Sacraments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eucharist is not found in the NT. Neither is the term "sacraments". And since they are referring to something not specified as such for doing them, they should be shunned.
Yes, but you're playing by fundamentalist Christian rules which is "Bible only". Not everything is found in the Bible, there are also sacred traditions and church teachings which you are choosing to ignore. On whose authority do you discard those teachings, and why?
So if you have to do them yet to be saved, how can you say you are saved?
Simple, Catholics DON'T say they are saved. They say they HOPE to be saved, it is something they strive towards all their lives rather than pronouncing themselves "saved" after reading the sinner's prayer. Again, you should not be comparing fundamentalist teachings to traditional teachings.
This is why I have a hard time with them because the definitions from the scripture would describe them as works that deny Him and thus are an iniquity in and of itself.
Catholics are not Bible-only Christians. These rules apply to your brand of Christianity only.
In any event, works cannot accompany salvation les they say Jesus Christ was unable to as our Saviour.
What about James 2:17, which says that faith without works is dead?
Please find the scripture that states we are to "celebrate" at communion.
Again, there is no need to do this, Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura.
 
I find the Catholic stand on the sacraments in opposition to their claim that Jesus Christ is their Saviour. If they are saved by Jesus Christ and yet the sacraments were based on man's needs for salvation, then saved believers do not need the sacraments.

Right?
Actually, no. Wrong. Very wrong, because Catholics don't call themselves "saved". Fundamentalists do that.
You are saved, brother, and to make the ordinances as sacraments as a necessity to obtain salvation, then that is the same thing as denying Jesus Christ of having ever saved you in the first place.
I'm not saved, I would never make a presumptuous statement like that. God will decide if he's going to save me or not when I die. I'm not going to be arrogant and make that claim in advance.
 

MMurphy

Inactive
I believe scripture was referring to the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ gives as a promise for all those that come to & believe in Him; water baptism is not the sign of the new covenant.



Eucharist is not found in the NT. Neither is the term "sacraments". And since they are referring to something not specified as such for doing them, they should be shunned.

The Catholic catechism says that Catholics are not saved yet and that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm





So if you have to do them yet to be saved, how can you say you are saved?

This is why I have a hard time with them because the definitions from the scripture would describe them as works that deny Him and thus are an iniquity in and of itself.

In any event, works cannot accompany salvation les they say Jesus Christ was unable to as our Saviour. He had saved us by simply having believed in Him. That is the only way our faith in Jesus Christ as our Saviour can shine when we are doing ordinances not as sacraments, because we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ

Trust is the basis for all relationships; and so when will believers trust Him as their Saviour that they are saved unless they stop doing sacraments as if they are necessary for their salvation?

Please find the scripture that states we are to "celebrate" at communion. I find it as meaning to be a sober solemn occasion to do in remembrance of Him that we have been bought with a price and sealed as His in proclaiming the Lord's death and thus thankful that we are saved when we had first come to & believed in Jesus Christ.
TJ, you and I don't agree with everything that comes out of the RCC, I myself am considered a Protestant. But let's understand something, you believe that grace is obtained by consciously choosing to accept Christ as Lord. This is fine, but the Catholics and most Christians believe that this act should be followed up by a physical baptism. They believe that such a rite is instituted by God in order to confer grace. The Eucharist, aka, the Lord's supper, or communion is the sacrament for believers to experience the real presence of Christ, and I'm willing to be you've never experienced a closed communion. But make no mistake, communion was THE center of worship in the early church.

As to your complaints about biblical support. There is another word that is also not in the Bible... Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of our Lord was not fully defined until the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea in 325. And the canon of scripture was, at that time, still slightly different than what we use today.

Also, understand the RCC holds a doctrine, which I personally disagree with, called the infallibility of the magestrium. Since it was The early church that canonized the bible, for Catholics the teachings of the bishops of the Church also are inspired by the Holy Spirit and so Church doctrine is equal to scripture.
 

TalkJesus

Inactive
Yes, but you're playing by fundamentalist Christian rules which is "Bible only". Not everything is found in the Bible, there are also sacred traditions and church teachings which you are choosing to ignore. On whose authority do you discard those teachings, and why?

On the same authority that the RCC claims their doctrines are based on; scripture; which they are not taking the scripture as a whole but on what Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews; thus out of context.

