Perhaps figuring out exactly, in terms of church authority, which church, out of so many, was entrusted in the 1st century, on Pentecost, with the God-given authority via divine charism, to teach as the the 1st century church leaders did?
Is that a reasonable starting point? If so then feel free to opine…
Nice post. :thumbsup:That was pretty much how I began to see it as a former protestant. Scripture tells us, essentially: to trust in Jesus’ church is to trust in Him, ultimately. I thought long ago: Find that one church (Jesus only established one church) in the world today, and I will have found doctrinal truth in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat; something that Jesus tells us is inevitable and unavoidable.First let’s look at the definition of authority:
What I will (hopefully
- the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
- a power or right delegated or given; authorization Who has the authority to grant permission?
- a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
) show you is that each of these three definitions is fulfilled in the Catholic Church.
The first point we agree on, I believe, the Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, 1. is all-good, 2. is all-knowing; and 3. has all authority over us. Do you see that Christ’s authority is God’s authority, and that God’s authority comes from being the Creator of us all? Even more than as parents have authority over their children, God has all authority over us, and each of us, even tho many do not acknowledge His authority.
Christ has this authority, and He has an additional claim upon us, because He redeemed us. Because He redeemed us of us, we owe Him our allegiance, just as we would owe something to someone who saved our life.
Now, how does this relate to the Church? We see that Christ was incarnate and lived on earth, and that He had disciples whom He taught. He and His disciples travelled around Israel and taught others as well.
There came a time when this happened: Matthew 16: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Wow, what a lot He said in just those few words!
He re-names Peter. Re-naming is always very significant in the Bible, but this name change does not come through in English all that well. Simon’s new name was literally Rock in Hebrew.
Then Christ said that upon this Rock, He would build His Church. Rock would be the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.
And this church which would be built on the foundation Rock would be protected by Christ’s promise in such a way that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” What does this mean? That Christ promised that His Church would not lose to the powers of Hell, that Christ would never abandon His Church.
Now Christ returns to Rock, and tells him He will give him the keys to His kingdom. In the Old Testament, we see that the giving of the keys of the kingdom signified that someone was being made a vicar of that kingdom, that he was to rule for at least a time in the king’s place.
Note too that Rock alone (notice Christ uses the second person singular thou) is given a special power of binding and loosing: whatsoever thou shalt bind *on earth *shall be bound in Heaven…
So you can see that Christ invested Rock with great power, authority, over His Church. Rock was to be the vicar, ruling for the King, Christ, in His absence.
And you can see that Christ promised that the domain of the Prince of Lies would not prevail over the Church, so the teachings of the Church, which come directly from what Christ taught the Apostles, would be protected.
This is yet another step closer in my understanding. Now if I could just get that deacon to call…time’s a wastin’…
Yes, they put the binding and loosing in more mordern language, but… it is not just a matter of permitting and forbidding. It is also related to confession; binding and loosing refers to absolving sin and also to indulgences and penances.
as a current non conformist and not wanting to be, I knew this early on. Why and how, I cannot fathom…But then, I never took the Eucharist to be symbolic, even though I had no idea what transubstantiation was. I must have been a smart kid…
A lot of non-catholics believe that this ratification is some sort of human judgement/disernment (in terms of forbidding and permitting) not realizing that God is the source of this ineffable guidance. As a former protestant, once it occured to me that God was the One guiding and preserving truth within His Church, all that remained was identifying His church in a world with so many self-governing churches, all claiming to be adherents to a practice (sola scriptura) that would have been absolutely foreign to the apostles.
Understood and thank you. And since you mentioned it, I am having trouble understanding indulgences. (I can’t get to a bookstore to get “Catholicism for Dummies”, which has been recommended. Easier for me to read from a book than online…
as a current non conformist and not wanting to be, I knew this early on. Why and how, I cannot fathom…But then, I never took the Eucharist to be symbolic, even though I had no idea what transubstantiation was. I must have been a smart kid…
The only way truth is knowable, in terms of doctrine, is to step outside the pages of scripture alone via private interpretation, and locate the church established by Jesus and guided by Jesus. Jesus’ church is the conduit through which Jesus transmits doctrinal truth, IMHO.Thank you! Still has to wait; too little money, nowhere to live yet. :winter:Keep me in your prayers; I’d really appreciate it.
Yes, it is natural to be joyful and to celebrate our freedom in Christ. However, not all Protestant services are loud. These types of services are desgned to apply to the emotions, not to the Spirit. I am not saying both cannot happen, but solemnity is designed to nurture the Spirit primarily. Quakers, for example, sit in a very austere building in silence for most of the service. You will not find them dancing or loud, yet when you talk to them you will find that they are full of joy. They encounter Christ in the silence, as do contempletives.
There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities. They just are not suited to the liturgy.
Because everything that comes to us from Jesus is immutable. We are just not at liberty to alter the Holy Traditions as they were passed down to us from the Apostles. We are to preserve them JUST AS WE RECEIVED them.
It is the Word of God, infallibly preserved in the Sacred Tradition by the Holy Spirit that saves. No, it is unchanging because God is unchanging. The CC just bears witness to this Truth.
Yes.
The saints are not a “system” but part of the Body of Christ that have gone on before us in the faith. The Church promotes a personal relationship with them because they are examples for us:
Such a statement is based upon a misunderstanding. Sin separates us from God, and the only way to return to communion with Him is through confession.
