Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[benedictus2]

I would like to put a bit of order in our discussion or we will be endlessly chasing our tails.

I think what we need to answer are the following:

1. 
   *]Did Christ start a Church?
   *]What is the Nature of this Church?
   *]Since this Church was established by God it would still be around today so we need to sort out which Church today can be said to be a continuation of that Church in Acts.
   
   I hope that we can settle that here.
   

   Ok I read it.
   I also answered your post12, 34 I answered in post 58, 35 seemed we agreed so no answer by me, 38 I answered, 39 you asked me to look a the link, 41 I answered in post 58, 43 I answered in post 57, 89, didn’t have time was in a meeting, 91 you again asked me to read the link, and now I finished reading the link, Thanks.

   I was not aware that you were replying to me on post 58 because you addressed that to Ignatius.
   
   Your post 58 did not answer my post 34 because post 34 was an explanation of Matthew 16 with additional background on the significance of Ceasaria Philipi.
   
   The main gist of your post 58 was that Peter was not in Rome because it was not stated in the Bible and that the we base our claim that Peter was in Rome on groundless tradition.
   
   Since you have read the link I provided and have not refuted the support provided there (that Peter was indeed in Rome)**, I think we can therefore close this question now and agree that Peter was in Rome.
   **
   So we move on.
   

   In order to know if Jesus startee the Catholic Church we must find out who he started it with. So this is not harping on insignificant detal’s. Once we establish that then we will know if Jesus started the Catholic Church.

   Since you agree with my post 35, I think this is another question that we can say has been answered. Jesus established a church.
   
   So once again we move.
   

   In order to find out if Jesus started the Church, we must find out who he started it with.

   That is correct, we need to know who He started it with?
   
   It is very clear in Scripture, specifically in the Gospels that it was the Apostles, in particular Peter. You can refer back to my post 34 for this. If you think there is an error in that post please let me know.
   
   Jesus singled Peter out over and over again so we can have no doubt that He meant to build His Church on Peter and His Apostles.
   
   The common counter argument here is the Petro/petras issue which I think was settled conclusively in this thread, Petro means Rock.
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=518559&page=14
   
   So once again we move on.
   

   OK what Church?

   That is now the question that we need to ask.
   
   There are many Churches - Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, etc.
   
   In Acts, we see a church in different places but they all belonged to the same universal Church that is why Paul had to get clearance from Jerusalem with regards circumcision.
   
   As we see Acts unfold, we see a Church united and Paul was very much against the factions that were forming 1 Cor 1:12-13
   I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
   
   So clearly the infant Church was one Church.
   

   Again what Church?
   What is the Church?

   That infant Church was a Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church. It was Catholic because in spite of the fact that there was a Church in Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, Smyrna, etc, they all held to the same doctrine, that is why it was necessary that the question about circumcision was settled once and for all.
   
   This Church in Acts did not die after the book of Acts close. It continued, the question now is which of the current Churches can claim to be the continuation of that Church in Acts.
   
   The only way we can ascertain that is to study history.

 

[benedictus2]

Was Peter the rock that Jesus would build his church on?
What does it mean to build?

To form by combining materials or parts; construct. Peter was to combine the teachings of Jesus which are his materials
To order, finance, or supervise the construction of: Peter was to be the supervisor or leader in the construction
To develop or give form to according to a plan or process; create: build a nation.Peter was to go by Jesus plan.
To increase or strengthen by adding gradually to Peter was to strengthen Jesus teachings

The Greek verb oikodomeo translated as built.
Now it could mean that Peter was to strengthen the teachings of Jesus. To make his teachings more avaible to everyone.

Peter was to build on the teachings of Jesus

Church Peter was to teach, instruct, his church which is his believers/followers. The church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in his teachings.

If you are a believer in Christ and in his teachings, if you accept Christ then Satan can not prevail. It would be hard for Satan to take you away from Christ.

I give you the keys to my Kingdom. To bring people to the Kingdom of Heaven by presenting them with the message of salvation found in God’s word.

Why did Jesus warn them not to tell anyone. Because the disciples did not fully understand the kind of Messiah he had come to be, he was not a military commander but a suffering srevant. They needed to come to a full understanding of Jesus and their mission as disciples before they could proclaim it to others in a way that would not cause a rebellion. That they would have a hard time understandin;g what Jesus came to do until his mission was complete.

I think there is no point going into all this since you have already said that you agreed with my post 35.

We know that by “build” he meant to start a Church which we both agree is a group of people with the same belief.

What is clear from Scripture too, is that Jesus started a Church by calling the Apostles, i.e. the Jesus chose the Apostles. He said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (John 15:16)

So while there were many disciples who followed Him, there were only 12 who he specifically chose and called to follow Him. So here we already see a heirarchy. And if we keep on reading, we see that he singles out Peter many times.

And these are things that are written in the Gospels that we cannot deny.

Even in Acts we see heirarchy. Not every single Tom, Dirk and Harry preached and did ministries, the apostles appointed them.

Also in Acts, it becomes clear that the position of the apostles are seen as an office when Peter decides to do a ballot to fill Judas’s office.

 

[benedictus2]

OK what Church?

So continuing where I left off in post 141, I paste here now a summary of when the different churches began (taken from this ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm)

I have omitted the Catholic Church in the list because I think it would be helpful to first eliminate churches that were started long after the Apostles have died.

How Old Is Your Church?

 If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the     Catholic Church, in the year 1517.


 If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in     the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

 If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of     England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

 If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in     England in 1744.

 If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

 If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched     it in Amsterdam in 1605.

 If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder,     because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

 

[benedictus2]

OK what Church?

So having eliminated the Churches that sprang hundreds of years after the death of the apostles, we can know look at what happened after the close of Acts.

I direct you now to Curious Hobits’s excellent posts : 136, 137 and 139

 

[Cinette]

I think there is no point going into all this since you have already said that you agreed with my post 35.

We know that by “build” he meant to start a Church which we both agree is a group of people with the same belief.

What is clear from Scripture too, is that Jesus started a Church by calling the Apostles, i.e. the Jesus chose the Apostles. He said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (John 15:16)

So while there were many disciples who followed Him, there were only 12 who he specifically chose and called to follow Him. So here we already see a heirarchy. And if we keep on reading, we see that he singles out Peter many times.

And these are things that are written in the Gospels that we cannot deny.

Even in Acts we see heirarchy. Not every single Tom, Dirk and Harry preached and did ministries, the apostles appointed them.

Also in Acts, it becomes clear that the position of the apostles are seen as an office when Peter decides to do a ballot to fill Judas’s office.

*I have to say something here.

Benedictus - I must say that I think you are conducting this debate in a very professional and orderly manner. Once we have fully dealt with one point we move on to the next and not go round in circles. That is the way to go.

Thank you - the discussion can only be more interesting and thorough and clear.
:clapping:
*

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly when Christians first appeared in Rome is difficult to determine, The Acts of the Apostles claims that the Jewish Christian couple Priscilla and Aquila had recently come from Rome to Corinth when, in about the year 50, Paul reached the latter city, indicating that belief in Jesus in Rome had preceded Paul. Irenaeus of Lyons believed in the second century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop. There is no conclusive evidence,

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 16 (c 58) attests to a large Christian community already there but does not mention Peter.

In the writings of the early Church Fathers, no other apostle was candidate for the foundation of the Church in Rome. The only two apostles ever mentioned in connection with the Church in Rome was Peter and Paul.

So I think we can definitely conclude that Peter was in Rome and put that matter to rest.

Godfearers (or ‘Fearers of God’) are considered to be of significant importance to the popularity of the early Christian movement. They represented a group of gentiles who shared religious ideas with Jews, to one degree or another. However, they were not converts, but a separate gentile community, engaged in Judaic religious ideas and practices. Actual conversion would require adherence to the Law of Moses, which includes various prohibitions (kashrut, circumcision, Sabbath observance etc.) which were generally unattractive to would-be gentile converts.

The message of St. Paul stressed that faith in Jesus constituted a new covenant with God, a covenant which essentially provides a ‘free gift’ of salvation from the harsh edicts of the Mosaic law. The Law of Moses was considered therefore to have little relevance to the Pauline Christian community as the sacrifice of the Christ was seen as a liberation from the demand that a person follow the Law without deviation, see also Abrogation of Old Covenant laws.

This message was taken up by the Godfearers, who already represented a sizable group of people. In Paul’s message of salvation through faith as opposed to works, the Godfearers found an essentially Jewish group to which they could belong without the necessity of their accepting Jewish Law. Aside from earning Paul’s group a wide following, this view was generalized in the eventual conclusion that converts to Christianity need not first accept all Jewish Law,

This is what I found out when I goolged “who brought the church to rome.” Some of this I already posted in other posts here.

I don’t think this part of your post has any bearing on what we are discussing.

What we are trying to ascertain is which of the current churches can be said to be the same Church that was born at Pentecost.

 

[benedictus2]

*I have to say something here.

Benedictus - I must say that I think you are conducting this debate in a very professional and orderly manner. Once we have fully dealt with one point we move on to the next and not go round in circles. That is the way to go.

Thank you - the discussion can only be more interesting and thorough and clear.
:clapping:
*

Thank you Cinette.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know where the confusion comes in with the Church being Christ etc. With the term Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Today we often hear this further defined by the thought, “the church is not a building”. All which are correct. But…a misconception exists here also. Heres where Mystical Body of Jesus Christ comes from. And this the original thinking behind that phrase. I love the term, but, I understand where it comes from.

1. The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church,[1] was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching. For this reason, We deem it fitting to speak to you on this subject through this Encyclical Letter, developing and explaining above all, those points which concern the Church Militant. To this We are urged not only by the surpassing grandeur of the subject but also by the circumstances of the present time.
2. For We intend to speak of the riches stored up in this Church which Christ purchased with His own Blood,[2] and whose members glory in a thorn crowned Head. The fact that they thus glory is a striking proof that the greatest joy and exaltation are born only of suffering, and hence that we should rejoice if we partake of the sufferings of Christ, that when His glory shall be revealed we may also be glad with exceeding joy.[3]
3. From the outset it should be noted that the society established by the Redeemer of the human race resembles its divine Founder who was persecuted, calumniated and tortured by those very men whom He had undertaken to save. We do not deny, rather from a heart filled with gratitude to God We admit, that even in our turbulent times there are many who, though outside the fold of Jesus Christ, look to the Church as the only haven of salvation; but We are also aware that the Church of God not only is despised and hated maliciously by those who shut their eyes to the light of Christian wisdom and miserably return to the teachings, customs and practices of ancient paganism, but is ignored, neglected, and even at times looked upon as irksome by many Christians who are allured by specious error or caught in the meshes of the world’s corruption. In obedience, therefore, Venerable Brethren, to the voice of Our conscience and in compliance with the wishes of many, We will set forth before the eyes of all and extol the beauty, the praises, and the glory of Mother Church to whom, after God, we owe everything.
4. And it is to be hoped that Our instructions and exhortations will bring forth abundant fruit in the souls of the faithful in the present circumstances. For We know that if all the sorrows and calamities of these stormy times, by which countless multitudes are being sorely tried, are accepted from God’s hands with calm submission, they naturally lift souls above the passing things of earth to those of heaven that abide forever, and arouse a certain secret thirst and intense desire for spiritual things. Thus, urged by the Holy Spirit, men are moved, and, as it were, impelled to seek the Kingdom of God with greater diligence; for the more they are detached from the vanities of this world and from inordinate love of temporal things, the more apt they will be to perceive the light of heavenly mysteries. But the vanity and emptiness of earthly things are more manifest today than perhaps at any other period, when Kingdoms and States are crumbling, when enormous quantities of goods and all kinds of wealth are being sunk in the depths of the sea, and cities, towns and fertile fields are strewn with massive ruins and defiled with the blood of brothers.
5. Moreover, We trust that Our exposition of the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ will be acceptable and useful to those also who are without the fold of the Church, not only because their good will towards the Church seems to grow from day to day, but also because, while before their eyes nation rises up against nation, kingdom against kingdom and discord is sown everywhere together with the seeds of envy and hatred, if they turn their gaze to the Church, if they contemplate her divinely-given unity—by which all men of every race are united to Christ in the bond of brotherhood they will be forced to admire this fellowship in charity, and with the guidance and assistance of divine grace will long to share in the same union and charity.

Anyway, the doctrine from Pope Pius has over a 100 paragraphs. But here you see where the phrase came from and what he is actually speaking about. Should you desire to read the entire doctrine just google Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, Pope Pius-1943.

 

[rinnie]

*:bigyikes::bigyikes:

I have never heard such nonsense!! You say you are Catholic?!!*

Yes thank-you and thank-you also for your compassion and patience in instead of asking me to explain what I said throwing show judgement on me in such a Christ like manner

With that Said I will explain to whoever wants to hear what I am trying to explain.

Jesus Christ and the Church are ONE. The Catholic Church in itself is a Mystery.

The Church is the extension of Christ’s incarmation. Jesus Christ who is our redeemer is also our creator.

I never said that the Jesus needed the Holy Spirit! I said that Jesus said he was sending the HOLY SPIRIT. I never separated them, it is from him, his Father and the Holy Spirit that all holiness comes from.

I said that Jesus sent the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. It was the HS of CHRIST that all holiness comes.

It is because of Christ’s presence in the CC by the power of the Holy Spirit that the teaching of the Church remains the fullness of the truth.

Christ founded his Church on the Apostles.

Christ is the head of his body, He is the head of the body, the Church. Col. 1:18

In revealing God as the Father and himself as God’s Son, Jesus also made known to us the Holy Spirit which is the point I was making.

Before his death, which I stated Jesus announced the sending of the Paraclete or Advocate the Holy Spirit. This is the SPIRIT OF GOD who from the BEGINNING was WITH GOD and who will now dwell as GOD WITH US after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension in glory.

THE HOLY SPIRIT is thus revealed as ANOTHER divine PERSON WITH JESUS AND THE FATHER.

The CCC teaches us that the HS is sent BOTH BY the Father and in the NAME OF THE SON, and BY THE SON IN PERSON once he had returned to the Father.

This completes the revelation of the Trinity.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am starting this thread due to an invitation I extended to Rev Kevin to discuss his claim Jesus did not start the Catholic Church.

To avoid derailing the thread, please avoid discussions on Mary, Eucharist, Confession and other Catholic doctrines that have no bearing on the topic unless you can establish relevance.

It is important to keep to this so that we can have a truly fruitful discussion. We did that on the question of “Is Peter the Rock” and we got somewhere in a fairly short time by keeping the topic in mind.

To keep the opening argument short, I say Jesus started the Catholic Church based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.
**
Peace and Joy of Christ to anyone who participates in the discussion and to all those who visit this thread!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten our minds and our hearts!
**

You’ve already demonstrated it with your scripture passages here. Not much up for discussion. It seems pretty plain to me.

I’ll do some scrolling around to see some of the ways this gets twisted and/ or stretched to accommodate other things, but essentially what other Christian churches existed until the unfortunate split with the East, and the Reformation after that?

 

[rikkk1958]

Most Protestants would always argue or question the position of the Catholic Church that St. Peter was in Rome late in his life. Like Rev. Kevin, I always thought he would be an open minded person and perhaps he would soon realized that his refutations on this matter will never win if he present his case to the court of law. Presenting all the evidences, the Catholic Church is right about St. Peter. Some distinguished Protestants have already leaned towards the position of the Church.

 

[BlueSapphire]

Here is also a good one, if Peter did not go to Rome how is he buried there to this day?

I read a fascinating book years ago titled 'The Bones of St. Peter - you can read some info in it here!

 

[Cinette]

Yes thank-you and thank-you also for your compassion and patience in instead of asking me to explain what I said throwing show judgement on me in such a Christ like manner
*rinnie you have been saying some extraordinary things! Benedictus was right when she said that what you stated was heresay. Perhaps you should read your postings before you press the enter button.

This is what you said in Post #69

Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Catholic Church here on earth, being led by his Holy Spirit!!
*
You said that Jesus Christ was being led by His Holy Spirit! Why would the Holy Spirit need to lead Christ???

…

Jesus Christ and the Church are ONE. The Catholic Church in itself is a Mystery.
Why is the Catholic Church a mystery? I don’t understand. Some of the doctrines are mysteries ie Trinity. The Church itself is not a mystery!
…

I never said that the Jesus needed the Holy Spirit! * You certainly did say that Christ was being led by the Holy Spirit. Same thing!*
…

*You would do well to go and read #69.

You know rinnie one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner. To make heretical statements on a public forum is a sin I am sure. So it is up to other Christians to point out your errors ie to admonish the sinner.

Believe me it is not easy for me to do this but it is necessary. This is how Protestants make false accusations about our Faith and when a Catholic makes statements like the ones you have made… I grant you you also say some truths but you have to be careful to state the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If I offended you I apologise but I ask you please - measure your words. It is very important. I am not so knowledgeable and if I make a mistake I expect everyone to let me know.

God bless you
*

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, your theology is so waaayyyyyy wrong.

**Even more erroneous than the protestants.
**
You did not read my last post properly.

You said Jesus is the Church that is why He left so He could send the advocate.

If the Church is the PERSON of Christ then why would the Church need to be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth since Christ is already the Truth?

Here is your claim step by step:

The Church is Jesus
Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity
Therefore the Church is the Second Person of the Trinity.

Now Jesus said He is the Truth so it must go like this:

Jesus is the Truth
The Church is Jesus
therefore the Church is the Truth.

** If the Church is the Truth what does she need the Holy Spirit to guide her into Truth for? If the Church is God what does she need to pray to God for?
**
You have a very, very strange theology and it is not Catholic.

I think you have been imbibing some kind of New Age attempt at syncretism. It is heretical and if you continue on this tack then all I can say is that you are a heretic.

I never said the Church needs anything, I said that Christ said there is much you cannot bear now, but he will be sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

Jesus didn’t need the Holy Spirit the Apostles did for goodness sakes. Jesus is indeed the Living Church here on earth, but it is through his Spirit the Holy Spirit that he leads the Apostles into all truth.

Just as an individual comes alive by the Power of the Holy Spirit so does the whole Church (THE BODY OF CHRIST). As we are members and CHRIST IS THE HEAD is the HOLY SPIRIT who is the soul of the CHURCH. (Pope Leo XII said in his letter Divinum Illud Munus.

The Church lives the life of the Spirit and in the gifts of the spirit the CHURCH is able to continue the saving work of Jesus, proclaiming the gospel, forgiving sins, ETC.

You do not have the Holy Spirit and not have Jesus, just like you do not have the Father and not have the Son. God is ONE. Where you have the Father you will have the Son, and where you have the Father and the Son you will have the Holy Spirit. ANd where you have the Church you will have God. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church. Jesus promised us that, I will not leave you orphans I will be with you forever.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s a shame. I was genuinely interested in seeing why you would consider points by a Jewish general and ignore writings of early Church fathers…

Its comments like these that are turning me further and further from the Catholic Faith. If there was a slight chance of me every comming back the the Catholic Faith comments like these and the way you, meaning Catholics here, treat someone who disagrees with you that chance if pretty much gone. IF someone disagrees with you there in no reason to say comments like these. I disagree but I don’t make rude comments because you don’t see it my way. You people should be ashamed of your selves. I should have listen to my first instinct when you asked me to join you on this thread. My first instinct was, this is going to turn into a get rev kevin site, but I decieded to trust you and look at what you say about me.

I wasn’t ignoring your posts. I have been answering others and way going to get to you soon.

I’m sorry if you found my question offensive. I assure you it was not meant to be so. I asked if you gave any validity to what the early Church fathers wrote and you vaguely answered, ‘depends’; In this same thread you posted a copy and paste using Flavius Jospehus’ writings as proof to try and prove your point. It certainly appears if it’s not what you already believe then it ‘depends’.

It was not my intention to ‘get rev kevin’, as you put it. I wanted explanations of what appeared to be a bias on your part. Now, instead of answering those points raised, you’ve changed the subject again???

Peace to you brother.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not much up for discussion. essentially what other Christian churches existed until the unfortunate split with the East, and the Reformation after that?

Thats about it Steven, and without a doubt there were many groups who proposed heretical thinking late 1st 2nd 3rd century. Which only confirms the need for the early councils thus church doctrine. Which so many seem to have an issue with also. The East/West church roots nonetheless start with Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Any other thinking is in itself heretical.

 

[rinnie]

Cinette, then we are different mind sets or something.

The Church has always been a mystery. Because a mystery is given to us as revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason.

One simple proof of that is simply ccc 771 The Church is both human and divine.

770 in the CCC The Mystery of the Church. 772, 773

A big Mystery for many is how Jesus can become one with us in the Eucharist. I could go on an on. The Sacraments.

778 CCC The Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the pouring of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rinnie]

I have been accused of teaching false truths. I apologize if I have spoken anything that does not agree with the teaching of the RCC.

Scripture tells us the Church is the Pillar of all truth.

Scripture tells us in John 16:7 that Jesus is sending the advocate the Holy Spirit.

Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth through the Living Christ the Church.

John 14:15

1 Tim 3:15 The CHURCH is the Pillar of the truth
Col. 1:18 The CHURCH is the body of Christ.

John 6:12
John 14:16
Luke 10:16

Acts 9:4 Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME, Who are you Sir? The reply came, JESUS, WHOM YOU ARE PERSECUTING!!

 

[Cinette]

Cinette, then we are different mind sets or something.

The Church has always been a mystery. Because a mystery is given to us as revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason.

One simple proof of that is simply ccc 771 The Church is both human and divine.

770 in the CCC The Mystery of the Church. 772, 773

A big Mystery for many is how Jesus can become one with us in the Eucharist. I could go on an on. The Sacraments.

778 CCC The Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the pouring of the Holy Spirit.

*Well you know I am a revert and I always consider myself a kindergarten Catholic, having been away from the Church for 27 years.

It is my understanding that our Faith is based on trust and love of God - we do not understand many of the mysteries of our Faith ie The Eucharist, the Trinity, Miracles etc. I have experience joy in the midst of sorrow - that to me is a mystery. I cannot explain it and it seems a contradiction but I have experienced it many times. However one of the functions of the Church is to teach and the CCC is an excellent source of learning for us. I find it wonderful that we have such a teaching mechanism. I understand that the Church is both human and divine but that doesn’t tell me that the Church is a mystery. Maybe I am wrong.

It would be appreciated if some of my fellow Catholics would explain.

*

 

[rinnie]

*Well you know I am a revert and I always consider myself a kindergarten Catholic, having been away from the Church for 27 years.

It is my understanding that our Faith is based on trust and love of God - we do not understand many of the mysteries of our Faith ie The Eucharist, the Trinity, Miracles etc. I have experience joy in the midst of sorrow - that to me is a mystery. I cannot explain it and it seems a contradiction but I have experienced it many times. However one of the functions of the Church is to teach and the CCC is an excellent source of learning for us. I find it wonderful that we have such a teaching mechanism. I understand that the Church is both human and divine but that doesn’t tell me that the Church is a mystery. Maybe I am wrong.

It would be appreciated if some of my fellow Catholics would explain.

*

Hopefully they can show you in a better way then I.

Since we do not seem to be able to agree on much at this time.

But it was always a teaching that the Church like God is a mystery and always will be. Simply because we as humans can never comprehend the mind of Christ.

Simply that the Church is both Human and divine should show you partly the mystery of it. How can a human mind understand the divine?

We are taught that it is by the Power of the Holy Spirit that the RCC is led because the Human mind could never understand the mind of God. The human mind the bible tells us is of thoughts of this world.

That is why as much as we pray, and go to Church and partake in the Sacraments we can still never totally understand all of God’s teachings.

That is why he left us the Church to reveal to us things. when he feels we will be able to understand them.

The Pope can only teach us what is revealed to him by the Power of the Holy Spirit. While there is no new revelation, there is much understanding to come. That is why we have the promise from God that the Church will lead us to all truth.