The Catholic Church

[MoreCoffee]

This thread is called "The Catholic Church" and the point of it is to ask questions, which the second part of the question is how the church (the pope) thinks the Eucharist and Baptism and Sacraments are important for salvation when they are works, when the bible specifically says works cannot save you.

Isn't it "works of the law" that are specifically excluded? One cannot come to God on the basis of one's self-earned-righteousness and expect to be judged righteous. But one can come to God with the righteousness of Christ worked in one's body, mind, soul, and heart by the grace given through Christ. The sacraments are graces given by God; the means through which God chooses to convey those graces to the faithful. If you want to call them works then I think it is evident that your understanding of the sacraments and of works is faulty.

 

[graciesings]

There is a little bit of a works element, but I don't usually see it.

To me, the "our works" element is so small. We aren't saved by getting wet. That's not possible, it isn't like we decided to get wet and thus we're saved.

God decided to save us. Jesus died on the Cross. The Holy Spirit comes to us through Baptism. So, if you were to go get baptized, the part that you do is the smallest part of the equation. Without divine grace, that water would mean nothing. Without Jesus' sacrifice, that water would mean nothing. Without God telling us that He will come to those that believe through baptism (John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Cor. 6:11) water would mean nothing.

Same with the Eucharist. Eating bread and drinking wine won't save me. Going to church every other morning won't save me. Jesus can. You can look at the Eucharist and say, "Sounds like you're relying on works!" I'll say yes... the works of God.

It is the gift of salvation, a great gift from God, given through physical elements.

So who's really doing the saving work in the Sacraments? In mathematical terms (sorry!) that's a ratio of 1: infinity. I don't hold to "Sola Gratia" because that term is mostly used to represent the doctrine of Sola Gratia, but I do definitely believe we're saved by grace... it's grace given through physical elements, and grace is a gift from God.

Clearer?

 

[graciesings]

I have a question:

If there were a Hug a Catholic Day, would you guys be up for that?

Yes. There are a couple of young Catholic men on here that I'd really enjoy hugging

Well, it does raise the problem that people would be hugging me constantly, but I think I could stand it.

 

[Saucy]

Yes much clearer thank you. It's mostly the Catholic who do believe Baptism and Catechism DO bring salvation that confuse me.

My next question would be, if we did none of those things, would we still be saved? We still have faith in God, but we are unable to get baptized or take Eucharist, would we not have the Holy Spirit? In Pentecost, they all received it just by believing. Two fellows on the road were baptized by John, but didn't know of the Holy Spirit and received him when the disciples put their hands on them. So is there no way to receive the Holy Spirit unless you are baptized?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes much clearer thank you. It's mostly the Catholic who do believe Baptism and Catechism DO bring salvation that confuse me.

My next question would be, if we did none of those things, would we still be saved? We still have faith in God, but we are unable to get baptized or take Eucharist, would we not have the Holy Spirit? In Pentecost, they all received it just by believing. Two fellows on the road were baptized by John, but didn't know of the Holy Spirit and received him when the disciples put their hands on them. So is there no way to receive the Holy Spirit unless you are baptized?

The good thief on the cross adjacent to Jesus was not able to be baptised with water (though one could argue he was baptised in blood) and he couldn't receive communion though he did confess his sins and did receive absolution from Jesus Christ, so yes one can be saved while unable to receive the sacraments in their ordinary form.

 

[Saucy]

So that's my biggest question of all. It has always seemed to me that the Catholic church makes their people jump through hoops to be accepted or even in a lot of ways to make them believe they are saved. Really, today is the first time I've heard a Catholic say those things don't lead to salvation. So why do it?

In Isaiah God had a lot to say about people who just go through the motions of religious stuff that make no difference. We are in it to have a relationship with God and I'm convinced that the majority of Catholics do such things and are just going through the motions because that's what the church told them they need to do.

In the end, it isn't worth anything. You can have a strong relationship with God without them. Why pray to saints or Mary when you can stand in the throne room and pray directly to the only One who can answer our prayers. In fact, the bible says we can stand boldly in the throne room. To me, it all seems like a distraction. Repetitious prayers (which Jesus warned about also), the same chants over and over again...I just don't understand any of it.

If it actually brought you closer to God, I can understand. But there's no scripture or any evidence whatsoever that it does anything and can even be a distraction from what you SHOULD be doing. It was never commanded of us that we should go to church and go through all these motions, but we are the church (it's not a building) and should be with the lost, homeless, widows, orphans, etc.

