I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[larkin31]

People act as if it’s proof of some kind because the term ‘Catholic’ itself is not in the Bible.

Who did this? Which “people” do you mean in this generalized claim?

 

[guanophore]

Where in scripture does it say Catholic?

Acts. 9:31 is the first use we see of the word Catholic to describe the one, holy and aposotolic Church.

Do you think the Holy Spirit only works in the CC?

No, the HS is at work among all of our separated brethren to reunite the Body.

Not trying to sell anything, but you do act like you are the only ones who have a handle on Jesus and He is for everyone.

Jesus fully identified Himself with His Holy Bride, the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who did this? Which “people” do you mean in this generalized claim?

Look at the origin of the question itself larkin31.

Where in scripture does it say Catholic?

Any honest person knows the intent of this question. It’s to challenge the authority of the Catholic Church, not only challenge the Church’s authority, but place the authority of scriptures over the Church, yet the person that asked that question knows that no where in scriptures does it place the scriptures as the final authority, or teaches everyone to interpret scriptures for themselves. I know, that person will claim the Holy Spirit interprets scriptures, and then avoids the question of so many different interpretations, ALL claiming Holy Spirit interpretation.

It’s not a ‘generalized’ claim as you insinuate, and I’m not going to name names here. To be quite honest, I’ve grown extremely tired of your insinuations and accusations. I, unlike scriptures, can very well explain the interpretation of what I write. Until you lose the ‘chip on your shoulder’, don’t expect me to respond to your posts. I’m sorry it’s come to that, but you seem to choose any side that is challenging Catholicism and it’s quite clear where your objections are.

 

[larkin31]

Look at the origin of the question itself larkin31.

Any honest person knows the intent of this question. It’s to challenge the authority of the Catholic Church…

You’ve committed a logical/rhetorical fallacy here. I’ll let you name it, and confess it. It’s more important that you come to an understanding of your wrongs yourself. It’s hard, but it’s better.

 

[larkin31]

Acts. 9:31 is the first use we see of the word Catholic to describe the one, holy and aposotolic Church.

No. This word is not used here. We have been over this already on this thread. See above.

 

[guanophore]

Because a vast majority of Catholics aren’t Christian.

even if this were true, which it is not, are you not saying “I am not a Catholic because I want to be with whoever I think is in the majority?”

 

[guanophore]

SOOOOOORY and you cause a lot of dissention with those of us who do not agree, but guess thats alright?

Causing dissention is wrong for all of us. The issue is that the Apostles did not allow for “disagreement”. They taugtht that we are to be of ONE MIND, ONE HEART, ONE FAITH. The doctrine committed to the Church once for all by God is not subject re-interpretation and alterations some 2000 years after the fact.

 

[guanophore]

I looked up just “kata” in Strongs as well. It occurs 496 times in the KJV. It is translated as about at least 10 different pronouns in English from “in” to “down” to even “against”. I stopped reading them after a while because they also had nothing to do with modifying “church”.

So, is there something better than Acts 9:31 for a reference to “Catholic”? Or is this it?

You might try “kath” instead.

How can there be anything “better”? It is inspired by the HS, and is divine in origin!

No, though, that is not “it”. That just happens to be the first written use of it we know of. It has gotten “better” for 2000 years!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’ve committed a logical/rhetorical fallacy here. I’ll let you name it, and confess it. It’s more important that you come to an understanding of your wrongs yourself. It’s hard, but it’s better.

You don’t know what I need and you cannot see what’s in my heart. Just more of your provocation. Your agenda is clear, at least to me. God Bless, you’re in my prayers, but I really don’t need the provocation and find the whole thing juvenile. I won’t be responding to your posts anymore.

 

[larkin31]

You don’t know what I need and you cannot see what’s in my heart. Just more of your provocation. Your agenda is clear, at least to me. God Bless, you’re in my prayers, but I really don’t need the provocation and find the whole thing juvenile. I won’t be responding to your posts anymore.

Then stop punctuating your self-righteous posts with rhetorical emptiness.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then stop punctuating your self-righteous posts with rhetorical emptiness.

