If the Catholic Church is wrong, which non-Catholic denomination is right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello ChristianKnight,

I believe that JRKH, who is a Catholic-revert, was talking about official church doctrines, currently held by some Protestant denominations.

James, please correct me if I’m wrong.

Peace
I am lost but umk.
We need the Church for the proper interpretation of the Sciptures. Our Lord Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth until the end of age, and not to each individual. And if you think about it even if we as individuals pray to the Holy Spirit, we still come out with different interpretation. But the Church has given us unchanging doctrines from the time of the Apostles up to now.
Where does he say we need the church.
 
I am lost but umk.

Where does he say we need the church.
"on this rock I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"are you accusing Christ of building something for nothing.? why would He protect it against hell if it was a uslees thing?
 
"on this rock I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"are you accusing Christ of building something for nothing.? why would He protect it against hell if it was a uslees thing?


I am not accusing christ of anything, I am saying, he doesn’t say we need it. He could have built it to help people then, or just to help people in faith, not for it to be needed.

Just an idea, but go ahead.
 
Priests and the Pope do not directly stop that. They might order it not to be done, but if they had a elected legislative that did the same thing, wouldn’t hurt.

Where did he say that?
I assume you are referring to my reference to “Take it to the Church”
It’s in Matthew

Matthew 16: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.

Peace
James
 

yes, but what are you referring to? Communion? Transutitnation (lol can’t spell it, but I think you know what I am talking about)
to your comment about Jesus not being here physically.did roletide explain to you that He is physically present in the Eucharist?..i think he did cause you know the word you (or me) can’t spell without looking it up some where.
 
I assume you are referring to my reference to “Take it to the Church”
It’s in Matthew

Matthew 16: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.

Peace
James
Um, Are you sure thats right passage? My bible says something completely different. I’ll write it:

Matthew 16: 15-18: "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed Art Thou, Simon Bar-jo-na: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my cvhurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That doesn’t talk about anything saying take it to the church:confused:
 
to your comment about Jesus not being here physically.did roletide explain to you that He is physically present in the Eucharist?..i think he did cause you know the word you (or me) can’t spell without looking it up some where.
I know, but what are you asking me about it?
 
Um, Are you sure thats right passage? My bible says something completely different. I’ll write it:

Matthew 16: 15-18: "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed Art Thou, Simon Bar-jo-na: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my cvhurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That doesn’t talk about anything saying take it to the church:confused:
Sorry - My Fat finger - - -
Try Matthew 18:15-18
 
Sorry - My Fat finger - - -
Try Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

umk, what church is it talking about? I thought the RCC was established like 100 or so years after the New Testament
 
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

umk, what church is it talking about? I thought the RCC was established like 100 or so years after the New Testament
Therein lies a crux of your problem
The Catholic Church was established on Pentacost!!!
The Church didn’t start AFTER the NT books.
The NT Books are a partial history OF the Catholic Church.

Now you understand the need to properly know the history of the Christina Church.

Peace
James
 
I know, but what are you asking me about it?
not asking you a thing my friend…just making a piont that as catholics we beleive He(Jesus)is here physically in the Church…i forgot you as a baptist can’t accept the teaching regarding the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
not asking you a thing my friend…just making a piont that as catholics we beleive He(Jesus)is here physically in the Church…i forgot you as a baptist can’t accept the teaching regarding the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Who said that?
 
Who said that?
what?that as a baptist you can’t accept the Eucharist as what it truly is? once you accept that you are not a baptist but a papist.
you said that “even if Jesus isn’t here physically” and i was making the point that we catholics do not believe that He is not present physically.
catch you later mon.
 
I do not know how the whole apostle succession got into the thing SD. I mean honestly, he did give the disciples the power to forgive in his stead, but that was his disciples, and he gave Peter the ability to bind what he said on heaven on earth, but he didn’t say that the power would pass down.

Well, I think you should stick with the bible, and if the topic at hand isn’t addressed in the bible (for example, cloning, which I do not believe is in the bible), I am against human cloning. I do not like the idea of cloning Cows, cause I love cows, not like love or anything, but I’d die defending my cows against predators. Ironically, I have had to kill to defend them (Vultures will kill calves)
On the first part… I’m pleased to see that you understand that he atleast did do these things (some even try to explain these away)… so now basically you are left wondering why he would do these things and probably just can’t find a clear answer in the Bible so you would rather error on the side of caution rather than accept the CC’s version of why Jesus did these things… Am I even close to right? Sorry if not, but you know he did them so you need to ask yourself why would he do these things if he didn’t intend on them to continue

I’m not sure I got your point in the second part, but it did give me a good laugh… loving cows and all… since you brought it up though I’ll say I never knew a vulture would kill a calf:eek: … I raise cattle for a living and have never heard that before but then again we have so many other animals for them to eat I guess they figure a calf’s mother is just to big of an issue when they can scavange on rabbit carcasses all day without a challenge… coyotes are the only animal that I’ve know to harass cattle in this area… and that it is very rare. Interesting though… we do have a few vultures that show up now and again and I’ll definetely keep an eye out for them now.👍

SD
 
Actually, only 2 other faiths come to mind. One would be considered a Protestant Ecclesial Community and the other a Schismatic Church. But in both circumstances they both believe that they are the original …genuine Church that Christ founded.

Church of Christ, my previous faith, Christian only.

Orthodox…the Church that keeps me wondering about Catholicism because of all the illicit ignorance that runs amuck in our ranks.
 
None are right. I think the one that is right, is the one that everyone calls them selves. Christianity. not Catholics, not Lutherans, not Baptists, not CoC, not LDS, not JW, just depends on the person.
“not Catholics” Please explain?

Peace
 
We believe that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

Given that, it has been addressed from a Catholic perspective.
Well no, because you used the present tense. This is the major tension in modern Catholicism as I see it, between a humble recognition that the Church is still “in via,” on pilgrimage, and the triumphalism that has tyrannized over Catholicism for centuries (certainly since the Reformation, one of many reasons why the Reformation was a bad thing).

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top