Debating becoming a Traditional Roman Catholic

Your attitude is disgusting and extremely uncharitable. I come here looking for advice, and you mock me and make assumptions about my beliefs. Disagreeing is one thing, but your hostility is uncalled for.

The priests I have been talking to all teach at the Dominican House of Studies( a well-respected orthodox Catholic seminary) Again, why should I listen to you and not them when it comes to Catholic Doctrine? They're not all young guys. I was just pointing out that the lecture I posted was given by a fairly young priest. Thomism is in the minority, but still alive in the Catholic Church.

Let me make my position clear. I am ( and always have been) an Augustinian theologically. When I called myself a "Calvinist" in previous posts, I was using the term broadly. I respect the High-Anglican/Tractarian tradition because it follows St. Augustine in most things. I've read through the 39 Articles and the Homilies several times. I've also read Hooker's Learned Discourse on Justification, several sections of Browne's Exposition of the 39 Articles, a number of sermons by J. C Ryle( who seems very devout and Godly, but also wrong on Sacraments), several sermons by Pusey, and quite a bit from modern theologians. Peter Leithart, N. T Wright, Rich Lusk, etc) Leithart and Lusk aren't Anglican, but they're both pretty close theologically.

My view of most Protestants/Evangelicals has never been very good. I love them as brothers in Christ, but don't have much respect for their theology. Most Protestants( and I'd include Evangelical Anglicans) have nothing in common with the Fathers. We have not studied the Fathers at Christendom. I've been reading them independently in my free time. Their view of the Sacraments is esentialy the same as the view held by Catholics, Orthodox, and High-Anglicans. Most Anglicans do not hold to the sacrificial nature of the Mass. All of the Fathers did.

Again, the Tractarian tradition within Anglicanism is very respectable, but also in the minority. The Tractarians were treated with great hostility by Evangelicals.

I'm an Augustinian with a high view of the Sacramentss. I want to be clear in saying that I'm not a sectarian ( in fact, I'm quite hostile to sectarianism) if one is validly baptized, believes in Christ, holds to the Creedss, and is repentant, I consider them a brother in Christ. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterians, and Baptists are all legitimate Christians. I think some Protestants are in serious error theologically, but I still view them as brothers. Faith in Christ is what matters. People aren't going to be damned for minor doctrinal differences.

For me, it's either Tractarianism or Thomism at this point.

 

I am not sure how we got on the hostility train... Perhaps it was my fault, or perhaps there was a supercilious tone in your posts, or perhaps I charitably meant to correct you but you took it as hostility... If nothing untoward was meant from your end then I surely intend none on mine

The biggest reason is this:

You can listen to the "Novus Ordo conservatives", who will position themselves between the liberal modernists, and the "excessive" Latin-Rite trads... They will have the proof texts from Papal encyclicals and a whole theory of history that revolves around George Neuhaus, Pope John Paul II, and the triumph of conservativism... If you spend time around them, you'll be convinced that everyone else is wrong

Or you can listen to the Latin-Rite trads... They will have their own proof texts from Catholic history, quote the Council of Trent, and Benedict XVI, and argue that both the "liberal" Novus Ordo trads, and the "excessive" SSPX groups are bad... If you spend time around them, you'll be convinced that everyone else is wrong

Or you can listen to the SSPX... They will argue that the entire Vatican 2 was a heresy, and anyone who accepts it (ie. Novus Ordo and Latin-Rite trads) are "liberals" who must be avoided; and on the other side, the Sedevacantists are "excessive"... They will have their own persuasive theory of history, their Michael Davies, Archbishop Lefebvre, their Pope Pius X... If you spend time around them, you'll be convinced that everyone else is wrong

Or, finally you can listen to the Sedevacantists... they will have a totally different view of history, a very persuasive case from Pius X and Thomas Aquinas that condemns all modern popes as formal heretics... If you spend enough time around them, you'll be 100% convinced that everyone else is wrong

My point is, each of these groups has a completely persuasive theory of history, and who is right. Whichever one of these you become is thus entirely the luck of the draw...

