What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[Rocky]

Thank you 1beleevr,

The biblical view of salvation is that it is a passing from DEATH unto LIFE.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

So why do so many non-catholics believe that saints in heaven are dead, when the bible clearly states that God is God of the living, and as you state, salvation is passing from death unto life?

 

[distracted]

I totally agree with the sentiments of this post. This is EXACTLY what I have been at pains to point out since I first came on this forum.

Salvation is always by GOD’S GRACE ALONE; this is why there are true Christians who are ‘Catholics’ and true Christians who are affiliated under various ‘denominational labels’. The Lord knows those who are His. There is only ONE, TRUE UNIVERSAL CHURCH which was founded by Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost. This Church is a SPIRITUAL ORGANISM which is INTIMATELY CONNECTED to Christ through REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH. There is no other Church!

Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of humans. He is a Mighty Saviour and in His awesome grace He draws His people to Himself, into the true/universal Body of Christ. I praise God that I have met ‘Catholics’ who I regard as true Christians, who are saved, who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ and who will be in heaven with me. Praise God!

Please hear me carefully; the so-called institutional Church does NOT SAVE - only Christ saves. Christ saves repentant sinners who put their faith and trust in CHRIST’S FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS as their only way of Salvation!

It really is simple. I have met fine ‘Catholics’ who are Christians; but they are not saved because they are ‘Catholics’ - they are saved by Christ’s blood alone. The same applies to so-called ‘Protestants’ and so on.

I have met, furthermore, hypocrites who are ‘Protestants’ and hypocrites who are ‘Catholics’; I have met Saints who are ‘Catholics’ and Saints who are ‘Protestants’. I think you get the point.

I am convinced that Christ did not found an INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH such as is seen in the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC, in my view, is an historical phenomena that developed in history. Having said this, though, I rejoice that God has used the RCC at times to bring glory to Himself through the centuries and I rejoice that God has had some of His precious people in this institution.

I do NOT believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, nor do I buy into some of the excessive ‘bagging’ of the RCC by certain sections of ‘Protestantism’.

This is where I am at in my Christian life and walk. I am grateful for the ‘Catholics’ on this forum board who I consider as true Christians and friends In Christ.

In the love and grace of Christ, the Saviour

Craig

As some saint once said: The Church IS Christ…

maybe you kinda have to be Catholic to fully realize that truth… but it happens to be true nonetheless.

I’ve been in Protestnat churches… many different ones throughout my younger years… I’ve also been outside both… I’ve been here and I’ve been there…

but you and many others here (probably) do not know wht it is to be devoutly Catholic… to know the teachings/history, etc… of the original Church… to know the EXPERIENCE of Catholicism (the Real Presence…)…

*Also: Jesus said that he was going to establish a Church (St Mt 16:18) that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against… *

seems to me we should belong to that one… the one that Hell will not prevail against… Jesus doesn’t do things like establish Churches and then say “but it doesn’t matter if you are a member thereof of not…” makes no sense…

 

[Peter_J]

Hi bobzills,

Really? Then how do you explain the declaration of many Popes, including for example, Pope John XXII: Nequaquam sine dolore (November 21, 1321)
Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen ac locis disparibus puniendas.
“The Roman Church teaches …] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations…”

Well, the obvious explanation would be that Pope John XII’s statement was false. (I’m not necessarily saying that’s the correct explanation, just that it’s the obvious one.)

 

[Peter_J]

Unless one wants to take the position that the Church has been overcome by the evil one and has begun to teach error since, say, Vatican II, there must be a way to explain these apparent contradictions.

Nice. When people don’t agree with your approach, just accuse them of believing that “the Church has been overcome by the evil one”. Good job.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Nice. When people don’t agree with your approach, just accuse them of believing that “the Church has been overcome by the evil one”. Good job.

I mean no offense. Perhaps I have been misunderstood. Personally, I am sure that previous statements can be reconciled with current teachings, and I do not believe that the Catholic Church has, in any way, been overcome by the evil one. I also do not recall accusing anyone of believing that the Church has been overcome by the evil one.

Catholics in this thread have been saying that even one error would mean that the Church has been overcome. When Catholics suggest that the modern Church is teaching error, this is simply a source of confusion for me.

