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

[Cinette]

Thanks, Craig; it’s nice to see another person who believes that salvation is available to all, regardless of affiliation:thumbsup:

1beleevr!!!

Record this in your memory : The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is accessible to all Christians and also to others who believe in God and love him and strive to improve themselves.

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that our God is a merciful God and died for the sins of A L L!

Please stop being*** (*&%#@?"&^^ ***1 beleevr!!

Peace
Cinette

 

[1beleevr]

Sorry to disappoint you, cinette, but the pope is not, nor has he ever been my Holy Father! My Saviour told me to call no MAN on this earth Father! Until He puts it on my heart to call the pope Holy Father, I will continue to call only God the Holy Father! And, as far as I understand, we will not be completely holy until that day that we stand with Christ, and put on His righteousness!

 

[Cinette]

Cinette: I agree with your take on the Ten Commandments, and wholeheartedly agree on the two most important ones:thumbsup:But we must also remember that, because God knew that we couldn’t, and today can’t keep all ten, He sent Jesus! Some people that we encounter, are almost impossible to love, but through the love and peace of Christ, we can learn to love them! I see a lot of that in the posts in this thread. Some combatants are tossing bombs back and forth, and it’s almost like I can see God up there shaking His head! We are all special to Him, regardless of spiritual affiliation, color, race, creed, etc.,so why can’t we accept each other, the way He accepts us?

Well said my dear brother in Christ. However, in the pursuit of Truth (and I believe that we should all always strive towards Truth) we sometimes get a little heated. Aren’t we human after all?

But…it is possible to love one another…with God’s help (grace)

 

[Cinette]

Sorry to disappoint you, cinette, but the pope is not, nor has he ever been my Holy Father! My Saviour told me to call no MAN on this earth Father! Until He puts it on my heart to call the pope Holy Father, I will continue to call only God the Holy Father! And, as far as I understand, we will not be completely holy until that day that we stand with Christ, and put on His righteousness!

Patrick Madrid has published a nice little book on Apologetics which would help you to understand. Several books in fact.

• Where is that in the bible?
• Answer me this!
• Pope Fiction

Your sister in Christ
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

It is 5 minutes to 9am and we are off the funeral of a wonderful beloved Priest who could never say no to anyone in need and who was murdered for a few personal items and his car! (strangled). Please pray for Fr Lionel Sham a truly holy man.

Thank you
Cinette

 

[LittleSage]

It is 5 minutes to 9am and we are off the funeral of a wonderful beloved Priest who could never say no to anyone in need and who was murdered for a few personal items and his car! (strangled). Please pray for Fr Lionel Sham a truly holy man.

Thank you
Cinette

May he rest in peace.

 

[1beleevr]

Seems to me that someone, and for the life of me, I can’t remember who, put up a post stating that the “other” Mary was the mother of James, Joses, Jude, and other half brothers of JesusThey also said that there were supporting scripture(s) but did not lisy them

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks for showing me that. I hadn’t seen any other verses referring to that before. (That wasn’t sarcasm lol) I will still respectfully disagree ethically, though. Hey, I guess that’s why I’m not a Christian anymore! lol A lot of the ethics (like this) always made me feel really uncomfortable. I just never understood how, if God is love, then why is a relationship based on love that happens to be between two people of the same sex an abomination?

The question is, IS IT LOVE?

We do not determine the parameters of morality and what constitutes Love. God is the sole determiner of that.

Nice fluffy feelings about someone is not love. A lot of sins have been committed in the name of “love” - adultery, murder, fornication etc.

Lust, Pride and plain and simple self seeking masquerade as love.

Yes love is important but so is truth. Truth and Love has to go together.

And the first and foremost truth is that we are creatures and we have to abide by what our Creator decrees.

Because you think homosexual actiivity is okay does not make it okay because you are not the determiner of what constitute a moral act. God is.

It just doesn’t make any sense to me, and so far no one’s been able to give me an answer besides “because the bible says so.”

And on that note, how can someone just be okay with that answer? “Because the bible says so.” or “We weren’t meant to understand.” All that makes me feel is that either things are being kept from me, or that they can’t give me a better reason.

By the way, this is one of the biggest things that made me question Christianity when I was a kid, so big brownie points if you can give me a decent answer!

It is more than just “the Bible says so”. Sexual union is supposed to be both unitive and pro-creative. The homesexual act fails the second criteria. Just think about it, if every single human being were homosexually inclined, what would happen to humanity.

And the answer the Bible says so as you say is only valid for Christians. For atheists it is hardly something that you would use as an argument for morality.

Christians can debate the morality of contraception because they all have a common ground. Is this Biblical? However, you cannot do that with atheists or pagans for fall right into circular reasoning. Only when you accept the Bible as the Word of God can you accept the moral tenets contained there in.

