C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That’s not what the Church teaches.
- Status
Z
Zundrah
Guest
What does it teach on this then? But people who did not get comfirmed would not be buried in concencrated ground!?
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Actually I totally missed the point.:clapping::yup::tiphat::bowdown:
That, NTS, is a very good point that wisdomweeker made.
I’ve sort of forgotten the train of thought by now.
P
PJM
Guest
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Not the first time that has happened.
It may very well be (in fact I consider it likely) that when God designed the church, He did not design a gazillion denominations.
That does not necessarily mean that the relationship between the gazillion denominations are: 1 of them is the “one true church”. 2 the rest of them are deficient.
Did I say I hold the Bible higher than the Body and Blood of Christ.
Please don’t tell me what I believe
OK…I still miss your point.
I agree that Jesus probably did not design a gazillion denominations when He designed the church. However, it does not follow that the relationship between the gazillion denominations that exist today…oops I’m repeating myself aren’t I.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Z
Zundrah
Guest
LOL - I feel so spoilt!New Thread for Zundrah <<< - click on it.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
The Roman system of government and the Roman Catholic hierarchy are closely related in ways that are nothing less than causal.What you are describing is not the CC. We give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we give to God what is God’s.
No one can.
I know what the CC teaches about Catholics reading Scripture. I did say something about infallible interpretations, right?
When I want to better understand Scripture, I look at a variety of different commentaries. I make sure I get a variety of perspectives. Do you use the CCC in this way, as if it were one commentary among many fallible commentaries that bring different perspectives to the table? Have you ever disagreed with anything found within it? Do you believe any of it is in error?
In other words, do you believe it is fallible…but, by some lucky coincidence, never errs?
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m not sure if you think this is somehow significant or not but considering that the Church structures developed during the time of Kingdoms and Empires makes it highly likely that it’s structure would use many of the same elements. Even more so when one considers that a) The Roman empire AND the catholic Church governed vast areas and b) during the decline and fall of the western empire, the Catholic Church took over many governmental functions because the faithful looked to her for guidance and protection from the invading barbarians.
The CCC is not a commentary. It was not written by an individual such as some commetaries are. It was written by the collective mind of The Church to reflect the teaching of the Universal Church.
Just my 2c
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, you said this:
So what exactly are you saying, counts? Are you criticizing the CC for saying that laypersons cannot infallibly interpret something all by ourselves?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
And the person who led that council was?
L
luke1_28
Guest
The only Church to believe that what they are receiving is the actual Body and Blood of Christ is the only Church Christ intended to exist. Anything else is man made and deficient.
If you do not receive the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ - and merely consider it symbolic, then you receive nothing but bread and wine - or juice. Christ gave us His flesh and blood to eat because just as in the Old Testament - it wasn’t enough to just kill the lamb as a sacrifice…the lamb had to be eaten. It was the completion of the offering to God for the sins of men. A holy meal.
It was Christ Himself who said, “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life within you.” We know all that talk wasn’t symbolic because Christ did not chase after the ones who walked in John 6 who said it was too hard of a saying to accept. He didn’t care to chase after those who would not believe because they did not have the eyes of faith to see…and WHO authoritatively spoke on behalf of the rest of the Apostles when Christ asked of the Apostles if they were to leave too? Peter. The Rock. “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
The Eucharist - the Body and Blood of Christ offered on the altar cleanly and perfectly - is being observed daily in the only Church that Christ founded. In the Old Testament, the altar was ANYTHING but clean and perfect. It was blood stained and carcasses of dead animals were laid waste. The perfect Sacrifice is one identifying characteristic of the Church that Christ set up for man to worship Him perfectly, His Sacrifice on the altar and the consuming of this Sacrifice in the Last Supper. This is what makes the worship complete. Therefore, the Catholic Mass is made up of two parts. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In correlation and fulfillment of the Old Testament, it is the perfection of the worship in the synagogue AND the worship in the temple. He came to “make all things new” and not “make all things different”.