I still stand by this statement:

Me:

Unless one wants to take the position that the Church has been overcome by the evil one and has begun to teach error since, say, Vatican II, there must be a way to explain these apparent contradictions.

Since most Catholics do not, in any way, believe that the Church has been overcome or is teaching error, then I think that most Catholics would agree that previous statements by popes and councils can be reconciled with present teaching.

This reconciliation could be as simple as stating that either the previous statement, the present statement, or both, are not infallible statements or binding doctrines.

 

[Peter_J]

I mean no offense. Perhaps I have been misunderstood. Personally, I am sure that previous statements can be reconciled with current teachings, and I do not believe that the Catholic Church has, in any way, been overcome by the evil one. I also do not recall accusing anyone of believing that the Church has been overcome by the evil one.

Well, I admit that I exaggerated a little, but only a little.

Here’s your statement:

Unless one wants to take the position that the Church has been overcome by the evil one and has begun to teach error since, say, Vatican II, there must be a way to explain these apparent contradictions.

Hence, if I were to say that Pope John XXII’s statement (quoted earlier) is false (which I haven’t said, but just hypothetically), then your conclusion from that would be that the Church has been overcome by the evil one, right?

Since most Catholics do not, in any way, believe that the Church has been overcome or is teaching error, then I think that most Catholics would agree that previous statements by popes and councils can be reconciled with present teaching.

Oh really? Even the false statements that have been made by past popes? (Or do you believe that no pope has ever made a false statement?)

This reconciliation could be as simple as stating that either the previous statement, the present statement, or both, are not infallible statements or binding doctrines.

Oh come on now! That’s just flat-out silly.

So, according to you, we can “reconcile” Arian teachings with Nicene teaching, right? We just say “The Arian teachings weren’t infallible or binding.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cazayoux,

What an excellent response - and, one that was a real pleasure to read! Thanks!

Help me to see this CERTAINTY in scripture that CLEARLY AFFIRMs this.

Your checklist of what to DO to have a certainty of salvation is:
1 - genuinely come to Christ
2 - repent of sins
3 - trust deeply in the finished work of Christ on the Cross

Catholics absolutely believe all of these are necessary … but we don’t stop there.
We listen to ALL that Jesus said that we must DO to be saved.

As a Catholic, I believe what the ***Bible ***says in terms of what one must do in order to get to Heaven …
Have faith (Rom 3:28, John 3:16, 1 John 4:15)
forgive the sins of others (Matt 6:14-15)
care for one’s family (1 Tim 5:8)
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46)
keep the Commandments (Matt 19:17 and 1 John 2:3-4)
love my brother (1 John 2:10)
deny ourselves and pick up our cross daily (Luke 9:23)
do the will of the Father (Matt 7:21)
eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man (John 6:51-58)
give a return for the talents the Master has given us (Matt 25:14-30)
be baptized (John 3:3-5, 1 Ptr 3:20-21)
confess our sins (1 John 1:9)…
all by the grace of God.

You speak about a certainty of salvation that Paul never spoke of.
Help me to see this CERTAINTY in scripture that CLEARLY AFFIRMs this.
Please provide the scripture.

Cheers!

michel

God bless

 

[1beleevr]

You are so right tqualey:thumbsup:It is not by what we do,so much as who He is and His Amazing Grace and mercy using a euphemism like "having our passes stamped, is in fact taking a bit of poetic license, indicating that that “stamp” is indeed the mark of the Lamb, in essence His blood! With God, something called Acceptance based performance, is in place! In other words, because we are accepted by Him, we are inspired to do good works for Him:thumbsup:And before someone invokes James 2:20, please read further! I interpret this to mean, that because we have faith, we do good works, and the two complement each other! On the flip side, Performance based acceptance is one in which people believe that they are measured, as are their rewards, by the amount of good works they do And until just a few years ago, my participation in Matthew 25:31-46, was spotty at best But now, I am deeply immersed in serving, feeding, witnessing, and intercessory prayer:thumbsup:

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr…you said:

