about the Catholic Church

And sola Scriptura produces that confusion...as has been demonstrated time and again on this Board

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I was raised a Roman Catholic in the heart of Chicago. I went to Catholic schools from the first grade throught high school. I was an altar boy for all the years I was eligible to be one. Here's what I learned in those formative years.
I was taught that the Catholic church was the only way of salvation, and that the seven sacraments were all necessary for salvation unless you weren't a priest, therefore excluding holy orders. I was taught that by giving money to the Purgatorial Society, I could buy people out of Purgatory and into heaven. I was taught that I could do the same by paying money to have a mass said in honor of a dearly departed loved one. I was taught that praying to "saints" was a good thing, and certainly praying before images of them was totally acceptable. I was taught that the priests were the mediators by which forgiveness for sins was obtained, and that I'd better not attend mass with any unconfessed sins on my heart, or that itself was a mortal sin. I was taught that by sprinkling "holy water" on my dead relatives and friends at their wakes, I was giving them a better shot at getting into heaven. I was taught that repeating thoughtless, repetitious prayers was pleasing to God. I was taught that the eucharist was the actual body of Christ, and the alcoholic wine was His actual blood, and that by ingesting them during communion, I was "receiving Christ". I was taught that you had to be a Catholic in order to go to heaven. If you were anything else, Baptist, Buddhist, or whatever, you were going to hell. I was taught that Mary was to be prayed to and worshipped as God's mother. When I was first witnessed to by a saved friend and told that Christ was the only way of salvation by grace through faith in the finished work at Calvary, I asked a Catholic priest about this, because I was confused. Surely this went against the teachings of my childhood. His answer was, "Your friend is well-meaning but deceived. There is no salvation apart from the Catholic church. Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but you must also follow the Catholic church and her teachings and traditions. Just keep the ten commandments and be faithful to your upbringing. You'll be just fine. By the way, it is dangerous to read the Bible for yourself. Only the Catholic church can interpret it properly. I would advise against reading it any further." Does anybody else see any of this that is contrary to Scripture besides me?

For the first twenty years of my life, I claimed to be nothing but a Roman Catholic, and I was proud of it. And for all of those years of faithfully attending mass, I can not for the life of me remember ONE homily by any priest from any Catholic church I attended. That's at least thirteen years of masses that I should have had the ability to remember, often daily because of being an altar boy. You would think that in all of those years something would have spoken to my heart. Never happened. Not one portion of Scripture can be remembered, only teachings of church traditions. Was it because every priest and deacon I ever spoke to was a crackpot, and every Catholic church I attended was on the fringe and not really teaching Catholic theology? Not likely, because I attended several different Catholic churches in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, and North Dakota. It couldn't be because I was too young to remember, because I can distinctly remember going to church faithfully. I remember the religion classes in school which emphasised works for salvation. Most of all, I remember having no sense of peace that heaven was my eternal home.

My conclusion: The Catholic church teaches a way of salvation that is contrary to Scripture.

I do not believe that every Catholic is going to hell merely because they are Catholic in name. I know some Catholics with very clear testimonies of Salvation. By the same token, I do not believe every Baptist is going to heaven merely because they call themselves Baptist. It all comes down to a person's relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hope I didn't bore you with the facts of my upbringing!

In Christ,
Tim

 

Welcome Daktim,

You are another witness that salvation is not in church membership.

I have a similar background in the spiritual emptiness of Catholicism--some of the details are different.

I was born to the consumation of the marriage of a nominal Catholic and a nominal Baptist. WWII was raging. My father was serving in the Pacific. The delivery was breached--mother and baby were in danger. Baby was given low chances of surviving. Extreme Unction was discussed/argued between the mothers in law--one a devout Catholic, the other a devout Baptist.
No one will tell me who won that battle. Apparently, I survived--60 years old this May. Mom survives too.

Next came the battle over baptism. "Babies must be baptized to save their souls"--"no they are not lost" was the debate.

In the meantime the marriage split and was later annulled--I guess that makes me illegitimate. I am living proof of a marriage having been consumated somewhere. I do have a birth certificate to that effect.

If I was "born Catholic" or not, I am not sure.

I do remember going to Catholic school grades 1,2,4. I remember the nuns enforcing discipline with yardsticks to the hands and forearms. We learned a lot--some I have had to erase--false teachings mostly. I remember going to Mass and wondering about all the Latin words. Then I took First Communion--had not the foggiest idea as to what it meant--just did it.

Went to public school from 5th grade on through high school. Went to catechism class on Saturday. My brain was throughly washed--I was becoming a Catholic Zombie. Then we joined the Methodists. I liked it--especially the girls.


Do not remember hearing about being "born again"--from the Catholics or the Methodists. We joined the "unchurched" when I was fifteen.

