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

[Cinette]

Hi Craig,

The seeming contradiction only exists when we fail to understand the interplay between grace and faith.

I think I have said this before but all that salvation by grace means is that it is free. We did not merit it. It is purely as John wrote : because God so loved the world.

But the question is how does God effect salvation? Okay so it is free, so Christ died on the cross once to save us. But have you ever asked yourself how his dying brought on salvation?

The protestant understanding of salvation is like this:
God imputes on us Christ’s righteousness so even though deep inside we are still the same miserable, wretched creatures that we are, His righteousness covers all that muck within so when God sees us, He sees that outer covering that is Christ. In short we are a garbage pit that’s be covered with white turf so it looks pleasing to the eye.

If all that is needed is for us to be imputed with Christ’s righteousness why go to the extent of being human? Furthermore, why the need to suffer and die on the cross?

The Catholic understanding is this: The suffering death and resurrection of Christ opened up heaven so to speak so that the graces are made available to us. Justificatiion is not a mere DECLARATION by God that we are righteous but rather that we are actually MADE rigteous.

I think I said in a reply in “To live by faith” that in saving us from the pit Christ requires us to put our hand in His. He could have very well yanked us out but no, He wants us to grab His hand.

This action of grace on our soul makes us righteous.

But what does it mean to actually be righteous?

It means following God’s commandments which in a nutshell boils down to love of God and love of neighbour. LOVE is WORK.

We do not truly love unless we prove it by our deeds. You can tell your wife till you are blue in the face that you love her but that will mean zilch if you do not bring her a rose every now and again, help her with the chores, look after the children, provide for her, take the time to listen to her, etc., etc.

That is why in one of Paul’s most moving letters he says the greatest is LOVE because to love is to participate in Divine life.

When we get to heaven, faith and hope will cease, but love will still be there and love manifestests itself in WORK so long as we are on this side eternity. That is why we have the phrase “labour of love”.

James is so right when he says “I will show you my faith by my works”.

Christ said follow me. The following of Christ involves a dying to self. A carrying of our crosses. All these involve WORK.

Another reason for the seeming contradiction in your mind is I believe due to a lack of a fully developed understanding of every aspect of salvation.

But that requires another post and I am sleepy so I am off to bed.

Hi Benedictus

Your posting is extremely well presented and also makes perfect sense.

I cannot for the life of me figure how anyone could intrepet salvation in any other way. What is the use of obeying the 10 commandments if we are saved and nothing we do can make us lose our salvation. It makes no sense.

I knew a couple who claimed to be great Christians. The husband “bought” a company and ran the business into the ground and the people from whom he “bought” the company never received a cent. The husband employed a female Marketing Director and was having an affair with her right under the nose of his wife who also worked at the company. He moved in with the other woman and served his wife with divorce papers. It was a terrible thing to witness. All the time he was always preaching “All you need is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you are SAVED”! No matter what - so he carried on in his merry way. At the end he went back to his wife because they were married in community of property and he would have to give her 50% of his assets!!!

He continues to be a very loyal and “devout” Christian.

If Protestants cannot understand Matt. 25:31-46 and all the other scriptures which are CLEAR in regard to salvation, then they are not thinking! There is a strong case in favour of the Catholic interpretation. Besides it is also logical and makes perfect sense.

“Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

Effectively, if we are “saved - no matter what” - as long as we accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour - then Christianity is the easiest religion in the world. We can just sit back and ignore the 10 Commandments because, even if we try, we cannot lose our salvation!

Well - I ask you - is that reasonable?

Would anyone in his/her right mind buy that" :bigyikes::banghead::whacky::whacky::tsktsk:

 

[w_stewart]

You know something, Orange Man: Jesus has always been, and will always be my Shepherd(John10:3-4,11-13) The pope, like many other men of God, is just that, a MAN of God(emphasis on MAN)

And who teaches the Pope is not MAN? The Church does also teach that the Pope is MAN. As you said, he is a MAN of God. And I have to add he is the REPRESENTATIVE of God on earth.

 

[w_stewart]

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

You are confused of the definition of the title “shepherd”. To simply put it, shepherd is simply “someone who keeps the sheep together in a flock”. Yes, Jesus is the Shepherd. But when he commanded Peter to FEED HIS SHEEP, he was in effect, delegating to Peter the responsibility and authority to keep the sheep, the believers together in a flock, in the Church. In this sense, Peter became the Shepherd of the Church and his successors, the Popes are Shepherds as well.

