Becoming Catholic?

You go first. Where do you draw the line on what issues all believers should be unified on and believe the same thing.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Easy one! I believe that all believers should believe each and every thing that the Church teaches as true. Of course, the Church in Her wisdom refrains from pronouncing on many issues, and on those issues we are free to believe as we determine the truth through other means.

 

That is why I can't accept their authority. They have added too much to the Gospel and what is required to be a child of God.

Error is not acceptable. But we are finite men. I would never have the audacity to claim infallibility, because I can't get rid of my humanness. Are you now saying that one has to believe what books are to be in the Bible in order to be a Christian? Or even understand the Trinity? Those are not salvation issues. Salvation is the primary concern that I am concerned with. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God for salvation to those who believe. I will NEVER add requirements to the Gospel that are absolutely uncalled for.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Okay, I have faith in Jesus Christ and his death, burial and resurrection for my sins according to Scripture. I know what the RCC teaches. I was asking your opinion. If I have really received Christ and have become a child of God, then I am a part of the Universal Church, right? Also, by redifining Universal to mean just the Latin Rite and those "in communion" with it you have constrained the meaning of universal. I am not in communion with the Latin Rite. However, I am a part of the Bride of Christ because I am a believer in Jesus Christ. What more do I need to do to be a part of Christ's body?

The Lord Jesus Christ Be Glorified!
Neal

 

So all believers should believe that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven? What if they don't? Are they really believers?

In Christ,
Neal

 

So all believers should believe that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven? What if they don't? Are they really believers?

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]They are believers who are choosing to accept another authority, perhaps that of their own interpretation, over the authority of the Church to discern truth in a particular matter. It's all about Truth, and how one discovers it. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then rejecting the Church teaching on an issue is rejecting the truth on that issue.

 

Like all those, who according to their personal understanding of the evidence and their interpretation, submit themselves in a conscious decision to the RCC, right?

Christ Be Praised!
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

I found an inconsistency in your posts that I thought I would point out for you, and maybe you will be able to see it as well when I show it to you.

First, you said, "I believe in the Universal (Catholic) Church."

And then you asked, "Where did Christ call it the Universal Church?"

Well, which is it? Is the Church the universal church or not? Is the Church called catholic or not? You can't have your pie and eat it too.

The first appearance of the term "catholic" as a qualifier for the Christian Church is in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (circa 107 A.D.), and in every writer after him, "catholic" meant essentially "the one true church apart from which all heretical sects gather". Catholic was used to describe the Church because it comes from the Greek "kata" + "holos" = "according to" + "the whole"; it was the one church that was everywhere descended from the apostles with one faith. The Catholic faith was the one faith according to the whole of the Church everywhere; it was unchanging and indivisible. The sects weren't catholic because they didn't hold the faith "according to the whole"; they held their own faith, not the faith of the apostles.

When you call yourself a catholic or a part of the catholic church, you are usurping a historical qualifying term that refers to the one true visible church in an anachronistic fashion.

Also, one may be a Christian and not be in full communion with the Church; to be separated visibly from the one Church and yet to be united to her through the grace of baptism is to be in partial communion with her. If you are not in a state of grace because you have committed a mortal sin, then you are not in communion with the Church at all. In fact, there are those Catholics who have fallen from grace who are not united to the Church at all - not until they receive forgiveness through the Sacrament of Penance or through an individual act of perfect contrition. The Church is a Body, not a Spirit. It is one and visibly united with Peter as the visible head and Jesus as the invisible head.

 

Thanks, Carson. I was completely aware of that when I posted. I believe in the Universal Church (all believers in Christ). However, I readily admit that Christ never called the church universal or catholic. Someone has asserted otherwise, and I am asking for a reference where Christ called his church universal (catholic) as it was claimed he said.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Okay, that's nice. I am a believer in Jesus Christ, a child of God, part of the Body of Christ, and part of His Bride because of the promises of God and his work. No human prerequisites can change that truth. No, I am not in communion with the RCC. But that is not what God has called me to. He has called me to repentance and faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, and has given me the right to be called a child of God.

Praise God for His Abundant Grace!
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

But why are you using the qualifier "universal"? What's the point? Doesn't "the church" suffice? Why add "universal"? Of course the reason is because "catholic" has always been used to denote the one true visible church, and now you are attempting to usurp this qualifier in an anachronistic fashion. Unless if you believe in one true visible church, you don't need a further qualifer to add onto "the church".