 

[Rhamiel]

Baptism is the normal way that that God washes away original sin and has people become born again
Romans 6:3 points out that we are baptized into Jesus Christ

Acts 2:38
Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Saucy]

Good verse. That one does explain it well

 

[MoreCoffee]

So that's my biggest question of all. It has always seemed to me that the Catholic church makes their people jump through hoops to be accepted or even in a lot of ways to make them believe they are saved. Really, today is the first time I've heard a Catholic say those things don't lead to salvation. So why do it?

Because they are the means of grace given to the church by God; we do it because God has chosen to give graces by means of the sacraments. Specifically by Baptism, the Lord's supper, confirmation, reconciliation, marriage, ordination, and anointing of the sick. Not all receive marriage and not all receive ordination, but all can (in ordinary circumstances) receive baptism, the Lord's supper, reconciliation, and confirmation.

In Isaiah God had a lot to say about people who just go through the motions of religious stuff that make no difference. We are in it to have a relationship with God and I'm convinced that the majority of Catholics do such things and are just going through the motions because that's what the church told them they need to do.

How you can know the hearts and minds of the majority of Catholics is a mystery to me; it seems that you are offering a negative opinion that cannot possibly be the result of real knowledge on your part. But even if a majority did receive the sacraments without genuine faith what is it to you, they answer to God and he is able to save or to condemn while neither you nor I are able.

In the end, it isn't worth anything. You can have a strong relationship with God without them. Why pray to saints or Mary when you can stand in the throne room and pray directly to the only One who can answer our prayers. In fact, the bible says we can stand boldly in the throne room. To me, it all seems like a distraction. Repetitious prayers (which Jesus warned about also), the same chants over and over again...I just don't understand any of it.

You can have a healthy diet without eating anything that tastes good but would you choose to live that way? The sacraments are a grace that we receive with joy because they enrich our life in Christ. I see no reason to avoid them on some (spurious, in my opinion) theory about being "saved" apart from them.

If it actually brought you closer to God, I can understand. But there's no scripture or any evidence whatsoever that it does anything and can even be a distraction from what you SHOULD be doing. It was never commanded of us that we should go to church and go through all these motions, but we are the church (it's not a building) and should be with the lost, homeless, widows, orphans, etc.

I am pretty sure that there are many scriptures indicating the baptism does bring one very important benefits; have you recently read Romans chapter six? It explains that it is in baptism that we die and rise again as Christ did, that we in fact die with Christ and rise with him again because we are brought into union with Christ through baptism. I think that's an important benefit that I would not want to do without.

 

[Saucy]

Because you would simply be assuming that any of those things brought you closer to God. So it's only vain religious obligation that you did them. If you church didn't teach you to do it that way, you wouldn't do it. My church never taught me because they aren't in the bible. So they were made up by your church. So by doing them, do you imply that you have a closer relationship to God than I do? By crossing yourself and I don't, does that make you a better Christian?

You seem to have a bitterness in your tone as you write. I am simply asking questions against the things I've learned. No need to be bitter with me and assume I am against you. I'm here to learn and ask questions. It is a tough learning curve for me, so please try not to answer so bitterly.

 

[graciesings]

^Careful. Accusations spiral quickly.

What exactly are you saying is not in the Bible? Since I've only recently come to understand many of these beliefs, I do pretty well finding verses to support one particular thing, but I have a harder time with the general, "Prove that Catholicism is Biblical."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because you would simply be assuming that any of those things brought you closer to God.

It isn't an assumption with the Eucharist, it's an experience and a fulfilment of Christ's promise. Have you read the last supper dialogues in the gospels and Paul's teaching in first Corinthians chapters ten and eleven? These passages teach us that we receive Christ's body and blood in communion and John chapter six explains that in receiving Christ's flesh we receive real food and eternal life, so I think that scripture and experience come together to affirm that the Eucharist is not just a presumed drawing closer to God it is a real drawing closer by God's grace.

So it's only vain religious obligation that you did them. If you church didn't teach you to do it that way, you wouldn't do it. My church never taught me because they aren't in the bible. So they were made up by your church. So by doing them, do you imply that you have a closer relationship to God than I do? By crossing yourself and I don't, does that make you a better Christian?

Believing the Lord is never vain, it was faith that God counted as righteousness for Abraham and it is faith in God's promises associated with the sacraments that does the same for those who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. The sacraments are real graces given by God as the passages I pointed to above teach and there are other passages that teach us to receive the sacraments believing that God works in us though them. Have you read Peter's first letter chapter three? Look at the passage containing verse twenty one.

You seem to have a bitterness in your tone as you write. I am simply asking questions against the things I've learned. No need to be bitter with me and assume I am against you. I'm here to learn and ask questions. It is a tough learning curve for me, so please try not to answer so bitterly.

