Jesus did not establish this church?

[mercygate]

Kev ><>:

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!

<>

Bah, humbug! The Catechism of the Catholic Church is saturated with the writings of the Fathers as are the documents of the Second Vatican Council: simply saturated. The Second Vatican Council did not dismiss these writings but drew heavily upon them. They are part of our living heritage; any development of our own day must arise organically from the whole fabric of the Magisterium, including the Early Church Fathers. We do not isolate ourselves in our own age. Ours is not the Church of “what’s happening now” it is the Church for all time.

What’s that great quotation from Chesterton about the Catholic Church being the only thing that can preserve a man from being a prisoner of his own age? I couldn’t find it but it tells the whole story in 25 words or less.

 

[Mickey]

Kev ><>:

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?

I respect your position Kev.
The post Vatican-II “re-interpretation argument” is a justification for setting forth a relativistic, modernist, liberalistic, radical feminist agenda. Vatican II is to be interpreted in the spirit of the Church fathers and the teaching magisterium–the deposit of faith. Don’t be fooled by the “re-interpreting” argument. A little research will provide you with many resources.

Good luck to you,
Mickey

 

[mercygate]

“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?

<>

Man! The Good Lord has certainly tossed you right into the crucible, hasn’t He?

 

[Philthy]

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…”

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.

I need some direction and assistance if I’m going to challenge the course material at our local seminary!!

You have used some pretty vague language. For example, "
The end of this book states that:

• the church’s options in the future are to: Options with respect to what? What is being discussed?
• “ordain woman priests” Is this a recommendation of the book or are they discussing potential solutions to the shortage of priests? They havent explicitly stated that this is an exercisable option. They may simply be looking at all logical solutions and then excluding those which are impossible to arrive at what solutions are left to act on.
• allow married priests, Priestly celibacy is a discipline - it can change at the whim of the Magisterium - just like it 1500 years ago.
• **permit the deacons to preside over the Eucharist. **What exactly does “preside” mean? To consecrate?
• That to do nothing would be the church’s biggest mistake. I would be hard pressed to disagree with this statement - but it completely lacks context. Do nothing with respect to what?

If you are getting the feeling that heterodox opinions are being expressed - be more careful to understand exactly what is being promoted and exactly why it contradicts Church dogma/doctrine.
Then be the fiercest, yet humblest, defender of the faith.

Phil

 

[Mickey]

Philthy:

If you are getting the feeling that heterodox opinions are being expressed - be more careful to understand exactly what is being promoted and exactly why it contradicts Church dogma/doctrine.

Hi Phil,

I think we all know what’s going on here when God is referred to as “He/She”! :bigyikes:

 

[Ghosty]

Mystophilus:

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.

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).

Way to leave out John 20:21-22, where Jesus specifically appoints the Aposltes (it’s actually the place where we get the word Apostle), and says that He sends them just as the Father sent Him. This is not mere wordplay, this is the very foundation of the Faith. You can’t quote Scripture without accepting this fundamental fact, as that is the basis on which Scripture was kept and recorded.

Heretics are only correct when they speak in line with the Magisterium; in otherwords, insofar as their words are not heretical.

Kev: Don’t confuse disciplines (trappings that can change) with doctrines and dogmas (teachings that are permanent and/or fundamental to the faith). A good book to check out is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott

God bless!

 

[LSK]

Kev ><>:

Thanks! I’ve quoted the same Biblical quote from Jesus in regards to Peter in my homework assignment for tonight! You better believe that I will be expressing this during our class discussions as well.

<>

Good for you - and this is coming from a True Feminist, an Obedient Daughter of the Holy Mother Church!

 

[Ghosty]

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?

Remind them that the best people to interpret Vatican II are the Church Fathers. That has always been the rule in the Church: we build on what’s come before, as we grow from an acorn into a tree. The predisposition of that acorn, where it falls and on what kind of soil, will determine all future growth. The Church Fathers are the way we see that growth, and every branch and fruit must be understood along with the roots and the trunk.

God bless!

 

[Matt16_18]

Kev ><>:

I’m taking a couse on discipleship …

This is not a course on discipleship – this is a course taught by obstinate dissenters who want to transform the Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination that is indistinguishable from the Episcopal Church.

For the sake of your soul, I would quit this class.

 

[Mystophilus]

Ghosty:

Way to leave out John 20:21-22, where Jesus specifically appoints the Aposltes (it’s actually the place where we get the word Apostle), and says that He sends them just as the Father sent Him. This is not mere wordplay, this is the very foundation of the Faith. You can’t quote Scripture without accepting this fundamental fact, as that is the basis on which Scripture was kept and recorded.

