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

[Cinette]

Joe370: Not exactly sure what type of feedback you’re looking for, but I do know that i have ran across both high winded catholics and no-catholics And as for the discussion of communion, and transsubstantiation, having been raised in the tradition of Matthew 26:26-28, I cannot relate to a cannibalistic representation of "eating the flesh of Christ, or actually drinking His blood! I do know that there are many rants for and against this practice, and Jesus’s use of parables, and symbolism(too many to list)for instance when He calls us His sheep:; are we really sheep? Or the story about putting new wine into old wineskins Did anyone really understand what that meant? I have tried to understand what transsubstantiation is all about, but it boggles my mind Many times when I am holding that bread and that cup, it is as if Christ were there with me! The bread represents His body; the juice, or wine, His blood! He broke the bread and gave each disciple a piece, and they all drank from the cup, correct? So if us noncatholics are duplicating what Christ did at the Last Supper, why are we wrong?

Hi beleevr!

I have two questions:

1. Why do you think the disciples turned their backs and left when Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood?
2. Why did Jesus repeat this teaching so many times? He reinforced it even after the disciples left.

I am interested in your response.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[1beleevr]

Can any catholic out there give a definitive answer to a question I asked in post#941 about my catholic friend who is married with three children, but for the last two years, has been living with (apart from his wife, obviously) with a female co-worker, with whom he has fathered two childrenWhat would the catholic church recommend he do? Can he go to confession, and it will be all better? has he committed a venial sin(s) or a mortal sin? Is it wrong, considering the graveness of his actions, to raise his two yon=ng sons as catholics? The mother does no want them christened as catholics! Feedback anyone?

 

[Cinette]

Can any catholic out there give a definitive answer to a question I asked in post#941 about my catholic friend who is married with three children, but for the last two years, has been living with (apart from his wife, obviously) with a female co-worker, with whom he has fathered two childrenWhat would the catholic church recommend he do? Can he go to confession, and it will be all better? has he committed a venial sin(s) or a mortal sin? Is it wrong, considering the graveness of his actions, to raise his two yon=ng sons as catholics? The mother does no want them christened as catholics! Feedback anyone?

This man is an adulterer. He has broken one of the 10 commandments - mortal
He is living in sin with another woman
Before going to confession he would have to leave his co-worker and return to his wife
Why would it be wrong to raise his son as Catholics -anyway how could he do that if he is not practicing his Faith.

What a mess!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Humble_in_doubt,

Sounds like you have (or, at least had) a lot on your plate.

hmmm … good question (although I’m not sure if I’m the guy to answer it). I think people confuse general unhappiness with a lack of spiritual fulfillment & then get duped one way or the other (whether by the protestants or catholics). If they’re Catholic & unhappy they’ll think they should run across the street to the bible thumping evangelical church, if they’re protestant and unhappy same deal (perhaps they might delude themselves into thinking it’s the state of society that has them so depressed, so a good dose of Catholicism is what they need). Sometimes they even get lucky & it does fulfill them; but it has nothing to do with anything accept psychological delusion.

While your ambivalent approach to religion in general and feelings in particular is intriguing, I am curious as to what view from John Calvin on scripture you found so beneficial. Would you kindly share your thoughts on this? Thanks.

God bless,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1beleevr,

Just what kind of comment do you want on adultery? (Matt 5:27-28 seems pretty definitive to me and addresses another aspect pretty well,too - in my opinion.)

Can any catholic out there give a definitive answer to a question I asked in post#941 about my catholic friend who is married with three children, but for the last two years, has been living with (apart from his wife, obviously) with a female co-worker, with whom he has fathered two childrenWhat would the catholic church recommend he do? Can he go to confession, and it will be all better? has he committed a venial sin(s) or a mortal sin? Is it wrong, considering the graveness of his actions, to raise his two yon=ng sons as catholics? The mother does no want them christened as catholics! Feedback anyone?

The CC - following the teaching of Christ has identified that such conduct is living in sin - and that would be mortal sin. The requirement is for him (and his concubine) to live apart (avoid the near occasion of sin) repent of the sin and have genuine contrition for his seriously sinful actions, go to Confession and be absolved of this serious sin and any other sins he has since his last good Confession.

The man still has moral, spiritual and economic responsibilities for the children he fathered. And, he has responsibilities to his wife (and, of course, to any children he has had with her.)

Now, we see the complicated mess this guy (and his concubine) have made of the lives of their two illegitimae children. These children are totally innocent - yet being torn up in the vice of their parents’ sins. No easy answer here. The children should be baptised and raised as Catholics. If the Mother objects to this and his custody then her will prevail in this matter. This will undoubtedly wind up with a civil court where a judge will try to make correct decisions (as sanctioned by civil law) for the welfare of the children and the parents.

