Jesus' Church!

[dogknox]

Jesus never made any protestant churches… NO not even one! Jesus made his “Christian Church”! Christians believe the words of Jesus!

Saint Augustine is CHRISTIAN!! Augustine believes the words of Jesus, Augustine said: “Jesus carried his own body in his hands at the Last Supper”!

Augustine also said… about, Faith Alone (Sola Fide)!

This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life. (Questions 76.1; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 105; Defferari, Vol. 70, 195)
&
Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Christians believe the words of Jesus, they are not protestants! Augustine is a Catholic Bishop, he is not protestant, Augustine is NOT in protest against Jesus! Protestants are in PROTEST against; “Jesus’ Christian body!” Protestants are NOT Christians simply because: Jesus is NOT, he CANNOT “Be ALWAYS with them, even to the very end of the Age”; Because Jesus did not start with them!

To be Protestant is to reject …scriptures!
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you** always**, to the very end of the age.”

FACT: There were no protestants until sixteen hundred years, AFTER Jesus said: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

He is not with them because he did not start with them, they must reject Matthew 28:20 as a LIE from the mouth of Jesus!

Dogknox

 

[shocktrooper]

I think an example would be good.

Would a properly baptized person that left the Church at age 35 to become Muslim still be considered a Christian even though they deny the divinity of Christ? Does the RCC teach that the ONLY requirement for being Christian is proper baptism? If all Christians go to heaven and all baptized people are Christian, then is this an admittance of the RCC that once you are saved, you are always saved? It seems quite logical that one can lose the Christian identity even through the indelible mark from baptism remains. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are in the “Body of Christ”, then you are in a state of grace. If you are out of a state of grace, then you are not in the “Body of Christ”. If this is not the case, then how can Christ say that he will lose no one that the Father has given Him?

And another question is, what difference does it make if a person is a Christian or not if they are outside the grace of God because of mortal sin (objectively speaking)? How can any Protestant receive forgiveness for their sins if they do not submit to the ordinary way of receiving it? We are only forgiven of sins outside the ordinary way (Sacrament of Reconciliation) in EXTRA-ordinary circumstances. Not believing in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not an EXTRA-ordinary way; falling from the sky in an airplane with no time to schedule an appointment with the priest is an EXTRA-ordinary way. How has this concept been lost in the modern world?

Please feel free to correct anything I have said.

God bless.

 

[dogknox]

I think an example would be good.

Would a properly baptized person that left the Church at age 35 to become Muslim still be considered a Christian even though they deny the divinity of Christ? Does the RCC teach that the ONLY requirement for being Christian is proper baptism? If all Christians go to heaven and all baptized people are Christian, then is this an admittance of the RCC that once you are saved, you are always saved? It seems quite logical that one can lose the Christian identity even through the indelible mark from baptism remains. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are in the “Body of Christ”, then you are in a state of grace. If you are out of a state of grace, then you are not in the “Body of Christ”. If this is not the case, then how can Christ say that he will lose no one that the Father has given Him?

And another question is, what difference does it make if a person is a Christian or not if they are outside the grace of God because of mortal sin (objectively speaking)? How can any Protestant receive forgiveness for their sins if they do not submit to the ordinary way of receiving it? We are only forgiven of sins outside the ordinary way (Sacrament of Reconciliation) in EXTRA-ordinary circumstances. Not believing in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not an EXTRA-ordinary way; falling from the sky in an airplane with no time to schedule an appointment with the priest is an EXTRA-ordinary way. How has this concept been lost in the modern world?
Please feel free to correct anything I have said.
God bless.

shocktrooper Good to meet you…
First scripture…WARNING from the mouth of God!
**John 12:48 **
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

shocktrooper Do you see it?
The person** REJECTS Jesus** by NOT Accepting his words"!
The person who does NOT accept the words of Jesus… The Person who does NOT accept the scriptures will be CONDEMNED by the scriptures!

The Protestant, just as Judas did, must reject this WARNING. Judas was NOT a Christian… Christians believe the words of Jesus!
Right after the WARNING we read this…
John 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
The Children of Satan are those who reject Jesus!