Words on a screen don't have tone and nothing I've said it written in bitterness; but don't you, in your questions and comments, accuse Catholics of all manner of wickedness and laxity and lack of faith? Surely you ought to expect that your accusations will bring a correction? When you speak in error it is an act of compassion to correct the error, take what you're reading as written in compassion rather than as in bitterness.

 

[Saucy]

Well that's really it Gracie. Prove that the differences we have are biblical. My faith is strictly from the Word of God. Catholics say the same, but it seems the differences between our faith mostly cannot be found in the bible. They were made and enforced much later on.

They are all the points I've made. Purgatory, not even mentioned. Mary the ever-virgin, purely made up as there's no text to support it. In fact, when I did research the idea, I came across the reasoning was someone once had a dream of two different ladders. One had Christ at the top and the other had Mary. He tried to climb the first ladder to Christ, but he couldn't get up. He then went to the second ladder and was able to climb up to Mary. Thus, you must pray through Mary. Is that divine-intervention? That sounds more made-up than Joseph Smith's story about an angel coming to him in a dream or whatever it was.

It seems as if the only thing we agree on is Jesus is God and we must call on Him to be saved, but there's just SO much stuff that I can't justify from the bible. I must accept that various different men AFTER scripture was given, had divine authority given to them to add, take away and change doctrine.

Like, you can't find one verse to substantiate the idea that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, especially when the angel of the Lord told Joseph it's okay to take Mary as his wife. It wasn't important for her to remain a virgin, nor was it commanded. And it was important for them and for their marriage to become one flesh and consummate their marriage. So why is it important to believe Mary remained a virgin? Except for some people to want to believe Mary had a higher calling, I don't get it.

 

[Saucy]

It isn't an assumption with the Eucharist, it's an experience and a fulfilment of Christ's promise. Have you read the last supper dialogues in the gospels and Paul's teaching in first Corinthians chapters ten and eleven? These passages teach us that we receive Christ's body and blood in communion and John chapter six explains that in receiving Christ's flesh we receive real food and eternal life, so I think that scripture and experience come together to affirm that the Eucharist is not just a presumed drawing closer to God it is a real drawing closer by God's grace.Believing the Lord is never vain, it was faith the God counted as righteousness for Abraham and it is faith in God's promises associated with the sacraments that does the same for those who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. The sacraments are real graces given by God as the passages I pointed to above teach and there are other passages that teach us to receive the sacraments believing that God works in us though them. Have you read Peter's first letter chapter three? Look at the passage containing verse twenty one. Words on a screen don't have tone and nothing I've said it written in bitterness; but don't you, in your questions and comments, accuse Catholics of all manner of wickedness and laxity and lack of faith? Surely you ought to expect that your accusations will bring a correction? When you speak in error it is an act of compassion to correct the error, take what you're reading as written in compassion rather than as in bitterness.

I have said nothing to you or anyone in here to accuse them. I am speaking of the Catholics I have seen and spoken with and the impression I got. Answers like, "Because the church tells us to!" That doesn't sound like it's done out of devotion, nor do they know the reason why they do it. So why not assume it's just a motion Catholics go through? Most Christians, regardless of denomination, hardly know why they believe what they believe. I don't hold Catholics on a higher plane like you do. And I've seen you write disparaging things about Protestants due to your experiences. So perhaps I have seen the same thing on my end?

 

[GoingByzantine]

I have said nothing to you or anyone in here to accuse them. I am speaking of the Catholics I have seen and spoken with and the impression I got. Answers like, "Because the church tells us to!" That doesn't sound like it's done out of devotion, nor do they know the reason why they do it. So why not assume it's just a motion Catholics go through? Most Christians, regardless of denomination, hardly know why they believe what they believe. I don't hold Catholics on a higher plane like you do. And I've seen you write disparaging things about Protestants due to your experiences. So perhaps I have seen the same thing on my end?

Saucy, MoreCoffee does not write disparaging comments about Protestants...he constantly shows fellowship to all Christians on this site, you can ask almost anyone here to attest to that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have said nothing to you or anyone in here to accuse them. I am speaking of the Catholics I have seen and spoken with and the impression I got.

You spoke disparagingly of the majority of Catholics, perhaps you exclude the Catholics chatting in this thread, but do you exclude the Catholics using CF too? Honestly, I do not think that you can possibly know what most Catholics believe, think, and feel about God. I doubt that you can even know what most of the Catholics you've met believe, think, and feel about God. It takes a lot of time and a lot of observation to form a reasonable opinion about what some other person believes and thinks but knowing what they feel is even more difficult and less likely to be accurate so I don't think you can know what you claim to know.

Answers like, "Because the church tells us to!" That doesn't sound like it's done out of devotion, nor do they know the reason why they do it.

