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

[tqualey]

Hi, Jsanturce,

I have been reading these various posts, your stated knowledge and judgment of the teachings of the Ctholic Church and your assessment on what is necessary. From what I have read, you may do well to actually read with the Church teaches, rather then relying on anti-Catholic sources to filter and form you opinion. Your openness to ideas that do not match this bias is nothing short of breath-taking.

My profession of faith is Jesus is the only way to heaven no men, no works, no church, no denomination, and no man made tradition will change that.

May I suggest you take a minute and just savor that profound thought for a minute. Got it? Now, let’s take a look at this with some fresh eyes. While Jesus is the Way, Truth and Light - he did take the time and trouble to select 12 MEN and told them they had to DO particular things (preach, baptize, pary, fast, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.) and Christ also set up HIS CHURCH on the rock of Peter. You are right about Christ not setting up any denomination - the Protestants did that. Christ actually set up HIS CHURCH, and that is the basic issue and all contained in the Bible (and that would be the book you hold in your hands that was set up, arranged and every word examined and declared Inspired at those early Catholic Church Councils (Rome and Hippo). You know, the Holy Spirit did a lot for the Church on that First Pentecost Sunday as recorded in Acts - but, one thing He did not do was deliver a book! About 200 years after the last writer (John) died the Catholic Church went about separating fact from fancy. The Protestants did not come on the sceen until the 16th Century.

The bible is the only word of God period. Not any catechism or tradition thats all man made. The bible is the inspired word of God. If you dont believe the whole bible then what do you do pick and choose what you want to believe that supports your tradition I dont get that last statement you made.

Just what do you think was happening with the Church (and that would be the Catholic Church…the one founded by Christ) for the first 200 years after St. John died? The newly ordained (like Timmothy) were verbally telling people about Christ. Yes, it was VERBAL becaue there was no Bible - yet, Christ did not tell HIS CHURCH that they should sit on their hands until a Book was written! The Chruch, that you seem to enjoy piling criticism on - was the one that spread the Word of God throughout the world - and was baptizing peoples from all over the world.

Maybe at one time early on the catholic church followed the ways of the apostles but they fell so far away from the apostles teachings because of man made tradition. So many things corrupt popes instituted that are not even biblical (some examples praying to Mary, and Marys acension, purgatory, indulgences).

Maybe? Maybe? Think back - just WHO do you think founded the Catholic Church? (Hint: Matt 16:18) and, this was not the “…apostles teachings…” this was the teaching of Christ. How is that? Well you see, Christ gave the power to Peter to make whatever changes he wanted to make - in fact whatever was bound on earth was bound in heaven (or loosed). Now, that is an impressive power God gave to His Church. Christ also promised the Holy Spirit would guide and protect HIS CHURCH from error. So, when does your Bible (the only apparant source you recognize) say the Catholic Church fell away from the Holy Spirit?

Hey, are you inerested in corrupt, weak and cowardly Popes - you do not have to look any further then Peter! None of the OTHER POPES chided Christ (and Christ responded by say, “…Get behind me Satan!”) , told Christ to work harder (at the Last Supper, Peter wanted his head washed in addition to his feet ) then fell asleep (at the Mount of Olives prior to the arrest of Christ) and, of course, denied Christ 3 times. So, as you blast away at what you expect of the Popes - just think of this: not one (from Peter to Benedict XVI) has ever contradicted a a prior Pope in a matter of Faith and Morals. That means almost 2,000 with contrasting doctine. Try to get that fact to fit anround any (!) Protestant Church.

The catholic church in my opinion needs a total revival but they will never let it happen because the vatican believes in tradition above the bible. Thats my greatest problem with the church. All across this country and the world catholic churches are empty and catholics are flocking to protestant churches. Dont get me wrong I am also totally against the prosperity gospel and all that bologne. We need to get back to prayer meetings, fasting, and solely the apostles teachings and the bible as the only source of authority. Then you might see changes in the lives of catholics. Remember its not about the catholic church its about Jesus.

Look at al the Eccuminical Councils the CC has had. The Protestants only started in the 16th Century - but, look at all of the confusing and contradictory doctrines.

Her are two suggestions you may want to look at:

1.) Drop the bitterness; it is the workshop of the Devil and lays bare your bias.