Catholics sin all of the time - this is an espcially painful example because so many lives have been harmed by this violation of the 7th Commandment. But, the bottom line is that Christ holds out His Loving Forgiveness through the Priest in Confession (John 20: 19-21). The effects and consequences of this sin stretch far into the future and this is something that will require everyone’s skills to properly address.

God bless

 

[Sayf_Udeen]

To be honest, the fact the Catholic beliefs have to be amended is one of the things that affirms for me Catholicism isn’t for real.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sayf Udeen,

I think if you read the previous posts, you will find that this is a hypothetical question designed to find out what is keeping people, such as yourself, from joining the Catholic Faith. There never was or is any intention to ‘amend’ the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To be honest, the fact the Catholic beliefs have to be amended is one of the things that affirms for me Catholicism isn’t for real.

A lot of posters have said a lot of things, but, I honestly do not recall anyone questioning the reality of the almost 2,000 year old religion founded by Jesus Christ and built on Peter. Do you think any thing else isn’t real?

I find it unique that you would draw a conclusion from a topic without doing any apparent research on the site you just posted to. Or, maybe I just did not understand what it is you meant? Please explain. Thanks.

God bless

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr…

You said:

Not exactly sure what type of feedback you’re looking for, but I do know that i have ran across both high winded catholics and no-catholics

Well, I was hoping you could tell me what Jesus is talking about, and I too have ran across both high winded catholics and no-catholics
What are ya gonna do?

And as for the discussion of communion, and transsubstantiation, having been raised in the tradition of Matthew 26:26-28, I cannot relate to a cannibalistic representation of "eating the flesh of Christ, or actually drinking His blood! I

**So, you think, if Jesus was speaking cannibalistically, as opposed to symbolically, that makes Him a cannibal, ergo the need to view it symbolically? If you read my post, I think you will see that Jesus was speaking spiritually! Even the apostles were confused, until Pentecost of course…
**

do know that there are many rants for and against this practice, and Jesus’s use of parables, and symbolism(too many to list)for instance when He calls us His sheep:; are we really sheep?

**Exactly my friend!!! When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his followers clearly understood, and never walked away; here, they believed He was speaking literally, which is why they walked away, and the Apostles did not, even though they didn’t fully grasp His words!!!
**

Or the story about putting new wine into old wineskins Did anyone really understand what that meant?

**Again, Jesus was clearly speaking in metaphor and no one questioned Him…nobody walked away, as they did in John 6!!!

**
I have tried to understand what transsubstantiation is all about, but it boggles my mind:

**You don’t think it boggles the minds of Christians belonging to the C.C. and the E.O.C.??? But He said it, so I believe Him, just as the early church believed!!!
**

Many times when I am holding that bread and that cup, it is as if Christ were there with me!

Hey brother…that’s a start! That’s where I started! When the Apostles, Jesus’ chosen ministers, to be witnesses to the ends of the earth, held the bread and the cup of wine in their hands, as you do, I don’t really believe that they truly understood the meaning of: this is my Body…this is my blood…unless you eat my flesh…unless you drink my blood…until Pentecost; even then, I’m sure it was a Mystery, at least until they passed on to be with Jesus, but they did believe, as you and I should!

The bread represents His body; the juice, or wine, His blood!

**If it only represents His Body and Blood, then why didn’t He just say that? Instead He said, this IS MY BODY!!! No one will answer this simple question and perhaps there is a good reason for that!!! Why would Jesus be so remiss on such an important teaching? I don’t think He was; I believe He meant it!!!
**

He broke the bread and gave each disciple a piece, and they all drank from the cup, correct?

**As per sacred scripture —yup!
**

So if us noncatholics are duplicating what Christ did at the Last Supper, why are we wrong?

**I humbly declare: because you believe, as I once did, that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, when He said; this is my Body…this is my flesh…unless you eat my flesh…unless you drink my blood; you are eating the bread unworthily as I once did, and Paul clearly admonishes those who were doing the same thing; no judgment my friend, on my part --never!!! —just the straight dope, as per scripture. If the grumblers believed…if the apostles believed…if the early church believed… then perhaps we as Christians, should all believe in this ineffable Mystery?
**

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning it, can we? We cannot profane a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies, ergo confession to one of His chosen ministers, just as they did 2000 years ago, only they confessed their sins to the apostles and their disciples.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.” I couldn’t believe it; no one doubted the true presence of Christ, for 1500 years; that speaks volumes for me! Does that little nugget matter to you?

