I want to understand the Catholic faith so....

[LonelyPilgrim]

It is no mere misunderstanding, and you trying to characterize it as such seems deceptive. Not only that, you have clearly misrepresented what he actually said, so you in fact are lying also. Have you taken Epostle to task for every time he has accused others here of lying? You simply show your prejudice against those who speak the truth by telling more lies.

I admit I have not read the whole thread, and I am not defending anything else Mr. epostle has said -- only the words I cited. I don't know the man or what kind of person he is -- but I know that in this regard, in clarifying the truth of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, what he says is true. I have no "prejudice against those who speak the truth". If by that you mean non-Catholics, in fact, most of my family and loved ones are non-Catholic and I love them and embrace them without the sort of rancor I am finding here. Your readiness to accuse me of lying also demonstrates that it's you have the prejudice.

 

[Magenta]

I admit I have not read the whole thread, and I am not defending anything else Mr. epostle has said -- only the words I cited. I don't know the man or what kind of person he is -- but I know that in this regard, in clarifying the truth of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, what he says is true. I have no "prejudice against those who speak the truth". If by that you mean non-Catholics, in fact, most of my family and loved ones are non-Catholic and I love them and embrace them without the sort of rancor I am finding here. Your readiness to accuse me of lying also demonstrates that it's you have the prejudice.

But you clearly lied by blatantly misrepresenting what the other person said in your haste to defend them and condemn others, even not knowing how often he has called others liars either directly or indirectly. You need not have read the whole thread to see what was being said in that ONE post, which I conveniently included for you to see your error, which you have refused to acknowledge.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

* Division
* Personal meals
* Getting drunk

Above are the reasons listed as to what Paul was speaking about in partaking in an unworthy manner. What people have done is to add to that, siting their need to examine themselves for sin, which is not what Paul is talking about. We are all sinners! If anyone says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. Now if a person has gone back living according to the sinful nature, then it would be good idea to repent and return to the Lord before partaking in the breaking of bread. But if they were in that state I don't believe that breaking break would be on their agenda anyways. But for those who are in Christ, we are all sinners covered by the blood of Christ. Let me put it this way, after examining yourself for sin, do you come to the conclusion that you have none? If you do, then I would say that if anything, that would be partaking in an unworthy manner. The whole purpose of breaking the bread is to remember Christ's body that was broken for us "by his wounds you were healed." And partaking of the cup is done in remembrance of his blood that was shed in payment for our sins. Therefore, to examine yourself and to conclude that you are without sin is in opposition to partaking of this.

We need to stick with the details of the scripture and stop adding our own details. People do the same thing in regards to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by ignoring the reason that scripture gives us as the reason for this sin and turning it into something that it's not. If people gather together for the sole purpose of breaking bread in remembrance of Christ's body and drink of the cup in remembrance of his blood, then that is the proper manner in which to partake in it.

Mr. Ahwatukee, you are creating a false dichotomy -- and glossing over a real one. No, Paul says nothing about anyone being "without sin" -- neither did I. Yes, we are all sinners! But the very verse you cite in 1 John makes a real distinction between being a sinner and having sin in our lives:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8–10)
​

Yes, we are sinners! But if we have sinned, our sins must be forgiven! If we have unrighteousness in our lives, the Lord will cleanse us from all of it, if we but confess it! Protestants (and I speak from experience) tend to gloss over this necessity and claim (unbiblically) that "all our sins are covered," that there is never the need even to ask forgiveness. I say with all honesty, after 30+ years as a Protestant, that I don't even know where this idea comes from. Scripture teaches, again and again, that we must ask forgiveness for our sins.


Back to the passage of Paul. Yes, none of us is without sin; but as John teaches, we must confess it and ask forgiveness. This creates a real distinction between the one who is simply a sinner, prone to sinning, and the one who has actually sinned and not been "cleansed from all unrighteousness." You yourself admit the difference: between the one living the life of grace and the one who has gone back to actively and unrepentantly sinning. You are quite naive if you believe that for those actively sinning, partaking in Communion "wouldn't be on their agenda." Look only to the Catholic Church, where confessing sins before Communion is required, and to the pro-abortion politicians and active homosexuals who nonetheless present themselves for Communion every week. Would you say that these people are partaking "in a worthy manner"?

