C
What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic
- Status
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Thanks Cinette,Hello Craig -
You obviously did not see my posting #190 where I acknowledged that I should not have said the list was funny. However, I find the list ridiculous because most of the items are at the very core of the Catholic Church and therefore absurd. I hope Janet will come back for I have not seen her lately. We could have some interesting discussions.
As for you I have to say that I am really really pleased that you are back on CAF. You are one of my favourite Protestants - always respectful and gracious. Sometimes I want to hit you over the head with …something (LOL!) but one can never call you tiresome or boring.
There is another Protestant who is now banned regrettably because although sometimes (only sometimes) he would get out of hand there were moments when he was so special - I will always remember one posting when he opened his heart and showed us his deep love and devotion for Jesus and his spiritual practices and I was so touched. I would like to see more Protestants like you though because you refuse to get ugly.
Love you lots
Cinette
I appreciate your comments.
I do think, though, that you need to seriously face Janet’s list of teachings that would prevent one CONSIDERING JOINING the Roman Catholic church. These objections are substantial and you need to SERIOUSLY INTERACT with them, if your own views are to be seriously considered.
Cheers, In Christ Craig
C
Cinette
Guest
OK - I will do that. I have a hectic week ahead though but I will come back. Maybe others will also address these “concerns”. One should never ignore these things.
Cheers
Cinette
B
bobzills
Guest
It would be pretty difficult for Catholics to drop their belief in God. And the others would also be impossible to drop. I recommend study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a start.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Probably the most stupid post i have ever read. Honey, if any of these were dropped there would be no Catholic Church to return too.
Rational thought deserted you when you left the church?
Understandable considering that wisdom comes from God
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
I am inclined to agree. However, for the sake of argument, one could suggest that God has protected the Church from teaching dangerous error which could lead people to Hell, while not necessarily guiding the Church into complete doctrinal infallibility.
Catholics often suggest that if the Church were to be in error on even one point, then this would mean that Hell had prevailed against the Church. I think this is a bit alarmist, to say the least.
I agree. I think that one can accept the value of the Bible without accepting the infallibility of the Church, but once someone believes that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, one has to point to a source for this belief.
On an unrelated note, more than one person has mentioned the idea that Catholics sin more often because of Confession. Apparently Catholics sin, with the idea that “it’s okay; I’ll just go to Confession later.” While some Catholics may certainly have this attitude, I don’t see how it’s any different than saying “it’s okay; I’ll just confess it directly to God later.” If anything, I would think that having to tell another person would be at least a slight deterrent.
C
Cinette
Guest
To Janet1983 - I will attempt to answer your list as requested by Craig who pointed out that it needs to be addressed
Abolition of the following:
Abolition of the following:
- Veneration of the saints, especially Mary
*According to the Oxford Dictionary veneration means “deep respect and reverence” “ the action or fact of showing respect and reverence”. One of the 10 commandments is “Honour they Father and thy Mother”. So why should be not honour Mary who is the Mother of God and our Mother. If you read the lives of some of the Saints and if you knew how the CC investigates and does a thorough research on these lives before pronouncing them Saints you would perhaps understand. We draw comfort from the example of these lives and they motivate and teach us many things. Try the lives of Teresa of Avila and Therese of Liseaux, John of the Cross, and others. They are a source of wisdom and encouragement. Why would anyone not venerate such wonderful people. * - Praying to saints (addressing someone else than God in a prayer is praying to that person… e.g “Hail Mary”… They cannot hear these prayers anyway… it is far better to ask
a brother or sister in Christ who is among the living to pray) If you believe in the Resurrection you would believe in Eternal Life and realize that the saints are very much alive and with God in Heaven. So why not ask them to intercede for us just the way we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ. Again, read the lives of the Saints and you will see what I mean. Here I would like to add something. If you were to look into the Miracles at Lourdes for example you will see that only 66 miracles have been authenticated by the Church through study and research by their team of Doctors, many of whom are not Catholic and some even Atheists. Don’t pooh pooh these things because one day you might just be at the receiving end. Keep an open mind and research. - Current definition of “saint” as every member of the true church is a saint already and we are justified through Him… Paul talks to and about the members of the churches as saints. Sure you are correct here but the “official” saints are recognized for their tremendous contribution to the Church and mankind. I love to read the lives of the Saints – they are a great inspiration. Try it Janet and you will see.
