A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

He was initiated into the Church the same day that he was struck blind. He didn’t join with the Apostles directly for 14 years, but he was certainly part of the Church, and being taught by the Church.

(Kind of like how I haven’t met the Pope yet, but I’ve been evangelizing for the Church for nearly seven years, now.)

My point it that he was not accepted as an Apostle for 14 years.

Absolutely. He was considered an Apostle, and he was teaching and evangelizing on behalf of the Church; not of his own accord.

Thus this statement is not true for the first 14 years that he teached.

 

[jmcrae]

My point it that he was not accepted as an Apostle for 14 years.

Thus this statement is not true for the first 14 years that he teached.

For the first 14 years, he was an ordinary evangelist like most of the Catholics who participate on this Forum, yes. But he was still subject to the Church, just like we are - he wasn’t making stuff up out of his head. (If he had been, they would never have accepted him as an Apostle.)

 

[protestantman]

You are misunderstanding Catholic vernacular. While our understanding may have grown, the Teaching has always been the same.

I do understand, thats why I said that the clarification has changed. I did not imply the teaching had changed.

Which is why we keep asking the question. How can we understand you if you won’t help us with our misunderstanding?

It would be helpfull if you would stop saying that I contradict myself. Why not just ask me to clarify my point? Tell me that you do not understand, as opposed to making accusations that I am in contradiction with myself.

We don’t see a distinction in those ordained by God to speak for the Church and the Church itself. Keep in mind the principle of Apostolic Succession that we believe exists in our Bishops.

I do. The bible makes the distimction that Christ is the head and the church is the body. How is that not a distinction. If a body has no head it is still a body right?

Again, if there is no distinction between the Church and Christ, there is no distinction between being subject to them both.

I believe there is a distinction. This is why our spirits will be given new bodies. The ones we are in are still a part of a corrupted creation. In order to be completely unified with Christ, we must be stripped of our earthly flesh. This means that we are not in the full likeness of Christ. Under those cercumstances, there is a definate distinction between the Church and Christ. The church is still wrapped in sinfull flesh, Christ is completely without sin.

This is an example of each bringing a different prism/assumption to the discussion. If the Catholic Church is correct, it has profound implications on all of your interpretations.

Yes IF.

 

[protestantman]

For the first 14 years, he was an ordinary evangelist like most of the Catholics who participate on this Forum, yes. But he was still subject to the Church, just like we are - he wasn’t making stuff up out of his head. (If he had been, they would never have accepted him as an Apostle.)

He was given his direct mandate from Christ himself, not the Apostles. The Apostles accepted him, because he was teaching the same Gospel.

Also, where does it say that, Ananias instructed him, or Peter, or any of the Apostles. All his claims where that his instruction were direct from Christ himself. The fact that his teaching was the same as the Apostles’ is because the sources were the same. The source was Christ, not the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

The bible makes the distimction that Christ is the head and the church is the body. How is that not a distinction. If a body has no head it is still a body right?

It’s a dead body, if it has no head. (That is, if the head is made to be distinct from the body.)

As a First Aider, one of the things I was taught is that under only three circumstances am I permitted to declare someone to be dead (or assume that he is dead, and thus, does not require first aid), and one of them is, if the head is severed completely from the body.

I believe there is a distinction. This is why our spirits will be given new bodies. The ones we are in are still a part of a corrupted creation. In order to be completely unified with Christ, we must be stripped of our earthly flesh. This means that we are not in the full likeness of Christ. Under those cercumstances, there is a definate distinction between the Church and Christ. The church is still wrapped in sinfull flesh, Christ is completely without sin.

This sounds like some kind of variation on Gnosticism or Manicheism. Our physical bodies are not evil; they were created by God, and they are good. When St. Paul uses terms like “the flesh” he isn’t referring to our physical forms; he is referring to our base, animal spirits - our temptations and our unchecked instincts. “The flesh” as referred to by St. Paul is actually the dark side of our souls. This dark side is what will be stripped away in Purgatory; not our physical bodies - our physical bodies will be gone by then, anyway.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If what you say is true then by this statement there will never be unity since all men will always have their perceptions of the truth. This would also mean that a prayer of Jesus failed.