2.) Do some real reading - insteat of that anti-Catholic nonesense you have been filling your head and heart with.

God bless,

 

[1beleevr]

Post#916, is a perfect example of why many non-catholics are still that; non-catholics! This post is filled with arrogance and prideful statements which challenge others salvation! I personally am rock solid in my salvation, and my Saviour shows me daily that I am His:thumbsup:We all know that Christ established a church before He died; the catholics were just first in line to claim it as theirs! And then they ask us to believe that their pope is somewhat of a descendant of the Apostles! Many of us heathens, believe that Christ’s church is the entire body of believers(not just catholics), who are connected through faith and being saved by His grace and blood! There will be an angry reply by the original poster, but as usual, it will fall on deaf ears! Perhaps if she can get that plank out of her eye, she will be able to look at people more objectively! To be bold enough to assume a God-like persona, and say that unless you are catholic, you’re not saved, is blasphemous at best! Sadly, though, churches in America, have become dividers, rather than uniters

 

[benedictus2]

Hi 1beleevr,

Before you burst a blood vessel I suggest you simmer down. It is not good for your heart.

Let me answer the issues you raised point by point.

Post#916, is a perfect example of why many non-catholics are still that; non-catholics! This post is filled with arrogance and prideful statements which challenge others salvation! I personally am rock solid in my salvation, and my Saviour shows me daily that I am His We all know that Christ established a church before He died; the catholics were just first in line to claim it as theirs!

No. My post is not a perfect example of why many non-catholics are still that; non-catholics. Non-catholics remain non-catholics not because of post such as mine but rather because of the lies they have been fed about the Catholilc Church.
What Bishop Fulton Sheen said rings true today as when he said it “"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church”.

Why would anyone become catholics were I to say that they are to say that they are saved where they are now? Quite the contrary, there is no reason to become catholic then!

When you go out on your street preachings, if you were to say “hey guys you are all saved there is no need to believe in Jesus”, would anyone listening to you then convert to Christianity if they are after salvation? Can you not see even at a mere glance how utterly illogical your point is?

So let’s get that one fact straight.

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

This one statement alone proves Fulton Sheen is correct right now. We do not and have never said that the popes are descendants of the Apostles.

I am sure that it grates with you when I say that you are ignorant about a great many things about the Catholic Church but that fact remains and it is statements such as this that proves it!

You and a lot of other protestants attack doctrines you know next to nothing about and you go on your high horse and condemn the Church as the whore of Babylon.

Many of us heathens ,

This is the kind of irrational comeback that I find truly frustrating and exasperating. Please tell me where and when I ever called protestants heathens. I would not even call atheists heathens. In your anger you are sounding like a shrieking banshee and all because you failed to read my post properly.

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

You may want to believe and may console yourself with that belief but history and scripture does not support that definition. Tell me where in the Bible does it say that the Body of Christ is the body of believers.

When St Paul spoke of the Church as the Body of Christ, the Church was not an amorphous conglomeration of believers. Search the writings of the apostles and those who followed them and see if you can come up with such a definition.

From the birth of the Church, the Body of Christ has always been composed of those baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And they were one.

Ask yourself this: Do you sincerely believe that the fragmented mess that is Protestantism today is what Christ had in mind when He said to Peter, “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church?

Is the 33,000 fragmented bodies of believers what He mean when He prayed “that they may be one as You and I are one”?

Do you really deep in your heart think it is okay to go against Christ’s own command and allow divorce in your churches, going totally against His will?

Nowhere in the Bible nor in the writing of the successors to the apostles does it say that membership consist in “proclaiming Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Saviour”. This is a new invention. This was not even around during the time of the reformation.

 

[benedictus2]

continued

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

Fall on deaf ears? If there are any ears here that are blocked it is yours and the one I addressed the post to.

Let’s look at that accusation. Go over your posts and mine. Take a look at them.

When I reply, I address each issue raised by the poster, POINT by POINT. That shows you that I listen or more to the point that I read. What you do not like is that I actually come up with rebuttals, something you have failed to do. All you have done is hurl unfounded accusations for which you cannot provide a shred of proof.