Yes, when we examine ourselves before Communion -- and this is what I was taught as a Protestant also, from my earliest childhood -- we do not consider whether we are not sinners; we examine whether we have sinned and not asked for forgiveness for it. And if we have, we do ask for forgiveness, and are therefore cleansed from all unrighteousness -- and not uniting the body of our Lord with a prostitute.

 

[Magenta]

One more thing: Catholics don't make judgments on the state of a persons soul no matter who they are or what they have done. We leave those judgments up to God, but some prot cults have taken on that job for themselves.

Another Catholic lie. You (RCC) baptize babies because you believe their soul is contaminated with original sin and that to baptize them removes the stain.

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (CCC 1250).

The RCC, quite contrary to what epostle said, makes judgements on the state of a person's soul. This is clearly seen by the "sacrament" of infant baptism, because the RCC has made a judgement about the souls of ALL babies.

Here we can see another judgement on the state of someone's soul, straight from the RCC. I do not make this stuff up.

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

 

[Ahwatukee]

we examine whether we have sinned and not asked for forgiveness for it.

Though I agree that when we sin we do confess and ask for forgiveness and that should be included in our daily prayers. But this is not what Paul is talking about here in this passage by not partaking in a worthy manner. Did Paul mention the above anywhere in his letter? No, he did not. This is what I am talking about when people begin to add details to things that are not there. Read the scripture and you will find out what Paul was talking about in regards to partaking unworthily. He was speaking of them partaking in the breaking of bread with a wrong motive.

 

[Magenta]

This is what I am talking about when people begin to add details to things that are not there.

For the most part, Catholics are incapable of accepting what Scripture plainly states because they have been brought up in an institution that teaches them heresies from the time they are small children. The revealed written Word of God means less to them than the traditions of man, and they repeatedly reject the former in their preference for defending the latter. It is very sad that they have exchanged the Truth of God for the errors and lies of men.

 

[Teenadreams]

Hello, I am new to this site and while I was trying to figure out how to use it I came across your post. I'll be completely honest with you, I joined this group in hopes that someone could educate me a little more on Christ and answer some questions I have. That being said I will start off by saying I attended a Catholic school and I have recently joined a Catholic Church. I didn't know that there was a big difference between Christians and Catholics, but after reading some of these comments I am eager to know what the difference is.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Hello, I am new to this site and while I was trying to figure out how to use it I came across your post. I'll be completely honest with you, I joined this group in hopes that someone could educate me a little more on Christ and answer some questions I have. That being said I will start off by saying I attended a Catholic school and I have recently joined a Catholic Church. I didn't know that there was a big difference between Christians and Catholics, but after reading some of these comments I am eager to know what the difference is.

Ms. Teenadreams, Catholics are Christians -- let no one tell you otherwise! The Catholic Church is one of the two churches that have legitimate, historical claims to being the original Christian Church, the other being the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Catholic and Orthodox churches were the same church until the 11th century, at which time they split. Protestantism, the faith of most of the people here, was not founded until the 16th century by Martin Luther and others. There are many thousands of distinct denominations of Protestantism.

All of these churches are now divided from other another; we have failed Jesus's prayer that "we all might be one" (John 17:21). I was raised a Protestant and spent 30+ years in Protestant churches. Through careful study and prayer, I've found the Catholic Church to be the original one and the one to most truly preserve the faith of Jesus Christ as it was handed to His Apostles. This can be studied and examined: the writings of the earliest Christians, whom we call the Church Fathers, are still available for us to read.

That being said, I believe -- and the Catholic Church believes -- that our separated brethren, the Protestants, still hold on to important elements of the truth. We all have faith in and confess the same Lord Jesus Christ; we all trust in His grace and mercy and forgiveness for our salvation; we all hope in His Resurrection and eternal life. We all adhere and study the same Bible, and have a common heritage. We are all Christians. Because of doctrinal disagreements, many Protestants will tell you that Catholics are not Christians; many Protestants likewise will also tell you that only certain denominations of Protestantism are "true" Christians and the rest are not. I believe that anyone who confesses the Lordship of Jesus and has faith in His gospel of grace can legitimately be called a Christian. As for where you belong to best be a Christian and serve the Lord -- I believe you're already in the best place. But I would encourage you to pray and study and learn all you can about the various Christian denominations and about Christian history. Read the Bible; read the Church Fathers and Protestant and Catholic writers to see who best puts the truths of the Bible and the Christian faith into practice. One of the best resources for learning about the Catholic Church is Catholic.com. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer!

