We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[sambos671]

Sounds very predestinational. Of course, in many areas the Church has not made official pronouncements, so s what you seem to be saying probably is not currently viewed as antithetical to Catholic theology. However, your emphasis places you in a minority position. Your view really does appear, at least to me, to be very protestant, even Calvinistic. However, as I said, I do not believe the Church has made any official pronouncements that would reject what you have said. I simply disagree with your viewpoint.

I pulled the term elect straight out of the Green Catachism book that I have. Also I think you missed the point when I mentioned universality. So God elects to save the world. It’s dependent on Gods activity not our initiation. So, you got me wrong there. Though the fulness of what it means alluedes me. also not I said not calvinism.

Saved from [or by?] God’s election? No. God does provide each individual with varying amounts of grace. However, we participate in the extent to which we cooperate or respond to that grace, which either maintains, weakens or eliminates our Justification. We may build on the deposit of grace by obedient faith, by loving our neighbors, or we may not. That is where our Will comes into the picture.

You got me wrong again but it was my bad choice this time. I meant saved by not from. God first elects the world and offers the faith we do not give the faith to ourselves. Both this last bit I just said in bold and this statement: only reasonable response to that faith is to accept it are both straight out of the CCC. I did not negate free will. Note the term I and the CCC uses reasonable.

As you see, you are forced to use “saved” with very different meanings. That is why it is best to use “saved” only to mean an irreversible judgment by God, that comes after the end of termporal life. Justified is the proper word. The only reward in Catholicism is Eternal Life. Only protestants believe otherwise. The differing ways in which you use "saved’ is getting you into trouble.

That is your opinion of course but I see salvation as a more encompasing thing than just one thing. For instance we are saved from sin, We are saved from futility, we are saved from damnation. We are saved from ourselves. I see that the catholic church in inclusive of all these things not just justification. The Catholic church believes Justification is a process and not just a legal declaration. Salvation would include this process as well as the other things I meant. I think I looking at it more holistically rather than just one thing. You’re looking at salvation just as the end game. I’m not. I don’t think the church does either.

consider your viewpoint far more protestant than Catholic.

except for the clarifications already made I may not disagree with you save for the fact I’m not protestant. Though I was. I’m obedient to the church though I struggle with aspects of the faith. I hold to the Eucharist. I submit to the authority of the church and will admit when I’m wrong. I agree with Origen when he said that if there was something he said that the church disagreed with he doesn’t believe it either.

No. Theological faith means everything in one’s life that is obedient to God’s teachings; viz., belief and actions based on that belief. Salvation logically can only mean a judgment by God that one is going to heaven. That comes after temporal death. Use Justification, not salvation, in all other contexts.

My view of what the catachism says and what you’re saying here seem to be in conflict.

No. If we take his hand we are cooperating with God’s grace. We are then justified, not saved

I disagree with your last part. We are not yet Justified at this point and yes we are cooperating with Gods grace. I think the catholic view is not that we are being declaired righteous so much as being made righteous. I was reading the disertation of a priest I know who went to the Gregorian University in Rome and certainly this was closer to his position. Note he also speaks of the Catholic as being incerted into the filial relationship. Not that we are Christ but we have the father/son relationship as Christ would have us have. I don’t think thats a very protestant position. But I hope I clarified some of what I was saying. You may find I’m not so protestant as you think. However,

What I said from the “beginning”? I would hope I have been consistent. If not, please indicate how so.

I’m not sure you are because it seems clear that you’re indicating that we save ourselves. I doubt thats how the catholic church views it. We certainly participate but thats not the same thing. I see it as God having done it for us and we are given the opportunity to participate.

 

[eric51]

, I’m not sure you are because it seems clear that you’re indicating that we save ourselves. I doubt thats how the catholic church views it. We certainly participate but thats not the same thing. I see it as God having done it for us and we are given the opportunity to participate.

I asked you to give me examples of how I have not been consistent. You have failed to do so. Moreover, I have **NEVER **indicated we save ourselves. What I have repeatedly shown is that God wants us to take action **stemming from His grace **to participate in His Plan. So, criticizing me for believing that we save ourselves is wrong. My view is completely Catholic.

Your view, while nominally not at odds with dogmatic Catholicism, could easily be mistaken for Lutheran or Presbyterian.

In Christ

 

[rinnie]

The Mormon Church also doesn’t line up with Christian precedent; its theology simply isn’t found anywhere in christian history, prior to its invention starting in 1830.

