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

[Cinette]

Janet1983 -

I got this from a little book by Scott Hahn

The Bible is arranged in groups according to type:

The Old Testament

There are 4 main divisions in the Old Testament:

1. The Law. These are the five books of Moses, the foundation of everything else in the Old Testament. they tell the story of how Israel began and give rules for life and worship.

**2. History ** These books tell the story of Israel in the Promised Land, from the conquest through the kingdom and the Exile to the successful rebellion of the Maccabees.

3. Wisdom These books include reflection on the order of creation as well as moral instruction on personal virtue, family life, governance and fear of the Lord.
**
4. Prophecy.** The Word of God, judgment on the wicked and his promises of comfort to the afflicted.

The New Testament

When we look at the New Testament we can see the same kind of four-part structure:

1. The Gospels (the Law). The foundation of everything else in the New Testament, telling how Jesus Christ brought the New Law by which Christians live.

2. The Acts of the Apostles (history) The founding and spread of the new kingdom - the Church.

3. Epistles (wisdom) Meditations on the meaning of Christian wisdom and practical advice on living the Christian life.

4. The Revelation (prophecy) How the final judgment brings punishment to the wicked and comfort to the afflicted.

Of course we know who wrote the bible and who estalished the canon.

Cinette

 

[racing59]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

I have been reading an reflecting on this very question since my God has last post. I think my biggest problem with RCC is Authority.Not in the sense of the Pope( I once meet John Paul II and he was diffenetly a man of God!!), but the fact that certain Bible passages can not be found in the CCC. I understand that they have not been reveiled yet to RCC, but that very thing bothers me. In the post I have read the Bible is not subject to individual interpretation. I have read alot of books and listen to tapes of Dr. Scott Hahn. I have been also told that those are his oppinions and do not nessesarly reflect the teachings of RCC. In fact I have ran into a great resistance of somethings Scott had to say. This I do not understand. Don’t get me wrong RCC has alot of good teachings, but certain scriptures revealed to others there are no teachings on.To me it would seem God would have revealed them to have Fullness of Truth.I love Dr. Scott Hahn’s books on Covenant theology, the Bible comes alive when you read it through Covenant eyes. Yet I have incounter such a resistance by Priest I have talk too.I have a cousin thats a RCC priest and he blasts Scott Hahn. Their almost seems to be an air of aragance against any one trying to make a beautiful passage in the Bible come alive, but it has not been revealed to RCC. I’m confused and have a problem with this! /B]

 

[guanophore]

Infant baptism ]
According to the CCC Infant Baptism is one of the most critical doctrines of the Catholic church:
“Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.” Pg. 319, #1250
The Catechism tells us where this cornerstone doctrine originated:
“The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on…” Pg. 319, #1252
Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition.

I think we are in agreement that salvation is a free gift. Why would you want to withold this free gift from children? Do you not realize that baptism has replaced circumcision as an entrance rite into the Kingdom?

You are making a false conclusion here. You are asserting that anything you cannot find in your Bible is a “doctrine of man”. This is false. You are correct that the Catholic Church is not “bible based”. This is the case because the Church was whole and entire prior to a word of the NT being written. During that time, infants were baptized because this is the practice of the Apostles.

If everything that is not in your Bible is a doctrine of man, then how do you accept the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of scripture itself? Do you even know where you got your Bible? It came out of the Word of God that was preached by theApostles. That preaching included the baptism of infants.

Paul's warning might fit well here:

Colossians 2:8 - “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

How do you distinguish traditions of men from Sacred Traditions?

Jesus was an adult when he was baptized:

Indeed, and that adult, baptized Jesus taught “suffer the little children to come unto me, and hinder them not”.

Baptism always followed salvation. The Ethiopian eunuch who was led to salvation by Philip was an adult when baptized:

It seems that way to you becuase you have been indoctrinated by Reformed theology. However, this is not what the Apostles taught. The Apostles taught that baptism was the beginning of working out our salvation, which was completed at the end of this life.

Others were baptized after they believed:
Acts 18:8 - “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”

What makes you think there were no children or infants in his house?

Matthew 3:6 - “… baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”

One of the scriptural references for oral confession of sins to an ordained person.

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized:

How do you know? Were you there?

