Catholicism Is Hard

concretecamper · May 19, 2019

Albion said:
I was responding to a different poster and what he had written.

You quoted me

concretecamper · May 19, 2019

Albion said:
, but you are correct about Transubstantiation being a later development,

Albion said:
The word is of Medieval, not modern, origin

Which is it. :scratch:

Albion · May 19, 2019

concretecamper said:
You quoted me

I quoted you commenting to me about the exchange between myself and a third party.

I never thought that such confusion as you are experiencing would come of that, but I will hereafter try to avoid using those kinds of quotes. Or even better, making the replies themselves. :oldthumbsup:

concretecamper · May 19, 2019

Albion said:
but I will hereafter try to avoid using those kinds of quotes.

Great, it will make it easier on those of us who cant read thoughts over the internet :oldthumbsup:

Albion said:
Or even better, making the replies themselves.

We all make mistakes, it no reason to stop posting

Albion · May 19, 2019

concretecamper said:
We all make mistakes, it no reason to stop posting

No mistakes are involved. I said that, in the interest of avoiding confusion, it might be a good idea to avoid quoting a post from someone who is simply commenting to me about that which a third person had posted. That's where you got confused a few posts back.

concretecamper · May 19, 2019

Albion said:
No mistakes are involved.

Certainly was, but I am not surprised of this response

Albion said:
it might be a good idea to avoid quoting a post from someone who is simply commenting to me

I quoted someone other than you. It is not about you, it's about the post and word I quoted.

Albion said:
That's where you got confused a few posts back

We all were fine, discussing trans. until you made it all about you and being seemingly upset no one knew what you meant.

concretecamper · May 19, 2019

Now back to normal conversation:

Oscarr said:
The priest, when it came time for the Eucharist quite strongly implied that the "Christians" are free to take the host, but those who were not part of the church could come up and get a "blessing". It was obvious to me that he believed that those who were not church members were not Christians and therefore were not eligible to partake of the Eucharist.

Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices. Is it just pride?

Fidelibus · May 19, 2019

I converted to Catholicism (Latin Rite) from just about every Protestant church, and non-denominational sect one could attend. After studing Early Church history/The Early Church Fathers, and actually learning the true teachings and history of the Catholic Church, I had no choice but to agree with Cardinal Newman that...... "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Opposed to some of the bigoted, ignorant, and hateful anti-Catholic teachings that I was taught growing up and heard coming from the pulpits of some of the non-catholic churches/sects I mentioned above.

I have to say, it actually got much easier to become Catholic after I was shown the truth and actual teachings, along with the beauty of the Church founded by Christ Himself.....The Catholic Church! I have been given a great gift from God by being given the belief, and shown the truth, and faith from the Holy Spirit in my conversion to The Catholic Church, for which I will be forever thankful.

My experiance is that Catholicism is not hard at all.

Thank You God the Father!

Thank You His only Begotten Son, Jesus!

And Thank You Holy Spirit!

Fidelibus · May 19, 2019

concretecamper said:
Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices.

My thoughts exactly.

Is it just pride?

You know what's said of prideful people......"Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence."

Presbyterian Continuist · May 19, 2019

concretecamper said:
Now back to normal conversation:

Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices. Is it just pride?

Oh well, I have tried to say to address the issues and not me, so I am leaving this thread. I am more interested in dealing with the issues, rather than defending myself against personal criticisms.

WebersHome · May 20, 2019

.

Fidelibus said:
My experiance is that Catholicism is not hard at all.

The difficulty of Catholicism will become more apparent down at the end.

Rev 20:12-13 . . I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

The books are keeping a record of non-forgiven, non-absolved infractions committed relative to everything Rome teaches and stands for-- the Commandments, the dogma, the rituals, the traditions, the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation, and the whole Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught in the New Testament, i.e. the gospels and the epistles.

That's when Catholics who sincerely believed themselves good Catholics are going to discover just how bad they really were at complying with everything the Church teaches and stands for.
_

Albion · May 20, 2019

The thing that gets me the most, I have come to think, is that many converts to the Roman Catholic Church (and almost all the hotheads are converts, in my experience; 'Born and raised' Catholics are much less often this way) say that it was when they studied church history that they became true believers in Catholicism. However, the history they are talking about is not history. It is a self-serving revision that any Eastern Orthodox Christian (no meanspirited Protestants, they!) can shoot down if asked.

