Skip to comments.Following the Truth: A Biblical Roadmap To The One, True Church (Catholic or Open)
Posted on 11/28/2011 8:12:49 AM PST by Salvation
click here to read article
I guess you don’t understand the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and all the prayer done there.
Here is the URL about the Catholic mass for dummies:
It is included in the First Commandment instead.
I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no false gods before me.
Serious answer: Jesus said of and to Peter, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And Peter took it from there, preaching throughout the Mediterranean and eventually serving in the primacy in Rome. For fifteen hundred years afterward there was no other church (the Latin church includes all of the Eastern churches as part of the same body). There is no record of Jesus coming back to earth and saying, “I changed My mind, the deal with Peter is off.” The Catholic Church and its leaders are descended in a direct line from Peter who was assigned by Jesus.
Thanks for your testimony about Sri’s book, “A Biblical Walk through the Mass.”
I loved it and thought it only lacking in the Nicene Creed part, which, I guess had not been totally firmed up when he wrote the book.
I loved it and thought it only lacking in the Nicene Creed part, which, I guess had not been totally firmed up when he wrote the book.
Editing that -- the new translation had not been totally firmed up, because his book uses all the new translations.
And yet the ‘greatest’ theologians came to conclusions based on their own reading and understanding. I will take the KJV translation as being done with utmost care and thoughtful prayer. Not all great theologians are from the church of Rome
Another book is “What Happens at Mass” by Father Jeremy Driscoll.
What is so great about Sri’s book, though, is that it is for dummies like me — very easy to understand and reference back to the Bible.
Please understand that Catholics do not worship these images or statues. They are art and are inspiring to those who wish to pray or ask for prayers from a certain saint.
“I guess you dont understand the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and all the prayer done there.”
You don’t think that prayer and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit went into the making of the Bible???
So how is the Magesterium less likely to be misinterpreted than the Scripture?
“Serious answer: Jesus said of and to Peter, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. “
So this statement is the basis of the Catholic Church’s claim to authority?
“Only you can answer the question about being bound for eternal life or eternal damnation.”
Again I am telling you Jesus Christ is my Savior and Lord, and I am indwelt by His Spirit. I know without a doubt that my future is life in the glorious presence of Christ for all eternity - not because of what I have done but because of what He has done. If I am not, and never will be Catholic, what does YOUR theology teach about my salvation?
“If you die with a mortal sin on your soul without having gone to the Sacrament of Penance/Confession and repented of it then it is your choice.
FYI, once you have confessed your sins and been forgiven by GOD in the Sacrament of Penance, God forgets that sin.
Do you know the actual words of absolution?”
So, are you saying that I need the “Sacrament of Penance/Confession” - presumably only in a Catholic church - and specific words of absolution - in order to be saved?
What if I have truly confessed my sinfulness and and received God’s forgiveness through the substitionary atonement of Jesus Christ - yet not in a Catholic church?
And Luther did not produce the KJV which had more than the vulgate as source material
"The Roman Catholic tradtion that Peter was the first Pope is fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his 'successors' would be mainly concerned with 'Lording over God's flock,' 1 Pet. 5:3."
So you could then show us the scripture to prove the bodily assumption of Mary right? Or was that a YOPIOS of some Catholic years ago that the rest latched on to?
Lutherans use the same enumeration as Roman Catholics.
But Eastern Catholics don’t use the Roman Catholic enumeration.
I think it's arrogant of you to believe that a God who is so wise wouldn't allow us to clearly understand his word that was written so long ago. You'll notice that Jesus didn't choose the sages of the day as his disciples....He chose ordinary men to spread his message - just as he does today.
It is not written in the catechism. So what are you talking about? It is people who turn evil that do it in any organization.
I'm not at all sure that sarcasm contributes to advancing a discussion and mutual understanding between Christians. I don't suppose for a moment that I'm wise, but I'm trying to reach out to fellow Christians to explain my faith.
