P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
Since the Catholic Church cannot support its claim of infallibility, why be Catholic?
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
How can it not?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Just in case …
There are a great many things that I believe without the level of proof that you seem to be looking for.
The fact that they have never been provably wrong seems like enough evidence that it is infallible. As for things that can’t be proven one way or another, one might as well believe what the Church teaches, and save the work of coming up with a believable idea of my own.
My basis for believing the Church is not what it claims, but where it came from. We can see from history that the first Pope of the Catholic Church was, indeed, the Apostle Peter, and the Scriptures can certainly be read with the understanding that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, without damaging any of the sense of it. So, given these facts, why not belong to the actual Church that was founded by Christ, rather than some other organization that came along quite a bit later?
Y
YADA
Guest
How do Lutheran’s [and the others] treat the remaining Eucharist [not consumed] at the end of Mass [or your worshp service]? I ask because, while respect the thise who hold communion to be the Body and Blood of Christ - I do find a disconnect in how fully they believe this Truth …
Other differences in the beliefs around the True Presence also exist … and it remains a fact that many Protestant Christian churches from mainline to the most basic “bible” non-denom church do not hold the Eucharist any thing but symbolic … and it is in this disconnect that much is lost in the fractured Christian community … because for the Catholic/Orthodox, the Eucharist is foundational, it is core to all that is the Truth; the Truth of Jesus, His Death and Resurrection and to our Salvation … and Truth should know no bounds …
J
jericho777
Guest
There is only salvation in Christ a church can only reflect the truth of Christ.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
O
olds442
Guest
so what you are saying is The Catholic Church says the Catholic church is the Fullness of the faith Also Catholics who leave the Catholic Church have more to answer for “.According to the Catholic Church”. So in a nut shell being catholic is the only way as far as catholics are concerned. I was raised Catholic and spent 42 years as a catholic a I left and joined a Lutheran church. I noticed most Catholics pat themselves on the back for being catholic and forget about the christian value of not judging others. My question is how can you claim to be a good christian and then at the same time atttack others who are not catholic.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Actually, you are still Catholic. You might call yourself “fallen away” or whatever, but when you were baptized and then confirmed, you were sealed into the Catholic Church. You have more to answer for because you have abandoned Christ in the Eucharist. He is still here, waiting for you to come home. Only the Catholic Church has genuine Apostolic succession. Turning away from the Church is rejecting said authority, which is rejecting Christ. I urge you to come back to the Sacraments. It is the only way to have the full Christian life Jesus wants for you.
P
pete_29
Guest
It’s called having Faith
O
olds442
Guest
Christ is present in the Eucharist on both sides of main street.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Not without valid Orders.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Catholic Ave & Orthodox Blvd.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
True. But He did found a single Church which began calling itself the Catholic Church before the end of the first century.
Regarding “two or three”, I think this is interesting…
Wherever two or three are gathered…**
**An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20
Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.
Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.
In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:
Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.
Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There is nothing unreasonable about the gospel’s demand for a commitment to Christ also requiring a corresponding commitment to the Catholic Church which He founded beginning with Peter, the rock.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, there is no salvation outside the Church. The question is: what does it mean to be outside the Church?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Church can support its claim of infallibility. Can you support your belief that it is not?
Articles on Why Be Catholic
Why Be Catholic – An Exercise for Evangelicals**
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm
The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
**CHRISTIAN, YES… BUT WHY CATHOLIC? **
By JOSEPH M. ESPER
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910fea1.asp
Why Be Catholic?
by William J. O’Malley, S.J.
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0194.asp
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
1 Corinthians 5:12
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
Paul says we are to judge those inside the Church. Therefore, there is not a biblical prohibition against judging the error of converting to Lutheranism.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand your desire to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, but Lutherans do not have a valid Priesthood. You want Him to be there, but objectively speaking, He is not.
No transubstantiation, no Jesus. Know transubstantiation, know Jesus.
I
IowaJay
Guest
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
"107. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.(164) The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:
Code:
Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.(165)I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of 'validity.' Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord's Supper.(166)"
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Ecumenism is the chosen path to dialogue; The above ecumenical statements are presented to begin dialogue and reason, they are not deciding factors yet from the entire faithful and magisterium. These statements have not changed the status quot between our separated brethren. Cardinal Ratzinger made an important statement regarding the problem of “validity”. Validity is not the only problem that exists, but “Faith” in the “True Presence” of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist, to narrow it down to just the validity may unmistakenly discount the validity of our seperated brethren faith in salvation. Now begins the road of discussion to clarify, define and inform what constitutes a valid and sacred “True Presence” of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in his New Covenant.
“Succession” States the Cardinal (not the Pope) does not in any way prevent Jesus granting his True Presence. When there are other factors to consider, for example “consubstantiation” deny’s the “True Presence of Jesus” because “consubstantiation” cohabits real bread and wine with the believed body, and blood of Jesus, which may lead others to believe in a symbolic Jesus, which conflicts with Catholic doctrine and faith in the True Presence of Jesus in his Eucharist.
In conclusion what you have presented here are commentaries to the subject matter, not a decision of the Church. Praise God, it is a step in the right direction.
- Status