I aure hope that joe370 is the only one yelling and screaming in this thread! It has been interesting and combative, inspiring and informative! And I must say, benedictus2, that the comment about me putting out scripture, and basically saying,“it is so!”, seems to be the running theme in this forumI have seen entire pages of scripture, to support one’s position! As to Mstthew 16:18, let me present a theory, about why some may not immediately accept the catholic position. In reading the Old Testament, and also many times in the New Testament, God and Jesus are referred to as the Rock:thumbsup:So, with that in mind, why is it so farfetched for us to believe that Jesus was speaking about Himself in Matthew 16:18? Consider the Sanhedrin’s confusion, when He told them He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three(3) days Scripture interpretation is something that humans do constantly, and then it’s a matter of who’s wrong and who’s right! As far as confession; catholics go, is it weekly, or as needed, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure if it is mandatory, highly recommended or what. As for myself, I have been confessing sins directly to God, through my intrcessor Jesus Christ for 42 years, and it’s still working I have on occasion, if I felt comfortable, shared with a pastor, about a sin that I had already confessed(James 5:16), but I do not ask him to forgive it. I know that only God can forgive sins.And when I am referred to as a catholic hater, or other less than desirable names, I smile, and shrug, thankful for the peace of Christ. And I notice also, that no one comments on activities like street ministry, outreaches, feeding the homeless, etc., things that are addressed by our Lord in Matthew 9:37-38, Matthew 25:31-46, and Mark 10:45! I mean individuals, not so much as a church. So, even though we don’t see eye to eye, and I grate on you r nerves, I love all of you, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ:thumbsup:Onward to more posting!!

YOU THINK I’M SCREAMING BECAUSE I’M USING UPPER CASE CHARACTERS? NOT AT ALL MY FRIEND; I’M MERELY DOING THIS SO THE READER CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN!!! Tell you what, I will use color to make the distinction from here on out!

By the way, you will never grate on my nerves; life is way to short for petty hostility; God is love, and we should all follow HIS example; we should also love all those who are not brothers and sisters in Christ —right?

Regarding Matthew 16:18, [with the exception of – the rock] --do you believe that Jesus Christ built a church and said even the gates of hell would never defeat her? We know that His established church was/is built on the apostles, circa 33 AD; which ekklesia in the world today existed when Jesus said: *“take it to the church.” * Matthew 18:17

Matthew 16:18 - "Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father…

Because God provided the revelation directly to Peter, Jesus changes his name to Kepha, which means Rock; remember, Abraham was also referred to as Rock.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

According to your reasoning, this swap should make just as much sense, my friend:

And so I say to you, you are non-denominationlist, and upon this catholic, I will build my church…

Doesn’t quite cut the mustard, does it; the second rock refers directly to the first rock; if you were there when Jesus spoke these words, you would have heard: you are kepha, and on this kepha…

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

What is the significance of giving Peter, and later, the rest of the apostles, these metaphorical keys, and were they to be passed on to successive disciples/teachers upon their demise?

God bless my friend!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1beleevr,

Yes, God has shown us His Amazing Grace. Going out into the “…highways and byways…” to minister to others is a great work of God carried on through each of us. By the way…I it was close to expiring …so, I passed the ‘vision test’… and just renewed my ‘Poetic License’…

To my way of thinking the biggest problem with OSAS is that it sounds like, “Lord, Lord…” and this was from the group that preached in the name of Christ and worked miracles… and God says, “I never knew you.” Following Christ means believing in His Saving and Redemptive Mission - and then (with the Grace of God) DOING what He told us to do: “Love one another, as I have loved you.”

There is one thing you said that has me curious…

You are so right tqualey:thumbsup:It is not by what we do,so much as who He is and His Amazing Grace and mercy using a euphemism like "having our passes stamped, is in fact taking a bit of poetic license, indicating that that “stamp” is indeed the mark of the Lamb, in essence His blood! With God, something called Acceptance based performance, is in place! In other words, because we are accepted by Him, we are inspired to do good works for Him:thumbsup:And before someone invokes James 2:20, please read further! I interpret this to mean, that because we have faith, we do good works, and the two complement each other! On the flip side, Performance based acceptance is one in which people believe that they are measured, as are their rewards, by the amount of good works they do And until just a few years ago, my participation in Matthew 25:31-46, was spotty at best But now, I am deeply immersed in serving, feeding, witnessing, and intercessory prayer:thumbsup:

Emphasis added.

