If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[mnicklin]

I am a former Roman Catholic converted to Episcopalian. I would like to ask all of you some questions that I have never recieved a straight answer for. These questions are the very reason that I left the Catholic Church.

**Here is the scenario: **
Person A is a cradle Roman Catholic who has never received confirmation.
Person B is a cradle Episcopalian who would like to join the Roman Catholic Church.
Both persons where baptized at birth in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic Church accepts person B’s baptism, because of course you can only be baptized once.

Here are my questions:
Why does the Roman Catholic Church deny Eucharist to the Episcopalian until he is confirmed, but allows the Roman Catholic who is not yet confirmed?

Who decided that the Eucharist belonged to the Roman Catholic Church?

I do not recall in the bible where anyone was confirmed before they where allowed to take part in the Eucharist.
Why is this?

By the way, if you ever go to an Anglican Church, we welcome you to share the Eucharist with us.

 

[Memaw]

I am a former Roman Catholic converted to Episcopalian. I would like to ask all of you some questions that I have never recieved a straight answer for. These questions are the very reason that I left the Catholic Church.

**Here is the scenario: **
Person A is a cradle Roman Catholic who has never received confirmation.
Person B is a cradle Episcopalian who would like to join the Roman Catholic Church.
Both persons where baptized at birth in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic Church accepts person B’s baptism, because of course you can only be baptized once.

Here are my questions:
Why does the Roman Catholic Church deny Eucharist to the Episcopalian until he is confirmed, but allows the Roman Catholic who is not yet confirmed?

Who decided that the Eucharist belonged to the Roman Catholic Church?

I do not recall in the bible where anyone was confirmed before they where allowed to take part in the Eucharist.
Why is this?

By the way, if you ever go to an Anglican Church, we welcome you to share the Eucharist with us.

I will try to ans. your questions as best I can.
Person A, was most likely baptized as an infant and the Sacraments are received in the Catholic Church in this order to someone who is baptized as an infant,or young child. At about age 8 they receive the Sacrament of Confession, shortly after that they receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and then at about age 12, (This may vary), they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

When received into the Church as an adult, even tho Person B was already baptized, they must take instructions, (RCIA) and understand what they are doing. Being Confirmed is part of those instructions. One must be Confirmed in the Catholic Church by the Bishop, (or priest) They have the Sacrament of Holy Orders passed down from the Apostles. This is the Apostolic Succession.
CHRIST decided that the Catholic Church is the provider and guardian of the 7 Sacraments, including the Eucharist. He established the Catholic Church for that very reason, to teach, govern and Sanctify, till the end of the world. If you would just read the books, “Faith of the Early Fathers,” by William A. Jurgens, you would understand that better. There cannot be 40,000 different protestant denominations with different understandings of Scripture and all be right. Christ knows the weakness of us humans and that is why he founded one TRUE Church, promised it would never teach error, (HE sent the Holy Spirit to protect it), and that is why the Catholic Church has survived for 2,000 years and will be here till the end of time. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of Apostolic Succession, administering the full 7 Sacraments to its faithful, Teaching the same truths that Jesus taught. That will NEVER change, no matter what…

Now I have a question for you. Why in the world did you ever leave the Catholic Church over something so trivial when all you had to do was ask a priest and he could have easily explained it to you?
You walked away from the TRUE presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. The Anglican, (or Episcopalian) church does NOT have valid Holy Orders and cannot consecrate the bread and wine into the TRUE BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ, AND they know that. Please, go talk to a Catholic Priest and he can help you understand this. catholic answers.com has lots of information that will help. God Bless, and prayers, Memaw.

 

[joe370]

This is, however, the NON-Catholic thread!

Hey, thecoach (who is a catholic), if I am correct, you are searching for answers out there in the protestant world to justify their anti Catholic polemic. You want someone, other than a catholic, who would be biased in this particular arena, to give you adequate reasons, validation —an incentive for being a Christian, without the excess baggage of Catholicism.

Your target audience is the non Catholic; the protestant? If that’s the case, shouldn’t catholic’s sit this one out?

 

[Ronald_E]

I am a former Roman Catholic converted to Episcopalian. I would like to ask all of you some questions that I have never recieved a straight answer for. These questions are the very reason that I left the Catholic Church.

