The Vatican’s top official on relations with non-Catholic Christians has called upon the Catholic Church to critically self-examine itself in response to the “exponential” rise of Pentecostal movements.
-
(Photo: L'Osservatore Romano / Handout)In this photo released by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Benedict XVI, white robe at left, leads a session of prayer and reflection with the College of Cardinals, at the Vatican Friday Nov. 23, 2007. Cardinals from around the world have arrived in Rome for a ceremony Saturday to elevate 23 new churchmen to their ranks - and to get a firsthand readout on an important new development in Catholic-Orthodox relations.
At a meeting of the world's Catholic cardinals, Cardinal Walter Kasper, who serves as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said “self-critical examination of conscience” was necessary for the church body.
“We must not ask first what is wrong with the Pentecostals but ask what our pastoral failings are and come to a spiritual renewal," the ecumenical leader said Friday, according to Agence France Presse.
It is believed that the Catholic Church's views on divorce and its barring of re-married Catholics from receiving communion has caused many Catholics to switch over to evangelical and charismatic groups. There are now 400 million evangelicals and charismatics worldwide.
Earlier in May, on a trip to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI, much to the offense of some, described Pentecostal churches as “sects” and said that they used aggressive tactics to win souls. In Brazil alone, Roman Catholics used to account for about 90 percent of the population in the 1960s; by 2005, it was down to 67 percent, the Associated Press noted. The Vatican has been increasingly lamenting the rise of Protestant evangelical communities in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, and the resulting flight of Catholics
Kaspar’s latest remarks were made on the eve before Saturday's ceremony to elevate 23 new cardinals, when the world's cardinals met in Rome to discuss church concerns at the request of the pope.
During the consistory, Kasper briefed the cardinals on relations with other Christians, focusing on the church's relations with the Orthodox, Protestants and Pentecostal movements.
According to AP, Kasper said the rise of independent, often "aggressive" evangelical movements in Africa and elsewhere had complicated the church's ecumenical task. Nevertheless, the Vatican official told reporters that "ecumenism is not an option but an obligation."
Further into his remarks, Kasper spoke highly of the renewal of ties with the Orthodox Church. Earlier this month, the Vatican released a joint declaration with the Orthodox Church in which Orthodox leaders recognized the Roman Catholic pope as the highest rank in the unified Church.
Although Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow Alexis II, who represents around 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, did not sign the accord, Kasper remained optimistic, saying that a meeting between Alexis II and Benedict would help heal the rift.
Kasper also admitted that relations with Protestant churches were strained earlier this year by a Vatican document claiming that the Catholic Church was the “one true church of Christ.”
According to AFP, the cardinal said that the amount of criticism over the document was unjustified but conceded that the Catholic Church needed to be more careful in presenting such views.
Kasper said that the Catholic Church had to "give witness to the richness and beauty of our own faith in a positive and welcoming way,” rather than pointing out the weaknesses of other faiths, AFP reported.
He also said that there were encouraging signs emerging from dialogue with Protestants although there were still "differences in the moral domain.”
Christian Post correspondent Daniel Blake in London contributed to this report.
RSS
Thad-
We are allowed to ask saints to pray for us. Understand? Just like asking your evil protestant shamans to pray for you, or a friend to pray for you. Same thing, except we don't whine and complain, and cry like a baby when YOU do it :)
Thad-
Since you are so very ignorant, I will talk to you as though you are ignorant. Let us examine the hail mary prayer.
Hail (a sign of respect, a greeting) Mary, full of grace (Gabriel said "thou art full of grace") the lord is with thee (she bore the son of God, so he is most certainly with her) blessed art thou among women (God chose her) and blest is the fruit of your womb, Jesus (Jesus was blest) Holy Mary (she was chosen by God, she is holy) mother of God (Jesus was God, she was his mother) pray for us sinners now and at the our of death (SHE is praying for US! we are not praying to her she is praying for US, dumb dumb)
Thaddeus: (or somebody else)
Not trying to be mean or argue anything. Paul says to beware of false doctrines many times throughout the Bible. The rosary is very much a false doctrine. I give you the Lords prayer is Biblical and Jesus gave it to us as guidance on how to pray to Him. However prayer to Mary is very very wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary or any other saint of God. The Bible Specifically says that the name of Jesus is the ONLY saving name (Acts 4:10-12). Timothy told us that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man as well (1Timothy 2:5). The Apostle's Creed is nothing more than a "statement of faith" drafted by the Nicean Council, there is no place in the Bible where it says to recite this creed, or any creed. Glory Be....See all these you are mentioning are "pre-written" prayers (if thats the right words for it). Prayer is conversation and time spent with Jesus, there is no need to recite a creed type prayer. As I say again...beware of false doctrine...do not follow after the works of men, but after the Word of God.
Praying the rosary is very scriptural. The Our Father, the Glory Be, and the Apostles Creed are all based on the Bible. The 20 mysteries of the rosary are all scriptural - We meditate on the passion, pentecost, the incarnation, etc., while we say the Hail Marys. The Hail Mary repeats the words of Gabriel - Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee - and Elizabeth - Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb . The last part of the Hail Mary - Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death - Is intercessory prayer, which is commended by Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 2. James says in James 5:16 to pray for each other, and that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful. Mary's soul magnifies the Lord, according to Luke 1, so who is more righteous than her, and who else better to pray for us than a holy person alive and well in heaven, in that great cloud of witnesses, whose very soul magnifies JESUS?
As Gabriel said - HAIL MARY !!
"yeah. what is up with the rosary and the Hail Mary. talk about anit-scriptural"
To pray to Mary is anti-Scriptural, period.
Truthandjustice1,
Hey my friend, how are you doing this evening? Forgive me if I have offended you in any way. The reason that I have been pressing you for a reply to my questions is not to be annoying or rude. I have been trying to demonstrate the unnecessary and burdensome experience that comes when one tends to rely upon and defend extra biblical traditions (Catholic & Protestant). Believe me, I know; I do not accept the additional traditions that my own church is teaching. I wish we could all become zealous for God’s Word which never contradicts itself. Church traditions have not only contradicted themselves throughout history but have also contradicted the Word of God. This has been my point and reason for pressing you with my questions. It is my sincere prayer that we stake not our salvation upon what men have said but upon the sure Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!
The Rosary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xi3i5r9yhE&feature=related
It has the King of Rock and Roll (Elvis Presley - who probably a lot of you don't like, but to me he was the king of Rock and Roll) singing miracle of the rosary ... what a great song! There is an explanation before the song.
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
The use of some means of counting prayers is not restricted to Catholics. The Brahmin of India or Thibet has his long rosary which he uses to measure his eternal repetitions of the praises of Buddha. The Mohammedan votary has his chaplet of ninety-nine beads, to count his fervent invocations to Allah.
NOTE. Many other forms of beads for the counting of prayers have come into use through the devotion of the faithful, and have been approved by the Church. Space will not permit going into details concerning them.
Among the better known are the Brigittine beads, consisting of seven Our Fathers in honor of the sorrows and joys of the Blessed Virgin, and sixty-three Hail Marys to commemorate the years of her life; a similar rosary in use among the Franciscans, with seventy-two Hail Marys, based on another tradition of Mary’s age; the Crown of our Saviour, with thirty-three Our Fathers in honor of the years of our Lord s life; and five Hail Marys in honor of His sacred Wounds; the beads of the Five Wounds, established by the Paosionist Fathers, approved in 1823 and 1851, consisting of five divisions, each having five Glories in honor of Christ s Wounds, and one Hail Mary in commemoration of the Sorrowful Mother; the beads of the Immaculate Conception and the Crosier beads. [End]
From The Word of God:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
yeah. what is up with the rosary and the Hail Mary. talk about anit-scriptural...
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7
The Government of the Church: Chapter 1 The Pope
From the Externals of the Catholic Church. Her Government, Ceremonies BX Festivals JJ 51 Sacramentals, and Devotions 1917
"Death lays his icy hand on kings," sang the old poet; and he who is more exalted than any king must bow to the same in exorable law. When the Sovereign Pontiff dies, his actual death is verified by a quaint ceremony. One of the Cardinals approaches the bedside and strikes the forehead of the dead Pope three times with a silver mallet, calling him by his baptismal name. The death of the Pope being thus legally attested, the Cardinals are summoned to the Conclave to elect his successor.
From The Word of God:
Truthandjusice1,
All I did was ask a question, thinking that you had an opinion regarding them. Apparently, no answer is an answer. I did not intentionally want to antagonize you with my questions.
Why am I Catholic? - part of the answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
Who Gave Us the Rosary ? The devotion takes its name from the Latin " rosarium," a garden of roses, or a wreath of the same beautiful and symbolic flowers; or, according to some, more directly from the title " Mystical Rose," given to Mary in her Litany. It was established by St. Dominic, the famous founder of the Order of Preachers; and he testifies in his writings that he acted under the direction of the Blessed Mother of God.
However, there are traces of somewhat similar methods of praying before his time, although they did not include any part of the Hail Mary, at least until about the twelfth century, when the first part of that beautiful prayer came into use.
It seems strange to us Catholics who recite it so frequently, to learn that for more than eleven centuries our forefathers in the faith knew nothing of the Hail Mary, and that the latter part of that prayer was not added unal some centuries later. Therefore, when the Rosary was invented, it was composed of the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary only, repeated probably much as we use them at the present day. [End]
From The Word of God:
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
Repetition in prayer is a very ancient custom. It would seem to be natural for man to recite his prayers over and over, especially when he is inspired by a spirit of earnest devotion. Whether he is returning thanks for favors received or offering petitions to God, he finds that the repeating of his prayers satisfies his religious instincts. This usually leads to a resolution to say a certain number of prayers daily; and then the utility of having some counting device suggests itself at once. Hence comes the string of beads which we call a Rosary.
The use of some means of counting prayers is not restricted to Catholics. The Brahmin of India or Thibet has his long rosary which he uses to measure his eternal repetitions of the praises of Buddha. The Mohammedan votary has his chaplet of ninety-nine beads, to count his fervent invocations to Allah. [end]
From The Word of God:
Mt 6:6-8 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Defensive? no just honest, if this site has a link to a good Catholic site that has answers to questions you feel are not being answered completely then why wouldn't you use it? unless you just want to argue for argument sake. As for acts, "all they are loosing is people" show me statistics that in the US or in the world as a whole that the Catholic Church is losing people. I'm not talking about an individual country I'm talking about the US (since you brought up the US) and the world as a whole...I'll be waiting, you have the whole internet it should be easy. Personally I don't mind discussing my faith and am glad that so many articles get published on my faith. I think it exposes a lot of people to the Church and thus are numbers continue to rise, yes acts I said rise.
Feast of the Most Pure Heart of Mary:
The feast of the Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, refuge of sinners, is celebrated on the Sunday before Septuagesima at Paris, Chartres, Reims, Limoges, Vannes, Nantes, at Lucca in Toscana, in the ecclesiastical province of St. Louis, Missouri, etc.
Catholic Encyclopedia
But God directs us to seek and take refuge in the Lord.
Psalm 9:9 The Lord also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble. Psalm 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
truthandjustice I stated earlier that the Catholic church was loosing money and power. all they are loosing is people. I know that the Catholic church owns a lot , a verry lot of stock in some verry big besineses and if they wonted to they could bankrupt the USA. all there stock is tax free because it falls under the church. the church all so has a lot of verry powerfull people in it also. but if you would take the time to read Revelation you would see that the Vatican is the seven hills the BIBLE talks about. This is where the BIBLE says the devil sits....under the umberela of power and money.
Truthandjustice1,
Could it be that you have become defensive because you had no answer concerning Pope Gregory's letter or the passages from Revelation?
Truthandjustice1,
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to have discussed these matters at all. Disagreements are to be expected when people in general post their theological positions. I too post for the fellowship but also like to share the gospel in its entirety. I have not been inquiring about Catholicism but have compared its teaching in light of the Word of God. You have posted certain claims just like the rest of us, so, why get flustered when others ask you a question. If you do not wish to discuss a certain topic, then just say so. I believe that my questions were legitimate since my quotations were directly from the Bible (Revelation) and from someone who Catholics hold in high esteem; a Pope (Pope Gregory). You are right; receiving no answer at all does qualify for an insufficient response.
If we were to talk about every aspect of Catholicism we would be debating for years. Take for example this site which isn't Catholic. Do a search of Catholic in all stories and you reach a number of something like 384 articles that Catholicism is mentioned/discussed. Now do a search of your former church, seventh day adventist - 7 times. When it comes to religious issues/questions the church is truly international and it would take years to discuss every aspect.
Online4Him,
I said from the outset that I'm willing to discuss my Catholic beliefs, but that some of my answers might not be sufficient for you. I told you that there is a link on this site to a Catholic site if you are truly interested in discussing aspects of our talk in more detail since the person running the site is obviously very interested in such debates. I also thought the book might be a good resource for you. You stated that you have left the SDA church and I guess if you would like to more about the Catholic faith then you should consult with somebody other than an anonymous Catholic who posts for fun.
Correction: the word is BUY not by.
Your reply was that I should by a book. ??????????????? Hmmmmmmm, ok.
It is obvious that you did not want to discuss my statement or answer my question. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence that Rome DOES teach doctrines that are foreign to the first century church and the Word of God. I was actually hoping to continue our discussions but you have unfortunately decided to side step my questions. Those who choose to read our entire dialog in its context will know who has been forthright.
I stated that the passages of Revelation were referring to the FUTURE:
In my last comment, I used scriptural passages that talk about what is still yet FUTURE. These passages are not speaking of the past. (Page 3)
Your reply was that I should by a book. ??????????????? Hmmmmmmm, ok.