-If you are in Winona, or go to St. Mary's in Kansas you'll become a convinced SSPXer
-if you are/were around the Fisher/More College or Christendom, you'll become a convinced Latin-Rite trad
-if you are around Steubenville, you'll become a convinced Novus Ordo trad
-and if you're around none of those, you'll become a Sedevacantist

For this reason I would treat with a great deal of caution the apologetic the young Dominican priests are feeding you; their entire purpose at that college is to convert all young fresh-cheeked freshmen to their point of view, and make Benedict XVI and Thomas the heroes of history... Had you gone to Steubenville, you would be equally convinced that John Paul II and Richard Neuhaus were the apostles of the future... And had you gone to St. Mary's in Kansas, you'd be equally convinced that the folks at Christendom were "liberal" and "heretical"

It is a culture within the Catholic trad world to draw a very thin circle, call yourself the Pure Warrior Of Truth, and condemn all others as Heretics

I've been in that world, and I tell you it is very hard to dispute when you're inside that bubble... The only way to refute it is to avoid getting brainwashed by that particular group's theory of history... I hope you see how I mean all this charitably

 

For example, as pertains that passage on the Pope's powers from Lumen Gentium 25a (which is clear and unequivocal as to its grammatical meaning), here is how each of the groups will interpret it:


Liberals:
(under conservative Popes) "we refuse to listen to LG 25a, and we will not submit and obey"
(under Pope Francis) "Lumen Gentium says everyone must obey Pope Francis!"

Novus Ordo conservatives:
(under conservative Popes): "See, Lumen Gentium mirrors the eternal Magisterium, and you liberals must obey!"
(under Pope Francis): "ugh, why does Lumen Gentium we must submit... We will grumble in private but outwardly submit and accept what Francis teaches"

Latin-Rite trads:
(under conservative Popes): "Lumen Gentium is right about Papal submission, even if it has other heresies"
(under Pope Francis): "we hate Lumen Gentium, we knew it was heretical all along, we refuse to submit and obey!" (just like the liberals)

Sedevacantists:
(under conservative Popes): "Your conservative Popes are still heretics, and Lumen Gentium doesn't exist to us and isn't binding"
(under Pope Francis): "told you that Lumen Gentium doesn't exist and isn't binding"

 

Hello Khater,

I can't speak to the detailed theological points presented here as I'm not as well versed as others in this regard. However, I have had many similar misgivings are you regarding the state of the Anglican communion. While I've been studying Anglicanism recently and trying to discern my place within the church, I've come to realize that if everyone who opposes the liberalizing and destructive actions (women's ordination, for example) leaves, there will be no resistance to stop it from going further. I have a feeling that even the Catholic church isn't going to be spared this phenomenon- when studying about it recently, I was shocked at all the current divisions inside and outside the church. So, I'm trying to determine how best to be faithful to God and to know where I can serve Him best. I will pray for you in your journey.

 

Khater,

If you are a follower of Tractarian thought, I hope you'll consider visiting a parish in one of the Continuing Churches such as the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), Anglican Province in America (APA), or Anglican Church in America (ACA). You may find a home there.

 

Here is another example of how different groups of Catholics interpret the Papacy... @Khater's "conservative" advisors teach that Catholics do not have to listen to the Popes! If that sounds weird, that's because it is, for here are statements from the Roman Popes themselves, directly contradicting these so-called "conservatives"


=============================================

Pope Pius X:

"How must the Pope be loved? "Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth" (1 Jn iii, 18). When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "if any one love me, he will keep my word" (Jn xiv, 23) therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."

-Pope Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

=============================================

Pope Leo XIII:

"It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."

-Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua (1885)

=============================================


What say you, @Khater? More importantly, what say your Dominicans!..

 

1. None of those statements are infallible ( the Popes were not speaking Ex Cathedra)
2. When they talk about "submission", you've got to understand what that means. Here's what another Traditional priest told me

"As a Catholic, you must accept the authority of the Pope who is the duly elected pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church whom Our Lord affirms. But we must be clear on what that means. We submit to his teaching which is in line with the Holy Magisterium. We do not submit to anything that deviates from the Holy Magisterium or anything not taught from the chair of St. Peter, i.e., ex cathedra."