A new book claiming to be “another testament of Jesus Christ” appears out of nowhere, based on alleged golden plates that are to found nowhere, supposedly narrating a history of a lost hebrew tribe and civilization here in America of which evidence is found nowhere.

Mormonism sure has a lot of nowheres. It makes one wonder.

In Christ

:thumbsup:spot on there eric. But we got to pray for them and let them know that we are still all Brothers and Sisters in the faith. And hope they will ask questions, and know that they should. Its okay. And all we can do is answer in the best way we can and let them know we respect them. But in the same way disagree with them. Thats the hard part. To let them know just because we disagree we still repect them for the truth they do have and teach. And hopefully can all come together one day to one Church and one faith because there is only ONE GOD! God Bless you all. And if I do not talk to ya have a Great fourth and safe one.

 

[sambos671]

This is what you said:

. Sanctification, as a theological concept, really means no more than Justification. It is appropriately used after one is deemed to have achieved initial justification, and subsequently on his life journey of faith and salvation, achieves justification again and again.

Cooperating with God’s grace, through our Human Will, is not “meaningless”. Jesus Christ, God, doesn’t seem to think so. And, I would hope, His opinion counts–afterall, He gave His life as an expiation to the Father, on our behalf, so that Grace, not Law, would be the basis on which we, our Will, good works and all, are judged.

Faith Alone makes a mockery of that Sacrifice, and of the opportunity we have, in God’s Eyes, to merit eternal life, through our Faith AND Actions.

which I initially said was a good post but something caught my eye which I bolded and for which I asked clarification. Grace is unmerited or else defies the definition of Grace. Yet you accuse me of being a calvinist when I was thinking along these lines with regard to faith.

Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to Move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth’” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd Edition pg 41-41 or ref 552, 1814, 1996, 206

Also note in my reply to you I quote directly from the Catachism with this regard to faith specifically

You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life.

Note the Catachism later also says

In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “what do you ask of God’s Church?” and the answer is “Faith.” “What does your faith offer you?” “Eternal life”

Also note directly after with regard to Faith the Catachism says

Salvation comes from God alone

So this is what I was thinking with regards to faith. I do not believe faith is “real” unless faith is acted upon. To say you believe in Jesus must mean you do what he says. So like James says faith without works is dead. Faith alone (or belief alone) does not save. Faith with works enacted in love is the saving kind. Note you also said

Chuckle. If I knew the “magic formula” [assuming there is a magic formula] I would be God.

Seems to indicate that there might be a possibility of a magic formula yet this is what the Church teaches in the catachism

We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities that they express, which faith allows us to touch.

So the fact is that there are realities already existant that the “proceedures” alow us to reflect not the other way round. Now upon your clarification you mention

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, Gal 3:13. Read Rom 8:1-3. By offering Himself in Sacrifice, the Father takes away the curse of the Old Covenant which required perfect adherence to its strictures. Any failure to fully comply resulted in a guilty verdict [death]. Sinful man could never measure up. It is the Law as a system that had to be replaced, Eph 2;15. In its place Christ brings the New Covenant of Grace which offers us salvation from sin and death. Read 1 John 2:2, Christ’s sacrifice provides grace to save the whole world.

However, Christ did not take on the sins of the whole world,

The first point you make here I agree with however, you start your next paragraph with this statement and it doesn’t seem to jive exactly with what the Catachism says here:

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my servant” as a myster of universal redemption, that is, as the ransome that would free men from the slavery of sin

and again

By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the sufferng servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes - 517

and again

Christ’s whole life sxpresses his mission: “to serve and to give his liefe as a ransom for many”

and again

When he borethe sin of many," and who “shall make many to be accountaed righteous,” for" he shall bare their iniquities." Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

You mention here is opposing protestant theology that

Whereas, Catholics do not view justification as a one-time act. In Catholic theology, there is no meaningful difference between Justification and Sanctification.

I kind of agree but I’m not sure if you see the difference. Sanctification is just one aspect of Justification Here is what the catachism says

Justification detaches man from sin…Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ…Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ…Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom…

You see Protestants as an antithesis to Catholic and I understand why. I also see them as coming out of the Catholic church and each one seems to focus on one aspect of catholic faith to the detriment to the whole. The Catholic view is holistic with regard to the entirety of truth given where protestants only have bits and pieces missing out on the whole thing.