I ask you the following question:
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE (specifically the second paragraph)?
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
Your response:
I am still waiting because you did not respond!!!!!!!!!!!
Truthandjustice1,
Thank you for replying so quickly. All who have and can review our past discussions these past few days will realize that I have been specifically answering all of your questions and responding to all of your comments. Yet you fail to do the same in return; example:
You started the conversation regarding the church unity by saying:
WOW! I didn't even know that earlier last month, the Vatican released a joint declaration with the Orthodox Church in which Orthodox leaders recognized the Roman Catholic Pope as the highest rank in the unified Church. (Page 3)
I replied by with:
I am somewhat glad that joy has filled your heart today; however, I don’t believe that this news is good news. I know it is happening before our very eyes; that is evident, however, where in the bible does it say that in these last days that the world or church will unite and solve all of earth’s problems?
Perhaps it is a little premature to start discussing Eschatology (last day events) but the book of Revelation speaks of a time of DECEPTION that will proceed before Jesus returns –Revelation 12:9, 13:14, 18:23, 19:20, 20:3, 20:8, 20:10. (Page 3)
You brought up Transubstantiation (Page 1).
I responded (Page 1).
Throughout our discussions I have responded to the topics of the Mass, Mary, Church Fathers, Church Authority, Popes, etc – which can be attested to by all who have followed our discourses.
I read down on some of the comments my denomination that I attend is UPC but I my self read the King James Version of the Bible and stand on it.
ok you want to go by Roman history. go back and see how maney christians they killed. they then changed the BIBLE to say what they wanted it to say so they could controll the people and made their own religon. rember Saul worked for the Roman goverment before becoming a christian. the Roman church even came to America and pushed their religion on the Indians. they toled them to become catholics, or pay taxes and if they did not they would kill them. the Roman church even changed the ten comandments.
Online4Him,
My advice, if you want to reject tradition based on the writings of the early Christians, is to become a Mormon (A latter day saint) because Mormons argue that only thorough "restoration" (and not a simple "reformation") of the true Church and its holy doctrines would lead man to salvation. That's the difference I, as a Catholic, face I don't want to "reform" or "restore" what the early Christians wrote about the Jesus Christ and the Church I want to keep their writings and use it in relation to the bible. You've mentioned in the past how these traditions that Catholics hold on to bothers you, but as I mentioned before our roots are very deep and in my opinion blessed. Jesus Christ and the apostles were write to entrust the writings (early Christian writers, the works of the bible) to the Catholic Church and they were as right then as they are now and for that reason God will protect his church even though there have been evil people within it done through the ages. God will protect his Church because he made it for the world.
Online4Him,
Do you know what is frustrating is that you want to discuss revelations and make statements that based on your view of scripture it means this, but the reality of the situation is that not only am I supplying scripture but I'm backing it up with the early Christians. The people who were actually alive at that time, the people who some of them personally knew the apostles and are writing what they heard from them. However, you have this protestant reformation idea that what the early Christians believed is irrelevant and that the bible is the only way. Whereas the Catholic religion has much deeper roots and they can use the bible and support it by what the early Christians were writing about - you simply can't do that, so what do you do? you attack tradition and state that your interpretation of the bible is correct. I'm extremely happy that not only does my church have the our Lord and Savior at its foundation, but they can support their foundation by the bible (supported by the early Christians) and the Holy Eucharist.
On that note, I respect that you left the SDA church and that you are continuing to deepen your relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have taken your questions seriously and realize that you take your faith journey extremely seriously. There is a Catholic link on this site, and I've sent emails to the person in the past. There are knowledgeable people at the link, so if the answer I provide is not satisfactory then please ask them.
Truthandjustice1,
Once again you have not answered my previous questions regarding the book of Revelation's FURTURE coming apostasy passages and Pope Gregory's quotation (Universal Priest)? I continue to SPECIFICALLY answer your questions while you continue to side step mine; is that fair?
Truthandjustice1,
Transubstantiation –
When you take the WHOLE council of the Scriptures which never contradict themselves; we find a consistent and uniform doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper. When we continually hear the scriptures say that Christ “ONCE” died for the sins of the world; we should accept it.
So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation – HEBREWS 9:28.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all – HEBREWS 10:10.
WHAT DOES THE WORD “ONCE” MEAN?
The Lord’s Supper is a “REMEMBRANCE” as indicated by the scriptural passage you gave me (1Corinthians 11:25); not to mention the other passage that I earlier shared with you in regards to this topic – Luke 22:19. The Lord’s Supper is a remembrance or commemoration of our deliverance just as the Passover was commemorated for the Jews deliverance. Your insistence that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ rejects the all sufficient sacrifice that Jesus made in our behalf. It also makes the scriptures to contradict themselves; which is a poor way to interpret them.
I appreciate all the time, work, and sincerity which come forth from your postings; however, it is just not sound biblical interpretation when we test the Bible through the eyes of the church fathers. We should test ALL traditions in light of what GOD has already said in his WORD.
Peter the first Pope? (Matthew 16:13-19) –
Jesus affirms Peter’s faith by declaring, “Thou art Petros (a movable stone) but upon this rock (this immoveable foundation – that I am the Christ) I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Church is built upon Jesus Christ. He is the cornerstone rejected by the builders (1Peter 2:4-8). Peter clearly understood the rock was Jesus. Paul clarifies the issue in 1Corintians 10:4 by proclaiming “That ROCK was CHRIST.” David declares, “Truly my soul waiteth upon God, from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my ROCK and salvation” (Psalm 62:1, 2).
For other FOUNDATION can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ – 1Corinthians 3:11.
There is no other foundation except JESUS.
call me stupid (and some of you already do) but if Jesus and his disciples were jewish, why didnt they speak hebrew? And if everyone spoke Aramaic, what happened to the hebrew language? a large number of people must have been speaking it, otherwise it would have faded into history to be spoken no more. So who spoke hebrew?
Online4Him,
There are a lot of early Christians who wrote about Peter being the head of the Catholic Church:
Ephraim the Syrian, Optatus, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Jerome, Augustine, Council of Ephesus, Sechnall of Ireland, Council of Chalcedon,......
Online4Him,
Pope,
Origins of Peter as Pope
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ's calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Online 4Him,
Pope
Pope Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Except for Online4Him nobody else has mentioned which denomination they belong to - I don't mind letting others know that I'm a Roman Catholic.
Online4Him,
Transubstantiation
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers' teachings on Christ's Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church's early days, the Fathers referred to Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord's real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).
I dont care what Tolkein said about Mary, or Catholics. Geez. The message that I had posted (in another room....with a different topic) was saying that just because someone reads the Bible doesn't make them a Christian any more than reading the LTOR makes a person a hobbit! That's the point. It has nothing to do with analogies and secret messages. I have no idea how you came up with that.
wow...talk about apples and oranges...
feet...?
ok...whatever...are we discussing Tolkein now? maybe he should have been Pope, eh?
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
…But Mary was not merely passive at the foot of the Cross; "she cooperated through charity", as St. Augustine says, "in the work of our redemption".
The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm.
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus bore the work of our redemption alone.
Jester,
I can understand how you could read the trilogy from cover to cover it sounds like a great read. I'll read it over the Christmas:
Nor could Tolkien deny that the Holy Eucharist appears in The Lord of the Rings as the waybread (lembas), given by the elves to the hobbits to eat on their journey. The lembas reinforces the hobbits' wills and provides them with physical sustenance in the dark and barren lands on the way to Mount Doom. As the Church teaches, while the Eucharist still tastes and looks like bread and wine, our sensations shroud a deeper mystery: The Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood. So in The Lord of the Rings the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Eucharist appear shrouded in the mysterious elements of Middle-earth. The best way to understand this is to see such examples of Catholic symbolism as literary "accidents." To leave them out would have diminished the story; they are parts of Tolkien's effort to make his world complete, true for all times and places.
Jester,
It sounds like somebody needs to read a few books again from cover to cover to understand the meaning and not just the words.
Jester,
It does relate to this topic because it shows how you could read something and not understand it. Tolkien readily admitted that the Virgin Mary forms the basis for all of his "small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity." It is not surprising, he admits, that the character of Galadriel—a created being endowed with radiant beauty, impeccable virtue, and powers of healing—resonates with the character of our Blessed Mother. I'm completely not surprised that you would totally miss that because you might have understood the words on the page but didn't understand the meaning behind it...sound familiar?
truthandjustice...
Um.....what?
The comment i made about reading the LTOR trilogy was from another forum about an entirely different thing than what we're discussing here! How in the world you brought that into this discussion is beyond me. Please focus here, okay? We're talking about Catholicism here. Geez, its like having a discussion with a ADHD kid after he's had two capuccinos!
Online4Him,
I'll answer your questions at a later date.
Jester,
I found an answer to my questions:
The Shire, described as the ideal community, reflects the social teachings of Catholicism. The Hobbits benefit from a community structure with little formal organization and less conflict. They work only enough to survive and otherwise enjoy each other's company. There is no jealousy, no greed, and rarely does anyone do anything unexpected. There is a wholeness and graciousness about it that seems to come naturally out of selflessness.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0160.html
I can just imagine Jester reading the trilogy from cover to cover as he purports and not truly understanding it - big surprise.
“Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal church, Paul, Andrew, John, were but heads of particular communities . . . and yet all were members under on Head. . . Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy”.
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
Let everyone judge for themselves which source has or is truthful and reliable: Rome’s tradition or Scripture which is the Word of God.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all – HEBREWS 10:10.
Transubstantiation is simply not biblical – Jesus said, “do this in REMEMBERANCE of me”.
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-24
Notice how that verse ends:
"...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, NOT A REENACTMENT. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 CORINTHIANS 11:25
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." LUKE 22:19
You stated - The apostle Peter was the first Pope.
The is no historical or biblical evidence to support this claim; re-read the epistles of 1 & 2Peter and you will realize that they are absolutely silent regarding Peter being the first pope.
Since you only rely upon your churches’ tradition and repeated statements from popes throughout history; WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE (specifically the second paragraph)?
Truthandjustice1,
Regarding the rich young ruler: - Have you not read the passage that says, “. . . for whatsoever is not of FAITH is sin” – ROMANS 14:23. It is difficult for anyone to prove that salvation is by works because the entire New Testament teaches the exact opposite.
This is the question that you asked earlier – “Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever?
My answer is still YES!
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus took on the nature of Mary; who Rome erroneously teaches that she was without sin; therefore implying that Jesus has a DIFFERENT FLESH than we do!
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, HE ALSO HIMSELF LIKEWISE TOOK PART OF THE SAME; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; - HEBREWS 2:14.
Once again we continue to see Rome contradict the Word of God!
You stated – “but that He comes at each and every Catholic Mass -- in the flesh. . . “????????
Once again Rome contradicts the Word of God –
So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation – HEBREWS 9:28.
question: You know that I'm a Roman Catholic and am more than happy to share my faith with others but what about the rest of the people who are involved in this discussion? I know Online4Him was a seventh day adventist but has recently left that denomination. What about the rest of you?
Jester,
You might be able to help me out. You stated that you read the Lord of The Rings Trilogy from cover to cover. Tolkien meant the work to be distinctively Catholic, since he was a strong advocate for the Catholic Church. Can you please let me know why you think he meant by that? I haven't read the Lord of The Rings, but would like to know why Tolkien connected it to his Catholic faith. Could you please shed some light on that one for me. Thanks
Started reading all comments this past weekend and finding discussion very interesting and very familiar on both sides of subject. For now my input will only be selecting thumbs up and down.
"The Church doesn't have to quote the bible for all its decisions." So the Catholic church "put the Bible together", but doesnt rely on it. If there is more truth, then why was that not put in the Bible? Probably because the orginal church was lead by the Spirit in its assembling of the scriptures, and all that was needed was used, and all that was not needed was discarded. I think I'll start quoting the Book of Mormons. They have revelation that is needed in order to live a complete Chritstian life...
"As for salvation, nobody can judge another person's salvation..." so the Popes claim that the Catholic church is the only true way to salvation is incorrect?
The apostle Peter was the first Pope. As for salvation, nobody can judge another person's salvation - judge not or does nobody remember reading that in the bible? The Catholic Church, as I quoted from official teaching, doesn't say that about salvation. The Church doesn't have to quote the bible for all its decisions. Did it need to quote the bible to the early Christians when there was no bible? are the early Christians saved? Remember the early Christians didn't have the bible they relied on the Church, so what about them? Or are we just counting the ones saved as from the protestant reformation until know who accepted the word of God using the bible? How arrogant is that?
“Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament.”
Again, God made that decision and not the RC. Matter of fact, God uses Peter to give us some revelation as to what to expect in the New Testament.
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15, 16).
Peter (through the Holy Spirit) is acknowledging all the epistles of Paul as inspired by God. This happened long before any Catholic decision.
truth... you mentioned "I'm not speaking as the Catholic Church only a lay person within the Catholic Church.."
so you're saying that the views you express on here are not necessarily the views shared by the Catholic church?
and you also said " think nearly all evangelical leaders who have studied theology know that the Catholic Church's Foundation is Our Lord ad Savior Jesus Christ, as it has been for 2,000 years." That being so, why do you continue to argue that the Catholics view of savation is above that of the Word of God. Jester asked you a question about salvation. Why do you quote a Pope? Why not see what the Bible has to say about it? Is it because it's contrary to what Catholicism teaches?
Let's keep in mind here that "The Catholic Church's boast in this is another proof of their fallliblity and sinfulness", that I'm not speaking as the Catholic Church only a lay person within the Catholic Church.
Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89).
I will trust God concerning that decision.