This is fallacious logic. Prayer by its nature is petitioning God’s will. Prayer would not be necessary if permission or consent of God was not necessary. No prayer should be taken as a “failed” prayer. None are wasted - not one. Here is the implicit form of any prayer to God - “<insert: petition/supplication/praise/thanks here>…but let thy will be done”.

James

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you say is true then by this statement there will never be unity since all men will always have their perceptions of the truth. This would also mean that a prayer of Jesus failed.

CentralFLJames
This is fallacious logic. Prayer by its nature is petitioning God’s will. Prayer would not be necessary if permission or consent of God was not necessary. No prayer should be taken as a “failed” prayer. None are wasted - not one. Here is the implicit form of any prayer to God - “<insert: petition/supplication/praise/thanks here>…but let thy will be done”.

James

This is not fallacious logic but sound reasoning that follows from the those who claim the church is not united under the defintions that they use. The day will never come when all Christians will believe all alike. These days will never come before the day of Christ if it is based on the criteria that most people offer. If Christ prayed for unity and we don’t see unity by a certain criteria then the criteria is wrong and not that the prayer of Christ has failed.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Is there anyone in the catholic church that knows all the teachings of the catholic church for the past 2000 years? Do you?

Many of us know “all the CCC teaching” - perhaps not by rote but certainly by reference and by example. But if you mean every revelation of every saint, every mystical insight and every manuscript and dogma - no we don’t. There are hundreds of miles of archives and scholarly and spiritual works in the vast treasury of The Church that pious men spend a lifetime studying. The essential teaching necessary for our salvation is promulgated by the current teaching of the CCC and the bishops working through the episcopate at large.

Do you know all the dogmatic teaching that is in coming out of the legion of private interpretation of protestant sects?

James

 

[protestantman]

It’s a dead body, if it has no head. (That is, if the head is made to be distinct from the body.)

As a First Aider, one of the things I was taught is that under only three circumstances am I permitted to declare someone to be dead (or assume that he is dead, and thus, does not require first aid), and one of them is, if the head is severed completely from the body.

It is still a distinction. The Head of the body is distinct from the body itself. Even if it is not severed, there is still a distinction. Your point that the body is dead if it has no head is correct. This is evidence of my point. If one can be seperated from the other, then there must be a distinction. Like a hamburger, the patty and the bread are distinct, but together, they make a burger. You cannot say that the patty and the bread are one in the same.
It is the same with the body of Christ. The church is built upon the rock. The church is not the rock.

This sounds like some kind of variation on Gnosticism or Manicheism. Our physical bodies are not evil; they were created by God, and they are good. When St. Paul uses terms like “the flesh” he isn’t referring to our physical forms; he is referring to our base, animal spirits - our temptations and our unchecked instincts. “The flesh” as referred to by St. Paul is actually the dark side of our souls. This dark side is what will be stripped away in Purgatory; not our physical bodies - our physical bodies will be gone by then, anyway.

Please do not associate me with these two groups. You believe in God and so does the Devil. So should I associate you with him? In the same manner, I am neither a Gnostic or Manicheist.
All of creation was tainted with sin when Adam sinned. Why else would revelations speak of trading our old bodies for Heavenly ones?

 

[jmcrae]

It is still a distinction. The Head of the body is distinct from the body itself. Even if it is not severed, there is still a distinction. Your point that the body is dead if it has no head is correct.

That’s why the Church is joined perfectly with Christ - so that it can live.

This is evidence of my point. If one can be seperated from the other, then there must be a distinction.

They can’t be separated, though; otherwise both of them will die.

Why else would revelations speak of trading our old bodies for Heavenly ones?

It doesn’t say that; it says that our bodies will be made new (healed). We are going to be resurrected from the dead on the Judgment Day, and at that time, our souls will be reunited with our bodies.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

It would be helpfull if you would stop saying that I contradict myself. Why not just ask me to clarify my point? Tell me that you do not understand, as opposed to making accusations that I am in contradiction with myself.

