Ten doctrines which render Rome outside of Christ

I make a claim and you make a claim, that will prove nothing You will go to your deathbed saying we should not worship on Sunday, but St. Paul right in the Scriptures says the opposite - see what I mean?

 

I was a Roman Catholic for nearly two decades of my life. Without seeming prideful, I understand transubstantiation.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pg. 1376) we read:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

So, it is not me who does not know Roman Catholic doctrine, it is you.

 

Hopefully, we do not need to hold to all the correct doctrines in order to become saved or to remain saved. I believe the RCC holds deeply flawed doctrines, but I also believe many RCC adherent love Christ with all their hearts, such that God has saved them forever.

I think this thread has bitten off more than it can chew. Rather than copy and pasting off the shelf arguments for and against RCC doctrine, why not pick an issue and discuss it. As Baptists we believe in Congregational Polity, where the members of the local assembly determine doctrine (the priesthood of believers). We discuss things and seek consensus but then a majority vote decides the question. My, perhaps flawed understanding of RCC, is that a specially ordained person decides for the rest of the church what the Bible means.

Fundamentally, are we a group of people who have come to a like minded view after study and considering a range of possibilities, or must we "take it or leave it" as presented by those in power.

 

That is basically what I said, to wit the following: "As for the Eucharist - outwardly they have the appearance of bread and wine, but intrinsically it contains His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We believe Him when he said: "This is my Body; and "This is my Blood" - and you should too".

Unless I am wrong on what the word "intrinsicalIy" means, I do not see any difference in what I said and what the Catholic Church teaches. Yes, upon consecration the bread and wine do indeed become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, a process which is called transubstantiation. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers merely call the process a "mystery".

 

Your understanding is a bit flawed, it is not just "one specially ordained person", it is the whole Church - the Pope who together with the other Bishops are those who decide for the rest of the church what the Bible means. This is known as the "Magisterium" of the Church.

 

Intrinsically is a less definite term. It provides some leeway that a thing is not actually a thing.

This statement is in plain English. Thank you.

And this is exactly why I make the charge that the mass is blasphemous. Since the elements are transformed into Christ's body and blood (as stated at the Council of Trent), by necessity Christ is sacrificed upon the altar each time the mass is observed. As a Reformed Christian, we view the elements as a means of grace whereby believers become strengthened spirituality as we remember what Christ did on our behalf. Here is what we confess (take from the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 30):

1._____ The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,21 )

2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )

3._____ The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, etc. )

4._____ The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
( Matthew 26:26-28; Matthew 15:9; Exodus 20:4, 5 )

5._____ The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
( 1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 )

6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
( Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6, 39; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25 )

7._____ Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

8._____ All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )

 

This is very interesting. I do have some questions, either for a RC or anyone else.

Is it true that Lutherans still believe that Jesus is actually present in the bread and wine? Any other denominations? And the differences between that and the RCC

When did other Protestants give up the idea of this?

On what biblical basis is and not thinking Jesus actually comes in the Eucharist?

Is there any writings on EFC and their beliefs?

If we are saved by grace why do Catholics say we will be judged on not believing that? How could it be damnable?

I know I could Google this. But hearing it from people is better. And "Reformed" I would like to hear what you have to say.

 

On what level do you place the Pope in regards to God?

 

I have to laugh... there would no Christian churches at all in my neck of the woods if it were not for Catholics. They are raised with going to Church, having reverence for God. So when many so called Christians from other demonations fall away (essentially revealing themselves as agnostics and athestics) it is generally the Catholics who get recruited to fill the pews and it is they who become the congregations. So I wouldn’t attack them too much. Rather I personally would love and honor them and strive to teach them biblical truths. I also for what it’s worth think the ex-Catholics that make the best recruiters.

 

Why apologize? Are not your opinions to be respected as much as others?

 

Satan preached Faith Alone when he told Jesus to turn the stones to bread.

Faith devoid of Love will always be EVIL. What you teach is sin.

 

Compared to who? The small smidgen percentage of Folks who don't believe the bible and make up fake rules that are not in it? Folk who will literally believe the backwards meaning of a verse?


I think the gap of Calvinist vs Non-Calvinist is a bigger gap for christian or not. Although folks will side with whatever rolls in the money.

Cause one hand you got a God one group would consider the devil itself for being evil fascist

A God that is privilege to indulge in whatever evil. he pleases, will actually indulge in whatever evil he pleases.

So if God can hate, he will, if God can forgive or not forgive, then he wont forgive,



500 years and we are still waiting for a bible line that says the bible is the only authority concerning Christianity.

Folks who actually believe the bible don't make up fake rules to shove in.

 

Does Rome teach that a sinner is saved by grace alone faith alone? As that Is pauline Justification!

 

Do you believe that a sinner can be fully justified by God by faith in Jesus alone as their Messiah to get saved?
Or MUST one have sufficient good works and partake of the various Sacraments well enough to merit salvation?

 

What has God ALWAYS required of sinners? To believe in Him , and in His coming Messiah in OT, and the Messiah who has come in the NT!

 

Why would anyone conisider the "reformation" as significant?

Just what was reformed?
The Papist? Ultimately that was the desire.

But long before the "reformation" there were others who stood against the Papist and were miserably treated.

What silliness, this distraction from the truth some call the reformation. As if it was the enlightenment of men's souls.

The Papist don't represent Christ, they represent their own self interest - the church. Why attempts at reform rather than good old separation?

The Papist has never cared about the human condition and salvation unless it was a worthy cause useful to enslave the minds and gather more dollars for the church construction projects. Everything with them is power and money. That is why the last rights, indulgences, divorce decrees, years spent in purgatory are ALL money related. There is no truth in them, not even a half truth.

The Papist is anti-Christ and no fellowship should be regarded but that which is worthy to be discarded.

The reformation was meaningless when it comes to believers. It was never meant to be a separatist movement in which the purity of truth would prevail. No the whole resides in the very name given.... REFORM .... that which one takes and attempts to modify.

There is no Papist worth modifying.

 

That is a bit more revisionist history than I am used to.

You "made a claim" but then I provided an actual Bible quote on the subject. You cannot equivocate between the two - as if your simply offering a suggestion is the same as the Bible saying something on the subject. here it is again.

1. Paul is not the only author in the Bible.
2. Paul never says to worship on week-day-1 as a matter of weekly practice

and as I showed in my response -- your claim failed no matter which day of the week you entered a church.

your claim was as follows

 

1. A lot of papists ended up becoming protestants.
2. The Catholic church was forced to come up with the "counter reformation" where they had to make some of the reforms Luther was demanding - just to stem the tide of defections from their group.