Protestant with questions!!!

[Bookcat]

Hello there, Frankly this upsets me and makes me feel as if my church and every other church has something wrong with them.

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

 

[oldsinnner]

Hello there,

From both of them I get the term the “true” or “right” church and no other church is correct in their teachings. Frankly this upsets me …

As it should. Tell them to read their own catechism and forgive them of their arrogance.

PS…Or simply have them read the above post.

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you so much everyone. This is a lot to absorb this late at night when I am tired so I will have to read each response individually and thoughtfully tomorrow. You all have given me much to think about, especially when referencing Jesus saying that his way is the only way. Very very interesting and thought provoking and really makes me question the way that I was thinking, which is good.

Remember,God is not plurastic,but ONE. There cannot be a Baptist God,Lutheran God,etc X thousands. Jesus left ONE Church and that is what He wanted,ONE flock not 39,000 different ones.

**At this point in my life I am not interested in converting but I am interested in attending a Catholic mass, as it is something that I have never done. **

If you have an opportunity to study the early Christians,you will learn and acknowledge they center of worship was the Eucharist at the MASS. Truly study early Christianity and you’ll be shocked how Catholic they were in their beliefs.

I will admit that the recent things in the news about the Catholic church has deeply upset me and it is hard to think rationally when all of these things are thrown at you so it’s nice to get real perspective from these boards.

No offense,but that is the problem with people reading into everything the media says about the Catholic Church. It always trys to make it look so horrible,Anyone can look up many scandals in other churches with minimal effort. Scandals have been part of the church throughout history,however, it no shape or form negates the sanctification of the Church Christ bestowed on His bride. How about the scandal with Peter? Didn’t Peter DENY Jesus 3 times? Did his weakness destroy Christ Church? Did Jesus get all bent-out-of-shape with Peter?

Again I thank you all for taking the time out to respond to my post. It is very appreciated

No problem and we are here to tell you from Catholics,not what others say about the RCC.

 

[johnladder]

Hello Lara,

Worse than the scandals is the unbiblical teaching of the Roman Church. There are numerous problems with its core doctrine, transubstantion. We just can’t seem to get an an answer as to why we need to perpetuate Jesus’ final sacrifice at mass. And, there is no justification for the papacy.

Go find a good Bible church!

John

 

[jmcrae]

Hello Lara,

Worse than the scandals is the unbiblical teaching of the Roman Church. There are numerous problems with its core doctrine, transubstantion. We just can’t seem to get an an answer as to why we need to perpetuate Jesus’ final sacrifice at mass. And, there is no justification for the papacy.

Go find a good Bible church!

John

It is Jesus who established the Catholic Church, but mere men who established the various “Bible churches”. I, for one, will follow Jesus rather than mere men, by being a member of the Church that He established.

With regard to Transubstantiation, it is Jesus who commanded us to eat and drink His body and blood, and warned of final condemnation to those who refuse to do so (John 6:53-58).

With regard to the Papacy, it was Jesus who said to Peter, our first Pope, “Whatsoever thou bindest on earth is bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou loosest on earth is loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19.

 

[FightingFat]

I was going to offer the idea of degrees of communion for your consideration. The fullness of revelation was given to the apostolic Church. Christian ecclesial communities that have broken away from this one true Church do contain elements of truth, but only the Catholic Church contains all of these elements. This means there are degrees of communion.

 

[johnladder]

It is Jesus who established the Catholic Church…

How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give. Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings.

From a Catholic scholar, here’s something in regard to the so-called apostolic succession:

cogwriter.com/roman.htm

“…These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church–Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.”

**Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. **There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6]

Many of the most unbiblical doctrines developed at a much later date:

The Mass, as a daily celebration…394 AD
Start of the exaltation of Mary…431 AD
The doctrine of Purgatory…593 AD
The Mass as sacrifice…998 AD
Transubstantion…1215 AD
Bible forbidden to laymen…1229 AD
Cup forbidden to laymen…1414 AD
Immaculate Conception…1854 AD
Infallibility of the pope…1870 AD
Assumption of Virgin May…1950 AD

 

[jmcrae]

How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give. Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings.

Christianity became legal in 317 AD, thus becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire, as it so happened. The Church was around much earlier than that, however, as you can easily see merely by opening up your New Testament to any page in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

From a Catholic scholar, here’s something in regard to the so-called apostolic succession:

cogwriter.com/roman.htm

"…These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church–Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there.

You are right. The Catholic Church was not founded in Rome by Sts. Peter and Paul. It was founded by Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem.

Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.

This is directly contradicted by the historical record of those pagan Romans that you worry so much about - they knew who the Pope was at any given moment, because they were trying to kill him, so as to stamp out Christianity from the earth. It is from their records that we learn who the Popes were in the first and second centuries.

Many of the most unbiblical doctrines developed at a much later date:

The Mass, as a daily celebration…394 AD
Start of the exaltation of Mary…431 AD
The doctrine of Purgatory…593 AD
The Mass as sacrifice…998 AD
Transubstantion…1215 AD
Bible forbidden to laymen…1229 AD
Cup forbidden to laymen…1414 AD
Immaculate Conception…1854 AD
Infallibility of the pope…1870 AD
Assumption of Virgin May…1950 AD
​

And yet, we find references to all of these, in the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church. Perhaps they were time-travelers?