So, since in your previous post you used the Bible (Leviticus) to justify your stance on homosexuality, you have in effect accepted its validity as a yardstick of morality.

So yes, we can say; The Bible said so.

 

[LaSalle]

Seems to me that someone, and for the life of me, I can’t remember who, put up a post stating that the “other” Mary was the mother of James, Joses, Jude, and other half brothers of JesusThey also said that there were supporting scripture(s) but did not lisy them

I don’t know who said that, but here’s the scriptural support anyway.

And here’s why ‘call no man father’ doesn’t mean you cannot call Priests father.

 

[w_stewart]

Thanks, Craig; it’s nice to see another person who believes that salvation is available to all, regardless of affiliation:thumbsup:

Until now, you keep evading my question on the role of the Church of one’s salvation.

 

[benedictus2]

There is one thing the pope has that renders him fallible:F-L-E-S-H!!!

True! But the Holy Spirit is more powerful than the flesh and it is the Holy Spirit that renders the Pope infallible. By himself he is not. But by Christ’s promise he is. Why? Because Christ keeps his promise.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks, Craig; it’s nice to see another person who believes that salvation is available to all, regardless of affiliation:thumbsup:

I would like to piggy back on w_stewart question to you (which you so far have no answered).

What is the role of the Church in salvation?

For that matter, if Church is not important why did Christ establish one?

If all that is necessary is a book of His sayings and wise counsel, why did He establish a Church instead of appointing a scribe to ensure that what He needs written is written?

This is very much related to the proposition that all religions are equal. That it doesn’t matter if you are Pagan, Hindu or Buddhist. If this were so then why did Christ have to come?

And another point which I have raised before. If you affirm the inerrancy of Scripture you affirm the infallibility of the Church.

 

[benedictus2]

I

:

1beleevr:

*I believe I meant that you don’t have to be a catholic to be saved! *

I would heartily concur with that affirmation.

In Christ, Craig

That is true. But when you are saved, you become Catholic because you become a member of Christ’s Church.

Christ said there will be only One flock and One Shepherd.

This may happen at point of death but whether it happens then, now or later, in the end you will give an ssent to what the Church teaches.

 

[w_stewart]

The Church is every born again believer that ever lived and will ever live.
I dont believe in denominations, I believe that we need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ and follow him only.

It is correct not to believe in denominations like the born again sects sprouting everywhere. However, believe in the Church, the body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of the truth. You have to follow Jesus but do not reject his body, the Church.

 

[benedictus2]

My dearest granny, I mean cinette; fallibility is a human trait, and the last time I looked, the pope was still a human being! Like it or not, he is a mere mortal man,susceptible to sin, like the rest of us! And speaking of facetiousness, how can you guys(catholics) call him Holy Father? That title is reserved for our God!

1beleever, infallibility and impecability are not one and the same thing. Infallibility has nothng to do with sinning or not sinning.

Infallibility means that the Pope will not make any error when he makes doctrinal pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. But like the rest of us, he still sins.

I think a lot of your mythconceptions about the Catholic Church will be cleared up if you will bother to read about that which you attack.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LittleSage,

First of all, I do not think I was harsh or that I expect anyone addressing this issue to be harsh. This in no way means agreement with either your stated position or your rationale. But, I honestly believe that Christ is calling all of us to Charity…and, I honestly believe there are charitable ways to identify both error and a direction more in keeping with Christian doctrine.

The reason I feel that the stance against homosexuality is flawed is because of this:

The verse is…

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Lev. 18:22

And in that same passage it says that you can sell your daughter into slavery, and stone your wife if she cheats on you.

My point is that that particular passage is taken out of context because it’s listing taboos of the times. By reading the other 2 things I listed as in that passage (and there are others too) you can obviously see where I’m coming from. I highly doubt you condone child slavery or stoning.

And this is why I don’t consider homosexuality an abomination: Because it is based on love, and God is love. And also because the verse against it is out of context.

As a general rule, you will find a lot of differences between the OT and the NT - even when taken totally in context. For example, in Luke 6:27-36 Christ tells us to love our enemies, and in 1Sam 22:19 King Saul is told by God to destroy the men, women and children of an area. Most fortunately, we have Christ as our Brothers and Savior and we are under the NT commands. Ah, but there are challenges here, too, and they were seen by St. Paul when he wrote his first letter to the Christians in Corinth. Maybe it would be good to look at this in context. Here are the specific verses I Cor. 4:8, 5:1-2, 8:1-9, but, take the time to read Chapters 4, 5, and 8 … then go back and read the entire letter. These guys in Corinth has some major problems…hmmmmmm…not much different from ourselves, come to think of it!