I was away for 40 years until Easter of '05.

**Here is the scenario: **
Person A is a cradle Roman Catholic who has never received confirmation.
Person B is a cradle Episcopalian who would like to join the Roman Catholic Church.
Both persons where baptized at birth in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic Church accepts person B’s baptism, because of course you can only be baptized once.

Here are my questions:
Why does the Roman Catholic Church deny Eucharist to the Episcopalian until he is confirmed, but allows the Roman Catholic who is not yet confirmed?

I do not know the Church’s reason for this. From my own experience when I returned to Catholicism I did not receive Communion for six months while my wife who had returned 10 years before me would receive Communion. I had to make a 40 year Confession first. As I look back it was an act of humility that was being taught to me and I had to humble myself to the Church that Jesus started. I left Catholicism because I hated all authority.
I then held myself as superior to the Church until my return. Confrimation established a spirit of humility that kept me in check as best it could until my return.
The number one Gift of Confirmation seems to be humility which has given me the courage and security to see that each sin I commit, no matter how small, harms the Church and separates me from a deeper relationship and love of God.
Now I am beginning to see the significance of having the faith of a mustard seed.

Who decided that the Eucharist belonged to the Roman Catholic Church?

Through breathing on the apostles after His resurrection Jesus gave them Himself and consequently the power of His Word to create the Eucharist. He also gave them the power of His Word to establish a priesthood for this specific purpose.
Through the sacrament of Holy Orders this is passed from generation to generation. The ritual in essence can be seen as an example of quantum mechanics in which God’s Word establishes a relationship between particles of light that operate diffferently from those particles of light that have a different source.
We must understand where our light originates from in order to understand its qualities.

I do not recall in the bible where anyone was confirmed before they where allowed to take part in the Eucharist.
Why is this?

I received Communion as a child before I was confirmed. I did not have any idea what or who I received. As stated above, Confirmation began the process of developing humility and as I see it humility is essential to begin to understand the Eucharist and its origins.

By the way, if you ever go to an Anglican Church, we welcome you to share the Eucharist with us.

Thank you. I would not be able to though with all respect for you. Through quantum physics I can now understand and see the unbroken connection from Christ to Catholicism and the Sacraments.

 

[LutheranDK]

**If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2 **

Note: The first thread titled, “If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?” was closed because it had exceeded the maximum amount of posts (1,000). Continue your remarks on this topic, here.

Let’s see if I can give an answer that you can’t somehow twist and try to use against me…

I am not part of the Roman church, because I believe that in some very essential points, its teachings are incompatible with Divine Scripture - which is the Word of God, and the supreme authority of the Catholic church (in the actual meaning of that word, and not its usual meaning, in which it refers to the Roman church).

I am not part of the Roman church, because I do not believe in the unbiblical dogmas that it teaches, to put it short and simple.

 

[mnicklin]

I will try to ans. your questions as best I can.
Person A, was most likely baptized as an infant and the Sacraments are received in the Catholic Church in this order to someone who is baptized as an infant,or young child. At about age 8 they receive the Sacrament of Confession, shortly after that they receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and then at about age 12, (This may vary), they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

When received into the Church as an adult, even tho Person B was already baptized, they must take instructions, (RCIA) and understand what they are doing. Being Confirmed is part of those instructions. One must be Confirmed in the Catholic Church by the Bishop, (or priest) They have the Sacrament of Holy Orders passed down from the Apostles. This is the Apostolic Succession.
CHRIST decided that the Catholic Church is the provider and guardian of the 7 Sacraments, including the Eucharist. He established the Catholic Church for that very reason, to teach, govern and Sanctify, till the end of the world. If you would just read the books, “Faith of the Early Fathers,” by William A. Jurgens, you would understand that better. There cannot be 40,000 different protestant denominations with different understandings of Scripture and all be right. Christ knows the weakness of us humans and that is why he founded one TRUE Church, promised it would never teach error, (HE sent the Holy Spirit to protect it), and that is why the Catholic Church has survived for 2,000 years and will be here till the end of time. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of Apostolic Succession, administering the full 7 Sacraments to its faithful, Teaching the same truths that Jesus taught. That will NEVER change, no matter what…

Now I have a question for you. Why in the world did you ever leave the Catholic Church over something so trivial when all you had to do was ask a priest and he could have easily explained it to you?
You walked away from the TRUE presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. The Anglican, (or Episcopalian) church does NOT have valid Holy Orders and cannot consecrate the bread and wine into the TRUE BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ, AND they know that. Please, go talk to a Catholic Priest and he can help you understand this. catholic answers.com has lots of information that will help. God Bless, and prayers, Memaw.

