Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[Eric_Hilbert]

By request I’m going to let this thread go to 1100 posts.
Have fun.

 

[rinnie]

I think Iranaeus’ reasoning for apostolic succession against the Gnostic heresy was brilliant. Just as a side commentary, as Bishop of Lyon wouldn’t he be under the jurisdiction of Rome? And as such do you think he would talk smack about the Bishop of Rome and say something like, “Oh Jerusalem was first, so whatever their Patriarch says, it’s the word?” Or if he was a Bishop under say Alexandria, maybe he would have said some kind words about the Successors of Mark?

This is great mike, and of course you are welcome to your opinion as we are ours.

What did the word of God say about it. Thats something we should at least be able to agree on right?

St Peter and the other Apostles were Mortal. but their mission was to be carried out until the end of time. So what did they do, Die and leave us hanging? No not according to the word of God.

Now you need to prove this wrong, thats all you have to do and you got me.

St Clement of rome, wrote this around the year 96 A.D. He said that the Apostles THEMSELVES laid DOWN THE RULE, ONCE AND FOR ALL to this effect, When these men Die, other APPROVED MEN shall succeed to their sacred ministry. (Letters to the Corinthians).

Now from that day on, from the first days of the Church, bishops Appointed BY or succeeding the Apostles were RECOGNIZED as shepherds who RIGHTLY ruled and guarded the Church in the Name of Christ.

Read St Ignatius of Antioch in a letter written to the Philadelphians) That will back up what I am saying.

Now when did WE have the right or authority to disobey this rule? Do you disagree with this rule, or do you disagree that this rule was made? Where do you stand here?

And what I am asking is not do you agree with what is taught, do you disagree that it WAS taught. I understand that free will came from God and we can pick and choose to believe whatever we want. But at least we have to be honest in saying we agree that it was taught but we don’t choose to follow it.

Jesus said You are Peter and to you I give the keys to the Kingdom. YOU ARE PETER, not You are my Apostles, Peter is the leader. He has the Keys, do you disagree that Jesus said that? If so could you quote to me what he said.

Do you not realize that when Jesus said to Peter, Peter I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail? Why, Why did he say that to Peter. Why did he ask Peter to lead the Sheep? 3 times to boot.

Do you not realize that when he asked Peter that question Peter answered him 3 times, but it was not until the 3rd time that Jesus got the answer he wanted.

Go back read that scripture, show me what made the first 2 responses different from the Last. I believe there is where you will find your answer.

Go back and find it and come back and tell me the answer? Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians**

As I said before, 'before there were Baptists, Methodists, etc. etc., they were Catholics. Before that, they were, and still are, Christians. Christ built a structured Church. God set the offices in a Church. It was a body of believers with some being Apostles, prophets, doctors, etc.

**

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

**

What it appears you’re trying to convey is that you’re denying the authority of ANY structured Church. Who decides who leads a ‘body of believers’? Who decides doctrines, baptisms, bread and wine, marriage, etc.? Who decides correct interpretations of scriptures? Who confirms leaders in offices clearly stated in scriptures?

While I feel you’ll be tempted to answer ‘God’ to all the questions above, understand there’s still the problem of all the different denominations of Christians with different doctrines, even what you would refer to as ‘essentials’. Do you believe God leads people in His truths by telling them different things?

Men of the Church, in scriptures, received an imposition of hands. There was an ‘apostolic’ succession. Provide us the apostolic succession to yourself.

Denying the authority of the Catholic Church, that brought Christianity through generation after generation that ALL Christian Churches have roots through, denies the authority of ANY Church, including your own Church.

 

[guanophore]

 See I see that single action as Christ making the promise to be present, not that the Apostles in the future or anyone who succeeded them as causing Christ to be present.

I think you will find that this is the Catholic position. He is present because of His promise, which He cannot deny. No one is claiming that it is something we do that “causes” Him to keep his promises. However, at the same time, no failure of a single person, or any group of people, will “cause” His promise to fail, either. No corrupt bishop, even if he is Pope, will “cause” Christ to fail in His promise to lead the Chuch into “all Truth”.

But if you want to say that the power to consecrate is passed from Apostle to the first Bishops, since technically they weren’t Bishops, certainly their ordinations as such would be called into question because Christ probably wasn’t using the correct form,

I am sorry that I am not following you here. Are you saying that, because they were called Apostles and not bishops, that they did not have the power to consecrate their successors?

but leaving that aside, tell me how does the succession work? What is your understanding of it? How is one Bishop’s ordination valid and another not?