This thread is full of a lot of prejudice and a lot of vitriol, but don't let that discourage you or blind you. The Lord Jesus loves you and wants to save you! His grace works in a lot of different places; He transcends our petty human divisions. I will pray that you find Him and He finds you and brings you to the place in His Body where you are supposed to be. May His grace and His peace be with you!

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Though I agree that when we sin we do confess and ask for forgiveness and that should be included in our daily prayers. But this is not what Paul is talking about here in this passage by not partaking in a worthy manner. Did Paul mention the above anywhere in his letter? No, he did not. This is what I am talking about when people begin to add details to things that are not there. Read the scripture and you will find out what Paul was talking about in regards to partaking unworthily. He was speaking of them partaking in the breaking of bread with a wrong motive.

You suggest that I am "adding" something to Scripture; I would say by the same token that you are taking something away: ignoring the necessary context and understanding of the whole of Scripture. No, Paul did not say explicitly, in this passage, that we needed to confess our sins before partaking of the Lord's Communion. But he says that when we partake, we should examine ourselves (for what?); that we should judge ourselves (why?), for things by which we would otherwise "be condemned along with the world." He says elsewhere in the same letter that to actively engage in sin is to "unite the members of the Body of Christ with a prostitute," while at the same time we are uniting ourselves to Christ and sharing in His Body. The bottom line: We have a difference opinion here, and it is clear we will not resolve it. But my view is the view most Christian churches (I can speak with experience of Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Disciples of Christ, and a good many others) teach.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

For the most part, Catholics are incapable of accepting what Scripture plainly states because they have been brought up in an institution that teaches them heresies from the time they are small children. The revealed written Word of God means less to them than the traditions of man, and they repeatedly reject the former in their preference for defending the latter. It is very sad that they have exchanged the Truth of God for the errors and lies of men.

Ms. Magenta, I was raised as a Protestant by devout and loving parents and spent more than 30 years of my life as a faithful Protestant. I have been an ardent student of Scripture since the time I was old enough to read. I was not brought up in the Catholic Church or taught "heresies" or any other such. So your charges and prejudices here are empty: The Word of God in Scripture is of the utmost importance to me; in fact, my study and my devotion to Scripture are exactly why I became Catholic: because the Catholic Church alone embraces the fullness of the truth of Scripture. I will defend the truth of any Catholic doctrine from the Scriptures themselves. You are very keen to condemn others and make accusations, but in doing so you belie the very mercy and love you proclaim in your tagline. May the grace and peace of the Lord be with you!

 

[Ahwatukee]

Ms. Teenadreams, Catholics are Christians -- let no one tell you otherwise!

While I agree that there are people within the RCC that belong to God, for he is calling them to come out of her, the RCC itself is the mother of all prostitutes. There is nothing about the RCC that is of Christ, but she is thoroughly pagan with all of her rituals and practices. I'm not saying this to be a hater or argumentative, but just stating the facts as one discerning the truth, for the RCC is not the church of Christ as she proclaims to be. And when that antichrist appears, then he will afford the RCC and the papal seat with the power and authority that she claims is hers and then the inhabitants of the earth will see her true colors. For she thinks herself to be mother church and that all people must be accountable to her or suffer the consequences, which she will enforce during those times, just like she did during the inquisitions and the times of her control over kings and their armies at the threat of excommunication and/or anathema. Because God is calling his people to come out of her, I pray for them daily, as should we all. But as far as the institution of the RCC, she is that counterfeit church who is unfaithful to Christ, while posing as His true follower. And if you don't believe that, just wait until one of the future popes instructs all of Catholicism and the world to receive that coming mark of the beast, which he will be false prophet to.

 

[GaryA]

I should count the number of times I've posted this.

Please stop posting it -- it is incorrect...