 

[sambos671]

I asked you to give me examples of how I have not been consistent. You have failed to do so. Moreover, I have **NEVER **indicated we save ourselves. What I have repeatedly shown is that God wants us to take action **stemming from His grace **to participate in His Plan. So, criticizing me for believing that we save ourselves is wrong. My view is completely Catholic.

Your view, while nominally not at odds with dogmatic Catholicism, could easily be mistaken for Lutheran or Presbyterian.

In Christ

I don’t believe in Consubstantiation so you can leave me out of Lutheranism. I’m not a big fan of Knox so you nor am I close to being a 5 point Calvinist so you can leave me out of being a Presbyterian.

Though my views of Catholic doctrine primarily stem from my discourses with friends I have in the Diocese that I live in, or more specifically, priest who work in the diocese. One actually works in the Tribunal. Also I gain my knowledge of Catholic Doctrine from the Catachism. Which I have highlighted and refferenced. Now it is fair that I’ve been protestant for many years and may have residual “protestant” views. However, I think you make more of them than is appropiate. For instance I could accuse you of having a point of view that relegates christianity to holding views similar to that of Islam where by you perform works with the hope that Just maybe when you’re weighed by the feather of justice you may be held righteous and attain eternal life. In which, case grace is just a word rather than an element of faith. However, I don’t believe thats exactly where you’re coming from and so I don’t make that assertion. Though I do believe you’ve been less charitable with me.

Now as for not showing you. That’s true I didn’t. Because most of my discourse with you has been to clairfy what you thought and explain back to you how what you said has come accross. I wanted to see what it is you’re acutally saying. The moment I question what you said and try to give an better idea of what I was thinking you accused me of being a “nominal catholic” or a “calvinist” or some sort of protestant. Yet, I’ve assured you I submit to the Catholic teaching. These protestants have not. Big difference. Now I will show you what you’ve said and how I’ve understood what you have said. If you want to call me a protestant; fine. It is your oppinion and you are free to have them. Yet if I do not describe myself in this respect then please respect that I believe that I am Catholic and adhere to its principles. Up to this point I haven’t “showed you” also because of the time and effort which is required but here I will take this up since you seem to be very condensending towards my person.

 

[rinnie]

Getting back to the question at hand the reason I think that we can be sure that the Catholic Church is the true Church is because it was the Church started by the Apostles. And it still has all of the original Tradition, scripture etc that dates back to when Jesus walked this earth.

And the reason the Church must be Catholic is because Catholic means all are welcome. It is universal. It is open for all to learn and unite the same as it was at the time of Jesus. And as I stated before it has all of the Sacraments. Thats real important.

 

[eric51]

Getting back to the question at hand the reason I think that we can be sure that the Catholic Church is the true Church is because it was the Church started by the Apostles. And it still has all of the original Tradition, scripture etc that dates back to when Jesus walked this earth.

And the reason the Church must be Catholic is because Catholic means all are welcome. It is universal. It is open for all to learn and unite the same as it was at the time of Jesus. And as I stated before it has all of the Sacraments. Thats real important.

One need only to give a cursory review of the Gospels to immediately see that the doctrines contained in them are Catholic doctrines: Eucharist, Confession, clerical hierarchy: priests [presbyteros], bishops [episkopos], baptism, Mary as Mother of God. Additionally, in Book of Apocalypse we see that the structure of the book follows the structure of an early Mass [Liturgy of the Word (scrolls) and the Heavenly Liturgy]. The Book of Apocalypse is absolutely astounding in the strong correspondence between the book’s structure and the Liturgy of a Catholic/Orthodox Mass.

The further back one goes in Christian history, the more and more one is faced with the Catholic/Orthodox Church as the Christian Church.

 

[Lilyflower]

I tend to give credence also to our separated brethren in Orthodox as 'co-equals

Blessings and peace

 

[eric51]

Though my views of Catholic doctrine primarily stem from my discourses with friends I have in the Diocese that I live in, or more specifically, priest who work in the diocese. One actually works in the Tribunal. Also I gain my knowledge of Catholic Doctrine from the Catachism. Which I have highlighted and refferenced. Now it is fair that I’ve been protestant for many years and may have residual “protestant” views. However, I think you make more of them than is appropiate.

If I have made more of them than is appropriate, I apologize. I guess I was taken aback by what I considered the alien tenor of your pronouncements. For whatever reason, converts from protestantism tend to make up a large portion of active Catholic theologians. And, as you said, conversion does not eliminate all protestant antecedents. I guess my detecting residual protestant attitudes among many “catholic” theologians, is getting under my skin.I’m sorry if I took it out on you.