On a more serious note, do not be confused - the dates on which these doctrines were proclaimed to be infallible is not the date that the Church first came up with them, but rather, the date upon which the first opposition to them was expressed, thus forcing the Pope to clarify and define the Church’s everlasting teaching.

By the way, Pope Innocent I defined the canon of the New Testament in 405 AD. Would you therefore say that there was no New Testament, prior to 405 AD? ​

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Hello there,

I am a confirmed member of the Methodist church, although I rarely attend church. I am here because my best friend is Catholic and my boyfriend is as well, which brings some interesting discussions. Unfortunately as of right now I do not have a good opinion of the church. I know they do good and I know they are very tradition based but a lot of what I hear turns me off.

From both of them I get the term the “true” or “right” church and no other church is correct in their teachings. Frankly this upsets me and makes me feel as if my church and every other church has something wrong with them. I have never felt one church is better or more true than another and that the main thing that should be focused on is God and the love and celebration of Jesus Christ.

I guess I am wondering why this has been taught and why is the word of the church held to the same standard as what is written in the Bible? It has always been my personal belief that what is in the Bible is what a person is to follow, not what man says.

I’m sure I have many misconceptions about the church. While I understand their belief system for some things, such as prohibiting birth control, I do not understand not allowing priests to marry and making them take a vow of celibacy. I have heard the myriad reasons for it and it still just makes me feel like it’s about money and land. I feel a lot of the traditions the church has are unnecessary for entrance into Heaven and are made up rules.

Sorry for rambling on, I would like everyone to know that I am not really “anti” Catholic but I do have major issues with the church. I really just want to understand the teachings better and the reasoning behind things to better connect spiritually to my boyfriend. His faith is important to him so it is important to me to connect better on that level to him.

Have you ever read this booklet?: catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

When it comes to little booklets, I believe this is the best representation of Catholic beliefs. I recommend reading it. Its about a 10 minute read.

 

[FightingFat]

How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give. Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings.

If you study a bit, you’ll see this is not the case. A good example of someone who did would be John Henry Newman, who started writing an essay to demonstrate how unbiblical and inauthentic the Romanist faith is, and ended up converting to Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

Worse than the scandals is the unbiblical teaching of the Roman Church. There are numerous problems with its core doctrine, transubstantion. We just can’t seem to get an an answer as to why we need to perpetuate Jesus’ final sacrifice at mass.

This might come as a shock to you johnladder, but none of the core doctrines of the Catholic Church are extracted from the pages of Scripture.

It is true, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a deep Divine Mystery that defies the reason. I am not sure who the royal “we” are that “cannot get an answer”, but coming to CAF is a good start.

If you want to understand the amanesis, I recommend you start with the Passover. You will find that the annual memorial of the Passover is an enactment, and it’s purpose was to make the participants present at the moment of Israel’s deliverance. You may also realize that a real lamb was really and physically eaten.

People who don’t understand that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover do not understand the sacrificial nature of it, or the perpetuity of it.

And, there is no justification for the papacy.

For us, the things that Jesus put into place, such as the Mass and the Papacy are “justified” sufficiently because He willed them. He has a way of willing things that defy the logic of men.

Go find a good Bible church!

John

It looks like you are pretty new here, johnladder, so you may not have taken the time to read the forum rules. People come here looking for Catholic answers. If your goal here is to try to prevent people from becoming Catholic, or to pull them out of the Catholic Church, you are in the wrong forum.

 

[guanophore]

How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give.

John, if you are just here to tear down what you think the Catholic Church is, then your tenure here will no doubt be quite short. I hope you can restrain your hostility long enough to learn that much of what you have been told about the Church is erroneous.

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehension that all what Jesus taught is in the Scripture.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

 Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings.

This is a good example of the error you have been taught. Do you have any interest at all in learning why this is not correct? Or are you content to persist in your ignorance, making yourself look foolish for perpetuating falsehoods?

"The fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there.

Well, johnladder, I guess you can follow the erroneous ways of a lost "scholar’, or you can take a look at history, where you will find that this statement is false.

Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles."

Do you think that this person’s doubt is sufficient to erase what happened?

**Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. **

So you admit that Peter had a special role?

We read the NT differently, clearly, as we find direct references that we understand according to what the Apsotles believed and taught, which is presered in the Church today.

There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6][/INDENT]

I suppose it must be convenient for you to read a book, and find an opinion that confirms what you want to believe. Anyone can do it. What you may not be able to do is preserve your erroneous ideas if you are willing to look at history. You will find that the Catholic Church has existed since NT times, and that Apostolic Succession was alive and well for centuries before that bible was created.

Many of the most unbiblical doctrines developed at a much later date

You seem to have been fed a great deal of anti-Catholic drivel. How did this happen?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hello there,

Hello, welcome to the forums.

I am a confirmed member of the Methodist church, although I rarely attend church.

