Jesus did not establish this church?

[Kev]

Strider:

Those quotes from the text are so typically juvenile, that’s what you get from this group.
Look in the CCC under Tradition and show it to your professor. It sounds like you need to bring a softcover copy of the CCC to class every day.
Don’t let her get aweay with this puerile heresy. Maybe she’ll even learn something from YOU!

The professor is such a nice lady, who is teaching this class in her retirement. I love her passion for the faith and know that she has had a conversion experience because she shared this with the class. I don’t want to confront her or hurt her feelings, but I don’t know if I can take much more of this book in a discipleship class…

 

[Kev]

Malachi4U:

Jesus did not come to end the Jewish religion, He came to fullfill it. Catholicism is the fullfillment of Judeism.

Your looking at it wrong. One Church didn’t end and the other startup. It is the same Church fullfilled and open to all. We say Jesus founded the Church but in reality He fullfilled its promise.

Jesus established the Catholic Church in 33 A.D., not by proclomation, but by authority and example and in fullfillment of Scripture.

In the OT the Jews were the chosen people. In the NT the Catholics are His chosen people.

Don’t think of it as two Churches. Think of it as one Church fullfilled.
I hope my quick use of English was clear on a complex point.

I understand your point, but they are two distinctly different faiths.

<>

 

[mercygate]

Kev ><>:

I understand your point, but they are two distinctly different faiths.

<>

You might wish to add a quotation from the late Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[mercygate]

Kev ><>:

The professor is such a nice lady, who is teaching this class in her retirement. I love her passion for the faith and know that she has had a conversion experience because she shared this with the class. I don’t want to confront her or hurt her feelings, but I don’t know if I can take much more of this book in a discipleship class…

A lot of nice retirement-age ladies are nuts when it comes to the ordination of women. I should know. I’m of that age. I love to tell young people: Take a good look at me. My generation is the one that started all the trouble in the Church and is leaving you to deal with the wreckage!

 

[dancus]

John Joseph:

Actually the authors name of the book in question is Sr. Regina Coll, not “Cole”. She’s been a proponent of women’s ordination into the priesthood for years. Believe it or not, she is (was?) a professor at of all places Notre Dame.

Here is an article from the “The Observer”, the student newspaper at Notre Dame:

nd.edu/~observer/11292000/News/0.html

It is really quite frightening how much this “progressive” mindset has infiltrated the Church. Your teacher is either supportive of this mindset or incredibly misinformed. I’m guessing the former.

I’m puzzled. Why do you find it strange that Prof. Coll taught at Notre Dame. When I attended, perhaps 65% of the student body were Non-Catholic. Are you ready this it’s even Co-Ed. We attended for an education, not Religious indictrination.

 

[Mystophilus]

While I understand that the seminary’s heterodox views are rather shocking, I would like to suggest that you consider something: Jesus’ heterodox views were deeply shocking to the religious traditionalists of his time.

I think that you should listen to what they have taught you, and “express dissent” regarding views which you do not accept, including any of their views which you do not accept. This is extremely important, because it should lead to at least one of the parties to the discussion actually learning something. An important consideration in this regard, and one which seems to have been overlooked thus far, is that “expressing dissent” is not the same as “engaging in rebellion”. Discussion has always been an important part of not only the Christian faith, but also the Jewish faith. Abraham, Moses, Job and Jonah all “expressed dissent” to God. Jesus told God that he did not want to go to the cross (Matthew 26:39). It only becomes an act of rebellion when the subordinate deliberately disobeys a command, and God has never commanded us to refrain from expressing our doubts.

Engage them in conversation, discuss the ideas with them, learn from them and teach them.

 

[Ghosty]

Jesus is God, however, and did not welcome dissent from His teachings. He dissented against the laws of men, certainly, but absolutely not from God. Furthermore, Jesus established a teaching and preaching authority in the Apostles united around Peter. He said “whoever hears you hears me.” To dissent from the faith and moral teachings of the Apostalic Authorities is to dissent directly against Jesus Himself, who is God.

He who hears you hears me. Don’t ever forget that.