First of all thank you so much for replying. I have talked to four different Catholic Priests regarding this. None have been able to give me a reall good answer. I have also posted to different blogs that priests have posted and have been rejected by all of them. The answers that I have recieved are very close to what you gave me.

He are the problems that I have with what you just stated. The Anglican Communion administers the seven sacrements the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. The largest exception that I can see is that during confirmation in the Anglican Church, only the bishop can confirm where as in the Roman Catholic Church a priest is now allowed to confirm.

Can you show me where the bible or church teachings tell us that confirmation is required?

The Anglican Communion accepts all Christians who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to Holy Communion. This is how it is stated in the Bible and this is closer to Catholic than the Roman Catholic Church is.

The true definition of Catholic is “universal” or “general”.

When you say that Christ set up the Catholic Church you are correct. However, Christ did not set up the Roman Catholic Church and give it authority over all other churches.

The early church was made up of three rites. There was the Anglican Rite, Eastern Rite, and Latin Rite. Each of these three Rites had a bishop. These three bishops where all equal in power. Since Rome was the more powerful city of the time, they decided that their bishop should have more power so they created the position of Pope.

The first church to reject the authority of the Pope was the Eastern Rite. This leads to another question that I have. Why is the Eastern Rite still allowed to recieve communion in the Catholic Church. Of course we know that much later the Anglican Rite rejected the authority of the Pope.

Have you ever wondered why priests aren’t allowed to get married when Peter was married? This I learned directly from a Roman Catholic Priest. He explained to me that during the reign of the Roman Empire, Roman soldiers where not allowed to be with their wife before entering battle. The Roman empire decided that they wanted their clergy to act the same way. Thus, priests are not allowed to get married. Not to biblical is it?

 

[GraceDK]

Let’s see if I can give an answer that you can’t somehow twist and try to use against me…

I am not part of the Roman church, because I believe that in some very essential points, its teachings are incompatible with Divine Scripture - which is the Word of God, and the supreme authority of the Catholic church (in the actual meaning of that word, and not its usual meaning, in which it refers to the Roman church).

I am not part of the Roman church, because I do not believe in the unbiblical dogmas that it teaches, to put it short and simple.

can you believe this guy? … you gotta laugh at this… they should give him an award: here comes the “I know it all… and I am against the papist… out with the papists!”…

Okay… joke aside… I’d love to take you on Lutheran brother… Why do you not come over to the apologetic section… post all your good points and get the rest of us poor enslaved sinners out of the Babylonian Captivity as Luther called it… many of us are well familiar with him… everything from his anxiety problem to his taking away from Scripture etc…
Really… come in an talk to us… and don’t hide out here in the grey area… The Roman Church challenges you, hehe… will you say with Luther: “I stand here because I do nothing else” or will you take some time to reflect on whether or not you really have all the knowlege it takes… ???

Shalom …

 

[mnicklin]

I will try to ans. your questions as best I can.
Person A, was most likely baptized as an infant and the Sacraments are received in the Catholic Church in this order to someone who is baptized as an infant,or young child. At about age 8 they receive the Sacrament of Confession, shortly after that they receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and then at about age 12, (This may vary), they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

When received into the Church as an adult, even tho Person B was already baptized, they must take instructions, (RCIA) and understand what they are doing. Being Confirmed is part of those instructions. One must be Confirmed in the Catholic Church by the Bishop, (or priest) They have the Sacrament of Holy Orders passed down from the Apostles. This is the Apostolic Succession.
CHRIST decided that the Catholic Church is the provider and guardian of the 7 Sacraments, including the Eucharist. He established the Catholic Church for that very reason, to teach, govern and Sanctify, till the end of the world. If you would just read the books, “Faith of the Early Fathers,” by William A. Jurgens, you would understand that better. There cannot be 40,000 different protestant denominations with different understandings of Scripture and all be right. Christ knows the weakness of us humans and that is why he founded one TRUE Church, promised it would never teach error, (HE sent the Holy Spirit to protect it), and that is why the Catholic Church has survived for 2,000 years and will be here till the end of time. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of Apostolic Succession, administering the full 7 Sacraments to its faithful, Teaching the same truths that Jesus taught. That will NEVER change, no matter what…

