Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Agathon]

And you’d be wrong.

 

[Nicene]

The Irony of mcq72’s statement is that the word instruct is in greek: Katecheo, catechesis, which is also used in Acts 18: 25

Acts 18;24 Now a Jew named Apol’los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures
25 He had been instructed (Katecheo) in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

While I appreciate the diversion from Nestorianism, which you haven’t addressed, it i in fact what I was pointing out while you said he or us, seeming to combine his and our deaths did not in fact turn to dust as i pointed out in acts above. Your post contradicted that he did not see corruption.

Hi N,
Lol…yeah we are all over the place here…ok though…thought i did respond to nestorianism…dont think i contradicted…actually did not here from you, if i recall, your take as to why or how He did not see corruption, beyond the obvious of resurecting less than 40 hours later.

Did He not have a body like you and I ?

Do not believe one needs to take hyper technical definition of “corruption”, that as soon as He died He was different than you or I and not one molecule did not slightly “die” or begin long process of decay…I mean His body was quite broken, bruised, unsightly, beat up, punctured, even becoming sin for us,etc…and corruption for some hours is neglible by comparison…and whats the difference…He was going to get a new body shortly…

Actually was His body"perfect", as after Adam before the fall, or was it after the line of David, obviously after the fall? Were all His genes …dna, all Spirit made or some from Mary ?

 

[mcq72]

I don’t see how your response has any relation to my statement… I’m seeing a reaction to catholicism common to protestants and prejudice against catholicism…

Yes, I appreciate your patience. Yes of course there is some prejudice, on both sides, for stated reasons, by things we say of each other due to our beliefs of our respective churches.

The only one free from this is one who takes each baptized believing brethren as just that, not as “unreformed”, or as “not in fullness of faith”.

Correct have not directly answered your question.But remember some questions are"loaded", that is full of possible assumptions and geared towards specific outcome…but ok…we all do it…

 

[mcq72]

I wonder if you would say that to St. Peter. It was true about the Church then. Why wouldn’t the Church look the same now?

If I can say it , think it, believe if before the Lord, St. Peter is no more formidable. And even more important, am basing much on what St. Peter would say, based upon what he has said, even written, and what others have written, and not written.

But thank you for being transparent, the question being asked thinking what is today was from the beginning, even what I proposed .

While many things remain universal, even amongst all churches, some things have changed, and that varying for most churches.

May we be graciously disposed, to get in line, behind my church or others, to hear even what St. Peter might say to the churches, much more the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[mcq72]

You yourself accept the fivefold ministries, and you know that the task of teaching was not given to texts, however holy , but to people.

Well, sounds like the textbook is the rule, that is for both teacher and student.The student certainly can learn from the teacher expounding from the textbook, as well as the student also proving himself studious of the textbook. Afterall, it is He that inspired the text also inspires the teacher and the reader alike.

 

[mcq72]

The problem here is human perception. There are as many ways of interpreting the Word of God as there are belly buttons

Well, two things. Interpretation is not as varied as most suggest.I mean either Peter was a pope or He was not.Either Mary was assumed or she was not. As to communion views there seems to be 3 or 4 variations with some general universality.

Secondly, God does not change His methods because some might get it wrong.

There is no fail proof method of conveyance, but yet His method is pefect enough to accomplish His desires, overcoming sin nature with “new hearts” by grace. (the start of setting aside human perception for divine reception)

 

[rcwitness]

guanophore:

The problem here is human perception. There are as many ways of interpreting the Word of God as there are belly buttons

Well, two things. Interpretation is not as varied as most suggest.I mean either Peter was a pope or He was not.Either Mary was assumed or she was not. As to communion views there seems to be 3 or 4 variations with some general universality.

Secondly, God does not change His methods because some might get it wrong.

There is no fail proof method of conveyance, but yet His method is pefect enough to accomplish His desires, overcoming sin nature with “new hearts” by grace. (the start of setting aside human perception for divine reception)

Its not so much that there are so many interpretations, but so many matters of the faith with which to have different interpretations over.

Being in communion over difinitive Teaching (and NOT to customs and local practices), to Catholics, is connected with being in communion with His Eucharist. We received His Teachings on account of Him coming in the flesh, and delivering the deposit of faith to the Apostles. We receive His Eucharist as a gesture of giving thanks for giving us the Teachings of God.

One very important Teaching, which causes division among Christians, is whether or not Jesus allows for a Christian marriage to be dissolved.

