Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[Albion]

Seriously!!! Isn't Revelations an apocalyptic book of how Jerusalem fell in the early parts of 1st Century?

No. The Catholic Church teaches that it's a vision of coming events.

As for your question about the Eucharist, Christ is believed to be present, but it's not the second coming that will usher in the end of the age and the judgment that follows. Christ will come at that time in a way that all will see. These two are separate ideas.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

It might be a bit futile arguing on good works. Anyway, you score 10-10 on that, IMO.... so I have no particular issues with RCC on that. I think I said our main points of contentions. So I will stick to that!!!

Go back and re-read my posts. I didn't say that a man was saved by works, did I? You put words in my mouth. I said that salvation is an entirely free gift of God's grace, accomplished for us by Christ's work alone on the Cross. The best picture of this is infant baptism. The child can do absolutely nothing in terms of works. All he/she does is receive the grace of Christ in baptism.

What I said is that eternal life is awarded based on our works. And it is God who judges the nature, character, and intent of those works.

We do, however, have guidelines to help us. The moral teaching of the 10 Commandments. The Sermon on the Mount. And Matthew 25: 31-46, in which we are instructed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the poor.

And Jesus boiled all this down to two Great Commandments: love God supremely and your neighbor as yourself. Our works are really about love for God and man, aren't they?

 

[Albion]

They both go together.

That's right. If one speculates that God probably wouldn't want a sinner as the mother of his Son, but for not real reason, you certainly are likely to continue on and figure that he'd keep her from sin for the rest of her life.

Baptism can't wash away your sin. Baptism is for those who are ALREADY believers.

Unfortunately, both of those views that you are rejecting DO have Scriptural support, unlike the Immaculate Conception and the Ever-Virgin and Eternal Sinlessness of Mary theories.

 

[Julie.S]

I have a Presbyterian father and I am Catholic like my mother. If there are protestants that do not like Catholics that is fine as there are some Catholics that do not seem to like them either. However I come from a family that respects both and all religions. I know how Prebyterian churches are I have been to one.

Yes both branches are different but that does not mean either of them are bad or have bad people in them. I have found good things in both. I loved the Presbyterian church I visited for an assignment in my Theology class. The people actually greeted me more then the ones at my own church do.

Regarding what Catholics believe:

I was told about the saints but honestly no one ever pushed us to pray to them for intercession. They kind of left it up to us to do that. I don't ask them for help that much either just when I feel the need. I pray to God directly more then any other.

 

[Light of the East]

Where'd you get the idea that Christ formed a club instead of a church? From the particular denomination, or any of them, that stands to benefit from instilling that notion into its people, right?

I didn't say that. You have put words in my mouth. Actually, Christ did not form a Church at all. He came to the existing Church, (the qahal, the congregation of God) offered Himself as the divine Bridegroom, and they repaid His kindness by killing Him. He then took the leadership, authority, and rule over God's Church, the Kingdom, from national Israel, and gave it to a "new nation" which was now led by the Apostles. It was one congregation (qahal or church) in the Old Covenant and still one congregation (eklessia or church) in the New Covenant.

I never said anything about a club.

 

[Light of the East]

We're talking on this thread about the Catholic view of things. To the RCC, a good work is a good work. Of course, it would be better if they were performed for the love of God than in order to build up a spiritual resume.

That is true. There are many people in the RCC who perform in order to curry God's favor and escape hell. While this is not a terrible thing, it certainly is not what we are called to do - love God with all our hearts.

Unfortunately, the Roman Rite's way of viewing things - that is, from an entirely legal perspective - easily gives rise to such thinking, where the Orthodox never were infested with legalism and a legalist understanding of salvation. For the East, it has always been about relationship with Christ through participation in the Divine Mysteries and prayer.

 

[Light of the East]

Seriously!!! Isn't Revelations an apocalyptic book of how Jerusalem fell in the early parts of 1st Century? Hasn't Christ come back for the Church and is present in the Eucharist? Help me understand Preterism if that isn't the truth!!!

They don't teach it in the sense that it is a de fide teaching (that is, a belief required to be held by all in the Church).

 

[Light of the East]

I loved the Presbyterian church I visited for an assignment in my Theology class. The people actually greeted me more then the ones at my own church do.

THAT, my dear sister, is one of the SHAMES of the Catholic Church.

 

[Job8]

And finally, even if a man is declared righteous, what does that have to do with eternal life?

It is evident that you are not very clear about the meaning of salvation, which includes both imputed righteousness and eternal life (plus much more).

 

[Julie.S]

THAT, my dear sister, is one of the SHAMES of the Catholic Church.

I have to agree my church has people that tend to stay in their small groups.

 

[Albion]

I didn't say that.

It's a description of the perspective I was reading...the idea that membership in a particular religious institution is at the heart of Christ's church, rather than that it is a great movement embracing all who have Faith in the Lord and Savior of Men. Interestingly enough, these two views are the same as existed when the early Christian church contended against the various mystery religions of the Roman Empire.

 

[Light of the East]

It is evident that you are not very clear about the meaning of salvation, which includes both imputed righteousness and eternal life (plus much more).

There is no such thing as imputed righteousness. I know where you think you get that from, and the Greek of the passage does not teach nor say that. It was invented by Luther and codified by Calvin in his "Institutes."

But you keep right one dreaming!

 

[Light of the East]

It's a description of the perspective I was reading...the idea that membership in a particular religious institution is at the heart of Christ's church, rather than that it is a great movement embracing all who have Faith in the Lord and Savior of Men. Interestingly enough, these two views are the same as existed when the early Christian church contended against the various mystery religions of the Roman Empire.

Sorry, sir. While we agree on much, the definition you give above is an invention of the Reformers. Prior to them inventing it (you can find it defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith) when one asked about the Church, one was always pointed to the Catholic Church.

The Scriptures do not uphold your definition either. When the OT speaks of the "qahal" or congregation of God, it is not speaking of some imaginative idea of an invisible lot of people who believe in God. It is speaking of a visible body, gathered together under a distinct leadership, in a particular place of worship.

In Matthew 21: 33-46, Jesus defined the Kingdom as national Israel. He spoke of it as a vineyard led by a specific people, the Jews under the headship of the priests. There was no "invisible church" in Israel or now.

The "invisible church" was invented by the Reformers to contradict the authority of the Church (which I admit was corrupt to the core at that time and an easy target) and to keep people from fearing what would happen to them as rebels against God's established authority.

Remember, sir, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. God highly frowns upon it. The Reformed Episcopalian Bishop, Ray Sutton, has written that without visible authority on earth, God has no authority. How he writes that with a straight face is beyond me. If he understood what he had written, he would chuck the idea of the invisible Church (which he as a Calvinist must agree with) and run to the Catholic Church to gain admittance.

 

[Light of the East]

Message posted in error.

 

[com7fy8]

But our Apostle Peter does say,

"Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:9-10)

So, every child of God ministers His grace. We all are in this priesthood > Peter says, "a royal priesthood", in 1 Peter 2:9. In each of us, Jesus shares with us His ability to minister His own grace > Galatians 2:20, Galatians 4:19. And Jesus is our High Priest >

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

Jesus as our High Priest has gone through things of this life, in order that now He can feel for us and help us with His grace which made Him able to do so well, here. And, like this, we in Jesus go through things of this evil world and now we can feel for others and minister to them, also, the grace which has us succeeding in loving, instead of bleeding in selfish ego stuff.

I have utterly no idea how you are trying to connect this with the Sacraments.

I have utterly no idea how you are trying to connect this with the Sacraments.

Again, what does this have to do with the Sacraments?

One more time, please explain. Throwing about verses is not an explanation.

I am not talking about Catholic sacraments, but I am sharing how the Bible says that every child of God ministers God's grace.

