J
justasking4
Guest
Are the ones who don’t accept all the teachings of the Church considered Catholics and part of the body of Christ?
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
You are mistaken in your premise --that when God commands something, it will be done. When it comes to humanity we are all law breakers and no one can keep the law of God perfectly. That’s why He sent Christ into the world to take our sins upon Himself and take the punishment that should have been ours. Don’t ever believe that a human born of human parents has never sinned. Anyone who promotes this makes the Scriptures a liar. See I John 1:10
The unity that Christ prayed for is not based on Catholic church but on something far more fundamental and powerful.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Ahem, you are pontificating again as if you are infallible and making non-scriptural statements to boot.
Don’t ever believe the false and fallable opinions of any man except those that God grants infallability to (Prophets and The Pope operating in union with the Holy Spirit The Body of Christ [The Church]).
Jesus was born of a human parent and The Holy Spirit of God the Father. Through the mystery of the Incarnation Jesus was the son of both The Divine and Human beings. We accept in faith that Jesus never sinned just as we accept in faith the scriptures in this regard. This alone makes your statement false. But we can also go a step further and state by the same faith and apostolic teaching and revelation that Mary never sinned. Clearly nothing pure can come out of something impure anymore so that pure water can come out of a contaminated vessel (arc). The Arc of The Lord was Holy (Mary) just as the The Arc of the Covenant was Holy and never touched by man (virgin) without suffering pain of death to any who dared try. Mary clearly illustrates the fulfillment of the “arc of the covenant”–according to standards of Biblical typology. The metaphor is even complete in Jesus being the New Covenant and the Living Word of God. In the Old Testament the arc of the covenant was the powerful and sacred embodiment/abode of God, no mere man was allowed to even touch the arc. Mary, in a more perfect way became the temple and embodiment of Jesus, the Savior of mankind. She obviously was endued with great power when we realize, in the 12th Chapter of Revelation, her role as mother of Jesus and arch enemy of Satan who tried to kill her and Jesus.
Oh fallable man full of error, thou dost pontificate yet again. The unity Jesus prayed for was certainly not the disunity we have in the legion of Protestant sects. Could that disunity tell you something* fundamentally *wrong about your assumptions? As fundamental as Protestantism is - Jesus did not pray that the bible (that did not exist till 400 years after the Catholic Church assembled it) was to unify His People. Fundamentally, you are fallable and in grave error to make out otherwise since you have not been given the authority to speak on behalf of Jesus’ Church nor to teach.
James
J
justasking4
Guest
Not pontificating but showing you what the scriptures teach. All men have sinned— Romans 5:12–Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Secondly if Mary had ever said she never sinned she would have violated this Scripture in I John 1:10 and would have lied if she thought it.
How many times has a pope spoken ex cathedra?
Was Jesus born of 2 human parents? Is He just like the rest of us?
Lot of false statements here. For one Mary is never referred to as an ark in the NT by anyone.
Secondly, could men handle the ark when the presence of God was gone from the ark?
If this is the case then why do we find one verse, one word that mentions she was “in a more perfect way became the temple” in the NT?
This idea that you mention here has been soundly refuted by catholic scholarship. Here is one such scholar who writes specifically on the woman of Revelations 12:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you believe that the roman catholic church in all her doctrines, practices, history and people has acheived the unity that Christ prayed for in itself?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Even if it hasn’t done so perfectly, yet, what makes Protestantism a better choice? At least the Catholic faith has a consistent body of teachings and a centralized authority.
J
justasking4
Guest
What you are saying here is what i know to be true even with all the great claims that catholic church and its members make about itself that it to has failed to live up to what Jesus prayed for. Its not about who is closer but about the perfection of unity that He prayed for.
J
jmcrae
Guest
You are right; we need to be in perfect unity.
We will get there when everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian is in full holy communion with the Pope, and when everyone who is in full holy communion with the Pope believes and practices the fullness of the Catholic faith. Until then, all we can do is make sure that we are doing that, and pray for everyone else to get there, too.
Scattering everyone to the thousand winds of Protestantism just because we don’t happen to have perfect unity today doesn’t make any sense - it would be absolutely counter-productive, really.
J
justasking4
Guest
I’m sure you have looked at John 17 where in this prayer Jesus prays for unity. Where does Jesus specifcally pray that unity will be based in part on “holy communion with the Pope”?You are right; we need to be in perfect unity.
We will get there when everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian is in full holy communion with the Pope, and when everyone who is in full holy communion with the Pope believes and practices the fullness of the Catholic faith. Until then, all we can do is make sure that we are doing that, and pray for everyone else to get there, too.