More scripture… “Baptism FORMS the person into the Body of Jesus”… Communion KEEPS the person “IN Jesus”!
John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood** remains in me, and I in him**.
The Catholic is formed INTO the body of Jesus by Baptism and we** REMAIN** in his body by communion with him!

shocktrooper All bodies die if they are not nourished!! Jesus feeds his Body.. The protestant refuses to eat!
Ephesians 5:27 **
and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds **and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

Moses would have died if he did not eat the MANNA! The manna was not symbolic food!
Jesus is the true manna come down from heaven!
**Genesis 3:22 **And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

shocktrooper Do you see it?
Adam became like the “Holy Spirit” he was stopped from becoming like ANOTHER one of the** “US”!** He was stopped from becoming like the “LIFE” he was stopped from becoming like Jesus! Adam lost access to the “Tree Of Life” so he died!
Jesus is The LIFE come down from Paradise… He has ACCESS to the LIFE so his body will not die!
His body is; “The Holy Catholic Church”! The second Adam has access and he feeds his body LIFE!

Dogknox

 

[shocktrooper]

Do you see it?

dogknox,

Personally, I don’t quite see how to reconcile any of this. I can see both sides of the argument but I think things were less confusing prior to VII. I think VII has been a major failure for the Church. Thank God it did not define any new doctrine. It seems like Catholicism has moved closer to Protestantism in modernity, rather than bringing Protestantism closer to Catholicism. You can see the evidence of this in almost every aspect of the Church, minus the Sacraments. And even then, the laypeople have a more Protestant mindset when it comes to them. This is why a large number of Catholics don’t go to Penance anymore; they don’t believe they are receiving Christ in the Eucharist and they don’t feel they need to confess to a priest. They can just go straight to God. They can worship God anywhere and don’t need to go to Mass every Sunday. This is the major fear I have with programs like “Catholics Come Home”. I think the programs are needed but there is no additional education or prerequisite training. The Catholics may come home by planting their butts in the pews and writing their checks to a new church, but their thinking remains the same. This only allows the yeast to enter and corrupt the whole loaf. The Church (visible and invisible) will continue to dwindle in numbers, though remain faithful. The Catholic Church needs to do a blitz on its members with doctrine. It needs to be in every homily and in every communication that goes out. The Catholics need to know where they stand and whether it is with Christ in His “Body” or apart from It.

active homosexuals
active fornicators
active adulterers
pro-choicers
contraception advocates
female ordination advocates

All the above need to be set straight and denied Holy Communion if they don’t conform. Let them leave if they don’t like it. It is better to have 1000 enemies outside your camp then 1 inside of it. And I ask anyone to explain to me how they can not be considered an enemy if they are actively undermining a teaching that Christ gave us via the Church. Those that are not with the Church are against it. Jesus let a whole bunch of disciples leave because of one teaching (John 6). Did they remain with Christ, NO. It only takes dissent from one teaching to put you outside the gate. I understand that we fall and need to be reconciled but this is the reason the CC is needed. Outside of it, there is no reconciliation for mortal sin in ordinary circumstances.

 

[dogknox]

dogknox,

Personally, I don’t quite see how to reconcile any of this. I can see both sides of the argument but I think things were less confusing prior to VII. I think VII has been a major failure for the Church. Thank God it did not define any new doctrine. It seems like Catholicism has moved closer to Protestantism in modernity, rather than bringing Protestantism closer to Catholicism. You can see the evidence of this in almost every aspect of the Church, minus the Sacraments. And even then, the laypeople have a more Protestant mindset when it comes to them. This is why a large number of Catholics don’t go to Penance anymore; they don’t believe they are receiving Christ in the Eucharist and they don’t feel they need to confess to a priest. They can just go straight to God. They can worship God anywhere and don’t need to go to Mass every Sunday. This is the major fear I have with programs like “Catholics Come Home”. I think the programs are needed but there is no additional education or prerequisite training. The Catholics may come home by planting their butts in the pews and writing their checks to a new church, but their thinking remains the same. This only allows the yeast to enter and corrupt the whole loaf. The Church (visible and invisible) will continue to dwindle in numbers, though remain faithful. The Catholic Church needs to do a blitz on its members with doctrine. It needs to be in every homily and in every communication that goes out. The Catholics need to know where they stand and whether it is with Christ in His “Body” or apart from It.

active homosexuals
active fornicators
active adulterers
pro-choicers
contraception advocates
female ordination advocates

