That is why I thought you were referring to the physical Church. There are those in the MYSTICAL Body of Christ however, that haven’t heard the Word of God(not out of arrogance), but still are moved by God’s grace and seek to live in him.The Church is the Body of Christ, correct?
What is false about that assumptions? Did you not yourself say that, if Catholics practiced as the early church did, there would not be any other church? I thought you said you left Catholocism because you got saved, and hungered for the Bible? If you knew you were saved and had the Bible in the Catholic, why would there be a need to leave?They must, of necessity, tell us that we were ignorant of Catholicsim. Why else would we leave?
I find this response to be loaded with many false assumptions and errors.
I agree with you tht it is unforntunate that many RCC are leaving right now. However, I do think they leave out of ignorance. Also, the Church has failed to address this ignorance by properly teaching members.It is unfortunate because the RCC is a sieve right now and claiming that those who leave it are just ignorant is only self deception, IMO.
I am sorry that you had such a bad experience with Catholicism. I guess you are here to find healing and I hope you do.I believe this must be done to actually convince the Catholic that he/she is correct. Their neighbor must be torn down to support the Catholic’s presuppositions.
That’s just my take so far. I see it over and over again.
And now you are taught that we tear others down. No matter if this is true or not, you are tearing US down by telling us this. So really, your neighbor must obviously be torn down to support the YOUR presuppositions.I believe this must be done to actually convince the Catholic that he/she is correct. Their neighbor must be torn down to support the Catholic’s presuppositions.
That’s just my take so far. I see it over and over again.
I had this experience too. Yes, I believed someone who told me I was not saved because I did not ask Jesus into my heart, and confess iwth my mouth, etc, etc. I also did not encounter Christ in a powerful and emotional way as I did in the Protestant sectors. I was longing for a sense of connection I did not find in Catholicism. The main element, though, was I was starving for the Word, and no Catholic had ever taught me to read the Bible. The evangelicals were immersed in it, so I went along.Why did you feel like you had not had salvation after baptism,confession, communion, confirmation?
Was it bacause someone told you you were not saved because you didn’t really know Jesus? Like them because they had all the answers?
When really along you had it you just weren’t sure about what you did understand.
What made you think the story of Jesus wasn’t true? Dessert
You are right, it is very bold. I don’t think it should be made but by the Spirit of God!Saying the words of the RC Magisterium are GOD’s words is a veeeeeery bold and dangerous claim, IMO.
It is not me who makes this equation.
You have 20 minutes you can delete accidents. Use the edit button at the bottom after you submit the post.Whoops…sorry about that. Disregard this accident post.
You were never taught the story of Noah or David and Goliath?I had this experience too. Yes, I believed someone who told me I was not saved because I did not ask Jesus into my heart, and confess iwth my mouth, etc, etc. I also did not encounter Christ in a powerful and emotional way as I did in the Protestant sectors. I was longing for a sense of connection I did not find in Catholicism. The main element, though, was I was starving for the Word, and no Catholic had ever taught me to read the Bible. The evangelicals were immersed in it, so I went along.
Whoa! Wait a minute.There are those outside of the physical Church Body of Christ which can be saved, but there aren’t those outside of the Mystical Body of Christ.
There are two primary parts that constitute the one universal Church; a visible organized part and an invisible spiritual part:If this is true, however, how is it one can both leave the Body of Christ and be in it at the very same time?
As the Catholics on this thread have insisted:
“we do warn people that to leave the Catholic Church is to become separated from the Body of Christ”
This is correct if we are referring to both the visible and invisible totality of the Church.
“leaving the Catholic Church is the same as leaving Jesus”
The Church is the continuation of Christ’s mission on Earth. To knowingly reject the Church is to reject Jesus. Again, this is correct if we are referring to both the visible and invisible totality of the Church.
“Any Catholic who leaves the Catholic Church for a Protestant one is rejecting Jesus”
Not sure about this one. This looks like it is referring to leaving the visible and structured Church for a Protestant one. That alone is not enough; however, we can see that someone who was formerly a member of the visible Church is in a bad spot. If that person truly understood what the Church teaches and leaves anyway, well . . . . . you know the rest.
“Let me just say that I hope the former Catholic will return to the Church before he dies, for he will be judged by Jesus Christ as to why he left His Bride, the Church.”
There is no doubt that this is true. The former Catholic will be required to give an account as to why he left the one visible Church. We can hope that the answer will be "Lord, I simply didn’t understand."
I thought YOUR understanding of the Body of Christ was simply the Church. That’s why I used “Body of Christ” to refer to simply the Church in my first statement before.Whoa! Wait a minute.
