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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConfusedTim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s all fine and good. As I alluded to, the exclusion of Catholics in the protestant idea of “body of believers” is not universal among protestants, but it is quite widespread nonetheless. Regardless, the primary point still remains…that mere belief, faith and even devotion to our Lord outside of the instrument He chose to lead the faithful, in many circumstances, over-simplifies the Gospel message, and the apostolic teaching essential for Christian development in preparation for the beatific vision and eternal life.
You say “The Lord opened to me that if all were believers, then they were all born of God, and had passed from death to life”. And I say, “that’s odd…The Lord opened that to me too, but He also opened to me what “believing” really means…and that Baptism is an essential in the salvific plan, as is His Church on earth”. So, here we both have the Lord opening things up to us, that are quite different…what are we to make of that? This is not just you and I disagreeing here…we are representative of the divided body of devout Catholics and devout Protestants. One of us is wrong, one of us has either over-simplified it, and as a result, will fail to properly shepherd the flock who succomb to an ‘easy believism’ theology…or one of us has made it too complex and ritualistic and obligatory, hence failing the flock who succomb to idolatry and empty “works”.

Well, as a former evangelical, and now a Catholic…I can tell you that the latter is not true. Once you open yourself up to authentic Catholic teaching, it becomes quite obvious that The Church is authentically Christ-centered, historic and biblical.

Bottom line, every Christian follows men. One way or another, we all follow humans, not Bibles. The only thing we do with our Bibles is attempt to “validate” what we first have learned from humans, and then read it, and receive guidance from it, through that filter unless and until we become convinced of some other human(s). So, really the question that remains is…what humans can we trust? If we acknowledge that Christianity is not something initially developed in a person by means of them, their Bible and prayer to the Spirit - then we MUST ask the question, who on earth can we really trust with teaching us? Seems like the answer lies in apostolic succession. But that’s just me (and of course millions of other Catholics).

God Bless
For some of us…we need a very simple message of grace and mercy…so it’s a good things Friends exist or I’d be sitting back scratching my head…I need simplicity.🙂

I don’t accept an “easy believism theology” either…so we both are in good company.

I agree…Friends seek to “live in that virtue and Power of life in which the apostles lived”…so we share a common belief again.🙂
 
For some of us…we need a very simple message of grace and mercy…so it’s a good things Friends exist or I’d be sitting back scratching my head…I need simplicity.🙂

I don’t accept an “easy believism theology” either…so we both are in good company.

I agree…Friends seek to “live in that virtue and Power of life in which the apostles lived”…so we share a common belief again.🙂
Hi again, Publisher.

Just wanted to clarify my message. I do not suggest that the Gospel is not a simple message - indeed it is, if it is taught by those authentic teachers in lineage with the apostles. It is quite simple. I merely mean that protestant self-interpretation theology serves to OVER simplify the Gospel, reducing it, as it were, to belief, a one-time repentence, and trying to live a good life. All noble things, mind you. But an over-simplification nonetheless which, to the lukewarm (which you are not), can easily result in an “easy believism” mentality…culminating in them leading unrepentent sinful lives after their “altar call”.

Yes, friends seek to live in that virtue and power of life in which the apostles lived…but I would suggest we are not called just to live like that, but to seek out and find their authentic teaching for us today, because it’s not enough to find it only in the Bible. We have to find out where this teaching is in the world. I guess that’s my point.

God Bless
 
Hi again, Publisher.

Just wanted to clarify my message. I do not suggest that the Gospel is not a simple message - indeed it is, if it is taught by those authentic teachers in lineage with the apostles. It is quite simple. I merely mean that protestant self-interpretation theology serves to OVER simplify the Gospel, reducing it, as it were, to belief, a one-time repentence, and trying to live a good life. All noble things, mind you. But an over-simplification nonetheless which, to the lukewarm (which you are not), can easily result in an “easy believism” mentality…culminating in them leading unrepentent sinful lives after their “altar call”.

Yes, friends seek to live in that virtue and power of life in which the apostles lived…but I would suggest we are not called just to live like that, but to seek out and find their authentic teaching for us today, because it’s not enough to find it only in the Bible. We have to find out where this teaching is in the world. I guess that’s my point.