All the above need to be set straight and denied Holy Communion if they don’t conform. Let them leave if they don’t like it. It is better to have 1000 enemies outside your camp then 1 inside of it. And I ask anyone to explain to me how they can not be considered an enemy if they are actively undermining a teaching that Christ gave us via the Church. Those that are not with the Church are against it. Jesus let a whole bunch of disciples leave because of one teaching (John 6). Did they remain with Christ, NO. It only takes dissent from one teaching to put you outside the gate. I understand that we fall and need to be reconciled but this is the reason the CC is needed. Outside of it, there is no reconciliation for mortal sin in ordinary circumstances.

shocktrooper Thank you for your reply … It is written right from your heart. YES: I must agree with you…“Catholic’s should know & understand scriptures and our Church!”
We love her!!
I must remind you… With all respect… Jesus came for the sinner! The mission of the Church is to save the sinner! The Holy Catholic Church is chock full to the raffters with sinners, but she remains…“Holy, unstained, Blameless”!
** Ephesians 5:26** to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church,** without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.**

The Manna we eat, for our life journey keeps us alive… We remain “IN Jesus” because of this Communion with Jesus!
More scripture… “Baptism FORMS the person into the Body of Jesus”… Communion KEEPS the person “IN Jesus”!

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
The Catholic is formed INTO the body of Jesus by Baptism and we REMAIN in his body by communion with him!

The manna keeps us alive… even the most unschooled Catholic knows the Communion we eat is the “Flesh of Jesus”! If they understand this most basic Catholic belief they will LIVE!

Please post back

Dogknox

 

[Joanne0911]

I don’t know if this thread is the one for me, but I’ll try. First of all, I’m asking for patience and kindness from those on this site. I am trying to find my way back to the Roman Catholic church. I was wondering if anyone could help me find biblical based answers that point to the Roman Catholic Church being founded by Christ himself. I’ve had the response that because Peter was the first pope, the RC church was founded by Christ. It is intruguing and may point in that direction, but can anyone offer any additional scripture that may help with this question? Thanks!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Protestants are NOT Christians…

You are in error, and your statement does not reflect the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t know if this thread is the one for me, but I’ll try. First of all, I’m asking for patience and kindness from those on this site. I am trying to find my way back to the Roman Catholic church. I was wondering if anyone could help me find biblical based answers that point to the Roman Catholic Church being founded by Christ himself. I’ve had the response that because Peter was the first pope, the RC church was founded by Christ. It is intruguing and may point in that direction, but can anyone offer any additional scripture that may help with this question? Thanks!

Here is the short answer (I recommend you read the full article):

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know if this thread is the one for me, but I’ll try. First of all, I’m asking for patience and kindness from those on this site. I am trying to find my way back to the Roman Catholic church. I was wondering if anyone could* help me find biblical based answers that point to the Roman Catholic Church being founded by Christ himself.* I’ve had the response that because Peter was the first pope, the RC church was founded by Christ. It is intruguing and may point in that direction, but can anyone offer any additional scripture that may help with this question? Thanks!

You’ve been given no doubt, multiple times, [Mt 16: 13…]

Here’s the backdrop to that passage from Matthew.

Place: Ceserea Philippi

Characteristics:

• Huge rock ~500 ft W x ~100 ft H.
• It is a shrine to the god Pan, (place of worship of this pagan god) it’s also called Paneas, Baneas etc etc
• Pan is 1/2 goat and 1/2 man, and god of shepherds.
• at the base of this rock is one of the headwaters of the Jordan river. IOW, the river appears to come from the side of this rock. The opening to this cave was called the gates of hell.
• Jesus,
• Rock,
• God and man,
• the good shepherd
• will build His Church on Rock
• Rivers of mercy will flow from His side on the cross
• Simon
• Rock (Peter) name changed here
• Church will be built on him, not even gates of hell will prevail against this Church
• given the keys to the kingdom of heaven
• given the power to bind and loose

Mt:
"13* Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14* And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16* Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17* And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18* And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus picked a really good backdrop with lots of images, to take His apostles to, and do for one apostle in particular, something very special…right?

