The Catholic Church.

[GodsGrace]

Being "Born Again" refers to the expression found in John 3:3 where Nicodemus comes to Jesus privately and says "we know that God is with you because of the signs you perform". Jesus answers and says "amen, nobody can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again". What was He referring to? The fact that the kingdom of heaven is spiritual (John 4:24).

Jesus tells Nicodemus that because he is looking at the carnal and not the spiritual, he is only able to see the signs and wonders. He is telling Nicodemus that nobody can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, because "spirit give birth to spirit".

In order for a person to be born of the spirit, they must allow the word of the spirit to take root in them (John 6:63, Matthew 13:8-9; 19). Therefore it is the Word of the spirit that gives life.

Baptism is a performance in the physical, but it is evidence of the changed heart and a decision to devote ones self to Christ. That change comes only when someone has heard and received the life-giving words of The Holy Spirit:


1 Peter 3:21, YLT

Why did you post 1 Peter 3:21?

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Are you saying ONLY baptism saves us?

 

[WIP]

Here is the current teaching of the CC on non-Catholics:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

source: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992

This is one of the things I find confusing about the Catholic church. The Catechism teaches that all Christians, whether members of the CC or not, are in communion and yet, they claim we are not in full communion and therefore not qualified to share in Holy Communion. I question the CC and other denominations that adhere to this. Was Holy Communion instituted by the denomination or Christ?

 

[jaybo]

This is one of the things I find confusing about the Catholic church. The Catechism teaches that all Christians, whether members of the CC or not, are in communion and yet, they claim we are not in full communion and therefore not qualified to share in Holy Communion. I question the CC and other denominations that adhere to this. Was Holy Communion instituted by the denomination or Christ?

By Christ! He shared the bread and the wine with those who were having the Passover dinner with Him, including Judas. Denying those who want the bread and wine is equivalent to denying Christ to the recipients (no matter how Judas-like they may be). Those who practice this denial will have some serious explaining to do when they explain the reason to the Lord.

 

[jaybo]

The Catholics claim that their denomination was the first and therefore the "pure" church. Supposedly other denominations are corrupt because they don't agree with the Catholic teachings and/or the Pope.

Apparently they haven't read Revelation 2-3 which has scathing criticisms of the various churches. Not only were they separate but they were warned to change their corrupt ways or else their "lampstand(s)" would be removed.

Revelation 2:4, "But I have this against you: You have departed from your first love! Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent! Do the deeds you did at the first; if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place—that is, if you do not repent."

Revelation 2:11, "The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will in no way be harmed by the second death."

Revelation 2:16, "Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth. The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Revelation 2:20-23, " But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality. Look! I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds. Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve."

Revelation 3:1-3, "This is the solemn pronouncement of the one who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a reputation that you are alive, but in reality you are dead. Wake up then, and strengthen what remains that was about to die, because I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Therefore, remember what you received and heard, and obey it, and repent. If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will never know at what hour I will come against you.

Revelation 3:16-17, "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth! Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing,” but do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked..."

The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. If the Catholics claim to be the original denomination then they have to accept the Lord's message to the churches is directed at them.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is one of the things I find confusing about the Catholic church. The Catechism teaches that all Christians, whether members of the CC or not, are in communion and yet, they claim we are not in full communion and therefore not qualified to share in Holy Communion. I question the CC and other denominations that adhere to this. Was Holy Communion instituted by the denomination or Christ?

Different denominations view communion differently.
If someone doesn't believe they are receiving the body and blood of Christ, then they do not agree with transubstantiation and these are those that are not allowed to receive communion.

If YOU do, but belong to a different church,,,you can receive communion.

Communion just means IN COMMUNION WITH...
If a person is not in communion with the teaching of the CC,,,then how can they receive the host?
It would be like disrespecting the CC's teaching.

Maybe Walpole would like to add to this.

The Early Fathers that learned from the Apostles, believed what the CC teaches.
Even Luther did.

I don't know the history,,,but I believe it might have been changed just so the reformers could remove themselves from all Catholic teachings.
Not sure.