Scripture is very complex…and even great minds have had tremendous problems trying to understand God’s Word. Different languages, different times in histroy, different customs… all leading one to actually not comprehend what has been written. Those who would try and interpret Scripture for themselves run into a two-fold problem:

1.) it is expressly forbidden in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and

2.) there is an excellent chance the self-interpreter will get it wrong.

As Catholics, we believe that Jesus promised His Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Chruch from teaching error. The Catholic Church also has the power to bind and lose requirements. That same Catholic Church that provided the Bible you use today (it may have some sections missing…but, that is not the fault of the CC! ) provides God’s meaning of what is written.

Best wishes and please continue to do the good works you mentioned above.

God bless

 

[1beleevr]

Joe370: The onlyeason I implied that you were shouting, or screaming, was because I received a warning on another thread for using all capital lettersI was told, that it was tantamount to shouting! But let’s agree on one thing; no one can tell anyone else that they’re not saved, or their salvation isn’t secure I have not expressed that idea on this thread, or any thread for that matter. But reading some of these posts, one could get the idea, that if they didn’t follow a certain set of guidlines to the letter, that their salvation was not valid! Not pointing fingers, just making an observation! And since you have shown where Abraham was also called the rock, along with God, and Jesus, then you must admit that someone could, and probably say that the Rock was Jesus, with Peter as the first church leader, which I believe was made up of Jews, who got saved, and followed Jesus, correct! Who’s right, who’s wrong, who knows? When we meet our Saviour on that glorious day, will any of this matter?:thumbsup:May the Lord of Heaven’s Armies richly bless you, my brother in Christ!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Blast it all; I am not remotely making myself understood. I think it would be best if I start over.

According to some Catholics on this board, if anything false were ever to be defined as doctrine by the Catholic Church, then this would mean that Hell has triumphed over the Church. Since faithful Catholics believe that Hell has not triumphed over the Church, then they must also believe that nothing false has ever been defined as doctrine. Therefore, if anything false has been said by a pope or council, then the false statement must not have been an official doctrine of the Church.

The difficulty for me comes when it appears that two beliefs contradict each other. I’ll mention limbo because that is what got this all started. Pope John XXII said that those with original sin only (unbaptized infants, I believe, would apply) will go to Hell, though suffering lesser torments (perhaps experiencing the natural happiness of limbo). The Catechism of the Catholic Church implies (at least to me) that we may hope for salvation for unbaptized infants.

I see several possibilities here:
1. Pope John XXII and the CCC are both expressing opinions, in which case a disagreement does not equal the defeat of the Catholic Church.
2. Either Pope John XXII or the CCC is expressing official teaching, while the other is expressing a fallible opinion, in which case a disagreement does not equal the defeat of the Catholic Church.
3. Pope John XXII and the CCC are both expressing official teaching, but they can be reconciled, as the hope mentioned in the CCC means that original sin might somehow be removed apart from baptism, which would send the unbaptized infants to Heaven without contradicting Pope John XXII. In this case, the Catholic Church has not been defeated.
4. Pope John XXII and the CCC are both expressing official teaching, but they cannot be reconciled, as the hope mentioned in the CCC means that unbaptized infants might enter Heaven while still possessing original sin. In this case, the Catholic Church has been defeated.

Personally, I think that option number 3 is the most likely, with option number 4 being not likely at all.

What I should have said in my earlier posts is not that contradictory statements can be reconciled with each other, but rather that the fact that there are contradictory statements can be reconciled with the belief that the Church cannot err in doctrine without being defeated. Thus, I don’t mean to say that we can reconcile Arian teaching with Nicene teaching. I mean to say that we can reconcile the existence of Arian teaching with the teaching that the Church must not ever teach error.

I hope I have cleared things up a bit, rather than add to the confusion…

Hence, if I were to say that Pope John XXII’s statement (quoted earlier) is false (which I haven’t said, but just hypothetically), then your conclusion from that would be that the Church has been overcome by the evil one, right?

If it is truly a false statement, and it is official teaching, then according to the logic expressed by some Catholic posters, then yes, the Church has been overcome by the evil one.

Oh really? Even the false statements that have been made by past popes? (Or do you believe that no pope has ever made a false statement?)

Many popes have made false statements. If these false statements were not infallible, then disagreements between them and the modern Church do not, in any way, mean that the Church has been overcome by the evil one. If a statement is false and infallible, then I believe we may have some sort of hole in the fabric of the universe.

Oh come on now! That’s just flat-out silly.

So, according to you, we can “reconcile” Arian teachings with Nicene teaching, right? We just say “The Arian teachings weren’t infallible or binding.”

This is just a result of confusion, which I must admit is my fault. As I said above, what I meant was that the existence of false teaching by some in the Church can be reconciled with the belief that the Church cannot err in its official teaching without being overcome by the evil one. I do say that the Arian teachings were not infallible and binding, and I imagine you would agree.

I’m trying to talk (or type) through this, to come to a greater understanding of Catholic teaching. I’m not attempting to attack the Catholic Church. Personally, I have yet to see someone demonstrate two official teachings of the Catholic Church contradicting each other, and I do not believe I ever will.

God bless!

 

[1beleevr]

tqualey: Ah yes, the human mind; endowed with so much intelligence, yet sometimes unable to understand the most mundane of issuesGod granted us(not sure whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing) free will and the ability to reason! If ten of us got together and read a paragraph or short story, and then were asked to give our interpretation of what we had just read, ther is a distinct possibility, that we could have ten different versions If I understand your red highlighted comment, I am supposed to read scripture, then scratch my head, and say, “Duh, I wonder what that means”

 

[josie_L]

Josie L: The recurring theme, in the passage you have provided, is Jesus telling Peter,“Feed MY sheep”! I don’t believe you can make a case for Jesus turning over His title of Shepherd to Peter

I never said He was turning over his title to Peter (not with the meaning you intend), however the passage does connote a singular authority he is bestowing upon Peter to feed and tend his flock (only one) of sheeps. He does this with no other apostle/disciple. The wording of this passage by Jesus himself suggests that Peter was to be a Shepherd of Christ (with an authority above others), but not the Shepherd who is Christ Jesus.

 

[SteveGC]

I interpret this to mean…

You lost me as soon as you used the combination of the first two words there

Sorry.

 

[benedictus2]

I aure hope that joe370 is the only one yelling and screaming in this thread!

Joee370 yelling? Very far from it. He is probably one of the most patient posters in this thread. If you had accused me of yelling then you probably would not have been far off wrong.

It has been interesting and combative, inspiring and informative! And I must say, benedictus2, that the comment about me putting out scripture, and basically saying,“it is so!”, seems to be the running theme in this forumI have seen entire pages of scripture, to support one’s position!

But we don’t leave it at that. We actually try to explain why this and that verse support our position.

As to Mstthew 16:18, let me present a theory, about why some may not immediately accept the catholic position. In reading the Old Testament, and also many times in the New Testament, God and Jesus are referred to as the Rock:thumbsup:So, with that in mind, why is it so farfetched for us to believe that Jesus was speaking about Himself in Matthew 16:18?

And this is what I mean by proper exegesis. When we say that in Matt 16:18 the rock is Peter, it is because we can actually prove it. In Aramaic Jesus said to Simon: You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church. He can’t be changin the subject of that statement mid way. And if you continue reading, He affirms this statement by handing him the keys to heaven.

Consider the Sanhedrin’s confusion, when He told them He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three(3) days

Yes, but you can’t use that as an excuse for the error in your exegesis because Scripture itself says that the Sanhedrin misunderstood. They don’t have the benefit of hindsight. We do.

Scripture interpretation is something that humans do constantly, and then it’s a matter of who’s wrong and who’s right!

And that is where this private interpretation dogma just don’t work. As I have said many times over, if you interpret a verse one way and me another and yet another person a different way again, how do we know which one is true.

Did Christ really leave us here to wallow in uncertainty?

What is the point of Him sending the Spirit to lead his church into all truth if we have no way of knowing what is truth?

As far as confession; catholics go, is it weekly, or as needed, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure if it is mandatory, highly recommended or what.

For mortal sins you have to confess them as you do them. Venial sins are forgiven at Mass but it is still recommended that you confess them regularly.

There is a grace that Christ gives to the sinner when he/she goes to confession. He not only forgives the sins, He also imparts the grace to live a holier life and thus not commit the same sin again. This does not happen in a flash but the like anyone doing strength training, you get the results by regular exercise.

As for myself, I have been confessing sins directly to God, through my intrcessor Jesus Christ for 42 years, and it’s still working

And so have I. But in obedience to Jesus who instituted this sacrament, then I confess my sins to a priest as well. It is all about believing what Jesus said and obeying.

I have on occasion, if I felt comfortable, shared with a pastor, about a sin that I had already confessed(James 5:16), but I do not ask him to forgive it.

Nor should you. He does not have the power to forgive sins. Only those (the priests) to whom Jesus Himself gave the power can do that.

I know that only God can forgive sins.

Yes that is true. But as I have said to you before which you keep forgetting, HE CHOSE/ WILLED TO GIVE THAT POWER TO THE MEN HE HAS CHOSEN.

Notice that word “CHOSE”. It was God’s choice. It was God’s WILL.

And when I am referred to as a catholic hater, or other less than desirable names, I smile, and shrug, thankful for the peace of Christ. And I notice also, that no one comments on activities like street ministry, outreaches, feeding the homeless, etc., things that are addressed by our Lord in Matthew 9:37-38, Matthew 25:31-46, and Mark 10:45! I mean individuals, not so much as a church.

You ought to get out more. The greatest provider of Charity work is the Catholic Church. They are in every corner of the world. And you cannot say individuals not as much as church because the Church is composed of individuals.

Unlike protestants, we are not lone rangers. We act as Church.

So, even though we don’t see eye to eye, and I grate on you r nerves, I love all of you, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ:thumbsup:Onward to more posting!!

You don’t grate on my nerves. I get exasperated when I have to keep explaining myself over and over again on the same topic.

On another thread, there was one discussion which took probably around 20 posts back and forth. This lengthy discussion could have been avoided if the other poster had bothered to properly read my first post. Tthat, was truly frustrating.

But that is my problem. I should get used to that if I am to remain in this forum.

Oh and one reqeust: please use the quoting system so we know which post you are replying to. It helps track the discussion. Thanks!

 

[SteveGC]

If I understand your red highlighted comment, I am supposed to read scripture, then scratch my head, and say, “Duh, I wonder what that means”

With the vast majority of Scripture, if done interpretively by yourself (even as you fervently pray for the Holy Spirit to tell you), this “Duh” is quite the likely outcome, yes.

The Holy Spirit is with The Church for proper interpretation. Once you’ve received the teaching based on this authoritative interpretation, you read Scripture, and guess what, you still sometimes say “Duh, what does this mean”, only a lot less often

But one thing important ceases to happen…you never say …“I interpret this to mean”. Instead, what we often say is “Oh, now I see what this means within the context of Church teaching”…or “Oh, I think I see how the Spirit is nudging me here, exhorting me to apply this teaching to my life in such-and-such a way”. Not that you can’t (and aren’t currently) doing these things correctly right now, so long as your interpretation happens to align properly with that of the Spirit-led Church. I fear that this is rarely, if ever, happening though.

 

[Peter_J]

Iambic,

Thanks for that clarifying post.

As I said above, what I meant was that the existence of false teaching by some in the Church can be reconciled with the belief that the Church cannot err in its official teaching without being overcome by the evil one.

I agree, and I think you put that very well.

(Or, from the passage I referred to in post #471, see here, “But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible?” etc.)

On a little side-note, whereas the members of the Church are fallible and sinful, the Church herself is the spotless bride of Christ, and is therefore infallible and sinless. Yet I find that a lot of people forget that last part.