I have been particularly concerned by your use of the word “elect”. And it is this issue I want to address.

Catholics view election in basically these terms:

God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). God’s foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. God desires all men to be saved. Jesus died to redeem all men. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. Those who do persevere are God’s elect. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. **We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God’s commandments **(1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).

1. Important distinctions about election as used in Catholicism, with protestantism, involves the following:

**Predestination is not predetermination **:

"Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)

Predestination is God’s decree of the happiness of the elect. God’s infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God’s foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actualityGod foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.

1. Election is a consequence of God’s foreknowledge :

By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly **foresees **will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved

.

1. Free will can resist and reject God’s grace :

When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, “keep the commandments,” and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: “cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste” and so on (Rev 21:8). If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.

1. We cannot confuse Election with being “Born Again” :

The set of those who are “born again” (in Catholic and historic Christian understanding those who have been regenerated “of water and Spirit” in the Sacrament of Baptism – John 3:3,5; Acts 2:38) is not necessarily co-extensive with the set of those who will persevere and gain eternal life. Born-again Christians can do fall away. Otherwise free will and (mortal) sin are merely fictitious.

CALVINISM vs. CATHOLICISM:

Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

In Christ

QUOTE]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Bump​

 

[Lilyflower]

louie,
I,m sorry to hear that you are more obedient to bishops than you are to the word of God.
Did you actually read the passages about judging others? What do you think the Lord is telling you in his word? Are you being obedient to your Savior or a mere man?

Praying for you,
jean

Christ chose His Apostles. If He CHOSE them then we may assume He knew what He was doing.

I am willing to follow their successors on the strength that they teach what He taught.

It is no longer a case of God v Bishops but God WITH His appointed Bishops

Blessings and peace.

 

[Lilyflower]

Bump​

Amen, we have a lot to learn from others. That does not mean however that we are wrong, just a bit over enthusiastic.

There is good in all religions.

The Holy Spirit goes where He wills

 

[thirdn6]

(RSV) Luke 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, `This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’

Does anyone here really think Jesus didn’t plan ahead before building His Church???
Does anyone here really think that He left His Church wanting for her to guide the faithful until it is finished?

The Catholic Church we know today is still the same Christian church He started to build 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church we know today did not apotasize at all (as some groups claim) and the reason is because Jesus words are true. He himself planned it well. Even saying He will be with her all way until the end of time. Even through scandals and heresies. No doubt, It is the only Catholic Church - His Church.

And those who mock her are dead wrong.

 

[sambos671]

sambos671;5395447:

Though my views of Catholic doctrine primarily stem from my discourses with friends I have in the Diocese that I live in, or more specifically, priest who work in the diocese. One actually works in the Tribunal. Also I gain my knowledge of Catholic Doctrine from the Catachism. Which I have highlighted and refferenced. Now it is fair that I’ve been protestant for many years and may have residual “protestant” views. However, I think you make more of them than is appropiate.

If I have made more of them than is appropriate, I apologize. I guess I was taken aback by what I considered the alien tenor of your pronouncements. For whatever reason, converts from protestantism tend to make up a large portion of active Catholic theologians. And, as you said, conversion does not eliminate all protestant antecedents. I guess my detecting residual protestant attitudes among many “catholic” theologians, is getting under my skin.I’m sorry if I took it out on you.

I have been particularly concerned by your use of the word “elect”. And it is this issue I want to address.

Catholics view election in basically these terms:

God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). God’s foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. God desires all men to be saved. Jesus died to redeem all men. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. Those who do persevere are God’s elect. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. **We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God’s commandments **(1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).

QUOTE]
It seems we agree with the Catholic view of election. Though I would add that there is a mystery to it. I think simplistic terms with regard to it leads to the unending arguments we see in the protestant world of Calvinism vs. Armenianism. I do not exclude free will nor do I exclude the responsibility of the individual Christian. My consern with some of your points was making me think that in the end we save ourselves. However, inidcated this is not what you are saying. Which is good. Participation I agree with whole heartedly. Like our Blessed Mother participated for the incarnation yet was kept sinless by God. She could not have participated unless God had first kept her. If you get my meaning which is why she can claim that Jesus is her savior. Yet the Church views the incarnation as a total work of God. Yet Mary Participated. And so us. We are privileged to participate in our salvation yet our salvation is a total work of God and its because of his Grace that we can.