I actually visited here in 95. I’ll never forget it.

some ECF quotes

Bp (and saint) Ignatius of Antioch ~107 a.d. Church of Rome holds the presidency (Why? because it’s the chair of Peter)
Bp (and Saint) Irenaeus of Lyons, previously of Smyrna, ~180 a.d. all must agree with Rome (why? because it’s the chair of Peter)
Bp(and saint) Ambrose of Milan ~397 a.d. where Peter is there is the Church? (Why? because of Mt 16: 13…)

I’m glad for you that you’re working your way back to the Catholic Church

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/cave4s.jpg http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpmuT_bVhIip6M6s3HYwPN85EusAHf7uAAqGqkhu7aWqLAduTeCQ

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmKgAv6dSJqaeVP4o3DvDGKvlrxIXibq6QHuHaX3V2F-zeBQCtrQ

 

[JohnVIII]

The “Church” put Rome at the head of the Churches of Christ and it is believed that the primacy of St Peter was the reason. I hope little details don’t inhibit someones return to the Church, but since part of being Catholic is having a strong devotion to the truth permit me to add a fact or two. First, after Christ ascended into Heaven Peter did not run the Church, the Church was headed at that point by James the Just. Secondly, the “Church” (Orthodox and/or Catholic) was not the only Christian Church that goes “back that far” in history. The Baptist Church can trace their development all the way back the a group of Christians called “Paulists” that were in fact the first Christians in the country of Armenia even before Armenia became the first country to become an officially Orthodox (Catholic) country.

Someone may say that we should not consider the Paulist (from which eventually came the Baptist) a Christian Church since they were Gnostic Christians. I don’t agree. There were Jews before Christ that remained Jews after they converted to Christ and became Jewish Christians. There were Gentiles that remained Gentiles after converting to Christ and were Gentile Christians. Likewise, there were Gnostics that remained Gnostics after converting to Christ and then they became Gnostic Christians. Becoming a Christian means to accept Christ. The idea that you also have to accept the Orthodox/Catholic Church too or else you are not a true Christian is an old orthodox idea that has been held by the dominant Christian church, that gained it’s dominants with the help of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Today, we have three Orthodox/Catholic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, & Oriental Orthodox) and each one of them is the “One True Church”. No, actually, I think it’s high time we stop seeking to validate our particular Christian Church via trying to invalidate other Christian Churches. I don’t think Christ would approve of this! We can all be a valid Christians without seeking to invalidate other Christians. The word “catholic” means universal, but when some Christians are excluded how can what we are still be called universal?

God Bless!

 

[steve_b]

The “Church” put Rome at the head of the Churches of Christ and it is believed that the primacy of St Peter was the reason. I hope little details don’t inhibit someones return to the Church, but since part of being Catholic is having a strong devotion to the truth permit me to add a fact or two. First, after Christ ascended into Heaven Peter did not run the Church, the Church was headed at that point by James the Just. Secondly, the “Church” (Orthodox and/or Catholic) was not the only Christian Church that goes “back that far” in history. The Baptist Church can trace their development all the way back the a group of Christians called “Paulists” that were in fact the first Christians in the country of Armenia even before Armenia became the first country to become an officially Orthodox (Catholic) country.

Someone may say that we should not consider the Paulist (from which eventually came the Baptist) a Christian Church since they were Gnostic Christians. I don’t agree. There were Jews before Christ that remained Jews after they converted to Christ and became Jewish Christians. There were Gentiles that remained Gentiles after converting to Christ and were Gentile Christians. Likewise, there were Gnostics that remained Gnostics after converting to Christ and then they became Gnostic Christians. Becoming a Christian means to accept Christ. The idea that you also have to accept the Orthodox/Catholic Church too or else you are not a true Christian is an old orthodox idea that has been held by the dominant Christian church, that gained it’s dominants with the help of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Today, we have three Orthodox/Catholic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, & Oriental Orthodox) and each one of them is the “One True Church”. No, actually, I think it’s high time we stop seeking to validate our particular Christian Church via trying to invalidate other Christian Churches. I don’t think Christ would approve of this! We can all be a valid Christians without seeking to invalidate other Christians. The word “catholic” means universal, but when some Christians are excluded how can what we are still be called universal?

God Bless!

Huh??? http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1261.gif

 

[justtryin]

I don’t know if this thread is the one for me, but I’ll try. First of all, I’m asking for patience and kindness from those on this site. I am trying to find my way back to the Roman Catholic church. I was wondering if anyone could help me find biblical based answers that point to the Roman Catholic Church being founded by Christ himself. I’ve had the response that because Peter was the first pope, the RC church was founded by Christ. It is intruguing and may point in that direction, but can anyone offer any additional scripture that may help with this question? Thanks!

