearts. In the text of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah we see how that is going to be effected.

In the account of the fall of man, we have the lie (you will become like gods if you eat of the tree), pride (our first parents’ grasp at godliness refusing to be humus), disobedience ( eating of the fruit) resulting in death.

In Christ this is all reversed. Christ who is truth, humbles himself to become humus and obeys unto death and thereby conquering death to give us new life.

When we partake of Christ in the Eucharist, Christ’s own life blood then courses in our veins and allows us to obey the law (God’s will) because we no longer see that as an imposition since our will now becomes tuned in to the will of the Father as Christ’s will is.

Any attempt at saying that Christ has abolished the law is once again, just another attempt at self-deification much in the same way that Adam and Even grasped at deity.

We do not want the law because we want to be freed of this imposition from God. But the truly Christian love the law in the same way that Christ was obedient to the Father because in the Law is expressed the Will of the Father, the Will of Him who sent Christ to redeem us from our self-deification.

 

[benedictus2]

I am calm And knowing about me as you do, I’m surprised you asked me that question I share the Gospel and evangelize, because Christ commanded me to! You know Matthew 28:19-20? We are to be His witnesses to the world.

Exactly! So, why would Christ (God) command you to proclaim the Gospel and evangelize if ALL religions are of the same validity when it comes to truth? Surely there would not be a need for it.

I can’t help myself; where once I was silent, I now cannot shut up about Jesus!

And so you shouldn’t shut up! The Gospel must be proclaimed. Good on you and praised be to God for that.

Belive it or not, I even share my faith with atheists, pagans, and yes even catholics!

Here again comes the question, why would there be a need to do that if it does not matter if we are pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics?

Actually, it is a lot easier to witness to and evangelize to non-believers; because they don’t have any preconceived ideas about who Jesus is, and what He has promised them!

Aah, but how sure are you that the others’ preconceived notions about Jesus are incorrect?

And silly goose, if all religions/faiths were equal, we would all be the same!

Precisely. So now I get to my point again.
If all religions are not the same in value truth-wise, then obviously some have more truth in them and some have less truth. With me so far?

Now, the non- Christian religions have some truth in them and so ultimate flows from God because God is truth. The other Christian religions have even more truth than these because now they acknowledge Christ. But the pinnacle of this is Catholicism which possess the fullness of Truth having been founded, built by Truth Himself, Jesus Christ our Lord.

So the point I am driving at here is that, in the same way that you know that you are in possession of more truth than the non Christian religions, we also know that we are in possession of more truth than you do and that is why are passionate about getting you to know this fullness of truth.

If you are passionate about leading others to the truth that you know, we are equally passionate to get you to extend your knowledge further than what you grasp right now so that we may share our joy with you which comes from the knowing this fullness of truth.

 

[benedictus2]

BTW, do you witness to noncatholics or pagans? Evangelize, perhaps?

Yes, but more so to Catholics because at the moment what I think needs to be done is to properly catechize Catholics. If Catholics were properly catechized they will practice their faith and they will not be easily by the lies
that other religions pose because they will be in possession of the truth.

The reason so many Catholics no longer practice or have switched denominations are are cafeteria Catholics is because of this terrible lack of proper catechism. That is a very important thing to address for us in the Catholic Church today.

 

[benedictus2]

After posting some other stuff in other threads and reflecting on this question posed now, I would say why would anyone become a catholic christian? A christian is a christian who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, He came down to earth was born of the virgin Mary and was crucified so that we may all live. A faith is lived. The fruits of true belief will shine thru as all of us get tested on earth, nomatter who or what Church we may belong to.Everything else is not relevant to your salvation, with respect to Catholics and your traditions etc. I grew up a Catholic and I have a good inside knowledge of those traditions and practices. However I do not find any evidence to suggest one has to be a Roman Catholic to gain salvation. That is a free gift given to all men for all time if we but choose it.I do respect those who stay in that particular form of worship, but I do not believe that one has to become a Catholic. Mankind has complicated very simple teachings over the ages and it seems to me that if everyone believes the above facts it really does not matter in what form you choose to worship, as long as it is a Christian Fellowship. Just a thought perhaps for those who are confused . We are all called to be brothers and sisters in Christ, to love and serve each other and to reach out to those who do not know Christ at all. Regards, to seek, another fellow traveller.

If you truly follow Christ then you would be Catholic because this is His expressed will.

Why do I say that? Because He established a Church - the Catholic Church. If it did not matter, He would not have started His own Church.

 

[benedictus2]

It means they are not applicable to the New Covenant Church. As PR indicated, the regulations of the Old Covenant were fulfilled by Christ, because He kept the regulations perfectly and thus fulfilled the Covenant, thereby ending it.

Wrong. The New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. To fulfill is to make good, to follow NOT to abolish.

When one fulfills an obligation, one actually does that obligation.
With the New Covenant, we actually truly obey the law. That is why in Christ the law in fact takes on a deeper meaning that is why he said that adultery is not just merely not having intercourse with someone outside of marriage. He even makes it tougher by saying that when you look at someone with lust you are committing adultery! That is very far from abolishing the law.
Before that the law is an eye for an eye, now it is tougher, you turn the other cheek.