- Transubstantiation… *Don’t even go there – the eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith. Read John 6 slowly especially 41-71 – in fact you should read the whole thing. There are scores of books written on this subject. The Eucharist is what sustains me. My husband and I get up early in the morning throughout the year – in the middle of winter to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. He was an atheist and when I cannot attend, he will still be there. No it is unthinkable to “drop” the Eucharist. *
- Adoration of the eucharist (blasphemy) instead of focusing on the Word of God
For 4 ½ years I participated in Perpetual Adoration at a Church about 20 kms from my home. We each had our own special hour (mine was 3am) and I would often stand in for people on holiday and sometimes just because I couldn’t sleep. I would go on my own (this is in Johannesburg, South Africa). I would take my bible and journal and when I was not praying directly in the Presence of God I would spend my time reading, reflecting and writing. It was dangerous to be on the road at that time but I felt compelled to do so. It was also during a very difficult period of my life and it sustained me. Later when something devastating happened in our lives I found that I did not lose even a single night’s sleep. I was able to find courage I never knew I had and today we both have grateful hearts despite our pain and suffering. I attribute it to all those hours I spent in Adoration before the Real Presence (blasphemy? No way!) In those quiet moments I spent before the Blessed Sacrament I grew spiritually and learned at lot. I had to stop going because my husband had an accident and after his operation I had to take care of him 24/7 for a while. If anything had happened to me he would have been alone at home without assistance. He is better now thank God.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Auriel,
What an interesting and respectful response
Thank you.
God bless
What an interesting and respectful response
Would you please explain what you meant by, “…the converting kind…”?
Thank you.
God bless
C
Cinette
Guest
…continued…
- Perpetual adoration
This is what I responded to above – the same thing. - Special priesthood…
You would have to ask Jesus about that one. He thought it necessary and we could not do without our priests. What a blessing and a treasure they are to us. They consecrate the host and without then there would be no Holy Communion. Unthinkable! - Only the church and especially the pope can interpret scripture
That is why we are one in our belief. Thank God for the Church who have produced the Catechism for us. Compare this with all the Protestant denominations each with a different interpretation who continue to splinter whenever there is a disagreement! No way – Thank God for the Magisterium, Thank God for the Pope. Thank God for the Catholic Church. Jesus knew what he was doing when he founded the Church. - Infallibility of the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra
Jesus said he would be with us always. He said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. So it stands to reason that when speaking ex cathedra the HS will ensure that the Pope cannot err. He might make mathematical errors and grammatical errors and the like but never when he is pronouncing an article of Faith. Makes sense Janet – think about it. - Sacraments as a means of salvation (works do follow once we are saved because we are already saved) *Sacraments are a means for Grace! Grace builts us up. How can we say we are already saved when we have not reached out destination. We have the means for salvation and we must work out our salvation thru fear and trembling (I think it is somewhere in Romans). I always find it curious and funny (not funny ha ha – funny peculiar) when Protestants say “Are you saved?” “So and so is not saved”
- Infant baptism –* what a question! Go read the Catechism – it is very well and thoroughly explained
- 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) Confessions are made to God in the presence of a Priest (Confessor) who counsels and guides us and who gives us Absolution. Nothing wrong with that. This is a sacrament which Jesus gave us – it was His idea.
- Forgiveness of sins through the church
See above and read the Catechism where it is well and thoroughly explained. - Prayer for the deceased (if they are in hell it is too late… if they are in heaven there is no need) If they are in Purgatory? Also God is outside time and prayers are never wasted. You will find all these answers in the Catechism
- Purgatory (It is either heaven or hell… either a full atonement through the sacrifice of the Lord or none) Let’s say that someone like Mother Teresa dies at the same time as one who has not led a saintly life and whose sins had not been confessed and therefore forgiven and who has not been cleansed of his/her sin? The latter would have to be purged of their sin while the former may go straight to heaven. This is fully explained in the Catechism
- Classification of sins (the wages of sin is death) Sweetheart if you murder someone you have committed a mortal sin – if I hit you over the head with my Bible or my Dictionary (which is a lot heavier) I would be committing an offense which is a venial sin but an offense nevertheless. These things make sense. When we go to Confession we need to do an examination of conscience. Yesterday funny enough the gospel reading was on the 10 Commandments and I listened to a Priest on EWTN who went through the commandments and enumerated the different types of sin under each commandment. We should always do that. Sometimes we need to be reminded of our sins.
