Aussie P
This is not a forum section you can criticise Catholic teaching.
On other matters study early church. As the first documents show, eucharist was not given to catechumens. They first had to appreciate it was the real body and blood. Also that it was only valid if presided by a bishop in succession. Read ignatiius to smyrneans: a disciple of John. So valid Eucharist can only be in the valid church that appoints apostolic successors - bishops. So speaks a disciple of John who clearly knew what the gospel of John means!
Since the first canons were rejected by the church at Rome , and the New Testament a product of the church you are on difficult ground to reject the Church physical. Indeed the bible says the “ pillar and foundation of truth is the CHURCH” “ the household of God” ie church physical
. Augustine lists the popes as authority against donatism, indeed acts refers to Peter an overwhelming number of times compared to others. The OT explains the role of “ keys of the kingdom” Jesus referred back to OT like this because he knew Jews of the day would look to OT for explanation. From abraham, moses etc, God appointed leaders in faith. It would be odd if he had not done the same AD, but he did! It is clear "do you love me" "tend my sheep" (said three times, to match Peters 3 denials)- Peter is appointed as leader/pastor . The keys demonstrates inheritable role. So Peter has primacy much as the other OT leaders.
The powers of pope and councils are given by Jesus to “ bind and loose” . The powers of a priest to “ forgive sins” or “ retain sins” is there , but clearly only God can do that , so clearly acts through priests and elsewhere the literal translation is “ forgive in the person of Christ”. Those verses are explicit forgiveness or retention. No other explanation satisfies.
so Catholicism is supported in scripture (so depends only on how you interpret those verses). The question then Is not of biblical support ,it is of authority to give definitive interpretation ( bind and loose) and hand down those meanings ( tradition). The bible answers both. Peter (and disciples acting together) the power to bind and loose.
Why do you suppose, Jesus left his church to disintegrate? In doctrinal terms it has not. In all essential ways it believes now what it did in the first century. Some explanation has evolved. The church as an acorn became an Oak. But the eucharist is the same as it has always been. Indeed the bible says "the gospel will be preached to the end of time". It doesnt mention a 1500 year gap the protestants suppose!
Protestants presume a power they don’t have to decide meaning of scripture. They have even mistranslated "tradition", which in reality means the faith handed down “paradosis”. It is not an addition to scripture. It explains scripture. Scripture has no definitive meaning without it. Scripture. Authority. Tradition are the three legs of a stool that falls over without any one of them.
All the Protestant divisions are the result of allowing all to adopt own meaning for scripture. But Only if you have the right meaning do you have the word of God. Without which all you have is words. Luther opened pandoras box with "sola scriptura" then lamented the monster he created saying "all the milkmaids now have their own doctrine". Thats the point. Luther didnt want to abolish the pope, he wanted to be pope. He used sola scriptura to get rid of the old pope, not realising the inevitable that it made all others pope over their own religions, and they stopped listening to him as well. We know this because even many Lutherans no longer believe what luther believed.
Even Calvin and Luther disagreed on many fundamentals. But they had lost the means to resolve them, so calvinists and lutherans went separate ways.
There is only one meaning of scripture. It was handed down by tradition. Such as iraneus ( against heresies) in the early church explain exactly what that entails.
here is not a place you can challenge catholic belief. I can only say you ARE a protestant, because you protest catholic belief, whether or not you are in one of the defined groups!
But its true, the spiritual outpourof emotion is not a normal part of catholic practice, but then what some find in outpouring, others find in quiet contemplation, or in gregorian chant.If it brings you closer to God, then it is good, however you do it! There are a lot of lukewarm box ticking catholics. They should not be!
I’ve suggested you listen to journey home. Discover the reasoning of hundreds of ministers and theologians came back to Rome as their arguments against Catholicism fell. You are free to make up your own mind.
The question on which it all resolves. If you think X, others think Y on a critical aspect of doctrine, where is authority to decide? Protestantism in all its forms has no means to resolve, so it fractures endlessly.
I can well understand why people reject protestantism. I refuse to be labelled anything but Christian. Many Protestant denominations have become stagnant and lifeless. However, I am unable to accept fundamental teachings of Catholicism. I do not accept that Peter was the first of a line of popes. I do not accept that a central organisation can control every church. I reject the concept of a priest standing in for Christ. How dare the "church" refuse to give the communion wine to a born again believer!
There are too many objections to mention. I had some dealings with the Catholic Charismatic movement in the 1970's. It was a blessed time in many ways, not least because the barriers were coming down. But the hierarchy put an end to it and the whole thing fizzled out.
The real lack of the Church generally, at least in the Western world, is spiritual life. Most Christians know that Lord Jesus is the Way and the Truth. Not so many know Him as The Life.
Each assembly should be independent. Disputes should be settled on the local level, as Paul advised the Corinthians. The Pope is not Moses and the Church is not Israel wandering through the wilderness.