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Maybe you could just give the post a read, and show me where I am going wrong? If I am wrong, then I will be the first to admit it. As you read, put the teachings of the C.C. OUT OF YOUR MIND; just tell me what is going on…

Thanks…

 

[joe370]

1beleevr…

Just one more thing; Jesus said that the Church is His Body! Is it just a symbol…a representation of His Body, or is it His Spiritually Mystical Body, to which He is the Head and Savior? Jesus’ One Body, as the bride of Christ, is comprised of brothers and sisters in Christ; we belong to Jesus’ Mystical Body. The church is Christ’s Body; the bread is Christ’s body. Is that a fair assessment???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I think you covered all of the bases

1beleevr…

Just one more thing; Jesus said that the Church is His Body! Is it just a symbol…a representation of His Body, or is it His Spiritually Mystical Body, to which He is the Head and Savior? Jesus’ One Body, as the bride of Christ, is comprised of brothers and sisters in Christ; we belong to Jesus’ Mystical Body. The church is Christ’s Body; the bread is Christ’s body. Is that a fair assessment???

There are those who had Christ right in front of them … and walked away. There are those today who simply refuse to understand the very clearly stated words in John 6. These same un-believers then try to justify themselves by claiming Christ said something else. For a group that battles mightily for a 24-hour day in the Genisis account of Creation - it is unique that they dispute the Author of all Creation’s own words. For the God that made everything from nothing, the Real Presence is the supreme act of Love - yet, it is denied by these un-believers who carry their shortened Bibles around as if this were kind of proof of living God’s commands.

God bless

 

[guanophore]

Post#916, is a perfect example of why many non-catholics are still that; non-catholics!

I did not take the time to go back and read #916 but I will agree with you that it is arrogant and prideful to challenge others salvation! Only God knows the heart.

I personally am rock solid in my salvation, and my Saviour shows me daily that I am His:thumbsup:

:clapping:

We all know that Christ established a church before He died; the catholics were just first in line to claim it as theirs!

No, beleevr, this is not the case. Jesus built HIS Church, upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. It came to be called Catholic because it was universal - the same throughout the world.

And then they ask us to believe that their pope is somewhat of a descendant of the Apostles!

I don’t think we believe this in the sense that you mean it here. We believe he is a successor of the Apostles, just as are all the Bishops.

Many of us heathens:rolleyes:, believe that Christ's church is the entire body of believers (not just catholics), who are connected through faith and being saved by His grace and blood!

This is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

There will be an angry reply by the original poster, but as usual, it will fall on deaf ears!

I hope you will not be too deaf to hear that what you have been taught is not really what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

Perhaps if she can get that plank out of her eye, she will be able to look at people more objectively!

And perhaps you will too?

To be bold enough to assume a God-like persona, and say that unless you are catholic, you’re not saved, is blasphemous at best! Sadly, though, churches in America, have become dividers, rather than uniters

The Apostles taught that there is only One Church. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body. therefore, we consider all persons, whether separated from us in doctrine and practice, who are properly baptized, born into the One Body, which is the Church.

 

[1beleevr]

Well, hello there, Cinette: Lat time I remember, you were fresh from the bath, with wet hair, so nice to touch base with you! I think that maybe John 6:63-64 explain partly why most(not the Twelve) disciples left! Jesus knew those who didn’t really believe; and those in the crowd who were among the Jewish religious leaders, probably thought he meant, literally gnawing on His arms, legs, etc. They might have also been remembering Leviticus 17:10-11, which forbid the drinking of blood in any form. I didn’t see any verses in John where He repeated Himself, but He did speak of the bread and wine, as His body and blood at the Last Supper.Which begs the question(again), if we non-catholics are each holding a piece of unleavened bread, and holding our own cup, why don’t catholics? The way you do communion, is not the way Christ and the disciples did it, right? One last question, which is off the subject, but would it be a stretch to say that what the disciples, especially Peter did in Acts 2:38-41, an altar call? And how does the catholic church interpret Acts 2:21?

