I'm going out on a limb here

Status
Not open for further replies.
I honestly feel like you didn’t read anything I just typed.

You just posted yet another COMMON MISCONCEPTION!
 
MichaelP3 said:
saying Jesus was Catholic (like some strangely do) and not Jewish.
Click to expand...
My probably not well thought out theology is that Jesus was Jewish up to the point of death. After His resurrection He arose Catholic.
 
Um I guess then we are misunderstanding each other because that is how I feel about your first reply to my post and NO my post is not a common misconception. If you have a sound argument against my post then say that, don’t just yell that it is a common misconception.

Thank you and God bless
 
Last edited:
Well I guess we will never know if He chose to adhere to the Catholic denomination. We would all agree however that He is/was catholic at the time 😉
 
I object strongly to the insinuation that Catholicism is a denomination. That would mean it is but a variation of Christianity. The Catholic Church is Christianity. There is no difference between the Church Christ started and the Catholic Church.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
NO my post is not a common misconception. If you have a sound argument against my post then say that, don’t just yell that it is a common misconception
Click to expand...
Actually YES. You are assuming something as fact that is not agreed in the first place.

The First Church is not Catholic but catholic (universal). Saying Catholic bishops did this or that in those centuries are a commen misconception. It is an assumption and that word has been thrown around on this thread a lot and mostly by the Catholic camp.

I am just pointing out that half of what you are assuming would be total “other” threads without any consensus anyway so I am just trying to save you the trouble.

Point is. To a non-Catholic what you are saying is too “far” in the first place and they won’t agree with the explination let alone what it is actually explaining.

Hope that helps 🙂
 
I strongly advocate it is a denomination! It is a variation of the same Christianity we all belong to and are brothers in Christ our one and only God. 🙂
 
Different frame of reference I suppose. For me, Catholicism is the faith we all share and are brothers in, even though some may be on the prodigal journey.

Even a Seventh Day Adventist can say the Mass is part of his heritage.
 
MichaelP3 said:
You are assuming something as fact that is not agreed in the first place.
Click to expand...
Agreed by who? Protestants and Catholics together?
MichaelP3 said:
Saying Catholic bishops did this or that in those centuries are a commen misconception.
Click to expand...
Except that it is not a common misconception because again it goes back to the Word of God. Starting with Peter being the first Pope and the remaining apostles beginning the office of bishops. Following that the Church has kept many a record of the Church’s activities through out history.

A good thing to read is the daily Catholic martyrology. Very interesting what happened to those early Christians.
MichaelP3 said:
Point is. To a non-Catholic what you are saying is too “far” in the first place and they won’t agree with the explination let alone what it is actually explaining.
Click to expand...
I understand there are protestants who will not accept what they hear about the Catholic church but there are those that are here because they are willing to hear what the Catholic church is all about. There are those who are not happy as protestants and are searching for the truth. I know I was one and these forums helped bring me home, but thank you anyway.
MichaelP3 said:
Hope that helps
Click to expand...
I understand but no, …
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
Starting with Peter being the first Pope and the remaining apostles beginning the office of bishops.
Click to expand...
This is another example. You use it as fact. Full disclosure… it isn’t.

You cannot use things as proof when it is disputed. This just brings me back to our very first correspondence.

As long as you call the First Church Catholic then we are not in agreement! They were catholic as in universal.
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
This is another example. You use it as fact. Full disclosure… it isn’t
Click to expand...
Can you show where I am incorrect? or are you just disputing what I am saying because you think I am incorrect?
In other words can you show me wrong or do you have a good argument that stands against Catholic bishops descending from the apostles?
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
Agreed by who? Protestants and Catholics together?
Click to expand...
Well that its historically accurate.

I always use this example.

You cannot say Mary was assumed to heaven “because she was immaculately conceived” or the other way around.

One of the “proofs” need to be agreed to be accepted by the other side. Then the “logical” events can follow. Untill then we need to talk about those “things” a bit more or what would you say?
 
I am sorry but you replied to a large post. What do you exactly mean.

Btw, I think I agree.
 
MichaelP3 said:
One of the “proofs” need to be agreed to be accepted by the other side
Click to expand...
If I am understanding you correct, …

And if that is the case, there is no truth. Then an atheist could say the whole gospel story is a common misconception because we dont all agree that it happened or agree on one point
 
Last edited:
The disputation of Peter as the first pope is irrelevant to me and assume most Catholics. That you dispute his papal authority is your issue to deal with, not anyone else’s.
 
Okay I can actually agree with that argument . That just makes it difficult to deal with as the entirety of Catholicism “literally” depends on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top