"Because the church tells me to" seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to the kind of questions you've asked in this thread. Such an answer may not be persuasive to you because it isn't laced with bible verses but that isn't the point. The bible verses I've mentioned haven't made any impression on you as far as I can tell, you seem to have ignored them altogether thus far. So even if the Catholics you've met mentioned bible verses as supporting this or that belief it may be that you didn't take them too seriously as you seem not to have taken the ones I have mentioned seriously enough to write a response dealing with the passages as well as what I've written about them. And the answer "because the church tells me to" can be said out of devotion to God because it is God who established the church and who teaches his faithful people to listen to their elders (priests) and bishops because they are ministers of the gospel for the benefit of the faithful. So once again your approach is to treat Catholic answers as if they were of no value and that's not a good way to keep communications open. Perhaps the Catholics you have met noticed that you were not too inclined to listen to what they say without judging them negatively and if that is the case then they would very likely loose interest in explaining what they feel and believe and think if it was only going to be treated as a lack of devotion and so forth.

So why not assume it's just a motion Catholics go through? Most Christians, regardless of denomination, hardly know why they believe what they believe. I don't hold Catholics on a higher plane like you do. And I've seen you write disparaging things about Protestants due to your experiences. So perhaps I have seen the same thing on my end?

I am not sure that you are looking for an answer here, it doesn't seem like you're listening anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, demonstrate that you are interacting not only with what you "assume" about Catholics but also with the passages I've mentioned and what I have written.

 

[graciesings]

Well that's really it Gracie. Prove that the differences we have are biblical. My faith is strictly from the Word of God. Catholics say the same, but it seems the differences between our faith mostly cannot be found in the bible. They were made and enforced much later on.

They are all the points I've made. Purgatory, not even mentioned. Mary the ever-virgin, purely made up as there's no text to support it. In fact, when I did research the idea, I came across the reasoning was someone once had a dream of two different ladders. One had Christ at the top and the other had Mary. He tried to climb the first ladder to Christ, but he couldn't get up. He then went to the second ladder and was able to climb up to Mary. Thus, you must pray through Mary. Is that divine-intervention? That sounds more made-up than Joseph Smith's story about an angel coming to him in a dream or whatever it was.

It seems as if the only thing we agree on is Jesus is God and we must call on Him to be saved, but there's just SO much stuff that I can't justify from the bible. I must accept that various different men AFTER scripture was given, had divine authority given to them to add, take away and change doctrine.

Like, you can't find one verse to substantiate the idea that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, especially when the angel of the Lord told Joseph it's okay to take Mary as his wife. It wasn't important for her to remain a virgin, nor was it commanded. And it was important for them and for their marriage to become one flesh and consummate their marriage. So why is it important to believe Mary remained a virgin? Except for some people to want to believe Mary had a higher calling, I don't get it.

You're attitude changed. What happened? Foot hurting you more?

If you will give me a specific list of specific ideas, I will work on it, but I really am not good at answering the "this is everything I think is crazy!" rant.

 

[Saucy]

Well I have nothing more to say in this thread. Thank you to those who did try to provide answers God bless you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well I have nothing more to say in this thread. Thank you to those who did try to provide answers God bless you.

Keep listening, it helps.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Well that's really it Gracie. Prove that the differences we have are biblical. My faith is strictly from the Word of God. Catholics say the same, but it seems the differences between our faith mostly cannot be found in the bible. They were made and enforced much later on.

They are all the points I've made. Purgatory, not even mentioned. Mary the ever-virgin, purely made up as there's no text to support it. In fact, when I did research the idea, I came across the reasoning was someone once had a dream of two different ladders. One had Christ at the top and the other had Mary. He tried to climb the first ladder to Christ, but he couldn't get up. He then went to the second ladder and was able to climb up to Mary. Thus, you must pray through Mary. Is that divine-intervention? That sounds more made-up than Joseph Smith's story about an angel coming to him in a dream or whatever it was.

It seems as if the only thing we agree on is Jesus is God and we must call on Him to be saved, but there's just SO much stuff that I can't justify from the bible. I must accept that various different men AFTER scripture was given, had divine authority given to them to add, take away and change doctrine.

Like, you can't find one verse to substantiate the idea that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, especially when the angel of the Lord told Joseph it's okay to take Mary as his wife. It wasn't important for her to remain a virgin, nor was it commanded. And it was important for them and for their marriage to become one flesh and consummate their marriage. So why is it important to believe Mary remained a virgin? Except for some people to want to believe Mary had a higher calling, I don't get it.

Okay, so you believe the Emperor Constantine paganized Christianity but accept only a canon of scripture that was created more than a century after he paganized Christianity as the sole authority in your understanding of Christianity? That makes no sense.