I understand your view of Protestant theologians coming into the Chruch and establishing a framework of Thought unfamiliar by many Catholics. Yet I see it as the work of God. God answering Jesus final prayer. I was raised Catholic until I was 15. My family nomally Catholic. In otherwords we went to mass and did the stuff but Jesus was left out for the rest of the time. Anyone who showed the slightest interest in God would “be the priest or nun” the rest of us lived the way of the world. We just made sure we went to confession on Saturday so we could recieve communion on Sunday with out any of it making a difference. It was the Protestants who showed me that I needed more. (this is my experience not yours I’m sure) I believe that God wanted me to draw close to him in relationship that somehow my family ignored. Pope Benedict in his Jesus of Nazerith book states that this relationship is of “all importance”. So where my family was neglegent my protestant brothers showed the way. However, once God solidified my relationship with him he showed me the truth of the Church and how it demonstrates how this relationship is to take form. And that it (the Church) has followed Jesus’ commission to go and make disciples of all men teaching them what he thought them. That is my spiritual journey. I think for many Catholics who had left could tell you similiar stories. But we see a change. Catachesis is becoming much better in this country and the return of many protestants will (I believe) help those like my family and prayerfully they (people like my family) will never leave the church.

 

[Lilyflower]

I agree that most of the least committed Protestants show greater commitment than the least committed Catholics.

I have witnessed Catholics who mock the Catholic Church!!
Some Catholics who see ‘Sunday Mass’ as the only contact necessary. We all know of Catholics who never set foot in a Church, yet are very swift to condemn Protestantism, while the rest of us enjoy ecumenical relationships and celebrate of our mutual love for Christ.

Similarly, those who routinely arrive just before the Gospel and/or leave at Communion. One wonders the extent of their commitment and indeed why they bother to go at all!!.

But equally, in every Catholic Community there is a solid core of followers committed to Christ, pray daily, read the Bible, meditate, involved in SVP/KSC/CWS etc, organise/run events, pilgrimages, visit the sick etc, never judgemental and help creation where-ever possible.

Indeed have been seriously harrassed and persecuted at work three times for being Catholic, once by an Orangeman and twice by fellow Catholics!!! One occasion found a copy of the Benedictus my desk drawer, reported it as ‘having bible material at work!’
She did not recognise the Benedictus [Lk 1 68-79], [Magnificat and Nunc Demitis [Canticles of Mary -Lk1 46:55 and Canticle of Simeon - Lk 2 29-32] as prime prayers of the Catholic Church!! How tragic is that!!!

The Catholic Charasmatic Renewal is very God and Bible centred. Many of its followers gifted with healing, prophecy and visions. There are many third Order members whose commitment to Christ is exemplary.

I think daily witness in our lives by being loving forgiving helpful and tolerant, are of equal importance as prayerful commitment. I have witnessed lots of this among committed Catholics.

Blessings and peace

 

[Sword_Brethren]

eric51;5397040:

I was raised Catholic until I was 15. My family nomally Catholic. In otherwords we went to mass and did the stuff but Jesus was left out for the rest of the time. Anyone who showed the slightest interest in God would “be the priest or nun” the rest of us lived the way of the world. We just made sure we went to confession on Saturday so we could recieve communion on Sunday with out any of it making a difference. It was the Protestants who showed me that I needed more. (this is my experience not yours I’m sure) I believe that God wanted me to draw close to him in relationship that somehow my family ignored. Pope Benedict in his Jesus of Nazerith book states that this relationship is of “all importance”. So where my family was neglegent my protestant brothers showed the way. However, once God solidified my relationship with him he showed me the truth of the Church and how it demonstrates how this relationship is to take form. .

That is an experience that could happen in any religion. In all religions there are people who just go through the motions. I was raised in no religion and in my early twenties I started to search for truth. I started going to a protestant church and I was involved in it’s college group. But from my experience many of those young people there were very impure. Some of them were committing sexual sins that I would never dream about doing now as a Catholic. These sins happened because they did not have the whole truth. I left protestantism because Christ did found the Holy Catholic Church and in it one has life.

 

[jean8]

I could jump into the same pit of “you are wrong, we are right” validating my point of not recognizing the benefit all serve.

I respect Catholicism for a number of things historically, nonetheless I do not tell someone not to pursue RCIA or Methodists or not believe in anything except what one chooses.

court,
And you chose the Mormon Church? Why?

jean

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

These kinds of threads seem to always go on forever…To get a thread to be lengthy, all you have to do is bait and say something like, “Catholics are superior and their Church is the only source of truth, period!” or “Come on Protestants, will you just…” lol “Why the Catholics are wrong about everything!” etc. etc.