Because a man started your church. You do not have the Eucharist. God the Son started my Church. I have the Eucharist. Your services are not complete because you do not have the Eucharist. It goes without saying that your church IS deficient in light of all of what is recorded in Scripture. Even in the attempt to worship God through the use of Scripture like the Jews did in synagogue worship is slighted because again, a man started your church. By design, your pastor has no authority to teach. God started mine and through Apostolic Succession and the ordination of priests, my pastor has authority to preach.
I pray for nothing more than you will not see me as attacking you but instead that I am trying to help you. It isn’t about feelings and emotions and how church should make you feel good. It is about faith and the reality that man cannot save himself through LCD projectors beaming hymns of worship and praise. Man can only save himself by the offering of and consuming of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as God the Father wills it to be. This is how man was provided the opportunity to know The Way, The Truth, and The Life. This is how man can have Christ’s Life within him. Man didn’t make that up - Christ did.
God bless you,
luke1_28
L
luke1_28
Guest
A person directly appointed AND annointed by Christ to lead not just the council…but…drum roll please…the whole Church. All the Apostles were appointed this way. When those Apostles passed away, the office did not die with them. The succession was passed on…unbroken for 2000 years. Therefore…and you can quote me if you like…ALL Councils of the Church have been led by Christ appointed AND annointed men – because of Apostolic Succession.
God bless you,
luke1_28
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Since PR addressed me personally, “Really, Grace?”, I take it that his comments are indeed directed at me personally.
Reasonable? Implausible, but not impossible.
Now please remember that this is Christ’s Body. The body for whom he prayed they be “One as He and the Father Are One”. How much more united in thought could there be. Also this it is the same body that St Paul exhorted over and over to be “Of One Mind”.
Given Christ’s prayer for unity, how can we, as christians, claim that such opposing view are acceptable?
I have said before and will say again that the Protestant notion of individual, Spirit led interpretation is a noble and even scripture supportable notion. However, in practice it has not worked out so well. If there was only one, two or at most, three NCC (protestant) groups, then one might have an argument for “Spirit Guided” interpretation, but not several thousand different belief systems.
The mere fact of this “denominationalism” is a very strong argument for the universal authority of The Church, which Christ Himself speaks of in Mt 18:15-18, for without a prayerful and authoritative group, such doctrinal differences cannot be overcome.
Peace
James
Denominations? Have you ever consdered the roots of the tern? To denominate, as in bills of different denominations, means that we recognize differences between objects that are still all of one class. It is possible to have many denominations of currency and it all to be legal tender whether it be a $1 bill or $5, $10, $20, and so on. And a $50 bill while of more value to you and me than a $20 , isn’t actually any more legal tender than that $20bill or any less than a $100.
Now you may raise the question of counterfeiting, or other countries’ currency. And those are relevent points. And so I do agree that there are some truths that must be. Jesus Christ is God incarnate, died on the cross as an atonement for our sins, and there reconciles us back with the Father. By his resurrection he makes possible the ultimate victory over both sin and death. Those who believe in his work are saved and are to live lives worthy of their calling in Christ Jesus.
But there are some things that are not truths, but traditions and practices of the church: Lent is 40 days long. We worship on the Lord’s day. One should genuflect and make the sign of the cross on entering the sanctuary. Now, no doubt there are some who think these things are all to be kept inviolate. Yet, while I would agree all are important and valuable, not one of those things has always been the practice of even the Catholic church. Thus the Catholic church recognizes, even within itself, that what may be an article of truth for one person, need not be so for everyone, and yet all can be part of the same church. Are these different truths? Or are these allowing that what one person calls truth may not really be truth after all? Well, I suppose the answer question will vary with who you are asking? Do I ask the person who holds them all sacrosanct? Or do I ask one who does not?