...should I listen to a practicing homosexual, pedophile priest and trust in his word because someone claims that he is a "brilliant theologian" or "philosopher" or should I read the Bible and trust that God will give me the wisdom to be able to understand His word?
I would never listen to a homosexual, pedophile priest and I hope you wouldn't, either! But I don't think anybody has ever suggested that Augustine, Aquinas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Council at Ephesus, the Council at Nicaea, and the other fathers of the church were practicing homosexuals and pederasts either. Remember that Luther himself was a Catholic and did not intend to destroy the Catholic Church or to set up a new faith, only to correct errors.
Of course God gives us some discernment and judgement. But do you not see that there is a fundamental problem if there are tens of thousands of separate churches and they all say, "We read the Scripture, we interpreted it for ourselves, and our teachings are right. Yours are wrong." They can't all be right, as they all believe different things. Yet they have all been relying on private discernment for their conflicting views. So clearly private wisdom isn't enough. If it were, most God-loving people would be on the same page about God.
Can I just share this one thing with you? Sometimes Protestants dislike the Catholic Church because of misconceptions about what Catholics believe, and why. Some Protestants actually think that it's the Official Catholic Doctrine that molesting kids is okay, or homosexuality is okay, or praying to statues is okay. And that's nowhere near the truth. If Catholicism said those things were okay I wouldn't have had anything to do with the Church either. So maybe it would be helpful to talk about what specific points of doctrine you don't agree with the Church about. We might find that we have more in common than you think. I'm not an expert, but perhaps we could break down some of the barriers of misunderstanding. Whaddaya say? I think it's arrogant of you to believe that a God who is so wise wouldn't allow us to clearly understand his word that was written so long ago. You'll notice that Jesus didn't choose the sages of the day as his disciples....He chose ordinary men to spread his message - just as he does today.
Protestantism is founded on William of Ockham’s philosophy and its application to the Bible and Christian faith in general.
Ockham’s razor simply says the simplest proposition is the true one hence the “Me and my Bible phenomenon.”
The following is a Lutheran treatise, but it is almost identical to what Catholics/Orthodox believe.
I think this shows that being Biblical is in the eyes of the beholder.
The Theology of the Keys
I am considering joining a Lutheran church and have read extensivly on their theology. I find that it closely corresponds with my own but I have a question about the above passage. The Lutherans say that the “power of the Keys” gives the catholic (little c) church certain rights and responcibilities (such as pronouncing that sins have been forgivin) but I don’t see it.
Although you have correctly identified that interpretation as “Lutheran,” one can be a Lutheran and reserve judgment on that interpretation or reject it. It is not an area of essential doctrine (such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.).
The passage [Matthew 16:19] is certainly cryptic and assumes some familiarity with first century and Old Testament religious practices that most readers today don’t have. People tend to take inegmatic statements in scripture and build explanations around them that go beyond the bare bones of the text. Evangelicals point to this passage to support the idea that “church” is wherever “two or three” are gathered in Christ’s name. Mormons point to this passage to support the idea that salvation (exaltation) is only available through the Mormon church. Roman Catholics use this to support the teaching that the priest “mediates” between humans and God regarding the forgiveness of sin. Other groups use it, too.
However, I think the plain meaning of the text is more simple than that. First, since this was written before the establishment of what we commonly refer to as “the church” (subsequent to Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2), we can assume that the “church” Jesus referred to was the local synagogue congregation, which usually had one or more rabbis (teachers), a minimum of 12 Jewish adult males, and a maximum of about 200 members. These synagogue “churches” served their local neighborhoods (in a metropolitan setting such as Jerusalem) or local community (in smaller towns, villages, and rural areas). They were places of worship, teaching of the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time), fellowship among believing members, regulation of Jewish religious life, and as courts of arbitration in local civil disputes. As a matter of fact, this basic structure was carried over into the Jewish Christian congregations and Jewish/Gentile Christian congregations in the first and second century. We still see remnants of it in the order of service in liturgical churches such as the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod).