God Bless
Friend Steve,

You may have your “Protestants” mixed up…repentance is an on going daily task Friends undertake. I really don’t know of any Christians who believe in a “one time repentance”. “Alter calls” I have heard of, a product of Evangelical Christianity…and useful I would think for those who cannot grasp Catholic teaching as easily as some…as I said…some of us need simplicity…even if the gospel is “reduced” to “Love God and love your neighbor”, there is merit in that.

“Easy believism” is not restrictied to some Protestants…some Catholics believe that simply by going to “confession” on a regular basis they “can do what they want” since they can “confess” it later and receive absolution…we both know this “easy believism” that some Catholics employ does not reflect the true nature of the sacrament of confession that the CC holds. I put to you that this “easy believism” of confession can also lead to “sinful lives” since forgiveness is simply a “confession” away with no true act of the will to “change”. I don’t think this “easy believism” which also plagues Catholocism is indicitive of true Catholic belief and practice…no more than I believe your definition of “easy believism” for us Protestants is indicitive of true Protestant practice and belief. Both are rooted in a misconception of what the other believes colored by “what we have been told”…not by Truth.

Friend, while we Quakers are misguided, in your thinking I understand, we do seek out to find that “true expression” of apostolic living…to live in the Resurrection Presence…“He is among his people to teach them himself.” We do not find “following Christ” in ritual expressions of sacraments…but in the day to day sacramental living of “incarnating” this Presence into our daily lives. Simple? Perhaps…but I have not yet mastered such a “simple” undertaking…hence…daily repentance and seeking to be renewed spiritualy each day is an ardous task which I fail at often. But then there is grace…astounding mercy and Grace from the Presence.

Perhaps each of us can learn to rejoice in our walk with God as we offer mercy and compassion toward one another for each of our shortcomings of understanding.

Peace to you friend.
 
Think fast, what would you do…? You’re out doing street ministry, and you are talking to a young man(David), whom you’ve never met! He begins to tear up, and says, “I’m tired of trying to do this myself, I want Jesus in my life.” Just your luck, you’ve forgotten your Bible, and must rely on your knowledge of scripture to help lead this young man to Christ. This actually happened on October 18, 2007; the Christian who encountered David prayed an improvised sinner’s prayer with him, and David accepted Christ that day!!! Good thing this Christian was prayed up and knowlwdgeable about the Word. This past weekend, approximately 75 Christians from 10 churches, met at a city park to do an outreach for Chris. In the runup to the outreach, they were asked by pastors in the surrounding area, "What are you doing in “our"neighborhood”? The young man in charge, calmly replied,“this is God’s neighborhood”! When I heard this story, it made me think of how many churches have become territorial, and exclusive; laying down conditions and rules, to join their church. And it’s not just one denomination, or religion. This disease touches all Christian churches. Bickering about doctrine and shouting back and forth about, “we’re God’s church”! So what if somebody wants to have a “Jesus and me” relationship, or pray through Mary and the saints? Conversely, if someone doesn’t pray through Mary, big deal! And do you really believe that God cares whether you wear Levi’s, shorts, or a suit and tie to church? The woman or man in the next pew over might! It’ high time that we stop being divisive, and become the family God intended us to be. The only title we need is Believer!👍👍👍
 
Start by eliminating the notion of an invisible sky daddy. I think the rest will then take care of itself.
 
Think fast, what would you do…? You’re out doing street ministry, and you are talking to a young man(David), whom you’ve never met! He begins to tear up, and says, “I’m tired of trying to do this myself, I want Jesus in my life.” Just your luck, you’ve forgotten your Bible, and must rely on your knowledge of scripture to help lead this young man to Christ. This actually happened on October 18, 2007; the Christian who encountered David prayed an improvised sinner’s prayer with him, and David accepted Christ that day!!! Good thing this Christian was prayed up and knowlwdgeable about the Word. This past weekend, approximately 75 Christians from 10 churches, met at a city park to do an outreach for Chris. In the runup to the outreach, they were asked by pastors in the surrounding area, "What are you doing in “our"neighborhood”? The young man in charge, calmly replied,“this is God’s neighborhood”! When I heard this story, it made me think of how many churches have become territorial, and exclusive; laying down conditions and rules, to join their church. And it’s not just one denomination, or religion. This disease touches all Christian churches. Bickering about doctrine and shouting back and forth about, “we’re God’s church”! So what if somebody wants to have a “Jesus and me” relationship, or pray through Mary and the saints? Conversely, if someone doesn’t pray through Mary, big deal! And do you really believe that God cares whether you wear Levi’s, shorts, or a suit and tie to church? The woman or man in the next pew over might! It’ high time that we stop being divisive, and become the family God intended us to be. The only title we need is Believer!👍👍👍
Well, I won’t go scriptural on you because you went “real world.” I will do the same…

So, when someone who calls themselves a believer says that it is acceptable for a man to marry a man, what do you say? Or that a man can have multiple wives? Or that the laws against bestiality ended with Jesus? Or that the age of concent for sex is the same as the age of being able to accept Jesus?