 

[WIP]

Different denominations view communion differently.
If someone doesn't believe they are receiving the body and blood of Christ, then they do not agree with transubstantiation and these are those that are not allowed to receive communion.

If YOU do, but belong to a different church,,,you can receive communion.

Communion just means IN COMMUNION WITH...
If a person is not in communion with the teaching of the CC,,,then how can they receive the host?
It would be like disrespecting the CC's teaching.

Maybe Walpole would like to add to this.

The Early Fathers that learned from the Apostles, believed what the CC teaches.
Even Luther did.

I don't know the history,,,but I believe it might have been changed just so the reformers could remove themselves from all Catholic teachings.
Not sure.

I don't believe communion as "in communion with" or as "Holy Communion" was ever delegated to a specific denomination. There was no official church denomination when our Lord instituted Holy Communion and His gift was for all believers regardless of their denomination.

I also don't believe the Catholic church today has cornered the market. It isn't anything close to what the Church was as described in Acts. Being the first church does not make it the true church. I believe the Catholic church and what it teaches has strayed from what it was intended and that is what Reverend Martin Luther was trying to correct and when they excommunicated him they were denying truth. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was 100% correct either but at least he was trying to make positive change.

 

[jaybo]

I don't believe communion as "in communion with" or as "Holy Communion" was ever delegated to a specific denomination. There was no official church denomination when our Lord instituted Holy Communion and His gift was for all believers regardless of their denomination.

I also don't believe the Catholic church today has cornered the market. It isn't anything close to what the Church was as described in Acts. Being the first church does not make it the true church. I believe the Catholic church and what it teaches has strayed from what it was intended and that is what Reverend Martin Luther was trying to correct and when they excommunicated him they were denying truth. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was 100% correct either but at least he was trying to make positive change.

Great post! You have written the truth, my friend.

 

[WIP]

Great post! You have written the truth, my friend.

It should also be noted that my intention is not to bash the Catholic church. Salvation is a gift of God and not of works so that none can boast and that includes every denomination in both Protestant and non-Protestant. There are too many that in pride set their denomination above the rest and in so doing continue to foster the animosity and disunity within the Church.

 

[jaybo]

I am a Protestant. I am not a Catholic because they have strayed so far from the New Covenant.

To be a Protestant is to be a true child of God in Christ. One must have a personal relationship with God the Father and, like every other relationship with one's father. it is based on intimacy and love.

There is no need for...

Priests (intermediaries between Father and child)
Elaborate buildings, statues, rituals
Confession to an intermediary "father"
Penance or other penalty for one's sins
Praying to "saints" -- we're all saints -- including asking them to pray for us
Adoration of Mary.
Pride, such as "we're the one true church", we were the "first church", and other myths

Again, we have been adopted into God's family in Christ; we have a direct, loving relationship with our heavenly Father.

We are His children in every sense of the word. He is our Father -- our "Abba" -- who loves us on the most personal level. No ornate buildings, rituals, costumes, intermediaries, forced penitence, extra-Biblical teachings, or any other things outside of Scripture should be erected or practiced that distance us from our loving Father in heaven.

Hallelujah!

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't believe communion as "in communion with" or as "Holy Communion" was ever delegated to a specific denomination. There was no official church denomination when our Lord instituted Holy Communion and His gift was for all believers regardless of their denomination.

I also don't believe the Catholic church today has cornered the market. It isn't anything close to what the Church was as described in Acts. Being the first church does not make it the true church. I believe the Catholic church and what it teaches has strayed from what it was intended and that is what Reverend Martin Luther was trying to correct and when they excommunicated him they were denying truth. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was 100% correct either but at least he was trying to make positive change.

I agree with all...
I also agree that the breaking of bread was for all believers.

However, there was an official denomination when Jesus instituted communion...
At the time it was believing Jews...
then it became Christian Jews...
Then they were denied access to the Jewish Synagogue and they became
Christians....
all these steps are traced back to Peter and forward to the church universal that became the CC,
because of the simple reason that universal means Catholic....The universal church was the first official denomination.