This is a complex question, and while important, I am not sure that it relates to the topic of the thread.

You seem to miss all the Bishops in the North, whose chains have remain unbroken since the first Bishop appointed there. And that’s a fact.

Unbroken from what?

I think Rome’s understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Orthodox would differ and I wonder how their ordinations would stand up to the same standards presented to the Anglicans in Apostolicae Curae.

I don’t think there is a difference in the understanding of what the Succesion is. The disagreement would be that they consider our ordinations after 1054 as invalid as we consider those of the Protestants.

And again, it is simple history we do have Bishops in the Lutheran Church. I am sure that the Bishop of Uppsala might be surprised at the statement.

All kinds of ecclesial communities appoint “bishops” for themselves nowadays. That does not make them part of the Apostolic Succession.

Nope, your burden of proof to show a succession of Bishops with the power to validly consecrate other bishops is not found in the list of the Bishops of Rome. Even if you could show that Peter’s succession followed down in a circuitous route from Peter who validly ordained another bishop who then validly ordained(?) the next Bishop of Rome and so on wouldn’t even matter. You would have to be able to show that a current Bishop was validly ordained by another bishop and so on and so on and so on. The Bishop of Rome/Pope does not ordain/consecrate every Bishop out there.

No, but I don’t see why that makes them invalid.

Actually, I think he took most offense with the Papacy in general not just Leo X. When Luther pointed out the errors being perpetrated on the Body of Christ by the Vicar of Christ, Leo excommunicated him, well I’ll take that as Luther severing his ties with Rome.

The successor of Peter does not have immunity from accountability. However, Luther missed the mark when he decided to reform doctrine, in addition to people. People are always in need of reform, but the doctrine committed to the Church by Christ is NEVER in need of reform.

But the fact remains you have someone who claims to be the Servant of the Servants of God taking full advantage of all that the Papal Tiara brings. I guess if one wants to be the Vicar of Christ then one should be crowned as well.

I think you are a little behind the news, Mike.The Papal tierra was returned. The Church no longer claims any secular or political authority.

 

[benedictus2]

But what were they called before Catholic? HMMMMM I know**, Christians **

And at the same time they were Catholics. The only Christians at that time were Catholics. As I explained before, the moment they started preaching to the gentiles, the Church became Catholic. And that came very early in the peace.

Oh yes I can. Sure Scripture say members of the group must be of one mind but that one mind is believing in Christ not all this dogmas and stuff like that.

Well you are quite wrong there. Of one mind means we believe in the same things.

**But a quick tour of the doctrines of all “Christians” show that we are not of one mind.
**
That we are even debating this point at this very moment shows that we are not of one mind.

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2:
And at the same time they were Catholics. The only Christians at that time were Catholics. As I explained before, the moment they started preaching to the gentiles, the Church became Catholic. And that came very early in the peace.

Well you are quite wrong there. Of one mind means we believe in the same things.

**But a quick tour of the doctrines of all “Christians” show that we are not of one mind.
**
That we are even debating this point at this very moment shows that we are not of one mind.

I say no you say yes. We have been going back and forth for over 1000 posts and still I have not come to the conclusion that the CC was started by Jesus.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Great try…

Actually, I appear to have short-changed Rev Kev - he actually has three response avenues, with the third just moving the goal post!

You are right about there being a lack of honesty.

God bless

Sorry Rev Kevin but you are not being honest here.

Your definition of Church was simply “A group of people with the same belief”. But because I showed you that your definition actually worked against your own argument, now you are putting forward another definition. A made up one to suit you this time.

Not good. :tsktsk:You are moving the goal post because it does not suit you. You are not being honest with us or with yourself or with God.
Sorry, but the least common denomination just does not work. The Church that Christ established explained more than that. To believe in Christ means to believe in EVERYTHING He said and to FOLLOW everything He said.

What’s the matter, never heard of the word “disparate” before?
Google it so you will better understand what I mean. That was not a misspelling.
That there is no such thing as One Christian Church. Don’t feign ignorance. You know what I meant. Feigning ignorance is dishonest.
Sorry but no. We do not believe in the same thing. We hold SOME beliefs in common but not all. So no, you may try telling yourself that but you know you are wrong. We are not of the same Church. There is NO One Christian Church.
The fact that you say you are Baptist and that some say they are Methodist, etc proves that. We belong to different Churches.
The fact that you believe in some things differently to the way the Calvinist, Catholics, etc, believe means that we are not one Church.