 

[1beleevr]

Hey there, benedictus2, how are you; I hope that our Heavenly Father is keeping you in His loving grace! I guess I completely glossed over posts #924&925! Anyway, I have been part of a non-denominational congregation for some time now; easier that way In some ways, it is like being an independent politically. At this stage of my Christian walk(getting more blissful every day), I am growing in leaps and bounds, partly due to my serving God and my pastor’s teachings! In spite of what you believe, I truly believe that my pastor is an anointed man of God! And as for street ministry, you are partly right about people being turned off by it! I can sense it when talking to some of them, that they are a bit jaded, for whatever reason. But trust me, we don’t use the “Way of the Master”, techniques! We just talk to them, ask if they need anything; food, clothing, prayer, etc.! Many times, those we are approaching, will initiate conversations about God or Jesus, and we will pray with them and if they are ready to make that decision, we can offer a sinner’s prayer for them to accept Christ, point them to a church in their area, and give them material about baptism, give them a Bible! And as far as my asking about you being a nun; you are more transparent than you may realize In reading many of your posts(not just to me), it is easy to detect a stern, authoratative presence! I sometimes picture you with a habit on, and a ruler or pointer in your hand, trying to get the student to understand your point! I do not say this in a derogatory way, it was just an observation I made! Hey, bottom line, is this; 42 years as a non-catholic, and life couldn’t be better! I am using the gifts that the Holy Spirit gave me, serving in obedience, and married to another amazing servant! By the way, blood pressure this morning, 117/67; yippee!

h

 

[jlhargus]

Well, hello there, Cinette: Lat time I remember, you were fresh from the bath, with wet hair, so nice to touch base with you! I think that maybe John 6:63-64 explain partly why most(not the Twelve) disciples left! Jesus knew those who didn’t really believe; and those in the crowd who were among the Jewish religious leaders, probably thought he meant, literally gnawing on His arms, legs, etc. They might have also been remembering Leviticus 17:10-11, which forbid the drinking of blood in any form. I didn’t see any verses in John where He repeated Himself, but He did speak of the bread and wine, as His body and blood at the Last Supper.Which begs the question(again), if we non-catholics are each holding a piece of unleavened bread, and holding our own cup, why don’t catholics? The way you do communion, is not the way Christ and the disciples did it, right? One last question, which is off the subject, but would it be a stretch to say that what the disciples, especially Peter did in Acts 2:38-41, an altar call? And how does the catholic church interpret Acts 2:21?

JL: Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion, Christ was not a literal lamb and rivers of living water do not literally flow out of our bellies. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ said any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many FOLLOWED HIM NO MORE, when he said these things? NONE, because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically.

When Christ said in Jn6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and THE BREAD that I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 THE JEWS therefore strove among themselves, SAYING, HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT? [They questioned HOW? because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal. Had I been there I would have thought he meant to eat and drink his blood after he died.]

Jn6:53 Then JESUS SAID unto them, VERILY, VERILY, I say unto you, EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON man, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. [Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. It was a hard saying, because they understood perfectly. His meaning was literal, not symbolic. A symbol would not have been A HARD SAYING, but an easy saying to accept.

Jn6:60 MANY therefore of his DISCIPLES, when they had heard this, SAID, THIS IS AN HARD SAYING, WHO CAN HEAR IT?

Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? [It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing HOW I was to eat his body and drink his blood. That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust. We know HOW now. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus did, Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, HE TOOK BREAD, and BLESSED it, AND BRAKE, and GAVE TO THEM. 31 And THEIR EYES WERE OPENED, and THEY KNEW HIM; and he vanished out of their sight. Lk24:35 And THEY TOLD what things were done in the way, and HOW HE WAS KNOWN of them IN BREAKING OF BREAD.]

Jn6:63 IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they ARE SPIRIT, AND they are LIFE. 64 But THERE ARE SOME of you THAT BELIEVE NOT. For JESUS KNEW from the beginning WHO they were that BELIEVED NOT, and WHO SHOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And HE SAID, Therefore said I unto you, that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT it were GIVEN unto HIM OF MY FATHER.

[Many Protestants say this proves, Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was after saying this that many of HIS DISCIPLES walked no more with him. Why would they leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They didn’t, they left because they knew and took him, at his WORD, literally. Our Lord says, “no man can come unto me, EXCEPT given him OF MY FATHER”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh. Thinking in a fleshy carnal way one cannot see as our Lord says, [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH THE SON, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.] How do we see our Lord, by faith taking him at his literal WORD. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus.

Jn 6:66 FROM THAT TIME MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WENT BACK, and WALKED NO MORE WITH HIM.

Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY? [Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone not even the apostles, not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? 62 WHAT and IF YE shall SEE THE SON of man ASCEND up WHERE HE WAS before?]. Peter seems to have taken it, as a literal hard saying, not knowing HOW, Christ’s flesh is food indeed and his blood drink indeed. Yet Peter accepted by faith knowing and tursting who Christ really was.]