 

[jaybo]

I agree with all...
I also agree that the breaking of bread was for all believers.

However, there was an official denomination when Jesus instituted communion...
At the time it was believing Jews...
then it became Christian Jews...
Then they were denied access to the Jewish Synagogue and they became
Christians....
all these steps are traced back to Peter and forward to the church universal that became the CC,
because of the simple reason that universal means Catholic....The universal church was the first official denomination.

Nowhere that I know of does it say that the universal church (or any church for that matter) was the first official denomination.

Also, "universal" does not mean "Catholic" (capitalized); that is twisting the meaning. "catholic" means universal; "Catholic" is the name of a specific denomination. By comparison, there is one God (capitalized) but many gods.

It may give you some satisfaction to say that the Catholic denomination was the first one, it's the one true church, etc. but that doesn't make it so. As the New Testament clearly shows there were many different churches throughout the Mediterranean region, each with different beliefs and problems, which are addressed in the epistles and especially Revelation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Nowhere that I know of does it say that the universal church (or any church for that matter) was the first official denomination.

Also, "universal" does not mean "Catholic" (capitalized); that is twisting the meaning. "catholic" means universal; "Catholic" is the name of a specific denomination. By comparison, there is one God (capitalized) but many gods.

Of course.
My bad.

It may give you some satisfaction to say that the Catholic denomination was the first one, it's the one true church, etc. but that doesn't make it so.

Doesn't give me any satisfaction.
It's just history which we've been over a few times now. You don't have to accept history.
My statement is that it's the Original church.
You don't have to agree, and I don't know how to prove this to you.

As the New Testament clearly shows there were many different churches throughout the Mediterranean region, each with different beliefs and problems, which are addressed in the epistles and especially Revelation.

You're going to have to study subjects outside of the NT. If you're not willing to do this, you will never know the history of the church.

There were different sects that mixed christianity with other belief systems, we can thank the CC for keeping them out of our faith.

 

[jaybo]

Of course.
My bad.



Doesn't give me any satisfaction.
It's just history which we've been over a few times now. You don't have to accept history.
My statement is that it's the Original church.
You don't have to agree, and I don't know how to prove this to you.

You're going to have to study subjects outside of the NT. If you're not willing to do this, you will never know the history of the church.

There were different sects that mixed christianity with other belief systems, we can thank the CC for keeping them out of our faith.

No, we thank Paul, Peter, and others for keeping different sects' view of the Christian faith, a.k.a., heresies, out of our faith. As I have said over and over, there is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. None of the Apostles, including Paul, ever expressed anything about the various constructs of the RCC: no "first church", "no Pope", no cardinals or bishops, (though it does mention priests in a different context), etc. Much of Catholic doctrine is not part of the New Testament though it is very similar to the Old Covenant of Scripture: ornate buildings like the Jerusalem temple, a separate priestly class, confession of sins to a priest and the penalty to be paid, etc.

As I wrote earlier, I have a personal, direct relationship with God, my Heavenly Father, who adopted me as His son. I don't need any of the Catholic artifice, rituals, extra-Biblical doctrines such as praying to saints -- we're all saints -- or Mary, forgiveness of sins which have already been forgiven by Christ's sacrifice, calling men "father", etc.

Consider your own family. Were there people who came between you and your father? Did you have to go through them to connect with your own parent? Did they determine your guilt or innocence and prescribe penalties? And so on...

The Catholic doctrine and practice is largely the invention of men who seek to control others, putting themselves between God's adopted children and God the Father. It's unscriptural and contrary of the basic doctrine of the New Testament.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, we thank Paul, Peter, and others for keeping different sects' view of the Christian faith, a.k.a., heresies, out of our faith. As I have said over and over, there is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. None of the Apostles, including Paul, ever expressed anything about the various constructs of the RCC: no "first church", "no Pope", no cardinals or bishops, (though it does mention priests in a different context), etc. Much of Catholic doctrine is not part of the New Testament though it is very similar to the Old Covenant of Scripture: ornate buildings like the Jerusalem temple, a separate priestly class, confession of sins to a priest and the penalty to be paid, etc.