You are right; I should have referenced this verse also, as I should have referenced every other location involving the sending of anyone. However, I was concentrating upon the passages which referred to the property which you had described, that of acceptance of their message being acceptance of Jesus.

I find it interesting that you say that John 20:21-2 is the place whence we have the word ‘apostle’, when the word ‘apostle’ is not even in that verse. The related verb, ‘apostellô’, is there, but only in reference to the sending of Jesus by the Father; ‘pempô’ is used for those whom Jesus sends.

Personally, I would have gone for something like Luke 6:13:And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles (“apostolous”).
This, however, identifies ‘apostle’ strictly with the Twelve, which then conflicts with the ‘you must listen to their message’ line from Luke 10:16, which is noticeably absent here.

As for “this” (by which I assume you mean the commissioning of the apostles) being the foundation of the faith, I would have to disagree wholeheartedly. God is the foundation of the faith. Those who have transmitted messages about God, including Luke (who does not appear in the Gospels, or, therefore, at any of the commissionings) and “Jude the brother of James” and whoever wrote Hebrews (probably either Barnabas or Apollos), are servants of God, not the foundation themselves, and, obviously, they are not all apostles unless we use that term to describe anyone ever sent by God, which, in the light of Jesus’ comment recorded in John 13:20, would seem quite a reasonable thing to do.

As regards the accuracy of the comments of heretics, ontology is not a function of the pronouncements of mortals. The Catholic Church’s Magisterium cannot make the sun rise or set by their words. They are right when they are right, and heretics are right when heretics are right, and neither occurs because of the hierarchical status of the person who is speaking. In fact, because of God’s previously well-documented predilection for championing the underdog, I would be very careful about backing the powerful against the weak.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

This can be understood in a perfectly orthodox sense - something will depend on the context. What Acts shows us, is basically an apocalyptic Jewish sect with zeal to convert non-Jews. None of this really distinguishes the Church, the ekklesia/qahal/kenishta founded by Jesus of Nazareth, from “mainstream” Judaism. The Apostles continued to attend the Temple. Paul even discharged a vow there - which is how he was arrested.​

As a theological reality, the Church is different from Judaism - historically, in her early years, she is part of Judaism. One thing that makes a big difference, is recognising Jesus as (not to put too fine a point on it) God; a very unJewish idea. How soon this happened, & how widely believed it was by Christians, is not clear; the preaching of the Apostles is about His Resurrection - not about His Divinity. It is certainly happening within the lifetime of Paul. Acts 11, by saying the disciples were called Christians, says that they were called “followers of Christos” - of the Messiah. Which is what Matthew’s gospel emphasises - the Messianic Kingship of Jesus. Recognising Him as Messiah, might put the Church at the fringe of Judaism; it wouldn’t divorce the Church from Judaism.

In Jesus’ own lifetime - might that be the time the author is referring to ? - the Church barely existed, except in embryo. It was not separate from Judaism. ##

The church was established by the disciples who were all Jews until Paul opened the gates wide for non-Jews to enter…"

Which is what the Book of Acts says. It was founded by Jesus, but became a recognisable body with its own emphases - still however a Jewish body - later on.​

If this, and that bit at the end you mentioned, are all that you can find wrong, there can’t be much wrong with the book. People are allowed to think that the Church’s decisions in doctrinal matters are regrettable, or short-sighted, or the like: the test is whether or not, despite having such opinions, they accept in practice what the Church teaches, and her discipline. Thinking an action, or omission of action, to be ill-conceived, is not the same as refusing obedience. Reluctance is not disobedience, and it is not error in doctrine. ##

 

[Mystophilus]

But for Grace:

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

I really hope that that had nothing to do with me, because I only seek to pass off dissent as what it is: dissent.

• Mystophilus, heretic.

 

[Kev]

## If this, and that bit at the end you mentioned, are all that you can find wrong, there can’t be much wrong with the book. People are allowed to think that the Church’s decisions in doctrinal matters are regrettable, or short-sighted, or the like: the test is whether or not, despite having such opinions, they accept in practice what the Church teaches, and her discipline. Thinking an action, or omission of action, to be ill-conceived, is not the same as refusing obedience. Reluctance is not disobedience, and it is not error in doctrine. ##

Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to post such a comprehensive evaluation of the statements in this book which I mentioned. I am sad to say that there are too many questionable suggestions in this book to list. The author is careful enough in presenting the ideas in a way which does not suggest heresy, but suggests that we work to change the church so that the church may exist and grow. I had the opportunity to speak with a “priest-to-be” in the seminary, whom I met while in RCIA 2 years ago, and he said that he has met priests and deacons who are more liberal and vocal than Reginal Coll is. I can’t see quiting the class, if anything else it encourages me to stay in the class to provide a balanced view…and who says that I’m right?