Then what?
 
Friend Steve,

You may have your “Protestants” mixed up…repentance is an on going daily task Friends undertake. I really don’t know of any Christians who believe in a “one time repentance”. “Alter calls” I have heard of, a product of Evangelical Christianity…and useful I would think for those who cannot grasp Catholic teaching as easily as some…as I said…some of us need simplicity…even if the gospel is “reduced” to “Love God and love your neighbor”, there is merit in that.

“Easy believism” is not restrictied to some Protestants…some Catholics believe that simply by going to “confession” on a regular basis they “can do what they want” since they can “confess” it later and receive absolution…we both know this “easy believism” that some Catholics employ does not reflect the true nature of the sacrament of confession that the CC holds. I put to you that this “easy believism” of confession can also lead to “sinful lives” since forgiveness is simply a “confession” away with no true act of the will to “change”. I don’t think this “easy believism” which also plagues Catholocism is indicitive of true Catholic belief and practice…no more than I believe your definition of “easy believism” for us Protestants is indicitive of true Protestant practice and belief. Both are rooted in a misconception of what the other believes colored by “what we have been told”…not by Truth.

Friend, while we Quakers are misguided, in your thinking I understand, we do seek out to find that “true expression” of apostolic living…to live in the Resurrection Presence…“He is among his people to teach them himself.” We do not find “following Christ” in ritual expressions of sacraments…but in the day to day sacramental living of “incarnating” this Presence into our daily lives. Simple? Perhaps…but I have not yet mastered such a “simple” undertaking…hence…daily repentance and seeking to be renewed spiritualy each day is an ardous task which I fail at often. But then there is grace…astounding mercy and Grace from the Presence.

Perhaps each of us can learn to rejoice in our walk with God as we offer mercy and compassion toward one another for each of our shortcomings of understanding.

Peace to you friend.
Fair enough, Publisher. You’re very right. The fulfillment of our part of the simple message of the Gospel is anything but simple. And yes, poorly catechised and/or lukewarm minimalist “Catholics” also succomb to a sort of “easy believism” or, probably better put, “easy obedience” mentality. I admit I don’t know much about the Quaker faith.

I guess all I’m saying is that there are not many “truths” out there in terms of the teaching of Christ. There is One Truth, which is Jesus Himself, but this one truth also contains the precise teachings and knowledge passed on through the apostles. This one truth was meant to be preserved for all time, until the end of the age, which means that it has always been with us, even today, tomorrow and beyond. Seems to me that with all our divisions in Christianity, somebody has the preserved truth. But who? That’s all I’m saying.

…and Peace be with you, friend
 
So many Christians still live under the Old Covenant, which begs me to ask; why did Jesus come and why did Jesus die?:confused:
 
:confused:from eating meat on Friday, and saying hailMarys; optional, mandatory or strongly recommended?:confused:
 
Hi, Gcnuss,

I enjoyed reading your post.

Obviously, you have done some research in this area - and, I have not. So, if you would not mind sharing your thoughts on these matters of Eucharist and Ordination, I for one would appreciate reading them.
Third, and last for now, as a Lutheran pastor I do not believe, and cannot accept, the Catholic position that the Eucharist, as celebrated in the Lutheran Church, is invalid.
As you appreciate the matter, what is the Catholic position that identifies the Lutheran Eucharist to be invalid? Do you know why this is the case?
By the same token, I do not believe that my ordination is equally invalid because it does not fall within the Catholic Church’s definition of validity.
In the same vein, what is the Catholic position that identifies Lutheran ordination to be invalid? Do you know why this is the case?
I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change its teachings on these subjects, but they remain an obstacle to my possible conversion.
Conversion is a very personal and truly dramatic event in everyone’s life. What are often preceived as gigantic obstacles tend to be ‘average size’ concerns that are just out of perspective. The concerns must be addressed - no doubt about that - and I have every confidence in the Holy Spirit guiding you to the answers that will put your heart at rest in Christ.