Prophet,
I see that Franklin Graham is on the cover of CP because of the huge crowds he is drawing. Even he went on Fox news last year and stated: we (Catholics and Evangelicals) do agree on the cross, that Jesus Christ was the son of the living God who went to the cross, took our sins, died on that cross, was buried on the third day, according to the scriptures, rose again. And this is the essence. This is what we agree on and we can work together on and can build on. I think nearly all evangelical leaders who have studied theology know that the Catholic Church's Foundation is Our Lord ad Savior Jesus Christ, as it has been for 2,000 years.
Online4Him,
Even the Eastern Orthodox Church now recognizes the Pope as the head of the Christian Church.
Online4Him,
Jesus clearly asked the rich man to perform an act, I can't imagine how you would read that passage any differently. He already believed because he wanted to follow God and stated that he had obeyed all the commandments.
I already discussed Mary, but will repost it:
Your objection is that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
"Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament." No....GOD decided the Canon...He just chose the Catholic church to do it. The Catholic Church's boast in this is another proof of their fallliblity and sinfulness. The CC is full of pride and conceit, which is evident in their claim to be the only true church. Their heart is hard and their ears are deaf to the voice of God, for their hope is not in Him. Their hope is in their religion. Their hope is in their priests and Popes. They have strayed from the Rock (Jesus Christ) and have built their house on another foundation. One that is built of wood, hay, and stubble. And it's works will be tried with fire and will be consumed. Only that which is built on Jesus Christ will last. Not that which is built on the prophets, or the apostles, or any other man. Jesus is the only true foundation.
Truthandjustice1,
I will probably buy the book and use it for future references; it should be interesting. I actually read the introduction already but was disappointed; I would rather have seen scriptural comparisons instead of analyzing the reformers themselves. I believe we have covered extensively the issue of faith and works; from a Christian perspective one must believe before one does something (acts). The rich you ruler believed but was not willing to put Christ first in his life.
We have also discussed the book of James as well; James was comparing someone who SAID they had faith and someone who TRULY had faith. A presumptuous faith is not faith at all.
Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever? ??????????????????????????
YES! The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus took on the nature of Mary who Rome erroneously teaches that she was without sin; therefore implying that Jesus has a different FLESH than we do!
Rome did not give us the canon as many catholic claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made twenty six years BEFORE Hippo.
I will review your comments later this afternoon.
[Paul, to Timothy]
But continue thou in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them; And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS. [my emphasis]
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped unto all good works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scripture is clear that the Bible IS all we need in order to be saved and walk with the Lord. There is NOT ONE WORD in the Bible about popes, the Magestrium, RC tradition, etc. To say anyone must be a RC to be a Christian, to be a part of the Body of Christ, is gross distortion of the scriptures.
Quoting taj1:
"to slander the Catholic Church is to blaspheme the Body of Christ"
Do you really believe this? Do you really believe Roman Catholics are "the Body of Christ"? Because this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all who have committed their lives to Jesus are of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not comprised of any one group of people; it IS comprised of those who have been born again by His Spirit and are walking in fellowship with Him each day.
Do you really think it's slander to question Roman Catholic beliefs and doctrine which contradict what the scriptures say?
Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament
People who spew venom at the Catholic Church need to think long and hard about what they are doing, because to slander the Catholic Church is to blaspheme the Body of Christ. If you are one of these people, pray about it, ask yourself why you believe what you believe, and find out for sure whether or not things you believe about the Catholic Church are true, using unbiased resources (including true Catholic ones). Please.
The Church that proclaims not only did Messiah come in the first century, but that He comes at each and every Catholic Mass -- in the flesh (it is Protestants who deny this!) -- and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead?
Is the Church that has proclaimed the Gospel for two millennia; the Church that gave us Sacred Scripture; the Church that defined the dogma of the Trinity; the Church that defeated the heresies of Arianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Sabellianism, and Manichæanism; the Church that has produced thousands and thousands of Saints -- from St. Francis to Maximillian Kolbe to Thérèse de Lisieux.
Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever?
Acts,
Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
1 John 2:22
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
1 John 4:3
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
Online4Him,
It was meant for you, get the book because it justifies the Catholic position using only scripture - if you seriously believe that the Catholic Church can't defend itself using scripture then it is worth buying. On Amazon the person gave 2 examples:
1) Did Christ tell the rich young ruler to believe something, or to *do* something in order to be saved?
2) The Protestant supposes that the word "justified" means something different in James than elsewhere in the Bible, rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture. There's a reason why Luther didn't like this Epistle: he couldn't wedge it into his "faith alone" model.
Truthandjustice1,
Was your last comment for me? If so, I appreciate your suggestion and recommendation; however, the scriptures themselves have proven more reliable than anything else that has crossed my path. I have yet to be confounded in regards to what other traditions have stated; maybe because I am just personally used to having scriptural evidence to support my doctrinal positions.
In my last comment, I used scriptural passages that talk about what is still yet FUTURE. These passages are not speaking of the past.
yes the anti christ will declare himself as god, but he will also have sitting beside him the false prophet. which will be a new pope.
man, you have to love religious robots. I ask truthandjustice a Biblical question and he quotes the Pope. I just have one question...what part of the Bible did the Pope get his skewed view of salvation from? The book of Opinions Chapter One, verse 18?
It's really a slap in the face of the Pope and his puppets when a non-Catholic realizes that he doesn't need the Catholic church to go to heaven. Because as more and more Catholics realize this, the Pope loses that much more power. He loves it when you quote him over Jesus and the Word of God. It places him in a seat of divinity. Isnt that talked about somewhere in the Bible? Where the antichrist seats himself on the throne?
the Catholic church is also the only church that can fofill the end time teachings of the BIBLE . and the Catholic church will be united as the end time church.
the Catholic church does have the most money and power.
This obviously was not a reference to the Catholic Church because there were times in history it was unified. You don't think the Catholic Church isn't under constant attack? perhaps you need to read Ron Paul's article again. Actually I highly recommend this book:
The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Paperback)
It has the bible verses you long for and is a great resource
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Verses-Passages-Confound-Protestants/dp/1928832733/ref=pd_sim_b_title_5/105-0228979-9324422
Truthandjustice1:
I will read your comments later this afternoon; have a good one.
Truthandjustice1:
I am somewhat glad that joy has filled your heart today; however, I don’t believe that this news is good news. I know it is happening before our very eyes; that is evident, however, where in the bible does it say that in these last days that the world or church will unite and solve all of earth’s problems?
Perhaps it is a little premature to start discussing Eschatology (last day events) but the book of Revelation speaks of a time of DECEPTION that will proceed before Jesus returns –Revelation 12:9, 13:14, 18:23, 19:20, 20:3, 20:8, 20:10.
Why does Jesus himself come to smite the nations in Revelation 19:11-16?
Without getting into specifics for now; the Bible says that the entire earth will be deceived by a power that it identifies and this power will ultimately lead the earth to incur God’s wrath:
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and ALL THE WORLD wondered after the beast - Revelation 13:3.
And ALL that DWELL upon the EARTH shall worship him, whose names are NOT written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world – Revelation 13:8.
Today I am SO HAPPY!!! Until today I didn't know that the Orthodox Church (Eastern) had recognized the Pope as the highest rank in the unified Church.
Online4Him,
The Catholic Church returning to the unity it had in biblical times is no delusion it is happening before our eyes.
Jester,
In response to your question about salvation, here is what the Vatican doc. stated this year:
"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document, reasserting the primacy of Catholicism.
It said other Christian communities such as Protestants "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" since they don't have what's known as apostolic succession – that is, the ability to trace their bishops back to the original 12 apostles of Jesus.
The document said the Orthodox church suffered from a "wound" because it did not recognize the primacy of the pope, adding the wound was "still more profound" among Protestant denominations. NOW THEY HAVE RECOGNIZED THE POPE - THE ARTICLE IS A FEW MONTHS OLD.
It was "difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, purporting Roman Catholicism was "the one true Church of Christ."
"These separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation," the document read. "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."
Truthandjustice1:
I know there are many who think that unity will lead to some global utopia but this unity is a delusion.
Now let's compare that with the largest protestant denomination in the US, according to the Christian Post:
Southern Baptist president Frank Page has encouraged Baptists to be optimistic and get back to winning souls in America...serving a second term as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Page continues to remind the more than 16 million-member denomination of the need to share the Good News especially during a time when baptisms have declined. "Is God through with churches that are declining and/or plateaued? Is the hand of God removed from those churches? The answer to that is an unequivocal no," he stated. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country with 16.3 million members in more than 42,000 churches.
Now does that sounds like someone is loosing money and power and they don't like it? What do you think Acts or can you give me concrete examples that they are growing like the ones I gave you about the Catholic Church?
WOW! I didn't even know that earlier last month, the Vatican released a joint declaration with the Orthodox Church in which Orthodox leaders recognized the Roman Catholic Pope as the highest rank in the unified Church. We are truly returning to a united Catholic Church just like in the times of the early Christians. God's Church is finally returning to the unity it had in biblical times.
"Sounds like someone is loosing money and power and they don't like it" - are you serious? the Catholic Church hasn't had this kind of unity/power in 100s of years, arguably 1000s of years. Look at the growth in power of the Catholic Church in the US for example since the time of Ronald Reagan alone - official diplomatic ties with the US, now there are 5 Catholic Supreme Court Justices (there are 2 protestants - different faiths), the NAACP stated that Catholics would never be able to build there own cities in the US - we're doing it now in Florida and don't be surprised if that trend continues, added more hospitals, schools, post secondary institutions, the number of Catholics continues to rise in the US (according to official US statistics), first time a Catholic priest was the official religious representative of Congress, ....are you kidding me?
"man shall be lovers of themselves more than of god" sounds like the lord know where there harts would be. Sounds like someone is loosing money and power and they don't like it.
what does Philippians 1:6 have to do with anything?
it's a simple question with a simple answer...yes....or no...
Truthandjustice1:
Both these groups have not made a clear and unequivocal distinction between the beliefs each communion truly adheres to. The subjects of faith, grace, salvation, etc. are used but each side uses opposing definitions of what things truly mean. In their efforts to form a “moral majority” to combat the moral decline in America, they have also positioned themselves to compromise or set aside their beliefs for the sake of unity. I strongly support appropriate efforts to encourage the acceptance of God-given Christian principles; nevertheless, I do not believe that it is the political arena in which the major thrust can be made.
We should be committed to the concept that God has raised up pastors, evangelists, teachers, Bible workers, colporteurs, and others to spread the good news of the Christian gospel. It is through the avenue of the church, not through the avenue of political institutions, that God has ordained that His message of truth and righteousness will be carried to the world.
I didn't say impose, we are just discussing. What about the ECT document? how do you feel about that?
I agree with you that secular society is trying to impose their godless lifestyles upon the Christian community. This is really no surprise; we have been told that in these last days that men will wax worse and worse.
Wherever there is genuine love for one another, unity will follow; however this does not mean that we must agree on every point of doctrine or impose our beliefs upon others.
Online4Him,
I'll answer that statement when I return but want to say this - I am not for the growth of Catholicism at any cost. Thus, I would never support a Catholic candidate like Giuliani or Kerry who refer to themselves as devout Catholics yet support policies that go against the protection of life, morals, and family values.
Truthandjustice1:
This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. ???????????????
This promise was NOT only to the Phillipians as you suppose; this same promise is to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ! So, when the Lord says, "I will never leave you or forsake you", or "greater is he that is within you than he that is in the world", or "I go to prepare a place for you and will come again"; are these promises not to US???????????
Let us not impose our own personal preconceived ideas into the biblical text but allow it to speak for itself. This is what happens when some use extra biblical philosophies and traditions to interpret scripture. All who put their faith (all their trust and hope) in Christ become partakers of the promises and inherit all the blessings that God has promised.
Online4Him,
Sorry you are right I should address who I'm responding to. Personally I feel that society is under attack from the secular humanists and as a Christian community we should be building unity like the Pope is trying to do because we are fighting a powerful force. Thus, the reason I think people should take heed to Ron Paul's thinking about the Catholic Church:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html
Truthandjuctice1:
I am trying to figure out which direction you are going; let's see if we can stay on one subject at a time. You have jumped from the Popes alledged authority to the Church Fathers to Mary and now to salvation again. I am not being rude or difficult; it just would be easier if we can stay on one topic at a time, if you don't mind.
Truthandjustice1:
It would help everyone if you would make it clear to whom you are addressing when you are posting your commnets. Are you addressing me or jester_in_the_Kings_court?
Thus, as already stated to Online4Him:
"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I'm also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God's grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.
The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture's positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
For example, Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out.
You make it sound like Catholics place her at an equal level of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior...please find that in the Catechism!!
As I already mentioned Catholics refer to the Assumption of Mary, thus she needed God's help. It's pointless to argue the statement you refer to: Mary called God her SAVIOUR! because that is what Catholics believe!!
I already answered the question about Mother Mary and it is pointless to repost it. As for salvation:
Likewise, by looking at the course of one's life in grace and the resolution of one's heart to keep following God, one can also have an assurance of future salvation. It is this Paul speaks of when he writes to the Philippians and says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. Thus he says, immediately, "It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (1:7). The fact that the Philippians performed spiritually by assisting Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they, at least in general, would persevere and remain with God.
There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven. Thus, my statement about Billy Graham.
It is true my friend that Adam and Eve were CREATED without sin; however, we know the rest of the story. Everyone who has ever been BORN FROM Adam and Eve are sinners. That is what Scripture teaches.
Read the passage in its context;"All HAVE sinned" - Romans 3:23. Adam and Eve did SIN!
Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”. Mary needed a savior just like the rest of mankind.