When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized, or did you just have some water sprinkled on you?

Both modes are valid. I also agree that faith is a pre-requisite to baptism. Infants and children are baptized on the basis of their parent’s faith.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi racing,
You’ve peaked my interest. Could you expand on the criticisms you’ve specifically heard of regarding Dr Hahn, especially from that priest?

And what do you mean when you say some scripture has not been revealed yet to the Church? That doesn’t sound accurate, but you may have meant something I don’t realize. Thanks!

 

[racing59]

Hi racing,
You’ve peaked my interest. Could you expand on the criticisms you’ve specifically heard of regarding Dr Hahn?

And what do you mean when you say some scripture has not been revealed yet to the Church? That doesn’t sound accurate, but you may have meant something I don’t realize. Thanks!

I found a big resistance to Covenant Theology.Scott Hahns views of the Mass in Heaven and some of his views on the Book of Revelation. His tapes intitled "The End"and “Salvation History” As far as scriptures one is on the “Tree of Life” Genisis 2:9, a very important Scripture personaly to me. The “Tree of Life” is all through the Bible all away to Revelation 22:14-15, yet you will find nothing in CCC or RCC of any interpretation on her. My own cousin stated that Dr. Scott Hahn is way to protestant. He did this at my Mom’s funeral. Other Scriptures you will not find in CCC have to do with Revelation. Look at the index of Scriptures in the CCC, you will find alot missing. Covenant Theology and the Tree of life are to important to me to give up.Through them the Bible comes to Life and interprets itself. The Word to me is just as important as the Eucharist is to you. All this has greatly confused me about RCC.

 

[SteveGC]

I found a big resistance to Covenant Theology.Scott Hahns views of the Mass in Heaven and some of his views on the Book of Revelation. His tapes intitled "The End"and “Salvation History” As far as scriptures one is on the “Tree of Life” Genisis 2:9, a very important Scripture personaly to me. The “Tree of Life” is all through the Bible all away to Revelation 22:14-15, yet you will find nothing in CCC or RCC of any interpretation on her. My own cousin stated that Dr. Scott Hahn is way to protestant. He did this at my Mom’s funeral. Other Scriptures you will not find in CCC have to do with Revelation. Look at the index of Scriptures in the CCC, you will find alot missing. Covenant Theology and the Tree of life are to important to me to give up.Through them the Bible comes to Life and interprets itself. The Word to me is just as important as the Eucharist is to you. All this has greatly confused me about RCC.

Thanks. I have heard some non-specific criticism of Dr Hahn (I personally find him quite orthodox, but I have not read everything from his vast body of work).

As far as the Tree of Life and Covenant Theology, have you tried other Catholic documents, especially papal encyclicals? If you go to the Vatican website, and use their search engine for those concepts, you might find what you’ve been looking for. Vatican website

I’m curious. Would you have such a problem with The Church if you could find official teaching on these issues? Or are there other issues blocking your acceptance?

 

[racing59]

Thanks. I have heard some non-specific criticism of Dr Hahn (I personally find him quite orthodox, but I have not read everything from his vast body of work).

As far as the Tree of Life and Covenant Theology, have you tried other Catholic documents, especially papal encyclicals? If you go to the Vatican website, and use their search engine for those concepts, you might find what you’ve been looking for. Vatican website

I’m curious. Would you have such a problem with The Church if you could find official teaching on these issues? Or are there other issues blocking your acceptance?

Thankyou, I will try to look up the website.If I found doctrine on these it would diffenetly help.As far as other issues with RCC I don’t know, I feel I may be too Orthodox myself in some of my views. I feel drown toward the Byzantine Church,but I need more info, I live in a rual area and there are none. I do have an issue of not being able to think for myself and having the Holy Spirit touch me through Covenant Theology. The Charisms of the Holy Spirit is another issue I have, that also seems to be fround upon by RCC.

 

[guanophore]

Prayer for the deceased (if they are in hell it is too late... if they are in heaven there is no need)

According to God’s Word, it is neither holy nor wholesome to pray for the dead. Christians are instructed to pray for the living, but not one example exists of true Christians praying for the dead. This is another tradition of men. One must be loosed from their sins before death.