 

[1beleevr]

Yes, but more so to Catholics because at the moment what I think needs to be done is to properly catechize Catholics. If Catholics were properly catechized they will practice their faith and they will not be easily by the lies
that other religions pose because they will be in possession of the truth.

The reason so many Catholics no longer practice or have switched denominations are are cafeteria Catholics is because of this terrible lack of proper catechism. That is a very important thing to address for us in the Catholic Church today.

I’ve always wondered why catholics leave the “perfect” church! You really shouldn’t pick and choose to whom you evangelize; Jesus does not tell us that! I witness to whomever God puts in my path!

 

[1beleevr]

Well, you’re being like Larkin then and saying, “It’s not this” but your arguments keep supporting that “It IS this”.

You* say* that “my faith is not superior”, but then you say that you are evangelizing. Clearly, then, you believe that what you know/feel/understand about God is better than the pagan’s/Hindu’s/non-believer’s understanding.

Better = Superior.

Who said anything about a “doctrine formulated by mortal man”? All Absolute Truth comes from the Absolute Truth-Giver!

Catholics don’t believe that men can forgive sins. Not in the way you mean, anyway.

(Of course, in another sense we do forgive sins. I’ve forgiven Larkin! )

Man, you are really hung up on this better/superior thing! When I witness/evangelize, I do not criticize anyone’s religion. I simply talk about Jesus, and how He died for US all; His grace and mercy; and I share personal testimony about how He changed my life!

 

[mpjw2]

Man, you are really hung up on this better/superior thing! When I witness/evangelize, I do not criticize anyone’s religion. I simply talk about Jesus, and how He died for US all; His grace and mercy; and I share personal testimony about how He changed my life!

amen

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve always wondered why catholics leave the “perfect” church! You really shouldn’t pick and choose to whom you evangelize; Jesus does not tell us that! I witness to whomever God puts in my path!

So do I. But my evangelization to Catholics, Christians, and non-christians are in different levels and different tactics.

With atheists for example it is more intellectual as in proof of God.
With protestants I try to show them their error in scriptural interpretation.
With Catholics the same but also in some instances a deepening of their understanding of the faith.

So I do a lot of praying and reading.

 

[benedictus2]

Man, you are really hung up on this better/superior thing! When I witness/evangelize, I do not criticize anyone’s religion. I simply talk about Jesus, and how He died for US all; His grace and mercy; and I share personal testimony about how He changed my life!

There is such a thing as constructive criticism. This “superiority” will never be avoided because the simple fact that you are evangelizing testify to the fact that you believe that you are in possession of greater truth than those who you are evangelizing otherwise you will not even bother evangelizing them.

For example, if say you have a pastor who you really admire and think highly off in regards to faith, you will not be trying to evangelize him because you will not think he needs evangelizing.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, for the umpteenth time(how much is that anyway?) my faith is not superior to anyones,

Oh but yes it is. At least to those who are not Christian. Your faith (which simply put is a belief that Christ is the Son of God come to redeem us from Sin) is superior to other faiths who believe in pantheism and deism.

I cannot understand why you should be embarrassed to admit that.

Personally, I do not believe that any doctrine formulated by mortal man can have absolute truth!

Exactly! And that is why your belief (Christianity in its fullness) is ‘superior” because it was formulated by God Himself… Even if you apprehend the truth only partially, this is still “superior” to any doctrine formulated by man - eg. paganism, buddhism, hinduism,etc.

So once again, I cannot understand why you should be ashamed to admit that.

 

[to_seek]

This is a discussion I’ve had with many, many Protestants: the belief that one only has to believe in a few “essentials” to be a Christian.

This is not stated in Scripture. It is a man-made tradition. There is no list in Scripture of “essential doctrines” that are required to be considered a Christian.

If all that’s required to be a Christian is what you’ve listed above, can you be called a Christian if you don’t believe
-there is only one God?
-that God created the world?
-that God is a Trinity–3 persons, 1 God?
-that Jesus had 2 wills and 2 natures?
-that Scripture is inspired and God’s revelation?

Perhaps I should clarify a bit more. I believe in God, the Father , The Son and The Holy Spirit. There is no other God whose Son died on the Cross. Yes God created the world just as The Bible says. Yes the Scripture is inspired and is God inspired. What I was talking about was the act of becoming a believer in Christ. I dont know what you mean by your comment that Jesus had 2 wills and 2 natures. Even as a catholic I dont remember that particular concept. The question could be asked why would anyone stay a Catholic when there appears to be a almost worshipful stance towards the Pope, The Bishops, The Priests almost as if they are on equal footing with Jesus, The Son of God. No disrespect intended here. Respect is another matter. I respect all those who truly teach and preach The Word, be it in a Catholic or other Christian denomination.I get the sense that nonone is allowed to think things through on all matters of doctrine etc. I used to feel almost controlled by The RC Church and its organisations. Those essentials as you put it are the cornerstone of all christian faith and teaching, the foundations if you like. Im not a protestant either, Just a seeker and a christian looking for truth.