C
Cinette
Guest
- Salvation as a graduate process
I don’t know what you mean by that. - Apocrypha
What about the apocrypha? It is part of the canon and very beautiful and inspiring. - Teachings about Mary, including her staying a virgin after Jesus was born, the assumption that she was without sin and the she ascended into heaven with her body and soul That is a whole study on its own. We love her dearly. We believe in her role in our lives. We believe in her Apparitions and her messages. She points us to God always. She is Blessed. She is Special. We will never forsake her – she will never forsake us.
- Excluding women from the clergy – I have thought about that and believe that women have a different role from men. I have no problem with that.
- Forced celibacy of the clergy
*I understand that a man’s first responsibility is to his family. A priest’s first responsibility is to his flock. However, here I believe that sometimes a man may have a vocation to be an ordained priest and also an Father to children, his children. I have known such men and they remained faithful to the Church even after they left the priesthood. I even employed an ex-Priest. There are many Anglican priests who today are Catholic priests and they have families. I believe that there should be a special Order of Married priests. This may still happen. * - The church as the Church of Christ instead of realizing that the Church are truly all Christians that are saved and atoned for by the blood of Christ. All baptized and believing Christians comprise the Body of Christ – Catholics have the fullness of truth and nonCatholics have part of the truth. The Pope is their spiritual Father as well.
- Not accepting other Christian churches are equally valid and right while declaring that somebody who was raised in a totally different religion can obtain salvation if he was truly seeking after God… (Jesus said “I AM THE WAY” and He meant it) *The Catholic Church does not teach that nonCatholics do not have access to salvation. This is totally nonsense. Other Christian Churches are not equally valid no – they are our separated brethren. *
- Not opposing the evolution theory This is a whole subject on its own. The Church does not reject the theory of evolution outright and it has its reasons. The Church promotes science and realizes that it is an ongoing thing. I do not know enough on the subject to elaborate.
- Traditions as equally important as God’s Word in the Bible * There is a clear difference between Traditions of God and traditions of men. The Catechism explains it very thoroughly.*
- Not acknowledging that salvation is only by the pure grace of God What nonsense – I have never heard of such a thing. Janet – who told you that???
- Not acknowledging the absolute inerrant Word of God as manifested in the Bible **&^%$#@?"% What nonsense!! Janet WHO told you that??
I would turn back to the church if these things weren’t there… You would be turning back to nothing Janet! It is obvious that you have never been sufficiently and properly catechized. Otherwise you would never make that list!!
These were the reasons for me turning away in the first place… Without these I could reconcile with the church without conflicting with my conscience… *Well, the Church teaches that it is important to follow one’s conscience – provided it is a well formed conscience of course!
*
Thanks you for asking and reading through this…
J*anet – I consider myself a kindergarten Catholic. I have tried my best to answer your questions and I am sure other Catholics on this thread may have much to add. I do believe if you are interested you should try reading the Catechism.
I have written this in a terrific hurry and have not read thru it so if there are mistakes (and there will be) I apologise. You can all jump on me later. I have kept someone waiting.
God bless you
Cinette*
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JonNC,
Thank you for providing this interesting and informative link that tries to explain a distinction between ‘solo’ and ‘sola’ scriptura
The Scriptural Position is contained in Matthew 16:15-19
**He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **
Here we have the Holy Spirit directly inspiring Peter to respond to Christ in a very partidcular way - and, then Christ identifies Peter’s response as inspired - and, then identifies that He (God) is specifically authorizing Peter to be in charge of His (God’s) Church. Peter has the authority to make whatever changes are necessary (and look what he does WITHOUT appeal to Scripture: replaces Judas, establishes the position of Deacon, resolves the controversy over the need for circumcision at the First Church Council.) It is the Catholic Church that was established by Christ, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and has visible and frail men as the visible leaders.
Now, move forward in time to 1560.
The Catholic Church’s councils that were approved by John Calvin,(“In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith.”) were from the same Catholic Church that condemned his (and the other ‘Reformers’) errors at Trent.
If Calvin recognized that the Holy Spirit was guiding these CC councils, just when did he (or you, for that matter) think the Holy Spirit ‘jumped ship’ and left the Barque of Peter to join the competing and contradictory doctrinal positions of the still splintering Protestant religions? You know, when it comes to human failings, it is hard to ‘out-fail’ Peter himself. Just look at Matthew 16:21-22 where Peter tries to correct Jesus(!) and Jesus calls Peter (who had just been inspired by the Holy Spirit) Satan! No one ever made the case that human nature was consistent in anything.
