Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[benhur]

Hello,

1 Timothy 3:15 explains this

Hi M,

So which church does it justify ? We all agree that the church, as once a nation Israel did in the OT, carries the Truth, to the world. Just that this passage does not define what church is, beyond those that assemble in God’s (Jesus’s) name/house.

It does address the need for proper behavior as in shepherding of the house of God (Timothy was a shepherd, receiving instructions about the job from his mentor, Paul), and the weeding out of improper beliefs, practices and attitudes. To me it says there will always be this struggle. Now, we must discern any calls for reform as legit or rebellious.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

]Mt. 28:18-19 “Going therefore, teach YOU [singular] all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU! [singular]: and behold I am with YOU! [singular] all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Jn 17: 18-20 "As thou hast sent ME into the world, I also have sent TEEM [singular[ into the world.[/COLOR] And for THEM** do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth**. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
.
What my friend are we Catholics missing here in our understanding vrs. yours?
Do not see the Roman Catholic Church in these verses as opposed to Orthodox or Protestants. Unlike our modern day pharmaceuticals where you go from brand name to generic, the church began as a generic, and then acquired brand names.

Disagree therefore with those who say the apostles, or ‘‘church’’ in scripture, were ‘Roman Catholic’. At best you do what most brands do, set up criteria, then claim to be ‘apostolic’. I do believe as Forest Gump might say ,“Apostolic is as apostolic does”. That is, names/labeling aside, believe and do like the apostles, and you are ‘apostolic’. (“Stupid is as stupid does.” was the quote in the movie).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ep/web-large/EP1435.jpg

 

[Abu]

Benhur #489
Disagree therefore with those who say the apostles, or ‘‘church’’ in scripture, were ‘Roman Catholic’.

How strange, when Christ’s only One, Holy and Apostolic Church became known as “Catholic” as early as the reality from St Ignatius of Antioch shows:
Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

You are now becoming much more knowledgeable of the truths of Christ and his one and only Catholic Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Disagree therefore with those who say the apostles, or ‘‘church’’ in scripture, were ‘Roman Catholic’. At best you do what most brands do, set up criteria, then claim to be ‘apostolic’.

The Church in Scripture was subject to the living Apostles. Peter, who was chief of these, was respected and honored as able to confirm the whole Church. Even Paul laid out his gospel message to Peter. No one is claiming the Apostles were “Roman Catholic”. That didn’t happen until Peter left his office with the Bishop of Rome.

The fact is, is that the Catholic Church is true to the model of the Church founded by Chris on Peter and the Apostles.

 

[benhur]

How strange, when Christ’s only One, Holy and Apostolic Church became known as “Catholic” as early as the reality from St Ignatius of Antioch shows:
Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

You are now becoming much more knowledgeable of the truths of Christ and his one and only Catholic Church.

Yes Abu, Thank you . I know of this quote. It is after the apostles. First came the term Christian, then the Way, then Catholic to further define the first.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The fact is, is that the Catholic Church is true to the model of the Church founded by Chris on Peter and the Apostles.

Hi rc,
OK. That is close to what I proposed, that we all claim to be apostolic, to be true to what was setup before us, by the apostles themselves. And that from the beginning, they did not go by our ‘names’.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,
OK. That is close to what I proposed, that we all claim to be apostolic, to be true to what was setup before us, by the apostles themselves. And that from the beginning, they did not go by our ‘names’.

Yeah, they didn’t develop a lot of our names, like ‘trinity’ or ‘bible’ or ‘pastor’ or ‘Sunday school’ etc. but I don’t see the point in stressing about names or terms as much as meanings and purposes. For example, what was a purpose for Jesus setting Peter apart from the others? Did it not accomplish what He intended it to? Was the whole Church not able to settle matters and be confirmed if Peter spoke in official capacity?

 

[benhur]

Yeah, they didn’t develop a lot of our names, like ‘trinity’ or ‘bible’ or ‘pastor’ or ‘Sunday school’ etc. but I don’t see the point in stressing about names or terms as much as meanings and purposes. For example, what was a purpose for Jesus setting Peter apart from the others? Did it not accomplish what He intended it to? Was the whole Church not able to settle matters and be confirmed if Peter spoke in official capacity?

Hi rc,

By ‘names’ I meant denominational names , even Catholic or Orthodox. I suppose I bring it up because the CC and the O’s do make the point of stressing the origins of their respective churches, as being from Pentecost on.