Having been taught all that stuff myself, I found out from studying history and scripture that it was not at all true. Then I felt that I had to go in the opposite direction.

So now I wonder...what would make anyone just buy into false history so uncritically?

My suspicion is that it owes to one additional factor that doesn't get mentioned so often--pride of ownership. It makes people feel great, fulfilled at last, to think that they have a membership card in (allegedly) the oldest, largest, wealthiest--and most importantly--the one and only true church. That is the clincher. It is the feeling of being superior to Christians of all other churches. It surely is not purity of doctrine since, as we have seen, many of the most passionate defenders of their (RCC) church don't even have straight what it is that their church teaches and many times have to have Protestants or Orthodox Christians explain it.

Major1 · May 20, 2019

concretecamper said:
Absent the gift of infallibility, personal interpretation is dangerous and most likely deadly to the soul.

Only 2 have Apostalic Traditions and Succession.

We are saved by Grace through faith. We cooperate with grace. We can choose not to cooperate with grace. Our choice.

If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell.

Rejecting God has consequences.

Rejecting the Church means rejecting Christ so says the bible.

Given the literacy rate for the history of the Church, I would say personal interpretation of scripture plays no role in ones salvation.

You said...………….

"Absent the gift of infallibility, personal interpretation is dangerous and most likely deadly to the soul."

Bible says in Romans 3:23...……."All have sinned and come short of the approval of God".
There is NO SUCH THING as an "Infallable Person" except of course the Lord Jesus Christ.

You said...…………..
"Only 2 have Apostalic Traditions and Succession."

However, there is nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
That is strictly a RCC concoction.

You said...………….

"If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell."

For anyone reading our comments, it should be noted that as in Apostolic Succession, the concepts of mortal and venial sin are strictly Roman Catholic denomination doctrine and are not found in the Bible..

The RCC teaches that "Mortal Sin is “sin causing spiritual death.”

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church is found this description of mortal sin:...……………………
“For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
1). ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’” According to the Catechism, “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments.”
2). The Catechism further states that mortal sin “results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace.
3). If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell.”

But the fact is that all sin will be punished by God. The Bible teaches that all of us sin in Ro. 2:23, and that the just compensation for sin is eternal death which is seen in Rom. 6:23. Over and against the concepts of mortal and venial sin, the Bible does not state that some sins are worthy of eternal death whereas others are not. All sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God.

You said...........

"Rejecting God has consequences."

AMEN my friend. That is 100% Biblically correct.

Leviticus 26:27-28 ……………….
'Yet if in spite of this you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins.

John 3:36 ………………
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 12:48 ………….
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

You said...………………….

"Rejecting the Church means rejecting Christ so says the bible."

NOPE! That is a false statement. No one has to belong to a church to be a Christian. Being a Christian is not determined by church membership or attendance. We are Christians because we have trusted in Christ, not because of what we do in or out of a church. We attend because we are Christians. We don't attend to be Christians. Our Christian faith and our position before God, are not established by belonging to any particular church organization. Being a Christian is based on our faith in Christ not membership in a local church.

To say that we must belong to a church of ANY kind so as to not reject Christ means that if YOU stand in a garage, you then are a car. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

You then said...…………..

"Given the literacy rate for the history of the Church, I would say personal interpretation of scripture plays no role in ones salvation".

Again, I will agree with your comment. The Bible truth is that Man has absolutely NO ROLE in salvation and that would also include personal interpretation.
NONE. NADA, ZIP. There is not one Scripture properly divided that says otherwise. This is the truth.

Jon 2:9 ......….
"But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

Eph 1:11 ...…
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will".

Major1 · May 20, 2019

Lost4words said:
Just like today where we have millions of 'so called Christians' who are outwardly Christian yet continue to sin, sin, sin and sin in all shapes, sizes and forms!

IMO that list would also include those in every single denomination of Christianity as we are all included in Romans 3;23...…
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Becoming a Christian does not mean that we stop being sinners. It does however mean we are forgiven of that sin we do whether is was yesterday, today or tomorrow.

