Catholicism Is Hard

concretecamper · May 20, 2019

Major1 said:
. Do this in remembrance of me.

Homework assignment....research exactly what that statement meant to the Jews of the OT. Hint: Think Passover

WebersHome · May 20, 2019

.

concretecamper said:
Being Christian is following Christ.

Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In other words: they don't have to put Christ's teachings into practice; they only have to profess belief in them.

Nor do they even have to know what Christ's teachings are. They only have to profess belief in them.

I'd be content if everybody accepted Webster's definition. It would cut out all the squabbling over who's a true Christian and who isn't.
_

Albion · May 20, 2019

WebersHome said:
.
Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That's right.

In other words: they don't have to put Christ's teachings into practice; they only have to profess belief in them.

And that is right, too. This would make them insincere Christians or poor Christians or perhaps only nominal Christians, but not non-Christians.

Shimokita · 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.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I would say that I have noticed a good deal of "pride of ownership" among Catholics, both converts and cradle Catholics. Definitely I have noticed pride of being in the "right" church among Catholics (and myself) that is unhealthy. Really, the belief should be a source of humility and gratitude more than anything.

But I think it goes both ways. It seems that a lot of the Catholic bashing that occurs on this site is essentially a form of pride of ownership as well. There is a basic human tendency to find an "other" to demonize, or to contrast oneself to boost one's ego, and I think that the Catholic Church serves this role for many non-Catholic Christians. Although nobody here will admit it, it seems rather apparent that many Christians on here get a kick about stating how they "trust in Jesus alone" and contrasting themselves to those Catholics who are "like the Pharisees trying to earn their way into heaven" or what have you. It often strikes me as pride and boosting one's ego, or demonizing us, rather than anyone actually having a genuine concern for us.

Shimokita · May 20, 2019

WebersHome said:
.
Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16: If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

I used to think my chances of making it to Heaven were better than ordinary people because I was a Catholic. But in point of fact, my chances were worse because since I was a professing Catholic, then God would be holding me accountable to comply with 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 the New Testament.

That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.

And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with just one non-absolved mortal sin on the books, just one, they go straight to hell. It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if they've been a faithful Catholic for fifty years, none of that will count. Mortal sins are that lethal.
_

Sometimes I have found the Catholic way of life difficult, sometimes I have found it remarkably easy. I think it has a lot to do with one's relationship with our Lord, and relying on him to work wonders in your life, rather than trying to do everything by one's own power. As Scripture Sacred Scripture states, literally without Jesus we can do nothing, but with God anything is possible. We can't believe and do everything that the Church asks of us by our own power, but if we ask God to help us, the grace that he gives us is more than enough.

Shimokita · May 20, 2019

Major1 said:
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".

Do the “properly divided” folks have a chart or an Excel spreadsheet that lists the verses in the Bible that apply to Christians, and those that do not? My understanding is that you would not hold the Sermon on the Mount to apply to Christians?

tz620q · May 21, 2019

WebersHome said:
.

Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In other words: they don't have to put Christ's teachings into practice; they only have to profess belief in them.

Nor do they even have to know what Christ's teachings are. They only have to profess belief in them.

I'd be content if everybody accepted Webster's definition. It would cut out all the squabbling over who's a true Christian and who isn't.
_

I think G.K. Chesterton answered your OP more than a hundred years ago with this quote from "What's Wrong with the World"
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

and for good measure:

“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”

“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”

“There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past.”

concretecamper · May 21, 2019

WebersHome said:
.

Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In other words: they don't have to put Christ's teachings into practice; they only have to profess belief in them.

Nor do they even have to know what Christ's teachings are. They only have to profess belief in them.

I'd be content if everybody accepted Webster's definition. It would cut out all the squabbling over who's a true Christian and who isn't.
_

A grammar lesson is in order.

"Being" Christian requires an action. I am BEING kind, I am BEING unkind.

I am being Christian by following Christ.

Enough said.....

Albion · May 21, 2019

Shimokita said:
But I think it goes both ways. It seems that a lot of the Catholic bashing that occurs on this site is essentially a form of pride of ownership as well. There is a basic human tendency to find an "other" to demonize, or to contrast oneself to boost one's ego, and I think that the Catholic Church serves this role for many non-Catholic Christians.

Interestingly enough, that is one of the elements in the "pride of ownership" (in the "only true church" line of thinking) that I omitted from my post. The idea is supposed to be that because WE ARE the only genuine church, the one that Christ himself founded, etc. etc. everybody else must be envious of our unique standing, etc.

Have you noticed that there is almost no other Christian church, except perhaps for some cults, that inculcates in its members the idea that the whole world is out to get them--no other denomination, but just the Catholic Church? It is as though its an article of faith.

But do you ever see on these forums someone posting that everybody is out to defame or demonize us Presbyterians (or Methodists, etc.)!? Well, no.

Although nobody here will admit it, it seems rather apparent that many Christians on here get a kick about stating how they "trust in Jesus alone" and contrasting themselves to those Catholics who are "like the Pharisees trying to earn their way into heaven" or what have you. It often strikes me as pride and boosting one's ego, or demonizing us, rather than anyone actually having a genuine concern for us.

Uh huh

WebersHome · May 21, 2019

.

concretecamper said:
"Being" Christian requires an action.

Webster's has quite a few definitions for "being". Several have to do with existence rather than action.
_

Fidelibus · May 21, 2019

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

Say's who?

