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

[Matariel]

…They would have to change so much that indeed, they would not even seem Catholic anymore, if they would do what it takes to get more to join their denomination.

Actually, the Catholic Church is not “a denomination”. It’s pre-denominational. Protestants are the ones who have denominations.

 

[joe370]

Actually, the Catholic Church is not “a denomination”. It’s pre-denominational. Protestants are the ones who have denominations.

Hey Matarial…

You are so right! A denomination is a subgroup, by definition, within and following the principal group, that operates under a common name, tradition and identity. The C.C. precedes all other churches by a whopping 1500 years, well, with the exception of the E.O.C., of course. If she was the first church, established by Jesus, how can she qualify as a subgroup??? If you lived prior the protestant reformation, and called the C.C. a denomination, people wouldn’t have a clue as to what you were talking about!

I will give anyone [NON-CATHOLIC OF COURSE]–a thousand dollars, LOL… IF YOU ANSWER THIS ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: DID THE C.C. FAIL, AT ANYTIME IN HER 2000 YEAR HISTORY??? Just kidding about the money…

 

[bobzills]

I will give anyone [NON-CATHOLIC OF COURSE]–a thousand dollars, LOL… IF YOU ANSWER THIS ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: DID THE C.C. FAIL, AT ANYTIME IN HER 2000 YEAR HISTORY??? Just kidding about the money…

I think recently the Church has failed to uphold the indissolubility of marriage by adopting the doctrine of easy to get marriage annulments. As Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying: “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” This appears to me to be certainly a failure in upholding the rule of Our Lord who sternly forbade divorce. Remeber that the tribunals require that the couple get a divorce, before they will consider the case. So the Church tribunal is complicit in promoting divorce. And the statistics show that the Church has failed in promoting the stability of the family in recent times. For example, in the USA in 1930, there were 9 annulments per year. Whereas in recent years, the number of marriage annulments has exceeded 60,000 per year in the USA. So that amounts to a failure for 120,000 men and women for that year, not counting the children involved.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
I said:

I will give anyone [NON-CATHOLIC OF COURSE]–a thousand dollars, LOL… IF YOU ANSWER THIS ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: DID THE C.C. FAIL, AT ANYTIME IN HER 2000 YEAR HISTORY??? Just kidding about the money…

Bob said…

I think recently the Church has failed to uphold the indissolubility of marriage by adopting the doctrine of easy to get marriage annulments. As Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying: “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” This appears to me to be certainly a failure in upholding the rule of Our Lord who sternly forbade divorce. Remeber that the tribunals require that the couple get a divorce, before they will consider the case. So the Church tribunal is complicit in promoting divorce. And the statistics show that the Church has failed in promoting the stability of the family in recent times. For example, in the USA in 1930, there were 9 annulments per year. Whereas in recent years, the number of marriage annulments has exceeded 60,000 per year in the USA. So that amounts to a failure for 120,000 men and women for that year, not counting the children involved.

So, did the gates of hell prevail, necessitating the need for a new and improved church, not built by God? Did Jesus fail to be the Savior of His Church? If so, why would I leave Jesus’ established church, circa 33 AD, which is suppose to be guided by the H.S. “forever,” for another church? If Jesus broke His promise, and failed to save His established church…failed to prevent His Church, from allowing her, the bride of Christ, to promote the stability of the family in recent times… failed to prevent the gates of hell from storming into the church He built, then surely any other church built by mere men, subsequent to said failure, stand absolutely no chance against the evil one; is that a reasonable conclusion to draw? If the church built by Christ failed, then logically speaking, Jesus failed --right?

 

[joe370]

Bob, your profile says you are a catholic…are you a Christian who belongs to the C.C…

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Joe370,

I thoroughly enjoyed your posts.

You do, indeed, superbly - I think - affirm very clearly that:

1. True believers are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, without works.

2. True believers SURELY MANIFEST GOOD WORKS, as an EXPRESSION of the reality of their saving faith.

This has been my viewpoint all along.

On these points we are in substantial agreement. My own belief in the PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS upholds these truths and, in no way, mitigates against them.

I can recognise that you DO, in fact, uphold that Salvation is by God’s grace and is not “earned” or “merited” in any way by our Good Works.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

Hi again, Craig.