Jn6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? THOU HAST THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. 69 And WE BELIEVE and are sure that THOU ART that CHRIST, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

70 JESUS ANSWERED them, HAVE NOT I CHOSEN YOU TWELVE, and ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL? 71 HE SPAKE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. [The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ. Judas turned away from the Lord, not believing in the literal meaning of transubstantiation.]

The people of Christ’s day were also outraged, when Christ claimed to be equal to God. For them believing God became flesh was as impossible, as some find believing he is present under appearance of bread and wine. In a sense we are both right, Catholics have the real presents as taught and Protestants have a symbol as they teach.

 

[joe370]

1beleevr;5017691]Well, hello there, Cinette: Lat time I remember, you were fresh from the bath, with wet hair, so nice to touch base with you! I think that maybe John 6:63-64 explain partly why most(not the Twelve) disciples left! Jesus knew those who didn’t really believe; and those in the crowd who were among the Jewish religious leaders, probably thought he meant, literally gnawing on His arms, legs, etc.

**Exactly…they thought He was nuts…
**

They might have also been remembering Leviticus 17:10-11, which forbid the drinking of blood in any form.

**Exactly…they thought He was nuts…
** **They knew He must have been off His rocker!!!
**
I didn’t see any verses in John where He repeated Himself,

**Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
**

but He did speak of the bread and wine, as His body and blood at the Last Supper.Which begs the question(again), if we non-catholics are each holding a piece of unleavened bread, and holding our own cup, why don’t catholics?

Perhaps it is because only Jesus’ chosen ministers were charged with this mission and not every common Joe…

The way you do communion, is not the way Christ and the disciples did it, right?

Really???

One last question, which is off the subject,

**Of course it’s off the subject; you have yet to answer cinettes questions or mine…if you ask me something, I promise I will answer!!!
**

…but would it be a stretch to say that what the disciples, especially Peter did in Acts 2:38-41, an altar call? And how does the catholic church interpret Acts 2:21?

This is a red herring my friend…

The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord, and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord.’ Acts 2

This is idiomatic language 101… what’s your point??? Trying to stay with you here, my friend…

 

[Matariel]

The Apostles taught that there is only One Church. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body. therefore, we consider all persons, whether separated from us in doctrine and practice, who are properly baptized, born into the One Body, which is the Church.

With the addendum that they are imperfectly united to the one Church.

 

[jlhargus]

One last question, which is off the subject, but would it be a stretch to say that what the disciples, especially Peter did in Acts 2:38-41, an altar call? And how does the catholic church interpret Acts 2:21?

JL: An altar is a table on which a sacrifice is offered, Peter was not speaking from an altar. Acts2:38-41 What did they do after being called to repent? THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED V:42 THEY WERE ADDED TO THAT APOSTLES FELLOWSHIP AND CONTINUED STEADFASTLY IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP and in BREADING OF BREAD=mass and in PRAYERS. They all became living member of the one VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP. The one body and only bride of Christ the Catholic Church.

How does the Catholic Church interpret Acts2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. In the light of the rest of the Word of God, certainly not on its own. Mt7:21 NOT EVERY ONE THAT SAITH unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH the will of my Father which is in heaven. Jms2:24 YE SEE then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. 26 For as THE BODY WITHOUT THE SPIRIT IS DEAD, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.

 

[Peter_J]

Christian7801–again, if you choose to answer these questions, please do so without any preconceived notions; remove the teachings of the C.C. FROM YOUR MIND; REMOVE THE TEACHINGS OF YOUR CHURCH FROM YOUR MIND; SIMPLY EMPLOY REASON AND LOGIC TO DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION!!!

Yeah … like we should remove from our minds the preconceived notion that Jesus really said the things that are attributed to him in the Gospels.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Bobzills and Janet1983. If I may “butt in” …

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

That’s actually not entirely accurate. 1 John 5:17 says “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.”

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Christian7801–again, if you choose to answer these questions, please do so without any preconceived notions; remove the teachings of the C.C. FROM YOUR MIND; REMOVE THE TEACHINGS OF YOUR CHURCH FROM YOUR MIND; SIMPLY EMPLOY REASON AND LOGIC TO DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION!!!

Hey Peter, you said:

Yeah … like we should remove from our minds the preconceived notion that Jesus really said the things that are attributed to him in the Gospels.

---

I wasn’t suggesting that non-Catholics remove from their minds the preconceived notion that Jesus really said the things that are attributed to him in the Gospels; far from it!!!

I was merely suggesting that non-Catholics remove the teachings of the C.C. from their minds; this can be an obstacle. I simply suggested employing logic and reason to draw their conclusions!!! Big difference my friend!!! However, no one has done so; wonder why that is?