As I wrote earlier, I have a personal, direct relationship with God, my Heavenly Father, who adopted me as His son. I don't need any of the Catholic artifice, rituals, extra-Biblical doctrines such as praying to saints -- we're all saints -- or Mary, forgiveness of sins which have already been forgiven by Christ's sacrifice, calling men "father", etc.

Consider your own family. Were there people who came between you and your father? Did you have to go through them to connect with your own parent? Did they determine your guilt or innocence and prescribe penalties? And so on...

The Catholic doctrine and practice is largely the invention of men who seek to control others, putting themselves between God's adopted children and God the Father. It's unscriptural and contrary of the basic doctrine of the New Testament.

What did Jesus deny about the OT?

 

[GodsGrace]

No, we thank Paul, Peter, and others for keeping different sects' view of the Christian faith, a.k.a., heresies, out of our faith. As I have said over and over, there is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. None of the Apostles, including Paul, ever expressed anything about the various constructs of the RCC: no "first church", "no Pope", no cardinals or bishops, (though it does mention priests in a different context), etc. Much of Catholic doctrine is not part of the New Testament though it is very similar to the Old Covenant of Scripture: ornate buildings like the Jerusalem temple, a separate priestly class, confession of sins to a priest and the penalty to be paid, etc.

As I wrote earlier, I have a personal, direct relationship with God, my Heavenly Father, who adopted me as His son. I don't need any of the Catholic artifice, rituals, extra-Biblical doctrines such as praying to saints -- we're all saints -- or Mary, forgiveness of sins which have already been forgiven by Christ's sacrifice, calling men "father", etc.

Consider your own family. Were there people who came between you and your father? Did you have to go through them to connect with your own parent? Did they determine your guilt or innocence and prescribe penalties? And so on...

The Catholic doctrine and practice is largely the invention of men who seek to control others, putting themselves between God's adopted children and God the Father. It's unscriptural and contrary of the basic doctrine of the New Testament.

I can't continue to argue this with you Jaybo.
I don't like going on and on about something members disagree on.
If you think heresies did not attempt to enter the church after the time of Acts, then so be it.

I'm telling you to study history, but you won't do so, so it's impossible to carry on a discussion.
You sound like a very new Christian and still studying the bible.
This is good.
But you cannot deny that there is a history to the church after Acts.

The Catholic Church is the church that kept many heresies out of our faith.
It also got lost along its 2,000 year history.
It's trying to get back on track...we'll see where we end up.

I'm sure you can study this subject on your own, if you want to.
Try looking up HOW WERE HERESIES KEPT OUT OF THE EARLY CHURCH
Try looking up why Augustine was so revered.
The early church is up to about 325 AD, although heresies have always been a problem - even after.

 

[jaybo]

I can't continue to argue this with you Jaybo.
I don't like going on and on about something members disagree on.
If you think heresies did not attempt to enter the church after the time of Acts, then so be it.

I'm telling you to study history, but you won't do so, so it's impossible to carry on a discussion.
You sound like a very new Christian and still studying the bible.
This is good.
But you cannot deny that there is a history to the church after Acts.

The Catholic Church is the church that kept many heresies out of our faith.
It also got lost along its 2,000 year history.
It's trying to get back on track...we'll see where we end up.

I'm sure you can study this subject on your own, if you want to.
Try looking up HOW WERE HERESIES KEPT OUT OF THE EARLY CHURCH
Try looking up why Augustine was so revered.
The early church is up to about 325 AD, although heresies have always been a problem - even after.

I have been a Christian for 44 years, and a very serious one at that. I have always regarded the Bible as the authoritative source and have intentional stayed away from church doctrine. Much of it is contradictory and in conflict with Scripture. I have, through friends, been exposed to the Catholic denomination and its extra-Biblical doctrine and rituals, more than I can tolerate.