Now I have a question for you. Why in the world did you ever leave the Catholic Church over something so trivial when all you had to do was ask a priest and he could have easily explained it to you?
You walked away from the TRUE presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. The Anglican, (or Episcopalian) church does NOT have valid Holy Orders and cannot consecrate the bread and wine into the TRUE BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ, AND they know that. Please, go talk to a Catholic Priest and he can help you understand this. catholic answers.com has lots of information that will help. God Bless, and prayers, Memaw.

Memaw,

I would like you to ask yourself some questions and answer them truthfully. I am not asking you to post the answers.

Would you deny someone food or drink?

Would your church deny someone food or drink?

Do you believe Jesus would deny someone food or drink?

Would you deny someone spirtual food or drink?

Should a church deny someone spirtual food or drink?

Do you think Jesus would deny someone the Holy Eucharist if he where here today?

Do you think someone who was truly evil would want to receive the Holy Eucharist?

Does the Roman Catholic Church allow someone to take part in the Holy Eucharist it that person does not meet certain criteria?

Pride is a sin, does this show pride or humility of the Roman Catholic Church?

When I answered these questions and looked at the Episcopal Church who allows all denominations of christian faith to take part in the Eucharist (As long as they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), it was a “down - to - earth” and easy decision. When you allow everyone to come to the table it is truly Catholic.

 

[mnicklin]

can you believe this guy? … you gotta laugh at this… they should give him an award: here comes the “I know it all… and I am against the papist… out with the papists!”…

Okay… joke aside… I’d love to take you on Lutheran brother… Why do you not come over to the apologetic section… post all your good points and get the rest of us poor enslaved sinners out of the Babylonian Captivity as Luther called it… many of us are well familiar with him… everything from his anxiety problem to his taking away from Scripture etc…
Really… come in an talk to us… and don’t hide out here in the grey area… The Roman Church challenges you, hehe… will you say with Luther: “I stand here because I do nothing else” or will you take some time to reflect on whether or not you really have all the knowlege it takes… ???

Shalom …

I noticed that you only picked on the Luthern, would you care to comment on my post?

 

[LutheranDK]

can you believe this guy? … you gotta laugh at this… they should give him an award: here comes the “I know it all… and I am against the papist… out with the papists!”…

Okay… joke aside… I’d love to take you on Lutheran brother… Why do you not come over to the apologetic section… post all your good points and get the rest of us poor enslaved sinners out of the Babylonian Captivity as Luther called it… many of us are well familiar with him… everything from his anxiety problem to his taking away from Scripture etc…
Really… come in an talk to us… and don’t hide out here in the grey area… The Roman Church challenges you, hehe… will you say with Luther: “I stand here because I do nothing else” or will you take some time to reflect on whether or not you really have all the knowlege it takes… ???

Shalom …

If I believed that it would not just be “We’re right because the church says so, and the church says so because it’s true, and it’s true because the church says so”, and if I believed that people would not twist my every word and try to “bait me” (as someone in here admitted to doing before I took the last break from this forum)

In short - if I could be sure that I would be treated fairly, then yes. But, also the wording of your post taken into account, I have my doubts as to whether or not that would be the case.

Btw: You got the Luther-quote wrong (at least if it’s the classical quote ascribed to him from the Diet of Worms). It’s

“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

 

[LutheranDK]

Memaw,

I would like you to ask yourself some questions and answer them truthfully. I am not asking you to post the answers.

Would you deny someone food or drink?

Would your church deny someone food or drink?

Do you believe Jesus would deny someone food or drink?

Would you deny someone spirtual food or drink?

Should a church deny someone spirtual food or drink?

Do you think Jesus would deny someone the Holy Eucharist if he where here today?

Do you think someone who was truly evil would want to receive the Holy Eucharist?