Hope this helps. It is a small booklet by Paul Whitcomb
You can read it here:

olrl.org/apologetics/confessrc.shtml

CONFESSION OF A ROMAN CATHOLIC

A former Protestant minister’s story on how he was led to the Catholic Church by reading his Bible.

God Bless

 

[dogknox]

The “Church” put Rome at the head of the Churches of Christ and it is believed that the primacy of St Peter was the reason. I hope little details don’t inhibit someones return to the Church, but since part of being Catholic is having a strong devotion to the truth permit me to add a fact or two. First, after Christ ascended into Heaven Peter did not run the Church, the Church was headed at that point by James the Just. Secondly, the “Church” (Orthodox and/or Catholic) was not the only Christian Church that goes “back that far” in history. The Baptist Church can trace their development all the way back the a group of Christians called “Paulists” that were in fact the first Christians in the country of Armenia even before Armenia became the first country to become an officially Orthodox (Catholic) country.

Someone may say that we should not consider the Paulist (from which eventually came the Baptist) a Christian Church since they were Gnostic Christians. I don’t agree. There were Jews before Christ that remained Jews after they converted to Christ and became Jewish Christians. There were Gentiles that remained Gentiles after converting to Christ and were Gentile Christians. Likewise, there were Gnostics that remained Gnostics after converting to Christ and then they became Gnostic Christians. Becoming a Christian means to accept Christ. The idea that you also have to accept the Orthodox/Catholic Church too or else you are not a true Christian is an old orthodox idea that has been held by the dominant Christian church, that gained it’s dominants with the help of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Today, we have three Orthodox/Catholic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, & Oriental Orthodox) and each one of them is the “One True Church”. No, actually, I think it’s high time we stop seeking to validate our particular Christian Church via trying to invalidate other Christian Churches. I don’t think Christ would approve of this! We can all be a valid Christians without seeking to invalidate other Christians. The word “catholic” means universal, but when some Christians are excluded how can what we are still be called universal?
God Bless!

To be Protestant is to reject …scriptures, The Great Commission.
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely** I am with you always, to the very end of the age.**”

FACT: There were no protestants until sixteen hundred years,** AFTER** Jesus said: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

To be ALWAYS with means, he will NEVER EVER LEAVE!!!

He is not with protestants because he did not start with them, the protestant must reject Matthew 28:20 as a LIE from the mouth of Jesus!
FACT: The Baptist Church is a protestant church, they can’t trace their roots back to Jesus!!

Jesus did not, he will not leave his “Holy Catholic Church” headed by the Pope, in Rome!
To be protestant is to reject the Holy Catholic Church… To reject the Church Jesus formed, the body he is “ALWAYS WITH to the very end of the age” is to reject Jesus!

Dogknox

 

[JohnVIII]

FACT: There were no protestants until sixteen hundred years

I’ve read where some scholars have said of the “Paulist” that I had made reference to where “Protestants before there were Protestants”. There were similar in many respects to Protestants today and there were there from the beginning - 1st Century - and they were not Catholics.

I only wished to point out that in the beginning there were several Christianity’s, not just one. Not every so-called “heresy” was an offshoot from Catholicism. Some were established from the beginning when they heard the message of Christ, accepted it and formed their own church without any interaction with the “Catholic” Church, at least at the first.

 

[dogknox]

I’ve read where some scholars have said of the “Paulist” that I had made reference to where “Protestants before there were Protestants”. There were similar in many respects to Protestants today and there were there from the beginning - 1st Century - and they were not Catholics.

I only wished to point out that in the beginning there were several Christianity’s, not just one. Not every so-called “heresy” was an offshoot from Catholicism. Some were established from the beginning when they heard the message of Christ, accepted it and formed their own church without any interaction with the “Catholic” Church, at least at the first.

Hello JohnVIII I hope all is well… Thank you for your post…
I reply… To be Christian is to accept the TEACHINGS of the Church Jesus formed!
Question: Is a person christian if they reject scriptures!?
Matthew 28:20** and teaching them to obey everything **I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The Holy Catholic Church TEACHES; “The Bread is the body of Jesus, the Wine is the blood of Jesus”!

Do your so called “Other Christians” believe this TEACHING?

There is a whole whack of churches out there that claim to be christians, but all must reject the scriptures or they would be “Catholic’s”! The AUTHORITY of God is given to the Church Jesus formed, to TEACH all nations!

