Posted on 01/16/2015 5:56:35 AM PST by metmom
You have very strong opinions that seem to lack any authority.
You must ignore history not to realize that the Church founded by Christ with His apostles has been around since the beginning and Jesus said he always be with us.
It is important to note that it is not the Church that determines truth; rather God communicates His truth through the Church. All believers are a part of the Church which, though one body, has many parts, and the many parts have different functions (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). The function of the Church's hierarchy is clearly shown in Scripture. Consider the following:
Peter and the council of Jerusalem, over which he presided, taught by the power of the Holy Spirit: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities…” (Acts 15:28).
All of the Churches were to abide by the decision: “As they (Paul and Timothy) traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decision reached by the Apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
Bishops were in authority over congregations: “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). The office of bishop is spoken of eight times in the New Testament.
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
When was your church established? Established by a man? How much of the Catholic Church teachings were adopted by your church? Are you allowed to accept some of the teachings of Jesus or do you just find or establish another church that supports your beliefs?
Your statement: “That means that everyone who has ever been baptized is saved...”
Jesus said that Baptism is necessary for salvation, not that Baptism assures salvation. One needs to lead a moral life and die without mortal sin. Our individual salvation is determined by Jesus upon our death.
Baptism by God’s grace forgives original sin and actual sin at the time of Baptism. Confession or Reconciliation forgives sins after Baptism.
Christ died for our sins and opened the opportunity for Heaven for those who believe in God and attempt to do God’s will on earth. We gain Heaven by God’s grace, but we can lose it by our actions and sins.
Then you either do not know the Word of God or selectively ignore it.
I have no desire to feel superior, but I want to spread the Truth and help all reach Heaven.
I have tried to answer questions honestly and from the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Your comment: “The authority of the RCC is not recognized on this FR forum as more valid than the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Well Jesus delegated His authority to the Catholic Church. Did you read and understand that part or do you selectively ignore it?
May God’s Peace be with you.
then why didn't HE go around baptizing and telling people that they were saved because they were baptized instead of by faith?
He told people that their faith had saved them.
Ritual cleansing of the body does not cleanse the conscience or the soul.
It doesn't say that without baptism there is no salvation. Without the shedding of blood, there is NO remission of sins. Baptism is NOT the shedding of blood.
Tell us where the term *Catholic church* is found in the Bible.
None of which can be supported in the least by Scripture.
It's all simply claimed by the Catholic church, which clearly isn't relying on Scripture for those teachings of its.
p> Your comment: “Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.”
>P Do you really want to understand the Word of God, or are you going to try to find small perceived discrepancies? Do you just quote the talking points so that you can distract from God’s word?
p>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:15-19).
>pWhen God gives someone a new name it signifies a new role. For example, He changed Abram to Abraham. Abraham means father of many nations, which is what Abraham became.
P> Peter means rock, which is what Peter became. The standard argument against this is that Peter in Greek is petros (πέτÏος), meaning pebble, and that rock is petra (πέτÏα), meaning mass of rock. Since Peter is a pebble he can’t be the rock.
p> Those who support this argument fail to take into account John 1:42: “Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas.’” The Apostle Paul refers to Peter as Cephas eight out of the ten times that he mentions him. Cephas is the transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha. Aramaic is the language that Jesus and His apostles spoke. KEPHA means ROCK the same as PETRA.
p>So why then is Peter called petros? Greek nouns are genderized. Petra is the feminine form of rock and it would have been improper to use it for a man’s name. Consequently the masculine form (petros) had to be used. Hence, the preservation of the original Aramaic by the apostles John and Paul.
p> Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
So calling names now because you do not understand the Word of God and the authority that he gave to the Catholic Church.
You make accusations without any documentation
So do reject Jesus as a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church? There has been no proof as you claim. Perhaps you should read the whole chapter or ask a priest to help you understand the words.
The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19).
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com
Taking one line of Scripture and willfully twisting it to mean only the pre-conceived idea of the reader/hearer is what makes many different cults, of which the RCC is a large one in temporal power, riches of art, property holdings, and members’ souls.
The myths and flagrant lies RCC members have chosen to believe will not be transubstantiated into Truth no matter who or how many times you pray or attend mass or partake of the eucharist.
You would do well to reconsider the veracity of your chosen religion.
When was your church founded? By whom?
I do not recognize the authority of Clement of Rome over the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Clement of Rome must have been a Roman catholic. I am not and recommend you re-examine the false and confused teachings of the RCC at large, in toto, and seek Jesus Christ and Him alone...no other Door is available or ever will be.