I can see how it would seem this way to you, since you are limited in your access to the Word of God. You have rejected all of God’s Word that is not present in the Scripture, and you are using a truncated version of the Scriptures, so you are missing some of the written revelation also.

Why do you think Jesus conversed with the “dead”?

Purgatory (It is either heaven or hell... either a full atonement through the sacrifice of the Lord or none)

This is a true statement. Only the souls for who Christ has fully atoned are in Purgatory.

There is no such thing as a purgatory. Those who die without the saving grace of Christ will go to hell no matter how “good” or “bad” their life was. One single sin can condemn us.

The fact that only souls covered by grace are saved has nothing to do with the existence of purgatory. In fact, it is BECAUSE of his grace that purgatory exists!

The Bible never indicates purgatory exists. Neither does the Bible teach that further purification after death is necessary to earn going to heaven.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

We also have not cut out part of the books…

On the contrary, God's Word declares that salvation is a free gift:

You seem to imagine that purgatory is not also part of the free gift of salvation.

If the Bible is to be believed, then there is no need for further purification for those who die in Christ. They have already been justified by Jesus:
“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Romans 5:9

If there is no further need for purification after we are justified, why is scripture so full of references to it? Clearly, since nothing impure can enter heaven,a nd we are still full of impurities by virtue of our sin nature, purification is indeed required, whther in this life, or the next. God accomplishes this for us as part of His justification through the Blood of the Lamb.

True Christians are already purified because Jesus put away all sin on the cross:

Such a perception is a warped understanding of both human nature, and salvation. This error emanates from the Reformation as well. Are you claiming to be perfectly pure in the sight of God? There is nothing in you that falls short of his glory?

1 Cor 9:27
I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Why do you suppose the Apostle practiced such disciplines as fasting, if he did not need to increase in purity?

2 Cor 6:2-5
3 We put no obstacle in any one’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger;

Why does the Apostle work so hard to eliminate “fault” if this is not necessary?

 Hebrews 9:26 -

God’s children are not required to suffer for salvation because they have been bought and paid for:

Such a statement reveals a misunderstanding of both salvation,and purgatory. Only the saved are in purgatory. They suffer because they have unholy attachments, and nothing impure can enter heaven. A person who has never sufferred a great loss cannot understand how this is experienced. People suffer loss when they are separated from their attachements.

The price was the blood of Jesus Christ:
Acts 20:28 - “…feed the church of God, which he (Jesus) hath purchased with his own blood.”

Indeed, by His blood He purchased for us the opportunity to be purified.

Confession to a priest (though I think that general spiritual guidance and help is appropriate when sought… confessions however are to be made to God)
Janet1983;4983107:

It was not His idea and the church does declare that the priest has the power to forgive sins…

Whose do you think it was?

John 20:22-23
“Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Who do you think is speaking here? who is He talking to?

Matt 9:7-8
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

What authority was this?

 

[guanophore]

"Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ " Pg. 367, #1461
We are supposed to confess our sins to each other, but only to pray for each other. That does not include a special priest. A priest cannot forgive sins in the name of Christ (even though the CCC states that: Pg. 363-364, #1448)
James 5:16 - “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”
God will forgive our sins and Him alone if we confess our sins to Him alone.

God does forgive sins outside the sacrament. However, the sacrament is the normative means by which this is to happen.

You left out a section in James:

James 5:14-16
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The “elders” (presbyters) here are the ones that have been empowered to anoint and hear confession. Sure, you can confess your sins to anyone. Why not confess them to the one who has been empowered by Christ to forgive the sins in HIs name, and to pray the prayer of healing? Why forego the availability of this healing?

Mark 2:7 - “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”

So, are you taking the side of unbelievers? People that do not even believe that Jesus is God? Are you preferring the witness of Christ’s enemies to the witness of those that believe in Him?

Matt 9:7-8
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

It amazes me that a person who claims to be a Christian would align themselves with those who insult the Lord.

The catechism teaches that the priest is a mediator between God and man. (See Pg. 365, #1456). But the Bible recognizes only one mediator:
1 Timothy 2:5 - “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

True. It is only through His mediation, into which we are caught up, that we can do anything. Priests are caught up into Him who is our only High priest.

