Gemeinden Christi: http://www.katholisch-leben.org/gemeindenchristi.htm
(Anmerkung: Der Begriff "Freikirchen" wird hier nur umgangssprachlich verwendet, da es sich hier mangels apostolischer Nachfolge und damit Priestertum und Eucharistie zwar um christliche Gemeinden, nicht aber um christliche Kirchen - wie etwa die orthodoxe oder die katholische Kirche - handelt. Dies gilt übrigens auch für die evangelische Kirche).
Manchmal vertretene Glaubensinhalte:
The Rapture: http://www.katholisch-leben.org/therapture.htm
Born Again (wiedergeboren): http://www.katholisch-leben.org/bornagain.htm
“There are congregations on nearly every corner. I'm not sure we need more churches. What we need is a church. I say one church is better than fifty. I have tried to remove the plural form churches from my vocabulary, training myself to think of the church as Christ did, and as the early Christians did. The metaphors for her are always singular – a body, a bride. I heard one gospel preacher say it like this, as he really wound up and broke a sweat: "We've got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he's coming back for a bride not a harem.”
― Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical
Following Jesus means listening to His Bride
SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
Freikirchen und die Katholische Kirche
Was bedeutet eigentlich das "frei" in "Freikirchen?"
Freikirchen oder freie evangelische Gemeinden werden in der Regel deshalb "frei" genannt, weil dies die Trennung von Staat und Kirche betont. Diese Gemeinden sind sowohl von Staat wie von der Kirche (bzw. den beiden großen Kirchen) unabhängig.
"Evangelisch" sind solche Gemeinden nicht nur mit Bezug auf das Evangelium und der Verbreitung desselben sowie der Ausrichtung des persönlichen Lebens auf die Lehre der Heiligen Schrift hin, sondern auch auf Basis der gemeinsamen Grundlage (Reformation / Martin Luther).
Unterschiede im Bibelverständnis zwischen Katholiken und "Freikirchlern"
My Protestant friends say that their church goes by the Bible Alone, but that the Catholic Church has added a lot of man-made traditions to the Word of God...is that true?
A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?
How should I respond to someone who asks me if I've been saved, or born again?
Is my eternal salvation in heaven with God secured?
Many Protestants believe we are saved by Faith Alone and they say Catholic believe they can work their way into Heaven. How do you answer that?
I need some help. Sometimes when I share my Catholic faith with people, they mention to me that Catholics like to drink alcohol and how wrong that is. How do I respond to this?
Im a Born-Again Christian and I was wondering why the Catholic Church doesnt do the altar call to have people accept the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior since it says that you must make this declaration to be Born Again?
How do I answer my father-in-law (a Methodist) when he says he read the Catechism and it says that only those belonging to The Church will achieve salvation.
Im reading a book that refers to the Catholic Church as being the harlot of Babylon as found in Revelation chapters 17 and 18. How would you respond to that?
Steve Ray: Catholic and Protestant
Differences Between Catholic and Protestant Approaches to the Bible
by Steve Ray on March 10, 2013
“Bible Christians” (a misnomer, since Catholics are the real and original Bible Christians), based on their recently devised “Reformation” principle of sola Scriptura, study the Bible with the following premises:
1. There is no binding authority but the Bible alone;
2. There is no official binding interpretation or interpreter; each person ultimately is their own pope;
3. The Bible is perspicuous (i.e., easy to understand) and it can be interpreted and understood by anyone.
4. An individual can/should read the Bible and interpret the Bible for themselves.
Catholics have a different set of premises that direct their study of the Bible.
1. The authority of the Apostles and the Church preceded the Bible and the Sacred Tradition of the Church is an equally infallible authority (2 Thes 2:15; CCC 80 83). The Bible is part of the Apostolic Tradition.
2. The authoritative interpretation of the Bible is the prerogative of the Catholic Church (1 Tim 3:15; Mt 18:17; CCC 85?88).
3. The Bible is not always easy to understand (2 Pet 3:15?16) and needs to understood within its historical and contextual framework and interpreted within the community to which it belongs.
4. Individuals can/should read the Bible and interpret the Bible for themselves—but within the framework of the Church’s authoritative teaching and not based on their own “private interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20?21).
(Source: Steve Ray: http://www.catholic-convert.com/2013/03/10/differences-between-catholic-and-protestant-approaches-to-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-316636. Used with permission)
I have an Evangelical friend at work who claims that the Catholic belief in Purgatory is not scriptural. What should I say to him?
Finishing up chapter 2 of my book: Blue Collar Apologetics. Chapter 3, on Sola Scriptura, will start with the next newsletter.