Does the Roman Catholic Church allow someone to take part in the Holy Eucharist it that person does not meet certain criteria?

Pride is a sin, does this show pride or humility of the Roman Catholic Church?

When I answered these questions and looked at the Episcopal Church who allows all denominations of christian faith to take part in the Eucharist (As long as they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), it was a “down - to - earth” and easy decision. When you allow everyone to come to the table it is truly Catholic.

Even I can shoot down this, and I’m no “romanist”.

There is a WORLD of difference between denying someone who is hungry or thirsty food and drink (if one has the ressources to provide them with such), and not allow heretics or pagans to take Holy Communion.

Christians are an absolute minority in the Western World today, but you would grant not only all believers, but also all WHO ARE BAPTIZED (which are at least tens of millions) to take part in Holy Communion?
That is “mishandling” (don’t know the proper English term) the Sacrament, and it borders on blasphemy.

The Sacrament should only be for believers who acknowledge the Sacrament for what it is: The body and blood of the Lord. Christians of other beliefs should be welcomed at the service/High Mass, but gently told to stay away from Communion.

Refusing to let someone take Communion because they are either heretics, unrepentant, unbelievers, or some other reason is not “pride” - it is simply the opposite of saying:

“Holy Communion is not really that important”

 

[awantz]

—Perhaps I am; I do my best to evaluate each particular denomination by comparing it to what the bible says. However I am only human.

You said, *“Your opion is stricktly that. It’s your opinion.” *and I totally agree; I would never try and force my beliefs on anyone. Like I said, it wasn’t until I actually read the catechism of the C.C., the writings of all the church leaders starting with Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John and ending with Pope John Paul 2, and started talking to catholic’s in general, that I realized how unified the C.C. really was regardless of the wheat mixed in with the chaff; the apostates mixed in with the great saints through the centuries (a problem found in all churches regardless of denomination), and how the C.C., the codifier of the bible, espouses everything the bible says; I am always very impartial, and I think that’s the key to a successful journey to “truth” which of course is Jesus.

Absolutely, both Jews and Gentiles that picked up their crosses, repented, were baptized and followed Jesus and His apostolic church were, according to the bible, of the same body.

*And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: “For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free” (1 Corinthians 12:13). *…

All churches at this time were apostolic, and eventually renamed catholic out of necessity, due to all the heretical churches popping up claiming to be the true Christian Apostolic church, e.g. Marcion’s church among a bevy of others; for several generations, Marcion’s church survived. It is ironic that perhaps one of the most influential of figures in Church History is also one of the most reviled heretics. Although his ideas were completely rejected by the Apostolic Fathers of the second-century church with good reason, and trust me you would agree, the very need to reject them forced the second-century church to consider, clarify, and consolidate its beliefs about important issues: the contents of the Christian Bible (the Canon) which again out of necessity forced the the church to start going by the word katholikos, which simply means universal, by the end of the 1st century, and to codify the bible at the end of the 4th century, which finally enabled the church, unburdened, to follow Jesus’ commands: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19

If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. John 14:15-18

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you…John 14:23-26

In the 1st century, well, with the exception of the aforementioned apocryphal and gnostic sects; which were always quashed, almost as soon as they started, there were no protestant denominations per se, and they absolutely formed one body with many members distinct among themselves, with Jesus as the Head of that Mystical Body, and they were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." The plan of unity was right on course!

Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life…”—and there can be only one truth, just as these 1st century Christians practiced. This unity went unbroken, even through the 11th century Eastern Orthodox schism, right up until the reformation, when Martin Luther, who lodged a very legitimate complaint, was excommunicated for attempting to remove books from both the old and new testament. Trust me, this was a very difficult conclusion to draw considering the fact that I was Lutheran; albeit not a practising one.

I hope and pray everyday for unity between the Catholic Church and the assorted Protestant Churches, but, I think the division, dissension and disunity that exists within the protestant churches must first be rectified, again just my humble opinion, nothing more!.

The stark facts are that within the protestant churches and the non-denominational churches (which my own sister belongs), there are, without a doubt competing truths on one level or another, and there is no getting around that. However, I would never presume to say that protestants (for lack of a better word) aren’t part of Jesus’ mystical Body, the Church, which is the Church of the Living God and the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Like I said, and you reiterated, All we can do is what Jesus asks of us: “Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37 ---- and if people do that and find themselves, free of any lingering doubts in a church other than the C.C., then your home!!!