 

How shall you know what is in line with the Magisterium? Will you use your private judgment, like a Protestant? The authentic Catholic teaching has always been that you must not submit the teachings of the Church to your own judgment, but rather, whatever the Church teaches, you submit and obey

I suppose the deeper question is, how do you even know he is Traditional, or even a Catholic? Just by the social values he holds? There are many conservatives out there, such as Mormons like Mitt Romney, who in the department of Conservativism, rejecting abortion and gay marriage, wearing sharp ties and being preppy, would give a run for the money with any Trad Catholic or Anglican! So if you can't judge these people by their social beliefs, or attire, then what do you use to evaluate their actual Catholicism?

As I've shown above, there are at least 4-5 different variants of Catholicism, each of which will anathematize the others as non-Catholic or less-than-Catholic... How do you decide that the one you've got is the real deal?

For example, other strands of Catholicism would not say what this "Traditional priest" told you... They would consider him a liberal and a heretic for denying the power of the papacy... in fact Pope Pius X, perhaps the most conservative pope of the last 500 years, said (in the quote above!), that Catholics must not decide what they will and won't follow of the Papal teachings, but submit to all, and he would consider your "Traditional priest" to be an outright liberal and a modernist!

 

Friend, from your comments it's sounding more and more that you simply need to find a Continuing Church.

 

This is such an amazing post, thank you!

 

Roman Catholicism... been there, done that, got the scapular.

Why did I leave, you may wonder? I left because they never taught me that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works. (Galatians 3, Ephesians 2). To me, this earns the RCC a flunking grade. The number one thing any church should be doing is leading people to salvation in Christ. The RCC can't even do that right. They teach their adherents that salvation comes through "Holy Mother Church" first and foremost, and secondarily through faith plus good deeds plus penances... and even then, one cannot be sure where one stands with God (no assurance). And if you happen to miss Mass some Holy Day of Obligation because other matters were pressing, the Holy Spirit flees from you because you've seriously sinned; and if you die before you can make your confession for this (or some other) serious sin, you go straight to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 indulgences. Sorry, I don't see any of that in Scripture.

As for the Pope, think of this: if you were an early settler heading west, you'd join a wagon train that had a good wagon-master. Once you committed, you'd have to be willing to accept that wagon-master's decisions. You'd depend on him to know where the water holes are, where the safe pathways lie, and how to avoid attacks from natives and wild animals. No way could you join a wagon train with the attitude that you could just ignore any orders you didn't like, or not abide by every rule and decision of the wagon master. Now when you pick out a church, you need to be willing to submit to the authorities in that church. Not just the pastor's authority, but on up the chain with the bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and (in this case) most especially the pope. Joining a church with the attitude that you can do your own thing, do whatever seems right to you, and ignore the guidance and directives you don't like is truly terrible. It's more like making your own "church of me" which happens to meet rent-free in the Roman Catholic building space so it can take advantage of their amenities without accepting any of their strictures that don't suit you.

I hope you're not offended by my outspoken method of expressing my opinion. But there it is, FWIW. We older folks can get quite vehement with our verbosity; it comes from experience.

 

I was part of that movement at one point in my life, when I was a teenager. It was the aesthetic, the pomp, and ritual devotion and reverence that attracted me. I felt that level of reverence was missing from mainstream RC churches. I grew up, lived, learned, and my views on social matters, modernity, and my view of what constitutes authentic Catholic faith evolved, and I became an intellectual comrade of Old Catholicism, and its offshoot, Liberal Catholicism. I loved their adherence to the old mass, devotions, the vestments, smells and bells, etc.

Given that in North America, there is no Old Catholicism,and given that Liberal Catholicism is a small, fragmented, fringe, insignificant group, I found my way into Anglo-Catholicism. I felt it was important to be part of a mainstream denomination of Christians, and thus, was received into the Episcopal Church at an Anglo-Catholic church in NYC. The idea also of being part of a fringe RC dissident group didn't appeal to me, also because these groups have a very low sacramental view, and are typically very Novus Ordo, Protestant style.