 

[mcq72]

And where, exactly, is this proposed? I don’t recall seeing this in any Catholic document.

Is not the Book Catholic?
Is not the full deposit of faith Catholic?
(that is primary stewards of)

Is there anything that the Orthodox or P’s have of divinely revealedTruth that was not Catholic first?

Has not the CC proposed, decreed that outside the CC there is no salvation ? (as it relates to gospel message, withstanding those who have never heard it).That is whatever P or O churches have positIively, really show unity with CC, that is we came afterwards yet holding C Truths and grace.

I believe Lumen Gentia has some of these propositions.

Also has the CC ever reformed a a decreed doctrine, that is an erroneous doctrine ?

Can any P or O church decree anything binding on faith and morals infallibly, that the CC has not?

 

[mcq72]

A point about which @JonNC and I are in complete agreement. But we are also in agreement that Scripture must be understood in the light of what God has revealed to the Church, that the Church is authorative, and authority does exist, outside of which the faith can be, and will be, obscured. The councils, creeds, and writings of the Fathers all help us to stay on track understanding what the Apostles taught. When people separate themselves from these custodians of the Truth, division results.

Very well put.

 

[guanophore]

The Holy Spirit guides but “…only thru Rome and by others but only when they concur with Rome, including any reform, and that only of practice, (due to infallible reception of doctrine, by Rome only).”

guanophore:

And where, exactly, is this proposed? I don’t recall seeing this in any Catholic document.

What Catholic book asserts that the Holy Spirit guides “only through Rome”?

Where in the full deposit of faith is it claimed that the Holy Spirit only guides those only when they concur with Rome?

In fact, the Catechism says the opposite, making your claims just blatant calumny against the Catholic Church. Honestly, I am mystified why a person with your hostility toward the CC comes to a Catholic forum.

I believe Lumen Gentia has some of these propositions.

I strongly urge that now would be the time for you to support the assertion you have made here in Lumen Gentia.

Can any P or O church decree anything binding on faith and morals infallibly…

Certainly they believe they can, and do. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura certainly seems to be binding on the faithful, and is thought to be infallible.

 

[mcq72]

What Catholic book asserts that the Holy Spirit guides “only through Rome”

I posted,“only thru Rome and by others”…meaning thru Rome and thru others, with posted stipulation (can not be contrary to Rome’s HS guidance , when dealing with faith and morals/teaching,doctrine …show"unity")

The positive statement is the Holy Spirit guides all but in unity, showing towards unity of the Catholic faith. He leads to the One deposit of faith, which is Catholic

 

[mcq72]

In fact, the Catechism says the opposite,

Ok, so the C catechism says the Holy Spirit will guide other churches in faith and morals/doctrine, even if it is contrary to Catholic HS guided teaching…

Anyways, perhaps I should cease if it is in error or deemed hostile. Some might think I am just in error and hostile to the not submitting to such propositions (not being submissive to them, accepting them)…a conundrum…but understandable…but thank you if I am correct in thinking you to not be in the latter group.

 

[guanophore]

Ok, so the C catechism says the Holy Spirit will guide other churches in faith and morals/doctrine

No. According to the Catechism there are no other “churches”.

even if it is contrary to Catholic HS guided teaching…

No, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He does not teach something contrary to what has already been revealed. This is why the Reformation doctrines are considered “a different gospel” for us.

perhaps I should cease if it is in error or deemed hostile.

I am just curious, given that you have such issues with the Catholic understanding of the authority appointed by Christ, and the CC in general, that you seem so invested in coming to a Catholic site. Occasionally I come across posts like these that seem sarcastic and barby (sharp pokes) and wonder if that is why you are here.

Some might think I am just in error and hostile to the not submitting to such propositions (not being submissive to them, accepting them)

Not at all. What seems hostile is misrepresenting what the Church believes/teaches, then finding fault with it.

But, one still has to wonder, if you have this refusal to submit to the propositions, and accepting them, why are you here?

 

[mcq72]

No. According to the Catechism there are no other “churches”.

Ok…yes of course…stand corrected …previous posts did not say “other churches”…said “others”, and maybe "O’s and P’s in another one…but certainly “others” is recognized by LG if i recall correctly…perhaps it is “seperated brethren”.

 

[mcq72]

No, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He does not teach something contrary to what has already been revealed. This is why the Reformation doctrines are considered “a different gospel” for us.