So — the issue Jesus addresses is apparently a civil or personal dispute between two members of the same synagogue “church.” As such, the synagogue church represented the people of God in much the same way Israel did among nations before God. We can take this as good advice for the Christian church as well.
Second, according to the law given by God through Moses, both criminal and civil disputes were settled using the principle that a party can prevail only if there are “two or three witnesses” to the offense (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Jesus himself commended this practice, noting in John 5:31 that “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true,” not because the Son of God is a liar, but because no one should believe someone who claims he is the Son of God merely based on his claim, but on multiple unequivocal “witnesses” or evidences. He continues, saying, “There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true” (v. 32), further noting that John the Baptist (v. 33), Jesus’ miracles (v. 36), the Father’s voice (v. 37), and the scriptures (v. 39). He returns to this them in John 8:14, paradoxically announcing that “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true” [since he has proven by other witnesses that he is the Son of God]. Immediately following, he refers to the rules of witnesses (8:16-18).
Later in Christianity, the apostle Paul commended the Bereans for testing his teachings (Acts 17:11), and warned the Galatians not to believe false witnesses, even if the witness is an angel or Paul himself (Gal. 1:6-10).
So — what does this have to do with Matt. 18?
In the context of correcting the sinning brother, the person sinned against has an obligation to go to that person privately to try to resolve it. If he unable, then he is to take “one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’” (Matt. 18:16). If the brother still refuses to repent, then it is the obligation of the congregation (the “church”) to act as Christ’s representative is holding the sinning brother accountable, and then expelling him from the church if he remains unrepentant (vv. 17-19).
The Lutheran teaching flows from this understanding and places great responsibility on the local congregation for ensuring that its members are treated fairly and that unrepentant sin is inexcusable. When the church (more than merely the “two or three” witnesses required) judges someone guilty or restored, it is acting as Christ instructed it to act, and as God commanded both in the Old Testament synagogue churches and in the New Testament and historical Christians churches after Christ’s coming.
Lutherans are careful to distinguish that the “keys” — the power to “forgive” and “retain” sins is a derivative or reflective power of announcing forgiveness or judgment according to God’s standards.
Now, there are other aspects of the “keys of the kingdom” mentioned here and in Is. 22:22, Matt. 16:19, and Rev. 1:18. (There is additionally ananalogous passage about the “key of knowledge” in Luke 11:52).
The passage in Is. 22:22 makes a Messianic reference to a general custom in Israel and surrounding nations during the first millennium B.C. The custom was that the king, governor, prince, master, or head of household could give someone the power to act in his place in his absence or for certain duties. This “prime minister” or “right hand man” was given a ceremonial robe, belt, and key to signify his authority under the leader. When the individual with the “key” (and other items) made a judgment over his master’s property and/or people, it communicated and represented the master’s will.
The apostle John’s reference to Christ with the keys in Rev. 1:18 would have been immediately understood by his first century A.D. readers as a reference to Is. 22:22.
Likewise, when Jesus used the term in Matt. 16 and 18, his disciples understood that they were to act in his behalf and communicate his will through their own actions and words. In this sense, all Christians have the responsibility to communicate God’s will and God’s plan of salvation to those who don’t know it. We are God’s representatives, and individual congregations are represented by their pastors.
The passage in Matt. 16 refers specifically to Peter, and by inference to all Christians. We see from the book of Acts that Peter, representing both Christ and the church, “used” the keys of the kingdom in first proclaiming the gospel to the Jews (Acts 2), then confirming that the gospel was meant also for the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25), and finally confirming the universal nature of the gospel, including the Gentiles (Acts 10). This is the pattern Jesus commanded in Matt. 28:19.
Of course, any _mis_representation that churches or Christians make are invalid since they contradict the will of the Master (Jesus Christ). We are told to represent Jesus, but not that we can act with authority outside his will. We are commissioned to announce God’s forgiveness and judgment, not to determine God’s forgiveness and judgment.