God bless,
 
In an earlier post, I suggested the possibility of introducing contemporary Christian music(of which there is an abundance of awesome songs) into the service, at catholic churches:thumbsup:This was met with a sound “NO WAY”:eek:Then I read in many places in Psalms, where David and others exhort us to sing praises, to worship with the cymbal and the lyre:thumbsup:Psalms 100:1 tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. All through the Bible, there are recordings of God’s people, filled with His Spirit, rejoicing, dancing and celebrating Him! I agree, that on certain occasions, ther should be reverence, but even a funeral should be a celebration of the deceased’s life, and not sorrow for his/her passing; especially if they were a Christian:thumbsup:
 
In an earlier post, I suggested the possibility of introducing contemporary Christian music(of which there is an abundance of awesome songs) into the service, at catholic churches:thumbsup:This was met with a sound “NO WAY”:eek:Then I read in many places in Psalms, where David and others exhort us to sing praises, to worship with the cymbal and the lyre:thumbsup:Psalms 100:1 tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. All through the Bible, there are recordings of God’s people, filled with His Spirit, rejoicing, dancing and celebrating Him! I agree, that on certain occasions, ther should be reverence, but even a funeral should be a celebration of the deceased’s life, and not sorrow for his/her passing; especially if they were a Christian:thumbsup:
Part of the reason that so many Catholics are opposed to contemporary music is tradition. Another part of it is one of quality. So many of the modern songs are basically not great. Another major issue is that some of them are borderline heretical, if that good.
 
Hate to disagree wit you Ralph, but contemporary Christian music is none of those;) Granted, some of the louder music by the younger artists is difficult to listen to, but “How Great is Our God”, is perhaps on eof the greatest praise/worship songs ever written:thumbsup: And I have heard contemporary Christian music played on catholic radio(in 2007). Listen, I grew up with all the old hymns, and still love them, but we need to loosen up and worship our God, with hands raised, and voices shouting:):)Remember the book of Psalms;)
 
Hate to disagree wit you Ralph, but contemporary Christian music is none of those;) Granted, some of the louder music by the younger artists is difficult to listen to, but “How Great is Our God”, is perhaps on eof the greatest praise/worship songs ever written:thumbsup: And I have heard contemporary Christian music played on catholic radio(in 2007). Listen, I grew up with all the old hymns, and still love them, but we need to loosen up and worship our God, with hands raised, and voices shouting:):)Remember the book of Psalms;)
I wish I could claim the line as my own, but most of it is third rate poetry set to fourth rate music. To me, it is not about loud, as I am a hard rock/heavy metal fan, but it is about content and style. Just because it is fine on the radio does not make it fine for Church. And if I hear that stupid song about God puttin on the Ritz one more time, I am going to hurt someone. Badly.

Do you know how psalms are used in Jewish worship?
 
Hi, Gcnuss,

I enjoyed reading your post.

Obviously, you have done some research in this area - and, I have not. So, if you would not mind sharing your thoughts on these matters of Eucharist and Ordination, I for one would appreciate reading them.

As you appreciate the matter, what is the Catholic position that identifies the Lutheran Eucharist to be invalid? Do you know why this is the case?

In the same vein, what is the Catholic position that identifies Lutheran ordination to be invalid? Do you know why this is the case?

Conversion is a very personal and truly dramatic event in everyone’s life. What are often preceived as gigantic obstacles tend to be ‘average size’ concerns that are just out of perspective. The concerns must be addressed - no doubt about that - and I have every confidence in the Holy Spirit guiding you to the answers that will put your heart at rest in Christ.
Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Of course, one gets into the questions of whether the actions of validly ordained bishops (who have been taken, by government fiat, into a non-Catholic church body) are valid themselves. These are the kinds of issues that make my head spin.

Enough for now.:banghead:
 
Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Of course, one gets into the questions of whether the actions of validly ordained bishops (who have been taken, by government fiat, into a non-Catholic church body) are valid themselves. These are the kinds of issues that make my head spin.

Enough for now.:banghead:
Just as an aside, would the situation in Sweden be that much different than the one in England with the Anglicans?
 