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.

Will come back to these passages later

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.

Again..... Say's who?

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.

Intresting observations. However, will you agree that everything you said above in regards to Rev.20:12-13 could be in error because it is based on your fallible interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no?

Major1 · May 21, 2019

James Murphy said:
This will certainly be news to the Orthodox.

1 John 5:17 "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death." Just sayin'.....

James, thanks for the reply and all I can say to those who are Orthodox is to post the Scriptures that say there is such a thing as "Apostolic Succession".

I am open to be taught if there is such a Scripture.

"The "sin that leads to death" is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament to interpret.
I would be interested in your imput.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

Shimokita said:
Do the “properly divided” folks have a chart or an Excel spreadsheet that lists the verses in the Bible that apply to Christians, and those that do not? My understanding is that you would not hold the Sermon on the Mount to apply to Christians?

That is an excellent question.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

Shimokita said:
Do the “properly divided” folks have a chart or an Excel spreadsheet that lists the verses in the Bible that apply to Christians, and those that do not? My understanding is that you would not hold the Sermon on the Mount to apply to Christians?

One of the great failures of ALL Christians is the process of "Cherry Picking" Scriptures. Some people look for Scriptures which support their agenda and ignore all the others which condemn it.

Some call that "Cafeteria Christianity".

Some things are not for Christians today. Many things were written to a specific place or people at a specific time.

Of course, the Sermon on the Mount is part of God’s Word, and as such, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So, indeed, is the Law of Sinai, and the rest of the Scriptures, but that does not prevent our drawing dispensational differences, and holding that certain parts do not apply to us primarily or directly.

The law is not the Christian’s rule of life, for we are told again and again that we have died to the law. It would then be difficult to assert that the Sermon on the Mount, which is the quintessence of the law, is the Christian rule of life.
Does the Sermon on the Mount apply to us today?

Concord1968 · May 21, 2019

Major1 said:
James, thanks for the reply and all I can say to those who are Orthodox is to post the Scriptures that say there is such a thing as "Apostolic Succession".

I am open to be taught if there is such a Scripture.

"The "sin that leads to death" is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament to interpret.
I would be interested in your imput.

The point was that apostolic succession isn't the sole province of the RCC as you indicated: The Orthodox hold to the doctrine just as much as the Catholics do.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

concretecamper said:
Homework assignment....research exactly what that statement meant to the Jews of the OT. Hint: Think Passover

It is always a blessing to read your comments. I wonder what the Bible says about this???????

1 Corth. 5:7........
"Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. "

Instead of a "hint", I will give you a Bible FACT...………

In the Scripture above, the Bible says believers have symbolically applied the sacrificial blood of Christ to their hearts and thus have escaped eternal death. Just as the Passover lamb’s applied blood caused the “destroyer” to pass over each household, Christ’s applied blood causes God’s judgment to pass over sinners and gives life to believers as recorded in Romans 6:23.

As the first Passover marked the Hebrews’ release from Egyptian slavery, so the death of Christ marks our release from the slavery of sin which is seen in Romans 8:2. As the first Passover was to be held in remembrance as an annual feast, so Christians are to memorialize the Lord’s death in communion until He returns and that is exactly what is stated in 1 Corthg, 11:26...……
"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the LORD's death until he comes."

The Old Testament Passover lamb, although a reality in that time, was a mere foreshadowing of the better and final Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

James Murphy said:
The point was that apostolic succession isn't the sole province of the RCC as you indicated: The Orthodox hold to the doctrine just as much as the Catholics do.

Oh, yes...I completely agree with you.

Albion · May 21, 2019

Major1 said:
Oh, yes...I completely agree with you.

The Mormons, 7th Day Adventists and Assembly of God teach it as well.

No, they don't. None of these do.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

Albion said:
No, they don't. None of these do.

Thankk you, my mistake. I should not have had that 3rd cup of coffee.

Major1 · May 21, 2019

concretecamper said:
Mathias

No I didn't

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.

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

Yes I did...so?

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

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.

The Bible says that Mithais was a "Replacement", not a successor.

Your exact words in post #31 were...…………….
"If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell."

As for binding and loosening...………
(Church at Home “Binding” and “Loosing” in the New Testament)

"The Roman Catholic Church claims that Jesus gave to the apostle Peter and his future successors the powers of binding and loosing so that whatever they would bind or loose on earth, would be bound or loosed in heaven. They further contend that this authority grants an infallible pope the power to bind and loose contrary to the Word of God—thus making the Word of God void—and that this authority was given to Peter by Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. However, an exegetical study of the Greek does not support such claims.

In Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, William D. Mounce gives a clear and insightful explanation of the underlying Greek text showing that what Jesus taught is entirely different from what many religious authorities assume, teach and practice. He writes...………..
“In some translations of Matthew [16:19 and] 18:18, it sounds like Jesus promised his disciples that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. In other words, they had the power to bind and loose, and Heaven (i.e. God) would simply back up their decrees. But the matter is not quite so simple; the actions described in heaven are future perfect passives—which could be translated ‘will have already been bound in heaven … will have already been loosed in heaven.’ In other words, the heavenly decree confirming the earthly one is based on a prior verdict [God had already made—“Forever, O LORD , Your word is settled in the heavens” (Psa. 119:89).]

Catholicism Is Hard

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

LCMS Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads