I've never heard a good answer from non-Catholic Christians re: Matt. 18:15-17

[AgnosTheist]

We do as Matt. 18:15-17 says. What did you think I would say?

i doubt it. show me from the cathechism.

 

[Lampo]

i doubt it. show me from the cathechism.

The Catechism doesn’t explain every passage in Scripture.

III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.15

12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

 

[Lampo]

i doubt it. show me from the cathechism.

That’s what we are supposed to do as Catholics. Whether individual Catholics do that or not, I don’t know. That doesn’t change what Scripture says, does it? Catholics are not suppose to use contraception either, but some do.

 

[Keikiolu]

jesus was referring to sin, my friend. so you are still gonna ignore it? perfect! that all the more proves what i said before, that this verse holds no meaning to catholics.

Matthew 18 is pretty obsolete.

Time for the old trusty /gnore switch for Agnos.

See’ya pal…

 

[AgnosTheist]

That’s what we are supposed to do as Catholics. Whether individual Catholics do that or not, I don’t know. That doesn’t change what Scripture says, does it? Catholics are not suppose to use contraception either, but some do.

i’d like to see the official cathechismic interpretation for that passage. perhaps the vatican has a unique approach to it. because ive never seen any catholics behave according to that teaching by jesus.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Time for the old trusty /gnore switch for Agnos.

See’ya pal…

its better that way. cya fellow gamer.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

How I now see Aggy:

“This message is hidden because AgnosTheist is on your ignore list.”

…of course, I can always hit the “View Post” button,… or see other’s quoting of his, uh, commentary.

Love you too, Aggs…! No,… REALLY…!!

I have a funny feeling you’ll be off my list quick enough.

Best to 'ya.

 

[Lampo]

i’d like to see the official cathechismic interpretation for that passage. perhaps the vatican has a unique approach to it. because ive never seen any catholics behave according to that teaching by jesus.

Please see post #80.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Please see post #80.

you are saying that the Cathechism did not discuss matthew 18? how about any article written by bishop? i’d really like to see the vatican’s official opinion on this teaching of jesus.

 

[Lampo]

you are saying that the Cathechism did not discuss matthew 18?

I’m saying I’m not sure if it does.

how about any article written by bishop?

Not sure. Why don’t you look for one?

i’d really like to see the vatican’s official opinion on this teaching of jesus.

The Vatican doesn’t have an official opinion on every verse in Scripture to my knowledge.

 

[qui_est_ce]

i am not talking about supremacy. I’m talking about church membership. paul became a christian apart from the apostles. if anything, that proves that the apostles arent the only rock foundations of the church. paul and his followers stood directly on the teachings of jesus.

It is not correct that Paul stood directly on the teachings of Jesus. We have no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus. Nothing was written by the Apostles within the first 30 or so years after the death of Christ, because they were to be TEACHERS, FIRST-HAND eyewitnesses to Jesus. Paul was not an original Apostle or witness. He could only write what he heard from the 11.

 

[AgnosTheist]

We have no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus.

Yeah but according to the stories Paul saw Jesus in a vision. According to the book of Acts Paul started preaching even before meeting the apostles. And his epistles suggest that he gets messages from Jesus.

He could only write what he heard from the 11.

isnt it that those who witnessed the resurrected jesus numbered by the hundreds? and what about Stephen? he wasnt an apostle.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yeah but according to the stories Paul saw Jesus in a vision. According to the book of Acts Paul started preaching even before meeting the apostles. And his epistles suggest that he gets messages from Jesus.

What did Jesus say to Paul in the vision? “Saul, why do you persecute me?” Not, “Okay, now here is what you need to teach, this is doctrine, that one is false, etc.” It may not tell us how, but the only way Paul knew the teachings of Jesus is from the 11.

isnt it that those who witnessed the resurrected jesus numbered by the hundreds? and what about Stephen? he wasnt an apostle.

Yes, many witnesses, but the only AUTHORIZED ones were those to whom were given the keys, the 11.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What did Jesus say to Paul in the vision? “Saul, why do you persecute me?” Not, “Okay, now here is what you need to teach, this is doctrine, that one is false, etc.” It may not tell us how, but the only way Paul knew the teachings of Jesus is from the 11.

Paul wrote a lot of Epistles. Are those merely his personal opinions, or were they inspired by Jesus & the Holy Spirit? Or are you gonna say that he copied and pasted everything from the 11?

Yes, many witnesses, but the only AUTHORIZED ones were those to whom were given the keys, the 11.

Look at Stephen. According to the stories he had magical powers too. Yes the 11 were the top brass, but they were not the only ones that have been empowered, authorized.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Paul wrote a lot of Epistles. Are those merely his personal opinions, or were they inspired by Jesus & the Holy Spirit? Or are you gonna say that he copied and pasted everything from the 11?

Go on…I’m listening

Look at Stephen. According to the stories he had magical powers too. Yes the 11 were the top brass, but they were not the only ones that have been empowered, authorized.

They were the final Authority.

You need to argue with Protestants, not Catholics. Aren’t you getting sick of us and our Authority figure hang-ups? Don’t you want a new ending to an argument?

 

[Marc1152]

That would be the Church that Christ established, not a man made “Church.” So if that is the case, you would need a Church that can trace it’s origins back to Christ and his followers right? Of course! The only Church that can back up it’s claim as the Church that Christ established is the Catholic Church… the entire Catholic Church. That being said, that would also include the Eastern Catholic Church too.

I see you said “Eastern Catholic Church” ( I guess meaning Eastern Rite Churches that are part of the Roman Catholic Church).

The Eastern Orthodox Church can make all of these claims too let’s not forget

ourlifeinchrist.com

 

[AgnosTheist]

Go on…I’m listening

I was asking you. Where did Paul get the religious ideas in his epistles?

They were the final Authority

According to Acts 15, the final Authority which was the Council consisted of both the Apostles AND the Elders. Looks like the rock really consisted of much more than just Peter.

You need to argue with Protestants, not Catholics. Aren’t you getting sick of us and our Authority figure hang-ups? Don’t you want a new ending to an argument?

not yet. its less challenging arguing with protestants because they are too diverse. a lot of times they find me agreeable. catholics are more challenging because you have an infallibility issue to protect.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was asking you. Where did Paul get the religious ideas in his epistles?

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking you. You are a better apologist than I.

According to Acts 15, the final Authority which was the Council consisted of both the Apostles AND the Elders. Looks like the rock really consisted of much more than just Peter.

Now YOU are verse slinging???

Galatians 2:9:
“and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me [Paul], James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

This is what “laying of hands” and Apostolic Succession is about.

not yet. its less challenging arguing with protestants because they are too diverse. a lot of times they find me agreeable. catholics are more challenging because you have an infallibility issue to protect.

And we do such a good job

 

[qui_est_ce]

not yet. its less challenging arguing with protestants because they are too diverse. a lot of times they find me agreeable. catholics are more challenging because you have an infallibility issue to protect.

If you really want to have fun, go here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2879362#post2879362

In fact I COMMAND you.

 

[Valke2]

It seems obvious to me he was talking about the Sanhedrin