As far as Peter being set apart, is it more than group dynamics, or a captain of captains? I mean someone had to go first that Pentecost day. Peter had always been a spokesperson. Just not sure that means Peter ruled over the others. That is a big step, a step that half of Christendom does not acknowledge. Many, even before the reformation, argued for councilar rule. I disagree with those that say the Jerusalem council verifies the papacy. I see the exact opposite. It took all of them together to settle the matter. But yes , Peter was a leader amongst them , not above them.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,By ‘names’ I meant denominational names , even Catholic or Orthodox.

Do you believe denominations existed during the age of the Apostles? Wasn’t it a hallmark of “the twelve” that Christ was bringing the nation’s of Israel unto One Shepherd?

I suppose I bring it up because the CC and the O’s do make the point of stressing the origins of their respective churches, as being from Pentecost on.

Yes, the Catholic and Orthodox have Bishops who have been ordained successively back to the Apostles.

As far as Peter being set apart, is it more than group dynamics, or a captain of captains? I mean someone had to go first that Pentecost day. Peter had always been a spokesperson. Just not sure that means Peter ruled over the others.

If you find “ruling” as offensive, then you will have issue with all leaders. I dont, because I put it into proper perspective. On several occassions, Jesus speaks to Peter separately yet while the others are present. And he was given a leadership commission. It’s more than mere spokesman… it’s stewardship of an office.

1 Timothy 5
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching…”

That is a big step, a step that half of Christendom does not acknowledge.

Yep…

Many, even before the reformation, argued for councilar rule. I disagree with those that say the Jerusalem council verifies the papacy. I see the exact opposite. It took all of them together to settle the matter. But yes , Peter was a leader amongst them , not above them.

Peter was a wise and faithful steward. He did not need to flex his muscles. Have some throughout history? Oh yeah!

Giving authority to the Bishop of Rome as steward of the Universal Church is a personal choice that demands free will. I do so with thanksgiving to Jesus! I can see the goodness in His Magisterium.

 

[Abu]

Benhur #496
Peter had always been a spokesperson. Just not sure that means Peter ruled over the others.

1. You should be certain by now that “Peter ruled over the others” because Christ placed him as head of His Church – now that you know, you now doubt Christ instead of following Him for:
   All four promises to Peter alone
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is a big step, a step that half of Christendom does not acknowledge. Many, even before the reformation, argued for councilar rule.

1. It is a FACT which the Protestant Revolt sought to eliminate, and which has resulted in thousands of sects all teaching something different and all disobeying Christ through rejecting His Church.

I disagree with those that say the Jerusalem council verifies the papacy. I see the exact opposite. It took all of them together to settle the matter. But yes , Peter was a leader amongst them , not above them.

1. Such an assumed feeling is quite contrary to the facts, and indicates a disbelief in Sacred Scripture which clearly describes Peter’s primacy:
   Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’." (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

 

[PJM]

Do not see the Roman Catholic Church in these verses as opposed to Orthodox or Protestants. Unlike our modern day pharmaceuticals where you go from brand name to generic, the church began as a generic, and then acquired brand names.

Disagree therefore with those who say the apostles, or ‘‘church’’ in scripture, were ‘Roman Catholic’. At best you do what most brands do, set up criteria, then claim to be ‘apostolic’. I do believe as Forest Gump might say ,“Apostolic is as apostolic does”. That is, names/labeling aside, believe and do like the apostles, and you are ‘apostolic’. (“Stupid is as stupid does.” was the quote in the movie).

Blessings

And here is WHY you disagree:

NOT doing so allows to keep believing what YOU choose to believe; NOT what the BIBLE actually says.

As for the Church and Apostles NOT being Catholic

THIS TOO is your position for the REASON I FIRST articulated

Historically; secular HISTORY provable:

THE ONLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS THE EXCLUSIVE UNTIL 1054 AD & THE GREAT EASTERN SCHISM; TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH.

1st called the way:

Acts Of Apostles 19:9
But when some were hardened, and believed not, speaking evil of the way of the Lord, before the multitude, departing from them, he separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

Acts Of Apostles 24:14
But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets

LATER called Christians

1 Peter 4:16
But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name

And NOT long after that CATHOLICS

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.

Be careful my friend your PRIDE is showing

Blessings,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Can you please tell me which set of faith beliefs in Judaism was the right one, which was the Divine will of God ? Did Jesus ever say the Pharisees had it, or the Sadducees or the Hasidics, or Essenes or a host of others ? He certainly said salvation by the divine will of God was thru the Jews, so which ones ? Were the one true set of faith beliefs held by any one faction ?

Blessings

SURE, the ONE given to them BY GOD Through MOSES. Amen!

 

[blanchardman]

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

I asked adrift is Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father?

The second question is about 1 Cor 3:13-14.
The expression" for the day ( of the Lord) shall declare it.
What is the meaning of this in this context?