How many Bodies of Christ are there in Roman Catholic theology?
How can a person be both outside and inside the Body of Christ at the very same time?
…
Wrong. Pay better attention please.You wish…this is stuff from one Catholic person and not very well stated.
I didn’t twist anything, but I understand that charging me with vice or wrongdoing looks good in front of your peers.Lemme break this down for you so you can stop trying twist what people have said.
Did the NT church excommunicate people? Yes they did.
Excommunication from WHAT?So then, as an “ex-Catholic” who apparently has not only left the church but has professed opposition to Church teachings, do you actually incur a defacto excommunication? Probably.
If quoting supposedly well catechised Catholics (such as yourself) is “misrepreseting” what your church teaches, then maybe folks are not as well catechised as they would like to think.Quit trying to misrepresent what the church teaches to fit your agenda. That’s dishonest, and a lousy “witness”.
What you are saying above is that there are TWO Bodies of Christ.I thought YOUR understanding of the Body of Christ was simply the Church. That’s why I used “Body of Christ” to refer to simply the Church in my first statement before.
Normally, when one refers to the Body of Christ, one refers to the Church, BUT when you are refering to all those who truly are in Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ should suffice. There is not one single set definition of it(what body of people it refers to). What is set is the fact that those who(whether the Church or those truly in Christ) are in the Body of Christ have some sort of residence within Him and He within them. It’s a mystery.
The Body of Christ referring to a group of people…usually the person using the term decides which group. If you hear the term Body of Christ without the word Mystical in front of it, usually it is referring to the Church.
Whether the Body of Christ refers to the Church or all those truly in Christ is not dogmatically defined(as in there hasn’t been a dogmatic statement which says everytime one uses this phrase that it must refer to one of the two). What IS dogmatically defined is that those in the Body of Christ have a certain residence in Christ and Christ in them. Once again it is mystery, but it must be accepted as it is dogma.
You twisted my words here, Atemi. I thanked him for correcting me that the Body of Christ refers to both a Mystical and physical place. The Church and being in Christ. There are those OUTSIDE OF THE PHYSICAL CHURCH which can be saved.So after all this, you finally come to your senses?
I asked quite plainly earlier:
“Are you saying that the RCC teaches that there are those outside of the Body of Christ that will be saved?”
You quite plainly responded:
“Of course”
I then asked you:
“You do understand that that is against Catholic dogma (extra ecclesiam nulla salus), right?”
And what is your response?
You tell me that I should do some research and actually read the Catechism. You tell me not to make assumptions and that I should read some article.
Sigh.
Four posts later, come to find out, you did not know or understand one of the basic dogmas of your own church. How is it that you post here and lecture others who actually do know the dogmas of your church?
You should refrain from lecturing others about understanding Catholic teaching better when you have yet to do so yourself. Unfortunately, we even had another one of our Catholic friends join you in getting Catholic dogma incorrect.
The answer to my rhetorical question is “NO,” just as tdgesq pointed out and corrected you on.
You should not assume you know more than you do. I actually repeated my question so you would have an ample opportunity to address it correctly. Instead you chose to attack me for actually understanding what the position of your own church is in this regard.
THERE AREN"T TOO BODIES OF CHRIST. There are two things people may mean when refering to the Body of Christ. This DOES NOT mean that the Church teaches there are two Bodies of Christ. People just use it differently.What you are saying above is that there are TWO Bodies of Christ.
This is what, in effect, you are saying.
That is amazing and maybe worth its own thread, IMO.
Can you cite an official RC source or Council that teaches there are TWO Bodies of Christ?
You take our words out of context. That’s how you misrepresent us.If quoting supposedly well catechised Catholics (such as yourself) is “misrepreseting” what your church teaches, then maybe folks are not as well catechised as they would like to think.
If what you say is so weak as to not even be quoted, then that is not the fault of others.You take our words out of context. That’s how you misrepresent us.
Why don’t we just shut down all Catholic discussion forums and simply read the Catechism?Why don’t you just read the Catechism instead of trying to find differing answers from the various posters to this thread.
No one has answered the question, nor do I know of any answer in the Catechism.I know many of us have posted the ‘official’ teaching from the catechism yet you continue to ask the same question. Are you honestly seeking an answer or do you have an axe to grind?
You said that one may not be in the Body of Christ (the Church) but may be in the Body of Christ.THERE AREN"T TOO BODIES OF CHRIST. There are two things people may mean when refering to the Body of Christ. This DOES NOT mean that the Church teaches there are two Bodies of Christ. People just use it differently.