And who decides? You say that the authority for that rests in the teaching magestrium of the Catholic church. I say that this very concept is one of those things that you hold sacrosanct that I do not. I simply do not see it following from scripture, and so I see you claiming something as true, that I see as a counterfeit. It may be the biggest bill in your wallet, but unlike some of those lesser denominations, that particular denomination you are lifting up has no value. So, if there is to be only one truth, then I find that it is the Catholic church that has succombed to error. For it has misinterpreted the meaning of Christ, and applied it in a way he did not intend for it to be understood. It may choose to live with that intepretation, but that does not mean that it has the right interpretation. And saying that it does and others are wrong does not make it so. When I apply scripture, reason, church tradition and experience to the question of whether or not the teachings of the Catholic church are true to the exclusion of others, I find that the Catholic church’s response fails to provide an answer that rings true.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
No. I am not laboring under such an assumption. The assumption I labor under is that “an assembly of all who believe in him as their Lord and Savior” and an “Institution” are not necessarily identical to one another. I believe it is most likely that the institution is contained within the assembly, but that the assembly cannot be fully contained with the Institution.
- The Idea that anywhere 2 or 3 are gathered is just as much the “Church” Christ founded as any other 2 or 3 gathered in His name. However, if you look carefully at Mt 18: 15-18 you’ll note that in step two of the instructions, two ro three witnesses are to be brought into the discussion - and if this does not resolve the issue THEN they are to “Tell It To The Church”. This clearly indicates an Authority that is final, and is larger than the “2or 3” mentioned later.
In that verse Jesus mentions that where 2 or 3 gather and ask for anything in His name it will be granted. This is not the same as saying that two or three consitute “The Church”.
I assert that that the gathering of all those believers is the Church.
Why do I say that, because the word we translate into English as “Church” is the word “ecclesia.” And the term 'ecclesia" in Greek is not just for Christian gatherings; the term simply means “assembly”. A crowd gathered in a courtroom to hear the sentence passed on a man on trial was an ecclesia just as much as an assembly of persons gathered to worship. Of course the Christian community took over and reshaped that word so that by the time that Paul uses it, he means specifically a Christian assembly. But when Jesus uses it, it doesn’t mean Church in the same sense that we mean it today. He means if the brother won’t listen to 2 or 3, then tell it to the assembly. He is given advice on not making things big right away. For Paul, however, the assembly is that which is gathered in Christ’s name, and that is what makes it a Church. Hence, any assembly that is gathered in Christ’s name is a part of this larger community that we all belong to, the body of Christ. So, you have a visible assembly of people and you have a larger community and both of these are the body of Christ. The smaller group meeting in a home is a church – in Greek an assembly of believer, in Hebrew a synagouge (or congregation) of followers. And the collection of all of these groups meeting scatterd around the world is also the Church, which is the body of Christ.
So, while a local congregation is a church, in a larger sense the Church is inclusive of all who should they walk into the congregation’s gathering would also be a part of it for they are brothers and sisters of one another in Christ. To deny that they are all of one Church is to deny that they are brothers and sisters in Christ.
And my understanding is then that though we are not of the same denomination, and don’t have the same temporal authority over us, that we are call called to unity as well. That unity is catholic (my enphasis on the small “c” to distinguish it from institutional forms of Catholicism) because despite some difference we still have one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And, YES. I would assert that though you are Catholic and I am not, that we still have one faith. Not all of our beliefs are identical. But again, as I have found myself reminding folks of quite a bit lately, No two people, even if they are both Catholic, have identical beliefs. The quesiton is do we have common beliefs? And we do, for we are both, as you have testified, in the body of Christ. And in that context, I find this passage applies fully:
“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4-6).
You recognize God. I recognize God. We both agree that he is over all and through all and in all.
We share a common baptism.
We share a common faith in the one who to which we are called.
We acknowledge one Lord.
We agree that there is one Spirit.
We we recognize one another as belonging to the same one body.
You call it the Catholic church, and I call it the catholic Church. Our only difference is in our definition of what to name the body. But we are still of one body. And, afterall, isn’t that what is really important?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Sts. Peter and James - Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Which one of them made the judgement that “that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”?Sts. Peter and James - Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.
J
jmcrae
Guest
That was the consensus of the Council, as expressed by St. James in his summarizing statement. (St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem; it was his role as host to do this, once St. Peter had spoken and rendered the judgement, which we see in the previous few verses. At that time, St. Peter was both Pope and Bishop of Antioch. He was not taken away to Rome until quite a bit later.)
- Status