If I didn't live in a big city, such as NYC, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, etc., I don't know if I'd be Anglo-Catholic, simply because most dioceses of TEC don't have Anglo-Catholic parishes. Generally, only the urban dioceses do.

I love the incense, the altar facing east, the Rosary, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and I have a devotion to Our Lady of Walsingham, and I seek the intercession of Saint John Henry Newman.

On the other hand, I don't have a medieval worldview, nor do I share the invective associated with most traditionalist RC movements, who reject birth control, the United Nations, social justice, Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, public schools as tools of the Devil, and who equate Jews with Satan. I find this movement to be hateful, cult-like, and a Catholic version of Ruby Ridge in the works.

 

I find myself having a bit in common with traditionalist RC's. I rejected the movement years ago because I found it to be immersed in conspiracy theories, anti-semitism, hatred, and cultic tendencies. However, I have a similar sacramental, liturgical and aesthetic lens as them. as embodied in a love for the Missal and Breviary.

 

I spent three years studying Roman Catholicism closely. I attended Mass, read the Roman Catechism, went to chapel, and read the greats Augustine of Hippo, Benedict of Nursia, Thomas A Kempis, and Venerable Bede.

I frankly am in a similiar boat to you. I have considered converting to Catholicism and still do. However, there are many things I cannot reconcile:

1. The Scandals

All over the world the Roman Church is scandalized by bishops, priests, monks and more pedophiling young children. Pope Francis and the clergy are having to fight hard Against public opinion to contain the problem of pedophile priests, the number of people effected is reaching thousands and even the senior treasurer to the Pope has been convicted and sentenced to three years in prision.

Jesus said of anyone who harms children, “If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:6), and the apostle Paul said about forbidding marriage and the Papacy does for priests, “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:2-3).

2. Salvation

The RCC claims to believe that Jesus saves in the catechism, but they follow Prima Scriptura (Scripture and Tradition is equal) and they add that you must seek to open the Teasury of Merits in heaven which is full of good works of Christ, Mary and the Saints by doing pennace and good works. Catholics believe you can lose your salvation when you sin after baptism, Scripture disagrees (1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 1:9), and a Catholic must merit via good deeds to reduce their time in Puragtory (a middle place between Heaven and Hell where you are purged or purified) all of this violates Scripture:

“How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)

“To be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Philippinas 2:9)

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:5-9)

“I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.” (Galatians 2:21)

“For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace.” (Galatians 5:4)

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ” (John 3:16-18)

“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:40)

“then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
11 Jesus is “ ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12)

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?
11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:1-11)

Scriptures tells us we are saved totally by Jesus and His work on the cross:

“For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God” (Romans 6:10)

“Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit,” (1 Peter 3:18)

“Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” (Hebrews 7:27)

“Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:25-28)

3. The Cult of the Virgin Mary

The veneration of Mary as a Redeematrix and Queen of Heaven (name of Ashteroth, a false goddess is Queen of Heaven see Jeremiah 44:19). While the Catholic Catechism does say Mary is merely Redeematrix in that she helped God redeem mankind because she gave birth to the Redeemer Jesus Christ; shd acfing ad the Second Eve. The problem us the claim that she is sinless when she said she wasn’t, “And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior..” (Luke 1:46-47), and that she was born of a virgin (Immaculate Conception) has no credence in Scripture. Another issue is the idea that Mary is onternediary between man and God, when only the God Man Jesus is, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Timothy 2:5), for we who believe in Christ have Him living in us (Colossians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 3:16) and we live in God, “All who confess that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God.” (1 John 4:15). The Roman Catholic belief that Mary had no conjugal relations with Joseph after Jesus’ birth is also debunked, “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.” (Matthew 1:24-25)

4. The Cult of the Saints

Similiar to the Cult of the Virgin Mary, the Cult of the Saints crept up in the Early Middle Ages. Comverts from Saxon, Goth, Celtic, and etc began to believe that if they prayed at the bones of the dead saints it would trasmit righteousness to them. At first the clergy were appalled, citing this a violation of Church doctrine until one bishop saw it could be a source of revenue. The idea that the merits of dead sainrs can give us righteounsess is antichrist, because only Jesus gives us His righteousnsss:

“For our sake he made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

“For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."” (Romans 1:17)

“is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God: our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30)

5. Eucharist

At the Eucharist the RCC believes Jesus is sacrificed again and again to purify the congregation ans to remove people from purgatory. Again this contradicts Scripture:

“Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:25-28).

There is too much in Scripture that refutes Roman Catholic doctrines. So I remain Reformed.

Sources:

✝️The Holy Scriptures
✝️Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995)
✝️The Rule, St. Benedict of Nurisa, Penguin Classics
✝️The Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo
✝️Church History in Plain Language, Bruce Shelley, 4th Ed.
✝️The Reformation, Diamond McCulloch
✝️The Church in History, B.K. Kuiper
✝️The Ecclesiastical History of the English Speaking Peoples, Bede, Penguin Classics

 

On the RC Eucharist, technically they say that the one sacrifice of Jesus is continued "in an unbloody manner" in each altar consecration. This is how they get around the "sacrificed again and again" argument. Even so, it seems hubristic to expect Jesus' sacrifice to continue virtually nonstop for centuries; after all, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was horrible, ignominius, and excruciating, so who in their right mind would prolong it? And Hebrews tells us that Jesus sacrificed Himself "once for all" and then "sat down" at the Father's right hand; when you sit down, you're done! The RCC maintains that the priest acts in persona Christi during the consecration, i.e., that Jesus 'takes over' the priest and acts through him to work the miracle of changing the bread and wine into literal human flesh and blood; how they still call this an "unbloody" sacrifice is beyond me. Sorry, I do not need to literally eat the human flesh and drink the human blood of Jesus in order to receive saving grace; saving grace comes through faith in Jesus.

Anglican74 has a good point: it is possible scripturally for a Christian to lose his salvation. Not that one should be doubtful and fearful, for if one's conscience is tender enough to ask the question of oneself, one is almost certain to have not lost it. But if a person decided to say in all sincerity, "Da%& God and to he// with Jesus, I want nothing from them!" I would wager that the person will receive his request. We all are exhorted to continue "in faith", to continue believing in Jesus' redemption, to "finish the race."

The thing about the RCC is, it's their way or the highway. The RC is supposed to accept all of their established doctrine, or be considered anathema. The RCC claims to be in control of the keys of heaven so it's almost impossible (under their doctrine) to get to heaven without being a RC. That's really presumptuous. (Since I was RC until my late 20s, and then left that church, I am doomed to perdition according to RC doctrine. That should speak volumes about the arrogant self-righteousness and bombastic self-importance of the RC hierarchy.)

 

Scriptures that Explain How Easily You Can Be Forgiven Post Baptism:

“1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.“ (1 John 2:1-2, ESV, Holy Bible)

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us oursins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9 KJV)

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10)

“And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.” (Revelation 1:5)

“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” (Hebrews 9:14)

“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” (Philippians 3:9)

“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.“ (1Corinthians 15:56-57)

“How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)

“Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:10-11)

——————

The problem comes from practicing sin oppose to stumbling (blowing it, making a mistake and then repenting) in sin:

“Those who make a practice of sin are straight from the Devil, the pioneer in the practice of sin. The Son of God entered the scene to abolish the Devil's ways.
9People conceived and brought into life by God don't make a practice of sin. How could they? God's seed is deep within them, making them who they are. It's not in the nature of the God-begotten to practice and parade sin.
10 Here's how you tell the difference between God's children and the Devil's children: The one who won't practice righteous ways isn't from God, nor is the one who won't love brother or sister. A simple test.” (1 John 3:8-10)

To practice sin is to master sinning, get better at sin, to train in sin, and condone it. A practioner of sin harms Christ’s sacrifice because they don’t want it, they believe their sin isn’t sin and so do not repent and aceept forgiveness; they do not value Christ’s blood and propitiation (Hebrews 10:29). In fact this is in the context of what leads to Hebrews 6:4-6, because the one who practices sin doesn’t care about Jesus’ sacrificd for sin and disagrees with Jesus that it is sin, “
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10).