Just thought I would throw this out there: As the bible says, Truth is one and it is a person, the person of Jesus Christ:“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” John 14:6 --and Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who is guiding the church in perpetuity. If the Church is the House of the Living God and the pillar and foundation of truth, doesn’t that mean that the church, which is the House of the Living God, is the pillar and foundation of Jesus? Finding that church is a very subjective, highly spiritual, moral, and intellectual journey, and should be respected no matter what!!!

For me personally, the apostolic church is indeed the catholic church of the 1st century, the 4th century, the 11th century and the 21st century, simply because Jesus told the apostolic church that he would be with them forever; he would never leave them orphans, and that the gates of hell (the anti Christ, the church’s worse enemy) would never Prevail and that it would be built on the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the irreplaceable cornerstone --(solid Rock). The C.C. is the only church that can trace its descent all the way back to the apostles, so these passages, by logical deduction must be the apostolic church, again in my personal opinion.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-20

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,** the Son of the living God.” “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Matthew 16:16-20

“Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them…” Acts 20:28-30

The Holy Spirit/Paraclete seems to have several different roles or functions according to John’s Gospel:

• as a companion, to be with the disciples “forever,” after Jesus is gone (14:16-18; cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:13)
• as a teacher, who will “remind” the disciples of Jesus’ own words and teachings (14:26)
• as a legal witness, who will give “testimony” to the disciples and the world about Jesus (15:26)
• as a judge, who will “convict” (or “convince”?) the world “about sin and righteousness and judgment” (16:8-11)
• as a revealer, who will “guide” the disciples to the “truth” about God and Jesus (16:13-15; cf. 1 John 5:6-8)

God bless awantz…**

I agree.

 

[awantz]

I ment what I said, a real christian wouldn’t spread lies about anyone or any one else’s religion, and from what x-protestants and other protestants tell me they are taught to spread these lies about the Catholic Church, event tho they know they are NOT true. I have tried my best to tell some protestants I know that they are not true but they turn a deaf ear as thats what they were taught to believe. That is wrong and needs to be stopped. They are fighting against God and one day they will realize that, either in this world or the next. True unity means everyone believes the same TRUTHS. The way Jesus wants, THY will be done.

Well then they were taught wrong, because I was never taught anything like that.

 

[Memaw]

Let’s see if I can give an answer that you can’t somehow twist and try to use against me…

I am not part of the Roman church, because I believe that in some very essential points, its teachings are incompatible with Divine Scripture - which is the Word of God, and the supreme authority of the Catholic church (in the actual meaning of that word, and not its usual meaning, in which it refers to the Roman church).

I am not part of the Roman church, because I do not believe in the unbiblical dogmas that it teaches, to put it short and simple.

Funny you should say that because it was the Catholic Church that you took the Bible from in the first place.

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.” —Martin Luther, Commentary on John, Chap 16.

And you say the Catholic Church teaches some unbibical dogmas, well why don’t you give us a few examples so we can examine them?

 

[LutheranDK]

Funny you should say that because it was the Catholic Church that you took the Bible from in the first place.

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.” —Martin Luther, Commentary on John, Chap 16.

And you say the Catholic Church teaches some unbibical dogmas, well why don’t you give us a few examples so we can examine them?

I am not saying that the Roman church doesn’t have the Bible.
But so does Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, along with the various “I’m the Messiah!”-cults that have sprung up.

And no - I’m not comparing the Roman church to these - I am saying why I do not accept the obvious fact that the Roman church had the Bible as a reason that it should be the right church.

I believe I already listed some, but I can do it again

1: Papal infallibility. It is both self-contradictory (contradicts the decision of the council of Konstanz in the early 15th century which asserted that the Ecumenical Council is the supreme authority of the church, before whose decision even the pope has to bow), and unbiblical

2: The various Marian dogmas, and cult of the saints.

And then I haven’t really started on all the other self-contradictions of the Roman church (ex Trent vs Vatican II)

 

[GraceDK]

If I believed that it would not just be “We’re right because the church says so, and the church says so because it’s true, and it’s true because the church says so”, and if I believed that people would not twist my every word and try to “bait me” (as someone in here admitted to doing before I took the last break from this forum)

In short - if I could be sure that I would be treated fairly, then yes. But, also the wording of your post taken into account, I have my doubts as to whether or not that would be the case.