Forgiveness of sins through the church

The Catholic Church states that it has the power to forgive sins (according to the CCC):
“There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive.” Pg. 256, #982
“By Christ’s will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized…” Pg. 257, #986
“The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ…” Pg. 363-364, #144

God is the one who forgives sins, not the church:

There is no distinction between Christ and His Church. He identifies Himself completely with his Holy Bride, His One Body.

We can come to the Lord Himself:
Hebrews 4:16 - “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”

You erroneously imagine that this is not what happens in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[bobzills]

There is no such thing as a purgatory. Those who die without the saving grace of Christ will go to hell no matter how “good” or “bad” their life was. One single sin can condemn us…

This is not completely true, because there are mortal sins and there are venial sins. If you die with an unrepented mortal sin, you will go to hell, but if you die with a venial sin, then you will go to Purgatory and be cleansed of this sin before entering heaven.
210. What is purgatory?
Purgatory is the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven.
St. Paul refers to the burning away of smaller transgressions in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

 

[guanophore]

Classification of sins (the wages of sin is death)

The Catechism states that there are varying degrees of sin:
“Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity.” Pg. 454, #1854
First are venial sins:

Then there are mortal sins:

When we turn to God’s Holy Word, we get a totally different picture:

First, I want to to commend you for reading the Catechism. This demonstrates a high degree of intellectual integrity on your part. Most people that come here bringing the complaints you have brought are not willing to do this. It is refreshing.

You get a “totally different picture” when reading the Scripture because you are reading it through Anti-Catholic Reformed lenses. You may not realize this is the case, but it is. This is why Scripture should not be separated from the Apostolic Teaching that produced it.

God’s Word makes no distinction as to the gravity of certain sins. It simply states that the wages of sin is death.

You are also functioning under a misconception that all of God’s Word is found in your truncated version of the Scripture, which it is not. However, for the sake of discussion, I will point out a couple verses you may have missed.

Jesus Himself makes distinctions in the severity of wrongdoing:

Luke 12:47-48
47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

Here He makes it plain that full knowledge makes the offense more serious. When we do wrong in ignorance, we are not as culpable, but still will “receive a light beating”.

1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Since the beginning, mortal sins required confession and penance. In those days, confession was made before the whole community. Private confession came later. The Church calls “the sin which is not mortal” venial.

  But God in His great grace and love, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay the price for all sin once and for all:

True salvation is only available through Jesus Christ because only He could shed sinless blood to pay the penalty for all sin:

Yes, of course. Reconciliation is the manner in which He prescribed for us to take advantage of His shed blood.

The Reformers erroneously taught that we cannot fall from a state of grace.

Heb 10:26-28

26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.

If we continue to live in sin, the consequences will be worse than if we had never come to the knowledge of the truth.

While God does expect His children to confess their sins to Him, once sins are confessed and forgiven, God makes a wonderful promise:
Hebrews 10:17 - “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
By human standards we do classify sin as you know. A sin is greater because of the one the sin is against.

This is not a “human standard” but God’s.

 It wouldn't be too much of a problem seeing a child out in the yard stepping on fire ants. It would however be a lot different if the child would be out there mutilating living cats. It would be far worse if we would see somebody out in the street brutally killing a child. The sin would be much greater in our estimation because the one the sin is against is of more worth.

I thought you said we could not classify sins? You did a great job!

How great then is a sin committed against an infinitely holy God? Even the smallest sin committed against an infinitely holy God is infinitely wicked.

No, because wrongs done in ignorance, though still wrong, are note as serious as those done deliberately.

  All we need to do is receive Him as our Saviour.

This is true, but according to the Apostles, receiving him as savior means following all of His commandments. One of those is to obey the shepherds that He has appointed over the Church.

God wants you to be saved today:

2 Corinthians 6:2 - “…behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”

Do you beleive that Catholics are not “saved”?

 

[bobzills]

God’s Word makes no distinction as to the gravity of certain sins. It simply states that the wages of sin is death…How great then is a sin committed against an infinitely holy God? Even the smallest sin committed against an infinitely holy God is infinitely wicked.