What does this passage say? Mary called God her SAVIOUR!
truthandjustice:
let me make it easy for you. Romans 10:9-10 says "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Ok..so I've done that. Am I saved? Am I going to heaven?
As for Mary being born without sin; this is contrary to scripture.
Was Adam and Eve born without sin?
No, I actually quoted Romans 3:23 which says, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. This is what I said -
As for Mary being born without sin; this is contrary to scripture; “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23. Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”. Mary needed a savior just like the rest of mankind.
Online4Him,
You said that no human on earth was ever born without sin and quoted the bible - did you forget about Adam and Eve? Did you read my statement about sin with regards to Mother Mary? or do you still believe that no human except for God was born without sin? Just because Adam, Eve, Mary were originally full of grace doesn't mean that they were higher than our Lord and Savior, or do you disagree?
jester_in_the_Kings_court,
You believe that I'm not saved? I'm not here to judge. I don't know who you are but let's take arguably the most well known protestant preacher today - Billy Graham. Now Billy Graham has spread the word of God but is he saved? from a perspective as a Catholic I've seen him do alot of good things for the church. He has time after time stated how close his beliefs were to Catholics - thus, he was given an honorary degree in theology from a Catholic university. He has appeared on numerous occasions with Catholic priests at his talks and allowed them to bless the crowds, asked for support from the Church for his talks, was a voice of reason when the Church wanted to establish diplomatic ties with the US, met with the Pope on numerous times at the Vatican to discuss theology, has called Pope John Paul II a great man on numerous occasions, was speaking at his church when he became Pope, ...but is he saved? I feel confident that he has a good chance based on his interview with Schuller in 1997:
"The Catholic Church opens their arms to welcome us and we have the support of the Catholic Church almost everywhere we go. And I think that we must come to the place where we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ, not on what denomination or what church or what group we belong to".
SUMMARY: As I mentioned earlier - Many of the church fathers had a different understanding of the church and its doctrines when compared to modern catholic theology. The church fathers in general did not agree unanimously with one another on various subjects and history can attest to that.
I THANK GOD THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE CONSISTENT AND NEVER CONTRADICT THEMSELVES!
Lactantius:
His surviving works and the testimonies of his successors demonstrate that he was a poor theologian, being "...more adept at showing the incongruity of heathen polytheism than in establishing Christian teaching." Jerome, Lives, 80; Epistle 70.5 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 3, 378).
Jerome wrote of him that: "If only Lactantius, almost a river of Ciceronian eloquence, had been able to uphold our cause with the same facility with which he overturns that of our adversaries!"[4] Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia., Vol. 7, 15th edn., 1993, 90.
Augustine:
And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church NOT ON A MAN but on Peter’s CONFESSION. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Fulgentius of Ruspe:
For the Savior and judge of men has ordained, that only in this life would anyone’s sins be remitted by him. . . Wherefore human vanity should not pointlessly hope to hear (at some future time after death) what divine truth has or has not promised. It is for this reason that Christ has assigned on earth the power of binding and loosing to Peter, that is to his CHURCH. . . . .
Note: Like his mentor before him (Augustine), in interpreting the Matthew 16 passage he teaches that Peter is a figurative representative of the whole church.
Note: Christians are not allowed to worship Angels - Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Revelation 22:9.
Irenaeus:
So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher … those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. … Some of them [i.e., those who teach this, PS], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6)
Note: Jesus did not die in his fifties!
Origen:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
Note: Origen did NOT believe that Peter ALONE is the rock!
Truthandjustice1:
Good day to you,
There is a pattern that I have noticed; it is this - I have tried to analyzed and comment SPECIFICALLY to every one of your postings and yet you never SPECIFICALLY respond to my rebuttals. ???????
The Church Fathers are NOT the final authority in matters of faith and practice; it is and always has been the Word of GOD, not the words of men. But since you brought up certain individuals to prove a point; let’s take a look at what these same individuals have said on other issues.
Ignatius:
Commenting on Luke 22:32 - . . . . . . the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father.
(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), Volume 1, Epistle of Ignatius to eh Smyraeans, Chapter VII, p. 89.
Note: It is Jesus Christ NOT the church who will deliver us!
Justin Martyr:
Ironically, one of the most serious charges against Christians was that they were atheists (because they did not worship the traditional Roman gods). In refuting this accusation, Justin admits "we are atheists, so far as (demons and idols) are concerned" (1 Apology 6), but he testifies that Christians worship "the most true God," the Son, and "the prophetic Spirit" (ibid). However, he adds that Christians also worship "the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him (Jesus)" (ibid), adding elsewhere "that there are ANGELS who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang" (Dialogue 128).
By the way, you forgot one.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No on comes to the Father but by me." Pope Jesus Christ. And Im pretty sure that he trumps a bunch of dead people.
But I am curious. You believe that I'm not saved?
hey truth...you didnt give a scriptural context for all those things you just said. it would help so that I can look it up in context.
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
Augustine
"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
"[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).
"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (ibid., 4:21[28]).
"The apostle Paul said, 'As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him' [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).
"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5).
Lactantius
"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).
Origen
"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).
"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).
Irenaeus
"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no 'reformation' of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).
Justin Martyr
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).
Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.
Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.
The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).
For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again:. . . . . Proverbs 24:16
I flagged myself. i said something that offended myself...wait...can that happen? I mean, i've said stuff that offends other people, but never myself. Actually, i posted the message to the wrong person so i took it off to avoid any embarassment. But now i've embarassed myself by pointing that out. o well.
oops! . . . . . . .but does this prove anything?
Oh, ok.
me
Who flagged jester_in_the_Kings_court?
Truth never has been nor will it ever be determined by sheer numbers. Many faiths such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism which have millions of followers can claim to have the truth but does this proves nothing.
dont you know it's all "verbal tradition" handed down through the ages? So that it can be neither proved nor disproved...
And truthandjustice keeps talking about how Protestants are flocking by the scores to Catholic. I'd like to know where he gets that info. I hope its not from the catholic church itself, otherwise he'll lose what little credibility he has left.
That all sounds well on paper, however, I have yet to see solid evidence from scripture to support Rome’s claim. Earlier you listed various Popes who supposedly ruled with universal authority but history proves otherwise. Your postings on tradition, the mass, the churches membership, and many other doctrines have all been responded to by fair and sound rebuttals in my opinion. Many of the church fathers had a different understanding of the church and its doctrines when compared to modern catholic theology. The church fathers in general did not agree unanimously with one another on various subjects and history can attest to that. These teachings are nowhere to be found when we review the first century record; the book of Acts in particular. I have tried to analyzed and review every point of our discussions to propose not impose my beliefs. When you take your last posting and utilize the same argument to the Old Testament for example; it just does not work.
How did a Jewish man who lived fifty years before the time of Christ know that Isaiah and 2Chronicles were Scripture? If it is asserted that one must have an INFALLIBLE knowledge of what Scripture is and what it is not, then how did a Jewish man attain this kind of INFALLIBLE knowledge back then? If the answer is that he gained such knowledge from the Jewish leadership, then one has to wonder why we no longer follow that particular guide if indeed God had an infallible guide on earth fifty years before Christ. When did this guide become fallible? What is more, the CORBAN rule of Matthew 15 came from the same source, and yet Christ rejected it as a tradition of men that contradicted the Scriptures. And finally, that same source would say the Rome has erred in its Old Testament canon, since it is quite obvious that the Jewish people did not hold to the canon Rome infallibly defined!
Many can and do claim that their church is the one true church; like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. but making such a claim does not make it true.
sorry...typo...I meant to say "Pope" ...not poop. my bad
Hey...Baptist is the one true church..and everyone else is wrong....
or maybe...Presbyterian? Pentacostal?
All Catholics are is another denomination of Christianity. Just because the Catholic church labelled everyone else as "Protestants" (just so they can group a bunch of differing denominations together to make it look like we all don't get along) doesn't mean we're all part of that group. Maybe the Pentacostals have it right, and everyone else could be labeled something else, like "screwed up" or something.
And what do i care about what some Poop said thousands of years ago about the Catholic church. He's just another man. Until he can be born of a virgin, live a sinless life, die for my sins, and rise again...I think his claims of "his church is the only church" means as much as David Koresh's claim of divinity.
But wait, the Catholic say, we've been around longer! Whoooopdee doo! God's been around even longer. He said (by Poop Peter himself) "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Or did they misinterpret what he said...
What is really gonna piss off a lot of Catholics (especially ones who believe like truthandjustice) is when people like jc4me, prophet, me, onlin4him are standing in line for heaven next to them...(if those catholics actually have done what is required to be saved). What? They gonna cry and say they don't want to go, if those other people who weren't part of their "One True Church" are going to heaven too?
Because I'm trying to figure out, how I can not be Catholic....and still be saved and going to heaven? Because I am saved and going to heaven....and I'm not Catholic. So much for the "One True Church" scenario (which reeks of antichrist).
Yes, Catholics believe that we have the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because ours is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because ours is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ's true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles' Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.'' Our Lord said: ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (``And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.'' Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.
We first note that the context of the passage is the GOSPEL. The verses that immediately precede verse 15 speak of the GOSPEL and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary or Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic, one that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm – in what? In oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? NO, he is exhorting them to stand firm IN THE GOSPEL.
For example, we read in 1Corinthians 16:13, “Be on the alert, STAND FIRM in the faith, act like men, be strong”. The phrase “stand firm” comes from the same Greek term Paul uses in 2Thessalonians 2:15. He exhorts the Corinthians to “stand firm” in “the faith” that he himself has delivered to them. Who can possibly claim that the faith is not found EXPLICITLY in Scripture? And what defines “the faith” for Paul but the phrase, “the Gospel of Jesus Christ”? From a simple exegesis of the passage, it is clear there is nothing in this passage IN ITS OWN CONTEXT that is supportive of either of the Roman positions regarding tradition.
Finally, your argument put forth is even more pernicious because it attacks the sufficiency of Scripture itself. It implies that the Holy Spirit did such a poor job of inspiring and producing Scripture that although the Psalmist thought God’s Word was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path, he (the Psalmist) was in fact quite deluded, and was treading dangerous ground.
Truthandjustice1:
Hey my friend,
Oral Tradition – The truths Paul first communicated to the churches in an oral fashion, especially the content of the gospel, he later committed to writing- and he explicitly warned believers in Colossae to ‘BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST’ (Colossians 2:8). This is the definitive New Testament model for ascertaining truth. The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles. Thus, where any teaching or tradition conforms to Scripture, it is to be received; and where it does not conform to Scripture, it is to be rejected.
The canon is a FUNCTION of Scripture, or to be more specific, it is a RESULT of the inspiration of Scripture itself. It is not an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM Scripture, but is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action of inspiration. This is a crucial point that has rarely been addressed by RC apologists. The canon is a function of the Scriptures themselves. The canon is not just a listing of books; it is a statement about what is INSPIRED. The canon flows from the work of the Author of Scripture, God himself. To speak of canon outside of speaking of what is “God-breathed” is to speak nonsense. Canon is not made by man. Canon is made by God. It is the result of the action of His divine inspiration. That which is “God-breathed” is canon; that which is not “God-breathed” is not canon. It’s just that simple. GOD DEFINES the canon not by giving some revelation outside of the SCRIPTURA but by giving the SCRIPTURA itself! The Roman error lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny SOLA SCRIPTURA.
2Thessalonian 2:15 – The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a SINGLE BODY OF TRADITIONS ALREADY DELIVERED TO THE BELIEVERS. There is nothing FUTURE about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that WILL be delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? NO, this oral teaching which he refers to has already BEEN delivered to the entire church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to EVERYONE in the Church at Thessalonica.
who was Jesus talking to when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." in verse 19?
and when you said "After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). "
Now, don't be so pompous to think that He was talking about the Catholic Church only....then you exlude the rest of the Body of Christ....
so, the oral traditions past down for generations that there were three wise men, and that they were at the manger is ok then? it would have to be...it's an oral traditon.
By the way, how is the oral traditions of the Catholic church to be proven correct?
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ's Church. Without the Catholic Church's teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What's more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ's word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "'But the word of the Lord abides for ever.' That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
truthandjustice1:
Again, you deleted parts of my former message. Here it is as I wrote it:
"One central truth I have learned is that Catholicism presents Jesus as abnormally weak: He is ordinarily depicted either as a babe in Mary's arms, or He is shown on the cross re: Crucifix. There is little emphasis on His Lordship, His authority, His great victory over sin, death, the grave, and the devil. I noticed this in the movie The Passion of the Christ. The great majority of the film showed His scourging and crucifixion. I would not have minded that had more time been given to His resurrection and ascension."
I never said that His dying on the cross meant Jesus was weak; Catholicism makes Him look weak as much by what it ignores as what it emphasizes. Read again, in its entirety, what I did say, and hopefully you'll get my point. If the cross had been the end of the story, there would have been no victory over sin, death, the grave, and the devil.
The overarching problem I see in Catholicism is that every Catholic who has ever discussed these issues with me STARTS with Catholic doctrine and THEN tries to reconcile the Bible with it. When I pointed this out to one Catholic friend, she replied, "That's because we don't revere the Bible as you do. We hold the Magestrium and Doctrine (and I believe she named one more Catholic structure) as equal to the Bible."
