Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One last reply…if there is but one believer in Christ left upon the earth is the church still not in existence?

Sorry, I gotta go.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
Click to expand...
Thank you for correction…lol…meant transformation (digetsion)
 
Wannano said:
One last reply…if there is but one believer in Christ left upon the earth is the church still not in existence?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. Does Jesus promise hold if.the Church was in error for a millennium and a half?
 
brianjmc1 said:
For Catholic’s its very easy. To be Catholic(one requirement) you are required to believe what the magistrate teaches.
Click to expand...
Careful friend - it’s required, but perhaps not always so easy. For example - there’s a very active thread here on whether or not it’s sinful to vote for the Democratic party (given its platform position on abortion, among other things). There are numerous links to homilies and writings by members of the Magisterium - on both sides (although heavily weighted one direction I must say).

Catholics (all Christians I would argue) should have a very united stance on such critical issues, no? Indeed, I would put your ideas about life among the top issues Catholics stand up for (and I applaud you for it!) And yet, on such an important matter, there is wide disagreement upon the right path to follow. Those on both sides have well constructed arguments - arguments supported (faithfully) by their conscience.

(BTW - Is it not more important that you and I are united in our thoughts about the supremacy of Christ and the sanctity of life in the womb, then about the precise interpretation of Romans 9? (Calvinists are right about Romans 9 BTW 🙂 )

But, lest we go astray of the OP - at some point you made a choice to be Catholic, no? You agreed to be submissive to the Magisterium. What informed your choice?
 
TULIPed said:
What informed your choice?
Click to expand...
Cradle Catholic “doing” without thinking or understanding. I fault, myself, but also the Catholic School education I received. They(and me) should have done better job teaching(and me questioning). This was 70’s-80’s. Here is the way it is, lets move on…type of instruction.

In my 20’s, I thought I knew better then the Church, why do i have to tell a priest confession, Jesus knows if I am sorry or not, etc…, but didn’t fall away, but became my own Catholic “protestant”, I’ll pick and choose what I want to believe, and really you only need to be a good person… Not insulting ANY protestant with that last line, just myself with regards to being a “good” Catholic!!!

Late 20’s, I started to read scripture and study Church\christian history. Every time I had doubts, I search the Church for answers, and she answered, every time…

In my late 40’s and it’s been such a great journey learning the depth of the Catholic faith. I have only scratched the surface, I learn new aspects weekly… getting more into the connection of O.T. with N.T. - completely astonishes me…

Mary - new eve\new ark, Isaac carrying sticks(on Moriah) on back - Jesus carrying the cross(on Moriah), Moses Exodus\passover - Jesus Exodus\last supper, etc…

Peace to All
 
Julius_Caesar said:
So the incarnation was to no avail.

Jesus is just saying what He’s said to Peter. “You don’t think like God but like men.”

He is not contradicting what He originally said.
Click to expand...
I agree. And is how I meant it. The Father in heaven revealed to Peter whom Jesus is, as he does all of us. Those following Jesus, even some disciples, did not have this revelation, nor caught any calling from the Father, hence finally depated at was os essentially the Cross.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Those following Jesus, even some disciples, did not have this revelation, nor caught any calling from the Father, hence finally depated at was os essentially the Cross.
Click to expand...
The issue wasn’t that they didn’t have the revalation, but they didn’t believed.
 
TULIPed said:
Careful friend - are numerous links to homilies and writings by members of the Magisterium - on both sides
Click to expand...
I might, as well, caution you to be “careful, friend” – you might understand what ‘the magisterium’ is, but you’re expressing things in the way that those who do not understand, express them.

The ‘magisterium’ isn’t a body, in the way that ‘Congress’ or ‘The Beatles’ or the ‘Pittsburgh Steelers’ are. Rather, it merely expresses the teaching authority of the Church. So, to talk about “the members of the magisterium” tends to betray a lack of recognition of this nuance.

Why is it an important nuance, though? Simple: when those who exercise this authority – in its proper context – speak outside that context, they’re not engaging in magisterial speech. Depending on their role, there might be authority to their words; depending on the context of their speech, there might not be.

When RBG gets up to speak, outside of the context of her role in a SCOTUS ruling, would we say, “a-ha! that’s a binding opinion of the SCOTUS!”…? Of course not.

Similar thing here: a homily is not magisterial speech, nor does it create a binding declaration. So… members of bodies who – under certain very particularly defined contexts – may come together to make magisterial statements, do not do so from the pulpit, as such.
TULIPed said:
Catholics (all Christians I would argue) should have a very united stance on such critical issues, no?

(BTW - Is it not more important that you and I are united in our thoughts about the supremacy of Christ and the sanctity of life in the womb, then about the precise interpretation of Romans 9?
Click to expand...
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”? No… that’s the Reformation approach, not the Catholic approach.
 
Last edited:
Have you watched Full of Grace? There’s a scene where Simon (the other Simon) is expressing his concerns about those who abandon tradition. His point was that tradition (ritual cleansing, liturgical calendar, observing the sabbath & many others) helps to instruct & form holiness into our daily lives.

Of course they don’t reach a conclusion in the movie, & even though it is fiction, it offers some insight to the issues the early Church had to deal with.

Also helps to put into perspective our daily practices today.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
I might, as well, caution you to be “careful, friend” – you might understand what ‘the magisterium’ is, but you’re expressing things in the way that those who do not understand, express them.
Click to expand...
You took my quote of of context, and you altered what I wrote. Here’s what I responded to:
brianjmc1 said:
For Catholic’s its very easy. To be Catholic(one requirement) you are required to believe what the magistrate teaches.
Click to expand...
And here is my (actual) quote:
TULIPed said:
Careful friend - it’s required, but perhaps not always so easy.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind being quoted, and I don’t mind a good debate. No need to create controversy where there is none.
 
Gorgias said:
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”? No… that’s the Reformation approach, not the Catholic approach
Click to expand...
And why (CC approach) you have Orthodox and P’s today? “Once right always right” is appropos?

“Pacify those that contend” was a bit lacking ( from Didache, on not creating schism)?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Kindly disagree. It’s both, by the Lord’s own words
Click to expand...
And He also said, “I will draw all to Me when I have been lifted up.”

So it wasn’t Jesus withholding Himself from them. It was them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top