[quote:1hfg61zd]I have entered a number of Catholic Churches and I fail to find much spiritual life in them, not even from the priests. I can think of so many Protestant churches where I have seen so much life in the members that I cannot look to CAtholicism unless Christ himself showed me that only Catholicism works. Or, perhaps, unless I saw the same faith in a Catholic Church and the same fire. sigh… My congregation worships with their whole heart, soul, and mind and for me that is where I must also place my worship. If this church is to be called a “Protestant” church, then so be it. If I found this in a Catholic Church, then perhaps I would have no problem attending there.
Those who belong to the Church of Christ worship him in spirit and in truth.
And all God’s people said, amen. [/quote:1hfg61zd]
[color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]I see this as well. Often times it’s a measurement of fuzzy feelings, excitement of the believers, etc. I agree that some Catholic parishes are certainly lacking in this. But how exactly does this take away from the truth it teaches? If anything that would cause me to want to help the local parish, not separate from it. That’s probably one of the major differences I’ve endured as catholic now. When I attended protestant churches followers fed off of how much they were entertained, the powerful voice of the pastor, singing, dancing, etc. And that’s fine, we have Charismatic Catholic Churches as well. But going to Church isn’t about me feeling good or getting entertained or whatever. I’d go even if the priest was drop dead boring and all the members in the Church were asleep. Why? One reason of many, because I can receive my Lord in the Eucharist. Because the Church contains truth, even if it’s followers are not feeling it. [/color:1hfg61zd]
[quote:1hfg61zd]There is no historical evidence of any Pope receiving authority through Peter, ideologically it makes sense that the mass has chosen bishops through the work of the Holy Spirit over a couple hundred years but this is guess work that no council agreed upon.[/quote:1hfg61zd]
[color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]I beg to differ. What year do you want?
Listen to what St. Clement (97 AD) had to say,[/color:1hfg61zd]
[color=green:1hfg61zd]Our Apostles knew,” he says, “through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissension over the title of Bishop. In their knowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of and they went on to add an instruction that, if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office.”[/color:1hfg61zd]
[color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]St. Irenaeus of Lyons (115 AD):[/color:1hfg61zd]
[color=green:1hfg61zd]The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3:3:3).[/color:1hfg61zd]