 

[Cinette]

I aure hope that joe370 is the only one yelling and screaming in this thread! It has been interesting and combative, inspiring and informative! And I must say, benedictus2, that the comment about me putting out scripture, and basically saying,“it is so!”, seems to be the running theme in this forumI have seen entire pages of scripture, to support one’s position! As to Mstthew 16:18, let me present a theory, about why some may not immediately accept the catholic position. In reading the Old Testament, and also many times in the New Testament, God and Jesus are referred to as the Rock:thumbsup:So, with that in mind, why is it so farfetched for us to believe that Jesus was speaking about Himself in Matthew 16:18? Consider the Sanhedrin’s confusion, when He told them He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three(3) days Scripture interpretation is something that humans do constantly, and then it’s a matter of who’s wrong and who’s right! As far as confession; catholics go, is it weekly, or as needed, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure if it is mandatory, highly recommended or what. As for myself, I have been confessing sins directly to God, through my intrcessor Jesus Christ for 42 years, and it’s still working I have on occasion, if I felt comfortable, shared with a pastor, about a sin that I had already confessed(James 5:16), but I do not ask him to forgive it. I know that only God can forgive sins.And when I am referred to as a catholic hater, or other less than desirable names, I smile, and shrug, thankful for the peace of Christ. And I notice also, that no one comments on activities like street ministry, outreaches, feeding the homeless, etc., things that are addressed by our Lord in Matthew 9:37-38, Matthew 25:31-46, and Mark 10:45! I mean individuals, not so much as a church. So, even though we don’t see eye to eye, and I grate on you r nerves, I love all of you, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ:thumbsup:Onward to more posting!!

Hi 1beleevr!

I want to get something straight:

1. I don’t get the feeling you hate Catholics
2. In fact all the Protestants on this thread are not haters either
3. What I find is that many questions go unanswered and postings ignored
4. I admire you for doing your best to live out your faith - street preaching is good and very courageous in our secular world. I am sure God is pleased.
5. You will find many Catholic outreaches everywhere and all over the world. I am also involved with a soup kitchen and the St Vincent de Paul Society
6. I think you are stubborn and that is frustrating.

I actually like you. I find you amusing. I like all on this thread and believe we could have a great debate if certain individuals would respond and not “dump and duck”

See you
Cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

I aure hope that joe370 is the only one yelling and screaming in this thread! It has been interesting and combative, inspiring and informative! And I must say, benedictus2, that the comment about me putting out scripture, and basically saying,“it is so!”, seems to be the running theme in this forumI have seen entire pages of scripture, to support one’s position! **As to Mstthew 16:18, let me present a theory, about why some may not immediately accept the catholic position. In reading the Old Testament, and also many times in the New Testament, God and Jesus are referred to as the Rock:thumbsup:So, with that in mind, why is it so farfetched for us to believe that Jesus was speaking about Himself in Matthew 16:18? **Consider the Sanhedrin’s confusion, when He told them He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three(3) days Scripture interpretation is something that humans do constantly, and then it’s a matter of who’s wrong and who’s right! As far as confession; catholics go, is it weekly, or as needed, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure if it is mandatory, highly recommended or what. As for myself, I have been confessing sins directly to God, through my intrcessor Jesus Christ for 42 years, and it’s still working I have on occasion, if I felt comfortable, shared with a pastor, about a sin that I had already confessed(James 5:16), but I do not ask him to forgive it. I know that only God can forgive sins.And when I am referred to as a catholic hater, or other less than desirable names, I smile, and shrug, thankful for the peace of Christ. And I notice also, that no one comments on activities like street ministry, outreaches, feeding the homeless, etc., things that are addressed by our Lord in Matthew 9:37-38, Matthew 25:31-46, and Mark 10:45! I mean individuals, not so much as a church. So, even though we don’t see eye to eye, and I grate on you r nerves, I love all of you, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ:thumbsup:Onward to more posting!!

Let’s just address your claim that Jesus was actually talking to himself when he spoke to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…”

You say Jesus is the rock. Why would Jesus be talking to himself when addressing Peter? Does that make sense?

In Portuguese the name for Peter is Pedro which means stone
In French we say Pierre - also means stone

The English translation is Peter but then the English always do things differently - does Peter mean stone in English? I am not sure.

So explain please, more precisely, why Jesus was not calling Peter “the rock”

Thank you
Cinette