Jesus told the Pharisees, "You have made the Word of God of none effect by the traditions of men." That is a terrible assessment of the damage they had done by emphasizing their own traditions over God's own Word.
truthandjustice1:
You ignored all the scriptural mentions of Mary in my former message. To recap:
" I had heard the term "Immaculate Conception" all my life and assumed it referred to the sinless conception of Jesus Christ. But, no, Catholics teach that MARY was conceived without sin, thus putting her on an equal level with the Lord Himself. Catholics also pray to Mary (as well as saints), though there is no scriptural injunction for this practice. The Bible clearly says it is JESUS who is our advocate with the Father, that it is JESUS who is ever interceding for us at the right hand of God. Several times during Jesus' ministry on earth, his fellow Jews made remarks assuming Mary had a position of privilege above themselves, and every time Jesus rebuked their remarks by showing that she was equal with other believers, not above them. Mary was at the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost and received the Holy Spirit just as the other believers did. They were not praying to her that day; she was praying to the Father with them."
Yes, Adam and Eve were created with no sin. But once they had sinned, all mankind was afflicted with that sin. Mary was no exception.
To pray to Mary is to put her on a level above us, but Jesus emphasized over and over that she was a human being like the rest of us. Yes, she was blessed because she was humble before the Lord and allowed Him to use her to bring the Savior into the world. But she was not without sin, and there is no scriptural support for such a belief.
To call Mary "Mother of God" is unBiblical. The scripture clearly says that God had no beginning; He was not born of any woman. The Catholic exaltation of Mary is wrong and robs God of His rightful glory.
Liberius:
Liberius supported the Arian position (Jesus was a created being) and lacked the strength of character to oppose this heresy. Liberius asked Constantius II to convene a council at Aquileia to settle the dispute regarding Athanasius and the see of Alexandria. Only after the death of Constantius in 361 did Liberius return to orthodoxy.
These time periods did not enjoy a universal authority as one might think; the papacy did not come to full universal power until in 533 AD when Justinian the Emperor of Constantinople decreed the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church. It was not actually affected until the Barbarian Ostrogoths were driven from Rome in 538 AD. From this point the Church had this power up until 1798 AD when Berthier the French General entered Rome and proclaimed a Republic and took the Pope prisoner in December 1798 AD.
As long as Protestants agree on the essentials of salvation: salvation through Christ, grace, and faith alone there is no pressing agenda to unite on secondary issues. Rome needs tradition to survive while Protestant believers have in the past and presently can do without them.
pontificate was spent infighting with Novatian and later with Cyprian over readmitting Christians who had lapsed during a persecution.
Stephen:
He spent his time dealing with the same issues as did Cornelius.
Dionysius:
He spent his time in synods debating the nature of the God (trinity) with bishops from Alexandria.
Sylvester:
In spite of the length of his pontificate (22yrs) and the importance of the Constantinian period in which he served, the pope seems to have made little or no lasting impact on the Church or on the papacy itself. It was Constantine that actually assumed the title “bishop of external affairs,” call a special council of some 130 bishops at Arles in August 314. Hardly Universal authority displayed during this time.
Julius:
Julius conveyed a synod in Rome, in June of 341, which exonerated the orthodox bishops of doctrinal errors attributed to them by the Arians. Following the synod, Julius sent a letter to the Eastern bishops, reproaching them for not accepting his invitation to the synod, f or having condemned bishops of apostolic sees without reference to the episcopate as a whole, and for ignoring, in their condemnation of Athanasius, the historic prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome concerning the see of Alexandria.
Universal authority is wanting here.
Truthandjustice1:
If you are referring to Clement I -
According to Richard P. McBrien (a Catholic) Author of Catholicism says in his book (Lives of the Popes) – “The Roman community at this time was probably divided into a number of small house churches scattered throughout the city and its neighboring districts, each presided over by a presbyter (and possibly more than one). There would have been no united and coordinated leadership within the city’s Christian community as a whole, but was otherwise the case in the community’s relations with the Christian communities of other cities.” Pg - 35.
Victor I:
Victor is best known for his firm resolution of the controversy over the celebration of Easter. A great dispute ensued regarding which day Easter was to be celebrated, he excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor who held fast to their practice but later heeded the advice of Irenaeus and others to withdraw the excommunication. He enjoyed a partial universal status that had not been fully accepted.
Calixtus:
His five-year pontificate was defined in large part by his constant battles with Hippolytus who accused the pope of doctrinal deviations (Modalism, in particular, the view that God there is only one divine Person with three modes of activity) and laxity in discipline (for example, ordaining men who had been married more than once).This could hardly be called exercising universal authority.
Cornelius:
It had taken a year to elect Cornelius as successor to Fabian. During the interregnum of fourteen months the Roman Church was governed as it had been during the first century of its existence that is collegially, with the presbyter Novatian acting as spokesman. It has been estimated that the membership of the Roman Church in the mid-third century may have reached fifty thousand members. Much of his
During the first few centuries, the Bishop of Rome exercised real authority over the worldwide Catholic Church. Some early examples include Popes Clement (88-97), Victor (189-199), Calixtus (217-222), Cornelius (251-253), Stephen (254-257), Dionysius (260-268), Sylvester (314-335), Julius (337-352), and Liberius (352-366).
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=635 AND http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=687
Online4Him,
You are right about the Eastern Orthodox church, and when the pre-protestant reformation unity is in place - how glorious. Be patient, it's only a matter of time.
http://www.zenit.org/article-21159?l=english
Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army, at which time the apostles were dispersed, the gospel had gone to Samaria, Ethiopia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and India. Similarly, the term Celtic Christianity will apply to all churches and nations which used the Celtic language in their divine worship, such as Galatia and France, as well as Ireland, Scotland, and England. Shortly thereafter we find Christians who kept to the scriptural gospel such as the Ambrosian Church which was not subject to the laws of Rome; Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, was Bishop of Milan for twenty-three years. His theology, and that of his diocese, was in on essential respects different from that which Protestants hold at this day. Time and space cannot allow us to go into detail about every church or group during this time period. Such groups and individuals like the Waldenses, Lollards (1300-1400), John Wycliffe (1300s), John Huss (Hussites 1400s), and the Waldenses Christians have been around from 1215 to the present day.
Truthandjustice1:
Actually, my objection is that the Immaculate Conception is not supported by scripture and secondly this teaching contradicts Mary’s own testimony (Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”).
Your comment:
Mary is the role model of the Church in being the 1st Christian on earth - the first person to hear the goodness of the coming of our savior Jesus Christ and the first to accept it. ???????
Mary was not the first person to hear the goodness of the coming savior Jesus Christ; for the entire Old Testament prophets knew and preach about the coming of the Messiah. The first mention of his coming is mentioned in Genesis 3:15.
Your comment:
I think it’s funny that you would ask why so late when considering prior to the protestant reformation Christians were following the Catholic for 1500 years.
Again, biblical Christianity was well established long before Rome came upon the scene and not everyone accepted Rome’s claim. There were cities like Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem that did not recognize her claim. The Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054 also rejected the papacy. Remember my earlier comment:
Is that something that they have you repeat over and over like a mantra in catachysm? "Catholic membership is growing....Catholic membership is growing....Catholic membership is growing....there are monkeyboys in the premises (sorry...a little Buckaroo Bonzai slipped in there)....Catholic membership is growing...."
I'd like to know what some of these protestant leaders said about the Pope.
its kinda like getting slapped in the face by huge gorilla, and saying "Hey look! I'm beating the tar out this gorillas hands with my face!!"
Fact:
More than half of the world's 2 billion Christian are Catholic. The next greatest number are denominationally unaffiliated "Independent Church" with some 400 million members - which pentacostalism falls under. Pentacostalism is very fractured, as the endorsements of presidential candidtaes reveal. Please don't worry about the Catholic numbers, they are doing fine. You make it seem that I'm anti-protestant growth. I'm not - did a Catholic establish relations between the Vatican and the US- no. You can go down the long list of well known pentacostal leaders and do a search with them and Catholicism and you will see that many over the years have paid respect to the Catholic faith. I'm not anti-protestant, would the Vatican have the diplomatic ties it has with foreign countries if it wasn't for protestants - no, Catholics have 5/9 Catholics on the Supreme Court were they appointed by Catholics - no...our protestant brothers and sisters do a lot of good in this world
Truthandjustice said...
"I'm sure this person is discovering why Catholic numbers continue to rise around the world and in the US." And he says this on an article titled "Rise of Pentecostalism Spurs Call for Catholic 'Self-Examination'" which states "It is believed that the Catholic Church's views on divorce and its barring of re-married Catholics from receiving communion has caused many Catholics to switch over to evangelical and charismatic groups" and "In Brazil alone, Roman Catholics used to account for about 90 percent of the population in the 1960s; by 2005, it was down to 67 percent, the Associated Press noted. The Vatican has been increasingly lamenting the rise of Protestant evangelical communities in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, and the resulting flight of Catholics>"
He is sounding like a robot programmed to say the same thing over and over, whether it's true or not.
Catholics are referring to Pope as a Holy Father, but look to John 17:11, to who was Jesus referring in such way. The Bible says that Jesus alone is the Head of the Church, but catholics are worshipping Pope as a Head of the Church. The Bible says that only God is inerrant, but Catholic Church is holding that it can elect a man who will be “inerrant in matters of faith and morality”.
Just like Jehovah Witnesses will always find a way to prove you that Jesus was only a man, and that Holy Spirit is not a person, despite all what is written in the Bible, in the same way the Catholic Church will always try to prove in some specious way that its human teachings are true.
But, as it is written – by their fruits you will know them.
truthandjustice1,
You said:
“One aspect that bothers protestants is the continual growth of the Catholic Church. You can search anywhere on the internet and the answer will always be the same: the Catholic Church continues to grow because people like you find the truth everyday.”
Well, in catholic strongholds like Poland, Ireland, and whole Latin America with most significant examples of Guatemala and Brazil, catholicism is in decline. In Brazil, where there were 90% of catholics about thirty years ago, now they constitute no more than 67%, while protestant churches, mostly pentecostal ones, have risen from almost nothing to 25%, according to latest polls. In Guatemala it is the same story – a country which was almost uniformly catholic in the seventies, now is in about 30-40% protestant (also pentecostals mostly). In Poland, Ireland, France, Italy or Spain percentage of catholics in the population is also in decline. In U.S. membership of Catholic Church of course rises, but it is mostly due to immigration from (still) catholic parts of Latin America. On the other hand, evangelical and pentecostal churches worldwide grow at dramatic rate (pentecostal churches alone are growing in 19 milions of new believers per year, according to Christianity Today), even in places like secularized western Europe. Evangelical churches are winning souls even in such countries like Iran, where it was deemed impossible for any christian Church to grow.
I see this wonderful growth as a God’s blessing, a sign for His sons and daughters that they have finally taken the right path, the path that was outlined by Jesus Christ.
Beloved, if you really want to know why the Roman Catholic Church prays to Mary as the "Mother of God", then look to history.
In 1891, Pope Leo XIII changed the scripture. Catholicism had already been confused about Mary's status, and over the ages, it seem to inflate more. But in 1891, this Leo character decided to change scripture:
From - And no man goeth to the Father but by the Son.
To - And no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to the Christ but by his mother.
And, now we have women with beads in their hands chanting "Hail Mary, mother of God, Pray for us". Which has taken Jesus' job from Him as our Mediator, for them.
If one thing is clear, we must know who and why we are worshipping. To do anything else is contrary to the first commandment: Thou shall have no other gods before Me.
I think it's funny that you would ask why so late when considering prior to the protestant reformation Christians were following the Catholic for 1500 years.
Your objection is that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
Yes, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. If you conclude that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, then you misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. You are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her, but not to replace their devotion to Christ as our redeemer and savior. Mary is the role model of the Church in being the 1st Christian on earth - the first person to hear the goodness of the coming of our savior Jesus Christ and the first to accept it.
The Immaculate Conception is nowhere to be found in scripture my friend; once again we (Protestants) cannot accept extra biblical doctrines based on tradition. This doctrine was put forth in 1854; why so late? When we review the New Testament in general and the book of Acts specifically, many of these doctrines are not found. I mentioned the book of Acts because it a history of the early church directly after the ascension of Jesus. This doctrine and many other are simply absent. As for Mary being born without sin; this is contrary to scripture; “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23. Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”. Mary needed a savior just like the rest of mankind.
One central truth I have learned is that Catholicism presents Jesus as abnormally weak: He is shown on the cross re: Crucifix. There is little emphasis on His Lordship, His authority, His great victory over sin, death, the grave, and the devil. I noticed this in the movie The Passion of the Christ. The great majority of the film showed His scourging and crucifixion.
This is a huge difference between Catholics and many protestants. We see the Passion as God's strength and love for us. Weakness? no, I don't see that. However, people who follow the prosperity gospel could easily reach such a conclusion. The Catholic Church doesn't teach the prosperity gospel. I'm sure you see weakness in a little nun who was barely over 100 pounds working everyday in the gutters in India, but as a Catholic if they thought Mother Teresa was weak. I guess when you turned on the TV and saw our last pope struggling to proclaim the word of God even though he was in such pain as weak, but ask a Catholic if that was weak. I guess for you strength is the well manicured televangelist who preaches the prosperity gospel based on the proven riches they have been able to accumulate. Marantha, this time you are TOTALLY CORRECT, protestants and Catholics have a different perspective of what is strength and weakness.
maranatha7593,
I can understand your fascination with the Catholic faith, thus your questions to your friend, but when your friend "comes to a conclusion" that doesn't mean that is the teaching of the Church. As I mentioned there is a helpful link on Christian Post for protestants and others who want to learn more about the Catholic faith. I encourage anybody who wants to discuss the faith with a person who has studied church teachings to use that link. It's not unusual on this site to read posts of people who are considering converting to Catholicism (as occurred in this post), so take the time to ask knowledgeable people who are waiting to help you - use the link. Good luck
There are so many misconceptions, another one is the doctrine of the Assumption. It says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
maranatha7593,
I'm glad a dear friend of yours has accepted Christ as his/her savior and is getting saved in the Catholic Church. I'm sure this person is discovering why Catholic numbers continue to rise around the world and in the US. Thankfully there is a link on this website to Catholic answers and you can find answers to a lot of your questions. I'm sure others have used it and are feeling more at home in the Catholic Church.