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

There is indeed a plank in my eye as in everyone else’s. But the way you speak, it is as if you have none. How pharisaical of someone who professes himself a Christian. So who is arrogant now?

As to objectivity, 1beleevr, it is you who have failed to be objective. And the reason you have failed to do that is because you believe that truth is what you say it is. If you define church to be the body of believers then it must be so. If you say that we are assured of salvation it must be so. This is the arrogance that is at the root of Protestantism. The arrogance to appropriate to oneself the magisterium of the Church for that is what you do when you pick and choose which doctrine you will believe.

No Catholic (except the cafeteria ones), appropriate this magisterial office for themselves and yet in varying degrees, that is what most protestants do. I/Me/Myself decide what is right. That is why it is so easy for you to allow contraception, allow homosexual priests, women priests, divorce and abortion.

And you have the nerve to call me arrogant. The whole protestantism brims with arrogance for in arrogance it was born. More so those who call themselves non-denominational for they will not even subject themselves in humility to any authority. Their ego is their authority.

To be bold enough to assume a God-like persona, and say that unless you are catholic, you’re not saved ,

If you will take the plank from your eyes you will be better able to read what I have written. Nowhere did I say that only catholics are saved, but in your anger you probably barely even read the entirety of my post.

So now I place them here for you to read point by point so you can tell me which one you have an issue with and tell me where it is downright wrong.

benedictus2:

[1] Acts 2:47 "…And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved. "

What number is being spoken of here but the Church. There was only one Church then and it was the Catholic Church. Those who were being saved were being added to the Catholic Church.

[2] No matter how much you may rant and rave at the Church, the truth is there is no salvation out side the Church.

You know why? Because the Bible you love so much came from the Catholic Church and you only know about Jesus Christ because of the Catholic Church.

[3] This is the way Christ CHOSE to let the word know about Him - by establishing the Catholic Chuch.

[4] He could have chosen to write his words,but He did not do that. He could have chosen to have a scribe follow him around, but He did not do that. He multiplied loaves and fishes so he could have easily wrote what He wants people to know and multiplied them but again He did not dot that.

[5] What did He do? He built a Church and gave that Church the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. And he did not stop theere when He could have. He continued, giving the keys to Peter and telling him that what ever Peter binds on earth, Christ will bind in heaven. What ever Peter looses on earth, Christ will loosed in heaven.

[6] People who have an issue with the Catholic Church really have an issue with CHRIST’S WILL.

is blasphemous at best!

Tell me which of the points (1 – 6) is blasphemous.

Sadly, though, churches in America, have become dividers, rather than uniters

There is no need to divide the protestant churches. You have done that quite effectively by yourselves.

And now back to your rather disproportionate anger at my post. If you had told me I was not saved I would have just thought “yeah, right waht do you know?”

I think you are angry because deep down in the deepest recesses of your being I think you know that what I said was true. And you are angry because it is true. The truth does not hurt unless it ought to.

 

[benedictus2]

If the Catholic Church were a lot more like the Orthodox Church, I’d be far more inclined to consider it. Aside from the obvious Pope difference, the Orthodox Church is typified by a refreshing brevity where they keep their dogmatic statements short and concise in order to avoid stepping beyond what is appropriate. Basically, they know when to shut up and the Catholic Church does not.

This applies to a ridiculous number of things, but just one example is the eucharist. The Orthodox Church calls it “a mystery” and simply says “It is the body and blood of Christ.” They know when to shut up. They only things you’ll hear from them beyond those simple statements is the expression of the belief that what is “real” need not come into conflict with what is “symbolical” and “mystical”- basically, a request that you also shut up and stop bickering needlessly.

The Catholic Church is quite different. It does not know when to shut up. I wish it did. Instead, it goes on to talk about the precise nature of Jesus’ presence. For example…

Shut up already! That’s more than enough! This is actually counter-productive. It’s called “sacrament” for a reason. It means “mystery.” But have we finished with attempting to unravel the mystery in its entirety? No, not even close.

Do you even know why transubstantiation needed to be defined? Only because some started saying that Christs’ presence is only symbolic. To re-iterate that the bread and wine is TRULY Christ’s Body and Blood, the Church defined in human terms what words what actually happens. The Church is not diminishing the mystery by defining tansubstantiation but rather affirming that IT IS INDEED the Body of Christ.

