Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

Would you mind sharing where you copied and pasted that from rev kevin?
Thanks

www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thechurch.html

 

[benedictus2]

Roy is one of those people who come to the board not to dialogue but to spill their opinion, exit, spill their opinion and exit. A man who demands you listen to him but will not listen to you.

I am replying to his post only to counter his errors so that the lurkers know exactly where he got it wrong.

I’m one of those Christians who isn’t all that limited by tradition. I’m interested in scripture, although I don’t worship that either. So I guess I’m not a good Catholic nor would I make an evangelical Protestant.

Your one of those Christians who really cannot be called Christians because you are following your own religion. So really it’s Royism. Far removed from Biblical Christianity.

** My tendency is to sympathize more and more with those expressions of Christianity -mainly found in mainline Protestantism - which allow differing opinions without acrimony. **

Which can hardly be called mainline Christianity. If we go back to the Bible, there is acrimony when people started spouting their own ideologies. St Paul put his foot down on them and the council put its foot down on them as well.

Heterodoxy is Me-doxy. Which is not surprising since Luther said that he regards himself as the Pope.

And this arrogance is traceable to the fall, when Adam and Eve decided that they not God will have the last say on what is right and what is wrong.**

**

So, I may doubt the lifelong sinlessness of Mary, for example, as I do. That should be an opinion tolerated in the church since the Bible certainly doesn’t say anything concerning it,

Since you disregard the Church, therefore you cannot use the Bible considering that it was the Church who came up with the Bible.

except that “all have sinned”. And what theologians centuries ago came up with doesn’t impact me very much, either. Over the years I have read the Church Fathers and various medieval saints and doctors, etc… They were brilliant for their time, but they also are full of false information, superstitions, and lack of knowledge because they had no decent telescopes nor any microscopes. Relying too heavily on them is damaging to the church.

And what makes you the authority to interpret this your way considering that you arrive at this text 2000 years removed? What makes yo more credible than the Church that we see in Acts?

Mighty arrogant to my thinking.

** In other words, I find that traditional Catholics place too much emphasis on tradition, while evangelical Protestants are too literalistic with the Bible.**

And it is your painful ignorance of history that makes you conclude that tradition is useless.

Before there ever was a Bible there was only Tradition. And it is the Church who decided which books should be in the Bible based on here tradition.

What do they do with verses like Ex. 22:18, 20? And traditional Catholics, too. They take literally various verses that may be allegorical - such as ‘upon this rock’ or ‘this is my body’ etc. I know, I know. I’ve been influenced by ‘higher criticism’ and take seriously the J, E, P, D thesis re the Torah. And I even find contradictions that trouble me in the gospels. Maybe I’ve read too widely?

Higher Criticism is nothing more than a materialist view of the Bible.

You keep saying that some things Catholic are Biblical and here in the next breath you want to deny the Bible.

Talking with a fork tongue here.

** Did Christ start the Catholic Church? He started the Christian Church, **

Well there is not such thing as a Christian Church.

There is a Catholic Church that Christ founded and the rest are man made churches that were set up in defiance of His will.

So you are fooling yourself if you think this so.**

and over the years many streams developed.

**And over the years heresies started and churches came from these heresies.

The only reason you are trying to justify this is so that you enthrone yourself where God should be and call it good. This is nothing less than the pride we see displayed in Genesis which landed us all in this quagmire.

** Meanwhile, may God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture, and may religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.**

Religion is not a barrier. Man’s pride is. That is why we have different denominations. Because of pride. When we learn to put our ego aside and truly acknowledge God then we will see that God only ever built one Church.

But Adam and Eve’s sin is ever present. So we need much grace so that in humility we will learn to bow to the Truth that God proclaims through His Church.

 

[benedictus2]

I did read the article and I believe I responded to it. The only truth I could discern out of it is that there is the Church in the West and the Church in the East.

Actually it was more than that (if you really read it).

It shows you why there was a schism and why the Eastern Church was in error. It shows you why the whole thing was more a political maneouver than anything to do with Christ.

That is why even a quick perusal of Orthodox Churches shows not a universal Church but more national Churches.

It you look at history, only the Catholic Church has remained that… Catholic.

 

[rev_kevin]

The real tragedy lies here - a non-answer trying to masquerade as a response:

The real tragedy is that you have gone to great lengths to by keeping track or hunting down something on someone to satisfy your dislike for other religions, which is not what this tread is about.make you look good and the person your talking about look bad. Well my fellow Texan by making posts like this only shows what kind of real Christian you are. :getholy:

Ultimately, this person has simply dug in his heels, refuses to engage in either meaningful or logical dialogue and rebuffs efforts to come forward to present his opinion. Whatever took place, apparently has nothing to do with Matt. 16:18 and that Jesus founded the Church - which can historically be traced from 33AD to 2011AD. This Church is the Catholic Church.

And this is meaningful dialoque?

In my opinion, his refusal to respond to questions really ends dialogue. Simply repeating the same non-answers and claiming that the questions have been answered is truly a failed approach. It fails for the following reasons:

1.) Multiple posters have asked that if Christ did not found the Catholic Church on Peter, than who did. To this we have yet to have a logical or even chronological response.

2.) Multiple posters have asked about the Canon of Scripture (not Canon Law!) and it looks like it may not be complete! Yet, there is no explanation on how God’s Sacred Word may have things left out of it.

3.) You just have to wonder how a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church could be considered inadequate or deficient in some manner so that it must be repeated in a Protestant church. No response on this item has been provided.

1: You are not reading the posts then.
2: The only word mentioned was Canon so that person posted Canon law and asked if this is what you are talking about. I quess you didn’t see that part of the post.
3: I already explained it. I quess you missed that post also.

 

[benedictus2]

Yep same thing for Lutherans. But guess what it stuck. Oh and by the way, this is one of yours isn’t it?

stanastasia.org/

Well not quite. The Lutheran Church is Lutheran because they followed Luther and Luther’s doctrine.

Those who call themselves Roman Catholics want to emphasize that they are of the Latin Rite variety.

The Catholic Church does not refer to herself as the Roman Catholic Church.

The Lutheran Church on the other hand does, that is why you have the LCMS.

 

[benedictus2]

Do I disagree with the Filioque? No. Do I see and understand the issue that the addition of it without an ecumenical council presents and in specific the issue that arises in the Greek church with the addition? Yes. Do I care that it came from the Throne of Peter? Could care less. Peter didn’t add it. And just because one man said it sitting on some chair in Rome, does not necessarily make it good thing or something that the universal church need accept without consultation.

In your earlier post you said that there are only two churches that can lay claim to being Christ’s Church.

I asked you before how come you are not in either.

If like some orthodox where the main doctrinal issue is the Filioque (although this is a rather bogus issue), then why are you not Catholic?

Why do you remain Lutheran?

 

[Roy5]

Roy is one of those people who come to the board not to dialogue but to spill their opinion, exit, spill their opinion and exit. A man who demands you listen to him but will not listen to you.

I am replying to his post only to counter his errors so that the lurkers know exactly where he got it wrong.

Your one of those Christians who really cannot be called Christians because you are following your own religion. So really it’s Royism. Far removed from Biblical Christianity.
Which can hardly be called mainline Christianity. If we go back to the Bible, there is acrimony when people started spouting their own ideologies. St Paul put his foot down on them and the council put its foot down on them as well.

Heterodoxy is Me-doxy. Which is not surprising since Luther said that he regards himself as the Pope.

And this arrogance is traceable to the fall, when Adam and Eve decided that they not God will have the last say on what is right and what is wrong.**

**Since you disregard the Church, therefore you cannot use the Bible considering that it was the Church who came up with the Bible.

And what makes you the authority to interpret this your way considering that you arrive at this text 2000 years removed? What makes yo more credible than the Church that we see in Acts?

Mighty arrogant to my thinking.
And it is your painful ignorance of history that makes you conclude that tradition is useless.

Before there ever was a Bible there was only Tradition. And it is the Church who decided which books should be in the Bible based on here tradition.

Higher Criticism is nothing more than a materialist view of the Bible.

You keep saying that some things Catholic are Biblical and here in the next breath you want to deny the Bible.

Talking with a fork tongue here.

Well there is not such thing as a Christian Church.

There is a Catholic Church that Christ founded and the rest are man made churches that were set up in defiance of His will.

So you are fooling yourself if you think this so.**
**And over the years heresies started and churches came from these heresies.

The only reason you are trying to justify this is so that you enthrone yourself where God should be and call it good. This is nothing less than the pride we see displayed in Genesis which landed us all in this quagmire.

Religion is not a barrier. Man’s pride is. That is why we have different denominations. Because of pride. When we learn to put our ego aside and truly acknowledge God then we will see that God only ever built one Church.

But Adam and Eve’s sin is ever present. So we need much grace so that in humility we will learn to bow to the Truth that God proclaims through His Church.

It is just this sort of arrogance and such attempts to dismiss all differences with the Church as me-ism that drive many people away from the CC. It cetainly has contributed to my increasing disenchantment. These personal attacks show total disrespect for those who dare to think differently, and they create bigotry.

But God bless everyone, of every creed, color, country or culture. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[benedictus2]

It is just this sort of arrogance and such attempts to dismiss all differences with the Church as me-ism that drive many people away from the CC.

Sorry but it is MEism.

Christ established only one church. Anyone who wishes to start his own Church obviously does not have Christs’will in mind because He was very clear about that.

What is the height of arrogance is the arrogance of saying I will decide how I will interpret the Bible. THAT is arrogance.

It cetainly has contributed to my increasing disenchantment.

No. That is just trying to rationalize your arrogance. You want to be able to justify your disobedience to God’s expressed will and you make this your excuse.

Sorry, but I can see that plainly for what it is.

These personal attacks show total disrespect for those who dare to think differently, and they create bigotry.

I can actually prove what I say. Take a look at all your posts. Show where you actually engaged in dialogue.

Rev Kevin did that, he truly engaged in dialogue. So, much kudos to him.

But you, you post and exit. Now you’ve been called out you reply because of your hurt pride.

 

[tqualey]

Priceless!

After all this smoke and you still failed to respond! So, we have non-response - SQUARED!

Why not try again and just answer the three questions that weere actually asked?

You really failed this one - but, hey! you can try again - and see if you can do better. You really have a life time.

The real test question comes before the White Throne…

God bless

1: You are not reading the posts then.
2: The only word mentioned was Canon so that person posted Canon law and asked if this is what you are talking about. I quess you didn’t see that part of the post.
3: I already explained it. I quess you missed that post also.

 

[Cinette]

I’m one of those Christians who isn’t all that limited by tradition. I’m interested in scripture, although I don’t worship that either. So I guess I’m not a good Catholic nor would I make an evangelical Protestant.

**My tendency is to sympathize more and more with those expressions of Christianity -mainly found in mainline Protestantism - which allow differing opinions without acrimony. **So, I may doubt the lifelong sinlessness of Mary, for example, as I do. That should be an opinion tolerated in the church since the Bible certainly doesn’t say anything concerning it, except that “all have sinned”. And what theologians centuries ago came up with doesn’t impact me very much, either. Over the years I have read the Church Fathers and various medieval saints and doctors, etc… They were brilliant for their time, but they also are full of false information, superstitions, and lack of knowledge because they had no decent telescopes nor any microscopes. Relying too heavily on them is damaging to the church.

** In other words, I find that traditional Catholics place too much emphasis on tradition, while evangelical Protestants are too literalistic with the Bible.** What do they do with verses like Ex. 22:18, 20? And traditional Catholics, too. They take literally various verses that may be allegorical - such as ‘upon this rock’ or ‘this is my body’ etc. I know, I know. I’ve been influenced by ‘higher criticism’ and take seriously the J, E, P, D thesis re the Torah. And I even find contradictions that trouble me in the gospels. Maybe I’ve read too widely?

** Did Christ start the Catholic Church? He started the Christian Church, and over the years many streams developed.** Some were judged heretical, others schismatic - that is, so judged by the church in Rome. Take the poor Egyptian Copts, who have endured considerable oppression over the years. Apparently they didn’t go along with the Council of Chalcedon, so they’re not entirely ‘kosher’. It’s that mindset - you agree completely with us or you’re wrong - that I think is not only poor church policy but conflicts with the major emphasis of Jesus. That emphasis was not on doctrine or church affiliation, but on love. Sadly, too many Christians have substituted prejudice, arrogance and church affiliation for love, humility, and the freedom I believe we have in Christ. I wonder what he would say today about the church. So much liturgy, so many beautiful churches, such ornate vestments, so much adulation of the Pope. Hm! I doubt if this would impress him. He would, of course, salute those priests and nuns and lay people who focus on the poor and the sick and the disabled and are less interested in religious tribalism, or in precise liturgy or proper colors on the altar. As for the hierarchy… well… Mt. 7:1 - so I’d better stop leave that alone.

 **Fortunately, most Catholics I know are quite broad-minded, and in this community Catholics and Protestants work amicably together - as it should be.** I'm watching carefully to see the direction of Catholicism. Will it remain stuck with those past traditions that seem out of touch with the 21st century, or will it make reforms re such matters as priestly celibacy, role of women, birth control and other issues that would increase its relevance to our present age?

** Meanwhile, may God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture, and may religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.**

*It makes me sad to read your postings. So much “confusion”.

You should read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E Woods Jr. Ph.D. (a convert to the Catholic Church)

*

 

[Cinette]

It is just this sort of arrogance and such attempts to dismiss all differences with the Church as me-ism that drive many people away from the CC. It cetainly has contributed to my increasing disenchantment. These personal attacks show total disrespect for those who dare to think differently, and they create bigotry.

But God bless everyone, of every creed, color, country or culture. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

*I understand Benedict’s ferver and passion for the Church. As a revert - I was a revolutionary, pro-marxist for some years. Now that I have come back to the Catholic Church I realize that you cannot compromise the Truth. I am happy to have the Catholic Church to instruct and teach me - it is a comfort. I am still a little bit of a revolutionary (against the status quo - but I am certainly no liberal as they are dangerous. G B Shaw said that liberals want things to change so that everything remains the same) but when it comes to the Church I realise that I must obey.

Faith is not a matter of opinion and we cannot pick and choose what we like or dislike (what is hard) and decide on what we believe. That is not the way.

So my friend I think you should pause and think and above all pray for guidance.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

Priceless!

After all this smoke and you still failed to respond! So, we have non-response - SQUARED!

Why not try again and just answer the three questions that weere actually asked?

You really failed this one - but, hey! you can try again - and see if you can do better. You really have a life time.

The real test question comes before the White Throne…

God bless

I don’t know what your are trying to prove here,
If you’re trying to start some kind of agrument, :slapfight: go find yourself another huckleberry. :aok:
When you have something with substance to talk about then we can talk. If you don’t then, have a nice night.

 

[benedictus2]

*I understand Benedict’s ferver and passion for the Church. As a revert - I was a revolutionary, pro-marxist for some years. Now that I have come back to the Catholic Church I realize that you cannot compromise the Truth. I am happy to have the Catholic Church to instruct and teach me - it is a comfort. I am still a little bit of a revolutionary (against the status quo - but I am certainly no liberal as they are dangerous. G B Shaw said that liberals want things to change so that everything remains the same) but when it comes to the Church I realise that I must obey.

Faith is not a matter of opinion and we cannot pick and choose what we like or dislike (what is hard) and decide on what we believe. That is not the way.

So my friend I think you should pause and think and above all pray for guidance.

*

Unfortunately, Roy5 wants to hear only Roy5.

That is why he posts the way he does. Rarely ever replies, and all he does is dish out what he thinks and that’s the end of that.

And then he has the temerity to call arrogant those who see the arrogance of his position.

This is what happens when one enthrones the self where God should be.

And he claims to be well read .

 

[Pitcharan]

…That is why even a quick perusal of Orthodox Churches shows not a universal Church but more national Churches.

It you look at history, only the Catholic Church has remained that… Catholic.

You r cent percent right. In my country there are three (or more?) splinters of the local orthodox church who claim that their origin is from St. Thomas the apostle. Their membership is limited to one ethno-linguistic group, while the CC has members from every state, race and language in India.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2



It is difficult to imagine such wanderings with the claim that he is not going in circles!

God bless

Roy is one of those people who come to the board not to dialogue but to spill their opinion, exit, spill their opinion and exit. A man who demands you listen to him but will not listen to you.

I am replying to his post only to counter his errors so that the lurkers know exactly where he got it wrong.

Your one of those Christians who really cannot be called Christians because you are following your own religion. So really it’s Royism. Far removed from Biblical Christianity.
Which can hardly be called mainline Christianity. If we go back to the Bible, there is acrimony when people started spouting their own ideologies. St Paul put his foot down on them and the council put its foot down on them as well.

Heterodoxy is Me-doxy. Which is not surprising since Luther said that he regards himself as the Pope.

And this arrogance is traceable to the fall, when Adam and Eve decided that they not God will have the last say on what is right and what is wrong.**

**Since you disregard the Church, therefore you cannot use the Bible considering that it was the Church who came up with the Bible.

And what makes you the authority to interpret this your way considering that you arrive at this text 2000 years removed? What makes yo more credible than the Church that we see in Acts?

Mighty arrogant to my thinking.
And it is your painful ignorance of history that makes you conclude that tradition is useless.

Before there ever was a Bible there was only Tradition. And it is the Church who decided which books should be in the Bible based on here tradition.

Higher Criticism is nothing more than a materialist view of the Bible.

You keep saying that some things Catholic are Biblical and here in the next breath you want to deny the Bible.

Talking with a fork tongue here.

Well there is not such thing as a Christian Church.

There is a Catholic Church that Christ founded and the rest are man made churches that were set up in defiance of His will.

So you are fooling yourself if you think this so.**
**And over the years heresies started and churches came from these heresies.

The only reason you are trying to justify this is so that you enthrone yourself where God should be and call it good. This is nothing less than the pride we see displayed in Genesis which landed us all in this quagmire.

Religion is not a barrier. Man’s pride is. That is why we have different denominations. Because of pride. When we learn to put our ego aside and truly acknowledge God then we will see that God only ever built one Church.

But Adam and Eve’s sin is ever present. So we need much grace so that in humility we will learn to bow to the Truth that God proclaims through His Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

It looks like you have some opinions in this area… Some of them, however, seem to conflict with others! Let’s see if we can sort them out.

I’m one of those Christians who isn’t all that limited by tradition.

Actually, Roy5, you are more limited by ‘tradition’ than you are willing to admit! What you are really clinging to is the Protestant Tradition - that particular version of Christianity that does not stem from Christ or the Apostels but the 16th Century ‘reformers’. Their tradition of Scripture Alone, and Faith Alone, free interpretation of Scripture and claiming that their abridged Bible has the fullness of the Word of God are what Protestantism has for tradition. These are the traditions of men, plain and simple.

**My tendency is to sympathize more and more with those expressions of Christianity -mainly found in mainline Protestantism - which allow differing opinions without acrimony.

Look at the results - 20,000 conflicting, conflicted and contending versions of the truth - and with acrimony you can measure in mm of Hg! Christ founded His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter - one man! Christ never said, “Whatever you want to believe is fine with me”. And, the reason for this is that He said we are to have faith in Him. While Protestants claim to believe in Christ - they actively disputer His Word! Some examples of this denial of Christ’s Word: Baptism is necessary for all, he who hears you (talking to the Apostles - the first bishops of the Catholic Church) hears Me, the Eucharist is reall the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, Peter has the authority to bind and lose, etc.

**

** In other words, I find that traditional Catholics place too much emphasis on tradition, while evangelical Protestants are too literalistic with the Bible.**

Actually, Roy5, it sounds like you would like everyone to be just like you … you know… ‘just right!’ It also sounds like you have made your own religion as Benedictus2 pointed out - ‘Roy5ism’ for want of a better term. Apparelntly, only you are able to determine what is the not only the best course that Christ had wanted - but, the degree one is embrace this believe system.

** Did Christ start the Catholic Church? He started the Christian Church, and over the years many streams developed.**

This is where a sense of history would come in handy, Roy5! You see, Christ founded His Church on Peter, but did not name it. Saul of Tarsus persecuted those who followed Christ and call it The Way. Sometime prior to 107AD Ignatius of Antioch identified this same group - that traced its orignis to the Apostles - as Catholic. Splintering by heretics did happen throughout the history of the Church - but, notice - there is no mention of Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists or any other Protestant sect, cult, group, assembly,etc. The Church built by Christ (the Cornerstone) on Peter (the foundation) still stands.

Fortunately, most Catholics I know are quite broad-minded, and in this community Catholics and Protestants work amicably together - as it should be. I’m watching carefully to see the direction of Catholicism. Will it remain stuck with those past traditions that seem out of touch with the 21st century, or will it make reforms re such matters as priestly celibacy, role of women, birth control and other issues that would increase its relevance to our present age?

Now, Roy5, be honest - your interest in Catholic Tradition is in direct oppostion to The Seven Sacraments, Peter’s Primacy and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit so that the Catholic Church does not teach error in matters of faith and morals.

“God bless us, every one!”

 

[rinnie]

And that is exactly why I say you are a heretic of the first order.

Post that across to the CAF apologist corner and see what kind of answer you get (though they will probably be more gentle with you but the answer will be the same)

Just extend that stupid statement a little further

We say that we (as baptized persons) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.

Based on your own statement above, you are therefore saying that you are God, I am God and every single person is God.

A total load of hogwash.

You never corrected me when I told you several times that you must have started imbibing some New Age rubbish. I am thinking that that would be because I am right on the mark on that one.

Let me correct you right now, There is no new age rubbish in what I am saying.

What in the world are you talking about.

Then again after what you said about the bride of Christ being married to himself I guess I should not be surpised.

What I said is and I will repeat again and again, and then you will try to make it something different as you have done time after time.

I said in the beginning there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the physical body when he walked this earth, then in his Mystical Body as he is still walking this earth today.

Jesus is still equal to God in the Mystical Body as he was in the Physical Body when he walked this earth. He is now found in the Church. THe CHurch is what St Paul teaches us is the fullness of CHrist the Church.

How you see that by his Holy Spirit in which he came to sanctify Men through his Spirit after his Crucifixion makes us equal to him, as he is equal to God in beyond my level of understanding thats for sure.

I really don’t understand what you are talking about. Our Baptism is our seal as belonging to our Lord. When we are baptised in the Holy Spirit it is our hope that remaining faithful to our requirements of that Baptism so that we can share in the Comming of our Lord at the end of time.

 

[rinnie]

Because the question of Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church revolve around Peter who is believed to be the one Jesus started his church by.

That is why I said that God started the CC through his Son Jesus Christ. It was by Jesus Christ that we have Salvation. It is by Jesus that we had the truth revealed to us.

God sent his Only Son to do his work. It is by his Son Jesus Christ that he slowly became to reveal the truth to us.

That is when Jesus taught us he had ascended to the right hand of the Father which signified the Fathers power, when he would send the Spirit of Truth.

Who would be their NEW conforter and his inner Presence that we would have in the glorified CHrist.

This was his first hint, if you think back, after his resurrection the new relationship he would have with Men, when he spoke at the Last Supper. Please let me move around for a moment to come back to my point.

When Christ saw Magdalen he said go tell my brothers that I am NOW AScending to my Father, and your Father. My God and Your God.

THis was the first time he called his Apostles MY Brethren. Before man could be an adopted son of God he had to be redeemed from enmity with God.

Think back when Jesus appeared to his disciples who were on their way to the villiage. Think about it, all they could see was the person of Christ, but when the stranger came near they did not recognize the Risen Lord, they thought him to be a ordinary traveler.

Think what Jesus asked them. luke 24:17

Remember then when Jesus said, what do you mean? What he did was call attention to the Facts, did he not?

Now think Jesus was not what they expected, they were sad, they wanted a Savior, they heard him say he would be crucified and rise again. But this did not fit their idea of a Master.

Then in Luke he gives it to them. He says how dull you are. Luke 24:25-26 Then he went back clear to Moses and showed them how he was referred to every piece of scripture. 24:27.

He continued to tell them everything, but they still didn’t get it. He gave them the key to the mystery of God’s life among men and the purpose of his comming. There was a light in him that they saw, and didn’t want him to leave, but they still did not know who he was.

They asked him to stay, so he did. They said be our guest, and he did, but that when the Guest became the Host. luke 24:30-31

 

[rinnie]

The Disciples of Emmaus has seen the Resurrecton first with the eyes of the mind, then then with the eyes of the body.

BUt the Apostles would see it first with the eyes of the body, then with the eyes of the mind.

Now he stood among them 3 times after his Resurrection.

Next he breathed the Holy Spirit into them. When he did that they were no long servants, but sons.

Look back 3 times the Holy Spirit is mentioned with some external sign.

1. As a Dove at Christ’s baptism betokening his innocence and Divine Sonship.
2. As fiery tongues on the Day of Pentecost as a sign of the Spirit’s power to convert the world.
3. As the breath of the Risen Christ with all of its regenerative Power.

Then he gave them the Power to forgiven sins, and he told them there would be a distinction between sins also. He said to them some you will forgive, othere you will not.

Peter was called to be the Leader. Lead my Sheep, Feed my Sheep. But this by no means took any Power away from the others.

Now you must ask yourself, Can your Priest say I forgive your sin? This is why Rev Kev the Sacraments are so important.

Only God can forgive sins, but he did it in the form of Man Jesus Christ. The incarnation would now hold, God would continue to forgive sins through man.

It is still through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that is revealed to us by Christ. The true Spriit of God.

 

[Roy5]

** Wow! I guess I’ve been very naughty** because I took issue with Catholics who want everyone to march in step.

** I’ve stated my basic position in various postings.** I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage which doubtless contributes to my desire to see the two traditions reconcile. I also have tried to read all points of view. For example, I subscribe to Our Sunday Visitor, US Catholic, Commonweal and our diocesan paper and watch EWTN regularly.

** How is that to be done? My suggestion is to have a ‘broader church’ **- a church which doesn’t rush to label as heretical or egocentric anyone who wants reform within Catholicism. I deeply admire much about Catholicism, certainly the unselfish devotion of many priests and nuns. But there simply is too much doctrine central to Catholicism that, try as I will, I cannot bring myself to accept.

** Within most of mainline Protestantism there is emphasis on ‘think and let think’** (words of John Wesley). If you believe, for example, that Padre Pio bilocated and levitated (among his many other miracles), fine. But as for me, I cannot believe that and many other miracles ascribed to canonized saints. Nor do I believe that Mary lived a sinless life, even though she deserves our deep appreciation and respect. And the whole hierarchial system of Catholicism strikes me as a relic of the ancient and medieval world when monarchies were the main form of government. And I think the church ought to think about abolishing the celibacy requirement for priests and also grant women more rights, certainly that of Deacon. I disagree with the church’s position on artificial birth control. Etc.

** Am I wrong to be honest and state these things? **Is that some sort of sin to express doubt? I read a poll in the *US Catholic * a tear or so ago which (as I recall) stated that 53% of Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation, possibly the most central of all the church’s teachings. Are they all automatically be excommunicated? Isn’t this an abominable heresy? Frankly, I don’t think so.

** I believe that the church should be broad enough to abide people of differing views rather than demand cookie-cutter Catholics.** Because it doesn’t, you have millions of Catholics either leaving the church or ignoring the church’s teachings. After all, Protestantism resulted from the refusal of the church to accept different opinions. It even seems that contemporary Catholicism recognizes that the 16th century church needed reform and the Council of Trent was too late and produced too little. I have sung Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” at Mass! Good sign, I might add, This has been described as “The Battle Hymn of the Reformation”!
**
But I know such opinions as mine (many Catholics have them) only anger those who are going to defend the status quo ** and become incensed with those of us who want significant change.

And, by the way, I am not a sola scriptura person, either. I certainly don't believe - as one of many examples - that God repented that he made man (Gen. 6:6), and then our loving God saved only eight people during the days of Noah and purposefully drowned everyone else, among them many children and even infants in the womb. And as for getting two of each animal into that ark, feeding them (and cleaning up after them) for over 150 days - give me a break!

 We need an intelligent, forgiving, reconciling, expansive church that is less brittle, less defensive, less tribal, less judgemental, less medieval and more tolerant of those who have honest doubts. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color, culture and country. Let's work together to make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Christ would want us to do that.