Major1 · May 20, 2019

Albion said:
The thing that gets me the most, I have come to think, is that many converts to the Roman Catholic Church (and almost all the hotheads are converts, in my experience; 'Born and raised' Catholics are much less often this way) say that it was when they studied church history that they became true believers in Catholicism. However, the history they are talking about is not history. It is a self-serving revision that any Eastern Orthodox Christian (no meanspirited Protestants, they!) can shoot down if asked.

Having been taught all that stuff myself, I found out from studying history and scripture that it was not at all true. Then I felt that I had to go in the opposite direction.

So now I wonder...what would make anyone just buy into false history so uncritically?

My suspicion is that it owes to one additional factor that doesn't get mentioned so often--pride of ownership. It makes people feel great, fulfilled at last, to think that they have a membership card in (allegedly) the oldest, largest, wealthiest--and most importantly--the one and only true church. That is the clincher. It is the feeling of being superior to Christians of all other churches. It surely is not purity of doctrine since, as we have seen, many of the most passionate defenders of their (RCC) church don't even have straight what it is that their church teaches and many times have to have Protestants or Orthodox Christians explain it.

Agreed! I think you have hit it right on the head and I as well have thought the same thing.

I would only say to you that there are lots of people who fall into the ………."I like what I know" trap.

It says...….."I know what I like, I like what I know and even if what I know is wrong, I still like it".

Major1 · May 20, 2019

concretecamper said:
Jesus: This IS my flesh
Ignatius: It is His flesh
Justin Martyr: it is His flesh
Irenaeus:It is His flesh
Catholic Church: It is His flesh

Protestants: umm...over, under, within, geez, symbol, not a symbol, we dont know. And yet the Catholic Church is accused of making things up. This is hilarious, you cant make this nonsense up.

But God Himself said in Luke 22:19...…………
"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Albion · May 20, 2019

Major1 said:
“This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

How can the first part of that sentence be ignored in favor of making the second part the only one that matters?

Major1 · May 20, 2019

Albion said:
How can the first part of that sentence be ignored in favor of making the second part the only one that matters?

There is nothing in the 1st part that says we are to consume physically the flesh.

I always appreciate your thoughts, but Jesus teaches us elsewhere in the Bible that we are to take up our crosses and follow Him in Matt. 10:38 and Mark 8:34.

Does that mean that we are to carry a cross around all day so that people will see what we believe????

Albion · May 20, 2019

Major1 said:
There is nothing in the 1st part that says we are to consume physically the flesh.

But it has to have some meaning. Meanwhile, the second part is not negated by whatever the first part says to us. As a result, just about everyone of whatever denomination agrees to it.

concretecamper · May 20, 2019

Major1 said:
However, there is nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
That is strictly a RCC concoction

Mathias

Major1 said:
You said...…………."If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell."

No I didn't

Major1 said:
There is NO SUCH THING as an "Infallable Person

Jesus gave binding and loosening powers to Peter individually and to the Apostles collectively. So whatever is bound or loosened must be infallible....Jesus would not let a wrong be done since He is perfect Love and perfect justice.

Major1 said:
Again, I will agree with your comment. The Bible truth is that Man has absolutely NO ROLE in salvation

You're a funny guy. I said no such thing.

Major1 said:
You said..........."Rejecting God has consequences."

Yes I did...so?

Major1 said:
NOPE! That is a false statement. No one has to belong to a church to be a Christian. Being a Christian is not determined by church membership or attendance. We are Christians because we have trusted in Christ, not because of what we do in or out of a church. We attend because we are Christians. We don't attend to be Christians. Our Christian faith and our position before God, are not established by belonging to any particular church organization. Being a Christian is based on our faith in Christ not membership in a local church.

Being Christian is following Christ. Being Christian is being part of His Church. Being Christian is doing ALL He has commanded us to do.

Major1 said:
Again, I will agree with your comment. The Bible truth is that Man has absolutely NO ROLE in salvation and that would also include personal interpretation.
NONE. NADA, ZIP. There is not one Scripture properly divided that says otherwise. This is the truth.

The point is one can never read the Bible and still be saved. So dont mind OT if the rest of us put little stock in your interpretation of scripture.

Catholicism Is Hard

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Member of His Church

Similar threads