Btw: You got the Luther-quote wrong (at least if it’s the classical quote ascribed to him from the Diet of Worms). It’s

“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

No… actually he said: “Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helff mir” if you want it spelled out for you…

See your words display a lot of arrogance… therefore I had to tease you… You live in a country with little if no serious Catholic presence and yet you act as though you have already won some kind of serious debate. I challenge you because I doubt you have ever let your points get thoroughy tested by Catholics that actually know something about their faith… If I am wrong then so be it… but then it will be no problem for you to go to the apologetic section…

To say: “because the Church said so is quite reasonable”… anything else is actually quite modern…
Considering the fact that the Church wrote the New Testament, canonized it and kept it until Luthers day where it was somewhat corrupted (L removed a chunk of the Word of God (the deuterocanonical scriptures also called the apocrypha… that act of his was a serious offence), I’d say I haven’t met any other authority who could say that about itself…
You presumably prefer to say: “The Bible says so” and esteem that to be a statement of more logic than what you assume we say which you hold to be circular in its form… but in fact you treat Biblical canon as though it flew out of the sky and landed on your head this morning. However… The Roman Catholic Church gave you Scripture … You may begin to argue with me based on the scism with the Eastern Church… be my guest. Then become Orthodox… then you will have valid Sacraments.

Neither do you believe in Biblical promises since you claim that the Church has been overcome with error which is death… because the Lord Himself said that the Church would never be overcome by Hades… He also said the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth… Its written in the Word of God which always points to the Church and vice versa.

But… please… do come to the apologetic section. We are getting off topic already. You seem to imply you could rather easily convince everyone that the “Roman Church” is in error… Then come… whats holding you back? I doubt that you are really that afraid of a bit of sarcasm…

Peace.

 

[Memaw]

I am not saying that the Roman church doesn’t have the Bible.
But so does Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, along with the various “I’m the Messiah!”-cults that have sprung up.

And no - I’m not comparing the Roman church to these - I am saying why I do not accept the obvious fact that the Roman church had the Bible as a reason that it should be the right church.

I believe I already listed some, but I can do it again

1: Papal infallibility. It is both self-contradictory (contradicts the decision of the council of Konstanz in the early 15th century which asserted that the Ecumenical Council is the supreme authority of the church, before whose decision even the pope has to bow), and unbiblical

2: The various Marian dogmas, and cult of the saints.

And then I haven’t really started on all the other self-contradictions of the Roman church (ex Trent vs Vatican II)

Same ole usual nonsense, we’ve been over most of these in other threads and probably this one too. Can’t you come up with something new. If you really want the answers to these, go to catholicanswers.com, they can do a better job than me. If all you want to do is try to find fault with the Catholic Church, why don’t you start your own, bash Catholics forum. The Pope doesn’t “bow” to any Council and never has.Christ gave HIS Church, (the Catholic Church) the authority to teach, govern and sanctify. It has done that for 2,000 years and will continue to do so for the rest of time.
You can see what happened to the Sacred Scriptures after the protestant reformation and since then, there are over 40,000 different protestant denominations that interpret the Bible in their own way. It has caused much confusion in the protestant world. Instead of finding fault with the Catholic Faith, why don’t you spend lots of time trying to straighten out your own problems. If your really interested in trying to understand the Catholic Faith, put down the armor and accusations and learn. Seems to me that some protestants spend more time trying to hate Catholics than they spend learning to LOVE OUR LORD.

 

[celticcrusader]

Lutheran DK:you pose some good questions and as a previous poster stated you should ask about this on the Apologetics Forum for some answers, and no we won,t pick on you for no good reason.