I know, frustrating isn’t it.

Don’t worry though, I don’t think anyone is looking for your contradictions.

If anyone was, they would probably just put up a list of them along with post numbers.

He was given his direct mandate from Christ himself, not the Apostles. The Apostles accepted him, because he was teaching the same Gospel.

Also, where does it say that, Ananias instructed him, or Peter, or any of the Apostles. All his claims where that his instruction were direct from Christ himself. The fact that his teaching was the same as the Apostles’ is because the sources were the same. The source was Christ, not the Apostles.

True, it doesn’t say that Paul was instructed by any of the apostles, however, he received the Holy Spirit by baptism & the laying on of hands at Judas house. The same Holy Spirit that the other apostles had also received, which they also all testified to (that they were nothing of themselves and were preaching the gospel as given to them by God.)

So yes, the source of Paul’s knowledge was Christ, just as it was with the other apostles, but he received that knowledge by being given the gift of the Holy Spirit through ordination as an apostle.

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Not for 14 years.

He was initiated into the Church the same day that he was struck blind. He didn’t join with the Apostles directly for 14 years, but he was certainly part of the Church, and being taught by the Church.

My point it that he was not accepted as an Apostle for 14 years. Thus this statement is not true for the first 14 years that he teached.

A bit off topic, but I’ve been noticing a lot lately that many people agree with incorrect notions about Paul, like the “14 years” claim.

Acts 9 shows differently.

While Paul was converted at the same time as being struck blind, he remained blind for 3 days. (Acts 9:9)

After this, Paul was then baptized into the church & received the gift of the Holy Spirit as an apostle through the laying on of hands by Ananias.(Acts 9:17-19)

A relatively short time later, Paul was presented to & stayed with the apostles in Jerusalem, until the Grecian Jews tried to kill him, when the apostles sent him on to Tarsus. (Acts 9:23-30)

Chris

 

[protestantman]

That’s why the Church is joined perfectly with Christ - so that it can live.

They can’t be separated, though; otherwise both of them will die.

This is where I must strongly disagree. You really believe that Christ would die if the Church was seperated from him? Where does scripture say this? Where does this belief come from?

 

[jmcrae]

A bit off topic, but I’ve been noticing a lot lately that many people agree with incorrect notions about Paul, like the “14 years” claim.

Acts 9 shows differently.

While Paul was converted at the same time as being struck blind, he remained blind for 3 days. (Acts 9:9)

After this, Paul was then baptized into the church & received the gift of the Holy Spirit as an apostle through the laying on of hands by Ananias.(Acts 9:17-19)

A relatively short time later, Paul was presented to & stayed with the apostles in Jerusalem, until the Grecian Jews tried to kill him, when the apostles sent him on to Tarsus. (Acts 9:23-30)

Chris

Thanks for this. I really, really need to re-read the Book of Acts one of these days.

 

[jmcrae]

This is where I must strongly disagree. You really believe that Christ would die if the Church was seperated from him? Where does scripture say this? Where does this belief come from?

I was talking about the physical body. If the physical body is separated from the physical head, then both the body and the head will die.

If the Church becomes separated from Christ, then it is no longer the body of Christ. But I think this is impossible, because of Christ’s promise. If the Church ceased to be, then Christ’s mission was in vain - He died on the Cross, but everyone is still in their sins, because the channels of grace that flow through the Church are cut off.

 

[protestantman]

I know, frustrating isn’t it.

Don’t worry though, I don’t think anyone is looking for your contradictions.

If anyone was, they would probably just put up a list of them along with post numbers.

Some have done that. And yes its frustrating, because it seems they have already made up their mind.

True, it doesn’t say that Paul was instructed by any of the apostles, however, he received the Holy Spirit by baptism & the laying on of hands at Judas house. The same Holy Spirit that the other apostles had also received, which they also all testified to (that they were nothing of themselves and were preaching the gospel as given to them by God.)