This is a more correct representation of what the wording in this passage is referring to:


2 Timothy 3:

[SUP]14[/SUP] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned { New Testament teaching of Christ } and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them { the Apostles; i.e. - those directly commissioned by Jesus Himself } ; [SUP]15[/SUP] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures { Old Testament teaching about Christ } , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [SUP]16[/SUP] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [SUP]17[/SUP] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


In the context of this passage, the phrase 'the things which thou hast learned' is referring to the doctrine / teaching of Christ that Timothy had been taught that was later written as New Testament scripture -- nothing is included here - suggested, or referred to - that was not included in New Testament scripture.

There is no 'tradition' ( where 'the things which thou hast learned' is concerned ) outside of the doctrine / teaching of Christ.

The "sense and tense" of the phrase 'knowing of whom thou hast learned them' is a validation of the doctrine / teaching referred to in the first part of the sentence -- it is a "one-time, one-shot" reference. It is not - and, does not constitute - a continually-existing organizational entity which is to conduct rulings that "make" doctrine. Grammatically speaking - and, in the context of the passage - it is not [ in-of-itself ] indicated to be a source of teaching ( in any sense of continual progression - please understand the context of what I am attempting to convey here ).

There is no "Magisterium" -- only the doctrine / teaching of Christ.



The focus is on the doctrine / teaching of Christ.



So -- what you are left with - as valid sources - for the sake of teaching:

~ Old Testament scripture
~ New Testament scripture

"That is it! That is all!"


And -- no one is given permission by this passage to "make" doctrine.

 

[epostle]

1 Cor. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.
30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.

How does partaking unworthily, potentially make you "weak and sickly" if It is just a symbol?

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

While I agree that there are people within the RCC that belong to God, for he is calling them to come out of her, the RCC itself is the mother of all prostitutes. There is nothing about the RCC that is of Christ, but she is thoroughly pagan with all of her rituals and practices. I'm not saying this to be a hater or argumentative, but just stating the facts as one discerning the truth, for the RCC is not the church of Christ as she proclaims to be. And when that antichrist appears, then he will afford the RCC and the papal seat with the power and authority that she claims is hers and then the inhabitants of the earth will see her true colors. For she thinks herself to be mother church and that all people must be accountable to her or suffer the consequences, which she will enforce during those times, just like she did during the inquisitions and the times of her control over kings and their armies at the threat of excommunication and/or anathema. Because God is calling his people to come out of her, I pray for them daily, as should we all. But as far as the institution of the RCC, she is that counterfeit church who is unfaithful to Christ, while posing as His true follower. And if you don't believe that, just wait until one of the future popes instructs all of Catholicism and the world to receive that coming mark of the beast, which he will be false prophet to.

Sir, if you are not saying these things to be a "hater" -- please help me to find one factual statement in your post. You've stated nothing but opinion, prejudice, unsupported apocalyptic doomsaying, and unfounded condemnation without evidence.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

In the context of this passage, the phrase 'the things which thou hast learned' is referring to the doctrine / teaching of Christ that Timothy had been taught that was later written as New Testament scripture -- nothing is included here - suggested, or referred to - that was not included in New Testament scripture.

You are making a rather broad assumption here, are you not? What scriptural evidence do you have that everything Timothy was taught was later written in Scripture? Paul makes no reference to such things at all, so you are just as guilty of reading your own assumptions in the passages as you accuse others. On the contrary, Paul himself tells us that we should "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) -- both that which was spoken and that which was written. Paul tells Timothy, in his very last letter, that he should teach to others "that which you have heard from me before many witnesses" (2 Timothy 2:2) -- not which he wrote. If everything Paul had to say had been written down, there would have been no need to pass on such oral teaching.

Your interpretation of the above passage actually supports the Catholic understanding of Tradition: Timothy learned the teaching of Christ not from written Scripture (for the New Testament had not yet been written), but from the oral teaching of those to whom the truth had been imparted, the Apostles, most of all Paul himself. Paul instructs Timothy to continue teaching these very words "to faithful men who can teach others." This handing on of teaching, in fact, is what the word "tradition" means.

There is no 'tradition' ( where 'the things which thou hast learned' is concerned ) outside of the doctrine / teaching of Christ.

You are quite right. The Tradition which has been handed down, as Scripture itself instructs, is the doctrine of Christ, the very words the Lord gave the Apostles and they handed down to their disciples.