Well, let’s suppose that you are in a park and it is a beautiful day and there are thousands and thousands of blooming flowers around. There is a sign there which says: Do not pick the flowers. But the day is so beautiful and with the warm breeze blowing and the delightful odor of the flowers you go ahead and pick one flower to bring home. Now do you condemn a person to eternal fire in hell for transgressing the law against picking a flower in a park? This means eternal damnation and horrible punishments for all eternity for picking one flower among tens of thousands blooming in a park? No. It is a venial sin and therefore merits a punishment, but it does not condemn one to eternal fire in hell.

 

[Janet1983]

Well, let’s suppose that you are in a park and it is a beautiful day and there are thousands and thousands of blooming flowers around. There is a sign there which says: Do not pick the flowers. But the day is so beautiful and with the warm breeze blowing and the delightful odor of the flowers you go ahead and pick one flower to bring home. Now do you condemn a person to eternal fire in hell for transgressing the law against picking a flower in a park? This means eternal damnation and horrible punishments for all eternity for picking one flower among tens of thousands blooming in a park? No. It is a venial sin and therefore merits a punishment, but it does not condemn one to eternal fire in hell.

The Bible clearly states that even that would lead to eternal condemnation:
James 2:10 - “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
The thing is that this is not the only sin we commit. Telling a lie is a sin and who has never told a lie in their whole life? Looking at someone with lust is already committing adultery and hating someone is like murder. The Bible clearly states that “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)
God sees the heart and He sees all the deeds done in darkness. “Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.” (Psalm 44:21)
Suppose we could put a device in your brain that would record all your private thoughts for a week and then play them on a movie screen for your friends and family to see. That would be embarrassing (I wouldn’t want to think about that happening). God knows the secret of the heart and they are open to Him. He knows when we lusted or hated and it is sin.
In addition to that there are those things that are good that we didn’t do… (If you look at a 1973 ICEL translation of the Confiteor you’ll notice that it’s even included there.)
James 4:17 - “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
Besides, even if you sin just five times a day in one year that would be 1,825 sins! If you’ll live to be seventy, you’ll have broken God’s Law over 127,000 times!
You’ll have to answer for every sin on judgment day, when “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12)

 

[bobzills]

The Bible clearly states that even that would lead to eternal condemnation

No. St. Paul says : 1 Cor 3: 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Let me see if I got this straight: According to your Protestant belief:

1. If a man leads a good life, supports his family and children, volunteers community service, gives lavishly to charities, is a devoted and faithful father and husband, prays and goes to Church every Sunday, but if he picks one small wilted flower from a park, and then dies without repenting of that sin, he will go to hell and burn forever? This is punishment for all eternity in a horrible hellfire?
   Whereas on the other hand:
2. A brutal killer, robber and rapist who has been a drug lord and torturer of innocent people, has murdered tens of people and caused untold suffering and hardships to many others, ruined their lives, raped and brutalised young girls, ruining their lives, and causing nothing but grief and pain to their families, but on his deathbed, he says Lord, Lord, I accept you as my personal Savior and repent of all of the sins of my life. Then this criminal will go straight to heaven, and enjoy paradise with all the angels and Saints. He will suffer no temporary punishment at all, but be immediately rewarded with eternal happiness because on his deathbed he said Lord, Lord?
   Do I have this Protestant teaching correct?

 

[joe370]

Hey,The Iambic Pen, your profile says you belong to the Free… Church; not sure if it is permissible to refer to it by name, at CAF.

That Church’s * --highest governing body is the World Conference, which is essentially a Magisterium…which is composed of representatives, both lay and clergy, [Council of Bishops] --with a President and Vice-President --from all countries with a General Conference. The Free… Church was founded in 1860 by a group, led by B. T. Roberts.

How is your church, which I am sure is quite wonderful, as per my friend, different from the C.C. when it comes to authority? Your church has a constitution…leaders/teachers, and devoted adherents; my church has a constitution…leaders/teachers -a body of people in authority, and devoted adherents! I say this with the utmost respect for the church to which you belong: did the C.C. founded circa 33 AD FAIL [if not the C.C., then which church]
-necessitating the need for another church, such as the one to which you belong? If the C.C. did in fact fail, when did she fail? If she did fail, necessitating the need for another church, why rule out other non-Catholic churches, especially churches built by the chief reformers, of the 16th century; I mean, there are literally 100’s to chose from, that are considerably older than your church, or does it even matter when a church is built? I can almost guarantee, that 10 years from now, we will see 100 new churches popping up, all over the place; should we preemptively rule them out, or embrace them as part of Jesus’ Mystical Body, to which He is the Head and Savior, once they are built?

