Why I Can't Be Catholic

[JRKH]

The peace that Christ alone gives which surpasses all understanding is given to those who believe that Christ died for him/her and He paid our sin debt in full. The Bible tells us: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. This one time blood atonement was complete and man can do nothing to add to it. The gift of eternal life is given by God to all who will accept the complete blood sacrifice of the Son. If one must work to try to earn it, or to try to prove “worthy”, then it isn’t a gift.

Nothing you have said in this portion contradicts Catholic Teaching. This is the sort of misunderstanding that often comes up between Catholics and Non-Catholics.

Of course simply Believing on The Lord could be seen as a “work” done in order to “Earn” a reward. Reading Scripture and Studying and Going To Church could also be seen as “Works” since each involves actions and energy. It all depends upon the reason behind the actions. That becomes the crux of the matter.

There are other Christian sects that claim there’s no salvation outside their church, which is also what the catholic church believes.

But do you know how the Catholic Church defines “Church”??
From the Catechism
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” **Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, **whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

As far as salvation outside of even THAT definition, the Church provides for the Great Mercy of God to act. Sorry I don’t have the specific statement that deals with this. Perhaps someone else can provide it.

But Jesus never said salvation is found in a church nor in church works, but in a relationship with Him.

Yes, I agree with justaservent. Would you please provide the chapter and verse for this?

Its all about what Jesus did for us. In the Bible we read of men asking what must I do to be saved? What was always the response?

No doubt that the central call is to repentance and baptism and belief in Jesus as Lord and savior. Of course in one very famous case Jesus responded that the person should “Go. Sell all that you have, give to the poor, then come back and follow me.”

Yankee,
It’s good to see you here. Hope your stay is a pleasant and enlightening one.
We as Catholics certainly agree that Christ is central to our faith, and that it is His sacrifice that is crucial to our salvation. Such is not at issue here.
However, you seem to be under the impression that a “particular church (denomination)” is unimportant. Read the Scriptures again and note how :

1. Jesus Prayed that we be ONE as He and the Father are ONe
2. St Paul exhorted the faithful to be, “Of One Mind”
3. Jesus used the term Church only two times, and in both cases it was granting authority
4. Jesus told us to take our troubles and “Tell it To The Church”
   Based on this, do you really think that the Holy Spirit is responsible for and Christ approves of different Christian Churches teaching contradictory Doctrines?
   How can “One Mind” believe mutually exclusive things about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

I do not doubt your Love of Christ, or your sincerity in wishing to follow Him. I only ask that you consider these things prayerfully and honestly.

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

Of course simply Believing on The Lord could be seen as a “work” done in order to “Earn” a reward.

Faith is certainly a ‘work’, God does not believe in Himself for us, it is something that we do.

We are given Grace so that Faith is effective, and we are also given Grace so that our Works are effective.

 

[Jason_1977]

As a nonCatholic Christian, I personally feel so much freedom. I feel happy, full of God, and peaceful. I feel safe and secure in Jesus Christ. Confident and prepared for His coming.

But as a Catholic, I feel scared. I feel agony, fear, anxiety, worry, etc. I feel like I’m dishonoring God by talking to other heavenly creatures.

Is it not right to go with my conscience? Or would it be better for me to live a life in constant fear?

you cant be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. You’re pregnant or you’re not. You’re catholic/protestant or you’re not. As a protestant (former episcopalian) I took quite a bit for granted & just knew that the catholics were wrong, creepy & scary. After being confirmed in the catholic church, I have seen more, learned more, FELT more than i ever did in being episcopalian for 30 years. I understand more, and see more clearly & feel more free than I ever did. I am also responsible for my own salvation, & that has never been more clear. I confess my sins both in church & I also talk to a priest about other sins & they provide advice…I have since greatly reduced my road rage (I’m not perfect) I have quit smoking, (the rosary was a great substitute for the physical habit of smoking) and well, my life has been a lot more serene, and much more pure than it was BEFORE I became a catholic. who I am today & what I am going to become I owe to the catholic church.

