Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[TULIPed]

Sorry… I did nothing of the sort. You wrote:

Did you not combine sections of what I originally wrote? Generally speaking, when one does this, they include ellipses. Here’s an example

I responded about why “homilies and writings” are magisterial documents.

Now this comes from what you wrote. It’s not however what you wrote. I edited what you wrote and posted it as a complete quote - without ellipses to show my edits.

A suggestion in the future - if you’re going to presume context and intent, and edit other’s writing to reflect your thoughts, at least do it appropriately please.

OR

You could write and ask “Did you mean to impugn the magisterium with this, because it seems like you did.”

To which I would respond, “No - I didn’t. Perhaps I could’ve been more clear. I have good friends who are priests, and thus would never knowingly impugn the magisterium”

In either case, a bit of kindness would go a long way.

 

[Hodos]

How do we know that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus?

The Church was founded by God (which includes the second person of the Trinity) from the beginning. There is no time when the Church did not exist. It begins in the garden of Eden when Adam receives God’s blessing, follows Noah and Abraham where God gives his promises of deliverance and blessing, is confirmed to Israel when Moses receives the 10 Commandments, continues through the kingdoms of Judah and Israel where God is present in the temple and sends priests and prophets with his Word to his people, and continues up to the time when Christ, the Word, is made flesh and dwelt among us, and continued when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the believers in Jerusalem. The Church continues wherever the faithful gather around his word and sacraments until Christ returns.

 

[mcq72]

Sure it does. However, the Catholic Church was given authority to lead by Jesus Himself. So, from that perspective, it’s not like the Church is saying “we want to wrest control”… since, after all, it was given to the Church by Jesus.

Well not exactly according to Orthodox

And, after all, you can’t “bring to peace” folks who refuse to stop “contending”

Can their be peace when you err in your favor? How is that pacifying?

The first 3 vs of ch4 Didache are individual obligations to authority. The next 2 or 3 are obligations of those in authority

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Oh THANK YOU for posting this encyclical… your post (I ran out of likes.)

 

[Gorgias]

Did you not combine sections of what I originally wrote?

I echoed your sentiment, and then quoted your words.

In either case, a bit of kindness would go a long way.

Yes, it could. I really appreciated being told I misquoted you… when I didn’t, and took you out of context… which I didn’t.


It’s all good. No offense taken.

Well not exactly according to Orthodox

oh… so, you’re Orthodox ?? Hmm… I thought you were arguing from the Reformation position…

 

[mcq72]

oh… so, you’re Orthodox ?? Hmm… I thought you were arguing from the Reformation position

If truth is sectarian, then I am a switch hitter on papacy issue.

 

[TULIPed]

Yes, it could. I really appreciated being told I misquoted you… when I didn’t, and took you out of context… which I didn’t.

Odd this - since I’m telling you now (and have been almost continuously since this started) that what I wrote originally was meant to agree with your response to what I wrote originally. But - not the first time there’s been confusion on the interweb.

So I’ll end where I should’ve started:

Yes - that’s what I meant to say.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ok So it is disobedient to pray for and heal the sick, cast out demons. And speak for God prophetically ???

Matt 7:21-23 doesn’t say healing the sick, casting out demons and prophesying are “disobedience”.

Where were they disobedient? What was their inequity? What commands did they break? What on the to do list did they neglect? … Are you sure it was condemnation for sinful works ?

Jesus condemns certain Christians in that passage for “iniquity”, but he doesn’t specify their sins (all sin is disobedience).

Admittedly, it is a strange passage – the Christians Jesus addresses perform miracles, prophesy and cast out demons, yet Jesus condemns them for their (unspecified) sins.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus condemns certain Christians in that passage for “iniquity”, but he doesn’t specify their sins (all sin is disobedience).

Admittedly, it is a strange passage – the Christians Jesus addresses perform miracles, prophesy and cast out demons, yet Jesus condemns them for their (unspecified) sins.

Ok. What was the sin/inequity of 5 foolish virgins parable? I believe both are related . Both say, " I don’t know you". Is it inequity to not know the Lord? Is it inequity to be religious yet ignorant, or scoffing at, or presumption of needing/ having inner birth and union with the Godhead?

Nothing strange about it if one has experienced religiosity without new birth, and then experiencing new birth. Night and day.All things become new.

 

[Wannano]

Nothing strange about it if one has experienced religiosity without new birth, and then experiencing new birth. Night and day.All things become new.

This gold nugget of truth is so simple we either cannot understand it or we do in fact understand it but don’t want too, so we create our own framework of religion.

 

[mcq72]

This gold nugget of truth is so simple we either cannot understand it or we do in fact understand it but don’t want too, so we create our own framework of religion.

Very difficult for one to hear and or understand when being asked if they have been born again or if they personally know Jesus when steeped in presumptuous Christian religion .

Jesus experienced similar Jewish presumption, hence the 2 parables.

 

[Gorgias]

If truth is sectarian, then I am a switch hitter on papacy issue.

Funny you mention that… in a particular sense, it was the Reformation that created the notion of ‘sectarian Christianity’ in the West!

 

[Gorgias]

So I’ll end where I should’ve started:

Yes - that’s what I meant to say.

Cool. Thanks!

(Then, my comments effectively are directed towards those who might think that you’re saying something else. These threads stick around for quite a while, and folks often come by later and read up!)

 

[mcq72]

Funny you mention that… in a particular sense, it was the Reformation that created the notion of ‘sectarian Christianity’ in the West!

Yes and no, because that there was a 'West" in the first place is sectarian already.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes and no, because that there was a 'West" in the first place is sectarian already.

Well, “two Churches who, to varying extents, recognize either other’s validity” is vastly different than “a Church and a plethora of ecclesial communities who see the respective ‘others’ as holding to invalid doctrines and practices.”

 

[Justin_Mary]

Nothing strange about it if one has experienced religiosity without new birth, and then experiencing new birth. Night and day.All things become new.

So what do you think of the Catholic teachings of “new birth”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

There were two sects before that.

The East and the West.

In the beginning there was the Judaizing faction and the non Judaizing faction.

Protestants have only gained a bigger following than these all combined.

 

[mcq72]

So what do you think of the Catholic teachings of “new birth”

Very important question and could have thread all it’s own.

CC obviously teaches new birth, but I think a sacramental new birth. Other churches also teach baptismal regeneration. It gets more problematic when you introduce infant baptism/ confirmation along with overtones of savific covenant in institutional church.

Same thing happened in OT Judaism. You were spiritually righteous because you were Jewish, of course being circumcised and barmitzvahed. You belonged to the one true religion, light of the world, God’s chosen covenant people.

 

[mcq72]

Well, “two Churches who, to varying extents, recognize either other’s validity” is vastly different than “a Church and a plethora of ecclesial communities who see the respective ‘others’ as holding to invalid doctrines and practices.”

So do Orthodox accept Rome’s doctrine of her head bishop, or head papa? Do they see such claim as valid, to a varying extent?

 

[ralfyman]

The Church Christ Founded | Catholic Answers Magazine