Since the Orthodox Church is very much like the Orthodox Church then as you’ve mentioned above, you really ought to be an Orthodox. So why aren’t you?

Right I thought so. All that speech about converting should the Catholic Church be more like Orthodox is pure hogwash for the Orthodox Church already exists and you are still not her member.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I think you made two mistakes in your post to 1beleever…

If you will take the plank from your eyes you will be better able to read what I have written.

After reading 1beleever’s post, I think your (one) plank reference sadly underestimates the magnatude of the visual and spiritual obstruction involved. This unfortunate poster has truly chosen to be blind.

The second mistake…in my opinion… is that you attempted to use logic to douse the flames of what appears to be 1beleever’s overwrought emotional outburst! Yes, yes, I know… calm words, a soothing tone - and, of course, being correct - should work… but, look at 1beleever’s previous posts. The character is one of spreading heat rather then light. No doubt about it - such outburst are dangerous…and, you are quite correct about expressing concern for a stroke or heart attack! Goodness. That would be **VERY **serious. Imagine, approaching the White Throne with the knowledge that you WILLFULLY held on to the false teachings of men and attacked the Church that Christ established on Peter. Such a thought is just too much for me!

So, what is the best approach? I guess the foundation for our response comes from Matthew 10:14 and Luke 9:3-5. Additionally, I recall that there were actual limits placed on Jesus! Yes!! Jesus Christ - True God and True Man was not able to act as he wanted… and the Apostles encountered the same problem! (Now, these limits were the one’s that God wanted since He wanted us to have Free Will - and God will not force our Free Will - even though it breaks His Heart to see us walk away from Him.) Unbelief (Matt 17:17, Matt 13:58 and Mark 6:6) was a problem back then - and, it is a problem today. And, if Christ and the Apostles experienced this - and gave us the example of moving on prayerfully … maybe that is what we need to consider.

Besides, having 1beleever show up at that White Throne because he stroked out over your post would be sad. He can read my post and realize how well you treated him Yes, there is no single reason why there are non-Catholics - but, as you said, none of those reasons has anything to do with any posts that have been made…or, more to the point, any teachings made by the Church founded by Christ on Peter and guided by the Holy Spirit so that it can not teach error.

Have a great day. And, thanks for those references fom the late Bishop Fulton Sheen.

God bless

 

[cazayoux]

If the Catholic Church were a lot more like the Orthodox Church, I’d be far more inclined to consider it. Aside from the obvious Pope difference, the Orthodox Church is typified by a refreshing brevity where they keep their dogmatic statements short and concise in order to avoid stepping beyond what is appropriate. Basically, they know when to shut up and the Catholic Church does not.

Hehehe … damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If the Catholic Church didn’t explain as much as it can exactly what is and is not to be believed, I’m sure you would complain about that as well.

With the verbosity, you KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches.
Do you think the Eastern Orthodox Church disagrees with what the Catholic Church says about the Eucharist?
No.

So with your two examples of brevity (Orthodox) and verbosity (Catholic), you still do not agree with what either (both) teaches about the Eucharist.

Of all of the doctrines to discuss, I find that you bringing up this issue of brevity as quite petty.

So tell us … what IS your view on the Eucharist? From scripture? From your tradition?
Let’s discuss.

michel

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cazayoux,

There you go again… using logic!

Hehehe … damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If the Catholic Church didn’t explain as much as it can exactly what is and is not to be believed, I’m sure you would complain about that as well.

With the verbosity, you KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches.
Do you think the Eastern Orthodox Church disagrees with what the Catholic Church says about the Eucharist? No.

I must confess … I laughed and laughed! Thanks for an excellent post.

God bless

 

[joe370]

mmmcounts, you said:

If the Catholic Church were a lot more like the Orthodox Church, I’d be far more inclined to consider it.

**So, would you really consider the E.O.C.??? That’s cool!

**
Aside from the obvious Pope difference, the Orthodox Church is typified by a refreshing brevity where they keep their dogmatic statements short and concise in order to avoid stepping beyond what is appropriate.

**Why are you not a member then?
**

Basically, they know when to shut up and the Catholic Church does not.