I have a very strong, intimate, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I have no need for the constructs of the Catholic church, much of which has little to do with one's personal relationship with their heavenly Father. That also applies to some Protestant denominations.

Frankly, I'm bored reading all about the Catholic church since it has so little to do with one's relationship with God, replacing it with Old Testament-like rituals. The New Testament clearly spells out all that is necessary to be "born again" and have a loving, intimate relationship with the Creator. There is no need for the elaborate stuff that has been added on, moving it farther and farther away from Biblical Christianity.

 

[WIP]

My statement is that it's the Original church.

I just don't accept that today's Catholic church is necessarily the original Church. I believe the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church strayed and the resulting Lutheran church following Luther's excommunication could also make the same claim of a line back to the Original Church. Just as the Great Schism of 1054 caused a split so too, the Reformation caused a split in the 16th century. In other words, just because the Catholic church declared Luther a heretic doesn't make it so nor does the Catholic church's claim to THE line back to the original Church make it necessarily the only undisputable truth. The Eastern Orthodox church could also make the same claim.

The bottom line is that there is no church on earth that can indisputably claim to be the one true Church all by itself for we are nothing like the original Church described in Acts.

 

[jaybo]

I just don't accept that today's Catholic church is necessarily the original Church. I believe the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church strayed and the resulting Lutheran church following Luther's excommunication could also make the same claim of a line back to the Original Church. Just as the Great Schism of 1054 caused a split so too, the Reformation caused a split in the 16th century. In other words, just because the Catholic church declared Luther a heretic doesn't make it so nor does the Catholic church's claim to THE line back to the original Church make it necessarily the only undisputable truth. The Eastern Orthodox church could also make the same claim.

The bottom line is that there is no church on earth that can indisputably claim to be the one true Church all by itself for we are nothing like the original Church described in Acts.

Great post! It goes a long way to stem the tide of misinformation.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have been a Christian for 44 years, and a very serious one at that. I have always regarded the Bible as the authoritative source and have intentional stayed away from church doctrine. Much of it is contradictory and in conflict with Scripture. I have, through friends, been exposed to the Catholic denomination and its extra-Biblical doctrine and rituals, more than I can tolerate.

I have a very strong, intimate, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I have no need for the constructs of the Catholic church, much of which has little to do with one's personal relationship with their heavenly Father. That also applies to some Protestant denominations.

Frankly, I'm bored reading all about the Catholic church since it has so little to do with one's relationship with God, replacing it with Old Testament-like rituals. The New Testament clearly spells out all that is necessary to be "born again" and have a loving, intimate relationship with the Creator. There is no need for the elaborate stuff that has been added on, moving it farther and farther away from Biblical Christianity.

OK!

 

[GodsGrace]

I just don't accept that today's Catholic church is necessarily the original Church. I believe the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church strayed and the resulting Lutheran church following Luther's excommunication could also make the same claim of a line back to the Original Church. Just as the Great Schism of 1054 caused a split so too, the Reformation caused a split in the 16th century. In other words, just because the Catholic church declared Luther a heretic doesn't make it so nor does the Catholic church's claim to THE line back to the original Church make it necessarily the only undisputable truth. The Eastern Orthodox church could also make the same claim.

The bottom line is that there is no church on earth that can indisputably claim to be the one true Church all by itself for we are nothing like the original Church described in Acts.

I don't believe I've ever said that the CC is the one true church.
What I've been saying is that it's the original church...that we can trace it back to right after the Apostles.

It can be debated if the CC is what is left of the early church OR if it's the Orthodox church which split in 1054.
However, there is no doubt that the Lutheran church does not go back to the beginning.
The Lutheran church goes back to Luther in the early 1500's.

And, of course, the fact that the CC states it is the original church does not make it so....
history makes it so.

I must say, also, that the church in Acts is the very beginning of the church.
There was even a dispute as to whether or not one needed to be circumcised in order to become a Jewish Christian.
Rules started to be written after the fall of Jerusalem - the earliest I know of is the Didache, about the year 90AD.