Such inconsistency is captured by the author in quoting Martin Luther ("Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”) that he will only work with Scripture and his own reason, and then later his recognition for the consistency of the CC.
Perphaps the biggest error I found with the author, however, is his apparent mistaken idea that there is a single body of belief in Protestantism that can rally all members. It could be that they all claim to be Christian - so, there is some recognition of Christ. But, after that, it is anyone’s guess: 3-Persons in One God?, Christ is God? Necessity for Baptism? Real Presence in the Eucharist? Hierarchy? Resurrection? etc. There is no set of unifying doctrines in Protestantism - so, to have the author appeal to this simply makes no sense. While the term “Protestantism” seems to convey the idea of unity - this is simply not the case.
I honestly think that the Grey Pilgrim hit the nail cleanly and clearly on the head in his characterization fo SS. While K. Mathison may want to harken back to some kind of unifying idea enbraced by Luther and Calvin - these two ‘Reformers’ were at significant odds with one another - except in their rejection of the Church founded by Christ.
Again, thank you for the interesting link.
God bless
Thank you for providing this interesting and informative link that tries to explain a distinction between ‘solo’ and ‘sola’ scriptura
Unfortunately, this honestly appears to be a distniction without a difference. A summary of my view would be that the author can not have it both ways. And, here are some reasons that the author (Keith Mathison) or you (who are advocating this position) should address:
The Scriptural Position is contained in Matthew 16:15-19
**He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **
Here we have the Holy Spirit directly inspiring Peter to respond to Christ in a very partidcular way - and, then Christ identifies Peter’s response as inspired - and, then identifies that He (God) is specifically authorizing Peter to be in charge of His (God’s) Church. Peter has the authority to make whatever changes are necessary (and look what he does WITHOUT appeal to Scripture: replaces Judas, establishes the position of Deacon, resolves the controversy over the need for circumcision at the First Church Council.) It is the Catholic Church that was established by Christ, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and has visible and frail men as the visible leaders.
Now, move forward in time to 1560.
The Catholic Church’s councils that were approved by John Calvin,(“In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith.”) were from the same Catholic Church that condemned his (and the other ‘Reformers’) errors at Trent.
If Calvin recognized that the Holy Spirit was guiding these CC councils, just when did he (or you, for that matter) think the Holy Spirit ‘jumped ship’ and left the Barque of Peter to join the competing and contradictory doctrinal positions of the still splintering Protestant religions? You know, when it comes to human failings, it is hard to ‘out-fail’ Peter himself. Just look at Matthew 16:21-22 where Peter tries to correct Jesus(!) and Jesus calls Peter (who had just been inspired by the Holy Spirit) Satan! No one ever made the case that human nature was consistent in anything.
Such inconsistency is captured by the author in quoting Martin Luther ("Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”) that he will only work with Scripture and his own reason, and then later his recognition for the consistency of the CC.
Perphaps the biggest error I found with the author, however, is his apparent mistaken idea that there is a single body of belief in Protestantism that can rally all members. It could be that they all claim to be Christian - so, there is some recognition of Christ. But, after that, it is anyone’s guess: 3-Persons in One God?, Christ is God? Necessity for Baptism? Real Presence in the Eucharist? Hierarchy? Resurrection? etc. There is no set of unifying doctrines in Protestantism - so, to have the author appeal to this simply makes no sense. While the term “Protestantism” seems to convey the idea of unity - this is simply not the case.
I honestly think that the Grey Pilgrim hit the nail cleanly and clearly on the head in his characterization fo SS. While K. Mathison may want to harken back to some kind of unifying idea enbraced by Luther and Calvin - these two ‘Reformers’ were at significant odds with one another - except in their rejection of the Church founded by Christ.
Again, thank you for the interesting link.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Cinette,
Wow! Thank you for that response to Janet… Nice job!
God bless
Wow! Thank you for that response to Janet…
Nice job! Just don’t hit her over the head with your Bible or your much heavier dictionary… this is a peaceful site…
God bless
C
Cinette
Guest
ConfusedTim;4921878:
I can understand your concern that our manifestations may sound rather over the top to you. It may also be a little “old fashioned” because nowadays people are not so “eloquent” in their manifestations.
But you know what Craig? It’s not a big deal. It may be too much for you. Not a problem.
cheers
Cinette
C
Cinette
Guest
I like you Lambic Pen - you reason and your reasoning is not bad.