So yes, the source of Paul’s knowledge was Christ, just as it was with the other apostles, but he received that knowledge by being given the gift of the Holy Spirit through ordination as an apostle.

He was not ordained/accepted as an apostle for 14 years. This fact cannot be eluded. So, for 14 years he did not act under the direction of the Apostles. He acted under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Later, after he was accepted by the Apostles, Paul continues to say that he was acting under the direction of the HS. He never made the claim that it was from the HS, through the Apostles.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

It is still a distinction. The Head of the body is distinct from the body itself. Even if it is not severed, there is still a distinction. Your point that the body is dead if it has no head is correct. This is evidence of my point. If one can be seperated from the other, then there must be a distinction. Like a hamburger, the patty and the bread are distinct, but together, they make a burger. You cannot say that the patty and the bread are one in the same.

Actually, the body is incomplete (and dead) if no head exists. If the head is separated, the body is dead, & as a part of the body, so is the head. (Although I just got a funny mental picture of those disembodied heads in glass jars from Futurama!)

The Body is a whole. Yes, one can label specific different parts, down to the individual molecules, but without all of the parts, the body is not a whole.

It is the same with the body of Christ. The church is built upon the rock. The church is not the rock.

Agreed, the church is built upon the rock, & is not the rock itself.

Please do not associate me with these two groups. You believe in God and so does the Devil. So should I associate you with him? In the same manner, I am neither a Gnostic or Manicheist.
All of creation was tainted with sin when Adam sinned. Why else would revelations speak of trading our old bodies for Heavenly ones?

No offense, but your comments earlier sound very Manicheist, with the implied insistence that matter is evil (or “corrupt” and must be destroyed.)

I would recommend St. Augustine’s writings against the Manicheans if you want to see what they believed and why it is/was incorrect.

newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/1403.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/1406.htm

Here is also an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia about manicheanism.
newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm

God bless,

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

He was not ordained/accepted as an apostle for 14 years. This fact cannot be eluded. So, for 14 years he did not act under the direction of the Apostles.

Might want to recheck that idea with the Holy Spirit there, dude, & reread Acts, chapter 9.

While Paul was converted at the same time as being struck blind, he remained blind for 3 days. (Acts 9:9)

After this, Paul was then baptized into the church & received the gift of the Holy Spirit as an apostle through the laying on of hands by Ananias.(Acts 9:17-19)

A relatively short time later, (several days after being baptized and ordained,) Paul was presented to & stayed with the apostles in Jerusalem, until the Grecian Jews tried to kill him, when the apostles sent him on to Tarsus. (Acts 9:23-30)

So the only way your “fact cannot be eluded” is if you reject the Bible itself.

Again, God bless,

Chris

 

[protestantman]

After this, Paul was then baptized into the church & received the gift of the Holy Spirit as an apostle through the laying on of hands by Ananias.(Acts 9:17-19)

Acts 9:17-19
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength

This does not say that he recieved any other gift than the HS. Nor does it say that he became an Apostle.

A relatively short time later, Paul was presented to & stayed with the apostles in Jerusalem, until the Grecian Jews tried to kill him, when the apostles sent him on to Tarsus. (Acts 9:23-30)

This passage calls him a disciple. There is a difference between an Apostle and a Disciple. When Mathias was chosen to replace Judas, he was chosen from among other disciples.

Galations 2:6-10
6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.** 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

This passage makes two things clear.
1- Paul was not accepted as an apostle for 14 years after his conversion.
2- the colored section proves that he did not recieve any additional teaching or beliefs from the apostles. It says that they added nothing.**

 

[protestantman]

I was talking about the physical body. If the physical body is separated from the physical head, then both the body and the head will die.

If the Church becomes separated from Christ, then it is no longer the body of Christ. But I think this is impossible, because of Christ’s promise. If the Church ceased to be, then Christ’s mission was in vain - He died on the Cross, but everyone is still in their sins, because the channels of grace that flow through the Church are cut off.

Yet Luther, Calvin, and Zingwie were cut off. Is it not possible that even the Pope could be cut off and the rest of the body remain?