I just wanted to say something about this dialogue you had with Joe. I will paste the 2 things you listed here:
1. True believers are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, without works.
2. True believers SURELY MANIFEST GOOD WORKS, as an EXPRESSION of the reality of their saving faith.

In all actuality, and I think Joe will agree when I explain, this is not quite Catholic teaching. First of all, there really is no such phrase as “true believer” in Catholic theology. If we say it means one who truly has faith, that’s a start, but it should really be better defined, because there are many degrees of faith (and doubt), yet many of them share in justification. This is because justification is not a “one time” event, it is an ongoing process, tied integrally into santification, throughout our lives, following the ebbs and flows of our faith and obedience. The Church also teaches that baptism is an integral part of our justification, as is conversion (faith).

#2 has some problems. I would not say that The Church teaches that the faithful SURELY MANIFEST good works. Our justification through faith and baptism establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent (this is right out of the Catechism, para 1993).

“Surely manifests” suggests that a man absolutely WILL be obedient (do good works) because he has “true” faith. Not so. Obedience is not so much a measure of faith, as it is a cooperation with faith.

So, I didn’t mean to throw a wrench in the ecumenical dialogue here, but I want to be sure that we have clarification of issues, so we don’t presume we are in total agreement.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

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 did not post the scriptures because it is off topic in this thread. Please search the thread for “Mary’s other children” and you will find many of the postings on this. It is a mistake that we encounter oftent here.

 

[joe370]

Regarding —true believers SURELY MANIFEST GOOD WORKS, as an EXPRESSION of the reality of their saving faith.

Hey Steve…you said:

*“I didn’t mean to throw a wrench in the ecumenical dialogue here, but I want to be sure that we have clarification of issues, so we don’t presume we are in total agreement.” *

I think, sometimes you have to compromise, a little, when you see that rare opportunity to do so, just as Vatican ll did --all in the name of ecumenism!!! However, your clarification was quite edifying, and dead-on; thank you my friend!!!

I agree with you:

Surely manifests suggests that a man absolutely WILL be obedient (do good works) because he has “true” faith. **Not so. **Obedience is not so much a measure of faith, **as it is a cooperation with faith.
**

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr, still hoping you will answer some of my questions, if you get the chance!!!

You said:

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.

Let me know if you want to see scriptural evidence that supports the fact that our blessed Mother Mary didn’t have children after she gave birth to GOD??? [keeping in mind that the Bible isn’t a bio on Mary or the Apostles; that is why, so little is mentioned about our Lords Mother and His 12 Apostles] – I’m not a woman, but I think it’s safe to say that giving birth to GOD would probably be the apex of my earthly life --if I were; surely, it must have been a life altering experience for our blessed mother Mary, steering her away from her normal earthly lot/inclinations; wouldn’t you agree???

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi again, Craig.

I just wanted to say something about this dialogue you had with Joe. I will paste the 2 things you listed here:
1. True believers are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, without works.
2. True believers SURELY MANIFEST GOOD WORKS, as an EXPRESSION of the reality of their saving faith.

In all actuality, and I think Joe will agree when I explain, this is not quite Catholic teaching. First of all, there really is no such phrase as “true believer” in Catholic theology. If we say it means one who truly has faith, that’s a start, but it should really be better defined, because there are many degrees of faith (and doubt), yet many of them share in justification. This is because justification is not a “one time” event, it is an ongoing process, tied integrally into santification, throughout our lives, following the ebbs and flows of our faith and obedience. The Church also teaches that baptism is an integral part of our justification, as is conversion (faith).

#2 has some problems. I would not say that The Church teaches that the faithful SURELY MANIFEST good works. Our justification through faith and baptism establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent (this is right out of the Catechism, para 1993).

“Surely manifests” suggests that a man absolutely WILL be obedient (do good works) because he has “true” faith. Not so. Obedience is not so much a measure of faith, as it is a cooperation with faith.

So, I didn’t mean to throw a wrench in the ecumenical dialogue here, but I want to be sure that we have clarification of issues, so we don’t presume we are in total agreement.

God Bless

Hi SteveGC,

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I am aware that there are still some “differences” between us but in view of the honesty and spirit that these issues have been discussed, I am not going to press the debate further.