I really think it’s presumptuous of Catholics to believe that just by belonging to a particular church that they are the only ones who will get to spend eternity in salvation with the Lord. It’s presumptuous to believe that all non-Catholics will be banished to Hell. Nowhere does that rationale appear in the Bible. If you believe it does, kindly quote to me the exact chapter and verse.
Ooops, I'm sorry that I included the last sentences you wrote with my own words, I was not trying to be sarcastic. It was a typing error.
I do have to note, however, that Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles weren't exactly ordinary men! Oh, they were doing ordinary jobs, but Jesus looked into their hearts and minds and saw that they had what it would take to be His greatest servants and preach the Gospel to the world.
I agree with you. And so does the Catholic Church. That's not what's in the cathechism of the Catholic Church.
“I would never listen to a homosexual, pedophile priest and I hope you wouldn’t, either!”
Understatement of the year.
The problem wasn’t just with a couple of priests. It’s with an entire organization leading a flock, and that same organization at best was negligent and at worst were co-conspiritors in major crimes against children. I wouldn’t listen to anyone that would tell me what is right and wrong when those very people were fostering and enabling such hatred to go on in their own houses. It wasn’t a few people. It was. The. Entire. Catholic. Leadership. I’ll take my chances on trusting in God. The church came out at one point and said they were going to create “code’s of conduct” in relation to alter boys. Um... thought that was the Bible. Evidently they needed some priests to write it down and make it plain to them though. Don’t touch the alter boys.
The veil has been torn. I no longer need corrupt men telling me what is right and wrong doctrinally when I can see with my God given eyes and use my God given brain to know, without any shadow of a doubt, know that that church put children directly in harms way. Not a couple of priests. The entire organization. I don’t need their discernment on any matter.
I don’t have a problem with what Catholics believe scripturally as much as I have a problem with the way the entire thing was handled. Makes neverland ranch look like a safe and viable option. It’s remniscient of the hollywood actor saying don’t do drugs, then going back stage and doing a huge line off a hooker. I don’t care what the Catholic church has to say after that. They lost all credibility. Amazing how a reputation can take a lifetime to create and not very long to destroy. The solution wasn’t to move guilty priests and pay off the family(s). That is enabling and makes them just as guilty as the felons.
To me the leadership of that Church is no different than Congress. They ALL need to go yet they are all so hungry to hang on to their power.
Excellent article, Salvation! Thank you for posting it to the forum.
Hint ... the "church" did not cover up the abuse; individual clergy did.
Reminder ... The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Reality check ... Non-Catholic Clergy Abuse & Crimes
OK, ‘fess up.
Who added the extra keywords?
I only put in four. bible catholic, prayer , theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; catholicism; christianity; prayer; theology; Click to Add Keyword
How would you know you were forgiven? How would you know God forgot your sins?
I consider the Bible to be God's word...NOT the catechism. The catechism is what the church wants you to study. I remember studying it for my First Communion and my Confirmation....Had the know the answers by rote.
Now I study the Bible - God's word.
The Gutenberg Bible was the Vulgate. That’s all Luther had, right?
What a great reference link and list of non-Catholic molesters.
I don't know. I haven't been at this for very long. After Vatican II? Or before? I do remember that as a Protestant kid in the 1960s, the Catholic kids would assure me solemnly that I was going to hell. Seemed a bit unfair! Perhaps 15 years ago a priest gave me a copy of the Catechism (which is still at my bedside table even as I write this) and I scanned it anxiously for what the Church taught about non-Catholics going to hell. It no longer says that.
But you know how it is, sometimes regular people, and even teachers, priest, nuns, pastors, rabbis, etc., will believe and say something when it's not the actual teaching. So you have to ask someone who's an expert on church history, which would not be me--I'm a noob.
Gotta say, that was crazy about your Orthodox grandmother. The Orthodox are considered part of the same Body of Christ.