When people say that women should be ordained, they are rebelling, not merely presenting a dissenting opinion. The matter is settled by the Magisterium. The discussion is over. To say otherwise is to close your ears to God.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Kevin:

Tough spot you’re in. What you’re relating to us is the sad reality in some of the seminaries. The good news is, the only way is up. Don’t forget CC is the true church, the evil one is likely to deconstruct it on all and critical fronts (i.e. seminaries, mariages, children, families, etc.).

Like I always believed, the converts to the faith will be the champions of orthodoxy in this millenium. You are one of them. I have an old priest friend in college that had so many liberal and unorthodox ideas and we had our share of arguments and discussions. It helped me really find out what our church really teach. But through our tension we never lost respect or friendship. I pray for him to this day.

We’re all in the trenches in our apostolates. We’re given that opportunity.

If it’s false teaching, call it out. Pray for humility, courage and above all charity.

in XT.

 

[BlestOne]

Malachi4U:

Jesus did not come to end the Jewish religion, He came to fullfill it. Catholicism is the fullfillment of Judeism.

Your looking at it wrong. One Church didn’t end and the other startup. It is the same Church fullfilled and open to all. We say Jesus founded the Church but in reality He fullfilled its promise.

Jesus established the Catholic Church in 33 A.D., not by proclomation, but by authority and example and in fullfillment of Scripture.

In the OT the Jews were the chosen people. In the NT the Catholics are His chosen people.

Don’t think of it as two Churches. Think of it as one Church fullfilled.
I hope my quick use of English was clear on a complex point.

This is exactly the point I was going to make. Jesus did not come to establish another religion…but to fulfill Judaism.

Kev:

I’m taking a couse on discipleship at the local seminary. I’m not a seminarian, just a lay person. However, I’m really racking my brain trying to discern whether or not this class is true to the church’s teachings. Our text book; “How to Understand Church and Ministry in the United States” by Sr. Regina Cole; Page 47 of this books says “Jesus was about the revitalization of Judaism, not the establishment of a new religion. The church was established by the disciples who were all Jews until Paul opened the gates wide for non-Jews to enter…” see above

The end of this book states that the church’s options in the future are to ordain woman priests, allow married priests, or permit the deacons to preside over the Eucharist. That to do nothing would be the church’s biggest mistake.this is the writers opinion, that something must be done. Granted the acceptance of women into the priesthood should never happen and would be against the magesterium teachings, have you looked further into the book to see if she points this out or if she is rebelling? (playing devils advocate here)

I need some direction and assistance if I’m going to challenge the course material at our local seminary!!
If I were you, I would discuss your concerns with the teacher, if he/she isn’t receptive, I would definitely take it up higher. As a consumer of education, you have the right to challenge whether what is being taught is in accordance with the teachings of the church. As far as I know, you should be able to ask for your money back if the course isn’t what it is supposed to be.

 

[Mystophilus]

Ghosty:

Jesus is God, however, and did not welcome dissent from His teachings. He dissented against the laws of men, certainly, but absolutely not from God. Furthermore, Jesus established a teaching and preaching authority in the Apostles united around Peter. He said “whoever hears you hears me.” To dissent from the faith and moral teachings of the Apostalic Authorities is to dissent directly against Jesus Himself, who is God.

Jesus certainly connected his own way very directly with that of the Father, and he also connects rejection of the message which his disciples carried, on on particular occasion, with rejection of himself:
He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me (Luke 10:16).
However, we should note the fact that this was said not to the Twelve, but to the Seventy/Seventy-Two (MSs vary). There is no actual indication in the text that this instruction then implied that the Seventy/Seventy-Two were subsequently gifted with prophecy, i.e., the ability to speak for God. In fact, in the context, Jesus is talking about his message then and there, and saying nothing about later. He does, however, make mention of what will happen later:
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (John 13:20)
Here, Jesus was at the Last Supper, talking to the Twelve, and yet he decides to say “whomever I send” (“an tina pempso”), directly implying that he could send someone other than those to whom he was speaking. This is hardly surprising; why should God limit his ability to speak to only one group of people? After all, he also said,
Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great (Luke 9:48).
In that situation, there is not even a message. God can, and will, send whomsoever God chooses, with whatsoever message God wishes, and for a mere mortal to claim that there is a limit to God’s choices in any respect is singularly imprudent.