A just question. If being smart were suffiient, then many would find their way to heaven with this method. But the Gospel of Christ is not just for those who are smart and want to find their own way. The Gospel is God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. He is not going to reveal something to one “smart” person that contradicts what He has already revealed to His One Body, the Church. Jesus created the Church to get us to heaven, because
Yes, the foster system is filled with problems. I would recommend adoption better. However, Christ calls us to bear whatever suffering comes to us, and to offer it up for the purification of souls. This is what it means to pick up our cross, and carry it. Suffering is not part of God’s plan for us, but is a consequence of sin. The grace to bear suffering is what comes from Christ.
Actually, the opposite is true. It is foolish to think that we cannot control our sexual urges. We don’t need to “deny” them, we can acknowledge they exist, and choose not to be controlled by them. The false notion that we must be subject to any fleshly urge is one of the pinnacles of the culture of death in which we live.
Ahhh, the infiltration of modernism. I used to think this was silly, but now I realize it is not. Abortion does not “reduce crime”. One cannot reduce crime by committing the most heinous crime of murdering the innocent. Abortion uses more government resources by far than proper prenatal care. If you study the $ that planned parenthood makes on abortions, you will see a veritable floodgate of government resouces pouring down the drain with the blood.
The civil law, however, should be reasonable and moral.
Then you are indeed deceiving yourself. The Bible is nothing more than a collection of words, and words have no meaning. Meaning is what you bring TO words, not take from them. To know what meaning you should bring to a word, you must be taught that by an authoritative teacher. That authoritative teacher is the Magisterium and Tradition.
Not only dangerous, absolutely against Catholic teaching. The Church has explicitly stated that Fideism is antithetical to its teaching. Note that there is a difference between Fideism and faith, just in case you are not familiar with the nuances.
False dichotomy. Holy Mother Church also stresses a personal relationship with God (consider the implications of taking into your body the eucharist), but just as importantly, that that relationship be based in the truth. True love requires just that: the truth.
Not that many more. The total number of people in your average human population that are truly homosexual are between 2.5 and 3%. The truth of Holy Mother Church is that engaging in a sin does not mean you become that sin, so to engage in the sin of homosexual activity is NOT to BECOME a homosexual.
Fundamentally false. What is called the “continuum” is simply the over-sexualization of relationships; the false equivalence between “love” and “sex”. You should study the types of love that have nothing to do with sex.
Good! Discrimination is a GOOD thing. There can be no reason without it!
Just as an aside–I don’t want to derail the thread–you cod get the book through interlibrary loan if they don’t have it at your liibrary. If you ask about indulgences on a different thread, maybe in apologetics, you’ll probably get some good answers there. I’ll try and answer it there
I could go on and on about your post, but a lot of people have already, and I don’t want to be tedious. But I did want to address this part.
You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that a personal relationship with Jesus is not at the center of the Magesterium, Tradition, confession and communion of saints. I wonder how that happened?
And how would you know that?
Yes, very dangerous, especially in these times. In the early days of the Church, there were many martrys for the faith. We may come to see that again.
Yes. You will be held accountable and responsible for each and every instruction of the Church you defy and deny.
thing to do to walk away and move on.
The two are not exclusive of one another. We have a personal relationship, and all these other Gifts of God that come with it. If Jesus did not think these things were important, He would not have given them to us.
Yes, this is true, but the commandments of God around it are very simple and straightforward (no pun intended).
Ok, so if I deny the right of a man to carry a child (be pregnant) I am discriminating against him? If I deny the right of a woman to father a child I have discriminated? I think you can see that these functions are not “rights” but natural expressions of one’s gender.
It was Jesus’ teachings that caused the Roman Empire to eventually fall. It was built and maintained on the institution of slavery, and could not exist without it.
oppose these things.
There is no doubt that the culture is going to hell in a handcart.
When you see this, you see an opportunity being lost for people to be sanctified. No suffering should be wasted, but offered for our purification, and that of others. However, the Church does not encourage suffering and wrongdoing. We are to alleviate suffering whenever possible. Woman who are having troubling pregnancies should be supported and provided for so that they can bring their child to term. This is the whole purpose of Right to Life.
Who are you to decide how much suffering is “enough”? Only our Maker can decide such a thing. You don’t know what people’s souls need in order to be purified.**
For us, it is one and the same. Preaching and living the Gospel means being light and salt, and promoting morality in culture. No, we cannot legislate morality, but we can mitigate evil by legislating against immoral behavior.
I agree!
I understand why it seems that way to you now.
The spiritual fruit is what we bring to politics. You are right, whenever good encounters evil, divisivness occurs.
These charities and hospitals are run by laypeople. Clergy are much too busy for such things.
Absolutely.
It is very spiritually dangerous to mock the Eucharist.
Indeed we are, and indeed we should not!
You do have a lot of issues.
This is a surprise! All that emotional and black and white thinking seems to suggest coming from a different perspective. I guess people of any gender can reason emotionally.
Oh boy, I thought we were focusing on authority but now I get replies for everything else…First let’s look at the definition of authority:
What I will (hopefully
- the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
- a power or right delegated or given; authorization Who has the authority to grant permission?
- a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
And Fr. Serpa agrees we are all saints here:
Not if you ask converts, especially those who converted from the CC.