I think that one raises one’s chances of being saved by several orders of magnitude, by being a good Catholic. (Being Catholic in name only would not be enough, and would probably be worse than being a Protestant or unbeliever.)
Well at least we now know your opinion of Protestants.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt.
Did it ever occur to you, though, that attacking and condemning the beliefs of others might be part of the reason for Christians not getting along? Or do you even care? Also, how come Catholics (some of them) have a problem acknowledging their own flaws? And ours are not philisophical. Saying so equates us to Aristotle and Plato. I think we are a little different from them.I don’t think there was ever any doubt.
I like Protestants, individually. But the philisophical system itself has major flaws.
Are you saying that all beliefs are equally good? Or just that it’s bad for people to discern between better and worse?
We all have to go to Confession.
The content is different. It’s still a system of ideas, though.
They split the work. A smart way to go
This is Saul being converted and commissioned. God did not overturn everything He did before Saul became Paul
Peter wrote his 1st epistle from Rome
So you admit poimaino means rule.
And Jesus the one who rules says to Peter, “poimaino my sheep”.It was Peter in Acts 1: who called for succession to Judas who had died. Peter said let another take his office. And they replaced him
When the presidents of the United States use in their opening remarks to the Senate, Congress, and the American people “my fellow Americans” (which they do in speeches all the time) does “my fellow American” mean they are not our presidents?
And Jesus appointed Peter as the one to poimaino His Church, and when all have been sifted by Satan like wheat, it is Peter who will strengthen his brothers…
Hello again,
Take a good hard look at the posts on this forum. This is a Catholic forum, and it’s under a continual attack from non-Catholics.
There are no contradictions in the “invisible” church. Nor in the “invisible” church is there any doctrinal confusion. It is a mystical union between all true believers and Jesus Christ - not through water baptism but via the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). The Spirit that unites them constitutes an invisible tie; the blessings of eternal salvation, such as regeneration, genuine conversion, true faith, and spiritual communion with their Lord, are all invisible to the natural eye - yet these are the very things that constitute the ideal character of the church Christ has been building since Pentecost.
Hello moonweller*,*
You’re avoiding the issue.They split the work. A smart way to go
What you claim He did is not based on what actually followed through in history. IOW, your interpretation is not attested to by subsequent revelation. If Peter was commission to “rule” Christ’s church then we would see clearly defined and formulated evidence of it in the historical passages of Scripture. But we find nothing to that manifestation.
One would have to prove Peter wasn’t speaking literally. Expositors are divided on “Babylon” being a “code word” for Rome.
There would be no reason if Peter had already been there for more than a couple of decades. Unless you’re saying Peter wasn’t very good at being a ruling shepherd and providing food for Christ’s lambs.
Only in those passages I referenced. In context they referred to Christ Himself, not Peter.So you admit poimaino means rule.
The Book of Acts records their actions in choosing someone to replace Judas. But it doesn’t mean what Peter suggested and what they did was right. Jesus told them to “wait for what the Father had promised” (the Holy Spirit). He did not instruct them to choose another Apostle. Christ Himself chose the former Apostles. I’m with those who tend to think Paul was Christ’s choice, not Matthias.
The point remains, Steve. Peter never addresses fellow Christians as their “ruler” on earth. When Bush is introduced to the House of Representatives he’s announced as the President of the U.S. Peter is never referred to, or even portrayed in Scripture as ruler of the church.
“Born Again Christian.” Not by water, but by the Spirit.
Jimmy, what do you think is meant by the “invisible” church? You quoted my whole post but addressed nothing in it.
I don’t think you read your history well or whatever reference you have now except the bible. Inorder for you not to say that I am bias by using books authored by catholics, I’d still use a book authored by a none-catholic.
Hi moonweller,
Hi again moonweller ,
It’s a trick question, don’t tell anybody. Haven’t you figured me out yet?
You could make such statements, ja4, and indeed have made them, but it is a strawman. Persons who reject the teaching of the Church are not Catholic. They may believe that they are, whether out of ignorance, or rebellion, but that does not make it so. I know some Jehovah Witnesses that believe they are Christian, and that they have a Christian baptism, but that does not make it so. The Catholic Church has a standard of doctrine, comprised of those Teachings of Jesus handed down to us from His apostles. This is the main difference between Catholicism and Protestants sects, who cannot agree upon doctrine.
My thoughts are that Jesus never intended His message to be bound by culture, and the belief of many Westerners that the “Roman” rite is the “only” or the “best” represents a form of bigotry. I recognize that this occurs because most Westerners are of the Latin rite, and don’t even know that there are 22 other Catholic Rites, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Can someone here please explain to me the (Catholic) definitions of “Heresy” and “Apostasy”?
A heretic is one who embraces or teaches false beliefs. (Something other than what was delivered by Jesus). Apostacy is the state of having fallen from a state of grace.
Jimmy B;3265042:
It is not usually helpful to use these terms on an apologetics forum. most separated brethren are in a state of invicible ignorance. They dont’ even realize that Catholics consider them to be members of the church, and brethren. Some of them don’t even believe that Catholics can be Christian. We are careful to leave judgement on the issue of salvaton to God. Toward that end, we attempt to educate the ignorant about the faith. The One True Faith is not “Roman”, but it is Catholic. there are 22 other Rites in the Catholic Church that are distinctly non-Roman. There are also many sincere separated brethren that have no idea that they have been raised in heretical environments.
The Scripture states clearly that Satan is the god of this world. Satan is the author of separation and division. God has allowed Satan this perogative so that the true faith will become more evident.
The teaching of the Catholic Church in no way includes a “sort of complete” by anyone. We recognize that there are some who follow God to the best of their ability, given the degree of revelation they posess. We recognize that God wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I guess I don’t understand the question.
I agree that it is very important to share the truth with them. However, starting out by calling them heretics and apostates may not be the best method. Catholics would do well to focus on Catholics first, since the majority of persons who claim to be Catholic also claim to believe that abortion is ok, and are “pro-choice”.
It is His perogative to draw, and not ours. It is not our place to try to pull up the tares in the wheat field.
It is very difficult, which is why Catholics say that one’s chances of getting it right increase exponentially if one is Catholic.