I would like to respond to the statement about his total misunderstanding about the immaculate conception, not unlike his link to a person who lies about her credentials.
After much research discussing the Catholic faith with a person who is taking RCIA classes he comes to the conclusion that the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but this is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
A dear friend of mine was reared nominally "Christian", then married a Catholic man. To do that, she went to classes and took intensive training for months to learn the doctrines of Catholicism. I asked her some questions and was blown away by the things she told me. I had heard the term "Immaculate Conception" all my life and assumed it referred to the sinless conception of Jesus Christ. But, no, Catholics teach that MARY was conceived without sin, thus putting her on an equal level with the Lord Himself. Catholics also pray to Mary (as well as saints), though there is no scriptural injunction for this practice. The Bible clearly says it is JESUS who is our advocate with the Father, that it is JESUS who is ever interceding for us at the right hand of God. Several times during Jesus' ministry on earth, his fellow Jews made remarks about Mary's position of privilege, and every time Jesus rebuked their remarks by showing that she was equal with other believers, not above them. Mary was at the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost and received the Holy Spirit just as the other believers did. They were not praying to her that day; she was praying to the Father with them.
One central truth I have learned is that Catholicism presents Jesus as abnormally weak: He is ordinarily depicted either as a babe in Mary's arms, or He is shown on the cross re: Crucifix. There is little emphasis on His Lordship, His authority, His great victory over sin, death, the grave, and the devil. I noticed this in the movie The Passion of the Christ. The great majority of the film showed His scourging and crucifixion. I would not have minded that had more time been given to His resurrection and ascension.
I am not only concerned about Catholicism, I am concerned about many denominations who have elevated man's traditions to a level equal with God's Word and even higher. In such a case, it is inevitable that apostasy will result.
I *am* glad Catholics have continued to speak out against abortion. And I do wish they had been as stalwart against child molestation among priests. There is nothing in the Bible which forbids church leaders to marry, and I have do believe Catholicism's insistence on abstinence, coupled with the devaluation of God's Word, has been the main reason for that.
One central truth I have learned is that Catholicism presents Jesus as abnormally weak: He is ordinarily depicted either as a babe in Mary's arms, or He is shown on the cross re: Crucifix. There is little emphasis on His Lordship, His authority, His great victory over sin, death, the grave, and the devil. I noticed this in the movie The Passion of the Christ. The great majority of the film showed His scourging and crucifixion. I would not have minded that had more time been given to His resurrection and ascension.
I am not only concerned about Catholicism, I am concerned about many denominations who have elevated man's traditions to a level equal with God's Word and even higher. In such a case, it is inevitable that apostasy will result.
I *am* glad Catholics have continued to speak out against abortion. And I do wish they had been as stalwart against child molestation among priests. There is nothing in the Bible which forbids church leaders to marry, and I have do believe Catholicism's insistence on abstinence, coupled with the devaluation of God's Word, has been the main reason for that.
It is good to revisit these subjects from time to time but prophet is right when he says that all the debating in the world is not going to change either side. So, it is extremely important that everyone studies for themselves and come to "hopefully a sound biblical conclusion". Forgive me if I share to much info on the CP, I am just passionate about God's Word and the truth that it contains. When we disagree with one another, please lets do it repectfully and agree to disagree in the Spirit of Christ Jesus.
Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper:
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. He also states, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” – Hebrews 9:22. The Mass is a repetitive bloodless sacrifice that is not supported by scripture and again, Christ died ONCE for the sins of the world.
The Biblical purpose
Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 shed even more light on this matter:
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.
Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
The Eucharist:
Though this one verse does appear to teach transubstantiation, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse transubstantiation. In fact, God forbids the practice:
Roman Catholic Examination:
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Jesus was a prophet. So how could John be the greatest prophet born among women instead of Jesus? Jesus was making a distinction between His birth and John’s birth. Jesus received no human genetic contribution.
Jester, I've had this conversation with truthandjustice already. And as much as I agree with you, I've learned that as long as he believes that salvation comes only through Jesus, then he's going to heaven, regardless of any other beliefs. And no amount of arguing is going to change his beliefs.
It's cool that you bring up the Baptists...did you read the article "Calvinism on the Rise in southern Baptists life"? So, Calvinism must be right too.
sorry, typo!
I said in regards to Mary "Well, she is blessed."
That should have read "Well, she WAS blessed." Now she's in heaven with about a billion other christians. But I guess you could call that blessed, too. You know what chaps the hides of most Catholics...is when you tell them that if she hadn't accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and made Him Lord of her life, she wouldn't be in heaven. Ouch. But I'm positive she did. About 100% positive. But still, she had to recieve salvation the way the rest of us did. Whether God used her or not. Because she was still a sinner.
ah yes, poor truth, has no answer for my scriptures. The Truth is truth. And none are above it. Even the pope.
now, on to Mary...oh Blessed Mary who was married to God. Had to be. You know that sex outside of marriage is a sin? So Mary was not only Mother of God, but also Wife of God.
What? She didn't have sex with God? Then how did He do it? Oh, yes, she was a vessel. It had nothing to do with her DNA or egg (ova). Her role in all of this was to carry Jesus to birth. You act like her DNA was involved in it. Who says that God used her egg? He could have just as easily (which I believe is true) just put a living fetus inside her without any help from her at all. Mary is nothing more than a carrier of Jesus. God could have used a man, or a mule, or a cow, or anything. (sorry, i'm not noted for being too PC) He could have just had Jesus spring up from the dust!
But what about the scripture "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."?
Well, she is blessed. God used her. That's it. But to put her equal with God is sickening! If you pray to anyone else but God, then you violate the first commandment. There is only one who I pray to. He is the ONLY one who can accomplish what I have asked. He is the ONLY one that can heal me. He is the ONLY one who can deliver me. He is the ONLY one who can answer my prayers. And if, as many Catholics say, He cannot handle or answer ALL prayers, then He is not God. I've had Catholics who say that we pray to saints because there are so many prayers that God selects (which is incorrect...man has selected them. not God) to be who we pray to for cetain things. So, the God who created the entire universe is not big enough? I'm glad I serve a God who is.
Poor Jester representing a perspective that only about 10% of Christianity believes in. Perhaps you are right Jester all the theologians who make up the 90% are completely wrong. Thank goodness you came along with those verses, I'm sure they have never seen them before. Now you wonder Aeryn why there are so many protestant denominations?
truth..
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" What's that have to do with dead people? I do pray for all men, kings and etc, etc. Wait! That makes me a saint! Saint Jester, the saint of.....oh.....candy canes! Yes, have to pray for all those poor candy canes this time of year.
How about these?
Romans 1:7 "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Why's Paul speaking to dead people?
Romans 8:26-27 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Looks to me like the Spirit is praying FOR the saints, through us.
Ephesians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.." There he goes again...writing to dead people.
This is fun...can I keep going? There are like 40 more verses about saints...only a few talk about ones who are dead, and none talk about praying to dead people.
With regards to the saints I shouldn't limit it to all post 16th century protestants. Look at the most recent article on the southern Baptists on this website: what do an increasingly large numbers of their theologians want: perseverance of the saints. Hmmm...it seems that they have been doing a lot more readings about pre-16th century Christian beliefs in the Baptist seminaries. Plus, don't forget that Lutherans pray to Catholic saints already.
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
Pope:
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
Look at the Aramaic
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."
Mary:
If you are serious about studying it then read this book:
http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CB012.html?E+scstore
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.
The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.
Saints:
The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century. Thus, the frustration of discussing theology with post 16th century believers.
Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.
Catholics pray to saints....not Biblical!
Catholics pray to Mary....not Biblical!
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" I Timothy 2:5
Only priests can forgive certain sins....not Biblical!
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9
"And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house." Matthew 9:4-6
The Pope....not Biblical. Pope means "father"
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Matthew 23:8-10
Aeryn,
Remember the comment:
We know that he had many disciples who turned and walked away when they thought the price of discipleship was too high? ask yourself when was this so? - THE EUCHARIST
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Roman Catholic examination:
John 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease
No saint, dead or alive, has any co-redemptive position with Jesus Christ. John the Baptist was a witness to the light, Jesus Christ, but John was not that light. John was physically beheaded, though tragic, it showed a spiritual revelation of true service and witness that allows Christ to increase: We all must be beheaded, spiritually speaking, so that Christ can be the head.
Sadly, many have created a Jesus with multiple heads, heads that they adore, confess to, and pray to. All must be beheaded, even the saints that have passed on. Jesus must increase. When we look at our redeemer, we must see Him and Him alone. When we show others the redeemer, they must see Him and Him alone.
A Jesus with multiple heads, even extra heads formed out of false traditions and symbols, has become another Jesus, another gospel.
Aeryn,
When you complete RCIA and are standing in front of the priest ready to receive Holy Communion think of this verse:
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Aeryn,
You mentioned 2 very important aspects of wanting to become Catholic: the Eucharist and the continual divisions within the protestant denominations.
I would strongly recommend you read a brief statement from Ron Paul (who is not a Catholic) with regards to the abuse the Church takes:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html
As for the Eucharist:
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper.
I would encourage you to search for a Catholic website or EWTN to find somebody who could better answer your questions. One aspect that bothers protestants is the continual growth of the Catholic Church. You can search anywhere on the internet and the answer will always be the same: the Catholic Church continues to grow because people like you find the truth everyday.
maranatha7593,
First your catholic concerns website - first the person who runs the website states she is a former nun - complete lie. She was actually an ex-novice since she was there for only two years and never made permanent vows. You might not think it is a big deal that the person lies about who they are but in my books credibility is key.
If you read the argument against the Real Presence posted there, you'll see the author begins with the conclusion (the Eucharist is just symbolic) and then interprets Scripture to back it up. It's interesting to see the ways he does it.
I've seen two types of anti-Catholics on the internet. Those who are intellectually dishonest in order to denigrate the Church and proselytize (e.g., Chick Publications). And those who are intellectually honest, and either end up converting or stubbornigly stick to their belief system by interpreting Scripture and history through the beliefs they already have. I always grow more in faith wrestling with the arguments of the latter, because they at least try to present the Church's real teachings, even if their conclusions are wrong.
One of the first things is that the pretended ex-nun immediately invites you to buy her book - what a joke. Do you notice how anti-Catholic literature has become a fad these days? As I mentioned to you previously if you convert they will hold your feet over the fire for everything. Remember the girl from Mexico blaming the Catholic Church for gay marriages in certain countries - what a joke.
Well said maranatha7593!
"broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat..."
Could that explain why Catholics is the biggest religious organization in the world?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God – Romans 4:2
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without WORKS, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered – Romans 4:6.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more works – Romans 11:6.
And the scripture, forseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed - Galatians 3:8.
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to OUR WORKS, but according to HIS own purpose and GRACE, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, – 2Timothy 1:9.
So, you see my friend, when we review the New Testament there is no book, chapter or passage that supports meritorious works.
I noticed that you commented on my responses concerning faith and works but did not comment on my response on the mass. Ammon86 does have a point when he mentions - . . . . In Chiapas, Mexico, such pressure turned into violence, as Mexican Pentecostals were severely persecuted by their catholic neighbors there. And how the church is – “relatively tolerant when they are in the minority, but often eager to persecute others when they constitute majority.”
There is a lot here to digest and consider so, take your time and I will await your response.
Truthandjustice1:
I am glad that you chose to speak about the patriarch Abraham, for there are many lessons that we can learn from his life. Let’s journey to the very beginning when the Lord first called him to leave his country as you yourself mentioned earlier. Genesis 12:1-3 says that the Lord “PROMISED” to bless Abraham, make his name great, and through him all families of the earth would be blessed. Notice that it was God himself that promised to do this and Abraham believed the word of the Lord. Therefore, he by FAITH moved from his homeland towards the land of Canaan which was to be an inheritance. Yes, he obeyed but if you consider the logical sequence of events: 1-The Lord made a promise, 2-Abraham believed, 3-he acted because of his faith in God’s promise. So, which comes first? Works WITHOUT any knowledge or assurance from the one who made the promise; it is actually faith in the one making the promise followed by works. In Romans 3:28 the “works of the law”, literally mean “without works of the law” – its meaning is this: Works of the law cannot atone for past or present sins. Justification cannot be earned. It can only be received by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
From the very beginning God has made the promises and mankind has acted or has refused to act by faith in those promises. In our past dialogues there have been many texts that have been shared to support what I am conveying now. Remember, that passage that says –
For it is God which worketh in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13.
Questions: if GOD is working in us to WILL and DO of his good pleasure, how can we claim any merit? If we could merit for ourselves and others graces performed by good works, why did the blood of Christ have to be spilt? Why did he have to die?
You are definitely on the right track when you stated that Abraham was justified by faith before his circumcision. This only supports everything that I have been sharing regarding works in general. Whether it is circumcision or any other religious practice which we do; again, there is NO merit to be earned. When studying the entire book of Romans and the entire New Testament in its context we find that a repetitive voice is echoing the same message, - Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that BELIEVE: for there is no difference – Romans 3:22.
To Aeryn:
It seems to me that the main reason there are so many denominations is because in so many cases churches become compromised, dead. One example is that of John Wesley who actually had no intentions starting a new movement -- the Church of England simply wouldn't allow him to use his gift of evangelism within the church. Today, of course, the denomination which evolved from his ministry is now seriously compromised, as well. It seems to me there is a continuous "winnowing out" by the Holy Spirit. There are times we are to "come out from among them and be separate". Just my perspective.