There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[bluelake]

http://fratres.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-blessing-of-the-host.jpg
I don’t get it…if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren’t you a Catholic Christian?
This is a serious question, so please post your reason here… Please, don’t be afraid to voice your opinion and to defend your own particular denomination.
I am not the only Catholic here at CAF, or elsewhere, who wonders and wants to know the answer to this question.
If any Catholics, or any converts to Catholicism here, have any insight to the answer, or possible answer(s) to this question, then please post a response here.
Your thoughts?

jimmy,
Not all Christians are cradle Catholics.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church Missori Synod. My grandfather is probably wringing his hands over what has occured in some churches today. For example, ELCA. Today they allow practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion. (Eucharist)
I do not think its proper to judge anothers salvation. See Rom.2:11, Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake

 

[larkin31]

You might try “kath” instead.

How can there be anything “better”? It is inspired by the HS, and is divine in origin!

No, though, that is not “it”. That just happens to be the first written use of it we know of. It has gotten “better” for 2000 years!

Acts 9:31 does not say “Catholic”. Look it up in Strongs, like I did.

 

[Cristian_B]

Please provide the passage where the seat of Moses is mentioned in scriptures, other than when Jesus told the people to observe whatsoever those who sat in the seat of Moses said. It’s not in the scriptures.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. (Exodus 18:13-16 KJV bold mine)
Moses’ seat is mentioned in the Bible. ‘Moses’ seat’ is a Saxon Genitive, and it means that that seat belongs to Moses. Now seriously, why would a man have a seat if he wouldn’t sit on it? Is there a passage in the Bible in which we can see Moses seating on a seat and doing something? Yes we do! It is in Exodus. He sat on a seat (his own seat, obviously) and what is one of the things he did? He made known the laws of God. Therefore, Moses made known the truth from that seat, because it is written: “…thy law is the truth.” (Psalm 119:146) And also: "…all thy commandments are truth." (Psalm 119:151). The Pharisees and scribes sat on the seat of Moses (“Moses’ seat”, that’s what it means: the seat that belongs to Moses or owned by Moses) and they did what Moses did when he sat on his seat: make known the laws of God, which is the truth; therefore they made known the truth. Jesus said that they had authority because they sat on the seat of Moses (Moses’ seat) and they speak the truth because they make known the law of God, which is truth. So they had authority because they spoke the truth.

Christ had those He chose and appointed over His Church. Just as I showed you, and you quoted the same passage, Christ/God set the hierarchy of His Church.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

You are missing the important part: God appointed them, not the apostles or any other man. How do we know this? How do we know one is a prophet? Because he received a prophecy from God and it has been fulfilled. How do we know one is a teacher of wisdom? Because he is wise and is good at teaching wisdom. How do we know God appointed a man to do miracles? Because he has the gift of doing miracles. How do we know one is a teacher? Because he has the gift of teaching (whatever he may teach). I suppose I made my point.

But why did the apostles have authority? Because they were the closest to Jesus and had the most truth. They received direct Revelation from Jesus and had the most truth. This is why they had authority.

If one has a gift from God, it is recommended for him to use it for the strengthening of the Church. If one receives the gift of interpreting Scriptures or explaining them to the people, shall they not use it? You certainly seem to object at this.

Also, if an apostle abandons the truth, he lost all his authority. Paul said that he is not against the truth, but for the truth. If Paul would go against the truth, do you think anyone would obey him?

In a hierarchy, everyone has their place, and what does the inspired word of God, the truth, tell us to do?

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Christ did not teach, ‘be like me and everyone lead’. Christ did not teach chaos.

As long as they speak and do the turth I will.

In another place it written that we should obey the earthly authorities like the law, etc. It’s in 1 Peter 2:13:Be in subjection therefore to every human institution for the Lord’s sake… (Darby Bible)
But what if this institution gives a command against the truth (God)? Shall we obey it? No. Because we are to obey the highest authority. The foot doesn’t obey the hand, but the head. The finger doesn’t obey the ear, but the head. The ear doesn’t obey the eye, but the head. We are all to obey to the highest authority, which is the truth, which is the head.

As long as these institution don’t go against the truth, they are to be obeyed. In the same way in the Church, as long as that authority speaks the truth and doesn’t go against it, it is to be obeyed. But if it doesn’t speak the truth, it is not to be obeyed. It’s easy to understand, really.

It is true that Christ didn’t make all leaders, but it is also true that all the leaders of the Church were given by Christ. The apostles only made it known to all. If they wouldn’t have, then there would have been disputes on who was going to be the pastor [leader] of that flock [Church]. Cannot Christ appoint pastors and teachers without an apostle?

 

[Cristian_B]

Cristian B,

The chair of Moses is not mentioned anywhere in scriptures, other than Christ telling the people to observe and do whatsoever they tell you to do. It is an example of the ‘oral tradtion’.

It is in Exodus.

There are other examples of the ‘oral tradtion’ in the New Testament. Look at Mark and Luke, neither of whom were eye witnesses to the ministry of Christ. Everything they wrote was something they ‘heard’. The author of Acts is the one who wrote about Christ’s words, ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’ That is not recorded by any other author of the New Testament.

Other examples of the ‘oral tradition’ are also found in Paul’s writings.

Paul wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

And what does this even prove? Was any of this of any relevance to one’s salvation? If by this you are trying to prove that there are things relevant to salvation not written in the Bible, then it is not a very good argument. Because all these ‘traditions’ mentioned by you aren’t relevant at all.

I provided you some information on Judaism and oral tradition, but you seemingly overlooked it as you don’t mention it at all. I am providing it once more with emphasis bolded on part of it.

Interesting.

It is important to note that one of their ‘explanations’ of Scriptures was that the Messiah would be a king that would free them from the Romans. Considering the fact that this was a tradition that developed over time and it was wrong, in the same way Catholics have their own traditions which were developed in time (not in the original, beginning) and that are wrong. In the same way the Jews asked Jesus for His authority so do Catholics ask us for our authority. In the same way the Jews developed traditions over time so did the universal Roman body. In the same way those traditions of the Jews were wrong so is the universal Roman body’s. So if you read really closely this can be taken as proof against tradition.

Further proof of the validity of the oral tradition is found in Christ’s commands to the Apostles. He commanded them to go out and ‘teach’, or ‘preach’. He never commanded anyone to write anything down. At least it’s not recorded in the scriptures.

Their preaching was based on what was written does, which is the Law and Prophets (and also Psalms or also called Writings).

Also, this still doesn’t prove that what they preached isn’t written now in the Bible. This still doesn’t prove that they preached the Immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, supremacy of the Pope (or Peter), etc.

Scriptures teach us the Church was meant to be ONE…

…in truth.

Answering questions with questions? Even though it appears to be an avoidance of an honest discussion, I am going to do my best to answer your questions. It would be so nice if you would show us the same courtesy when we ask you questions.

The term ‘Catholic’ is derived from the Greek that was used to write the New Testament. I am providing a verse in the New Testament that specifically uses the Greek, that the term ‘Catholic’ is derived from.

Now, around 110AD, St. Ignatius, believed to have been appointed by St. Peter and a disciple of St. John, wrote the following, in a letter to the Smyrnæans.

Please note that St. Ignatius uses the term without explanation, which indicates he was not introducing the term, but using a term already in use.

Even if Ignatius used the term ‘Catholic Church’, that proves absolutely nothing.

Because it is not a name that makes the church, but her doctrines. Even if it was called Catholic Church, that doesn’t mean it was the same Catholic Church we have today. It is not a name that makes the Church but her teachings. That passage doesn’t say anything about the teachings of this ‘Catholic Church’. It doesn’t say it preached the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary, and numerous other traditions of the Catholic Church we have today.

 

[Cristian_B]

That is not telling of someone assuming an authority. He was telling them what He had done for him, or what the authority had done for him. They used the term ‘teach’. He did not. Where else do we ever hear of the blind man again.

I will quote again. Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
(John 9:24-34 KJV)

He was not simply telling them about what happened to him. He was arguing to them and trying to make them believe what he believed. That is teaching. He tried to make them see that Jesus was a man from God. That is teaching. How much he taught is not important. The important part is that he taught them! He taught them that Jesus couldn’t other than a man from God. This is what he taught them:
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?
Even the Pharisees knew he was teaching them something. He taught them. When Jesus met him he didn’t say: “why did you teach them if I didn’t send you”? He saw nothing wrong with that.

And whether we hear from him again or not, that is completely irrelevant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. (Exodus 18:13-16 KJV bold mine)
Moses’ seat is mentioned in the Bible.

‘Moses sat’ to judge the people is short of speaking of the seat of authority, or that he sat on the chair of Moses.

Those that sat on the seat of Moses made known God’s truth and Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever they shall say to you. The seat of Moses was a ‘figure’ of authority, since Moses no longer sat upon it. ‘Successors’ sat on the chair of Moses.

Now, as Moses sat to ‘judge’ the successors now sat to judge the people. The point is, Christ knew that even ‘sinful’ men would speak God’s truth. Now read beyond the passage and see that Christ also said:

**Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them. **

Christ was teaching them to being subject, or obeying their prelates, even though they would BIND heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders. Was this still God’s truth? Also, BIND, how does that fit with what Christ told Peter? ‘And, whatsover thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven…’

:

You are missing the important part: God appointed them, not the apostles or any other man. How do we know this? How do we know one is a prophet? Because he received a prophecy from God and it has been fulfilled. How do we know one is a teacher of wisdom? Because he is wise and is good at teaching wisdom. How do we know God appointed a man to do miracles? Because he has the gift of doing miracles. How do we know one is a teacher? Because he has the gift of teaching (whatever he may teach). I suppose I made my point.

But why did the apostles have authority? Because they were the closest to Jesus and had the most truth. They received direct Revelation from Jesus and had the most truth. This is why they had authority.

If one has a gift from God, it is recommended for him to use it for the strengthening of the Church. If one receives the gift of interpreting Scriptures or explaining them to the people, shall they not use it? You certainly seem to object at this.

Also, if an apostle abandons the truth, he lost all his authority. Paul said that he is not against the truth, but for the truth. If Paul would go against the truth, do you think anyone would obey him?

You really seem to be looking for a loophole or fitting certain scriptures to your theology.

Read Acts 1 and see that the Apostles believed God set those that they themselves had appointed. Why don’t we believe that God did the appointing through those He chose and appointed? He promised them the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would be with them, guide them and make all things known to them. God set the offices of the Church, by choosing and appointing men over that Church. Those were authoritative men.

As long as they speak and do the turth I will.

Where does scriptures tell us that WE have the authority to judge the truth of the prelates?

Read Hebrews 13 and see there is no caveat that the people were taught to discern truth.

Christ told the people ‘observe and do WHATSOVER they shall say to you…’ Your judging what is truth and what is not is a self appointed authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I will quote again. Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
(John 9:24-34 KJV)

He was not simply telling them about what happened to him. He was arguing to them and trying to make them believe what he believed. That is teaching. He tried to make them see that Jesus was a man from God. That is teaching. How much he taught is not important. The important part is that he taught them! He taught them that Jesus couldn’t other than a man from God. This is what he taught them:
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?
Even the Pharisees knew he was teaching them something. He taught them. When Jesus met him he didn’t say: “why did you teach them if I didn’t send you”? He saw nothing wrong with that.

And whether we hear from him again or not, that is completely irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, unless you choose to do so. If he had appointed himself a teacher rightfully, we would have heard more from him.

What they were doing is saying, in modern terms, ‘you’re telling us’.

Back on the chair of Moses a second. There was a new and everlasting covenant. The chair of Moses, became the chair of Peter. Those on the chair of Moses ‘bound’ the people, Peter received the authority to ‘bind and loose on earth’. Observe and do whatsover…

 

[T_More]

Even if Ignatius used the term ‘Catholic Church’, that proves absolutely nothing.

Because it is not a name that makes the church, but her doctrines. Even if it was called Catholic Church, that doesn’t mean it was the same Catholic Church we have today. It is not a name that makes the Church but her teachings. That passage doesn’t say anything about the teachings of this ‘Catholic Church’. It doesn’t say it preached the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary, and numerous other traditions of the Catholic Church we have today.

Christian B, these statements prove that you have never read Ignatius’ writings. Go trying reading the Early Church Fathers and it will be quite clear what they were taught and what they believed.

 

[larkin31]

Christ told the people ‘observe and do WHATSOVER they shall say to you…’ Your judging what is truth and what is not is a self appointed authority.

Jesus did not obey all of the religious authority. Does he get a pass on this?