 

[w_stewart]

And I still believe that the only three whom are infallible, are, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit! As for Peter, we all know that Jesus was speaking to Peter, as to “feeding His sheep”. But we also know, that Peter died a horrible martyr’s death and so the job of feeding the sheep was taken up by other Christians And of course, we know that He didn’t just mean “feed” them materially!He meant spiritually also!

The successors of Peter took up the responsibility to to" feed the flock". And the Church does not teach this delegation of responsibility is to be taken literally.

Today, because of Christ’s death on the Cross, and subsequent resurrection, and His exhortation in Matthew 28:19-20, we are ALL to feed the sheep; to carry rhe message of hope and Good News to all ends of the earth! The pope is not Christ on earth, nor do we heed his teachings; they are for catholics only:thumbsup:

The Church teaches that the Popes are the visible representatives of Christ of earth. In that sense, they become “Christ”. Not that they become divine like Christ.

 

[w_stewart]

If a church has no members, will it still exist? I know that God’s Word still remains.

The angels and saints in heaven are all members of the Catholic Church. Now, if all these angels and saints will get extinct, then perhaps you will be correct that there is a possibility that the Church will cease to exist.

However, your argument is applicable to all the religious organizations outside of the Catholic Church. When all their members die, they die.

 

[Peter_J]

It is true that the teaching has been changed and that unbaptised babies no longer go to hell. But that’s not what the previous teaching was. For example: the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

I admit that that presents me with a bit of a dilemma, since I would be quite reluctant to say that those two councils (Florence especially) were not Ecumenical Councils.

However, I don’t think this dilemma is insoluble. That is to say, I believe I can maintain my position that Florence was an Ecumenical Council, while pointing out (as the Iambic Pen did) that it doesn’t say that baptism is the only way to avoid departing this life in original sin.

 

[Peter_J]

You are very welcome.

I mean no offense to anyone, but I am reminded of something Peter J once said about Protestants and Traditionalist Catholics joining forces to teach everyone about the “real” Catholicism…

In the words of a well-known asinine, “Thanks for noticing me.”

 

[SteveGC]

Hi michel.

My position on the PERMANENCY OF THE WORK OF REGENERATION, does not for a moment deny the doctrine of human responsibility.

All true believers live under THE LAW OF CHRIST and are not permitted to ‘live as they please’. True believers are SAVED UNTO GOOD WORKS and show to the world the authenticity of their SAVING FAITH through these Good Works.

True believers are never ANTINOMIAN in their Christian life and walk.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

Craig, your view on salvation is much closer to the Catholic position than you might think.

1. Saving is accomplished (made possible and ultimately done) through Grace Alone
2. Saving is realized (accepted and effected) by the gifts of Grace - faith and good works

Your view is slightly different on point #2. You would say, accepted by faith…but not effected by good works. Rather, you would say, good works “naturally flow” and prove (show evidence of) the faith…and this somehow “proves” that one has proper faith, and is therefore saved. And we say, no, what naturally flows is our “awareness” of the good works laid out before us, through Grace. Without Grace (and the subsequent gift of faith), our motivation to do even charitable work, is done as an attempt to earn God’s favor, without our confession of His sovereignty in our lives. We first must come to him, submit our lives to His will (and of course we believe also, be baptized), and the grace and faith flow…and then with constant care and attention given to these gifts, we see the works we are to accomplish, and we do them.

Whether or not we do them is not an automated response based merely on our profession of belief. We are still free to choose to do them, or not to do them. Even you admit that personal responisibility is a critical part…but you seem to limit that responsibility to simply having belief, and if you do that, then your works will automatically come. This is not real responsibility…nor real obedience. This actually diminishes free will, which God does not do. He expects a freely chosen response to the good works He enlightens through His Grace.

This is a subtle, yet important distinction about Catholic belief in works. Because it outwardly appears that we rely on good works, we are blamed of trying to “merit” our salvation without belief, nor real commitment to our Lord. Quite the contrary. Grace and faith always precede works…and yet the works are a free-will cooperation…and doing them doesn’t really “prove” anything about our salvation. This is a lifelong process…but what Catholics DO have is a “reasonable”…or “moral” assurance of salvation…This is certititude based on perserverance in faith and obedience. In other words, I say, “I am certain I am saved IF I perservere in faith and obedience through the Grace of God”. I cannot say that “I know that when I die, I will be saved”, for this presumes I will never stumble and fall from the hand of God. This is why we don’t share in your “absolute assurance”.

God Bless

 

[bobzills]

bobzills - Because limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism.