 

[blanchardman]

How about this. Tell me what 1 Cor 3:11-15 means.Perhaps I will find an answer in your expectation.

 

[benhur]

SURE, the ONE given to them BY GOD Through MOSES. Amen!

Which “One” is that? The only"one" I cited was “Jews” or Israel, which is equivalent to "Christians or the “Church” (with no name or adjective). So are you saying any other names, adjectives are not of God, at least in OT ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And here is WHY you disagree:

NOT doing so allows to keep believing what YOU choose to believe; NOT what the BIBLE actually says.

Hi PJM,

No, we all freely choose what to believe.

As for the Church and Apostles NOT being Catholic

THIS TOO is your position for the REASON I FIRST articulated

OK, just that some Catholic posters said apostles were not calling themselves “Catholic” (not that they were not Catholic -like).

Historically; secular HISTORY provable:

THE ONLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS THE EXCLUSIVE UNTIL 1054 AD & THE GREAT EASTERN SCHISM; TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH.

1st called the way:
LATER called Christians
And NOT long after that CATHOLICS

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2),

Good .Thank you. Not sure where I was prideful for both our progression history is identical, but thank you for the biblical matching texts.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

(name removed by moderator)
I wished also people would stop repeating this ‘only one Church until the schism of 1054’ stuff, it’s not accurate in the slightest. The Oriental Orthodox had split of long before that.

Correct.

At the Council of Chalcedon:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsoci…/ecfpapacy.htm

Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. The Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline.

 

[benhur]

1. You should be certain by now that “Peter ruled over the others” because Christ placed him as head of His Church – now that you know, you now doubt Christ instead of following Him for:
   All four promises to Peter alone
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. It is a FACT which the Protestant Revolt sought to eliminate, and which has resulted in thousands of sects all teaching something different and all disobeying Christ through rejecting His Church.
2. Such an assumed feeling is quite contrary to the facts, and indicates a disbelief in Sacred Scripture which clearly describes Peter’s primacy:
   Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’." (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

There is no evidence that Peter called the meeting. Peter was not the first to speak , nor the last , nor did he make the ruling, nor the method of proclamation. He definitely spoke authoritatively, as he should have, for God gave him the command/vision much earlier, as he did to Paul. These are the reasons many say Peter was first amongst equals , but not over the others.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Do you believe denominations existed during the age of the Apostles? Wasn’t it a hallmark of “the twelve” that Christ was bringing the nation’s of Israel unto One Shepherd?

Hi rc,

Correct, no denominations back then, nor “Catholic”, nor Orthodox,but One Shepherd, Christ, with Christian followers.

Yes, the Catholic and Orthodox have Bishops who have been ordained successively back to the Apostles.

Understand. It has it place, but also it’s problems. Judaism had the same issues, for they also claimed a type of succession. Paul reminds us that, rites and institutionalizing can fall short, and that one has to indeed be ordained in Spirit. Circumcision, to sit in Moses seat, is not necessarily effectual or genuine, if not in the Spirit. Hence I said, “apostolic is as apostolic does”. I do not rule out the Spirit’s anointing of some leaders/teachers, who do not have the rite/sacramental, or physical succession anointing that you speak of and who indeed do as the apostles.

If you find “ruling” as offensive, then you will have issue with all leaders.

Sorry you went there, but not sure that discernment of hierarchy, even of pertaining scripture, is due to personal preference. If anything, I personally find it attractive, appealing, logical, and even desirous of top down, one leader, as your pope. I mean after all, that is how it will be in His kingdom. We will gladly throw our giftings and honors and rewards at His feet, and gladly do His bidding. He is our King, our General, our Teacher and “Husband”. But my sentiment and preference must be set aside when discerning His will for us now in the interim. Another words, we seek discernment of proper interpretation of scripture and tradition on their own merits and not personal preference.

On several occassions, Jesus speaks to Peter separately yet while the others are present.

Understand, but we also know that the apostles after this still argued as to who was greater, and who indeed would have the exclusive office of sitting at His right hand

And he was given a leadership commission. It’s more than mere spokesman… it’s stewardship of an office

I almost completely agree. The words escape me that others have said better to explain the difference of leading as defined by your pope and as first amongst equals.

Peter was a wise and faithful steward. He did not need to flex his muscles. Have some throughout history? Oh yeah!

Yes, I have heard that explanation before of Peter’s humble servant attitude at the council.

Giving authority to the Bishop of Rome as steward of the Universal Church is a personal choice that demands free will. I do so with thanksgiving to Jesus! I can see the goodness in His Magisterium.

Understand. Thank you for sharing your ‘sacred ground’.

Blessings