The "sense and tense" of the phrase 'knowing of whom thou hast learned them' is a validation of the doctrine / teaching referred to in the first part of the sentence -- it is a "one-time, one-shot" reference. It is not - and, does not constitute - a continually-existing organizational entity which is to conduct rulings that "make" doctrine. Grammatically speaking - and, in the context of the passage - it is not [ in-of-itself ] indicated to be a source of teaching ( in any sense of continual progression - please understand the context of what I am attempting to convey here ).

Yes, you are quite right. Revelation is closed. Tradition, just as Scripture, is a "one-time, one-shot" body of knowledge that cannot be added to or changed. What Jesus taught the Apostles and what the Apostles knew and taught and handed on is the Sacred Tradition of which the Catholic Church speaks.

There is no "Magisterium" -- only the doctrine / teaching of Christ.

Again, you are quite right. The "magisterium" is simply the teaching authority of the Church of Christ, the authority that Christ imparts to his ministers (cf. Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Timothy 4:13, etc.) to teach the very doctrine of which you speak.

The focus is on the doctrine / teaching of Christ.

Indeed.

And -- no one is given permission by this passage to "make" doctrine.

You are quite right. And no one does.

 

[GaryA]

The truth is there is NO intercessor between the God the Father and us EXCEPT Jesus Christ. The curtain has been torn, we don't NEED a priest, we can go directly to Jesus, AND ONLY Jesus, to be cleansed of sin.

"A slight correction..."

[ The Bible teaches... ]

Anyone who is a born-again Christian is their own priest - and can go directly to the Father -- because of Jesus.

The only other-than-themselves priest a born-again Christian needs is the High Priest -- Jesus Himself.

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: and this words are also according to saulo este pablo or paul
:read:
2 Corinthians: 1. 12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
13. For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
14. As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.
15. And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit;

God bless us all always


:ty:

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

[ The Bible teaches... ] Anyone who is a born-again Christian is their own priest - and can go directly to the Father -- because of Jesus.

In fact, no, the Bible doesn't teach this, "that any Christian is [his] own priest." If this were the case, then why was there a need for Christian ministers and teachers, the Apostles and the elders and bishops they appointed? There are certainly duties in the bodies of Christ for Christian ministers, for shepherds for His flock, that they should obey (cf. Hebrews 13:17). While it is quite true that Jesus opened the way for all Christians to have a personal relationship with the follower, that does not abrogate the need for Christian ministers or the necessary duties that they perform in the Body.

 

[ukok102nak]

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? Is a young child really culpable for an offense -- is it a sin -- if he or she didn't understand it was wrong? Do you hold it against your own child? Most Christians I know (not just Catholics) would agree that children reach an age of reason at which they appreciate the difference between right and wrong -- but before then, if they don't have such moral consciousness, they are not capable of sin.

:smoke: then it was settled as it coming from you my brother
if they don't have such moral consciousness, they are not capable of sin.

then what about those
mentaly retarded people (are this words fit to call them)
are they view as a sinners too? :hrmm:

:happy: remember how a person begins to accept the baptism my brother
:read:
Acts: 8. 32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

:now: did the apostles baptised any children during their time?
please dont think anything about this questions for as a
former catholic such as me
would like to know also the truth about catholic doctrine which
most of catholics now are still longing to learn the truth about them :disco:


God bless us all always



:ty:

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

:smoke: then it was settled as it coming from you my brother
if they don't have such moral consciousness, they are not capable of sin.
then what about those
mentaly retarded people (are this words fit to call them)
are they view as a sinners too? :hrmm:

No, neither infants nor mentally retarded people without the ability to tell right from wrong are capable of sin.

:now: did the apostles baptised any children during their time?

Scripture is not explicit about it, but it does tell us that Paul baptized entire families and households (Acts 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:16, etc.). A "household," especially in the ancient world, generally included all children and even servants. Jesus said that even the youngest children (the Greek word used here means "newborns") should be brought to Him and not hindered (Luke 18:15-17). We have testimony from the very earliest of the Church Fathers (cf. Irenaeus of Lyon; the Apostolic Constitutions) that the Apostles did baptize children.

God bless you too!