Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[Sy_Noe]

If that is how you know that the words of Jesus are true, how is it that you do not believe in His mandate in forming His Church which is known as the Catholic Church? First used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

So in A.D. 107 it meant general and universal, the universal general body of believers. And you’re absolutely sure these earliest universal generally Christian believers didn’t have any disagreements and everyone was on the exact same pg?

Then 90 yrs later (a lifetime in today’s terms) it was changed to mean only orthodox believers?

When exactly was it changed to mean the formal centralized RCC that we see on earth today? How many more yrs did that take?

 

[PRmerger]

So in A.D. 107 it meant general and universal, the universal general body of believers. And you’re absolutely sure these earliest universal generally Christian believers didn’t have any disagreements and everyone was on the exact same pg?

Then 90 yrs later (a lifetime in today’s terms) it was changed to mean only orthodox believers?

It has always meant the body of Christians who submit to Christ and his vicar.

When exactly was it changed to mean the formal centralized RCC that we see on earth today? How many more yrs did that take?

It has never meant the formalized centralized RCC. The Catholic Church is not Roman. It is the Church which consists of 20+ rites, all subject to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #714
So in A.D. 107 it meant general and universal, the universal general body of believers. And you’re absolutely sure these earliest universal generally Christian believers didn’t have any disagreements and everyone was on the exact same pg?

Your knowledge of the Bible is sadly lacking as even Judas, chosen by Christ, betrayed Him. Then the failure, by some, to listen to Christ’s chosen Apostles continued – to this day.

As those who really try to follow the Christ know:
Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

So be assured the refusal to follow Christ’s chosen representatives is identified from the beginning.

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Then 90 yrs later (a lifetime in today’s terms) it was changed to mean only orthodox believers?

Quite obviously there was no “change” as in a contradiction!

The reality as stated is that “Catholic”: “Within 90 years meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).”

Thus the usage of the teaching and belief developed to include the meaning of faithful to the teachings of Christ, as well as universal – spread the same everywhere.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It has always meant the body of Christians who submit to Christ and his vicar.

It has never meant the formalized centralized RCC. The Catholic Church is not Roman. It is the Church which consists of 20+ rites, all subject to the Bishop of Rome.

I must say, PRmerger, it fascinates me how you avoid another poster’s question and don’t want to tussle with him but are quick to reply to me. I was so looking forward to following yours and Edwin’s discussion. At any rate I will leave it to you and Abu to resolve the definitions and what it was prior to 107 and to resolve the judgment by Abu, who doesn’t even know me, that my “knowledge of the Bible is sadly lacking as even Judas…”. And yes, I am well aware of the rites. But because I was baptized in the Roman rite and I am almost certain it happens to be the one which indeed most people on earth think of when they think of the Catholic Church, due to it being by far the largest sized rite worldwide and the CC’s vicar being in Rome, forgive me if I’m not going to concern myself too much that I and others as well have referred to it as the RCC from time to time. But I appreciate you pointing out there are indeed other smaller rites. And no offense to our friend Peter J nor anyone else.

 

[PRmerger]

I must say, PRmerger, it fascinates me how you avoid another poster’s question and don’t want to tussle with him but are quick to reply to me.

Huh? Why does this bother you?

I was so looking forward to following yours and Edwin’s discussion. At any rate I will leave it to you and Abu to resolve the definitions and what it was prior to 107 and to resolve the judgment by Abu, who doesn’t even know me, that my “knowledge of the Bible is sadly lacking as even Judas…”. And yes, I am well aware of the rites. But because I was baptized in the Roman rite and I am almost certain it happens to be the one which indeed most people on earth think of when they think of the Catholic Church, due to it being by far the largest sized rite worldwide and the CC’s vicar being in Rome, forgive me if I’m not going to concern myself too much that I and others as well have referred to it as the RCC from time to time.

Well, that’s a little like calling all Asians “Chinese” because, after all, they are the most populous demographic.

You need to recognize that not every Asian identifies as Chinese.

And they would be justifiably dismissive of you for thinking this.

 

[Peter_J]

And yes, I am well aware of the rites. But because I was baptized in the Roman rite and I am almost certain it happens to be the one which indeed most people on earth think of when they think of the Catholic Church, due to it being by far the largest sized rite worldwide and the CC’s vicar being in Rome, forgive me if I’m not going to concern myself too much that I and others as well have referred to it as the RCC from time to time. But I appreciate you pointing out there are indeed other smaller rites. And no offense to our friend Peter J nor anyone else.

Thank you for saying that, but the truth is that we *do *take offense at statements that say/imply that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not really Churches but “Rites”.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you for saying that, but the truth is that we *do *take offense at statements that say/imply that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not really Churches but “Rites”.

Hi Peter J, my knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches is quite limited I do admit. But I have no problem describing them as Churches and not rites if that is the preference. If I mess up, give me a kick… err… I mean a reminder.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter J, my knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches is quite limited I do admit. But I have no problem describing them as Churches and not rites if that is the preference. If I mess up, give me a kick… err… I mean a reminder.

Oh I’d be happy to.

Anyhow, I get where you’re coming from with the first sentence. One of the problems with the Internet is that Catholics come here innocently seeking information, but then are “taught” to say things like “There are 23 Eastern Catholic Rites.”

Fortunately, there are good resources like
ewtn.com/expert/answers/churches_rites_or_sisters.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. All are absolved on judgement day from rejecting any reformation truth rendering because of this stumbling block of 30,000 sects.

I don’t understand what you mean here, ben.

The beauty and grace and attraction of Christ, for He is both Truth and Wisdom in Love

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

 

[benhur]

I don’t understand what you mean here, ben.

Maybe like the the truth that the bath water is indeed now dirty (30,000 sects),and the folly (not wisdom) of throwing out the baby in the bath water also.

Perhaps the Lord allows Truth to be so surrounded in dirtiness so as requiring Wisdom in the matter. Kind of like separating the sheep from the goats. Kind of like really needing Him who is all Wisdom.

Many people will feel justified in throwing out the baby, for how can purity of truth be mixed with “dirtiness” ?

Kind of like a spiritual shock absorber, where we avoid the wisdom and truth of a the “baby” and use the dirty water as an excuse and absorber, like I am OK , I do not need to look at this.

This cuts all ways, and in all matters and denominations, this challenge to see the “Baby” in truth and wisdom.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe like the the truth that the bath water is indeed now dirty (30,000 sects),and the folly (not wisdom) of throwing out the baby in the bath water also.

Oh, to be sure the 30,000+ denominations vitiates the truth of the gospel, and is a great offense to the kerygma.

Perhaps the Lord allows Truth to be so surrounded in dirtiness so as requiring Wisdom in the matter. Kind of like separating the sheep from the goats. Kind of like really needing Him who is all Wisdom.

Well, He allows it because of free will. You and I are both free to search for the kerygma, and we can conform to it, or create our own versions.

But it’s certainly not what God desires that we be surrounded in dirtiness.

 

[benhur]

But it’s certainly not what God desires that we be surrounded in dirtiness.

Yes but wisdom dictates that there is a time and place for everything. Heaven is heaven, the Earth the Earth… What is today is not what will be tomorrow in His kingdom that will come down.

The time has not come yet when the dirtiness will all be gone. For now it is a mix.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes but wisdom dictates that there is a time and place for everything. Heaven is heaven, the Earth the Earth… What is today is not what will be tomorrow in His kingdom that will come down.

The time has not come yet when the dirtiness will all be gone. For now it is a mix.

And the mix is a BAD thing. NOT the will of God.

 

[benhur]

And the mix is a BAD thing. NOT the will of God.

Yes it is a bad thing that God is allowing for now, and in a sense His will for now.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is a bad thing that God is allowing for now, and in a sense His will for now.

Absolutely NOT.

 

[benhur]

Absolutely NOT.

Well you said it is a bad thing which I agree. So now what is the “not” for, that He allows bad and or that then it is somehow His will for now ? The “somehow” is a loaded word and in no way takes away from His perfectly good will.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rcw,

"Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees".Mat16:12

They had corrupted doctrine also, not just practice or hypocrisy.

So the obedience to authority (Moses Seat) was conditional, upon rightly conveying the Law/Writ.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides, illumines, and not just the “leaders” but all "citizens’’. It is conditional for both to rightly divide the Word.

The status quo leaders of Jesus’s time did not like His and the apostles divine inspiration, and thought it “private”, even rebellious.

Blessings

Benhur, sorry I haven’t gotten back to your post.
It’s a good point you make.

I believe Jesus was not contradicting himself, though. I believe He was still expecting them to be subject to the doctrines, in as much as they did NOT contradict His actual NEW commandments, AND He was instructing them how they should take caution themselves over what they decree as doctrine. The Holy Spirit would guide them.

 

[benhur]

Benhur, sorry I haven’t gotten back to your post.
It’s a good point you make.

I believe Jesus was not contradicting himself, though. I believe He was still expecting them to be subject to the doctrines, in as much as they did NOT contradict His actual NEW commandments, AND He was instructing them how they should take caution themselves over what they decree as doctrine. The Holy Spirit would guide them.

Hi rc.

OK, were they subject to the leaven (bad) doctrine practices ? It seems that there is conditionality to the matter, that He did not admonish blind following , of the “seat”

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc.

OK, were they subject to the leaven (bad) doctrine practices ? It seems that there is conditionality to the matter, that He did not admonish blind following , of the “seat”

They were commanded to be subject to…

so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do

But Christ did not set up another “system” like the old, which was based on the Law of Works. This covenant is fed by the sacrificial love of the Son and Lamb of God.

His Apostolic leaders are set apart for a holy people who observe His commands out of love. We are all brothers, yet separate members with different duties, gifts, callings, positions and offices.

Those in high positions must serve in high capacity, yet if they lack in their devotion and performance, it does not grant us benefit to disregard them as leaders, but suffer in humility to win their conviction for misbehavior.

 

[Telstar]

Hi rc.

OK, were they subject to the leaven (bad) doctrine practices ? It seems that there is conditionality to the matter, that He did not admonish blind following , of the “seat”

RCW is right. Jesus told the people to obey the scribes and leaders, by observing the Law as they taught it, but He wanted them to do it for the right reasons. God gave the Law to Moses and established the way that it should be taught and observed by His people. So, because those men possessed the lawful authority that was given to them by God, the people were obligated to do whatever they told them to do. However, since the Pharisees and scribes only observed the Law outwardly, to appear to be “holy” in the eyes of men, Jesus didn’t want His people to follow the Law the way the Pharisees did, because they didn’t have true faith."Matthew 23: [1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. [4] For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’ s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. [5] And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes."Jesus said they were hypocrites that didn’t really practice what they preached, so Jesus was telling His followers not to do those things the way the Pharisees did them.

EDIT to add: The most important reason for this teaching, was to show them that by obeying the leaders that God had given that authority, they were actually being obedient to God.