B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I’ll stick to my opinion. If we keep this particular “beef” going, the thread will never end.
As I said, I think the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth. And that’s as far as I go.
- Status
As I said, I think the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth. And that’s as far as I go.
C
Contarini
Guest
Are you working from the assumption that we relate to Christ solely as individuals?
What about that whole “Body of Christ” thing? It’s right there in the Bible, you know.
However obnoxious you may find it–however countercultural the message may be–the Church is an essential part of what it means to be a Christian. If it’s possible for any group of Christians to just get together and start a “true church,” then church becomes meaningless. Salvation is being invited into a relationship with Christ by and through the Church. If that’s true, then one can’t rule out the possibility that there might in fact be “one true Church.” Don’t you owe it to yourself and to your Lord and Savior to investigate this possibility instead of just rejecting it because your culture has taught you to find it “obnoxious”?
Edwin
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Great post Edwin. I know where you stand on a lot of the Catholic issues, so I appreciate your willingness to defend the Catholic position.
E
elvisman
Guest
You’re shocked? REALLY?
It is our DUTY to admonish the unruly (1 Thess. 5:14)
I have a friend who is divorced and remarried. He started going to mass again after a long time and was receiving the Eucharist. I advised him that he shouldn’t receive the Eucharist until he had gotten an anullment. He has since stopped receiving the Eucharist and has spoken to the parish Pastor about going forth with the anullment - who agreed with my advice.
Was I wrong for advising him not to receive the Eucharist?
1 Cor. 11:27-29
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
***A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. ***
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. **
E
elvisman
Guest
**Then I suggest you look into the matter and do some serious reading/reasearch. This is not an issue to be taken lightly. The truth is not something that we get to change to suit our particular needs. **
Remember - Jesus is truth itself - and he doesn’t change.
E
elvisman
Guest
Jesus establlished ONE Church (Matt. 16:16-19) - not thousands.
In Scripture, that ONE Church he established is called:
The FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23)
The Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15)
The Final authority on earth (Matt. 18:15-18)
Finally - in Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equates his very self with his Church.
You find it obnoxious when Catholics say we are the One True Church? Take it up with Jesus then - who is Truth itself (John 14:6) and his ONE Church is the fullness of that truth . . .
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I know. I used to think it was ok to go to Communion when I was in mortal sin. I just didn’t believe my sin was mortal. Ha, imagine me knowing better than God what is mortal sin! I now know my faith so much better and have repented. I used to let my kids go to Communion even after they skipped Sunday mass and hadn’t gone to Confession. I thought receiving the body of Christ would do them some good. But then I ran across the Scripture quote you posted above. It kept playing over and over in my mind. It’s something I couldn’t run away from. I had read the verse hundreds of times without even thinking about the implications.
When I was a kid ('60’s), it was normal to abstain from Communion. Now it’s seen as being over scrupulous. Very poor catechesis. Thankfully the likes of CAF, Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, and EWTN are reevangelizing us!
F
fred_conty
Guest
Hi Bob, Although I see you don’t understand infallibility, your article above is quite good at reviewing what was going on at the time. I’m impressed, really. I hope you will forgive me for cutting down the article so that I could manage to understand it better.
- I’ve always known the church makes plenty of mistakes, by that I mean christians, who are identified with the church, but then I probably should correct myself and say all christians portray Christ in a bad way by their actions. It is all over the history books. Which leads to Peter & Paul who had a difference of opinion about unclean food. And they had to correct different local churchs for doing the wrong things, like all of the capitol sins. We are all imperfect, except you and me, and sometimes I have my doubts about you. This will always be with us because everyone without exception is weak. Its just that some are more weak than others.
- Infallibility, doesn’t mean the church creates new teachings. Infallibility dosen’t mean the church is impeccable, that is any individual whether at the top or bottom. Infallibility means that the church in its’ official capacity, thinks it necessary to clearify truth or point
to the good, in order to eliminate confusion. Then people can know the will of the Father. - There was confusion, and the Holy Father needed to speak out. I’m sure that Dr. Roch is a very wonderful man, as well as the demonstraters and the priests who left. I know that they all meant well. But after all is said and done, the Holy Father receives his commission to lead them into the light even tho this may be diffricult. Christ probably found leading difficult too because people walked away from him as well. In fact they did more than just walk away. Now the Holy Father is the head of His church. Can we expect any less of him. Our dear Lord left Peter to function in this way, to lead. And the apostles followed. And those bishops who spoke out did follow.
- There are lots of issues that seem to be coming up in the Church like married priests, women priests, and so on. That’s why we need leadership for not everyone can have the final word, and to keep unity and truth, decisons must be made.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Yup - I was guilty of the same thing.
Thank GOD he turned the lightbulb on inside our heads and hearts . . .