The fact that you understand Baptism, Eucharist, Mary, Salvation differently means that we do not belong to the same Church.

Church does not mean having the least common denominator. Church means believing in the same doctrines.

And any Church started by men is not Christ’s Church.

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7567310]
sorry rev kevin but you are not being honest here.

Your definition of church was simply “a group of people with the same belief”. But because i showed you that your definition actually worked against your own argument, now you are putting forward another definition. A made up one to suit you this time.

**
show me where i made up one? I have always stated that the church is the believers.**

not good. :tsktsk:you are moving the goal post because it does not suit you. You are not being honest with us or with yourself or with god.

once again show me where i move the goal post?

what’s the matter, never heard of the word “disparate” before?
Google it so you will better understand what i mean. That was not a misspelling.

why the smart a-- remarks?

that there is no such thing as one christian church. Don’t feign ignorance. You know what i meant. Feigning ignorance is dishonest./

**
not being dishonest.**

sorry but no. We do not believe in the same thing. We hold some beliefs in common but not all. So no, you may try telling yourself that but you know you are wrong. We are not of the same church. There is no one christian church.

The fact that you say you are baptist and that some say they are methodist, etc proves that. We belong to different churches.
The fact that you believe in some things differently to the way the calvinist, catholics, etc, believe means that we are not one church.

we are one church through chirst.

church does not mean having the least common denominator. Church means believing in the same doctrines.

**
where does jesus say that church means believeing in the same doctrines?**

and any church started by men is not christ’s church.

**
i feel sorry for you.**

 

[benedictus2]

See I see that single action as Christ making the promise to be present, not that the Apostles in the future or anyone who succeeded them as causing Christ to be present.

But you need to go back to what He said before do this in memory of Me. He said this is My Body… eat. This is my blood… drink.

At that moment in the last supper His apostles were eating and drinking His Body and Blood.

He then gives them a command to do it again.

One needs to remember that in John 6, He tells them that they must eat His Body and Drink His blood for them to have Eteral life and yet He does not give them the wherewithal to do it.

But if you want to say that the power to consecrate is passed from Apostle to the first Bishops, since technically they weren’t Bishops, certainly their ordinations as such would be called into question because Christ probably wasn’t using the correct form

So therefore you are saying that Christ fed the Apostles His Body, tells them to do the same but yet does not allow them to do it.

How is one Bishop’s ordination valid and another not?

Apostolic Succession.

Actually, I think he took most offense with the Papacy in general not just Leo X. When Luther pointed out the errors being perpetrated on the Body of Christ by the Vicar of Christ, Leo excommunicated him, well I’ll take that as Luther severing his ties with Rome. But the fact remains you have someone who claims to be the Servant of the Servants of God taking full advantage of all that the Papal Tiara brings. I guess if one wants to be the Vicar of Christ then one should be crowned as well.

How do we establish Luther’s credibility. Even when he posted the 99 thesis he still believed in the Papacy. It was only later that he changed his mind.

What makes his latter belief correct compared to his earlier one?

Does this not mean that it is not so much Luther’s belief but the person’s inclinations that determine what must be believed? After all, one could say one still believed Luther is correct but cite instead Luther’s earlier opinions rather than the later ones.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeofFaith,

You have a number of items here that really need to be addressed. Hopefully, these comments will be helpful…

Reading history is never as simple as reading facts such as math. There are perspectives and interpretations. Outcomes maybe viewed as black and white but the reasons or even the consequences can be very gray. For instance did the Stealers lose because they are a really bad team? Or did the Packers win because they were playing exceptionally well. Personally, I was backing the Packers.

Surprisingly, there are a number of real and accurate conclusions one can draw from an objective study of history. In some cases, we do not know all of the players - but, we know the main ones, and the efforts to bring about a particuar set of outcomes - and the outcome that prevailed. That is important. And, while ther are perspedctives and interpretations, they can not change the facts - or else one is simply re-writing history. This has been tried for thousands of years… and here is an interesting example, While the exact cause of death for the late King Tut is a bit murky (murder? accident?) we do know that he died young. We also know that the Tut’s Father was not well liked because he tried to change the religious practices of his day. When the new Pharoh came to power after Tut - he was so determined to undo whatever the boy king had done that he set about earasing his name for everything. Well, written records have an annoying life of their own - and in the 1920’s Howard Carter realized that there was a gap in the kings - and realized that not everyone was accounted for. This set him off looking for this missing boy king - and, he found him. Had Tut’s successor simply decided to let well enough alone - Tut’s tomb would have robbed like all the others, and we would not know what we know today about Tut and Egypt. While an interesting story … let me give you the take home message.