Scattering everyone to the thousand winds of Protestantism just because we don’t happen to have perfect unity today doesn’t make any sense - it would be absolutely counter-productive, really.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Pope is the head of His Church. We see this in John 21:15-19. In John 17, He is praying that the Church will remain unified. Obviously, it has to remain unified around its leader.
If you say you are a Democrat, but you separate yourself from the leader of the Democrats, then are you really a Democrat?
So, if you are a Christian, then you have to be in unity with the leader of the Christians, which is the Pope.
It’s really not all that complicated.
J
justasking4
Guest
So we agree then that there is no mention of anything about a pope or leader for unity in John 17?
Now lets look at John 21:15-19. Where do you get the idea that Peter is now the head of the entire church in this passage? Why was Jesus speaking to Peter like this?
True
Not so. Do we find any writer in the NT letters, (including 1 and 2 Peter) where they teach that unity is to be based on Peter or some supreme leader of the church?
I agree. However your position is unbiblical. Unity is never based on the pope.It’s really not all that complicated.
G
guanophore
Guest
ja4. this methodology reveals a flawed and fundamentalist mindset. Jesus did not teach doctrine by piecemealing out certain scriptures. The whole Teaching needs to be taken together. Jesus built Peter into Himself (made him part of the Rock). Then, He gave the keys to Peter. Then He told Peter that Satan had asked to “sift” all the Apostles. But Jesus said “I have prayed for you (singular-Peter), that after you have have been restored, strengthen your brethren.” Peter had no idea what he was talking about at the time, but Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him. The point is, Satan demanded to sift them ALL, but Jesus only prayed for Peter. He knew that all the Apostles would stick with Peter, and if Peter held up, they all would. This is the way He designed it to work.
Nowhere. Thiis “supremacy” that you keep slinging into the picture is balderdash. Jesus did not teach that leadership had anything to do with “supremacy”. It is just more of your attempt at subtle calumny against Catholicism.
Our whole faith is not Bible Based, ja4. Our faith is based on the Teachings of Jesus, which came before the NT. That is why none of our doctrine does not seem “biblical” to you. We recognize that there was much more to the Doctrine than what got into the NT.
J
justasking4
Guest
Who is piecemealing anything here? I asked a simple and direct question about the passage that could easily been answered quickly and simply. I would think you to have read John 17 and would agree that there is no mention of any pope or leader.
The same principle applies to John 21:15-19.
What you say here has nothing to do with the passages above. The unity that Jesus prayed for has nothing to do with the pope in these passages.
More dodging the issue. Anyone can read the letters of the NT and what they will not find is any of this balderdash i.e. “unity with the pope” that you and others are trying to make the Scriptures say something they never do.
I have to admit you say some amazing things. What are “the Teachings of Jesus, which came before the NT”? Can you give me a couple of examples of what you are referring to?
If this is the case this is all the more we need to discuss this. Sometimes trying to understand Catholicism is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
S
sodak
Guest
Jesus also didn’t say how much I’ll owe in taxes this year. He gave me a brain to figure it out. Some things are pretty obvious.
When you want to deny the truth, you refuse to believe it unless it follows your own made-up formula. Last time I checked, testing God was a sin employed by Satan.
Who do you think is in charge here, you, or God? Who reports to whom?
G
guanophore
Guest
I have heard it said “once Catholic, always Catholic”. I suppose they would be considered "lapsed’ Catholics (fallen away). Personally I consider them Protestant, because that is how I was for many years. There are many members of the Body of Christ that are in a state of mortal sin. Most of these are among them. The only ones who are not considered in a state of mortal sin are those who are too ignorant about their own faith to know that they are not embracing the Teachings of Jesus. They are still in sin, but since it is not deliberate, it is not the greater sin.
This is Calvanist heresy. Obviously we know this is not true, because when God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, they did not obey Him.
This is also a heresy. To say that God asks us to be perfect, then doesn not give us the ability to do so is not right. Although, off the top of my head, I cannot recollect which heresy this is. Maybe someone more in their right mind (who is not working on their tax return on the other screen) will remember?
God has poured His spirit abroad in our hearts, and through that Spirit, He can accomplish all that He has commanded of us. We fail to yield.
Yes, I agree that this was the purpose for sending Christ. But after Christ, when we are cleansed in Baptism, and the Spirit regenerates our hearts, we then no longer have to be a slave to sin. We are set free from the bondage of sin. At that point, we can choose holiness.
No, ja4, scripture does not “lie”. You just don’t interpret it correctly. I also must advise you, it is not a good idea to come to a Catholic Answers Forum and command Catholics to reject their faith. By so doing you could be banned from the forum. The purpose of the forum is to answer questions about the Catholic faith, not to give you a forum to promote anti-Catholic polemic.