Ay yay yay:shrug:

 

[eric51]

QUOTE]

I do not believe faith is “real” unless faith is acted upon. To say you believe in Jesus must mean you do what he says. So like James says faith without works is dead. Faith alone (or belief alone) does not save. Faith with works enacted in love is the saving kind.

Faith can be real without being acted upon. However, such a faith is NOT SALVIFIC. Note that James never classifies faith without works as not being “faith”. He does point out that such a faith while real, will not save.

Note you also said
Quote:
Chuckle. If I knew the “magic formula” [assuming there is a magic formula] I would be God.

Seems to indicate that there might be a possibility of a magic formula yet this is what the Church teaches in the catachism
Quote:
We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities that they express, which faith allows us to touch.

Your quote of the Catechism itself discounts magic formulas. Moreover, my response to you was in response to your question of how much works will save. The question itself is impertinent, and is often used by protestants to caste contempt on those who tell them that works must accompany a salvific faith.

So the fact is that there are realities already existant that the “proceedures” alow us to reflect not the other way round.

Don’t follow you.

Now upon your clarification you mention
Quote:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, Gal 3:13. Read Rom 8:1-3. By offering Himself in Sacrifice, the Father takes away the curse of the Old Covenant which required perfect adherence to its strictures. Any failure to fully comply resulted in a guilty verdict [death]. Sinful man could never measure up. It is the Law as a system that had to be replaced, Eph 2;15. In its place Christ brings the New Covenant of Grace which offers us salvation from sin and death. Read 1 John 2:2, Christ’s sacrifice provides grace to save the whole world.

However, Christ did not take on the sins of the whole world,

The first point you make here I agree with however, you start your next paragraph with this statement and it doesn’t seem to jive exactly with what the Catachism says here:
Quote:
The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my servant” as a myster of universal redemption, that is, as the ransome that would free men from the slavery of sin

“Ransome” refers to Jesus being incarnated as a representative of the human race and to willingly undergo His Passion and Crucifixion for purpose of making an expiation to the Father. It does not refer to His taking on mankind’s sins.

and again
Quote:
By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the sufferng servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes - 517

and again
Quote:
Christ’s whole life sxpresses his mission: “to serve and to give his liefe as a ransom for many”

and again
Quote:
When he borethe sin of many," and who “shall make many to be accountaed righteous,” for" he shall bare their iniquities." Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

Suggest you speak to a Catholic priest about this matter. If you refer back to my original post on this topic, I pointed out that the wording in sections of the NT, from which the Catechism makes reference, can be very misleading.

Christ cannot have taken on our sins. Being God, He is Perfect Justice. Justice for sins is Death, Eternal Death. I cannot make it any simpler than that. I again, advise you to speak to a Priest on this matter.

You mention here is opposing protestant theology that
Quote:
Whereas, Catholics do not view justification as a one-time act. In Catholic theology, there is no meaningful difference between Justification and Sanctification.

I kind of agree but I’m not sure if you see the difference. Sanctification is just one aspect of Justification Here is what the catachism says
Quote:
Justification detaches man from sin…Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ…Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ…Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom…

Don’t see your point. Justification makes us right with God, and it follows sincere repentance for our sins. Yes, Justification, is a freely given to us as a result of Jesus’ Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection. Justification doesn’t establish cooperation, it is the **RESULT **of our willingly cooperating with God’s Grace. **That willingness on our part, however, is the result of God’s grace. Sanctification is most appropriately used to describe our further developing justification as a result of our improving our cooperation with God’s grace. It is **no different ****from Justification, however, it is appropriately used to describe repeating instances of our justification in our lifetimes…

You see Protestants as an antithesis to Catholic and I understand why.

Not sure you do understand. Protestantism is an antithesis to TRUTH. It is a personal system of belief and lifestyle that capitalizes on one’s subjective “understanding,” one’s personal preferences, and exalts those subjectives by attributing them to GOD. It is blasphemy par excellance.

I also see them as coming out of the Catholic church and each one seems to focus on one aspect of catholic faith to the detriment to the whole.

They reject the Catholic Church. They can only be described as “coming out of the Catholic Church” as one can say Lucifer came out of heaven on his way to hell.

In Christ

 

[sambos671]

Out of curiosity how do you explain the theif on the Cross?