Of course I study the Bible too. I just like to have the Catechism around as a quick reference to what teachings are on a particular point, sort of a springboard to more study.
What a great reference link and list of non-Catholic molesters.
Yes .. absolutely. God meets us where we are. However, he continues to call us to the 'Truth'. When we follow that call, we become seekers of the 'Truth'. Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.
Free Will is a necessary element of Christian faith.
Lol! These individuals ALL made the same statement. NEVER a Catholic! Each had a different reason ...what is yours?
The one true church of Jesus Christ is his body of believers, not denominations.
Worshipping (all right - “adoring”) that cookie is abominable idolatry.
” Its presumptuous to believe that all non-Catholics will be banished to Hell. Nowhere does that rationale appear in the Bible.
I agree with you. And so does the Catholic Church. That’s not what’s in the cathechism of the Catholic Church. “
But that’s what the Council of Trent teaches.
I was raised in a family that was very active in the Church of Christ. Throughout my childhood, I was schooled in the Bible, and how it was our authority and guide to life. After my Baptism at age 14, something began to bother me. I heard how everyone could read the Bible, and take it literally, but I began to see "holes" in this assertion. Nothing was more contradictory, than how this community, (and other protestant denominations) regarded the "Lord's Supper" as a mere symbol. In the Gospel of John, Jesus clearly states: "...for my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink..." and again , "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you..." It became clear to me that this church which claimed to be following the Word of God, was not. Deep within my heart, I was called elsewhere. The Catholic Church and it's missionary work, had always intrigued me. In retrospect, this is extremely interesting, as I would only hear of the Church in negative terms, from the pulpit and my family.
Finally at age 18, I felt that I needed to know more about Catholicism, so I went to a neutral source -- the encyclopedia. From that article, I was able to fill in some of the "holes" in my Christian Faith. (e.g. Where did the Bible come from; what happened from Apostolic times until now, etc.) I then phoned the local Catholic parish, St. John the Evangelist, and began dialogue with the Priest. That fall, I entered the RCIA, and on 07 April 1985, entered into full communion with the Roman Caholic Church at the Great Easter Vigil. That was 16 years ago, and my family to this day is very uncomfortable with me -- despite that fact my wife (also a convert) and I are raising two "Cradle Catholics". I am ashamed to say that my family refused to attend their baptisms. I firmly believe that there is a great need for Catholic witnessing, as there is much ignorance on the part of protestants, as to the Church. Who do they think gave them the Bible!
WE arte the Body of Christ. Why separate yourself?
WE are the Body of Christ. Why separate yourself?
WE are the Body of Christ. Why separate yourself?
Who is “we”?
I don’t mind a nice exposition of doctrine from whatever church. While I am not a Catholic, I sent my daughter to a great Catholic High School, they were always nice and kind to us unlike the local Protestant High School that would not even let her apply even when all her friends were going there. I guess they did not want any deviations from their doctrinal stance. Mormons, really get under their skins, I guess. But, the Catholics were never that way, they were always kind to us.
Your non-Catholic argument is lame. Remember, it is your institution, not Protestantism, that forces celibacy on its Popes, priest, and nuns. Everybody with half a brain knows such imposition is against nature...and for those of us who read our Bibles, against the Bible also.
With such unnatural pent-up sexual desires it is no wonder the sexual crimes of the RCC clergy always in the news. And the sexual escapades of such Popes as:
Sergius III, with his mistress, Marozia, her sister, and mother who “filled the Papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons,” and turned the Papal Palace into a whore house. Called in history, The Rule of the Harlots (904-963).
And John XII (955-963), a grandson of Marozia, “guilty of almost every crime; violated virgins and widows, high and low; lived with his father’s mistress; made the Papal Palace a brothel; was killed while in the act of adultery by thw woman’s enraged husband.”
Thank God no Protestants have ever committed sexual sins, eh?