Kevin

<>

 

[Kev]

Mystophilus:

I find it interesting that you say that John 20:21-2 is the place whence we have the word ‘apostle’, when the word ‘apostle’ is not even in that verse. The related verb, ‘apostellô’, is there, but only in reference to the sending of Jesus by the Father; ‘pempô’ is used for those whom Jesus sends.

Personally, I would have gone for something like Luke 6:13:And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles (“apostolous”).
This, however, identifies ‘apostle’ strictly with the Twelve, which then conflicts with the ‘you must listen to their message’ line from Luke 10:16, which is noticeably absent here.

Mystophilis/Ghosty,

At one point during the class discussion on female priests, the professor made the statement that all believers are apostles, and then she paused and looked up the class and said “does anyone have a problem with that? - Good.” and continued on discuss that we (the body of believers) consecrate the Eucharist with the priest and that this is a new tradition/understanding/practice established in the post Vatican II mass.

Is this true?

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

 

[Kev]

Matt16_18:

This is not a course on discipleship – this is a course taught by obstinate dissenters who want to transform the Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination that is indistinguishable from the Episcopal Church.

For the sake of your soul, I would quit this class.

What if Fox News quit broadcasting and there was no more “fair and balanced” news!!?!

 

[system]

Kev ><>:

Mystophilis/Ghosty,

At one point during the class discussion on female priests, the professor made the statement that all believers are apostles, and then she paused and looked up the class and said “does anyone have a problem with that? - Good.” and continued on discuss that we (the body of believers) consecrate the Eucharist with the priest and that this is a new tradition/understanding/practice established in the post Vatican II mass.

Is this true?

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

Wow, how anyone could trivialize this type of behavior as healthy dissent is beyond me.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1411: “**Only validly ordained priests ** can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

Good luck.

 

[John_Joseph]

Kev ><>:

Mystophilis/Ghosty,

At one point during the class discussion on female priests, the professor made the statement that all believers are apostles, and then she paused and looked up the class and said “does anyone have a problem with that? - Good.” and continued on discuss that we (the body of believers) consecrate the Eucharist with the priest and that this is a new tradition/understanding/practice established in the post Vatican II mass.

Is this true?

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

Wow, how anyone could trivialize this type of behavior as healthy dissent is beyond me.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1411: “**Only validly ordained priests **can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

Good luck.

 

[mercygate]

Kev ><>:

Mystophilis/Ghosty,

At one point during the class discussion on female priests, the professor made the statement that all believers are apostles, and then she paused and looked up the class and said “does anyone have a problem with that? - Good.” and continued on discuss that we (the body of believers) consecrate the Eucharist with the priest and that this is a new tradition/understanding/practice established in the post Vatican II mass.

Is this true?

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

That would be true only in the vaguest sense that the whole Church effects the consecration. However, there is no “new tradition/understanding/or practice” with the Mass of Paul VI. We still need the consecrated hands of the ministerial Priesthood to confect the Sacrament. The Catechism is clear on that.

You could ask the professor for a magisterial document supporting her claim. That would not be confrontational.

You could say: Professor, last time in class you said XXXX but I have heard others claim just the opposite as stated in paragraph XX of the Catechism and in XXXXXX document of the Second Vatican Council. Could you please provide me with a citation to magisterial documents supporting your position?

You also NEED to get a copy of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council. The EWTN web site has 'em all available on line.

 

[But_for_Grace]

Mystophilus:

I really hope that that had nothing to do with me, because I only seek to pass off dissent as what it is: dissent.

• Mystophilus, heretic.

Mystophilus - when did I ever say that it had anything to do with you. I have never seen you try to teach your point of view as official Church dogma and doctrine, but rather you seem to always indicate that it is your own opinion. There is one thing disagreeing with the Church and another disobeying it.

PM me if you wish to talk about it more or try to catch me with an IM I am more than willing to talk

 

[mspencer]

I just thought I would put my scattered thoughts out.
I think this is a situation that calls for much prayer. Maybe one good person to pray to is Saint Michael the Archangel.
I don’t think that this is a good environment to learn about the faith to say the least, and somehow you should take into account the fact that you should learn about the faith somehow. What you should do in the present situation calls for prayer, and you ought to take into account what is best for you. Should you even stay in the class or not? You have to decide for yourself. Or perhaps being there is beneficial for you? You are the one who best can see all sides of the situation.
Soon all U.S. seminaries will be visited by Church delegates to see if for example dissent is being taught there. When they come they will seek information from all students there now as well as all students who have there the last four years. (I don’t know though if this will cover those who only take one class.) You ought to consider beforehand what you would say if they call on you for information…