 

When did you crawl in my head? You are rather presumptuous, aren't you? The reason I use universal (which I am assuming is equivalent to catholic for this discussion) is because many in Baptist circles assume when I say church I mean the local congregation. See, no ulterior motives or fancy footwork as you accuse me of. I believe all true believers in Christ are a part of his one true church. Besides, you are changing the subject. Someone asserted that Christ called his church the universal church and I am simply asking where? This is the statement that I am asking support for:

You need to realize that everyone who is Baptist is not plotting against the RCC. Honestly, after tonight (which is only 35 more minutes for me before I go to work) I will be pretty much done with this issue. The semester starts next week and I have spent much time in prayer and study and reading about the RCC and I am not moved in the least bit. It is time for me to move on. I honestly have bigger issues to move on to.

God Bless You, Carson.
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

So, when Baptists read "Upon this rock I will build my church" in Matthew 16, they think that Jesus meant "Upon this rock, I will build Swords Creek Baptist Church"? Or when Paul wrote "Christ loved the church" in Ephesians 5, he meant "Christ loved Mount Calvary Baptist Church"?

I am not moved in the least bit. It is time for me to move on. I honestly have bigger issues to move on to.

I wouldn't be so sure. As time goes on, I think you'll find yourself constantly coming back to the beauty of the Catholic faith, seeking the truth, beauty, and goodness found in the fullness of Christian truth as maintained by the apostolic church throughout the ages.

 

Key thing I said, Carson: many. Not all. No, not all Baptists see it this way. I personally do not see it that way. But there are many that assume church means just the local assembly, at least from my encounters.

If God brings me to the RCC, so be it. But I have no inkling about it now after studying it some. I cannot continue to devote that much time to it any longer.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Wow, this thread is growing faster than the grass in my back yard.

That is why I can't accept their authority. They have added too much to the Gospel and what is required to be a child of God.
</font>[/QUOTE]I think you're mixing issues here.

Do you believe Jesus walked on water? I do, because I have accepted scripture as authoritative. I don't question it, I don't try to rationalize it, I don't try to argue against it. But I also don't hinge my salvation on it. I accept scripture as authoritative, so I simply accept the account of Christ walking by water by default, because scripture teaches it and I have already decided to accept scripture as authoritative. *If* the Church also has that kind of authority, and the Church teaches Mary was assumed, why should that be questioned or argued any more than Christ walking on water? I don't think the RCC hinges salvation on believing in Mary's assumption than you or I do on believing Christ walked on water. But to disbelieve it (either Mary's assumption for the Catholic, or Christ's walking on water for both the Catholic and the non-Catholic) is to essentially reject the authority from which that teaching comes from, so what do you have left over to stand on? How can you accept *anything* else from that authority (e.g. the divinity of Christ, etc.) if you reject that authority? Again (like I said a few pages back), it's not a matter of disecting and evaluating every teaching on it's own and judging the authority on the final total, it's the other way around: it's a matter of whether you accept or reject the authority *at the beginning* and then accepting the teachings because you've already accepted the authority. If you reject, you don't have to worry about disecting each doctrine since you don't have a real reason for believing them anyway. If you accept the authority, you accept the doctrines by default because they come from that authority.

Not directly. But without the canon, where would you even begin? By what authority *could* you determine, let alone believe, what was the "gospel" or the Trinity in the first place? Without accepting the canon as given by the Church, what reason would you have to even try?

 

Bye, guys! Like I said to Carson, I am pretty much done with discussing much of the RCC for a while. Today was my splurging day!

Take care and God Bless!
Neal

 

Thanks - God bless. Take care of yourself.

 

Like all those, who according to their personal understanding of the evidence and their interpretation, submit themselves in a conscious decision to the RCC, right?

Christ Be Praised!
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I know you won't deny that there is actual truth, external to all of us, regarding God and His plan and His will. Your argument could just as easily apply to Hindus and Muslims and Sangria practicioners as to Christians. You are arguing against the Christian faith as True. As I have mentioned in other threads, it is consistent to either believe in the Church and in the Bible, or to disbelieve in both, but it is not consistent to believe in the Bible and not in the Church.

 

BrianT,

This of course can all be explained with geometry.

A single point, the man and his Bible, has an infinite number of lines trying to find the truth.

Oral and written traditoin - Two points determine a line. A line to Jesus Christ.

Blessings

 

'Twas a grand day indeed, Neal!

And as soon as we know you're gone we can claim a glorious victory!