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

Good to see you too. Yes, its important to be of one mind and one with Christ. For if we love Jesus we will follow and obey Him. But where does the Bible tell us that the “church” consists of a world wide denomination with an elaborate hierarchical structure? When we look at the NT we see that the churches founded by the apostles and Paul were local assemblies. They were usually led by a newly converted Christian and all of these churches were autonomous. Paul did not think it strange that these churches broke the bread at communion without him or the other apostles present. Also when we study the NT we learn that ‘church’ is not a denomination or organization, but rather its a “body of believers” in Jesus Christ and these spiritually born again believers can be found everywhere in many faiths.The church are the “called out ones”. This is the bride of Christ that Jesus will be returning for. Christ is ever present, not limited to a church building or the host at Mass. He is spirit and expects worship from us in the same manner.

Erik

 

[JRKH]

James,

Good to see you too. Yes, its important to be of one mind and one with Christ. For if we love Jesus we will follow and obey Him. But where does the Bible tell us that the “church” consists of a world wide denomination with an elaborate hierarchical structure? When we look at the NT we see that the churches founded by the apostles and Paul were local assemblies. They were usually led by a newly converted Christian and all of these churches were autonomous.

Please supply the evidence you have that indicates these churches were autonomous. When I read the NT I see The Apostles, St Paul in particular writing to and teaching ALL of the Churches the same doctrines. I see in Acts Chapter 15 where two church communities having a difference of opinion and “The Church” meeting in Council adressing the issue for the entire church.
The Bible tells us that when we have disputes we are to “Tell it To the Church” and abide by her decision. The structure we see today in the Catholic Church is the embodiment and development of that command from Christ. It provides us with the ability to be “Of One Mind” within the World wide Church.Church
Finally I would ask you to cinsider, what would St Pauls reaction be to one of the "Church’s, say - Corinth telling him that they disagree with his teaching on justification and that he has no authority to tell them they are wrong since they received this by relelation from the Holy Spirit.

Paul did not think it strange that these churches broke the bread at communion without him or the other apostles present.

Why should they think it was strange? The men that the apostles appointed as Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) were there to act in their stead just as they were acting in Christ’s stead.

Also when we study the NT we learn that ‘church’ is not a denomination or organization, but rather its a “body of believers” in Jesus Christ and these spiritually born again believers can be found everywhere in many faiths.The church are the “called out ones”. This is the bride of Christ that Jesus will be returning for. Christ is ever present, not limited to a church building or the host at Mass. He is spirit and expects worship from us in the same manner.

Erik

The term Church does indeed mean “Body of believers”. It also means the structure by which that body of believers worship, commune, and resolve their differences in Christian humility.
How many different “Bodies of Believers” in the world today also have a "governmental Structure? The American Legion, The Rotary Club, The United States are all examples of “Bodies of Believers” who also have structures by which their beliefs are protected and promoted.
It is a huge mistake to assume that just because "Church means “Body of Believers” that this is the only definition to the exclusion to any governing structure.

I would ask you to prayerfully look at Mt 18:15-18

15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Now you wish to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. To support this many will point to the verse following that says, “Where two or three are gathered in my name…”
If this is so, then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.

Peace
James

 

[bilop]

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated at one point for taking it too far to the extreme,

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not his views on EENS. When he reconciled, he was not required to recant any of his statements on EENS.

God Bless

 

[brigid12]

Acts 8:30-32.- imperative and as far as Romans 11 try listening to Scott Hahn (Professor of Theology at Franciscan University, convert in the 80’s from being a Presbyterian minister), I’ve heard so I know he did a series on all of Romans (and I’ve seen the books, so know he also did a Scripture commentary on all of Hebrews). He’s good and complete. Listening to his conversion story, which is available at any Catholic bookstore and in many parishes, too, is a worthwhile thing to do. He was a very anti-Catholic Presbyterian (and experienced other denoms., too, so many of the thoughts that go through your mind may be addressed).

And, no, I’m sure no one here thinks you’re at all stupid!!!

 

[TristanCross]

I’ve actually been listening to Scott Hahn lately and I’m impressed as well as being convinced that the Catholic faith is true

 

[brigid12]

I’ve actually been listening to Scott Hahn lately and I’m impressed as well as being convinced that the Catholic faith is true

Praise God!!!