Repentence matters because it owns (confessss) sin and recognizes that only Jesus can cleanse us from the sin (1 John 2:1-2, Revelation 1:5). If a person instead decides sin is ok, they don’t repent and so trample on the blood of Jesus’ grace (Hebrews 10:29) and put Him to public shame again (Hebrews 6:6). Jesus forgives all sins, but if you say there is no sin, you are hiding what Christ did.

Only Jesus saves us and His salvic work on the cross is absolute. But repentence is conmected to it; in that you accept this and acknowledge that Christ has paid for your sins. If you say there is no sin you say there was no need for Christ to die (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 2:4, Hebrews 6:6), and so insult the Spirit of Grace (Hebrews 10:29, Galatians 2:21). Practicing sin leads (is the path) to apostasy, it sets a person up to invitably become Hebrews 6:4-6, because once they exuse their evil ways and call them good, they then no longer care Christ died and so become like Romans 1 “21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

 

Scriptures that Explain How Easily You Can Be Forgiven Post Baptism:


“1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.“ (1 John 2:1-2, ESV, Holy Bible)


“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us oursins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9 KJV)


“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10)


“And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.” (Revelation 1:5)


“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” (Hebrews 9:14)


“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” (Philippians 3:9)


“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.“ (1Corinthians 15:56-57)


“How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)


“Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:10-11)


——————


The problem comes from practicing sin oppose to stumbling (blowing it, making a mistake and then repenting) in sin:


“Those who make a practice of sin are straight from the Devil, the pioneer in the practice of sin. The Son of God entered the scene to abolish the Devil's ways.

9People conceived and brought into life by God don't make a practice of sin. How could they? God's seed is deep within them, making them who they are. It's not in the nature of the God-begotten to practice and parade sin.

10 Here's how you tell the difference between God's children and the Devil's children: The one who won't practice righteous ways isn't from God, nor is the one who won't love brother or sister. A simple test.” (1 John 3:8-10)


To practice sin is to master sinning, get better at sin, to train in sin, and condone it. A practioner of sin harms Christ’s sacrifice because they don’t want it, they believe their sin isn’t sin and so do not repent and aceept forgiveness; they do not value Christ’s blood and propitiation (Hebrews 10:29). In fact this is in the context of what leads to Hebrews 6:4-6, because the one who practices sin doesn’t care about Jesus’ sacrificd for sin and disagrees with Jesus that it is sin, “

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10).


Repentence matters because it owns (confessss) sin and recognizes that only Jesus can cleanse us from the sin (1 John 2:1-2, Revelation 1:5). If a person instead decides sin is ok, they don’t repent and so trample on the blood of Jesus’ grace (Hebrews 10:29) and put Him to public shame again (Hebrews 6:6). Jesus forgives all sins, but if you say there is no sin, you are hiding what Christ did.


Only Jesus saves us and His salvic work on the cross is absolute. But repentence is conmected to it; in that you accept this and acknowledge that Christ has paid for your sins. If you say there is no sin you say there was no need for Christ to die (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 2:4, Hebrews 6:6), and so insult the Spirit of Grace (Hebrews 10:29, Galatians 2:21). Practicing sin leads (is the path) to apostasy, it sets a person up to invitably become Hebrews 6:4-6, because once they exuse their evil ways and call them good, they then no longer care Christ died and so become like Romans 1 “21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

 

I am honestly scared that I have become hardened and have rejected God beyond salvation. I have said some blasphemous things at my anger towards God throughout my life, and more than once, but often feel guilt afterwards and repent of it, hoping to become better after each stumbling. Peter rejected Jesus in person and was asked to shepherd his flock to lift his spirits after feeling his rejection would make him a total failure for life. I believe that this is important (not quite what the RCC makes of it but you know what I mean). I hold to this with the hope of continuing to be sanctified. I have just begun taking seriously some of my sinful thoughts and desires that I was being kind of lax on before, and feel that I am growing in faith and obedience everyday, but I still stumble with anger and bitterness at past hurts. Praying God will teach me how to forgive and let it go, and trust him.