Going back to St. Paul and his flock in Corinth, he was conceerned about all types of immorality. What kind of context do you need to have adultery and fornication condemned in? What kind of context do you need to have drunkeness and dishonesty condemned in? Are there things that just stand out and say: “This is wrong. This is toxic behavior that debases both self and others. This honestly offends the conscience of most people - and offends God’s laws.” I think this is pretty much the way St. Paul looked at immorality - and homosexuality is just one of many examples that he condemned.

While they did not have the term ‘alcoholic’ back then, they did condemn drunkeness. If we just look at this for a moment, it may be instructive. First of all, there is no group to my knowledge who is openly advocating for people to get drunk, there is no politically correct position on getting one’s self poisoned with drugs or alcohol. Many people find those who are intoxicated to be a danger to themselves or others - and, this is before they try to drive a motor vehicle! As we understand the term, ‘alcoholic’ this is a person with the disease of alcoholism - where they have a biological and psychological need to consume alcohol to the exclusio of everything else. People that engage in this behavior wind up destroying their organs, their lives and the lives of those who love them. But, it does not have to end there - alcoholics can and do stop feeding their addictive activities - they can be sober. Drunks, however, are actively engaged in getting drunk - they are actively practicing their desire to poison (intoxicate) themselves. No one condemns the alcoholic who is sober - but, the practicing drunk is actively condemned for his destructive behavior. Is it really any different with homosexuality - except this is now seen as a politically correct group - something drunks never had?

Many of us know active homosexuals in one context or another. Sometimes these people are family members - and, we still love them - but, their behavior is distorting other types of behaviors and relationships. A major issue for all of us is to condemn both the person and behavior because they are (name removed by moderator)roperly lumped together in the same package. Those who, like St. Paul, condemn drunkeness and homosexuality are condemning acts that are self-destructive and simply against nature. God did not intend for us to walk around drunk out of our minds with no control over our thoughts and actions as we stumble around looking for a bottle to crawl into. God did intend to have strong family units where children can be raised and protected and develop into productive members of God’s family by learning good behavior from both parents.

All of us are requried to make difficult choices. We either choose good or we choose evil… and this is almost always in the context of being somewhat drawn to evil because of our fallen human natures. No matter who is doing what, we are still expected to evaluate objective behavior and, if we have any desire to follow Christ, follow His commands. This is the same Christ who is recorded in Matt 5:28 as saying that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her. Do you think it would be any different to look with lust at a person of the same gender? I don’t.

If nothing else, do not lose your objectivity - it will enable you to see past the decorations and deceit and move in the direction of Christ. And, this is the same Christ who did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but simply told her to sin no more.

God bless,

 

[w_stewart]

I would like to piggy back on w_stewart question to you (which you so far have no answered).

What is the role of the Church in salvation?

For that matter, if Church is not important why did Christ establish one?

For the record, 1beleever already admitted that the Church is important. How? Still he refuses to expound on that. As to her role to our salvation, he keeps evading the question. Maybe, he is just keeping himself from obvious contradiction.

 

[benedictus2]

I suppose I tend to look at this from a military perspective. If an Army loses a battle, it does not immediately declare the war to be lost. It continues to fight and work toward victory. For example, the Allies in World War II suffered many setbacks, but one cannot say that the Axis Powers prevailed against them.

But the analogy fails because it does not apply.

For this to be more applicable it is like this, the army loses a battle because of wrong information. No matter how much they continue to fight they will still lose because that all important information is wrong.

A spy has infiltrated their camp and fed them false information. So there they are thinking that all their efforts will matter when all that is happening is they are going deeper and deeper into enemy camp where they will be overpowered.

Perhaps the Church is always infallible in everything that it teaches, free from error and confusion. However, if, for a time, it was to teach something that was not fully correct, I do not think this means the Church has been defeated.

Yes it will have been defeated. This is so blatantly obvious in the imploding Anglican communion and the every growing division in the protestant Churches. The errors I have already mentioned in my previous post.

Once you allow the nose of the camel in the tent the rest of it will follow.

When termites bring a structure to ruin they do not do it all at once. One or two arrive, then a whole army and the next thing you know,. your house is condemned.

Prior to, say, Vatican I, I am sure that many within the Church taught that papal infallibility was not true. The Church today would say that they were teaching falsehood, though innocently. Despite 1800 years of allowing error on this matter, the Church did survive, pronounced its doctrine, and is still here today.

A doctrine only becomes defined when it is challenged. I think (but I am not 100% sure of that) the definition of Papal infallibility happened at Vatican 1 due to a challenge.

Some may say that the Church was not infallibly speaking against papal infallibility prior to Vatican I, and that, therefore, the authoritative teaching office of the Church was not in error. I understand that. I am simply saying that, from a Catholic perspective, error did exist within the Church, and the Church was not destroyed.