**Yeah, and we all know that there are absolutely no over zealous high-winded protestants out there.
**

A few weeks back you attempted to refute John 6 and logically speaking, I absolutely could not accept it. I will copy and paste a series of questions, that I have already asked at this thread, with no reply of course; perhaps you could…

Originally Posted by Christian7801 View Post
I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

---

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

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

Prior to saying, it is the Spirit who gives life, what does Jesus command us all to do, repeatedly? We are to eat His flesh and drink His blood if we want eternal life, as per John 6 -right?

**Are we in agreement **that we are to eat something and drink something, IF WE WANT ETERNAL LIFE? If not, then there is no point to go on!

If Jesus ascended into Heaven, and prior to that, nobody carnally ate Jesus’ flesh or drank His blood, do you think they probably understood the meaning of John 6:63, after His ascension, as being spiritual, not symbolical?

Doesn’t it make sense to think that Jesus was speaking spiritually when He said: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…After all, Jesus’ true form is of the spirit, not the flesh, however He became flesh, and **His flesh profits SOMETHING, NOT NOTHING --Agreed!
**
If all things are possible for God, do you think God could transform bread and wine into His flesh and blood, or is this feat to great for God?

Is it Jesus’ spiritual flesh and spiritual blood we are to eat and drink, or is it His carnal flesh and blood we are to eat and drink?

If Jesus wanted to, could He convert the bread and wine into His carnal flesh and blood, **or is this beyond His scope?
**
Did the Jewish grumblers walk away, thinking that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, as you think and do, or did they walk away thinking He was speaking in a literal sense? The difference between you and the grumblers is that they believed, and you do not. Ask an unbeliever who doesn’t care one way or the other, and he will agree with me every time, because it is so patently obvious, and they truly have no biases; **give it a try!!! **Do we agree about the grumblers?

Why did they walk away -period, **after witnessing an incredible miracle??? ** That would keep me glued to Him!!! Why did they walk away even though He said:

*“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
*
mmmcounts, why didn’t the Jewish grumblers interpret John 6:63 as you do; clearly they did not?

Did Peter, a Jew and the Apostles, also Jews, walk away after Jesus said, *unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…
*
When Jesus said: “Do you also want to leave?” --did they leave, or did Simon Peter say:

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of* eternal life**. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."*

Seven times Jesus said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…Do you think Peter believed that these were words of **eternal life **considering the fact that Jesus said:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood** has eternal life**, and I will raise him on the last day.”

Do you believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, or is it our flesh that profits nothing?

At any time did Jesus say: it is a symbol of my flesh who gives life…it is a symbol of my flesh you are to eat??? Did Jesus say: this is a symbol of my body…this is a symbol of my blood? How does one eat a symbol? No He did not! He said it is the Spirit Who gives life… the words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Which words in John 6 are spirit and life?

These are:

56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Jesus clearly juxtaposes the bread the Fathers ate and died with the bread Christians are to eat, if they want eternal life! In both instances, actual eating was/is necessary! Those Protestants who reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist by alleging that the John 6:35-68 meaning of eating the flesh and drinking blood actually means, simply to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation, are clearly wrong, as per the science of reason. If so, then, can we apply that protestant meaning to the Fathers who ate the manna??? Clearly the meaning of "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."— are the words of **eternal life of which the Master was speaking in John 6. **

Looking forward to your responses…

 

[1beleevr]