As for where we're headed: I totally understand your apprehension; I feel much the same way and am praying for our nation, including the American church. We do know Jesus said that in the last days, the love of many would grow cold. We know that he had many disciples who turned and walked away when they thought the price of discipleship was too high. We know that he said, "Broad is the way that leads to destruction...but narrow is the way which leads to life, and FEW there be that find it." I have learned that many, many people in churches are not Christians at all; many of them are just comfortable there because "it's the right thing to do". But GOD HAS A FAITHFUL REMNANT who will never deny Him, will never turn away from Him. They will endure to the end. I pray every day for myself, my family, the church, and all unbelievers yet to be saved, that we will receive His enabling grace to tough it out, no matter what. :-)
This would be a great place for Roman Catholics to begin self-examination:
www.catholicconcerns.com
ah yes...Catholic Church...the orginal teflon religion. Nothing sticks to it. It is infallible. God bless 'em.
Ammon86,
"i must tell you that in Europe one of the firsts countries which introduced same-sex marriage were catholic Spain and Belgium. That is because catholic church is not bible-oriented, but rather tradition-oriented, and among catholics, reading the Bible is something unusual. I appreciate your desire to be better christian, but joining catholic church is a wrong choice to do so."
First, the Catholic Church is not responsible when countries adopt policy that is not Catholic teaching. Even within the Catholic Church there are people who call themselves Catholic but don't believe in the Church's teaching - is that the Church's fault? The Church didn't endorse Kerry (Catholic) when he ran for the presidency and it isn't supporting Giuliani (Catholic) even though one of the most known pentacostal preacher (Pat Robertson) is supporting him. Here lies the problem and it is one of the reasons that person is considering converting to Catholicism because the pentacostals and a lot of other protestant religions don't have an established authority, so there truly is no direction except for "well that is what the bible says", even though the same denomination down the street is teaching something totally different. As for the bible, as any Catholic knows in any Catholic Church the bible is ALWAYS read during the mass and there is a homily about the readings. Now if the Catholic person doesn't want to go home and read the bible is it the Catholic Church's fault?
Online4Him,
But note something else: Abraham's justification comes in the MIDDLE of his walk with God, NOT at the beginning. Abram is called by God in 12:1. Abram OBEYS. Paul tells us he had faith (Heb 11:8). From the beginning, Abram trusts in God's promise he took all his possessions, uprooted his family and life and country, and set out for the land of Canaan.But the LORD did not yet justify Abraham. Abraham builds an altar at Shechem, then between Bethel and Ai. Then there was a famine in the land where God had sent him. Later God repeats his promise to Abram, and asks him to walk the length and breadth of the land (v. 17). Abram OBEYED, and did what the Lord asked.But the LORD did not yet justify Abraham.
Then Abraham offered a tenth of all he owned to the king of Salem, a figure of Christ. But the LORD did not yet justify Abraham.
THEN God made his covenant with Abraham, promising him a son, and THEN
Abram was justified, and later Abram was circumcised.
Abraham, then, was NOT justified when he first believed, but only after he had been obedient, after he had not merely given lip service to God, but had literally been walking with God for a long time, giving up his country, moving his family, offering sacrifice to God, and everything else.
Thus it is clear that Paul's point is that Abraham was justified BEFORE he was circumcised, against his opponents who believed that they were justified by circumcision. Paul's point is NOT that everyone who believes, is justified as soon as they believe, for that is clearly not
true if we examine the life of Abraham. So the point of Romans is *not* that we can't be justified by the deeds we do; St. James (in verse 2:24 of his epistle) makes it clear that we can be. The point is we aren't justified by the ceremonial laws of theMosaic covenant. Read the whole book of Romans for context, don't just focus in on one passage or another. Galatians is another good book to read. See <http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/work-law.htm> and
<http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/paul_law.htm> for good treatments of this subject. He also has some interesting articles on justification here
<http://www.cin.org/users/james/reference/info_salvation.htm#Justification>.
There is a whole tape series on this which is just phenomenal by Dr.
Scott Hahn on Romans, available at
<http://www.saintjoe.com/more-info.php?product=157&Title=Romanism-in-Romans>
As for the topic of merit, the New Testament is replete with examples of merit we can earn. Look up the word "reward" in a concordance such as: <http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/> and you'll see many examples of
ways we can gain reward (which is, in essence, merit). A good primer
on merit is <http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/righteou.htm>.
Online4Him,
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
The key to this is understanding that when Paul speaks of "works", he is referring in shorthand to the term "works of Law", which itself is specific technical term referring to the Mosaic law, including circumcision, that all Jews were bound to. Note that Paul's argument centers around circumcision, and he's talking to those who argue that Gentile converts must submit to the Jewish law to be saved.
The Judaizers justify themselves by claiming to be children of Abraham.They claimed that they are justified by circumcision -- i.e., "works of law", that is, a euphemism for the Mosaic ceremonial law. Paul refutes them by pointing out the case of Abraham (Genesis 15:6), where it says, "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it him as righteousness." Why does Paul quote this? To show that Abram was justified as soon as he had a "born-again" experience? To show that Abram was made righteous from the first moment he believed? NO! Romans 4:9: "We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he had received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the rightouesness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Paul is refuting the Jews who claim to be
justified by circumcision by pointing out that Abraham was justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised, thus refuting them from the example of the very person whom they appeal to.
Aeryn, I appreciate your words about loving your brothers and sisters in Christ. So do I, and although I am a catholic-turned-pentecostal, I have many catholic friends. But, you see, catholic church as an organization does not necessarily think in the same way as you do. When someone is leaving it eg. to another christian denomination, he is excommunicated, and church does not recognize this person as brother in Christ. In case when you live in an overwhelmingly catholic country (eg. Poland or Mexico), you are often subjected to intense pressure to go to catholic church. In Chiapas, Mexico, such pressure turned into violence, as mexican pentecostals vere severely persecuted by their catholic neighbours there.
Now you said that you don't want to the see the U.S. become like Europe in terms of faith.
well, i must tell you that in Europe one of the firsts countries which introduced same-sex marriage were catholic Spain and Belgium. That is because catholic church is not bible-oriented, but rather tradition-oriented, and among catholics, reading the Bible is something unusual. I appreciate your desire to be better christian, but joining catholic church is a wrong choice to do so.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – second edition, 1994, 1997 – Article II Grace and Justification, section III Merit – p. 487- paragraph 2010 states:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, WE CAN THEN MERIT FOR OURSELVES AND FOR OTHERS the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the ATTAINMENT of eternal life.
We cannot merit anything from our works because scripture says that we are saved by God’s grace alone.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16.
The Scriptures teach that salvation is a GIFT, we cannot earn a gift – Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8, 9. Again the Bible teaches that there is no merit to be earned or gained by our works. These two views are polar opposites. There is a personal challenge and dilemma for everyone whose church continues to teach doctrines that cannot be supported by or found directly in scripture. I personally have rejected unbiblical doctrines from churches that I have attended and it is my prayer that everyone would examine their church’s teachings in light of a “thus saith the Lord”.
I have really enjoyed reading the personal testimonies that have been posted here today. It does my heart well to hear of believers helping others for the sake of Christ. I would encourage all of you to continue to serve with gratitude and joy as the Spirit moves.
Truthandjustice1:
How are you doing today? I know that you will not agree but let us try to remember that the Bible tells us that Jesus died once for the sins of the world.
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself – Hebrews 7:27.
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself – Hebrews 9:26.
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation – Hebrews 9:28
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all – Hebrews 10:10.
It is difficult for me to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation which officially emerged from Rome in 1215 A.D... The Mass (sacrifice of Christ) which is performed on a daily basis fly’s in direct opposition to what the Bible plainly teaches. In respect to WORKS; I have no problem with doing good works. We should continue to do good works which glorify God and help those who are in need. My point has always been this:
The protestants and the catholics are so caught up in their heritage and history, where they came from, what lineage, who did this and who did that, that they don't know where they're going. God doesn't care about your past and heritage. He wants to know where you are now, what you're doing, where you're going, and what you going to do.
We need to quit focusing on our past heritage, and look to our future heritage. Protestant, Catholic, we're all a part of the Body of Christ.
I've done a lot of study in regards to Christian history and Christian denominations. My research into the Catholic church has been going on for well over a year; right now, I am in RCIA. I know this will be a change, but I am doing this as an opportunity to be a better Christian and to serve Christ better. I fully believe, and will always believe, that we are saved by the grace of God given to us through his Son, Jesus Christ. No amount of work that we can do can even come close to what Jesus did for us on Calvary. Again, coming from the perspective of being Protestant-raised, I am deeply concerned about the number of different denominations. In terms of instruction on church history, there seems to be little... it seems like Christian history ended with John and picked up again with Martin Luther (even sometimes he is not even mentioned)... why are so many Christians left of church history in Protestant teaching? While it may seem to be the case, I'm not turning my back on a 'church' (there is only one church, after all) because I'm dissatisfied with it or angry in some way. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do wish the church was more united; I don't want to the see the U.S. become like Europe in terms of faith. That could be where we're headed if Christians don't get busy!
The problem with catholic church is that it has problems with tolerance in regard to other christians. It calls itself only true christian church, and while catholic hierarchy talks a lot about ecumenism, they see it not as a dialogue, but as a way to absorb all other denominations to their organization. In my country, Poland, many priests and catholics in informal talks are describing evangelical churches as cults, and priests sometimes even openly defame them during sermons. They are doing such things because they are a majority in my country, and they behave like muslims - relatively tolerant when they are minority, but often eager to persecute others when they constitute majority.
amen annie!
There are so many cliques...between churches and inside of churches. I am know by everyone in our church, I get along great with them....but I haven't been accepted into any of their cliques. As hard as I try, I just can't seem to become a part of a clique. We all love each other, but those cliques...God help us! But, because of my calling, I will always be set apart. An outsider, of sorts. That is the cross I bear. It's lonely, it's hard, but I will take what God has given me, and serve Him in humblenss and love.
I'm not one who is taken by materialistic things, or money. I make good money at my job, have a good house, nice car, but if God asked me to leave it all tomorrow, I would without reservation. My hope is in God. But I do take what He has given me (money, house, car) and use it for His glory and purpose. After all, it's His to begin with. I'm just taking care of it. I just hope I'm doing a good job of it.
God's Word tells us to "not forsake the assembling of yourselves together" fellowship is very important for the Body of Christ!
Jesus fellowshipped with every one He met! One of the problems I have seen in churches is unforgiveness toward fellow believers!
Instead of remembering that it is God's church, people think it's theres' and some churches get into "clicques" which is totally unbiblical and another major area is unbelief.
Instead of believing GOD and His Word, men/women debate, instead of trusting the Lord and seeking His counsel, they seek the flesh. I was like this once in my walk too, and the LORD convicted me of this!
I go to HIM and as HE leads and guides I seek the counsel of godly men/women. I do not go outside the Body of Christ for counseling!!!
If the Body of Christ would simply take GOD at HIS Word, and practiced forgiveness and love and walked a transparent life before God and before men, you would see changes.
In our fellowship, we started out very small, I was one of few coming from an inner mission (homelessness) and the pastor would come and pick up this little flock and bring us to the church that he shepherds for Christ; and he shares his own testimony of what the Lord has done in his life, he doesn't set himself apart from the congregation, we treat one another as family, for that is what we are!!!
We have seen people come and confess their own sin as a result of testimonies that many share and this builds and encourages each family member.
The Lord God is looking for true worshippers, to worship Him in spirit and truth as I said, and as we reach out to the lost (and I am so thankful for those who reached out to me) and we lift up Jesus Christ, "He will draw all men unto Himself."!
It is the Holy Spirit's job to build the church, HE adds to it daily as HE determines. Unless God builds the house, we labor in vain. Just be sure that you are prayerfully going where Jesus wants you to be. In Jesus' love, Annie
"The Vatican’s top official on relations with non-Catholic Christians has called upon the Catholic Church to critically self-examine itself in response to the “exponential” rise of Pentecostal movements."
Self-examination can be very hard, especially when one has invested so much time and effort in an organization or belief system. Much humility is needed.
A wonderful place for the Catholic organization to begin is in Matthew 17:3-8.
“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.”
The Father gently and powerfully rebuked them. Such tabernacles would have led to gross error. Moses and Elias would have been adored or worshipped. Many people would have started praying to them, seeking their intervention, and confessing to them.
The disciples were led to a wonderful place in Christ alone. To be touched by Him, to hear His voice of direction and comfort, and to lift up their eyes and see no one, save Jesus only.
It is not a matter of being "Catholic" or "Pentecostal" or "Protestant" it is a matter of being part of the Body of Christ!
I left "organized religion" because of the focus on "we're the true church" talk! Jesus Christ said, that "you will be known by the love you have for one another" not by what denomination you belong to.
My church is made up of many who came from all of these "denominations", we keep communion every week; and we have patterened ourselves (Thank you Holy Spirit) after the early church. There is nothing wrong with the gifts of The Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues is only one gift; and that is no sign that we are part of the body of Christ, when we say that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, we can only say this by The power of The Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the HEAD of the Body of CHrist, not the Pope or any other man! Yes, God calls leaders to lead various parts of His Body. Jesus Christ said, "I will, build MY church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
It is God's church, The Holy Spirit builds the church not men.
God is calling HIS children to walk in unity of faith, one heart, one mind, one Spirit!!! JESUS is LORD! Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today, and forever! Praise be to God our Father!
