Last year I wrote a post explaining why I am not converting to Roman Catholicism. I took the post down after some Roman catholic kindly pointed out some errors and misrepresentations in it. I have finally got round to fixing the factual mistakes (thanks to incredibly patient feedback from Roman Catholic friends), and today have put the post back online. It can be read at the following link:
3 comments:
You raised many points: Let's start with the Eucharist. 1st: the job of the Eucharistic Minister is to give the Eucharist to everyone that asks for it in Mass or blessing those that want a blessing. It is not possible or practical for the Eucharistic Minister to play the Police Officer and know every person in the congregation so well that he would know if they should or should not receive the Eucharist. Remember that their are 1 billion Catholics, and so it would be impossible to figure who is worthy or unworthy of the Eucharist. That would be impossible! So the responsibility is on the individual receiving the Eucharist, to not go forward for communion if they feel that they are not in a good place spiritually to receive the body and blood of Jesus. 2nd. You mention Protestants: Most Protestants believe that the Eucharist is a symbol, there are very few protestants who believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ. To allow Protestants to take the Eucharist, which has been transformed by the priest into the Body and blood of Christ and let people take it that think it is just bread and wine, would not only be irresponsible and disrespectful towards the Eucharist, it would be sacreligious as well. The Eastern Orthodox can take the Eucharist, not because they believe in the assumption of Mary, but because they definitely believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Salvation: The Church teaches that Salvation is possible for Protestant Christians, not absolute. The only sacrament Protestants have is baptism, they do not have any others. Marriage is not a sacrament for protestants. A protestant can get remarried and devorced as many times as he wants with no accountability. The Eucahrist is nothing more than a symbol to them. The Catechism says that someone who is not Catholic, but is a Christian, it is possible for them to get into heaven, but this is not a sure thing and it would be the exception, rather than the rule and would only be through the graces of the Catholic Church that go beyond the walls of the visible Church. There are three types of baptism, baptism by water, baptism by desire (those that would have accepted the true teachings of Christ and want to be baptized but did not have the chance in this life) and baptism by blood, those that died as martyrs for the Christian faith even though they might not have been baptized. So the Hindu can be saved only if would have accepted Christianity if he had the opportunity to do so in his life.
Jesus established One Church. St. Peter was the 1st Pope (Papa) for that One Church. Salvation resides within and through the Catholic Church. When someone who is not Catholic gets into heaven it is through the graces that are brought forth from the Catholic Church that that person gets into heaven. The graces come from Jesus and the Holy Trinity and permeate through the Catholic Church. So the earlier statements about there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is still true. salvation for those Christians who are blessed with the graces that exist outside the walls of the Catholic Church, but are from the Catholic Church. So there was never a change or contradiction, just a deepening of understanding what the original statement meant. The reader would think that the original statement meant only those who reside within the walls of the Catholic Church, when it meant all along that the graces that are bestowed by the One Catholic Church bring salvation to others as well that benefit from those very same graces.
Given the complexity of scripture, the necessity of apostolic truth in a real relationship with Christ, and a necessary relationship between the two, how could we expect not to defer to some other authority of some preacher man somewhere? Catholics believe pretty much that God, who is Truth and knows everything, predicted this need.
Given an omnipotent God who somehow manages to inspire an inerrant set of scripture, and a council to inerrantly collect it, He is therefore clearly capable of the lesser miracle of preventing the Pope from teaching heresy. Money question: In light of this, does the Church or does Protestantism require more mental contortion?
Post a Comment