Day-o, day-o, the daylight come and me wanna go home! Thank you Jesus, for Your peace!!! And thank you Doctor benedictus2, for that excellent medical advice; but with a blood pressure reading of 122/78, and cholesterol at 159, I don’t believe I am in danger of bursting a blood vessel:thumbsup:And yes, I have planks in my eyes also, on occasion, and I realize it. But planning ahead, as usual, I remembered to put on the full armor of God before re-entering the forum(Eph 6:10-18), especially the “shield of faith, to deflect the fiery arrows of the enemy”. Isay this, because, I believe that sometimes our spiritual battles come from inside the camp, rather than from outside I have never personaly referred to the catholic church as the whore of Babylon; that is very strong language, and defamatory! Please don’t group all non-catholics together under the same umbrella I am, by the grace of God, and the blood of Christ, a member of the Bride of Christ(thank you Jesus!), and am anxiously awaiting the return of our Groom! It’s probably just me, but I believe point#2 could be considered blasphemous, as you are telling everyone that there is no salvation, outside the church. So when Phillip saved and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, was he outside the church? Doesn’t John 3:16 still mean that ALL who believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life? Where did Jesus say that He was building the catholic church, and that there would be exclusivity? Can’t we interpret Peter’s vision in Acts 10:11-19, as God saying, "My grace and salvation is available to ALL, including Gentiles? And are you saying that the catholic church does not have homosexual priests, or cardinals, etc. One of the statements, I read at the height of the catholic priest sexual abuse scandal(which I guess is still going on; I heard that cardinal Mahony was testifying at a trial in California)was, “If the catholic church would stop appointing gay priests, this wouldn’t have happened.” And divorce; doesn’t it happen in every denomination, even catholic? The congregation I am a member of, does not “allow”, nor condone divorce, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen! And I don’t believe that God hates divorced people, He hates divorce! Tell me how the catholic church would view this scenario(true story). A friend of mine at work, who happens to be a catholic, which I just found out; is marriedbut is living with, and has fathered two(2) children with a female co-worker. She told me that the father wants to raise the boys as catholics And as for abortion, I am personally pro-life, and believe that life begins at the point of conception, because it is God’s hand in the process! No church that I have been personally involved with believes in nor condones abortion! Sincerely, though, benedictus2, as brother and sister in Christ, we should work toadvance the Kingdom, not bicker and put each other down(Romans 14:10-13) And when I do street ministry(you should try it sometime, it’s very liberating) we don’t tell anyone that if they just believe in Jesus, they are saved and they don’t have to do anything elseThis is the beginning, however; then we refer them to a church or pastor, or some type of spiritual mentor, who can explain the intricacies of the Christian walk! And please do not believe that because I have differences with the way you beieve that I am filled with hatred or anger towards your reigion:thumbsup:Hatred and love cannot co-exist in Christ’s Kingdom(1John 4:20) It may not seem like it at times, but I do love all of you guys, even though you consider me an angry, bitter, ignorant liar. May we all someday come to a place where love and understanding abound! :thumbsup:In His service! 1beleevr

 

[cazayoux]

So when Phillip saved and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, was he outside the church?

ahh … but the Ethiopian eunuch was saved BY his baptism.
His baptism MADE him a member of the church (Christ’s body).

Doesn’t John 3:16 still mean that ALL who believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life?

Believing in Him, means DOING his will.
It means doing ALL that HE said to DO.
If you believe and do not DO, then you will be lost.
(reference the parable of the true vine and the branches here)
Even the devil and his demons ‘believe’ and are not saved.

Where did Jesus say that He was building the catholic church, and that there would be exclusivity? Can’t we interpret Peter’s vision in Acts 10:11-19, as God saying, "My grace and salvation is available to ALL, including Gentiles?

Jesus built ONE church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
If someone teaches error it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct them in the truth.
The church is not practicing exclusivity, it is teaching doctrinal truth.
The church does not excommunicate someone, it informs the person that they have excommunicated themselves.
See the difference.

If the person is taught the truth and they knowingly reject it, they remove themselves from the truth.

If a person does not know truth (is invincibly ignorant of it), they are not culpable.

I’m with you in that I think we are here on these forums out of love … for each other and for Jesus. Sometimes we get a little ‘caught up’ in the discussions, but kindness from either side serves as a reminder for all of us to remember that we are here out of love. Thank you for that reminder.

michel

 

[1beleevr]

Oh, what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day! Every day that I wake up in Christ, it is a great day indeed! Tqualey, I must say, I admire your loyalty in defending and supporting your fellow catholic sister! If all of us Christians had the same ardor in defending the Cross, what a difference we could make in this world! And thank you for believing that I WILL show up at the White Throne; a day I eagerly look forward to! As far as my blindness, I think maybe you are referring to my not adhering to the catholic viewpoint But, I must say that nearly 42 years of walking with Christ, is evidence that one doesn’t have to belong to a denomination! Matthew Chapter 7 also tells us not to judge, lest we be judged! Some people interpret this to mean that we can judge, but only if we use Heavenly standards, not our own, which sometimes(actually many times) tend to be narrow minded and biased:thumbsup:God bless you and keep you, my brother in Christ!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1beleevr,

Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems that there is a softer tone to this most recent post of yours … contrasted with previous ones. It is nice to hear from you, too… Now, let’s see where we are…

Oh, what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day! Every day that I wake up in Christ, it is a great day indeed!

