Have you read in the Bible about what Jesus taught people regarding Himself? " Before Abraham came to be, I AM " " Woman, I am the resurrection. " " Those who have seen Me have seen the Father. " " No-one comes to the Father except by Me. " And many many other saying testifying to Him as being God in human flesh. Not just to be one of our " very favorite teachers, " but The Teacher. Peace be to you.
Jesus has ascended into heaven, and is seated at his Father’s right hand. He will come again, in golry, to judge the living and the dead.
The short answer is the Church.
No one would dispute his compassion. There is more to him than just an emotion, though, And yes, he would offer his saving message to anyone, but remember that he also told his disciples that, should that message be rejected, they were to move on.
Jesus died for all who lived or will ever live. (Don’t let any Calvinist tell you different
)All may enter his house, but appropriate behaviour is called for. For instance, if a relative of mine wanted to visit my home, along with the person they lived with outside of marriage, they would not be refused entry. They could even spend the night. But they could not sleep together in my home, because mine is a Catholic Christian home, and fornication is condoned here.
Yes, I did. That typo gets cut and pasted into my hall of fame!
You are a bit off base about women, but if you mean that the priesthood is male only, yes, that’s true.
Can’t give you specifics. It’s happening 3000 miles from where I live, and I have no insight into the nature of the visit, or the agenda.
I hope no Catholic would ask that question either, but that’s not the question here.
Hi lepp…
And I’m pleased to second your motion in regards the Catechism. The authors have certainly done that one right. 
) gets tricky.This is a fallacy (which means an error in reason). I could teach and say that I can forgive sins and I am one with the father. Does that make it true? No. Does that mean my words should be over interpreted until they lose their initial meaning? No. Plus these things weren’t recorded as he was saying them…what is to say that a zealot didn’t add these quotes later? His main message was love, not seperation, and bigotry. Also, as a practitioner of both yoga and tia chi I can say that there is no religious apsect which must be observed. You are not praying to Vishnu as you go into downward facing dog, you are stretching. If you are firm in your beliefs, having an outsider come to your church shouldn’t bother you.
The point of the assertion is not that the statements about forgiving sins and being one with the Father are true. (We know they are, but that’s not the point of the assertion.) The point is that mere teachers do not say such things, and with respect to that point, there is no error in logic.
Do you believe this? What about Charlse Manson, or David Koresh, or any of the numerous people that are spiritual teachers and make that claim all the time. So there is, in fact, an error of reason on both of your parts. My point was that simply making the claim does not lend validity to that claim. That IS a fallacy.
I hardly think that “spiritual teacher” is a full description of either Manson or Koresh. It was an activity they undertook, yes, but it hardly serves to stipulate their identity.
In other words, everything that the church teaches is the truth because the church says so…(don’t look for support for this teaching in a logic book)Yes, I did. That typo gets cut and pasted into my hall of fame!
You are a bit off base about women, but if you mean that the priesthood is male only, yes, that’s true.
You are right, of course, that those who exercise the Church’s teaching authority – Magisterium is the technical term – are human. But what makes their teaching fully reliable is the protection of infallibility.
That does not mean that they cannot sin (that’s impecability), but they are protected from teaching error, when they teach in matters of faith and morals, by God the Holy Spirit. Note: it’s a negative protection. If they make a teaching pronouncement, it is protected from error.
Thus, if a question or difference about a doctrinal issue arises, and those with teaching authority in the church see fit to teach on it, then the teaching will have protection from error by God the Holy Spirit.
History certainly records that there were some popes who were a good deal less than edifying. History also records that they never taught erroneous doctrine. They taught no doctrine at all.
I couldn’t have put it better, and no recourse to a logic book is necessary …
… thanks to the protection from teaching error that God the Holy Spirit gives to the Church. :yup:LOL…at least there is no chance of any erronious, false, or wrong teachings to come from the church…
You may want to follow this link:I have a chicken coop over here that needs protecting, can someone send some wolves over to watch over it for me…
since it doesn’t make sense, and is only there to provide protection to itself.
you mean protection the church gave to the church…no where in the bible is this protection given, it is given “to the church for the church” let’s be honest and not twist reality.
no where does it say that non-catholics can’t point out areas in catholic teaching that do not make sense, or that don’t follow logic or reason, or seem to be there ONLY to protect the church. This teaching is self-serving, and people need to be aware that it is a Catholic teaching, not a biblical teaching.
That’s fine.
Why does it bother you that Holy Scripture is only a part of the deposit of the faith?
What bothers me is a web of self-promoting ideologies that have no founding in any of God’s teachings. The ONLY support anyone can provide for these teachings is the church, who oh by the way is the sole benefactor of the teachings it created, and promotes as the only true set of teachings…which get tweaked on occasion to support the church’s views of course.
That’s being a bit cynical, eh? There are other ways to interpret the data.