We can know a lot about Christ from the Scriptures - but, trhere are also historical records - and we are able to fill in a lot of the missing pieces IF AND ONLY IF we do so with an open mind - and a heart open to the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Christ founded His Chruch - and that would be the Catholic Church on Peter. Christ told His Apostles to follow His Commands - and one of those commands was “(You) do this in memory of Me.” And, the ‘this’ in that sentence is just what Christ finished doing. He just consecrated common bread and wine into His Body, Bloood, Human Soul and Divinity. And, Christ has just now given the Apostles - the first Bishops of the Catholic Church - the power to do this.

Rest assured - Christ is God and can do ANYTHING He likes - He is not bound to any form to follow.

How is one Bishop’s ordination valid and another not?

Glad you asked, MikeofFaith

You see, there is this succession that begins with Peter - and then, we have Apostolic Tradition for the first almost 400 years AND THEN we have Scripture. So, if you are are going to honestly look at history (sort of like Howard Carter did…) you just can not ignore a gap - especially a gap of almost 4 centuries. How did these followers of Christ - known as Catholics - continue on durng the Roman persecutions - if God’s Spirit was not leading them? Honest. This can not be ignored. Please note, at this time there were only three main groups: Jews (with various divisions such as Pharisees, Sadduccees, etc.) Pagans (primarily everyone not a Jew - but, also including the Gnostics) and CATHOLICS.

Nope, your burden of proof to show a succession of Bishops with the power to validly consecrate other bishops is not found in the list of the Bishops of Rome.

Merely saying something does not meet the standard you have set - does not resolve the issue. You must disclose this standard so others can see if it has, in fact, been met.

Ultimately, Christ consecrated the Apostles - to be the leaders of His Church - with Peter as the head of these leaders. We call them Bishops. Pope Benedict XVI is really the Bishop of Rome. Valid consecrations is viewed as tracing everything back to Christ. Break the line of succession (like Luther did) and you have a Dead End. There is no ‘detour’ or re-routing around the fact that validity begins and ends with Christ - not with a disgrunteled monk who wound up throwing the Baby out with the bath water! Many of the Popes that Luther knew were truly scandelous men - but, Luther’s loyalty was to have been to Christ - and His Vicar on Earth. Many saints have pointed out the sinfulness of the Popes - and some apparently benefitted … and others apparently ignored the warning. Their humanity in exercising their free will does not dismiss the fact that Christ is still in charge.

And, I think that is really the bottom line

God bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**
where does jesus say that church means believeing in the same doctrines?**

It’s all through scriptures rev kevin. These a just a very few examples.

**

Joh 17:11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

**

 

[benedictus2]

**
show me where i made up one? I have always stated that the church is the believers.**

Your first definition was that the Church was a group of people with the SAME BELIEF.

Since we do not have the same beliefs except for a few common ones, then we therefore are NOT one Christian Church.

** once again show me where i move the goal post?**

When you came up with a different definition to your first one.

** why the smart a-- remarks?**

It was not a smart a… remark. You were trying to belittle what I said because you thought I used the wrong word.

** we are one church through chirst.**

Since we do not believe the same things then we are not one Church. Having some things in common does not make us one.

** where does jesus say that church means believeing in the same doctrines?**

You were the one who said that a Church is a group of people with the same belief. Doctrine is what we believe. For you Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide is a doctrine. We believe differently about Baptism, Eucharist, Mary, etc,etc.

For a Church to be one as Christ prayed for we must be all of one faith, one belief.

The fact that even protestants are striving for unity among these different Protestant Churches is one glaring proof that you are not One Christian Church even among yourselves.

** i feel sorry for you.**

You are free to feel that.

 

[benedictus2]

I say no you say yes. We have been going back and forth for over 1000 posts and still I have not come to the conclusion that the CC was started by Jesus.

Only difference is I provided reasoned proof for my position. You have not.

And the reason for this last of support from your end is because there is none to be had.

Everyone one knows we are NOT one Church. Even you know that. Deep down.