Truly! Would that more folks said that… Your last tune, had me thinking of bananas…! This is better… and, if you will accept a slight modification… “This is the day the Lord has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Psalm 118:24

From my experience, I’d say Benedictus2 is quite capable of expressing herself clearly, concisely and with a lot of insight. I really did think her response to you was accurate - but, considering your previous comments, I thought adding a bit of humor was appropriate.

And thank you for believing that I WILL show up at the White Throne; a day I eagerly look forward to! As far as my blindness, I think maybe you are referring to my not adhering to the catholic viewpoint

To the best of my knowledge, we all have a established appointment (To Be Announced) at the White Throne. (Oh, and by the way, glad to hear that your blood pressure is withing normal limits…) This Lenten season is a good time for all of us to get our ‘house in order’ in anticipation of meeting the King.

No. I really was not referring to a lack of adherence to the, “…catholic viewpoint.” It was my understanding of Scripture and to hear you dancing around singing a tune (pardon the paraphrase…) that, “There’s no denomination, there’s no denominaiton, tr-la, tr-la, tr-al…” well… it just caught my eye. So, let me explain.

As I recall, there was a time when there was no denomination … and, that would be with Adam and Eve. Ah, but they sinned - and through them - Original Sin (we are no longer Friends of God, we no longer have the gift our First Parents had, and our human nature is inclined to do the wrong thing). Mankind increased in number and there were many disagreements and, as you know the story, many disagreements. Then out of the Goodness of God, Grace was given to Abram - and as part of God’s Eternal Plan, a Covenant was established: If these people would be faithful to God - He would be their God and they would be His People - the Chosen People. For want of a better term, I am guessing that this could be called a denomination (separating those who believed iin the True God from those who did not). Continuing on… the Chosen People were not faithful and had numerous ups and downs but God always demonstrated His Love and fulfilled His Promise of a Savior.

There were many aspects of Christ’s life that had been foretold by the Prophets - and when Christ enters His Public Life, He proceeds to make a number of changes in the way that Belief and Worship were carried out by the Chosen People. And, because of the rejection - you guessed it - Christ: True God and True Man - establishes His Chruch (yep! a denomination!) And, to show He was God, He was going to build it on probably the most frail, vain, impetitious and loudmouth member of the group: Peter. The account given in Matthew (Matt 16:18) is noteworth, because Christ specifically says He is building a Church. It is probably a good idea to read all of 16th Chapter of Matthew so the full flavor of what Christ was doing - and how Peter is immediately lead astray by the Devil - comes into play. And, Christ sets Peter straight - and continues doing this - until Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit on that First Pentecost Sunday. That is the Birth Day of the Catholic Church - the one founded on Peter. And, there is a very interesting story contained in the 2nd Chapter of Acts that describes the tremendous Grace that God poured on His Chruch through the Apostles and those He chose to spread the Good News.

Now, in reality, I would really not call the Jewish Religion and the Catholic Religion a ‘denomination’. This term is simply to keep everything moving along for this particular post. I really think the entire concept of ‘denomination’ can be dated back only as far back as the Protestants in the 16th Century.

Matthew Chapter 7 also tells us not to judge, lest we be judged! Some people interpret this to mean that we can judge, but only if we use Heavenly standards, not our own, which sometimes(actually many times) tend to be narrow minded and biased:thumbsup:God bless you and keep you, my brother in Christ!

Let me use a poor analogy. There are a lot of cars on the road today. Just because you either have a car or are in a car that is traveling down the road does not mean you are going in the correct direction. Just talking about Christ - or even believing in Christ -is simply not good enough. (Remember the Devils believe but it does not do them any good!) You have to produce the WORKS of Christ. Remember the good tree produces good fruit…(Matt 7:18) Recall, Christ went out of His way to curse a fig tree that was not bearing any fruit (Mark 11:12-20) - He was really expecting fruit (or, WORKS from this tree!) The tree did not do well after that.