 

[LutheranDK]

No… actually he said: “Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helff mir” if you want it spelled out for you…

See your words display a lot of arrogance… therefore I had to tease you… You live in a country with little if no serious Catholic presence and yet you act as though you have already won some kind of serious debate. I challenge you because I doubt you have ever let your points get thoroughy tested by Catholics that actually know something about their faith… If I am wrong then so be it… but then it will be no problem for you to go to the apologetic section…

To say: “because the Church said so is quite reasonable”… anything else is actually quite modern…
Considering the fact that the Church wrote the New Testament, canonized it and kept it until Luthers day where it was somewhat corrupted (L removed a chunk of the Word of God (the deuterocanonical scriptures also called the apocrypha… that act of his was a serious offence), I’d say I haven’t met any other authority who could say that about itself…
You presumably prefer to say: “The Bible says so” and esteem that to be a statement of more logic than what you assume we say which you hold to be circular in its form… but in fact you treat Biblical canon as though it flew out of the sky and landed on your head this morning. However… The Roman Catholic Church gave you Scripture … You may begin to argue with me based on the scism with the Eastern Church… be my guest. Then become Orthodox… then you will have valid Sacraments.

Neither do you believe in Biblical promises since you claim that the Church has been overcome with error which is death… because the Lord Himself said that the Church would never be overcome by Hades… He also said the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth… Its written in the Word of God which always points to the Church and vice versa.

But… please… do come to the apologetic section. We are getting off topic already. You seem to imply you could rather easily convince everyone that the “Roman Church” is in error… Then come… whats holding you back? I doubt that you are really that afraid of a bit of sarcasm…

Peace.

No, actually the quote is:
“Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfemir. Amen”
(at least according to Wikipedia)

I know that the Roman church thinks that the Apocrypha is canonical, but that is the same as saying that the Word of God is erronous - because Apocrypha is filled with anachronisms and other errors - and that’s only one of the many reasons that those writings are not actually part of canon. You may call them canonical till your head turns blue, but that won’t alter facts.

The view that something is true only because “the church” says so is utter nonsense, and the circular reasoning behind that argument is obvious. And I haven’t even begun to rub your face in all the self-contradictions of the Roman church throughout the centuries.

Finally, the claim that the Roman church wrote Scripture is “a truth with modifications” (don’t know if that’s an expression in English - but it is in Danish, and I assume that you gather what I mean by it)
It is safe to say that the beginnings of the Roman church (as that is usually defined) did not exist until a very late stage in ancient church history.

• Rome was the last congregation to adopt the monarchical episcopate!
• The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not generally accepted until the fall of the Western Roman Empire - when central administration crumbled, and there was no Emperor.
  Sure, the bishops of Rome had claimed it since the 2nd century, but that proves nothing.

And I could keep going.

If I have your word that I will be treated fairly, as defined earlier, then I might pay a visit to that apologetics forum. If not, then I’m not going to waste my time.

 

[LutheranDK]

Same ole usual nonsense, we’ve been over most of these in other threads and probably this one too. Can’t you come up with something new. If you really want the answers to these, go to catholicanswers.com, they can do a better job than me. If all you want to do is try to find fault with the Catholic Church, why don’t you start your own, bash Catholics forum. The Pope doesn’t “bow” to any Council and never has.Christ gave HIS Church, (the Catholic Church) the authority to teach, govern and sanctify. It has done that for 2,000 years and will continue to do so for the rest of time.
You can see what happened to the Sacred Scriptures after the protestant reformation and since then, there are over 40,000 different protestant denominations that interpret the Bible in their own way. It has caused much confusion in the protestant world. Instead of finding fault with the Catholic Faith, why don’t you spend lots of time trying to straighten out your own problems. If your really interested in trying to understand the Catholic Faith, put down the armor and accusations and learn. Seems to me that some protestants spend more time trying to hate Catholics than they spend learning to LOVE OUR LORD.

No, the pope does not refer to the Council any more - not since the dogma of papal infalibility in 1870. But the Council of Konstanz did agree that the Council was the supreme authority - and not the pope. That is why Luther initially called for an ecumenical Council, and persisted in wanting to have such a council convened.

I am not trying to bash catholics. I was asked what kind of unbiblical dogmas I was talking about, and I answered that question.
Oh, it’s 40.000 protestant denominations now? Just a couple of weeks ago, someone said 30.000. Gee… Or are these numbers simply taken out of thin air, to bash those who are not in the Roman church?
Yes, there are many protestant denominations. That is not a way to defend your own denomination, though.
There is no contradiction between speaking out against the Roman church where it is in error, and against the various protestant churches where THEY are in error.