 

[JRKH]

I’ve actually been listening to Scott Hahn lately and I’m impressed as well as being convinced that the Catholic faith is true

Mr Hahn is indeed a wonderful source. He also has a program on EWTN called reasons to believe (sorry I don’t know when it’s on).
I also enjoy the Program “The Journey Home” hosted by Marcus Grodi, who went to Seminary (or Bible college) with Dr Hahn. His guests almost always bring wonderful insights into the faith.

Peace
James

 

[JustaServant]

I’ve actually been listening to Scott Hahn lately and I’m impressed as well as being convinced that the Catholic faith is true

Glad to hear this Tristin. Sorry to have been so rough on you in your initial posts, but as the Proverbs says, ‘better are the wounds of a friend’…
One thing I do want to point out to you. The Catholic faith is not based on what we are against so much as what we are for. Anti-Catholics tend to be very angry and cynical. Is true religion based on anger? James tells us true religion is based on tangibles. We are FOR widows and orphans. We are FOR feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.
A theology that makes you angry and paralyzes you is no theology, its a waste of time.
I was a teen-ager once and thought I had all the answers (the curse of adolesance). I spent 20 years wandering from teacher to teacher all ‘absolutely’ SURE thier interpretation of the Bible was the correct one. ‘Scripture alone’ they cry, but a simple look at your local Yellow Pages reveals that to be in error. The Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion. Do not allow confusion to rule your life or you will spend years wandering a Protestant wasteland like I did. The grass always looks greener. Take the advice of a former teen-ager who was just as opinionated and passionate. its not.
I saw many teen-agers in the years I was a fundamentalist so completely disillusioned by the hypocrisy of what they saw. What happens? At best they don’t give up their faith in God, they just stop going to any kind of church. At worst, they become atheist. I’ve seen this rerun so many times I can recite the dialogue.

Here are some works that helped me:
A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot.
The Teachings of the Church Fathers, edited by John R. Willis.
Fundamentalism and Catholicism by Karl Keating.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam.
Journeys Home by Marcus Grodi.

Finally, TAKE YOUR TIME!! Stop trying understand everything at once. It’s not that simple. Do not gorge yourself feeding your mind. Take one bite at a time, chew on it and let it settle. I know thats hard in this world of the instant and the simple, but dare to be different and MUSE on the words.

Seek for answers, and when you find what seems to be an answer, question that too. Louis L’amour

We will be praying for you. In the meantime, relax, feed your brain, and enjoy the ride.

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

The NT congregations had no external religious body or hierarchy overseeing them.They were autonomous, that is, self governing. They often met as small groups of believers in homes for worship and fellowship. They were largely concerned for and involved in evangelism. It was a simple organization of local elders, deacons, presbyters, and overseers, which were all the same, not one above the other. Paul said they were not people of authority, but people who serve. There was no hierarchy as we see today. No separation into a clergy-laity class. Paul argued, exhorted, complained and praised, but never came forward with assertion of final authority. He never asked any officer or body of officers to take any action or pass any decision. His letters were addressed to the congregation as a whole with arguments and appeals, but he did not decide for the church.They are a church of God and the Spirit of God is in them just as the Spirit touched upon the disciples in the upper room. There was no authority of any church council or other body. Neither did the church in Jerusalem nor the 12 apostles have any right to rule the churches founded by Paul. They have the Holy Spirit, the very Comforter that Christ promised to send to guide and teach them God’s truth. This very Spirit of God which was their life and which united them in the one body of Christ. This is the spirit of unity that Paul sought. Those who repent and believe shall receive forgiveness of sins and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The diversities of gifts were to equip every Christian for service. Paul said the Church is made of many members such as the human body has many parts, and every member is needed and valuable in the church. Christians are not meant to sit passively but to use their gifts in the church.These churches were more of a family than an organization. They met weekly for worship where each might have a part. The eucharist was a common meal. These churches were one, not because of officers placed over them or a central authority, but a unity in the spirit of fraternity.