Respectfully Joe…*

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Janet1983 View Post
There is no such thing as a purgatory. Those who die without the saving grace of Christ will go to hell no matter how “good” or “bad” their life was. One single sin can condemn us…

Janet, should I believe you based on your interpretation of the Bible…based on your church’s interpretation of the Bible? You said, with authority, that there is no such thing as purgatory; help me understand why I should believe you, and not believe my interpretation of the Bible, or my church’s interpretation of the Bible? Who, rightfully has the authority to determine whether or not purgatory exists?

 

[joe370]

racing59, You said:

I have been reading an reflecting on this very question since my God has last post. I think my biggest problem with RCC is Authority.Not in the sense of the Pope( I once meet John Paul II and he was diffenetly a man of God!!), but the fact that certain Bible passages can not be found in the CCC. I understand that they have not been reveiled yet to RCC, but that very thing bothers me. In the post I have read the Bible is not subject to individual interpretation. I have read alot of books and listen to tapes of Dr. Scott Hahn. I have been also told that those are his oppinions and do not nessesarly reflect the teachings of RCC. In fact I have ran into a great resistance of somethings Scott had to say. This I do not understand. Don’t get me wrong RCC has alot of good teachings, but certain scriptures revealed to others there are no teachings on.To me it would seem God would have revealed them to have Fullness of Truth.I love Dr. Scott Hahn’s books on Covenant theology, the Bible comes alive when you read it through Covenant eyes. Yet I have incounter such a resistance by Priest I have talk too.I have a cousin thats a RCC priest and he blasts Scott Hahn. Their almost seems to be an air of aragance against any one trying to make a beautiful passage in the Bible come alive, but it has not been revealed to RCC. I’m confused and have a problem with this!

Let us assume for the moment that neither the C.C.nor the E.O.C. wield any authority; she is not the Bride of Christ; she isn’t the church of Matthew 16:18; she isn’t the church of Matthew 18:17; she isn’t the church of Acts1 or Acts 2; she isn’t the church of Matthew 28:20, and she isn’t the church promised by our Lord and Savior, to be guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity!

Where is that One Church, in the world today? He only built One church, circa 33 AD, and the Bride of Christ has been utterly fractured by men, POST REFORMATION. Did the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, fail to guide the Bride of Christ…fail to “teach” and “guide” Jesus’ Mystical Body, to which Christ is the Head and Savior --into oneness and unity, that Jesus so fervently prayed for in John 17? Can God fail? I truly believe that all churches comprise Jesus’ Mystical Body, however, some where in the mix, if God can’t fail, that is --there Must be One Church that is being guided by the Holy Spirit, in the fullness of faith, since her inauguration on Pentecost, of course allowing for mere sinful fallible men to do has he does so well: detract unity and oneness from Gods Plan, and steer Jesus’ mystical Body, to which He is the Head and Savior, off course on occasion, thanks to the never ending havoc wreaked by the anti-Christ, who is dead set on dividing the multifarious assemblies of brothers and sisters in Christ!!! He has one full time job, and that is to rent asunder what Christ has built, knowing full well that in the end, he will be vanquished!

“…and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16

Remember, for the moment, let us assume the C.C. and the E.O.C. wield no authority; neither is the Bride of Christ! Where is the one church, built by Christ, on Pentecost, to which authority was granted in perpetuity, where unity and oneness can be found, where division and dissension cannot be found, where the fullness of faith resides???

ALL takers welcomed…

 

[bobzills]

Originally Posted by Janet1983 View Post
There is no such thing as a purgatory. Those who die without the saving grace of Christ will go to hell no matter how “good” or “bad” their life was. One single sin can condemn us…

Janet, should I believe you based on your interpretation of the Bible…based on your church’s interpretation of the Bible? You said, with authority, that there is no such thing as purgatory; help me understand why I should believe you, and not believe my interpretation of the Bible, or my church’s interpretation of the Bible? Who, rightfully has the authority to determine whether or not purgatory exists?