Simple, Catholics DON'T say they are saved. They say they HOPE to be saved, it is something they strive towards all their lives rather than pronouncing themselves "saved" after reading the sinner's prayer. Again, you should not be comparing fundamentalist teachings to traditional teachings.

Catholics are not Bible-only Christians. These rules apply to your brand of Christianity only.

Please start a thread asking Catholics of they believe they are saved now because I am getting different responses, brother.

What about James 2:17, which says that faith without works is dead?

So now you refer to scripture? Okay then.

That reference in the Book of James was not referring to the faith in Jesus Christ, but the abuse of practise by the church in applying faith in His Providence in getting out of helping the poor. That is what James had meant about how that kind of faith can not profit him norsave him as referring to the poor; not the church voicing that faith in His Providence. It is in the eyes of the poor, the church's faith in His Providence was dead.

That was the kind of faith James was talking about becaue he made that reference to Abraham.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Here is the reference in scripture of Abraham's faith in His Providence as scripture testify the naming of that place in that event of what that faith was about.

Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 24 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

So James was never talking about the faith in Jesus Christ needing works with it for salvation. James was never in conflict with Paul's message as there is only one gospel.

Romans 4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

James was about how believers were not using faith in God's Providence rightly by not leading by example whereas Paul was talking about how we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ without works.

James was addressing the church's abuse of the poor by their applying faith in God's Providence in getting out of helping the poor. They were not justified in using faith in God's Providence in that way. That is why in the eyes of the poor, the church's faith in God's Providence was dead because they had the means to meet their immediate needs after service from the bounty collected and to apply God's faith to provide for the church tomorrow while meeting the immediate needs of the poor, but the church was not showing it by example.
Again, there is no need to do this, Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura.

But when the RCC want to dictate the authority of some of their doctrines, then the RCC goes to the scripture. You should find the irony in that.
 
Indeed. Catholics believe it isn't works of our own that saves us--we cannot be saved by our works, but our works partnered and fueled by our faith in Christ. Acting as a living testimony of Jesus to others.

Though this forum has had about 100 debates on that too.

As we have discussed before.......works can not save and works can not keep you saved. Salvation itself will/should motivate the born again believer to then perform good works BECAUSE he is saved ........not to be save.
 
Wow, this is text-heavy. I don't know if I'll be able to respond clearly, but it sounds like you have a lot of misinformation on Catholicism, TJ. I don't blame you--I had the same perspective at one point, but it's important to get to the bottom of it rather than assume.
 
As we have discussed before.......works can not save and works can not keep you saved. Salvation itself will/should motivate the born again believer to then perform good works BECAUSE he is saved ........not to be save.

This may be the 10th time I've done this :p The best I can do is go through the difference between someone trying to work his way into salvation and works of faith fueled by God's love. I think many people think these are the same things and they aren't.

But more so, all I was trying to do was explain that the Catholic Church explicitly rejects the idea of working your way into heaven.
 
TJ, you and I don't agree with everything that comes out of the RCC, I myself am considered a Protestant. But let's understand something, you believe that grace is obtained by consciously choosing to accept Christ as Lord. This is fine, but the Catholics and most Christians believe that this act should be followed up by a physical baptism. They believe that such a rite is instituted by God in order to confer grace. The Eucharist, aka, the Lord's supper, or communion is the sacrament for believers to experience the real presence of Christ, and I'm willing to be you've never experienced a closed communion. But make no mistake, communion was THE center of worship in the early church.

As to your complaints about biblical support. There is another word that is also not in the Bible... Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of our Lord was not fully defined until the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea in 325. And the canon of scripture was, at that time, still slightly different than what we use today.

Also, understand the RCC holds a doctrine, which I personally disagree with, called the infallibility of the magestrium. Since it was The early church that canonized the bible, for Catholics the teachings of the bishops of the Church also are inspired by the Holy Spirit and so Church doctrine is equal to scripture.

Not so my brother. You said..........
" but the Catholics and most Christians believe that this act should be followed up by a physical baptism. They believe that such a rite is instituted by God in order to confer grace".

I do not know of any Protestant believer that believes that Baptism is a rite instituted by God in order to confer grace.

However, "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (CCC #1129)RCC.

The Council of Trent declares:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VI)

If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VIII)

So, we see here that if one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, he is declared “anathema” by the Catholic Church. An anathema is the gravest (most severe) form of excommunication, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

In the Eucharist, for example, Catholics believe that Christ is somehow present in a “sacramental” way (whatever that means). But if sacraments “accomplish what they signify”, if they actually do what they symbolize, then why do they need to symbolize at all? Catholics believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” (i.e., Christ’s actual body and blood) and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. This is simply equivocation. No such thing exists in Scripture, nor in the modern world that we live in.