Erik

 

[yankee_drifter]

I don’t think its fair to say that Anti-Catholics tend to be very angry and cynical. We must never generalize. People are only human and we all get angry at times especially when someone doesn’t agree with us. There are believers of Jesus Christ found in most every faith whether catholic, protestant or nondenominational/evangelical. I have gotten my share of angry emails and personal attacks to my blogs by catholics, but I would never make a claim that all catholics are angry, cynical people.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

James,

The NT congregations had no external religious body or hierarchy overseeing them.They were autonomous, that is, self governing. They often met as small groups of believers in homes for worship and fellowship. They were largely concerned for and involved in evangelism. It was a simple organization of local elders, deacons, presbyters, and overseers, which were all the same, not one above the other. Paul said they were not people of authority, but people who serve. There was no hierarchy as we see today. No separation into a clergy-laity class. Paul argued, exhorted, complained and praised, but never came forward with assertion of final authority. He never asked any officer or body of officers to take any action or pass any decision. His letters were addressed to the congregation as a whole with arguments and appeals, but he did not decide for the church.They are a church of God and the Spirit of God is in them just as the Spirit touched upon the disciples in the upper room. There was no authority of any church council or other body. Neither did the church in Jerusalem nor the 12 apostles have any right to rule the churches founded by Paul. They have the Holy Spirit, the very Comforter that Christ promised to send to guide and teach them God’s truth. This very Spirit of God which was their life and which united them in the one body of Christ. This is the spirit of unity that Paul sought. Those who repent and believe shall receive forgiveness of sins and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The diversities of gifts were to equip every Christian for service. Paul said the Church is made of many members such as the human body has many parts, and every member is needed and valuable in the church. Christians are not meant to sit passively but to use their gifts in the church.These churches were more of a family than an organization. They met weekly for worship where each might have a part. The eucharist was a common meal. These churches were one, not because of officers placed over them or a central authority, but a unity in the spirit of fraternity.

Erik

Each NT congregation had a bishop who was the head of that group.

I think you need to do a bit more study.

Also the body functions under a central authority, which Paul points out when he speaks of the body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. The body is a whole and no part can claim to be another part, how is this determined? There is an authority implied there.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for your response. I am going to just make some brief comments. Please forgive the curtness of them

James,

The NT congregations had no external religious body or hierarchy overseeing them.They were autonomous, that is, self governing.

Please provide Scripture evidence to prove this.

They often met as small groups of believers in homes for worship and fellowship. They were largely concerned for and involved in evangelism.

We also meet in “small gourps” though today we are able to use special worship spaces instead of our homes. Meeting in small groups does not negate an association or a governance one with the other.

It was a simple organization of local elders, deacons, presbyters, and overseers, which were all the same, not one above the other. Paul said they were not people of authority, but people who serve.

Well said. Even today the deacons, priests, bishops and pope are men of service. If you doubt this, just spend some time with some of these people. They are mostly overworked and underpaid. Plus I would ask you to note that, in spite of the outward appearance of princliness in robes and pomp, the “higher” the office, the more imprisoned the man is by his service. Little if any of their time is their own. From early morning until very late at night each minute is filled with service to others.
Truly - People who serve.

There was no hierarchy as we see today. No separation into a clergy-laity class.

In the same way it can be seen that the company “Apple computer” had a different “heirachy” when they were working out of their garage than they have today.
Comparing a small Church community of a few thousand or a small company to a worldwide church or mega-corporation is comparing apples and oranges. The infrastructure of each changes over time as needs change.

Paul argued, exhorted, complained and praised, but never came forward with assertion of final authority. He never asked any officer or body of officers to take any action or pass any decision. His letters were addressed to the congregation as a whole with arguments and appeals, but he did not decide for the church.They are a church of God and the Spirit of God is in them just as the Spirit touched upon the disciples in the upper room.

Then why did Paul write at All?? Was it not enough for him to found the community, ordain minsters for the communtiy and then leave them in the hands of the Holy Spirit??
Why did Paul feel the need to write to Corinth to to admonsh them for the unworthy way in which they were acting?? Were they not free to act however the spirit moved them?? Did they not have ministers there to address any issues of improper behavior??
What do you think Pauls’ reaction would have been if Corinth, after recieving Pauls admonision, wrote mback and told him to mind his own business and that he had no authority over them??