Actually, in addition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, purgatory makes common sense and it is implied in the teaching of St. Paul: 1 Cor 3: 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
Lesser sins while wrong, do not deprive one of eternal salvation, but still you will be punished for them, but after that you will be saved, as St. Paul has indicated. For example, let’s suppose that you have taken your family to a restaurant, and the bill comes to $ 100. The waiter hands you the bill and gives you a cheap 15 cent ballpen to sing the bill with. You sign the bill and add a tip of $25 all charged to your credit card, but you forget to return the 15 cent pen. When you get home, you find the 15 cent pen in your pocket, and you decide to keep it, since it is such a cheap pen. It will cost more to return the pen, than it is worth. Now, it just does not make sense to condemn such a person to eternal hellfire for such a lesser sin, especially since he gave the waiter a tip of $25 for the meal.
And similarly, if a brutal good for nothing killer says Lord, Lord, on his deathbed, Lord, I accept you as my personal Savior, well, maybe he will be saved, but he still has to account for his hideous crimes so he shall suffer loss by fire in Purgatory, as indicated by St. Paul.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Hey,The Iambic Pen, your profile says you belong to the Free… Church; not sure if it is permissible to refer to it by name, at CAF.

I don’t remember there being anything against it, but no worries!

That Church’s * --highest governing body is the World Conference, which is essentially a Magisterium…which is composed of representatives, both lay and clergy, [Council of Bishops] --with a President and Vice-President --from all countries with a General Conference. The Free… Church was founded in 1860 by a group, led by B. T. Roberts. *Indeed.

How is your church, which I am sure is quite wonderful, as per my friend, different from the C.C. when it comes to authority?

Quite different, I imagine. There is no claim to apostolic succession or infallibility. Bishops and superintendents and the like are selected in some way, though I’ve never really studied the process. In my experience, there is a great deal of respect for those in leadership, but the line between clergy and laity is not nearly as defined as it is in the Catholic Church.

Your church has a constitution…leaders/teachers, and devoted adherents; my church has a constitution…leaders/teachers -a body of people in authority, and devoted adherents!

Yes.

I say this with the utmost respect for the church to which you belong: did the C.C. founded circa 33 AD FAIL [if not the C.C., then which church]
-necessitating the need for another church, such as the one to which you belong?

The Free Methodist Church came from the Methodist Church, which, in turn, came from the Anglican Church. I believe that many within the overall Anglican tradition and its spiritual descendants would say, not that the Catholic Church failed, but that its leaders had claimed more authority than was rightfully theirs. The existence of the Free Methodist Church as a separate body from the Catholic Church is the result of the 16th century Anglican rejection of Catholic authority, rather than a belief that the Catholic Church failed.

If the C.C. did in fact fail, when did she fail?

Personally, I don’t believe she did. Some within the Free Methodist Church would likely say that innovations crept in over time. As far as total failure, most Protestants that I know do not hold their churches to the same high standard as the Catholics hold theirs. Despite the struggles in the Anglican communion, for example, most Anglicans do not believe their church has failed, and other Protestants will likely say the same thing about their churches. I think that most orthodox Free Methodists would say that the Catholic Church teaches many things that are not true, but that genuine followers of Christ may be found among her members.

If she did fail, necessitating the need for another church, why rule out other non-Catholic churches, especially churches built by the chief reformers, of the 16th century

Well, I did not choose my church, and neither do most people. I was born into the Free Methodist Church, as was my mother, her parents, their parents, etc. It is not as if every person analyzes every belief system on Earth and then makes a properly informed choice. Most of us will spend our entire lives within the belief system in which we are born. Hopefully God will have mercy on those of us who are born into a false religion.

John Henry Cardinal Newman said the following:
John Henry Cardinal Newman:

A religious man will say to himself, “If I am in error at present, I am in error by a disposition of Providence, which has placed me where I am; if I change into an error, this is my own act. It is much less fearful to be born at disadvantage, than to place myself at disadvantage.”

Changing religions or churches is a rather serious decision, and there is much to consider.

I mean, there are literally 100’s to chose from, that are considerably older than your church, or does it even matter when a church is built?

Older is not necessarily better. If it was, I should adopt some sort of pre-Christian paganism.

I can almost guarantee, that 10 years from now, we will see 100 new churches popping up, all over the place; should we preemptively rule them out, or embrace them as part of Jesus’ Mystical Body, to which He is the Head and Savior, once they are built?