Worship the LORD in spirit and in truth, that's the kind of Worshippers the Father is seeking in these times.
We don't join a "church" we are baptized into JESUS CHRIST! The Word of God says, "whosoever calls upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved" Jesus Christ is our Advocate with The FAther and we are seated with Him in the Heavenly Realm even now!
I love the LORD GOD for HE saved me from my sins, the dead and evil life I was living! HE set this captive FREE, and in the fellowship of believers that I meet with every Sunday, these are my beloved brothers and sisters and the LORD is doing great things amongst us; lives are being changed, the Lord God is moving in so many lives, mine included.
It is all about Jesus Christ, let Him lead you to the part of the Body that HE wants you to be part of.
If you're not rightly related to Jesus Christ, it won't matter what you do in His name, remember what He said, some came to Him saying, "didn't we prophesy in your name and didn't we heal in your name," and He told them, "apart from me, I never knew you!"
Does JESUS know you!! Are you in a right personal relationship with HIM! (notice I didn't say perfect) are you living a transparent life before man and before God?!
When we stand before Him one day, He's not going to ask us if we were a good person, a good Catholic, or good Protestant, etc???
In Jesus' love, I pray for the Body of Christ to open their hears to hear what The Spirit is saying!
truthandjustice.
Really? wow! that is awesome. That's kind of how our ministry got started. We visit people in hospitals and nursing homes, too. It's hard because most of the people we visit are terminally ill or just getting so old that they are at the end. You know exactly what that's like. Especially with children. I haven't had a chance to visit any terminally ill children. And I'm not sure I could. It would tear my heart out. But I know they need people like you to show them that someone else loves them. But I'm thankful for the burden that God has given us. Because we're not there just for the person who is sick or dying. We're there for their family, too. Their family needs as much love and support as the patient.
truth, You've got such a wonderful gift and calling. As Jesus said "When you've done it to the least of these...you've done it unto me." And great will be your reward.
Keep Christ and his love alive.
Prophet,
I feel the same way about my wife and church. We are also doing a similar thing by visiting terminally ill children. Keep Christ and his love.
Amen Brother
truthandjustice
you said "Protestants have the protestant work ethic mindset, the prosperity gospel mindset, etc. and it is delivered by preachers/ministers that are largely judged by how well they can preach the good news of the Lord to their flocks." I agree with you 100%. I had mentioned in previous posts that, although I am from a protestant faith, there are many things i disagree with them about. This is one of them. It's all about love and works. God placed me in my church. In my mind i kept thinking "why dont i go over here, or over there, where the pastor is preaching great things?" But God kept saying "No, This is where i want you and your wife." So stayed in dying church. But because of our faithfullnes, God has given my wife and I a servant's heart. And our church is coming alive! Not in numbers, but in the love of Christ. We are reaching out in so many ways in works to our community! Painting over ugly graffiti in public places, raking leaves for anyone who asked (last sunday we had over 500 bags of leaves), reaching the truck drivers who come through our town, ministering to soldier across the world, shovelling snow for people, etc, etc...all out of a love for Christ. It's about reaching out to the lost and sharing God's love! To be a true servant, to our brother's and sisters, as well as those who do not know God. If more Christians could graps the concept of Christ's love and servant's heart, we could set this world on fire! so amen to you, truthandjustice.
"Faith...without works....is DEAD."
Jesus Christ holds the office of high priest and that priesthood is to be after the order of Melchisedec. It was said of Melchisedec that he was “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of god; abideth a priest continually.” (Hebrews 7:3).
Jesus could not die on the cross until He could meet every condition of the Melchisedec order. If not, He could not ascend and claim the office of high priest. While on the cross, was Jesus meeting every condition of the Melchisedec order? No. He still had a mother.
That is why “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” (John 19:26, 27). The relationship of mother and son was divinely put asunder that moment.
One other aspect I'd like to mention as a protestant convert. You are going to be confronted with a totally different mindset. What do I mean by this? Protestants have the protestant work ethic mindset, the prosperity gospel mindset, etc. and it is delivered by preachers/ministers that are largely judged by how well they can preach the good news of the Lord to their flocks. Young preachers like a Joel Osteen, Billy Graham's son, etc. are thought highly of because they have a lot of missionary zeal (you'll also see that on TV when you see televangelists and notice that the older ones dye their hair). There is this unmentioned to be young, successful, and happy. In contrast, the Catholic Church because the Eucharist is held in more prominence wants their priests to be more "suffering" (sort of a pick up your cross and follow me mindset). The priests take a vow of poverty, obedience, and chastity in order to walk away from earthly prosperity. If you notice the suffering of Mother teresa and Pope John Paul II gathered much larger crowds then when they were young. I attend a church with an old priest and what is homilies lack in energy he more than makes up for when he reveals his reverence in front of the Eucharist. Thus, what frustrates a lot of protestants when they converse with me is that I don't like to endlessly quote the bible. Actually in My OPINION you could remove the bible except for the Passion and that would be enough. Our pure Lord and Savior gave his life for us and he wants us to receive him in the Eucharist and do his work in a world that rejected and continues to reject him. Yes, Online4Him I said works.
Well said truthandjustice1; it is imperative that people do a lot of research and self evaluation before joining any church or group.
I don't want to dampen your possible conversion, and I think your love of the Eucharist is beautiful - it definitely keeps me a Catholic. However, there are going to be some aspects of the Catholic faith coming from a protestant background that are going to strike you as strange - are devotion to Mary, the role of the saints, the infallibility of the Pope with regards to church doctrine, etc.
I would suggest you do a lot of research before you make the switch. Tony Blair the former PM wanted to switch to Catholicism but the Cardinal in London told him to wait because he wanted to make sure that he would be able to understand all the aspects of the Church not just our devotion to the Eucharist. It's like a marriage you are going to be getting a lot of good stuff but your feet will definitely be held over the fire with regards to the bad stuff - indulgences, the role of the church in the Spanish inquisition, the crusades, the media frenzy with regards to the priest scandals, the role of the Pope ... I don't mean to sound preachy but it's a huge step. Personally I'd rather see a person like Online4Him and Prophet who are passionate about our Lord and Savior then somebody who is joining because they are disillusioned with the direction of their church. I'm not saying that is you, but I feel that a certain amount of converts do it for fellowship rather than for the Eucharist (which doesn't seem to be your case).
I spent a lot of my childhood in Pentecostal churches. I've had people tell me, however, that if you did not speak in tongues, you were not baptized by the holy spirit, and thus, you weren't saved. This always troubled me, because I don't believe I'll ever worship that way. As a child, while I appreciated the people in that church, I find that style of worship uncomfortable. Right now, because of various things such as the treatment and belief about the Eucharist (which I have looked at scripturally), and the huge number of Protestant denominations, I am looking to join the Catholic Church.
hahaha...@truthandjustice...flagging yourself...
im laughing because I flagged myself for the same reason. that's just crazy.
i rather enjoyed the scene in The Passion where Jesus is making the table and chairs. I thought that was quite humorous. Goes to show that God does have a sense of humor. He has to,,,,he made me.
Catholics have reverenced Jesus throughout its history, this fact cannot be denied except by those who do know this churches’ tradition; although, I think that he (Jesus) has been overshadowed by many visible and doctrinal traditions that the church continues to teach today. The Passion of the Christ was not totally biblical in its portrayal of the life of Christ, but which movie is? It definitely had a lot of Marian overtones which I as a Protestant would find issue with but overall it was a good movie. Many people have benefited from this movie and have renewed their commitment to Jesus. Christians as a whole would do well to review the life of Christ by searching the biblical narrative. During the 1500 years in between Jesus to St. Paul to Martin Luther has well been documented. The Armenian Apostolic Church was founded in the 1st century AD, and recognized by the state in 301.
Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army, at which time the apostles were dispersed, the gospel had gone to Samaria, Ethiopia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and India. Similarly, the term Celtic Christianity will apply to all churches and nations which used the Celtic language in their divine worship, such as Galatia and France, as well as Ireland, Scotland, and England. Shortly thereafter we find Christians who kept to the scriptural gospel such as the Ambrosian Church which was not subject to the laws of Rome; Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, was Bishop of Milan for twenty-three years. His theology, and that of his diocese, was in on essential respects different from that which Protestants hold at this day. Time and space cannot allow us to go into detail about every church or group during this time period. Such groups and individuals like the Waldenses, Lollards (1300-1400), John Wycliffe (1300s), John Huss (Hussites 1400s), and the Waldenses Christians have been around from 1215 to the present day.
I too have to take my hat off to truthandjustice1 for his sincerity, frankness, and knowledge of the RCC. Though we do not agree on every point of doctrine he knows more about his own faith than some Protestants today. It is sad that most Christians do not know their bibles let alone Church history.
I flagged myself because my statement was made out of anger not out of a genuine Christian concern for my fellow person and I never flagged you Prophet. I'll tell you one thing for certain, if the Catholic Church ever condones homosexual leaders then I'm gone in 60 seconds. Everything else about the Church and how it helps me with my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is fine with me.
Well, the Passion was Bible based. Just as any other movie I've seen about Christ's last days. As I said in another forum, all the the other addtions that Mel put into it, was, to me, just "taking artisitic freedoms" in expressing what could have possibly happened. I know that the Catholic Church adheres to those traditions, but to me they are as accurate as saying the there were three wisemen at Jesus' birth. Not to take anything away from Catholic traditions, but that's the way I viewed it. I did think that the Catholic traditions added to the movie and made it more dramatic. Although, I don't believe that women were present when Jesus was taken before the sanhedrin. If I am correct that was not allowed. I could be wrong.
Anyway, The Passion (with or without the Catholic undertones) was a wonderful movie.
Wasn't me.
who flagged truthandjustice?
The Catholic Church has been Jesus centered for over 2,000 years. I realize that comment is going to get a lot of replies, but if you don't understand the Catholic mass or as prophet did by comparing the Eucharist to peanuts at a baseball game then you can never truly understand the Catholic Church. Prophet was convinced that the Passion of the Christ was completely biblically based - which it wasn't but then again neither is the Catholic Church it believes that there is a combination of tradition and the bible just as it has believed for 2,000 years. I find that a lot of protestants that want to go from Jesus to St. Paul to Martin Luther well what happened to the 1500 years in between? Now people like Online4Him I have a deep respect for, I might not always agree with this person but I appreciate the Christian love in his heart that comes out in his postings - I could learn a few things from this person. I'm not perfect but neither is the Church or the Church that anybody here belongs to. As Catholics the priest reads bible verses in the mass and then discusses them (homily). You might disagree with his interpretation, but within his church in front of his congregation he has a right just like your minister etc. does. The aspect I have a problem with on this forum is that a lot of protestants don't think that we put Jesus at the center of our faith which is completely ludicrous.
The issue is not about being unloving or finding fault in others as it is about removing so many obstacles that some organized religions have placed before the masses. The Bible says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1Timothy 2:5. The Church as a whole has neglected to teach believers to depend upon Christ himself for their personal growth and edification. Did not Jesus say the following, “Without me you can do nothing” John 15:5? It is the Spirit that quickeneth – John 6:63. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God – John 3:3. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed - John 8:36. Church leaders need to repent of their pride, self dependence, self importance, traditions of men and proclaim that salvation is in Christ alone. Then and only then will people begin to see the risen Christ.
I agree with you German. I've spent that past few days going rounds with truthandjustice over this very thing (he/she is Catholic)...about the false teachings of the Catholic church. It's what they choose to believe. I've had conversations with most of them..and when I ask them a question that requires a scriptural answer, they quote back what The Church says about it. I feel almost as if they do believe that the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, and that the Pope is perfect. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I John 1:8
I love 'em, but they frustrate me sometimes. I wish they could see beyond what is right in front of them. Actually, most Christians have that problem, whether protestant or catholic. They get saved, and they think that's it! Or, if you're pentacostal, you get saved and get baptized in the Holy Spirit, and they think that is the end-all/be-all of Christianity. But it's just a door! Salavation is a door into a realm with God where He can do miraculous things with you and in you. Christianity is more than going to church, sitting in a pew, droning a couple mantras, hearing a preacher/priest speak, and then going home! Christianity is a 24/7, life changing, powerful life! We all need to learn that! Chritianity is not a spectator sport.
There are some wonderfully inlightened Christians (Spirit filled) who feel they should stay in the church as evangelists. I do not agree or disagree on this. I only know that we need to stop
trying to find fault in others and simply look to the Holy Spirit as to how re are doing in reflecting the love of Jesus in our lives.
If the catholic church was Christ centered instead of tradition centered,it would not be concerned with where people were coming to Christ.The bible says that our only way to the Father is through Jesus,the Catholic church believes they can place a "priest"to intercede with God on our behalf.The bible says only God can forgive sin,the Catholic church believes that a "priest" can bestow forgiveness.The bible says that we are to pray in Jesus name,the Catholic church encourages "prayer"to their "saints",and even go as far as using relics(body parts of "saints").The bible says that Jesus payed the price for our sins on the cross,the Catholic church believes that their:priest has the authority to impose a pennance on the catholic believer to bring about forgiveness for the catholics sin.Jesus tells us to pray in short and private ways not like pegans who believe that they have to speak a multitude of words in pegan prayer,the Catholic church believes you should repeat memorized prayers over and over on a string of beads.The bible says that Jesus is the only perfect men,the Catholic church believes that the can elect a man and that he becomes perfect,and they call call him pope.Its no surprise that as people search for God,He will also seak them out the way He said He would in the bible.Until the Catholic church focuses on Christ and not it's own traditions it will continue to see God move in ways that are to His liking and not theirs.
Catholic church needs the holy spirit.. Or else it will continue being a dead church like most of them are.