This comes just before Matthew 28:20…
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, **“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 **and **teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

JohnVIII do you see it? Therefore go…"Make disciples of all nations, with the AUTHORITY of God! In God’ name, with all of his AUTHORITY, speaking for him, in his name make disciples; Baptizing!
The “AND” tells us the AUTHORITY Jesus gave his Church, also extends to TEACHING all nations!!

To accept the TEACHING of the Holy Catholic Church is accepting Jesus! To reject the TEACHING of Jesus’ Church is rejecting Jesus and his scriptures!

Dogknox

 

[dogknox]

protestants are not christian (post #47)

You are in error, and your statement does not reflect the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The early Church is a Christian Church, they TAUGHT Baptism saves!
Randy Carson Point me to a protestant church that believes baptism saves!
Anglican maybe Lutheran… Okay these are joined in imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

NOTE: Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized”

Dogknox

 

[dogknox]

Yes they are christian’s “IF” they believe one verse of scriptures… some more christian then others.

I don’t care… to the degree they are christian, I will not argue degrees.
I point to the scriptures protestants reject: Look I say; “They reject these words of Jesus as lie”; I accuse them as…NOT christian, when it comes to certain verses!

DICTIONARY DOT COM
Chris·tian   
[kris-chuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2.of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3.of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

Saint Augustine is Christian he said… “Jesus carried his own body in his hands at the Last Supper”!

The Protestant does not agree with Saint Augustine, protestant’s & Saint Augustine are polar opposites!!
Proving beyond all doubt… The Protestant, when it comes to the "Bread and Wine and the Flesh and Blood of Jesus are; NOT Christian!
If the protestants are Christian when it comes to the “Bread & Wine” then Saint Augustine is NOT christian… take your pick both are NOT christian at the same time!

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

Saint Augustine is Christian he said… “Jesus carried his own body in his hands at the Last Supper”!

The Protestant does not agree with Saint Augustine, protestant’s & Saint Augustine are polar opposites!!
Proving beyond all doubt… The Protestant, when it comes to the "Bread and Wine and the Flesh and Blood of Jesus are; NOT Christian!
If the protestants are Christian when it comes to the “Bread & Wine” then Saint Augustine is NOT christian… take your pick both are NOT christian at the same time!

Dogknox

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

So, assuming you have quoted properly, Lutherans would agree with St. Augustine.

Jon

 

[dogknox]

From the Augsburg Confession:
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.
1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

So, assuming you have quoted properly, Lutherans would agree with St. Augustine.

Jon

I reply: The Lutheran rejects God’s words… “This IS my body”; For “This CONTAINS my body”!

God can take any form he wants to. He can take the form of a dove, of a man, of fire and smoke and yes even the form of bread! To the Lutheran, they can’t accept the power of God to take any form he wants to take, to them he can’t take the form of bread, at best all he can do is enter the bread as a container for him!

JonNC Do Lutherans accept the scriptures?
Matt 28… “I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of the age”!

If Jesus is, ALWAYS WITH the Catholic Church, why are you Lutheran?
If Jesus is, ALWAYS WITH the Catholic Church, then he can’t be "ALWAYS WITH the Lutheran church! He did NOT start with the Lutheran church, he did not form the Lutheran church! The Lutheran body was formed by a man, not by God!

Did Jesus leave his bride, to be with the thousands and thousands of protestant man made bodies!?

Protestant: To be in protest against, the Church Jesus formed!

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

=dogknox;8207902]I reply: The Lutheran rejects God’s words… “This IS my body”; For “This CONTAINS my body”!

Then your reply reflects an ignorance of Lutheran teaching, as no knowledgeable Lutheran would state “This CONTAINS my body”. Why? Because it is not what Christ says. He says the bread IS His body. And that is what we believe.

God can take any form he wants to. He can take the form of a dove, of a man, of fire and smoke and yes even the form of bread! To the Lutheran, they can’t accept the power of God to take any form he wants to take, to them he can’t take the form of bread, at best all he can do is enter the bread as a container for him!

This is an interesting statement. I’d like to hear from Catholics if this - God takes the form of bread - is what Transubstantiation really teaches. Nevertheless, the container notion is not a Lutheran teaching. I suspect you are referring to consubstantiation, which we reject.
The following might help:
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

… we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon