How long will it take for non-Catholics to finally accept Catholicism?

[Mailman]

Mailman, Mailman, Mailman, One point is “You” can’t change the name it is “Our” Church. And we both know the RCC has been called that by misguided people already but we are still the true church.
You and I both should both agree that if you were dyslexic and read that your pet was a dog and you called him God.He would still be a dog!

Rob, I didn’t say I can change your church’s name, did I? Why, I can’t even change your name! I pointed out to the guy that his logic is faulty by using an example. And you are right about a dog being still a dog even if you called him God. Just as a church could still be Satan’s church even if its members claim it to be God’s true church, right?

The 2000 year old church established by Jesus and called the RCC. As I said before it is the true Church of God that Jesus established is: “Apostolic”, is lead by the successor of St Peter,and that my friend is the Real Church.

Let me get this clear. The RCC is “Apostolic” because it is led by the successor of St Peter. And because it is “Apostolic” it is the true church. In other words, what you’re saying is that the head of the true Church of God today must be the successor of St. Peter - must come from a line of bishops (popes) who can trace its succession to the first head of God’s church who is St. Peter, otherwise it is not the Real Church. Is that how I should understand your statement?

God bless,

 

[jmcrae]

Rob, I didn’t say I can change your church’s name, did I? Why, I can’t even change your name! I pointed out to the guy that his logic is faulty by using an example. And you are right about a dog being still a dog even if you called him God. Just as a church could still be Satan’s church even if its members claim it to be God’s true church, right?

That’s right. Even if it calls itself the Church of Pentecostal Holiness, if it wasn’t started by Jesus Himself and passed down through the Apostles to their successors, then it could well be Satan’s church (although probably it’s just a man or a woman’s church).

Let me get this clear. The RCC is “Apostolic” because it is led by the successor of St Peter.

Right.

And because it is “Apostolic” it is the true church.

Well, this is one of the four marks of the True Church. There are other Apostolic churches, of course! But the True Church could not be any of the churches that are not Apostolic, because the four marks of the True Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

If any one of these four marks or signs are missing, then it is not the Church that Christ established, and is to be avoided.

In other words, what you’re saying is that the head of the true Church of God today must be the successor of St. Peter - must come from a line of bishops (popes) who can trace its succession to the first head of God’s church who is St. Peter, otherwise it is not the Real Church. Is that how I should understand your statement?

Jesus Himself shows us that Peter must have a lineage of succession, when He quotes from Isaiah 22:22, in Matthew 16:18-19. Notice that the section He is quoting from deals directly with the issue of Succession in the Davidic household. (Is it mere coincidence, that Jesus is called “The Son of David”?)

 

[jmcrae]

So, we can change the name of the RCC into The Church of Satan and it doesn’t matter one bit? I think your logic is erroneous.

The Church is called “Roman Catholic” because it is a worldwide organization (Catholic) that has its headquarters in Rome. And just fyi, it was not Catholics who originally started calling it that; it was people from outside the Church who needed to differentiate God’s Church from their man-made religious organizations.

 

[Mailman]

Jesus Himself shows us that Peter must have a lineage of succession, when He quotes from Isaiah 22:22, in Matthew 16:18-19. Notice that the section He is quoting from deals directly with the issue of Succession in the Davidic household. (Is it mere coincidence, that Jesus is called “The Son of David”?)

So, Peter was the first head of God’s church and now its head is the current pope?

 

[jmcrae]

So, Peter was the first head of God’s church and now its head is the current pope?

The Pope is kind of the “Prime Minister” of Christ’s Church, with Christ as its eternal King.

St. Peter was made “Chief Shepherd” or “Prime Minister” of Christ’s Church in John 21:15-19.

 

[distracted]

If we expect our Protestant brethren to scrutinize their theology and examine it with a critical eye - ought not we to do the same before accusing the beloved and blood-bought children of our Heavenly Father?

you surely are long-winded…

and what’s with the large font??

 

[Mailman]

The Pope is kind of the “Prime Minister” of Christ’s Church, with Christ as its eternal King.

St. Peter was made “Chief Shepherd” or “Prime Minister” of Christ’s Church in John 21:15-19.

That verse is not conclusive that St. Peter was made the “Chief Shepherd” of the church. But St. Peter was not made the “Vicar of Christ on earth,” was he? What does that word mean, anyway?

 

[jmcrae]

That verse is not conclusive that St. Peter was made the “Chief Shepherd” of the church.

“Feed my sheep” seems clear enough, to me.

But St. Peter was not made the “Vicar of Christ on earth,” was he? What does that word mean, anyway?

A vicar is a messenger. Anybody who sets himself up as a preacher of the Gospel is a “vicar,” or messenger, of Christ. The first Christian sermon was preached by St. Peter on Pentecost Sunday, and we see the record of it in Acts 2.

 

[RobGentner]

So, Peter was the first head of God’s church and now its head is the current pope?

**
See you can learn. Excellent except you have to change the question mark to an exclamation point for what yoiu said to be accurate! I told you you ask good questions, why not list all the questions you googled so we can answer them all AGAIN! at one time!

Now another joke to entertain:

After a long, dry sermon, the minister announced that he wished to meet with the church’s board following the close of the service. The first man to arrive and greet the minister was a total
stranger.

“You misunderstood my announcement. This is a meeting of the board members,” explained the minister. “I know,” said the man, “and if there is any member that was more bored than I was, I’dlike to meet him.”

Kisses, **

 

[Mailman]

“Feed my sheep” seems clear enough, to me. .

Yes, but Jesus could have said that to the other disciples as well. Remember, there were a lot of things Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture?

A vicar is a messenger. Anybody who sets himself up as a preacher of the Gospel is a “vicar,” or messenger, of Christ. The first Christian sermon was preached by St. Peter on Pentecost Sunday, and we see the record of it in Acts 2.

I read somewhere that vicar means “in place of” so the pope sits in place of Christ on earth, since Christ is in heaven. The pope is the human head of the church while Christ is the heavenly head. So that’s not true, then?

 

[jmcrae]

Now another joke to entertain:

After a long, dry sermon, the minister announced that he wished to meet with the church’s board following the close of the service. The first man to arrive and greet the minister was a total
stranger.

“You misunderstood my announcement. This is a meeting of the board members,” explained the minister. “I know,” said the man, “and if there is any member that was more bored than I was, I’dlike to meet him.”

Kisses,

When my Dad turned 18, he moved into his very first apartment, and was so excited when the door bell rang to meet his very first visitors. When he opened the door, there were two young men in fine black suits standing there, and they said to him, “Sir, we bring a message to you from your brother, Jesus Christ.” My father was so distressed, he put his hand to his forehead and said, “Oh no, not already! He has run out of money, again?!!” uch:

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, but Jesus could have said that to the other disciples as well. Remember, there were a lot of things Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture?

By their behaviour as we see it recorded in the Book of Acts, it seems as though they were all working together in the same Church; Jesus did not give each of them his own Church. There can only be one Chief in any organization.

I read somewhere that vicar means “in place of” so the pope sits in place of Christ on earth, since Christ is in heaven. The pope is the human head of the church while Christ is the heavenly head. So that’s not true, then?

The Pope is certainly the earthly head of the Church on earth, but he does not “replace” Christ, nor is he considered “equal” to Him in any way. He is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

 

[rich123456]

I just found this post and do not have more time than a minute or so.
I think the best thing to happen would be for many Catholics to find Catholicism. If we knew what we had we would all explode in joy. This is what I believe we need to work on first, then we can move out better.

God Bless
www.utahmission.com

 

[distracted]

So true…

QUOTE=rich123456;4193712]]I think the best thing to happen would be for many Catholics to find Catholicism. If we knew what we had we would all explode in joy. This is what I believe we need to work on first, then we can move out better.

God Bless
www.utahmission.com

 

[RobGentner]

Yes, but Jesus could have said that to the other disciples as well. Remember, there were a lot of things Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture?

Because thou hast said unto me, ‘thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’ will I build my Church’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said ‘I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said,’But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.” —St Augustine

I read somewhere that vicar means “in place of” so the pope sits in place of Christ on earth, since Christ is in heaven. The pope is the human head of the church while Christ is the heavenly head. So that’s not true, then?

** Mailman, a vicar (from the Latin vicarius) is a representative, that is anyone acting “in the person of” or an agent for a superior. Not in place of. But you knew that! I love the way you attempt to confuse.

jmcrae, You do realize mailman is “playing” don’t you? He always twist things to say what he desires. He knew it is in the person of not the place of! You stood up well to his game **

 

[Mailman]

The Pope is certainly the earthly head of the Church on earth, but he does not “replace” Christ, nor is he considered “equal” to Him in any way. He is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Can the pope or the church “magisterium” change the laws of God?

 

[Mailman]

** Mailman, a vicar (from the Latin vicarius) is a representative**, anyone acting “in the person of” or agent for a superior. Not in place of. I love the wat you attempt to confuse.

jmcrae you do realize mailman is “playing” don’t you? He always twist things to say what he wants the to. He know it is in the person of not the place of!

I am trying to clarify things from your point of view because you are Catholics before I comment on it, as you may accuse me of twisting words again. That was how I remembered one article say what “vicar” means and I didn’t want to use that without first consulting you guys. You judge too hastily RobGentner.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Can the pope or the church “magisterium” change the laws of God?

not for the elect

 

[RobGentner]

I am trying to clarify things from your point of view because you are Catholics before I comment on it,

**That is exactly the game I accuse you of playing. You know what you want to ask. Just ask! Don’t get people to agree with you and then “trap” them in your twisted words. **

That was how I remembered one article say what “vicar” means

Sure it was! You pull your questions off the internet, you can pull the correct definition of vicar off the internet also. You changed it to indicate that the Pope “replaces” Jesus so you can develop an argument. It isn’t the first time, nor I suspect the last time.

…and I didn’t want to use that without first consulting you guys.

**Right! **

You judge too hastily RobGentner.

**
Nope, I watch and read, evaluate and learn, respond and evaluate.
I really like you. That is sincere.
You are intelligent, educated in the RCC and our Catholic faith. You know of our faith yet you don’t believe in our faith. that I find very interesting.
I actually don’t judge at all I just express my opinion from my observations in a "judgemental way? .**

 

[RobGentner]

Can the pope or the church “magisterium” change the laws of God?

See what I mean? You know that no one can change the laws of God! He is GOD! Now, can the pope or magisterium reinterpret their understanding of the laws of God? Why not? Just like you do of your understanding of God’s laws.