Mr. MMurphy, the concept of sacraments with “special powers” that can earn grace given to someone is certainly not biblical. How can a person “control grace” by rituals, objects and ceremonies? How can grace be dependent on works (especially grace for salvation)? It isn’t!!!!
 
Why are we doing this for the 15th time? We all know where we stand, don't we? We disagree.

I don't mind the disagreement, but what I don't like is the misunderstanding. If anyone disagrees with Catholicism, that's fine. Anti-Catholic? Well and good. But if you're going to do that, first understand what it is and not what you think it is. Most criticisms I see are against a distorted derivative of Catholicism--one which I am also against.
 

TalkJesus

Inactive
TJ, you and I don't agree with everything that comes out of the RCC, I myself am considered a Protestant. But let's understand something, you believe that grace is obtained by consciously choosing to accept Christ as Lord.

Our believing in Jesus Christ is a work of the Father: John 6:44 Matthew 11:25-27 So yes, we made a conscious choice to believe in Him, but it was not possible without the Father's help.

1 John 4:19We love him, because he first loved us.

Romans 5:88 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Finding myself trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd and follwing Him is why I am grateful for Him having chosen me for I acknowledge my need of Him in keeping me from falling and presenting me faultless to His glory.

This is fine, but the Catholics and most Christians believe that this act should be followed up by a physical baptism. They believe that such a rite is instituted by God in order to confer grace. The Eucharist, aka, the Lord's supper, or communion is the sacrament for believers to experience the real presence of Christ, and I'm willing to be you've never experienced a closed communion. But make no mistake, communion was THE center of worship in the early church.

Since Jesus Christ is already in you, how can you receive Him again? You are complete in Christ Colossians 2:5-10 and we are to beware anyone teaching to receive Him again; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

This is why believers are not to take any fruit off of that corrupt tree because you may find that it is the same evil fruit of that corrupt tree of the RCC.

Communion is not holy when it is to be done in remembrance of Him. To make it an idol by inferring Christ's Presence in them is to make the bread & wine an unholy thing.

As to your complaints about biblical support. There is another word that is also not in the Bible... Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of our Lord was not fully defined until the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea in 325. And the canon of scripture was, at that time, still slightly different than what we use today.

I can agree with that point, but I was addressing the terms from which sacraments are supposedly life giving when only Jesus Christ is the one that gives life. To stand apart from works that deny Him, sacraments & the Eucharist should be dropped. Their definitions originating from the RCC for what they mean is why the scripture would have you drop those terms and the false beliefs tied to them.

Also, understand the RCC holds a doctrine, which I personally disagree with, called the infallibility of the magestrium. Since it was The early church that canonized the bible, for Catholics the teachings of the bishops of the Church also are inspired by the Holy Spirit and so Church doctrine is equal to scripture.

It is ironic how the RCC will resort to the scripture for the authority of some of their doctrines, and all the while not resort to scripture when scripture reproves them for their erroneous application on "out of contexts" portions of their use of scripture.
 

TalkJesus

Inactive
Wow, this is text-heavy. I don't know if I'll be able to respond clearly, but it sounds like you have a lot of misinformation on Catholicism, TJ. I don't blame you--I had the same perspective at one point, but it's important to get to the bottom of it rather than assume.

Maybe it would be best to address this fellow Catholic below then? Is he misrepresenting Catholicism or not?

Actually, no. Wrong. Very wrong, because Catholics don't call themselves "saved". Fundamentalists do that.

I'm not saved, I would never make a presumptuous statement like that. God will decide if he's going to save me or not when I die. I'm not going to be arrogant and make that claim in advance.
 
TJ, you and I don't agree with everything that comes out of the RCC, I myself am considered a Protestant. But let's understand something, you believe that grace is obtained by consciously choosing to accept Christ as Lord. This is fine, but the Catholics and most Christians believe that this act should be followed up by a physical baptism. They believe that such a rite is instituted by God in order to confer grace. The Eucharist, aka, the Lord's supper, or communion is the sacrament for believers to experience the real presence of Christ, and I'm willing to be you've never experienced a closed communion. But make no mistake, communion was THE center of worship in the early church.