Have you considered the word “reform”? It means to change. So when one refers to the Reformation one should realise that Luther did not reform the Church because he left the Church. When you reform something you do it from the inside. What he did was to begin a string of other churches which have continued to split over the ages into countless denominations (don’t tell me he was excommunicated - he did that himself with his attitude and actions)
Confession? I’ll tell you my experience. When I came back to the Church after a long absence I found myself checking my actions all the time because I would remember that I would have to go to confession and many, many times I changed direction and stopped myself from committing sin precisely because of Confession. When we go to confession we confess to God in the presence of the Priest who will counsel us and give us absolution when we tell him of our sorrow and regret for our sins and when we express our desire never to commit them again. If we are not repentent the absolution won’t be effective because God knows our hearts.
So, anybody who thinks he can kid God by sinning because he can always go to Confession is a fool and doesn’t realise that God sees everything.
Cheers
C
Cinette
Guest
This is specially for Janet1983 - Hello Janet!
I came across this on another thread and took the liberty to copy this paragraph for your benefit. Since Adoration and Perpetual Adoration occupy two items on your list I thought it would be nice to share this with you
.
I will relate one of the things that kind of sealed the deal for me in my desire to convert since it relates to one of your reasons. The short version is I ran the Alpha course at our lutheran church and we were on the weekend retreat and happened to book it at a Catholic retreat house. After we had settled into our rooms me and a friend were looking around the facilities as it was very bueatiful and we wanted to see what all was there. We eventually came to these two doors and we opened them and just as soon as we had opened them we were overwhelmed by the presence of God. I mean I was going to my knees it was so overwhelming. We had no idea what we had walked into but I saw people on both knees praying before the altar very reverently so deep in prayer they didnt even turn to us as we came in. My eyes were also drawn to the altar as God seemed to be there but I didnt know how. I saw what I know now is called Monstrance but just thought it was a pretty decoration at the time. We left so as not to be rude but as we closed the door behind us I asked my friend if she felt that. She said how overwhelming it all was and we wondered what we had walked in on. It turns out it was what is known as Eucharistic adoration. That experience of God in the Eucharist never left me and I eventually found where there was an adoration chapel in my city and started praying there in our Lords presence every week a practice I maintain till this day and by Gods grace til the day I die.
This was posted by a Lutheran who is currently going through RCIA
Cinette
I came across this on another thread and took the liberty to copy this paragraph for your benefit. Since Adoration and Perpetual Adoration occupy two items on your list I thought it would be nice to share this with you
.
I will relate one of the things that kind of sealed the deal for me in my desire to convert since it relates to one of your reasons. The short version is I ran the Alpha course at our lutheran church and we were on the weekend retreat and happened to book it at a Catholic retreat house. After we had settled into our rooms me and a friend were looking around the facilities as it was very bueatiful and we wanted to see what all was there. We eventually came to these two doors and we opened them and just as soon as we had opened them we were overwhelmed by the presence of God. I mean I was going to my knees it was so overwhelming. We had no idea what we had walked into but I saw people on both knees praying before the altar very reverently so deep in prayer they didnt even turn to us as we came in. My eyes were also drawn to the altar as God seemed to be there but I didnt know how. I saw what I know now is called Monstrance but just thought it was a pretty decoration at the time. We left so as not to be rude but as we closed the door behind us I asked my friend if she felt that. She said how overwhelming it all was and we wondered what we had walked in on. It turns out it was what is known as Eucharistic adoration. That experience of God in the Eucharist never left me and I eventually found where there was an adoration chapel in my city and started praying there in our Lords presence every week a practice I maintain till this day and by Gods grace til the day I die.
This was posted by a Lutheran who is currently going through RCIA
Cinette
B
benedictus2
Guest
So very true God loves us all just the way we are. But as one wise Protestant pastor put it, He loves us too much to leave us just the way we are.There’s a few things I disagree with, but the big one is their stance on Homosexuality. I won’t go into it, as I’m rather opinionated, but suffice it to say that God loves everyone, or so I understand it.
My favourite thing about the Catholic faith is the churches, though. God, they’re so gorgeous.
Christ did not come to make us feel good about our sins. Christ died for us while we are still sinners precisely so that we will stop sinning.
Homosexual inclination is not a sin. It is simply the cross that God has given some of us to bear. Each one of us carry a different cross.
Homosexual activity is however a sin.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I was so moved by that! It reminds me of Scott Hahn when he first attended Mass. During the consecration he just knew and he said “My Lord, it is really you”.This is specially for Janet1983 - Hello Janet!