I was twenty three when The Lord saved my soul, not because I had any righteousness, but because He loves me. Salvation is of the Lord--it has nothing to do with church membership. One could join every church on the globe and still go to hell.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Question to Sirach--

Have you been "born again"? Please explain.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

daktim and Bro. James, your testimonies warmed my heart!

 

Repeat: Sirach--Have you been born again? Explain--from the Duay-Confraternity if you like--Gospel of John, Ch. 3.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The above conclusions are derived from the logic of Aristotle and the legalism of the Roman Empire--the religion of Man in "this world."

They do not hold up under the scrutiny of The Word of God. That is why reading the Word of God is not encouraged, in fact it is discouraged.

The scriptures make one wise unto the Truth and the Peace that passes all understanding.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Thanks for the support, Bro. James and Debby in Philly. And a happy upcoming birthday as well, Debby!

 

Let me rephrase the question: How does a Catholic teach about being "born again"? The Bible reference is John Ch. 3 verses 1-12.

I am looking for a personal testimony of what God has done with you and yours--it is germane to the credibility of the subject(a spiritual one) and the one who introduced the subject.

I seek to see your spiritual credentials, not how many DD's you may have.

If you find this offensive, I am sorry.

Most people who are "born again" are more than willingly to share that happy condition with others.

What if Peter is not standing at the gates of heaven? Can we afford to wait to find out for sure? Will we have enough good works to get there? I know mine are all "filthy rags".

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The subject is not of my being born again. The subject is what the Catholic Church teaches.

You could eaisly prove me wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches with links to the Catechism. Why do you wish to change the subject?

Because I'm correct in what the Catholic Church teaches? I think so. Christians rejoice in the truth James. Are you Christian?


God Bless,
Sirach </font>[/QUOTE]I don't have to provide you with a link to the catechism to tell you what the Catholic Church believes concerning born again, and what the Bible teaches concerning born again. They are poles apart from each other. Because you childishly insist on a paragraph # or a URL, I won't define it for you at this time.

But I will say this. The very fact that you are so evasive in answering (or rather refusing to answer) Bro James question: "Have you been born again? Explain." This gives credence to the view that you have not been biblically born again, and do not know what it means, and therefore are not a Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. "Born again" as defined by the Catholics is not the same as it is defined in the Bible.
DHK

 

These are the questions I asked -

In any case - Question #1 remains -- The "NEW COVENANT" for non-RCs.

You responded

Thank you for that - however that is not a "yes" and is not a quote about the "New Covenant" from any RC source.

If you have a well recognized accepted RC source telling us "What the New Covenant IS" and admitting that non-RC's are covered by it - then please provide a quote.

Otherwise - I will give a quote/reference to the well publicized well accepted RC source I found for that.

#2. Does the RCC claim that outside of the RCC there is no salavation?

That sounds good - except when you look at the putlished RC documents on this they show Jews and heretics (those Christians that differ with the RCC official policy) as being condemned by this. Neither of those groups would claim the RCC is necessary for salvation - but BOTH are condemned in offical RC documents under the rule above.

A good example of how extensively this rule applies is -- #3.

#3. WOULD people like Billy Graham be considered among the "heretics" of the dark ages by the RCC such that the "extermination" policy of Lateran IV would apply "to him"? Because "if so" then all non-Catholic Christian fall into that category.

In any case - the point is that the RCC officially denied salvation to "Jews and Heretics" and it was in that context that the statement was made "no salvation outside the Catholic church".

That means that anyone who is seen as differing with the RCC in the sense that Graham differs - would have been considered a heretic as would Graham and would have been subject to the torments of the inquisition (including burning) in the dark ages if the church were still able to do that.

That is a huge statement about the way the church thinks and operates!

On the other hand - to "Come clean" on that point all the Church would have to do is say "we were wrong about that in the dark ages. Our canon statements were wrong, our persecution of Christians was wrong we would never do that in the light of day in modern times because we know it to be wrong".

The point is that in the Mea Culpa statement of the Pope at the turn of the century - he was careful NOT to state the above specifics in his apology since it would infringe on the infallability claims of the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now on THIS board we have it confirmed that Billy Graham hinmself would be classed in the group identified here

"[p.181]...It is thus, from this purely theological standpoint, that we are to understand the sharp anathemas pronounced by the Church against all heretics and schismatics...""

This means that to the extent that WE ALL here agree with Graham on his opposition against RCC errors - then we too are included in the application of that statement about "no salvation outside the RCC"

So then it is at best "inconsistently" that the post Vatican II church tries to "get the schismatics and heretics saved" while still claiming to be infallible in the above condemnation of the same group.

In Christ,

Bob