If limbo was/is taught by the C.C. -TO BE HELL, THEN I’LL HAVE TO LEAVE THE CHURCH! WAS IT?

And the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

Where does it officially state that “unbaptized babies” go to hell?

And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Same question??? A baby is born into this world with the stain of original sin, but that baby must reach an age where he or she can knowingly and willfully put into action, that original sin, in the form of a mortal sin, or venial sin! Where does the C.C. state that “unbaptized babies” go to hell? If you can prove that the C.C. believes that unbaptized babies go to hell, you can rejoice in knowing, that I have left that church!

Remember, the words: unbaptized babies cannot be found in this quote! “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Original sin is a sin said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam; "Adam and Eve committed the original sin when they disobeyed God. A mortal sin is an unpardonable sin entailing a total loss of grace. Again, if you can find the official canon that declares all unbaptized babies go to hell, then I will denounce catholicism!!!

So it is your contention that unbaptised babies do not have the stain of original sin?

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

So it is your contention that unbaptised babies do not have the stain of original sin?

Does the catholic church think that unbaptised babies go to hell?

 

[1beleevr]

When I look at the pope, I see only a man, not Christ, so much. Like other MEN who have been ordained to minister to all of us! And Mathew 28:19-20, although spoken directly to the disciples, I believe,was directed to us! While we are not all shepherds, we are, as the body of Christ, His representatives on this earth; and as such, should also, “feed His sheep.” The pope is a very influential man, and like all other pastors, priests, he has been anointed to serve as a leader. I would shake his hand, if I ever met him:thumbsup:And I am sure that if you polled most non-catholics, they would probably say that the pope speaks only for the catholic world

 

[JackQ]

This is like asking would I would decide to marry a guy if he cut off his left arm. How can you ask a church that follows Christ to cut off it’s beliefs just so you would attend???

The question makes no sense.

The Catholic Church does not need to change for me. When / If God leads me to it I will go, until then I choose to stay on the path He has given to me to walk with Him…

How will you know when God leads you to it?

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Does the catholic church think that unbaptised babies go to hell?

Does anyone know?

 

[1beleevr]

Cinette: Well written post!(#636)I read it twice, and concur with most of it! As far as the ten commandments, there is still only one person who has kept them allGod knew that neither the Israelites, nor us could keep them That’s why He had Jesus, waiting for the right time to send Him into the world. The ten commandments, because they were delivered by the hand of God, are in and of themselves PERFECT! We however aren’t, and hard as we try, we just cant’ keep them! Paul himself, formerly a Pharisee declared that, “the law leads us to sin”> AS Jesus stated, “If you look upon a woman with lust in your heart, you have already committed adultery with her”. And “If you hate, it is the same as murder, for in your mind, you have killed him” Don’t misunderstand; I am not dismissing the ten commandments, just saying that it is impossible for mortal man to keep them God knew that and so He sent Jesus, to die on the Cross for all of our sins, so that we may be reconciled back to HimMark 15:38. And I have to ask; in that clever little story that you related about the couple, where the man started the business, had an affair, then got back together; were they non-catholic, or catholic, because you know as well as I that we are all susceptible to sin, saved or not:thumbsup:

 

[bobzills]

Does the catholic church think that unbaptised babies go to hell?

Here’s my opinion on it, but I could be wrong. Before Vatican II, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism. And it was taught that someone who was not baptised had the stain of original sin. And it was taught that if you died with original sin on your soul, you would go to a place in hell, called limbo. However, after Vatican II, this teaching has been changed, so that at the present time, it is said that there is hope and possibly good reason to believe that this original sin may be remitted in some other way, so that the person would not end up in hell.

 

[1beleevr]

Hello, again, Cinette: Yes, I admit, that I am stubborn! My mother and my siblings have been telling me that all my life! But aren’t we all, to a certain degree? Iam my most stubborn when defending the Cross where our beloved Saviour gave His life for us! He paid a price we couldn’t afford, for a crime He didn’t commit! And your comment about Protestants not understanding of Matthew 25:31-46, was a bit narrow-minded! I can tell you that many non-catholics out there on the streets, in the nursing homes, and feeding, visiting! :thumbsup:In the one street ministry that I volunteer with, in the three years I have been there, we have had no catholics come out

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Hello, again, Cinette: Yes, I admit, that I am stubborn! My mother and my siblings have been telling me that all my life! But aren’t we all, to a certain degree? Iam my most stubborn when defending the Cross where our beloved Saviour gave His life for us! He paid a price we couldn’t afford, for a crime He didn’t commit! And your comment about Protestants not understanding of Matthew 25:31-46, was a bit narrow-minded! I can tell you that many non-catholics out there on the streets, in the nursing homes, and feeding, visiting! :thumbsup:In the one street ministry that I volunteer with, in the three years I have been there, we have had no catholics come out

I’m afraid that catholics are the hardest to get through to as they believe about the Lord Jesus, but dont realise that he is the ONLY way to heaven and think they have to work their way there.
I live in Northern Ireland, so trust me, I know how hard it is to get them to accept the Gospel and to trust the Lord Jesus Christ alone. They are blinded by religion.
It breaks my heart as I have found the Roman catholics I Know and have met to be very friendly people, but they refuse to listen.