The Catholic Church is based on Christ, and there is nothing more powerful and fundamental than Christ. If you think there is, then you are not really a Christian. The Church is His Bride. God created all of mankind so that He could have the wedding feast of the Lamb. When this occurs, the Church will be fully unified with Him, as it is now only in part.
Scriptures don’t teach. People teach.
You are taking this verse out of context. If you go back and look at the beginning of the passage, Paul is making reference to one of the Psalms. Look at that Psalm, and you will see that it is about UNBELIEVERS! Believers don’t have to sin. The next verse is about original sin, not personal sin. Babies can’t sin, and deficient people cannot sin. It does not apply to “everyone” like you seem to believe.
That is one of the reasons we know that this interpretation is not correct!
All she has violated is your erroneous interpreation of the scripture.She is, ja4, you just can’t see it because you have your anti-Catholic blinders on. Luke perfectly parallels the journey of the Ark in his narrative. No one who is familiar with the Jewish Scriptures could possibly miss this.
Mary was consecrated to God. She was espoused to the Holy Spirit. It would not be appropriate for anyone to “handle” her in that manner.
Because we get this doctrine from the Apostles, and we only see hints of it in the Scriptures. They did not find it necessary to document this. I am sure they never dreamed that so many people would rebel against the Holy Traditions.
This is not a “refutation” ja4. It is apocalyptic literature, and it has many layers. This is the nature of apocalyptic literature. No one could argue that the Child born of Woman is the Savior of the nations!
Anyway, theologians and scholars do not define the Revelation of God. The doctrine of the Church is based on the Teachings of Jesus, not Catholic scholars.
G
guanophore
Guest
First of all, there was no Roman Rite (distinct from the other 22) for five centuries. Secondly, I think we are all in agreemnt that many Catholics have sinned in their practices. Thirdly, history is not an element of Christ’s prayer for unity, and fourthly, people cannot, at any time, in any place “achieve the unity that Christ prayed for in” themselves. This unity only comes by the Power of God. But, this unity does exist in the Doctrine that has been preserved in the Church by that power of God, and all those who fully embrace it are in unity with God, and one another.
E
elt1956
Guest
From what I have read of many of the postings on this forum, the main differences between Catholicism and some Protestant believers is the use of the Bible by Protestants as the sole means of finding exact answers for beliefs. Catholicism is based on not only the Bible, but on Tradition that goes back centuries, in the belief the Pope is the chief representative of Jesus here on earth, a distinct and direct lineal descendent of the apostle Peter, in the belief that Christ said to the disciples, 'whatsoever you bind here on earth will be bound in heaven. It has taken centuries of intense study and scrutiny of the church fathers and others for the Catholic Church to come to some of the conclusions now in her doctrines and dogmas. I don’t believe that someone who has been exposed only to personal Bible interpretation can come up with the same answers and beliefs as those given by the Church. And as well, I don’t think that any Catholic on this forum can convince one who believes in personal interpretation of the Bible to think other than that person already thinks. The most one can hope for is that discussions on these forums will lead to curiosity and open minds, for people to check what is said for themselves and come to their own conclusions. We are not here to brain wash, or argue, but to inform. If the information cannot be received, then one needs to search elsewhere. Peace.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not “some supreme leader,” but rather, with the Servant of Servants, which is the Pope.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Everything that Jesus said and did was “pre-New Testament.”
The New Testament as a finished collection of books came into existence in about 405 AD. Prior to that everything (including everything that Christ said and did) was made available to the Church through the Oral Tradition.
The writings of the New Testament were written over a period of about 40 years, from 55 to 95 AD. The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ occurred between March 25-May 5, 33 AD, which was a good 12 years before St. Paul first put quill to sheepskin, to begin to write the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Once people started writing about Jesus, though, everyone started writing, and there were hundreds of books written; not just the 27 that we today find in our New Testament. There was a process of weeding out that took place over a period of hundreds of years - some books were found to be useful, and were kept - some of those that were found to be useful were declared by a Catholic Pope to be inspired of the Holy Spirit, and worthy of inclusion with the Books of Moses, of Wisdom, and the Prophets, as a New Covenant record, aka the New Testament.
Everything that Jesus taught, He taught orally. He wasn’t putting anything into writing, and nobody was taking notes along the way. The Apostles, in their turn taught orally. Their writings were never intended to take the place of oral teaching, but simply to supplement it - and that’s exactly how the Bible was always used, right up until the time of the Protestant rebellion.
M
mlchance
Guest
According to you, who, after ignoring Scripture that shows St. Peter was the Church’s first leader, after ignoring history that shows Petrine leadership passed from one bishop of Rome to the next, then bases his opinions on an argument from silence by selectively distorting Scripture while presuming for yourself an authority which you deny anyone has.
All together now:
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status