Yes…that is what i was trying to say…the Holy Spirit guides …and all others …and others if in accord to Rome, the place of Petrine office, that is “Catholic”.

Is that CC teaching that others have a “different gospel” ?

 

[mcq72]

am just curious, given that you have such issues with the Catholic understanding of the authority appointed by Christ, and the CC in general, that you seem so invested in coming to a Catholic site. Occasionally I come across posts like these that seem sarcastic and barby (sharp pokes) and wonder if that is why you are here.

Well we could all be curious…like why would one want to be on site designated for non catholics and then criticize their feelings…I mean of course we have “issues”…that is why we are not Catholic…but certainly we dont want to misrepresent nor be sarcastic…

 

[Benadam]

Not curious enough to see any Holy Spirit behind any movement in reformers. No budging on any faith and moral issues (doctrine) that reformers brought up. Mostly just shoring the lines of division at that time.

But yes, some things are better today, though not reading any posts accepting God as being behind any old reformers.

I don’t blame you for thinking that. I would think that too, if I were you. Yet I don’t think that’s a fair statement. I have posted opinion that the Holy Spirit is moving among the separated communities. I admit they have been rare though and I understand how positive things get lost in a growing pile of negative things.

I do believe that Martin Luther brought foreward valid claims.I can’t believe the Holy Spirit was behind movements that caused separation. I do believe the Holy Spirit is active among the separated 'Christian" communities. I don’t believe these communities can receive the gifts promised to the Church such as, 'to be led to ‘all truth’. I also think the Sacraments in these communities keep them a branch rather than severed and by way of divine damage control, serve the final events of salvation history. The separated Christian communities make available the Gospel to many people who’s hearts otherwise would never know Jesus.

The Church’s witness of Oneness that comes from God and the Incarnation of His Son is obstructed by this division. I do believe the psychological phenomenon I mentioned is spiritual and a root cause of division. I also know I was thoughtless and lacked charity delivering it, and for that I’m truly sorry.

 

[guanophore]

previous posts did not say “other churches”…said “others”, and maybe "O’s and P’s in another one…but certainly “others” is recognized by LG if i recall correctly…perhaps it is “seperated brethren”.

Yes, and the CC documents state clearly that the Holy Spirit leads such persons.

the Holy Spirit guides …and all others …and others if in accord to Rome, the place of Petrine office, that is “Catholic”.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit is afforded to every human soul, even if they have never heard of the City of Rome, or the Pope.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church founded by Christ. Jesus left a visible sign of unity in Peter, and the successors of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Well we could all be curious…like why would one want to be on site designated for non catholics and then criticize their feelings…I mean of course we have “issues”…that is why we are not Catholic…but certainly we dont want to misrepresent nor be sarcastic…

I think you are referring to the subforum of “non-Catholic religions” within CAF? Catholic Answers is a Catholic Apologetics site with many subfora.

I don’t know anyone here who has “criticized feelings”. I take issue with doctrinal issues, and I have observed in your posts what appears to represent sarcasm and accusation from time to time. The truth is that I cannot know what you “feel” about anything, as it is an internet forum. All I can do is go on what you have posted. For all I know, you are just role playing.

but certainly we dont want to misrepresent nor be sarcastic…

This may be the case for you, and it only leaks through occasionally, but there are plenty of people here who are deliberately so.

I mean of course we have “issues”…that is why we are not Catholic

Indeed…which is why the curiosity about why you are on a Catholic site…?

Not curious enough to see any Holy Spirit behind any movement in reformers.

My studies of the Reformation and the persons involved in it have convinced me that all of them believed they were being moved by the Holy Spirit.

God is always calling men to reform. What did not need to be reformed was the doctrine of Christ.

And the Church did recognize the need for reform, and these issues were addressed at the Council of Trent. It is called the “Counter-Reformation” , but it is recognized as a movement of the Holy Spirit to bring balance into the Church.

No budging on any faith and moral issues (doctrine) that reformers brought up.

True. The teachings of Christ were whole and entire when they were delivered once for all to the Church. We are not in a position to change them. Nothing can be added, or subtracted. Doing so would produce “a different gospel”.

Mostly just shoring the lines of division at that time.

Yes, this is what happens where heresies run rampant. Either the faithful get into the boat with Peter, or they drift elsewhere.

though not reading any posts accepting God as being behind any old reformers.

I am sure they believed they were acting in accordance with the will of God.