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Sometimes he really has to slap us hard to get us to turn our hearts to him.**Yup - I was guilty of the *same ***thing.
Thank GOD he turned the lightbulb on inside our heads and hearts . . .
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I’m aware that “infallibility” in Catholic context means that the Pope is only “infallible” when he speaks on behalf of the whole church on an issue of faith and morals, and I’m also aware that it has only been formally invoked on two occasions.
I happen to disagree with it, and I don’t think there is any need for it. The pope’s ruling is “binding”, not infallible. Peter himself, who might be regarded as the very first pope, was rebuked as “Satan” hard on the heels of his defining moment, the claim of Christ as Messiah.
Nowhere do I find Christ saying that the Petrine office would be “Infallible”. I do however find He said it’s authority would be binding, so much so that it’s rulings would be honoured in heaven. But then we find Christ using the word “Loose”, which indicates a ruling can be changed. You don’t “loose” something unless it has first been “bound”.
It’s a totally unnecessary, and in my opinion, dangerous assumption, and that is what it was. Moreover the way it was brought in was not very honest.
As for “confusion”, there was no confusion. The committee, which the Pope appointed, made a recommendation that the pill should be fine for use by married couples.
There’s nothing confusing about that.
As I said, I have two main beefs with the Catholic Church, and they’re the two - “infailibility” and the contraceptive pill, or artifiicial contraception if you wish.
And if it comes to that I don’t see a problem with married priests. If the Protestants and the Orthodox can run their churches very successfully for hundreds of years with married priests and pastors, then what’s the problem? The most godly and prophetic man I’ve ever met was a married pastor with six sons.
But I’m not going to grand stand on that one. Not yet, anyway.
E
elvisman
Guest
Best that you don’t grandstand because you’re wrong on a few points.
**First of all priestly celibacy is a discipline – not a doctrine. Theoretically, it CAN be changed and nobody is saying that it never ****WILL **be changed.
**Yours is a common anti-Catholic blunder. Papal infallibility has been invoked hundreds, if not thousands of times. Every time a person is declared a saint - Papal infallibility is invoked. **
Your “binding and loosing” language is a game of pure semantics. Loosing means nothing more than to do away with, loosen or dissolve. In fact – these are 3 of the many definitions of the Greek word used in Matt. 16:19 (luo).
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,but if I am correct,the pope was making a reference to specific cases.Case in point, HIV and AIDS. He is not endorsing it to every couple. Sorry,but you have taken it out-of-context.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sperm is not human life? Is it not alive? Is not a big factor in producing LIFE? Is a female egg not vital to creating life?
E
elvisman
Guest
Apparently not. The Pro-Contraception crowd HAS to rationalize this fact away in order to justify their position.
Remember - the Pro-Death crowd says that a baby in the womb is just a blob of tissue . . .
1
1stOrderKoC
Guest
Do I have a problem with the CC, by no means do I. But like others have already posted, its Christians themselves. As a Catholic, its my duty to act a certain way in hopes of others seeing the genuine side of me. To lead by example for others to follow. Am I a very good Christian, no, but I try to be the best I can be.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
A sperm by itself doesn’t go anywhere. Since the average issue of sperm is around 120 million or thereabouts, God doesn’t seem to be too worried about the fate of the other 119,999,999 even if conception is successful. Of course most are not, so He doesn’t care if the whole 120,000,000 go down the tube.
Likewise the ova. And even without the use of artificial contraceptives, it seems that about half of all fertilised ova are flushed out by the body’s own systems itself. That must account for billions of fertilised ova annually, without anybody even taking a pill.
For a God who’s allegedly so concerned about methods of contraception, He doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with sheer wastage.
And if someone is going to bring up Onanian sin, then if you’re obey that law, then you have to obey the whole law, including marrying your brother’s widow. And don’t move your neighbours lot pegs either.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
My error - I checked up on Onan, and he wasn’t required to marry his brother’s widow. All Judah told him to do was have intercourse with her, so his deceased brother would have “children”.
So if you’re going to obey the whole law, you’ll have to make a point of sleeping with your brother’s widow.
My error.
So if you’re going to obey the whole law, you’ll have to make a point of sleeping with your brother’s widow.
My error.
C
Carlan
Guest
The way some Christians try to justify their disobedience and the making up of the way they want the commandments to satisfy their own means amazes me.
Peace, Carlan
J
Jesness
Guest
My concern here is not how we relate to Christ, but how we relate to each other. If God has accepted a person as his Son/Daughter, who am I to say they’re not a member of the Church? Or chide them for not being the ‘right kind of Christian.’ (I am speaking of the Mystical Body of Christ, not the denominational churches)
I do believe there is One True Church, I just don’t consider the cathlic denomination to be it, The One True Chruch is Christ- every beliver that makes up His body, not all of those believers are found in the catholic church.
- Status