What about the Liturgy you know Liturgy when is Latin for Mass. Who but the CC has a Mass? In hebrew Liturgy means ministered to the word.
I understand you think they fit. I don’t agree that they fit as you see them fitting.What about the Liturgy you know Liturgy when is Latin for Mass. Who but the CC has a Mass? In hebrew Liturgy means ministered to the word.
Now who ministered to the Word in the bible? The CC did indeed exist in the N.T. The Priest Ministered to the Lord and fasted. It is in Acts 13. We have the Divine Liturgy in the Mass. Pieces kinda fit huh!
I think that the Church is attempting to bridge gaps, especially with the Anglicans and the Orthodox currently. But the bridges are being built by the Church so that people can cross over them, not stop in the middle. If what you are asking is whether the Church can change its doctrines or ignore its moral teachings to accommodate a larger group of persons who will then claim themselves as members, I think that this cannot happen. But, if you are asking whether the Church can reach out to non-Catholics and acknowledge what we already do hold in common - i.e. love of Christ - then I would say this has already happened. Where are the non-Catholics who reach back across to the Church and say - maybe I should consider why the Church teaches as it does on Mary, the Eucharist, abortion, etc? If the Church believes, as it does, that it speaks with Christ’s authority - to whom else should it go?
You must understand it is not what I think, it is what the apostles have taught from the time of Jesus.
I don’t talk in terms of the CC misleading. It’s none of my business. Plus it implies purposefulness and I highly doubt the any misunderstandings on the part of the CC is purposeful.
That is a not a good situation. As a temporary option yes, that will do but ultimately settling down to the least common denominator will not do.
The CC is the living Christ and you really should make Christ your business. I do not see where these misunderstandings on the part of the CC are possible. Jesus said to his Apostles I will give you the words.
I disagree with you in your second paragraph. If that’s a teaching of the CC then there’s one example for you.
Then you disagree with not only the CC you disagree with Jesus and what is written.
Here are two verses to which CC teaching adheres:
This is also the teaching of the Church.
Actually, the last example is called the “Pauline Privilege.” If a convert comes into the Church alone, and their spouse doesn’t convert, but instead, their spouse leaves them on account of their conversion to the Church and not for any other reason, the convert can apply to the Marriage Tribunal for a Pauline Privilege, which is an admission that they were married, but the marriage is no longer binding. It is the only circumstance in Church law in which a valid marriage can be actually annulled.
No, He does not. If the existing marriage is null due to sexual immorality within the putative marriage bond itself (ie: if the marriage is incestuous, or if one of the parties to the marriage is already bound in marriage to someone else, thus causing the putative marriage to actually be a case of adultery against the pre-existing spouse) then divorce is lawful - not only lawful, but required, so that the parties can enter back into a state of grace.
I believe it’s your understanding that I disagree with.Then you disagree with not only the CC you disagree with Jesus and what is written.
Let me show you.
In the O.T. The relation between God and Israel was compared to the relation between a bridegroom and his bride.
Christ said that same thing. He said he would be the bridegroom and his church would be the bride!!
Saul was persecuting the CC. Jesus said saul why are you persectuting ME. Saul said who are YOU and Jesus said its me the Church whom you are persecuting.
“The Church” when we see it inthe Bible is referring to the Catholic Church, which at that time was the only Church in existence - the CC didn’t “come about” at some later time. It was the other different denominations that split off from the CC. The CC is the original one that was established by Christ. We see that when we look, for example, at any list of the Popes - even the earliest lists (they began to be kept in about 150 AD) go back to Peter as being the first Pope, with “on this Peter I will establish My Church” in Matthew 16:18-19, and in John 21:15-19, when Jesus re-establishes Peter as the Chief Shepherd of the Church - in the Matthew verse, Jesus establishes the title of Peter (Pope) for Simon (who is now called Peter), and then in the verses in John, He gives the job description of what the Pope (Peter) is supposed to do.
In addition to the what JMCRAE said, we need to pay attention to what Christ said" "Saul, Saul why are you persecuting Me?
Wow, I am not sure what you are talking about.
Okay let me show it to you another way. Peter was at the first Church at Pentecost do you agree with this. Okay I am using Peter for a reason, I understand there were other Apostles there also.’
Peter is your first pope according to the CC. The Bible does not teach that so you really can’t use it to try to convince me; I don’t have the same presuppositions that you do.