I came across this on another thread and took the liberty to copy this paragraph for your benefit. Since Adoration and Perpetual Adoration occupy two items on your list I thought it would be nice to share this with you
.
I will relate one of the things that kind of sealed the deal for me in my desire to convert since it relates to one of your reasons. The short version is I ran the Alpha course at our lutheran church and we were on the weekend retreat and happened to book it at a Catholic retreat house. After we had settled into our rooms me and a friend were looking around the facilities as it was very bueatiful and we wanted to see what all was there. We eventually came to these two doors and we opened them and just as soon as we had opened them we were overwhelmed by the presence of God. I mean I was going to my knees it was so overwhelming. We had no idea what we had walked into but I saw people on both knees praying before the altar very reverently so deep in prayer they didnt even turn to us as we came in. My eyes were also drawn to the altar as God seemed to be there but I didnt know how. I saw what I know now is called Monstrance but just thought it was a pretty decoration at the time. We left so as not to be rude but as we closed the door behind us I asked my friend if she felt that. She said how overwhelming it all was and we wondered what we had walked in on. It turns out it was what is known as Eucharistic adoration. That experience of God in the Eucharist never left me and I eventually found where there was an adoration chapel in my city and started praying there in our Lords presence every week a practice I maintain till this day and by Gods grace til the day I die.
This was posted by a Lutheran who is currently going through RCIA
Cinette
B
benedictus2
Guest
I would like to but in and give my two bits on this although I have answered a few of the points that Janet raised.
Very simply, Janets’ post is a rather egotistical and arrogant post. She will come back to the Catholic Church if abc…xyz were no longer doctrines. If these doctrines were no longer part of the Catholic Church it ceases to be the Catholic Church so there will be no Catholic church to go back to.
When this happens, she will not be going back to the Catholic Church but rather joining a new one. One that has been gutted of any semblance of the mystical and the Divine.
It will be a Church where Janet is god.
Janet is nothing more than any two bit pastor who having decided he did not agree witht this and that view of his current denomination packs and sets up shop somewhere else to start his church.
At the bottom of the objection is the ego. The I. She says this has to be so, so this must be so. What Janet says goes. If she says homosexuality is okay then it must be so.
The awful lack of humility in that list is so palpable. You can almost feel the twisted bitterness in that list.
This sort of pride is what landed us in this pit in the first place. Adam and Eve wanting to be God.
I don’t know what her experience of the Catholic Church is but it has certainly left her bitter and angry.
I don’t know if I agree with Ciniette that her list is laughable. It is certainly a joke but not one that is funny.
The joke is that all her objections are easily cleared with a quick google but not that is too much trouble.
She’d rather wallow in ignorance rather than find out the truth.
But to be fair, the OP asked and she answered.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I think not. A lie is a lie and the devil is the father of all lies. The problem with a little lie say a tiny doctrinal error is that it looks so innocous people will easily swallow it. This is what makes it more dangerous.
And that is how the devil deceives us today. It starts off with a tiny and seemingly harmless error and slowly erodes the rest.
Take for example contraception. Before the 1930s every Christian church considered this a sin. Then Anglicans allowed it, then every other Christian denomination followed suit, except the Catholic Church.
That minor change has started off this gradual erotioin of morality and now some churches allow abortion, homosexuality, fornication, divorce,etc.
From this we even see the rise of the prosperity gospel which is a distortioin of the true Gospel of Christ. But this is done oh so subtly, people are oblivious to what is happenning.
So yes, the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church into infallibility because it is Christ’s Church. And indeed, a tiny error will mean that the gates of hell has prevailed.
That is why in the darkest days of the church when we have scoundrels for popes and bishops, the Church continued to teach the right doctirne.
As Peter Kreeft put it: “No matter how morally bad the Church had gotten in the Renaissance, it never taught heresy. I was impressed with its very hypocrisy: even when it didn’t raise its practice to its preaching, it never lowered its preaching to its practice” Hypocrisy, someone said, is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
THAT, is a very good point. Thanks very much for that.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Pen. I think you’ve got us all wrong.
Say for example a council makes a decree about some doctrinal matter or other. If it’s false, that doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong; rather it means that that council is a local council, not an ecumenical council, and hence can’t be said to represent the Church.
Personally, I prefer “if the Church is in error about even one point, then I’ll eat my hat.” But to each his own, eh?
- Status