I believe that any honest seeker after the truth who reads our posts will be able to discern God’s grace in both our points of view. Such a person is then free to adopt the position that resonates with God’s truth and their informed conscience.

I am not minimising, for a second, the differences between us but I would recognise that if a truly repentant sinner believed in Christ, in the way you advocate, and actually PRACTISES THE CHRISTIAN FAITH then I can recognise their authentic Christian spirituality at that point.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[SteveGC]

Hi SteveGC,

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I am aware that there are still some “differences” between us but in view of the honesty and spirit that these issues have been discussed, I am not going to press the debate further.

I believe that any honest seeker after the truth who reads our posts will be able to discern God’s grace in both our points of view. Such a person is then free to adopt the position that resonates with God’s truth and their informed conscience.

I am not minimising, for a second, the differences between us but I would recognise that if a truly repentant sinner believed in Christ, in the way you advocate, and actually PRACTISES THE CHRISTIAN FAITH then I can recognise their authentic Christian spirituality at that point.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

To Craig and Joe…
Amen. This is productive indeed for unification…pleasure to have discourse with you both.

 

[joe370]

The question asked by ConfusedTim:

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

…is clearly for non-Catholics, and I don’t think he would mind if I flip it and ask:

Why would I, as a Christian, belonging to the C.C., embrace sola scriptura? Why do non-Catholics embrace the 16th century man-made doctrine of sola scriptura via private/individual interpretation, and then proceed to go to church on Sunday, for edification; isn’t the Holy Bible your only authority? Don’t get me wrong; I think you are right to take it to the church, as per Matthew 18:17!

 

[guanophore]

Maybe it’s a matter of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Salvation or the church? I was reading in Acts 8:30-38, yesterday, about Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, and wondered, if Phillip said to him after his baptism,“Congratulations, you are now a catholic”!

No, I think not. God was had His plan in place for the salvation of the world ever since Adam and Eve fell in the Garden. It is part of His plan of salvation that all who are in Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. That is why there is no separation between Christ, the head,and the Body…the Salvation that is found in Him cannot be separated from His Body. The Body of Christ, the Church, is not decapitated!

I do street ministry twice a month, and one of the things we tell prospective Christians is, that you don’t have to be in church to be saved; Jesus will meet you where you are!:thumbsup:I think the crux of my message is, that you are saved in spite of the church!

We all fall short in many ways.

Once you are saved, regardless of your spiritual(not religious) affiliation, you are now part of the Body of Christ, a believer!

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I got saved 42 years ago, and am still not a catholic.So,church membership or affiliation is not necessary for salvation.

Clearly you are suffereing from a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church.

I do believe, however, that one should be in a church family, for support, mentoring, and teaching, to solidify one’s spiritual foundation!

At least you do see a glimpse of God’s intention, this is good.

And after reading the tract about Mary, having or not having other children, I would have to say it’s a washInconclusiveness, means nobody wins!

Was there some sort of contest about accepting theApostolic teaching? This notion of “winning” or losing seems to lack the humility by which we are to receive the Teaching of Jesus. James 1:21
“… receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”

The attitude we are to have is one of receptive meekness. It is not a contest!

I guess the battle here is between us who don’t believe that you need the catholic church to be saved, and those(catholics) who do

Jesus taught that there was only One Church. All who are members of Him are members of His One Body, the Church. Therefore, the person who is saved is, by default, a member of HIs One Body, the Church. It seems quite arrogant to purport that this condition is not “necessary”, since this is how Jesus set things up.

Between those of us for whom the pope is just another man of God, and to the others(catholics who refer to him as holy father Those of us who do not wear the label of catholic, can be and are saved by the blood of the Lamb, and are afforded the same right to eternal life, without the rituals that some religions demand or highly suggest of their followers!

Actually, you can’t. The reason you are saved is because the Church follows those things ordained by Christ. It is only through Christ that anyone is saved, and it is through the Church that He brings salvation into the world. There is no separation between Christ, and His One Body, the Church.

Being saved in spite of the church, doesn’t necessarily mean, that you shouldn’t be a part of a church family, it means, that you don’t need the church to be saved, hence the reference to to Acts 8:30-38!