Not quite correct. Prior to Vatican 1, the Church did not infallibly decree that the Pope was fallible. Therefore there was no error to speak of. Pre Vatican 1, the doctrine was still in development.

 

[benedictus2]

I appreciate your desire to find common ground between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I just don’t think the Orthodox would agree. Then again, perhaps I don’t understand the dogma of Purgatory properly.

Madukm is correct. There is no difference dogma as regards purgatory. The only difference is defintion. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe in a cleasing after death. The Orthodox however have not defined this whereas the Catholic Church has calling this stage purgatory. At least this is what Mickey and Guanophore has explained to me.

 

[benedictus2]

I totally agree with the sentiments of this post. This is EXACTLY what I have been at pains to point out since I first came on this forum.

Salvation is always by GOD’S GRACE ALONE;

Hi Craig,

This is one statement where all Christians agree. But I think the only reason we all agree is that we all have a different understanding of what grace means and how it works.

Salvatoin by grace first off means that it is unmeritted. We deserve damnation but out of Love He chose to save us. That aspect of salvation by grace I am sure we all agree on.

But how is this salvation by grace effected? So it’s free, but how does it happen.

To be able to understand that fully, one needs to understand first what one is saved from, the nature of what we are saved from and what we are saved for

this is why there are true Christians who are ‘Catholics’ and true Christians who are affiliated under various ‘denominational labels’. The Lord knows those who are His. There is only ONE, TRUE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

which was founded by Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost.

Yes and that is the Catholic Church. As every convert to Catholicism has found when they started studying history, the Church as she exists today is the same Church that was born at Pentecost. She is no longer an acorn, she has become an oak tree and the birds nest there.

Christ founded only one Church on Peter and it is not an amorphouse gathering of "saved believers’.

As Thomas Howard put it, the protestant denominations that we have now will be totally alien to the apostles were they to return today.

This Church is a SPIRITUAL ORGANISM which is INTIMATELY CONNECTED to Christ through REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH. There is no other Church!

Yes and it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of humans. He is a Mighty Saviour and in His awesome grace He draws His people to Himself, into the true/universal Body of Christ. I praise God that I have met ‘Catholics’ who I regard as true Christians, who are saved, who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ and who will be in heaven with me. Praise God!

I have a problem with this statement.because it seems to me you are making yourself out to be the judge of who are saved and who are not saved by the Blood of Christ.

How do you know which Catholic is and is not saved. Only God is privy to the inmost workings of our souls Only God truly knows who are saved. You cannot claim for yourself, knowledge which is God’s alone.

Please hear me carefully; the so-called institutional Church does NOT SAVE - only Christ saves.

That is true only Christ saves. But He chose to effect the salvation of souls through a Church. Verse 47 of Acts 2 reads: And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

Those who were being saved were being added to the Church.

Christ saves repentant sinners who put their faith and trust in CHRIST’S FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS as their only way of Salvation!

True, Christ’s work on the cross is finished but the Protestant understanding of that is too narrow which is probably the root of OSAS.

It really is simple. I have met fine ‘Catholics’ who are Christians; but they are not saved because they are ‘Catholics’ - they are saved by Christ’s blood alone. The same applies to so-called ‘Protestants’ and so on.

And no Catholic ever claimed they are saved because they are Catholic. If anything, Catholics are reticent about claiming they are saved. It is more the evangelicals who are completely convinced of their salvatoin and even claim that even where they to do in mortal sin they are still saved. I am in a discussion with moondweller on another thread and he is very adamant about this.

I have met, furthermore, hypocrites who are ‘Protestants’ and hypocrites who are ‘Catholics’; I have met Saints who are ‘Catholics’ and Saints who are ‘Protestants’. I think you get the point.

Sin abounds whatever the denomination. But I don’t think what is at issue here is whether you find sinners in every faith but rather which one teaches the truth and which one is truly the Church of Christ.

I am convinced that Christ did not found an INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH such as is seen in the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC, in my view, is an historical phenomena that developed in history. Having said this, though, I rejoice that God has used the RCC at times to bring glory to Himself through the centuries and I rejoice that God has had some of His precious people in this institution.

You say that you are convinced that Chrsit did not find an institutional Church. Where is this conviction coming from. Is this something that is supported by an indepth knowlege of Scripture and history?

I can only say here that you ought to read history. Renowed Protestant pastors and thelogians converted after reading history and reading the Church Fathers. The Church however is indeed a historical phenomena. With all that she went through, were she not divinely inspired she would be gone by now. Yet here she, 2000 years on and she continues to do what Christ has commissioned her to do: Proclaim the Gospel baptising people in the Name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit.

If there is anything that a cursory glance at history will show it is this:that no protestant Church can trace itself back to Pentecost. In the end they all draw the the line at 1500.