Blue Collar Apologetics - chapter 2 (cont'd)
Essential vs. Non-Essential
Earlier in this chapter - in the section entitled: “Jesus Founded a Church That Teaches Error?” - I mentioned how I have oftentimes heard people who belong to various Protestant denominations essentially admit that their church teaches error. Oh, they don’t say it directly, but what they do say is something along these lines: “I don’t necessarily believe my church gets everything right, but I know they get the essentials right.”
That’s just another way of saying, “My church teaches error, but it only teaches error in matters that are non-essential.” In other words, what these folks have done is found an excuse - a justification - that allows them to be comfortable in a church that they know is not infallible, and is not authoritative, and which they recognize could well be, and probably is, wrong in one or more of its doctrines and teachings.
You see, they divide the body of Christian doctrine into essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines. The essential doctrines are those that have to do directly with how one is saved. The non-essential doctrines are those that do not bear directly on one’s salvation, according to this way of looking at things.
There are, however, a few problems with this division of doctrine into essential and non-essential. The first question I ask someone who makes this kind of doctrinal distinction is this: Where in the Bible does it say anything about essential vs. non-essential doctrines? I have yet to get an answer. Well, does the Bible anywhere say anything that might give us a clue as to whether or not there are essential vs. non-essential doctrines? I think it does. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says, “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” And, from verse 19, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Here we see Jesus concerned with every iota, every dot of the law; and He says that no one should relax even the least of the commandments. That seems to cast a bit of doubt on this whole essential and non-essential thing.
That's just one verse, but it gives you an idea of how Jesus would feel about the question of there being "non-essential" doctrines. That verse, along with the others mentioned below, suggest that the answer to the question of where in the Bible does it say anything about essential vs. non-essential is...it doesn’t. So why do you, Mr. Bible Alone-Believing Christian, believe that there are such things as essential and non-essential doctrines when the Bible nowhere makes any such distinction? If its not in the Bible, then why do you believe it?
The second question I ask is: Who is it exactly that gets to decide what is, and is not, an essential vs. a non-essential doctrine? Again, there is nothing in the Bible that talks about essential and non-essential doctrines. There is no table anywhere in the Bible that lists out the essential doctrines on one side of the page and the non-essential doctrines on the other side of the page. So, who is it exactly that is deciding what qualifies as essential and what doesn’t?
This is a very important question, because what if a doctrine is incorrectly classified? For example, is Infant Baptism an essential doctrine or a non-essential doctrine? Most Protestants I have come across would classify it as non-essential, because most Protestants I have encountered - whether they be Baptists, Evangelical, non-denominational, or otherwise - believe Baptism is merely a symbolic gesture. They do not believe one is born again, or regenerated, through Baptism. Most of them do not believe that Baptism is essential for salvation. Most of them do not, therefore, baptize their babies. No need to.
But, there are Protestant faith traditions that believe, as do Catholics, that one is indeed born again through Baptism and that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Which results in them baptizing their babies so that those babies will be cleansed of Original Sin and be born again into Christ.
So, is Infant Baptism an essential or a non-essential doctrine? Well, if the “Baptism is symbolic” folks are right, I guess it would be non-essential. But, if the “Baptism is necessary for salvation” folks are right, then it is indeed essential. You wouldn't want your baby to die without being baptized if Baptism is necessary for one to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3-5), would you? Essential or non-essential...which is right? How do you know?
Another example: the Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper as many Protestants refer to it. Is that an essential or a non-essential doctrine? Again, if those who believe the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbolic re-enactment of the Last Supper are right, then I suppose it would be a non-essential doctrine, wouldn’t it? But, what if the Lutherans and the Anglicans are right, along with the Catholics, and the Eucharist actually is the Body and Blood of Christ? And that John 6:53 means it when it says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you?” That sounds pretty essential, doesn’t it? So, who gets to decide what is and is not essential in the realm of doctrine?
Another question I ask in this regard has to do with Matthew 4:4. After Jesus is baptized, He goes into the desert for 40 days. There He is tempted by Satan. In one of His responses to Satan’s temptations, Christ says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Man shall live by every one of God’s words. Now, Protestants believe, as do Catholics, that every word of Scripture is one of God’s words. And, it is from Scripture, and Scripture alone, that Protestant doctrines come, according to Protestants. So, my question is this: Given what Jesus says in Matthew 4:4, which of God’s words are essential, and which are non-essential? Which part of the Bible is essential and which part is non-essential? Can we really divide God’s revelation into essential and non-essential! Can we really divide the Bible into essential and non-essential? I keep wondering who can be so bold as to set themselves up as a judge over the Bible and daring to determine which words of God are essential and which are non-essential? Bold. Very bold.