 

[Tom66]

I agree with Brian. And to piggy back on what he said, 1 Timothy 3:15 states the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Also Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus told anyone to write anything down. He did, however, tell his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. And this was done for many years before any Canon of New Testament scriptures were produced. If any of us had lived in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries, the only way we would have heard the Good News would be from word of mouth, which is oral tradition. An example of Paul speaking of oral tradition are found in 2 Thes 2:14 and 2 Thes 3:6. When the Bible was finally produced in, I believe the 3rd century, the Catholic (Universal) Church was still the only church in the christian world until the Great Schism. Bibles just didn’t fall from the sky after Jesus ascended into heaven. It was the Catholic Church that was born on Pentecost and then preached to all nations as Jesus commanded. Then came the laying on of hands for other men to receive the Holy Spirit to carry on Sacred Tradition until the end of the world. Later, letters that had been circulating were determined to be considered sacred and the Bible was produced. But it was Catholics during that time who were involved in this task guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rev Kev,

The truth is that you will never come to this concluson - at least not on this thread!

Multiple posters have pointed out Christ started the Catholic Church - they have provided scriptural references, logical arguments, historical facts and validly drawn conclusion. Conversely, you match this by saying, “I do not believe you” (when you deign to respond at all or when you are not moving the goal post around the field). What reason? What logic? What Scripture? What history? And, this is to mean you have a posiiton in this discussion? All I can find is an agenda.

Ultimately, it comes down to Faith. Either one has it or one doesn’t. While every effort has been made to identify that Jesus really did start the Catholic Church - and by inference - leaving the Catholic Church means leaving the Church founded by God and not one founded on the traditions of men - and, this, of course, is serious. So, while you apparently lack the faith in this area - you really are expected to present a logical case.

For example, your question on where it says that the Church is believing in the same doctirne - really has been demonstrated by St. Paul (Eph 4:5) “…ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism…”. It would appear that you need to tell us EXACTLY where we would find something that conforms to your expressed belief in a Universal Church that focuses on having: “…MANY lords, Contradicting faiths, and Optional baptisms…” St. Paul had direct revelations form Christ - and Paul went to stay with St. Peter because Paul know that Peter was the Head of the Chruch - because Christ put Peter in charge.

I do not know if you are familiar with voluntary organizations like the Boy Scouts, Lions Club, Audobon Society, etc - but, if you come up with your own way to actually be a membrer in such groups - and it contradicts the group’s charter - you will be asked to leave (an organizational excommunication). You can sue - as the Boy Scouts were sued for excluding a particular individual for his expressed belief - and you will lose because you chose to join this group and this means that you are willing to abide by its rules. If the civil world is like this - imagine a group that is guiding souls to their eternal future with Christ! Here the consequences are more significant.

Remember that time line I asked about that traces the successors of Peter directly to Benedict XVI? I am still interested in seeing your tracing from Christ to wherever your group is now. Reduce your argument to writing and just look at the results.

God bless

I say no you say yes. We have been going back and forth for over 1000 posts and still I have not come to the conclusion that the CC was started by Jesus.

 

[JVSantos]

Hi Rev Kev,
Either you believe it or not,
Jesus Started the Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tom66,

Welcome to CAF!

I think you will find this list a real blessing and a source for challenging insights and genuine wisdom about our Catholic Faith.

You will also watch it being attacked by people who sincerely believe they are doing something they need to do - and here in the apologetics section of CAF you have a chance to watch their arguments sputter and simply fall out of the conversation.

God bless

I agree with Brian. And to piggy back on what he said, 1 Timothy 3:15 states the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Also Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus told anyone to write anything down. He did, however, tell his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. And this was done for many years before any Canon of New Testament scriptures were produced. If any of us had lived in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries, the only way we would have heard the Good News would be from word of mouth, which is oral tradition. An example of Paul speaking of oral tradition are found in 2 Thes 2:14 and 2 Thes 3:6. When the Bible was finally produced in, I believe the 3rd century, the Catholic (Universal) Church was still the only church in the christian world until the Great Schism. Bibles just didn’t fall from the sky after Jesus ascended into heaven. It was the Catholic Church that was born on Pentecost and then preached to all nations as Jesus commanded. Then came the laying on of hands for other men to receive the Holy Spirit to carry on Sacred Tradition until the end of the world. Later, letters that had been circulating were determined to be considered sacred and the Bible was produced. But it was Catholics during that time who were involved in this task guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

I think you will find that this is the Catholic position. He is present because of His promise, which He cannot deny. No one is claiming that it is something we do that “causes” Him to keep his promises. However, at the same time, no failure of a single person, or any group of people, will “cause” His promise to fail, either. No corrupt bishop, even if he is Pope, will “cause” Christ to fail in His promise to lead the Chuch into “all Truth”.

Brilliant!!

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rev Kev. this is going to help you with ordination of one Bishop over another. Now its not going to help you today, but remember me, when it all comes together for you. And it will someday.

Remember the scripture when Jesus said Peter I have prayed for THEE. It was for only Peter, that, I feel we can both agree on simply because he was talking to only Peter.

Now there is something in there that alot of people miss. Our Lord did not pray for all of our Apostles as equals, he prayed for them in and through Peter.

Now that statement has alot of kick to it. Here is what our Lord was saying, It was through their ONENESS WITH PETER that they would share in his prayer of victory over the evil of the whole world.

When the Communists in China tried to destroy the Church they were quite clever. They tried to insert a division between Apostolic Succession and Peter.

Check this out, its history you will see I am telling you the truth. Now they brainswashed a few Bishops and succeeded in getting them to consecrate a few Priests.

Then the Priests would be in line for Apostolic Succession and the communists hoped the faithful would accept them. So what they did they in turn denied the Primacy of Peter.

But the Catholics refused to accept the bishops.

See BOTH Apostolic Succession and the RECONGITION of the PRIMACY OF PETER go hand and hand.

Here is how Bishop Sheen describes it. I like him! He is simple to understand and to the Point. (and funny also).

He puts it this way Electricity has to have contact with wires to move from house to house. No matter if it is a foot away or 500 feet away. That is how he said Priestly authority is.

He said that any organization rather it starts today, last year, 1000 years ago cannot transmit Divine Power of Christ’s Passion unless there is contact with Christ himself under the CONDITIONS CHRIST LAID DOWN.

If you try getting some books of his, I think it could really bring alot of understanding into your mind Kev. I really do!!

My Dad always said you have to really understand something to teach it. And if you cannot make it simple to explain if you really don’t understand it yourself.

I think that is how we can fail as Catholic’s at times to show things. we do indeed understand it, but we have to fully let it work in our mind for along time to come to a complete understanding of it, and then its really simple for us.

That is why I can’t stress enough to you the Sacraments. When you come to accept them and grasp the full understanding of them, (and you will) it will all come together like finishing a puzzle.

You know how one piece of a puzzle can hold you up, sometimes for days. then that one piece you can build half of a puzzle sometimes in ten minutes, then stuck again, its like that.

Just as our Lord was Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man he desires human instruments between himself and the world to minister and dispense the Mysteries of God. (1 Cor 4:1)

Also read Hev. 5:11 That will help you.

But as the Bishop stated you must have a connection to Christ from Peter to have the Power just like you need that connection from the electric box. If you are not connected no electric. Same with the HS no connection with Peter you lost your connection that Christ gave to his Apostles. No Connection you can’t minister the Sacraments.

I know its alot to grasp, but give it some time.

 

[guanophore]

show me where i made up one? I have always stated that the church is the believers.

Yes. It seems to me that you have been consistently clinging to this deficient notion of “church”.

**
not being dishonest.**

Maybe you don’;t see yourself doing it, Kev, but clearly you need to ignore quite a bit of scripture to cling to you notions. For example, the Apostle instructs one of the first bishops:

1 Tim 1:3

I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine,

Different doctrine is what we have, and it prevents unity. The One Church and One Faith founded by Christ does not have the 'different doctrine" that is evidenced now throughout Christendom.

If there are diametrically opposed doctrines, someone has stepped outside of the One Faith.

**
where does jesus say that church means believeing in the same doctrines?**

That is what it means when it says “One Faith”.

“Don’t teach any different doctrine”

“Be of one mind”

**
i feel sorry for you.**

That is very kind of you, rev kev, but it does not change the facts. Jesus only founded One Church, and any other ecclesial community founded by men is separated from it to a greater or lesser degree (depending upon how much of the Apostolic faith is rejected).

Such ecclesial communites have been separated from the One Faith handed down to us from the Apostles:

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

Notice the name of Irenaeus letter. He refers to those who have departed from the doctrines of the faith as “heretics”. Heresies are “different doctrines”. These are what the Apostle is referring to in Galatians when he says those who depart from the One Faith are anathema (accursed).

Gal 1:6-9

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

Different doctrine = accursed