If you don’t mind me asking, how come?

From both of them I get the term the “true” or “right” church and no other church is correct in their teachings.

Not so. There is much that is correct and true about a lot of Christian denominations. The very fact of this belief by the Church can be seen in the Church accepting the Baptism of converts from other Christian denominations that are done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I’m sure I have many misconceptions about the church.

This is a great forum to help with that.

God bless you

 

[IHeartBenedict]

How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give. Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings…

Did you recently get your Jack Chick diploma?
Why even post if you are going to just spout off the standard mediocre Fundie talking points.

 

[guanophore]

Did you recently get your Jack Chick diploma?
Why even post if you are going to just spout off the standard mediocre Fundie talking points.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Originally Posted by johnladder
How utterly false and misleading, since the Roman Church has many teachings that Jesus did not give. Also, the Roman Church did not come into existence as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 380 AD, along with many pagan customs, traditions, and teachings…

Perhaps you can explain this then: Here is a list of popes leading up to the year 383 AD:

1. 
   *]St. Peter (32-67)
   *]St. Linus (67-76)
   *]St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
   *]St. Clement I (88-97)
   *]St. Evaristus (97-105)
   *]St. Alexander I (105-115)
   *]St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
   *]St. Telesphorus (125-136)
   *]St. Hyginus (136-140)
   *]St. Pius I (140-155)
   *]St. Anicetus (155-166)
   *]St. Soter (166-175)
   *]St. Eleutherius (175-189)
   *]St. Victor I (189-199)
   *]St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
   *]St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
   *]St. Urban I (222-30)
   *]St. Pontain (230-35)
   *]St. Anterus (235-36)
   *]St. Fabian (236-50)
   *]St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
   *]St. Lucius I (253-54)
   *]St. Stephen I (254-257)
   *]St. Sixtus II (257-258)
   *]St. Dionysius (260-268)
   *]St. Felix I (269-274)
   *]St. Eutychian (275-283)
   *]St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
   *]St. Marcellinus (296-304)
   *]St. Marcellus I (308-309)
   *]St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
   *]St. Miltiades (311-14)
   *]St. Sylvester I (314-35)
   *]St. Marcus (336)
   *]St. Julius I (337-52)
   *]Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
   *]St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
   
   Now Mr. Johnladder, according to you, Damasus I was part of your “real” Church and then flipped over in 380 AD., Is that your position?
   
   Then bear this in mind: It was Pope Damasus I who ratified two councils’ decisions regarding the Canon of the New Testament. So, if you believe what you say (which in itself is amazing) then you are admitting that the Catholic Church gave you your Bible. And therefore, you admit the Pope was Infallible, because they made no mistakes in choosing the books of the New Testament: The Holy Spirit prevented him from making an error in his decision, which is the textbook definition of Papal Infallibility.
   
   Facts are annoying things aren’t they. You see, when too many lies are spread, they start to contradict each other.

 

[Bookcat]

The Mass, as a daily celebration…394 AD
Start of the exaltation of Mary…431 AD
The doctrine of Purgatory…593 AD
The Mass as sacrifice…998 AD
Transubstantion…1215 AD
Bible forbidden to laymen…1229 AD
Cup forbidden to laymen…1414 AD
Immaculate Conception…1854 AD
Infallibility of the pope…1870 AD
Assumption of Virgin May…1950 AD

catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp

catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp

 

[Janet1983]

With regard to Transubstantiation, it is Jesus who commanded us to eat and drink His body and blood, and warned of final condemnation to those who refuse to do so (John 6:53-58).

I actually do not believe that I will be subject to condemnation through my Lord. I do not believe in transubstantiation, but I do believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He is my Lord, my King, my Saviour, my Master and my God.

 

[jmcrae]

I actually do not believe that I will be subject to condemnation through my Lord. I do not believe in transubstantiation, but I do believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He is my Lord, my King, my Saviour, my Master and my God.

Do you believe that what the Bible says, is actually true?

Yes, Jesus died on the Cross for our sins.

We have to believe in the actual Jesus who actually did that, though, in order to be forgiven of our sins. We can’t invent our own “version” of Jesus, believe in our new version, and then expect to be forgiven of our sins.

The many imaginary Jesuses of the world (the ones who don’t require anything difficult from us) never died on any crosses for anyone’s sins - only the real one - the one who said the words that we find in John 6:53-58 - actually did that.

 

[Janet1983]

The many imaginary Jesuses of the world (the ones who don’t require anything difficult from us) never died on any crosses for anyone’s sins - only the real one - the one who said the words that we find in John 6:53-58 - actually did that.

My Jesus saved me from what I was. He does require something that goes far beyond anything I could have imagined before I got to know Him… He requires my all. He requires my heart, my soul, my life.
Because of Him I am not getting what I deserve and I am exceedingly grateful for that.
He requires me to live only for Him, every day. I am dead to myself and alive in Him.
My Lord is not imaginary and He will not condemn me for not believing the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Jesus of course said the words in John 6… just like what He said in John 6:35 and John 6:63

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

John 6:59-65
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”
61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”