This is not biblical and not part of Apostolic Teaching. I am not sure it originated, through the American Fundamentalist Movement I believe, within the last 150 years. It constitutes a “different docrtine”.

Acts 8:30-32
“Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

I am confused about how you are trying to use this passage to defend your position. The Eunuch is approached by a member of the Church, that ordained individual opens the scriptures to Him, then confers upon him the sacrament of initiation into the Church.

Personally, I don’t waste a lot of time worrying about whether a person is a part of an organized religion or not

It is clear from your posts that you have not invested the intellectual commitment to work this out. This is why so many of your statements are contradictory.

because I am denominationally blind; you don’t need to belong to one:thumbsup:

I do agree that your belief that one does not “belong” emanates from blindness.

And furthermore, the catholic answer has not been the right one for me,

It is quite clear that you do not understand the Catholic “answer”. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that your warped perception of what the Catholic Church teaches is not right. I agree with you!

I work in prison and deal with difficult people on a daily basis; on both sides of the bars! So, blessings to all my catholic brothers and sisters in Christ!

May God richly bless your vocation.

 

[guanophore]

Wow, pa, better be careful, looks like there’s a lynch mob waiting outside fer’ ya! Hmmm, evading, huh? well. , not really, it’s more like I know that what ever answer I come back with, will not be good enough for youse guys!

I hope we will not be a lynch mob! On the other hand, heresy should be,and always has been, “lynched” by the Church of Jesus Christ. It is possible to charitably withstand error without “lynching” the persons who have unwittingly embraced it.

You are correct, however, that nothing you can “come back with will be good enough.”
We have the apostolic command that, to receive any “different doctrine” than that which was handed down to us from theApostles is wrong. Therefore we are not at liberty to accept the errors that have emanated from the Reformation.

Answer this question; my good friend George, who is a catholic, has been married for 37 years. He is what you call a cradle catholic, but he recently revealed to me that although his wife goes to church with him, she refuses to endorse the catholic lifestyle. In fact, she told him,"You may raise our children catholic, but dont't cram your religion down my throat"! Are they equally yoked; does the church recognize and ordain this marriage?:confused:

What makes you say they are equally yoked? It is impossible to answer this without more info, but the fact that she has agreed to allow the children to be reared Catholic implies that the marriage has been accepted by the Church. How is this related to the thread topic?

 

[guanophore]

yeah … but the pope isn’t the shepherd Christ was referring to

Those that Jesus has appointed to shepherd His people are caught up into Himself, the Chief shepherd. there is no separation between Himself, the cornerstone, and the foundation, of which they have been made stones supporting the whole structure of the Church.

It seems that you have been wounded by a faithless shepherd,a nd as a result, have rejected the appointments of God.

the pillar and foundation of truth??? Gosh, you guys need a new slogan

I imagine this is the kind of thing that the people said to the Galatians when they brought them a newfangled gospel.

However, we have received the Apostolic command to hold fast the the faith we were given by them. Therefore, we are not at liberty, as some conceive themselves, to invent "new slogans’. It seems you wish us to fall into the error the Corinthians did:

2 Cor 11:3-5
4 For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.

The Presbyterian and Reformed churches are the pillar and foundation of truth, every other church is built on sophistic babble (they delude themselves into thinking constitutes sound theology).

I agree wtih you that every other Church built on sophistc babble is unsound. However, the Catholic Church is founded upon Christ, and not some newfangled theology that emerged 1500 years later, constituted by those who rejected the authority He appointed.

 

[guanophore]

In this scenario, it seems to me that they would be working against God’s plan,

Do you think it is against God’s plan for children to be raised Catholic?

but I believe that the believer, could have an impact on the non believer’s life, and may lead them to Christ! Is the marriage I described earlier, acceptable to the catholic church?

All marriages put together by God are considered indisoluable by His Body,the Church. We follow the Teaching of Jesus that man is not to put asunder what God has joined.

You know, the "cradle catholic, married 37 years, to a wife, who for whatever reason, does not and has not, fully embraced the catholic lifestyle? Is she saved, by virtue of being married to a catholic?

This is up to God.However, it is possible that the sacramental grace in the marriage, and the working of the HS through the witness of the believer may work to save the soul of an unbeliever.

 

[guanophore]

Josie L: The recurring theme, in the passage you have provided, is Jesus telling Peter,“Feed MY sheep”! I don’t believe you can make a case for Jesus turning over His title of Shepherd to Peter

No, it is more accurate to say that Jesus grafted Peter into His Shepherding role. When Jesus appoints shepherds, they are brought into Himself, and can shepherd the flock because of their identity in Him.

Okay, someone asked me this question the other day, and I didn’t have the right answer, just speculation:“Do catholics use Acts 2:38-39, to validate their children’s confirmation?” I told this person, I would ask someone in CAF

First of all, the Sacraments need no external “validation”. They are gifts of grace given by Christ to the church. They were practiced and taught by the Apostles to their successors prior to a word of the NT ever being written. Catholicism is not “bible based” but Jesus based. The NT then, reflects what was taught to the Church by Christ. He is the Source and the Scripture reflects our faith. That being said, let us look at the passage:

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Acts 2:37-39

The early Christians understood that the giving of the HS was not separated from water, which is how they understood “you must be born again of water and spirit”. They understood that Jesus joined the HS to the waters of baptism when He entered them. For this reason, water baptism is never separated from the HS, as is clear later in the book of Acts in the story of Cornelius. The early church administered all three sacraments of initiation together (baptism, first communion, and confirmation). However, the only valid sacraments were considered those that were done with the presiding of the bishop. As the Church grew, especially in the West, the Bishop was not available to attend all the initiations. At that time, Confirmation was separated from Baptism and Eucharist in the West. It is a long story, and perhaps outside the scope of this thread. In the Eastern Rites, Priests are authorized to give all three Sacraments at the time of baptism, therefore, infants who are baptized also receive first communion and confirmation at the same time.

 

[guanophore]

I believe that by accepting Christ as our Saviour, we already have our passes!

Such an attitude is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

If God had wanted me to be a catholic, I would have been one by now! To put it bluntly, I have been turned off to the catholic church, by those catholics that I have known and befriended(friends with many, before I knew they were catholic).

I wouldn’t get too ahead of yourself here. Have you given any thought to why you are on CAF? Of course you could not become Catholic, with all the horrific misunderstandings you have of the Catholic faith. I wouldn’t, either. Fortunately for both of us, your have embraced many errors about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

It is true there are many bad “catholics”. This causes great division in the Body, especially so at the time of the Reformation. If Catholics had been living Holy lives, this division would never have occurred. It just goes to show the fruits of sin.

Many of them are very arrogant and condescending(which doesn’t mean you all are). My former fiance was raised catholic, and changed over to nondenominational, all on her own!

This is like saying that, since Judas was arrogant and believed his plan to make Jesus manifest to the world was better than Jesus’ plan, all of what Jesus did and said should be rejected on the basis of Judas’ betrayal.

So, my brother in Christ, I for one am secure in my salvation, and have been for 42 years; no catholicism necessary! And as far as I know, the only verse that catholics use to validate their religion(a despicable word, to say the least), is Matthew 16:18, which of course is still up for debate, amongst non catholics

What is despicable, the word “Cathlolic” or the word “religion”? It seems since both of these words are found appropriately used in the Bible, it is quite a risk to classify either of them as “despicable”. However, it appears you have been wounded by what you understand as organized “religion” and have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

As for “validation”, the Catholic faith was delivered whole and entire to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT therefore reflects what the Church believes and teaches. That is why it cannot be correctly interpreted outside of that Teaching committed to the Church by Christ.

Honey that is the biggest lie you have ever mouthed.
Yes, around 1500 they started coming up with false doctrines (actually before that there were already heresies as well) but whatever semblance of truth you posses you got from the Catholic Church.

So yes, salvation comes from the Catholic Church. As much as you may rebel against that it is one truth there is no getting away from.

It is only abject ignorance that allows you to make such statements.