When people say that women should be ordained, they are rebelling, not merely presenting a dissenting opinion. The matter is settled by the Magisterium. The discussion is over. To say otherwise is to close your ears to God.

The Magisterium is not God, and God does not forbid us to discuss.

(We have not even reached the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church regard themselves as the True Descendants of the Apostles, and the ‘Latins’ as schismatics or heretics).

 

[John_Joseph]

dancus:

I’m puzzled. Why do you find it strange that Prof. Coll taught at Notre Dame. When I attended, perhaps 65% of the student body were Non-Catholic. Are you ready this it’s even Co-Ed. We attended for an education, not Religious indictrination.

Well, apparently she is a Catholic sister. As such I think that the 35% of the student body who are also Catholic would be best served being taught by a Catholic who actually follows the teachings of the Magisterium. The idea that she is attempting to indoctrinate her beliefs at Notre Dame troubles me. This divisive behavior only serves to weaken the Catholic Church, not make it stronger. All my opinion of course.

 

[Kev]

Mystophilus:

While I understand that the seminary’s heterodox views are rather shocking, I would like to suggest that you consider something: Jesus’ heterodox views were deeply shocking to the religious traditionalists of his time.

I think that you should listen to what they have taught you, and “express dissent” regarding views which you do not accept, including any of their views which you do not accept. This is extremely important, because it should lead to at least one of the parties to the discussion actually learning something. An important consideration in this regard, and one which seems to have been overlooked thus far, is that “expressing dissent” is not the same as “engaging in rebellion”. Discussion has always been an important part of not only the Christian faith, but also the Jewish faith. Abraham, Moses, Job and Jonah all “expressed dissent” to God. Jesus told God that he did not want to go to the cross (Matthew 26:39). It only becomes an act of rebellion when the subordinate deliberately disobeys a command, and God has never commanded us to refrain from expressing our doubts.

Engage them in conversation, discuss the ideas with them, learn from them and teach them.

Thanks, this is the most helpful post I’ve read!

We did have a great discussion in class last night. I raised concerns over a theoligist’s statement in the book concerning planetary theology. The theologist suggests that we don’t use grape wine for communion in cultures where grape wine is not native. That we should absorb each others cultures and not convert them! This statement, and a few others we discussed (too many to list, sadly) were referred to by the professor as “a bad choice of words”. I referred to mature Catholics as the “remnant of the faith” and she referred to us more as “pioneers”. Next week we begin our class by discussing one of the famous “fisherpeople” (see a pattern here?), St. Mark.

I have made it very clear in the homework that I don’t agree with the views and agenda expressed by Regina Coll, and the teacher has made some mature comments such as - "the ultimate and final word is the magesterium! " And I ended my last homework assignment by definine the word “disciple” - because we are not being taught to be disciples of Christ in this discipleship class.

Kevin

<>

PS: Everyone from class who chimed in on the conversations (about 5 out of 13) agreed with me…

 

[Mystophilus]

Kev ><>:

Thanks, this is the most helpful post I’ve read!

You might want to read my reply to Ghosty, then, because I do not think that you are going to approve of that. Nevertheless, I think that it does demonstrate a very important point: even heretics can be right sometimes.

 

[mercygate]

Kev ><>:

Thanks, this is the most helpful post I’ve read!

We did have a great discussion in class last night. I raised concerns over a theoligist’s statement in the book concerning planetary theology. The theologist suggests that we don’t use grape wine for communion in cultures where grape wine is not native. That we should absorb each others cultures and not convert them! This statement, and a few others we discussed (too many to list, sadly) were referred to by the professor as “a bad choice of words”. I referred to mature Catholics as the “remnant of the faith” and she referred to us more as “pioneers”. Next week we begin our class by discussing one of the famous “fisherpeople” (see a pattern here?), St. Mark.

I have made it very clear in the homework that I don’t agree with the views and agenda expressed by Regina Coll, and the teacher has made some mature comments such as - "the ultimate and final word is the magesterium! " And I ended my last homework assignment by definine the word “disciple” - because we are not being taught to be disciples of Christ in this discipleship class.

Kevin

<>

PS: Everyone from class who chimed in on the conversations (about 5 out of 13) agreed with me…

Kevin – although I have taken my share of pounding for standing up for the Magisterium, I have also found (as you are discovering now) that people are starving for it! God love ya!