And Jesus is our High Priest and we all are in His priesthood, ministering God's own grace. So, ministering grace does not depend on some specific group's ways of sacraments, I consider. But, as I have offered > Jesus has gone through things of this life, in order to now feel for us because He has been through it all > this is part of His priesthood; and we all in Jesus share in His true priesthood by using what we go through to help us to feel for others and minister to them the grace which has made us able to do well in things we go through.

Also, our Apostle Paul has said we minister God's own comfort > 2 Corinthians 1:3-4.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Here is what another Catholic forum thinks of preterism in regards to Catholics? and more so, how Nero matched all the details of the Anti-Christ!!!

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=351019

No. The Catholic Church teaches that it's a vision of coming events.

As for your question about the Eucharist, Christ is believed to be present, but it's not the second coming that will usher in the end of the age and the judgment that follows. Christ will come at that time in a way that all will see. These two are separate ideas.

 

[Albion]

Sorry, sir. While we agree on much, the definition you give above is an invention of the Reformers. Prior to them inventing it (you can find it defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith) when one asked about the Church, one was always pointed to the Catholic Church..

You just can't stop returning to such categorizations, it seems. While there is of course a point to be made about the Apostolic and Ancient churches knowing that there is a difference between heretical and orthodox versions of Christianity and that rival organizations did exist and needed to be sorted out, the concept of the Church of Christ being much bigger in principle than this is inherent in Catholic thought, both then and now. You know this, I really do think.

 

[Albion]

Here is what another Catholic forum thinks of preterism in regards to Catholics? and more so, how Nero matched all the details of the Anti-Christ!!!

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=351019

"Here's what some posters on another Catholic forum said (some of it correct and some of it not correct)."

 

[Light of the East]

You just can't stop returning to such categorizations, it seems. While there is of course a point to be made about the Apostolic and Ancient churches knowing that there is a difference between heretical and orthodox versions of Christianity and that rival organizations did exist and needed to be sorted out, the concept of the Church of Christ being much bigger in principle than this is inherent in Catholic thought, both then and now. You know this, I really do think.

No, I don't, and the history of Catholic thought does not support your contention. You are trying to justify your being part of a rebellious assembly started by a king who thought himself superior to all censure regarding his morality. This is quite common when people do not want to be corrected and change.

Since you do not want to admit that Anglicanism was born out of rebellion against legitimate authority, like all outside the Church, you grasp at straws, including making assertions from half-truths. The Catholic Church does not admit that it is "bigger in principle." What it does admit is that there is the possibility of salvation outside the Church but only for those in a state of invincible ignorance. (Romans 2: 13-16)

But once a person has been presented with the claims of Christ and His Church, you are no longer in the same category as some camel-driving Muslim who has never been outside his oasis and never heard of Christ or His Church. You are without excuse. And the Church Fathers repeatedly stated this also, such as “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the church for his mother.” Cyprian of Carthage.

It is my job to kindly warn you of this when you are in error, appealing to the teaching of the Scriptures as I have, as well as the Holy Tradition of the Church by way of the Early Fathers. I make no substantive declaration on your state before God. Only God knows your heart (and mine) and knows the reasons you continue to resist His Church, despite being in a forum where active debate has presented you with a myriad of facts for the Church in Scripture and history.

What puzzles me, however, and I would enjoy hearing your reasoning for this, is the following: the Anglican Liturgy is so close to the TLM, and the doctrines of the Anglican Assembly are indeed close to Catholicism, being founded in the rich tradition of English Catholicism prior to Henry VIII, what keeps you from converting?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

*******************
Mary was not the mother of Jesus' divinity.

****************
I know what the term means and where it leads and then what it leads to from then on and where it ends up- an unholy, ungodly, unscriptural view of a humble, holy Hebrew woman who was faithful to God and would be weeping if she knew what Catholicism has done to her memory.

No, but she was the mother of Jesus Christ, who is, was and ever shall be both human and divine.