As to your complaints about biblical support. There is another word that is also not in the Bible... Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of our Lord was not fully defined until the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea in 325. And the canon of scripture was, at that time, still slightly different than what we use today.

Also, understand the RCC holds a doctrine, which I personally disagree with, called the infallibility of the magestrium. Since it was The early church that canonized the bible, for Catholics the teachings of the bishops of the Church also are inspired by the Holy Spirit and so Church doctrine is equal to scripture.

Don't Catholics and Protestants actually share the same belief in regard to the trinity, and they accept the same creeds that define it.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but it comes under the teaching of "IMPLIED TRUTH'. That has been the accepted basis for all teaching for a very, very long time.

The Christian writers of the second and third century claimed that their doctrine was taught by the apostles. Irenaeus, for example, writing in A.D. 185, said:
"The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit". (Against Heresies I:10:1)
 
It is ironic how the RCC will resort to the scripture for the authority of some of their doctrines, and all the while not resort to scripture when scripture reproves them for their erroneous application on "out of contexts" portions of their use of scripture.

You've misunderstood. The Catholic Church believes and accepts every single word of the Bible and promotes it all. It has to. In fact, it canonized and compiled the Scriptures into what we today call the Bible. Anyone who believes in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has to believe in the Holy Spirit's ability to speak to the Catholic bishops that did this in the close of the 2nd century.

What the Church does not condone is Sola Scriptura. We'll get folks who disagree with this here, and at the risk of sparking yet another debate (let's refrain if we can), the Church believes it is a man-made tradition and ought to be rejected.
 
Maybe it would be best to address this fellow Catholic below then? Is he misrepresenting Catholicism or not?

It seems to me that would be the best recourse as what we read seem to be two different things.

Do you see that as well Larry?
 
Maybe it would be best to address this fellow Catholic below then? Is he misrepresenting Catholicism or not?

Well River isn't a Catholic--not practicing anyway.

Some Catholics are happy to proclaim that they are saved--I am--but it's not dogmatic or even doctrinal to say this. What is important is an understanding of salvation. I am saved, but my life as a saved Christian doesn't end there. One doctrine Catholics do not hold is "once saved, always saved."

Whether Catholics literally use the words "I am saved" or not is a red-herring. What's important is the substance.
 

TalkJesus

Inactive
Don't Catholics and Protestants actually share the same belief in regard to the trinity, and they accept the same creeds that define it.

Creeds are an ecumenical agreement among the churches and by them, an error can be slipped in; and there are errors in the Nicene creed of 381 A.D. which had changed from the 325 A.D. one.

The Son of God is the Giver of life; not the Holy Spirit: John 6:33-35 KJV

The Holy Spirit does not seek to lead believers to worship Him with the Father & the Son when His job is to not speak of Himself but to glorify the Son. John 16:13-14 by testifying of Him in worship; John 15:26 as those led by the Spirit of God shall be doing the same thing ( John 15:27 ) to have that mind of Christ in worship ( Philippians 2:5-11 ) as the only way to honour the Father is by honouring the Son John 5:22-23 1 Corinthians 1:9 1 Corinthians 2:2 John 13:31-32

It is safer to avoid reciting the creeds.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

That is another reason for Protestant churches to stand apart from the RCC besides the use of the terms like sacraments & the Eucharist as they are defined by the scriptures as works of iniquity when done as means of grace to obtain salvation by. There can be no ecumenical agreement shared with the RCC if Protestant churches wishes for our saved brothers & sisters in the RCC to depart from their works of iniquity.
 

TalkJesus

Inactive
Well River isn't a Catholic--not practicing anyway.

Some Catholics are happy to proclaim that they are saved--I am--but it's not dogmatic or even doctrinal to say this. What is important is an understanding of salvation. I am saved, but my life as a saved Christian doesn't end there. One doctrine Catholics do not hold is "once saved, always saved."

Whether Catholics literally use the words "I am saved" or not is a red-herring. What's important is the substance.

Mayhap that substance can be known fully by how a Catholic react when the Bridegroom comes? Will he draw back because he needs to attend Mass or go to the confessionals first or will his face light up with joy for his hope has come? 1 John 3:3

Hebrews 10:Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
 
Mayhap that substance can be known fully by how a Catholic react when the Bridegroom comes? Will he draw back because he needs to attend Mass or go to the confessionals first or will his face light up with joy for his hope has come? 1 John 3:3

Hebrews 10:Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Help me understand your question. What are you asking?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top