Hi, Gcnuss,

Thank you for your prompt response. So, let me see… the key here is the lack of apostolic succession, at least in the German group? Since this is a pivotal issue, I think it best to be as clear as possible. There are several things at work…naturally, this is not an easy process - but, it may be a simple one.

Tracing the history back is critical - mainly because, Christ gave specific power to the Apostles, and a special power to Peter as leader of the Apostles. While many followed Christ and some were even close to Him, the Apostles were the only ones to received the powers given at the Last Supper and after the Resurrection when He breathed on them so they could receive the Holy Spirit.

The change from Apostolic succession in post Reformation England may be instructive for the Sweedish question. There were validly consecrated Catholic Bishops who left the Catholic faith and did illegally consecrate other bishops. (The issue with the St. Piux X Society may offer a current examples here.) As I understand the situation, the English governing authority wanted no such indirect connection with Rome - so, as of a particualr point, bishops were appointed by the government and at some point the last connection between the Apostolic succession and an Anglican bishop simply died out. There is no connection today. I am guessing that since the Sweedish government decided to take over the belief systems of others - something similar (a distinct break with Apostolic succession “Who needs it anymore?”] took place.

While it could be argued that Christ could have done things differently, the real issue is that God is in charge, and the Way He chose is the Way the Catholic Church is going. The CC has always taught that the consecrated Bread and Wine are really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The CC has always taught that specially trained men were to be in a hierarchy of: Deacon, Priest and Bishop - and that while Deacons can do some things, only Priests can say Mass and hear Confessions and only Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood in that they can ordain priests.

Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. Christ gave the Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom” in that whatever Peter bound on earth was bound in heaven, and whatever Peter losed on earth was also losed in heaven. And this is right there in your Bible (the infallable Word of God written in the words of men and put together by the CC… and the attempt to dismantle it came from Martin Luther.

Today, our NT is the same in both Catholic and Protestant (King James) versions. Now, this is no mean trick - especially considering that Luther wanted to drop the Epistle of James completely. In fact, as I recall, Luther did drop him. As a Lutheran minister, I would appreciate you telling me how James actually got back into the Protestant (King James) Bible?

Thanks and God Bless.
Hi Tom,

The answers for both of the above come from the Catholic doctrine (or is it dogma?) that ordination is valid only if done by a bishop in apostolic succession as defined by the Church. Flowing from that, according to the Church, the Eucharist can be validly confected only by one ordained through that apostolic succession.

The supposed lack of apostolic succession in the Lutheran church (and in other non-Catholic churches – save the Orthodox) is based on the premise that no validly ordained bishops joined the Reformation. I believe that was true in Germany, but in Sweden the Catholic clergy were given no choice but to be brought into the Church of Sweden. Therefore, there were validly ordained clergy in that branch of Lutheranism.

Of course, one gets into the questions of whether the actions of validly ordained bishops (who have been taken, by government fiat, into a non-Catholic church body) are valid themselves. These are the kinds of issues that make my head spin.

Enough for now.:banghead:
 
Hi, Gcnuss,
Today, our NT is the same in both Catholic and Protestant (King James) versions. Now, this is no mean trick - especially considering that Luther wanted to drop the Epistle of James completely. In fact, as I recall, Luther did drop him. As a Lutheran minister, I would appreciate you telling me how James actually got back into the Protestant (King James) Bible?

Thanks and God Bless.
JL: If I am not mistaken Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews and Revelation
 
Hi, Craig,

This wound up being a little longer then I had thought…😃 And brevity is to be the ‘soul of wit…!’ 😃 So, this will be Part 1 of 2.

I appreciate your honesty and clarity. I think the next virture to strive for is accuracy…😃 From what I read, it appears that you have provided your opinion about what the CC teaches, but no documentation. I am confident that if I were to be critical of your religion and never really looked at what it taught - you would have every reason to question how well I knew my subject.

We are all to respect the dictates of our conscience - for this is how we will be judged. The issue, of course, is just what did we do in the formation of our conscience. It is a responsibility to have a conscience that has thoroughly researched the matters at hand and has determined a moral and ethical course of action and belief. So, let’s take a look and see what we have…
Very well said and I will respond in this context.