Maybe your boldness will embolden your professor and your classmates – particularly since you are bold without being belligerent!

 

[Kev]

Mystophilus:

You might want to read my reply to Ghosty, then, because I do not think that you are going to approve of that. Nevertheless, I think that it does demonstrate a very important point: even heretics can be right sometimes.

Your reply to Ghosty is light-years ahead of me. But it makes sense to say that we have the right to discuss opposing opinions. I guess the question is where do you draw the line at what can be discussed and what can be changed? The book we’re reading says that Catholics have the right to challenge and re-interpret doctrines and dogmas. My gut tells me that it’s okay to petition the church to change things, like where the altar is located, whether or not to genuflect, bow, altar girls vs. altar boys, receiving the Eucharist directly on the tongue. However, my gut tells me that homosexuality is a sin, marriage is sacred, and Jesus referred to God as “Father” (our instructor refers to God as she/he) and called 12 men to be apostles - 0 women.

I don’t think we should challenge the church to re-interpret doctrines or dogmas, but I don’t even know what is a doctrine/dogma and what isn’t!! Is there a list somewhere? Maybe in the Catechism?

Kevin

<>

PS: All I’m really sure of is that “for to me, life is Christ!”

 

[But_for_Grace]

Kev - Unlike our well beloved bretheren who posted above, I would urge a stronger stance on the issue. I realize that it is not the “reasonable” approach but we must remember that those who propose to teach the faith have a responsibility to the truth, just as we do. Dissent is not an option. There are those who discent the change in the mass from the TLM, we call them schismatics. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there were people who discented the Church, we now call them protestants.

My suggestion then is if your teacher refuses to address your concerns, then you are obliged to go to the administration, not just for your sake but for that of your fellow students. If the administration fails then write your bishop, and failing that there is the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

It is tiring to see people try to pass off discent (read heresy) as true Catholic teaching.

God Bless and Good Luck

 

[Mickey]

Kev ><>:

The professor is such a nice lady, who is teaching this class in her retirement. I love her passion for the faith and know that she has had a conversion experience because she shared this with the class. I don’t want to confront her or hurt her feelings, but I don’t know if I can take much more of this book in a discipleship class…

You have come face to face with the virus of radical feminism. Write to your Bishop immediately. If you do not get a response, write to the Vatican representative in Washington, D.C.

Peace to you my friend,
Mickey

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Kev

You had me laughing with the “fisherpeople” line…that was great. And it sounds like she might be getting to you as you said “I don’t think we should challenge the church to re-interpret doctrines or dogmas” instead of we should not. Is not doctirne/dogma part of TRADITION ? And you should start a new thread calling for list of d/d. I’ll start looking. Let’s see the Sacraments, Transubstantion, Infallibity, Trinity, Bible as inspired Word of God

 

[Kev]

Mickey:

You have come face to face with the virus of radical feminism. Write to your Bishop immediately. If you do not get a response, write to the Vatican representative in Washington, D.C.

Peace to you my friend,
Mickey

Mickey,

Thanks for the encouragement, but it’s just not in my nature to cause such a stir. I was hoping to gather enough knowledge to convince her of teaching the truths or at the very least ensure that I’m grounded in the truth and that my classmates hear other views on these topics.

Another area of concern is that, when I mentioned that I would like more references from early church fathers - rather than today’s modern theologists - there was an attitude conveyed that we are a post Vatican-II church and we need to concentrate on interpreting Vatican-II…how do you address someone who comes at you from that angle?

Peace!

<>

 

[Kev]

hilde the dog:

Kev

You had me laughing with the “fisherpeople” line…that was great. And it sounds like she might be getting to you as you said “I don’t think we should challenge the church to re-interpret doctrines or dogmas” instead of we should not. Is not doctirne/dogma part of TRADITION ? And you should start a new thread calling for list of d/d. I’ll start looking. Let’s see the Sacraments, Transubstantion, Infallibity, Trinity, Bible as inspired Word of God

“Fisherpeople”, “she/he” God, and I have picked-up that she doesn’t do the sign of the cross - perhaps it’s because we refer to “the Father, and Son”?

I like the idea of the new thread! Have you done that?

<>