There was no authority of any church council or other body. Neither did the church in Jerusalem nor the 12 apostles have any right to rule the churches founded by Paul.

The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 indicates differently.

They have the Holy Spirit, the very Comforter that Christ promised to send to guide and teach them God’s truth.

Then why, today does this “Holy Spirit” guiding autonomous churches, teach contradictory “Truths” (Real presence - baptism - OSAS)

This very Spirit of God which was their life and which united them in the one body of Christ. This is the spirit of unity that Paul sought. Those who repent and believe shall receive forgiveness of sins and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Note that the spirit of unity that Paul sought was to be “Of One Mind”. This is a bit more profound than just meeting in the same place or just believing the Christ Rose. It means believing everything, every facet of salvic Truth in the same way. When any member speaks anywhere it is the same message. This is being of One Mind. When one memeber says that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and another days it is merely symbolic, that is not being “Of One Mind”

The diversities of gifts were to equip every Christian for service. Paul said the Church is made of many members such as the human body has many parts, and every member is needed and valuable in the church. Christians are not meant to sit passively but to use their gifts in the church.These churches were more of a family than an organization. They met weekly for worship where each might have a part. The eucharist as a common meal.

Agee with all of this, and I hope you don;t think that Catholics are somehow discouraged from using their gifts for the Good of Christ’s Body and the whole world.

These churches were one, not because of officers placed over them or a central authority, but a unity in the spirit of fraternity.

Erik

I think in your last sentence here you speak to perhaps teh biggest mis-understanding about the Church. That is that we have a bunch of “Rulers” Lording over us. This is not the case. We do have those in position of authority over us to guard The Truth and to assure unity in teaching across the Universal Church. The Catholic Church, especially today has a great many charisms active within her from very traditional to very modern, from the rational and thomisic, to the highly charismatic and mystical. All operating under the umbrella of the Christ’s great Church.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yes, the NT church had bishops, presbyters, shepherds, overseers, elders. These are all the same in rank. None were higher than another.These terms are not honorary titles but descriptions of work to be done. Paul said these are positions of one who serves. We do not see the separation into clergy/passive laity that have become common in many churches today, but all used their spiritual gifts. Even those gifts such as helps or hospitality for example, were not deemed to be of less value in the church. What we learn from the NT churches is that:

1. Christ is the head of every local church. There is no human head of the church.
2. The Scriptures and Paul epistles which were being passed around and read in the churches were the only written creed for each local church, rather than a man-made written creed.
3. Each local church is autonomous and self-governing. No outside interference from others. When we look at the Corinthian church, we see that it is democratic (equal). There is no hint of any structured hierarchy.
4. No organizational tie between local churches.
5. No organization larger than local churches.
6. The Bible uses Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor interchangeably and they all refer to a single office in the church.
7. Local churches appoint their own plurality of elders using 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1 as guidelines for the qualifications.
8. Elders have authority only over the members of the local church, not members from outside congregations.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, the NT church had bishops, presbyters, shepherds, overseers, elders. These are all the same in rank. None were higher than another.These terms are not honorary titles but descriptions of work to be done. Paul said these are positions of one who serves. We do not see the separation into clergy/passive laity that have become common in many churches today, but all used their spiritual gifts. Even those gifts such as helps or hospitality for example, were not deemed to be of less value in the church. What we learn from the NT churches is that:

1. Christ is the head of every local church. There is no human head of the church.

Do you have the impression that Catholics do not view Christ as the head of the Church?
The NT clearly shows that the Church had a hierarchy. You simply need to recognize it when you see it. Look at Acts 15.

1. The Scriptures and Paul epistles which were being passed around and read in the churches were the only written creed for each local church, rather than a man-made written creed.

If Each Church was independant then why were they all being sure to use the same materials? Scriptures and Paul’s Epistles?
The so called “Made Made” creed is simply a summarization of Scripture.

1. Each local church is autonomous and self-governing. No outside interference from others. When we look at the Corinthian church, we see that it is democratic (equal). There is no hint of any structured hierarchy.

So Paul’s letters of admonision to Corinth from his position in a far off place is not a hint of “outside interference”??
Antiochs Appeal to the Apostles in Jerusalem as regards the Judaizers was not an appeal to a larger universal rather than local governance??

You see I can demonstrate from Scripture that The Local churches felt themselves doctrinally bound to each other in Unity. You seem unable to do this other than by saying what you don’t see in the NT. Yet what you don’t see is actually there.

1. No organizational tie between local churches.
2. No organization larger than local churches.

See Acts 15.

1. The Bible uses Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor interchangeably and they all refer to a single office in the church.
2. Local churches appoint their own plurality of elders using 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1 as guidelines for the qualifications.

Yes the way in which leaders are selected has evolved over time.

1. Elders have authority only over the members of the local church, not members from outside congregations.

And even today, Clergy have authority toward their specific congregations. The Bishop of One Diocese cannot give orders to a Parish in another Diocese. So I don’t see your point here.

The NT is full of references to the interconnectedness of the Church communities. The fact that At Pauls letters were passed around is one. The Council in Acts 15 is another.
Pauls’ admonision to the chrch at corinth is still another.
I think it is up to you to demonstrate using Scripture that the churches in different cities held different doctrinal views on a par with todays differences such as differences on the Real presence.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

James, Let’s look at Acts 15. It was the Jews who sought to teach the gentile converts. They were telling the gentiles that they were not saved if they weren’t observing the ceremonial law as given by Moses. When false teachers oppose the main truths of the Gospel, or bring in wrong doctrines, we must oppose and expose them before they poison the flock. Elders, overseers, shepherds were to care for the flock and their needs. This has nothing to do with hierarchy. The early Christians were a people who were joined together in individual, autonomous assemblies of baptized believers. They never had any head or authority over them but Christ. They had no clergy, pope, archbishops, priests, superintendents, presidents, home office, boards, “ruling” elders, or standing committees.There was no enforced celibacy, nor were any deemed infallible. Peter himself made mistakes and was even rebuked by Paul.

The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and it became the religion of Rome. A “catholic” (Latin for “Universal”) church was established, which became wed with the State of Rome. The “universal” (instead of local) aspect facilitated an organized, structured hierarchy. It adopted the governing techniques of the Romans. Emperors and kings had much to say about church matters. Eventually, the office of “Pope” (meaning father) - (Matthew 23:9) was established to preside over this universal organization, and the system known as the ”Roman Catholic Church” gradually evolved into what it is today.

I have no doubt that many Catholics do love and revere the Lord Jesus Christ, however, Christ is not limited to the Mass, specifically the host. Christ is every where present in the spirit and expects worship from us in the same manner. Not just in a church building. (John 4:24)

Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. He made it possible for Christians to go directly to God the Father with our confession of sins. No human has the power to absolve sin. This is why the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he had forgiven someone’s sin which they knew only God can do. Look at Simon the sorcerer and his experience with Peter.(Acts 8) Instead of hearing Simon’s confession and giving absolution, Peter sent Simon to the only One who can forgive sin: God.

 

[JRKH]

James, Let’s look at Acts 15. It was the Jews who sought to teach the gentile converts. They were telling the gentiles that they were not saved if they weren’t observing the ceremonial law as given by Moses.

Yes let’s look at Acts 15:1
And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Where does this say they were Jews?
It says they were from Judea. If they were Jews (not believing on Christ) there would have been no controversy since they would be preaching against Christ (a bigger issue) and the particulars of Mosaic Law would not entered the discussion. Those preaching agianst Christ would have been summerally cast out.
No - These men from Judea were Christians who were of Jewish extraction and they were teaching circumcision as necessary for Christian salvation. This is further clarified when, in verse 5 we see:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

When false teachers oppose the main truths of the Gospel, or bring in wrong doctrines, we must oppose and expose them before they poison the flock. Elders, overseers, shepherds were to care for the flock and their needs. This has nothing to do with hierarchy.

Now let us look at Acts 15:2 and test this against what you say above:

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

The Judaizers were opposed by Paul and Barnabas and others, but to no avail. Please note how beautifully this fits into the teachings of Christ in Mt 18:15-18. Here we see certain ones holding a belief that is controversial and is opposed by one of the great teachers, writers and debators of The Church at that time - St Paul. Even with this matter being brought before then entire community no solution could be found. So what did they do? The sent Paul and others to Jerusalem. Why? Because the Apostles and elders were there and they needed to place this question before The Apostles and Elders
So - contrary to what you have said, it appears that the Early Church DID have Elders outside of the local community to which the local communites could appeal. Just as Christ instructed in Mt 18:17, those of the Local Church Even to the Great St Paul, Appealed to the Higher Church authority, the Elders (including the Apostles) in Jerusalem.

The early Christians were a people who were joined together in individual, autonomous assemblies of baptized believers. They never had any head or authority over them but Christ. They had no clergy, pope, archbishops, priests, superintendents, presidents, home office, boards, “ruling” elders, or standing committees.There was no enforced celibacy, nor were any deemed infallible. Peter himself made mistakes and was even rebuked by Paul.

These are statments for which you have not provided evidence. Mt Clearly shows that we are to appeal to "The Church (singlular). Acts Clearly Shows that the Church at Antioch did just that. What more evidence do you need than this?
As to the church structure then and now, that is more a matter of development in order to teach and protect the faith as the Church grew.
Latly in the matter of infallibility, I suggest you need to have a better grasp of what the doctrine is and how it is applied before you make further comment.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and it became the religion of Rome. A “catholic” (Latin for “Universal”) church was established, which became wed with the State of Rome. The “universal” (instead of local) aspect facilitated an organized, structured hierarchy. It adopted the governing techniques of the Romans. Emperors and kings had much to say about church matters. Eventually, the office of “Pope” (meaning father) - (Matthew 23:9) was established to preside over this universal organization, and the system known as the ”Roman Catholic Church” gradually evolved into what it is today.

You have a mixture of good and bad here. Yes Christianity was legalized in the Empire by Constantine, Yes this did allow the Church to expand and become even more universal than it had been. But that was simply because the persecusions stopped and secrecy was no longer necessary. This allowed the Church to function openly and freely and to more easily refine and clarify doctrine. Yes, The Church structure probably does resemble the Roman state stucture, but that is merely because that was the norm back then. Not unlike a democratic-republic it the norm today.
As to the matters you have wrong I suggest you provide your sources on these.

I have no doubt that many Catholics do love and revere the Lord Jesus Christ, however, Christ is not limited to the Mass, specifically the host. Christ is every where present in the spirit and expects worship from us in the same manner. Not just in a church building. (John 4:24)

Do you really think that the Catholic Church does not believe this? If you do, please stay around. Please read Church documents, in particular the Catechism. You have been given a very distorted view of The church.
No one can limit Christ. If I said to you that Christ is not limited The Bible, you would no doubt respond that of course he is not limited to the bible, but the bible is central to Christ’s teaching. Well Christ is not limited to the Mass, or to the Host, but these are central to His teaching and the fulfilling of the New covenent.

Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. He made it possible for Christians to go directly to God the Father with our confession of sins. No human has the power to absolve sin. This is why the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he had forgiven someone’s sin which they knew only God can do.

I think that you might have a problem with Jesus on this one since it was He who said:
21 So Jesus said to them (the apostles) again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
You claim no human has the power to forgive sins. Yet Jesus himself was human and forgave sins. Jesus commanded his apostles, also humans, to forgive sins.
I’m sorry but your stement is biblicaly wrong on the very face of it.

Look at Simon the sorcerer and his experience with Peter.(Acts 8) Instead of hearing Simon’s confession and giving absolution, Peter sent Simon to the only One who can forgive sin: God.

Peter tells Simon to Pray to God for Prdon because at that point Simon had not repented.
It’s funny how in your previous statement you mention how the Jews wished to kill Jesus because He forgave sins and then here you sound just like them.
Yes it is only God who can forgive sins, But Jesus had this power from The Father, and he gave it to His Diciples who passed it on, through the laying on of hands, to their successors.

Peace
James