I am not a defender of Protestant denominationalism. As my profile says, I was raised in the Free Methodist Church, but I have been studying the historic Church since 2005. Since my first real look at Catholicism, inititiated partly by seeing the Prayer to St. Michael taped to the windshield of an Army humvee in Iraq, I have developed a great love and respect for the Catholic Church. I actually have a great desire to enter the Catholic Church someday, and I hope that it will be soon. I have struggled with the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I still do, but I see them both as having a much greater claim than any Protestant church.

That being said, I love the Free Methodist Church, I am grateful for my upbringing, and the thought of someday leaving for the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church) is bittersweet.

 

[joe370]

Actually, in addition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, purgatory makes common sense and it is implied in the teaching of St. Paul: 1 Cor 3: 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
Lesser sins while wrong, do not deprive one of eternal salvation, but still you will be punished for them, but after that you will be saved, as St. Paul has indicated. For example, let’s suppose that you have taken your family to a restaurant, and the bill comes to $ 100. The waiter hands you the bill and gives you a cheap 15 cent ballpen to sing the bill with. You sign the bill and add a tip of $25 all charged to your credit card, but you forget to return the 15 cent pen. When you get home, you find the 15 cent pen in your pocket, and you decide to keep it, since it is such a cheap pen. It will cost more to return the pen, than it is worth. Now, it just does not make sense to condemn such a person to eternal hellfire for such a lesser sin, especially since he gave the waiter a tip of $25 for the meal.
And similarly, if a brutal good for nothing killer says Lord, Lord, on his deathbed, Lord, I accept you as my personal Savior, well, maybe he will be saved, but he still has to account for his hideous crimes so he shall suffer loss by fire in Purgatory, as indicated by St. Paul.

Hey bobzills…

I totally agree with you! As a catholic, I guess what I’m trying to figure out is, if we take the E.O.C. and the C.C. out of the equation, as most protestants do, as can be clearly seen at this thread, which church in the fractured and insular protestant world possesses the necessary authority to say, for example that purgatory does not exist, as Janet has expressed with commanding authority. Both the E.O.C. and the C.C. can trace their lineage back to the apostolic age; not one P.C. can do this; Is apostolic succession unimportant? Can one church, say, 10 years from now, pop into existence, and rightfully usurp the authority of the church in the world today, built by Jesus circa 33 AD, OR FOR THAT MATTER, THE AUTHORITY OF ONE OF THE MYRIAD P.C.'s? For the record I truly believe that the C.C. and the E.O.C. are one and united in the sense that they continue, with a few exceptions, such as the Filioque or the authority of the Pope, to share the same beliefs, such as the 7 Sacraments; there is still hope for these 2 churches to patch things up; SADLY, I see no hope for the P.C.'s to reconcile with the C.C. and the E.O.C. and vice versa.

Why do protestants believe the pillar and foundation of truth is the bible, via private interpretation, when the bible clearly says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Why do people e.g. my sister and Janet, believe that the word of God is Infallible, given the fact that their bibles were given to them by a church filled with all fallible and sinful members? By denying that Jesus’ established church on Pentecost is being guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity is to deny the infallibility of the word of God -period!!!

Here is another incongruous position. Most P.C.‘s consider the true presence of Christ in the bread, when the minister, doing his priestly duty, as Paul did --does exactly as Jesus told His first ministers: JESUS BLESSED THE BREAD AND BLESSED THE CUP HE SAID: “DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME!!”—a mere symbol!!! I guess my question to all the non-Catholics at CAF is: did the Apostles get it wrong immediately after Pentecost vis-a-vis the true presence? Were the brothers and sisters in Christ, for the 1st 40 years of Christianity wrong to believe in the true presence, as they did? Were the Christians, for the first 300 years wrong to believe in the true presence? How could these early Christians, who lived so close to the time when Jesus walked the earth…to the time when the Infallible Holy Spirit was sent to guide and teach Jesus established church, on Pentecost, believe in the true presence, IF IT IS A LIE, as most protestants insist, as Janet insists? Did the Holy Spirit misguide and misinform Jesus’ Apostles into believing a heretical doctrine right from the get go? If so, why on earth would I want to be a Christian?