It’s written in the Holy Bible, especially the New Testament. There is no excuse for not reading and believing the actual Word of God (as opposed to the myths of man) when it is plainly translated into English
I don’t know why the Catholic Church or her teachings upsets you?
You are making false statements about the Catholic Church.
Here is scientific evidence of Transubtantiation:
YoWARSAW, POLAND (Catholic Online) — Catholics in Poland gathered on Sunday to celebrate what is believed to be a possible eucharistic miracle which began as a result of a dropped consecrated host in 2008.
Three years ago during the Liturgy of the Mass in the eastern Polish town of Sokolka, a consecrated host was accidentally dropped on the floor by the priest who was distributing Holy Communion to the faithful. The consecrated host was then carefully placed in water in order to allow it to dissolve. However, several days later a nun discovered that the host remained undissolved. On her further inspection of the consecrated host, she noticed a distinctive red mark on it.
According to an Associated Press report, “Two medical doctors determined that the spot was heart muscle tissue, church officials have said.”
Archbishop Edward Ozorowski reminded the faithful present during Mass that, in history, the “substance of Christ’s body or blood has become available to the human senses, and this also happened in Sokolka.”
The Eucharist was displayed in a reliquary during a procession by the town priest while about 1000 of the faithful were present.
A- A A+ http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/physician-tells-of-eucharistic-miracle-of-lanciano
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Edoardo Linoli Verified Authenticity of the Phenomenon
TweetMay 05, 2005 | 32290 hits
ROME, MAY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.
The phenomenon dates back to the eighth century. A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano.
When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood.
Later the blood coagulated and the flesh remained the same. These relics were kept in the cathedral.
Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, is the only doctor who has analyzed the relics of the miracle of Lanciano. His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world.
At the initiative of Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, and of the provincial minister of the Franciscan Conventuals of Abruzzo, and with authorization from Rome, in November 1970 the Franciscans of Lanciano decided to have the relics examined scientifically.
Linoli was entrusted with the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.
Linoli extracted parts of the relics with great care and then analyzed the remains of “miraculous flesh and blood.” He presented his findings on March 4, 1971.
His study confirmed that the flesh and blood were of human origin. The flesh was unequivocally cardiac tissue, and the blood was of type AB.
Consulted by ZENIT, Linoli explained that “as regards the flesh, I had in my hand the endocardium. Therefore, there is no doubt at all that it is cardiac tissue.”
In regard to the blood, the scientist emphasized that “the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions.”
“The AB blood group of the inhabitants of the area in fact has a percentage that extends from 0.5% to 1%, while in Palestine and the regions of the Middle East it is 14-15%,” Linoli said.
Linoli’s analysis revealed no traces of preservatives in the elements, meaning that the blood could not have been extracted from a corpse, because it would have been rapidly altered.
Linoli’s report was published in “Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori” in 1971.
In 1973, the Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to verify the Italian doctor’s conclusions. The work was carried out over 15 months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy.
Now do you believe the words of Jesus?
In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus promised to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. To those of us who profess belief in Christ in the twentieth century, the thought that Jesus would become for us actual food and thereby enter into us to provide nourishment and refreshment to our soul is a wonderfully consoling thought. For those Christians who profess the faith of the Catholic Church, this thought is much more than mere consolation, it is the core belief of Catholics regarding their encounter with Christ in the action termed Holy Communion.
Pope Clement was granted authority by Jesus.
Your authority is yourself and you do not have God’s protection that was given to the Catholic Church to not err in matters of faith. Otherwise, there would be a triumph of the powers of Hell.
Since the successors of Peter have the same authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation that is, in faith or morals. If a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that Peter’s power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power.
Vatican I clarified what was at that time a confusing issue, but did so by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope is in fact infallible the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can never be changed because it is certainly true.
Jeffrey A. Mirus holds a Ph.D. in History of Theology
On the day of Pentecost by Jesus.
That was the Catholic Church with Peter as the Pope.
What was the name of your church again?
So you ignore Peter and the authority that Jesus gave him and his successors? So if you reject Peter, you reject Christ. (Another statement by Jesus)
A heretic of gnostic church?
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
I am sorry to hear that. I have friends that are baptized Catholic, but gave up their faith and have died. It bothers me. I am sure that there are some Catholics that did not make it to Heaven. We all have the ability to follow God’s will - it is our choice. Again, God is the judge, not us.
The Catholic Church has both saints and sinners, but why do the teachings upset you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.