This might be a little harsh, bene. I agree with your last statement (as well as those in the middle) that such statements emanate from ignorance. As such, they cannot technically constitute a “lie” which is a deliberate attempt to deceive someone. beleevr is himself prey to this deception, but is not himself the source of it. The sin of lying cannot be ascribed to him, therefore, all he is guilty of is pandering deception. Even then, since he believes what he has been erroneously taught is true, his offense is not as serious as if he did so deliberately. By the time CAF gets done with him, though, matters many be worse! To fall into the sin of Diotrephes he must first understand the truth. Given the vast ignorance demonstrated in his posts, getting to the point of pandering outright lies will take a while.
1beleevr;4955752:

Where I am now in my Christian walk, the voice I "hear" is that of the Shepherd(Jesus), not Peter, not the pope, or any man! This happens mostly when I am fasting, or preparing to dp street ministry or an community outreach for Christ!

Do you think that the Pope is less able to “hear” than you are?

Which begs the question, what is the catholic church's position on this type of ministry? I mean if you really stretch it, couldn't you say that what the apostles were doing amounted to "street ministry"? I mean they weren't always in the Temple, when preaching:D "The gatekeeper opens the gate for Him, and the sheep recognize His voice, and come to Him."John 10:3:thumbsup:

There is a time and placed for both types of ministry. The Church has some who are entirely consecrated to prayer and intercession,and some that are in the streets. As to yourself, the Catechism states that the HS works through persons such as yourself to bring souls into the One Church. As to your personal efforts, the Lord teaches us this:

Mark 9:38-41

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

 

[guanophore]

The problem that I have with the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that it never offers to anyone the CERTAINTY of salvation.

There are two errors in this statement. The first is that Catholic doctrine is “Roman”. This is not true. I am glad, however, that you have misunderstood the Catholic faith. That means the possibility remains that you will be able to accept the Apostolic Teaching that has come down to us.

The second is that the Teaching of Jesus “never offers to anyone certainty of salvation”. This is also untrue. I think you can easily see this for yourself by reading the NT, which is a product of the catholic faith. There is nothing in the NT that contradicts the Catholic faith.

How differently the scriptures present the awesome salvation of Christ.

Your perception of them certainly does differ from what the Apostles taught.

The scriptures CLEARLY AFFIRM that all who genuinely come to Christ, repenting of their sin and trusting deeply in the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS AS THE ONLY WAY OF SALVATION will be saved. The biblical view of salvation is that it is a passing from DEATH unto LIFE.

Catholics call this initial justification. Those same scriptures are also clear that one can fall from grace. however, that is beyond the scope of this thread.

I am, however, under the direct orders of God to declare the UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST. There is no other Name under Heaven by which humans must be saved, but the Marvellous Name of Jesus.

Glory to God.

 

[GraceDK]

We believe that in the Eucharist we receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord. How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood is a mystery to us but we have no doubt that Christ comes to us under the forms of bread and wine.

That depends on individual congregations although the teaching of the church is that weekly communion is the norm. However, for a variety of reasons, this is not universally observed.

Mary’s birth is not really an issue. Certainly, we believe that the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived and gave birth to Jesus while being a virgin.

Amen to that.

Hery Gary.
Great to have you here brother.
You probably wont see this because this is the thread gone wild… but I take the chance.

I grew up Lutheran and became a Catholic in 2004 mainly because I perceived the Holy Spirit to be calling me to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Catholic Church.
In the Lutheran Church I grew up in the Eucharist was revered by many, but everyone could receive it without any seriousness and after the service the bread and wine was trown into the garbage or zink… so I think there is a huge difference there in how the RCC perceives Holy Communion as an objective transformation taking place not within my mind as I receive in faith, like Luther taught, but as a real transformation of bread and wine into Body and Blood.

I have personally experienced that the Eucharist has great healing power in the Roman Catholic Church and the official Church teaching is such that we know what we believe it is, and no Catholic can say its a symbol or a only subjective reality.

I have met protestant pastors that I regard highly and I am sure the Lord delights in, who were more Catholic in their understanding and thus wouldn’t waste any of the Body and Blood as they perceived it, while their colleages didn’t care,…

This huge difference in understanding and no authority except the subjective mind in the Lutheran world has also made me aware that Lutheranism is an island… or a house built on sand.

I love my brethren but the Lutheran Church where I am is going under because its conforming to the culture of death and offers no real resistance. In my country the Lutheran pastors even have begun to “bless homosexual marriages” in the churches, we have lesbian women pastors that openly engage in active homosexuality… And we basically have a watered down truth… but hey, that last part is also experienced in the Catholic Church.

May the Lord have mercy on us all…