Well - I will let you be the judge… Christ demonstrated through Mighty Words and Works that He was God. He said He would did for our sins - and He did so. Christ said He would rise from the dead - and He did so. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Chruch - and He did so. The 16th Century comes around and there is unhappiness - and some men take it on themselves to leave the Church of Christ, create their own gospel and lead others in the path they have chosen. None of these men performed any Minghty Works or showed that they had been sent by God to change the Church established by Christ and founded on Peter. So, do you go with the Chruch of Christ or the church of men? You be the judge.

God bless,

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr, if you get the chance could you give my post 940 a read, and let me know what you think; I would really enjoy your feedback? Thanks brother.

tqualey said:

Well - I will let you be the judge… Christ demonstrated through Mighty Words and Works that He was God. He said He would die for our sins - and He did so. Christ said He would rise from the dead - and He did so. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church - and He did so. The 16th Century comes around and there is unhappiness - and some men take it on themselves to leave the Church of Christ, create their own gospel and lead others in the path they have chosen. None of these men performed any Mighty Works or showed that they had been sent by God to change the Church established by Christ and founded on Peter. So, do you go with the Church of Christ or the church of men? You be the judge.

This IS one of the key reasons WHY I became a Christian belonging to the C.C…It is ironclad! What I couldn’t believe until I was forced to, by common sense, was that the C.C. was considered worldwide by the turn of the 1st century; that is so compelling! 1beleevr is that a reasonable assessment? You don’t think your vacation might have something to do with your wonderful disposition vis-a-vis: “Oh, what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day! Every day that I wake up in Christ, it is a great day indeed!” LOL…LOL…Just a little jocularity…I can’t believe mine is over already; man they sure do fly by!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I have not been on this list for very long - but, I have found it to be a true blessing to my spiritual life and has really improved my knowledge of the Catholic Faith.

tqualey said: Well - I will let you be the judge… Christ demonstrated through Mighty Words and Works that He was God. He said He would die for our sins - and He did so. Christ said He would rise from the dead - and He did so. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church - and He did so. The 16th Century comes around and there is unhappiness - and some men take it on themselves to leave the Church of Christ, create their own gospel and lead others in the path they have chosen. None of these men performed any Mighty Works or showed that they had been sent by God to change the Church established by Christ and founded on Peter. So, do you go with the Church of Christ or the church of men? You be the judge.

This IS one of the key reasons WHY I became a Christian belonging to the C.C…It is ironclad! What I couldn’t believe until I was forced to, by common sense, was that the C.C. was considered worldwide by the turn of the 1st century; that is so compelling! 1beleevr is that a reasonable assessment?

God bless,

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There seems to be so much in common across all Christians that i wondered what would need to be changed about the Catholic church before you would consider converting e.g. stop the focus on Mary as key for many but what else would need to change…

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

 

[cazayoux]

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

Yep … someone is confused, unhappy, lacking spiritual fulfillment, duped, deluded, and depressed … but also lucky, and could possibly find fulfillment. Prayer for you my brother. Seek truth … not what ‘feels’ right. Doubt happens to everyone … but continue the search for truth. To seek Him is to find Him. Keep looking.

with love.

michel

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Yep … someone is confused, unhappy, lacking spiritual fulfillment, duped, deluded, and depressed … but also lucky, and could possibly find fulfillment. Prayer for you my brother. Seek truth … not what ‘feels’ right. Doubt happens to everyone … but continue the search for truth. To seek Him is to find Him. Keep looking.

with love.

michel

thanks for the well wishes … but honestly since I shed the shackles of believing in a fairy tale – I’ve never been happier.

 

[cazayoux]

thanks for the well wishes … but honestly since I shed the shackles of believing in a fairy tale – I’ve never been happier.

so … atheist?

what were those shackles that you are finally free from? belief in God? belief that Jesus was God? the christian religion? all religion?

Did someone else damage your faith or was this a logical progression on your part alone?

I’m truly curious about your path and how you got to this point.

michel

 

[1beleevr]

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