I am NOT a Catholic although I DO recognise the authentic spirituality of some Catholics who practise their faith. I could NOT, in deepest conscience, become a Catholic. The following are the MAIN reasons why:
  1. Too much focus on Mary in prayers, hymns and devotionals. This has the practical effect of diminishing the GLORY OF CHRIST’S FINISHED WORK.
There can be no doubt that Mary is the Mother of God and that Christ honored His Mother. We are saved by the infinite merits of Christ (not Mary). So, as I see it, you really need to explain - using the Catholic Cathechism as the official teaching of he CC how Christ is diminished. because Mary is not our savior. Mary is the most favored creature that has ever existed - but, she is a creature. God is God. At no time has the CC placed Mary above Christ. Those who say so, do not know what the CC teaches.
  1. The doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION is forced upon the biblical teaching to comply with a philosophical model. The idea of a fresh “unbloody” sacrifice of Christ upon the altar is totally foreign to scripture. This doctrine is a MAJOR bar to considering joining the Catholic church.
The 6th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John is instructive from several different aspects. Here are three your consideration: 1.) Christ showed that he could feed over 5,000 people and satisfy their physical need for food. 2.) Christ walked on water and calmed the storm showing that He had control over nature, and 3.) Christ specifically told the Jews that they had to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood or they had no part with Him - and they understood Him (as evidenced by them saying this is a “…hard saying…” and walked away from Him - even after seeing the miracles of the feeding of the 5,000. Christ makes His meaning clear to the Apostles at the Last Supper - and here He honestly and clearly tells them to, “Take and eat this is My Body…this is My Blood…” Note, where the Jews were told that they had to eat the Flesh of Christ…they did not say, “this is a hard metaphor…” or “…this is a hard story…”. Christ spoke plainly and they understood … they simply refused to believe.
  1. The doctrine of Salvation by WORKS in co-operation with the working of the Holy Spirit (SYNERGISM) is at entire odds with God’s plan of salvation by GRACE ALONE.
The CC has never taught that we can ‘work our way to heaven’. Our only hope of getting to heaven rests on the grace of Jesus Christ Who suffered and died on the Cross for our sins. And, He expects us to do something with the talents He has given us - look at Last Judgment as written in Matthew. Not once does God ask, “Who has faith?” Rather, who fed the hungry, visited the sick and imprisoned, clothed the naked… who did something?" Of course, there will be those who say, “Lord, Lord… we had faith alone…” but, you know about the warm reception that awaited that group! :eek:

–CONTINUED–
 
Hi, Craig, Part 2 of 2
  1. The idea of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM is not supported by scripture and I would venture to say that any enquiry into the feasibility of joining the Catholic church would collapse at this point.
Just Who do you think is guiding the Catholic Church…a bunch of wise old men…? No way. The Holy Spirit, promised by Christ before His Death and after His Resurrection and at His Ascension into Heaven is guiding the CC. This same HS Who appeared as tongues of fire on that First Pentecost has never left the CC. Remember how Peter denied with an oath even knowing Christ? If nothing else, this should surely show you that human nature is very frail and subject to error. The HS is protecting the CC from pronouncing any type of error in faith or morals. The HS is not protecting individuals - no matter how much authority they have - from making major errors in their own personal lives. The credit for keeping the CC on the straight and narrow of doctrine lies with the HS working through men and women He has chosen.
  1. The sacerdotal notion of CONFESSION is alien to the ethos of the NEW TESTAMENT and destroys Christ’s work of advocacy at God’s right hand.
I have only to refer you to John 20:20-22 for a refresher in ethos. Christ clearly identified that only God can forgive sin when He agreed with the Pharasees on this point of theology - immediately before He cured the paralytic. Christ delegated this tremendous power to His apostles when he told them to either forgive or not forgive the sins of men. I have no idea how Christ’s own Words can be “alien” to any aspect of the NT.
  1. The idea that only CELIBATE MALES can be God’s ministers is NOT defensible from scripture.
It may not have started out that way - we know Peter had a Mother-in-Law. We do not know if his wife was alive at the time. We do not know about any of the Apostles having or having had a wife. But, so what? This is a discipline of the CC for those who want to fill the role of Priest. Remember that power that Christ gave to Peter about binding and losing? Well…until further notice, those who want to enter the priesthood are bound by this requirement. If they chose not to be bound, then they really do not have a vocation to the priesthood. And, that is the name of that tune. 😃

Hope this helped.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top