 

[Contarini]

After 42 years as a follower of Christ, I can’t imagine it would make any difference if they dropped any teachings or not; I still would not feel the need to be a catholic! But, if I were to speculate, I would say, let us eat meat on Fridays

That has already happened, except for Fridays in Lent (more precisely, the bishops of each region are allowed to lift the ban on meat on regular Fridays in favor of an “alternative penance,” and most have done so without being very specific on what the alternative penance is supposed to be–did I get this right, Catholics?).

Why any Protestant would regard eating meat on Fridays as something worth dividing the Church over is beyond me (unless your point is that the Church shouldn’t have the right to make such a discipline binding on pain of mortal sin, in which case the problem hasn’t been solved by the loosening of the discipline).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But that’s not the mass. The mass has nothing to do with the order of service. That’s called the liturgy or as you may have heard liturgy of the mass or order of the mass. The mass itself is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner. The word mass from a religious perspective means a death sacrifice.

Nonsense. The Reformed popularized that usage for their own polemical reasons. If you read the Augsburg Confession or talk to traditional Lutherans, you’ll find that they use the word “Mass” while totally rejecting the concept of the unbloody sacrifice.

The “Mass” rightly refers to the entire liturgy.

That’s why Catholics ask GOD to accept the sacrifice at our hand. Meaning accept the sacrifice of Christ again for our sins even though Christ said it is finished on the cross and Scripture clearly tells us there are no more sacrifices for sin.

You have contradicted yourself. Since you grant that this is referring to the one sacrifice of Christ, obviously Catholics don’t think there are any “more sacrifices.”

So going back to your post we see nothing of a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice nor the phrase GOD accept the sacrifice at our hand. We just see them partaking in communion with ordinary bread and wine and then saying Amen which is exactly what we do. So again as I stated we have no proof that the early church practiced the mass.

Justin isn’t the best source for the sacrificial aspect, I agree. Ignatius and Irenaeus do use sacrificial language, though of course the concept isn’t well developed yet. And I certainly agree that the early Church had a much healthier conception of what the Eucharistic sacrifice meant (focusing on the fact that it was Eucharistic, a sacrifice of thanksgiving) than the later medieval Church with its narrowly propitiatory understanding. But Protestants are not much better in that regard than traditional Western Catholics (i.e., the problem is with a narrow understanding of what Christ’s sacrifice means, not so much with the relationship of the Mass to Christ’s sacrifice), and modern Catholicism has corrected the balance to a great extent.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Hi Tom,

In your post you make this statement:

“Christ has paid the full price for the salvation of all mankind. None of us get to heaven by our efforts- but, by cooperating with the Grace of God and DOING what Christ said to DO. And that means you have to WORK for this eternal treasure…”

Herein, lies the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION of your position. On the one hand you assert - correctly - that no one gets to heaven by their own efforts; on the other hand, you assert that a person has to WORK for the eternal treasure of salvation and eternal life.

I say humbly, I disagree with you. I can understand what you are saying and how you arrive at your conclusion. However, I do not believe this is the position of scripture. In saying this, I do not doubt your love for God or your sincerity. I, myself, am only a humble SEEKER AFTER TRUTH WITH CHARITY.

As I see it, a repentant sinner is saved by GOD’S GRACE ALONE based on the OBJECTIVE/FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS. **When a person is genuinely saved, the work of the Holy Spirit in REGENERATION is permanent and irreversible! **However, this true believer will manifest GOOD WORKS in an overall lifestyle sense through the remainder of their lives. True believers will never be cast out by Christ; false professors of Christ, in contradistinction, wherever they are found will be cast out by Christ since He never “knew them.”

I hope that this explanation proves helpful.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

All initially are genuinely saved who believing in His word and His resurrection begin the process of being saved. There is no such thing as a non-genuine salvation, but rather a non-genuine faith that can hinder the initial state of our salvation.