I’m sorry, but all of this essential doctrine vs. non-essential doctrine nonsense is simply a way for folks to get around the fact that they are in a church or a denomination that has a body of beliefs that contain fallible, non-authoritative, man-made teachings, that are contrary to the Word of God. They know that their church is not infallible, and that no one in their church is infallible, so they implicitly recognize, at some level of their psyches, that their church, undoubtedly, is teaching error in some way, shape, or form. Instead of admitting it, though, and going out to look for the church founded by Jesus Christ that does not and cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals ("Know the truth and the truth shall set you free"), they try instead to minimize the impact of this reality by essentially saying, “Well, yeah, I guess my church doesn’t get everything right, but it only gets it wrong in those areas that don’t really matter anyway...you know...the non-essential doctrines.”
But, if you can’t trust the church, whatever church, to teach you correctly in small unimportant doctrines, then for crying out loud, how can you trust that church to teach you correctly in large important doctrines? If the Holy Spirit is not guiding a particular church in small, non-essential doctrinal matters, then why would one think the Holy Spirit is guiding that church in large, essential doctrinal matters?
Look at the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25, verses 14-30. In this parable we see the master entrusting his servants with differing amounts of talents before going away on a journey. When the master returns, two of his servants have done very well with the little they were entrusted with. And what does their master say to them? “Well done, good and faithful servant, you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.”
But, what happens to the servant who was entrusted with the smallest of these little matters? Well, he blew it. He did nothing with what he had been entrusted with. So, since his master couldn’t trust him with a little thing, it only makes sense that his master could trust him with much larger things, right? I don’t think so. The servant who could not be trusted with a little, was not trusted with more, but instead had the little he was given taken away from him and he was cast out into the outer darkness.
So, according to all those Protestants who divide doctrine up into essential vs. non-essential, even though their church may not be able to be trusted in its non-essential doctrinal teachings, you can rest assured that church can be trusted when it comes to its essential doctrinal teachings. Unfortunately for them, the third servant in the Parable of the Talents would beg to differ.
(Source: John Martignoni, www.biblechristiansociety.com)
Dear Pope Francis,
I read these days that you that you spoke against “religious proselytism” which in your view means talking with someone to persuade him. Instead we should respect other’s beliefs and inspire them through witness so we can grow together in communicating.
As a fellow Catholic who loves you like a father I want to respond you publicly.
You might mean well when you are saying this, but this goes so much against everything Christianity stands for I need to reply in love.
I am a cradle Catholic, but I have taken a long way till I came back to the Catholic Church. Among others I spend years with Israelis and in evangelical churches, so I am somewhat familiar with non-Catholic belief systems.
Wikipedia says “proselytism […] is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion”. How can this be wrong for a Christian?
Matthew 28:16-20New International Version (NIV)
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
You seem to have a great love for Evangelicals. So do I. I would even call myself an Evangelical Catholic. Evangelicals, however, pay great importance to evangelizing (or what you might call “proselytizing”). That’s something different, you might object. No, it’s not – not with regard to the Great Commission. We could discuss about the means (and here our personal witness through our words and deeds is very important), but not about the need thereof.
Sadly though most Catholics seem to have given up on the Great Commission or do not even know what that is. The common view is “live and let live” or “it does not matter what somebody believes in, they will all go to heaven”.
No, they won’t. I am not saying that all of those who have never heard of Jesus will go to hell, but from that speaking against attempts to convert people is a whole lot different.
Look to Jesus and His apostles: They gave their lives to convert other people who previously adhered to pagan beliefs – or to Judaism. That is exactly what “proselytizing” is all about. Saint Paul was even chosen for this reason – the disciple of the most important Jewish rabbi in history that became a follower of Jesus to reach out especially to the non-Jews.
I am afraid that what you said will confirm people in the erroneous belief that it does not matter what people believe in and that evangelizing (or however we might call it) is something we don’t do anymore.
Jesus did not talk about the small and the wide gate for no reason. Neither was his warning that nobody will come to the Father unless through Him just something one needs to see in a different light today.
It is not up to us to decide who will go to the Father and who not. However, it IS up to us to fulfill the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
Dear Pope Francis, I respect you and I love you – but there is someone I respect and love even more: Jesus. Therefore I call you to clarify your position so people will not be lead astray.
Some might laugh and say who is this guy that he dares to tell the Holy Father what to do?
I am nobody – and I am everybody. Jesus died for me as He died for each one of us. In His eyes we are all at one level – God’s children. As a brother in Christ – with the full responsibility and authority thereof – I call you to follow Jesus’s Great Commandment and teach others how to do that.
In brotherly love,
July 30th, 2014
(Sources: http://www.ucatholic.com/blog/10-secrets-for-happiness/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism)