SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[BHTech]

I’m not that familiar with Lutheran doctrines. However I would think that Lutherans and southern Baptist believe in the core doctrines such as the deity of Christ and that He died for our sins. What they would probably differ on are issues like communion and infant baptism.

Is not communion and infant baptism doctrinal issues? How then is there is a difference? Could you please provide me with a list of core doctrines and time permitting not so core doctrines?

what did Jesus mean that they would be of one fold with one shepherd then? Does it mean that all Christians must worship identically and in exactly the same way?

I was hoping you would tell me what one fold means?

I am since the Scriptures attest that God is Trinitarian. In fact catholics would agree with my position also.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible. What makes you correct over others? Saying you are correct is about the same as the normal baptists saying they are correct. Southern Baptists don’t regard the other Baptists as doctrinally sound or correct?

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3601568]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What then is the difference besides it not being human?
mercygate
I admit, I’m stumped by this question. What do you mean “not human?” Christ is perfectly human and perfectly divine. In the Blessed Sacrament He is fully present: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

.

The host has no qualities of being human. There is no human blood of flesh present in the host.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3601897]This thread is for you, ja4, but that does not mean it is ok to derail it. If you want to start the mudslinging and stone throwing on these favorite topics, please open a new thread. I would be interested to know what you think the Church taught on these subjects.

The Catholic Church was given the authority by Christ to teach the faith as He taught it to them. Therefore, the Church has the authority to determine whether doctrine is consistent with the Teaching they received. Defining and explaining the Truth are core functions of the Church. The Church, in the course of teaching the apostolic faith, sometimes must condemn errors. She does not do this in a personal way, but points to the error of faith and morals.

You will not be able to grasp these facts just yet, ja4, because you are still stuck on the elementary things.

Certainly there are divisions and disagreements among the individuals in the Church. However, to the extent that one does not embrace the true Apostolic Teaching, then they are not Catholic. Many persons who call themselves Catholic are actually Protestant, and don’t realize it. The group you mention is a schismatic group. The unity is in the doctrine. Those who embrace the doctrine are in unity with one another.

You have been given many examples on many threads for over a year. I do not think you are ready for this information.

You are letting your anti-Catholic hatred get the better of you again, ja4. And it was so peaceful for a few days! If you absolutely need to find fault with the Church on this point, it will need to go on another thread. Unless, of course, you can find a way to relate it to the topic.

It is not difficult at all, ja4. Unless, of course one does not know how to follow the instructions in scripture, where is is clearly shown that one is to go to the brother and tell them their fault.

Although these two things are also true, neither is the motive. The motive is to convert Catholics into “bible Christians”.

QUOTE=justasking4;3600060]I’m asking for the proof for the “**verbal transmission **of Traditions within the Church”. How are you going to demonstrate for example what an apostle taught verbally if its not written down?
Can you do that?

I don’t think these things ought to be “demonstrated” to the uninitiated. That is one reason they are called Divine Mysteries.

You are free to believe this, ja4. However, what is puzzling is why you come to a Catholic Board, and try to assert such a thing to people that know otherwise. Do you really believe that by repeating your private interpretation of the faith that you will be able to get us to abandon the precious and sacred teachings we have from the Apostles? Nope. :nope: Not even if you were an angel, which, as demonstrated by your posts, you are not.

I was wondering how long it would take you to respond. i was begining to almost miss you… Welcome back… :clapping: :dancing:

 

[BHTech]

.

The host has no qualities of being human. There is no human blood of flesh present in the host.

Neither can you see the air you breathe but you are alive because of it.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
.

The host has no qualities of being human. There is no human blood of flesh present in the host.

Neither can you see the air you breathe but you are alive because of it.

This does not change the nature of air though. What is being claim by the church is a change has taken place but there is no evidence for it.

 

[BHTech]

This does not change the nature of air though.

Exactly. You have prove my point. You can’t see it but its there .

What is being claim by the church is a change has taken place but there is no evidence for it.

Don’t forget you have questions on the Southern Baptists to answer. . A doctrinal list of core and non core issues would be helpful to me.

Do you have hard, concrete and fast physical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Can you provide it?

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[savedsinner]

.

The host has no qualities of being human. There is no human blood of flesh present in the host.

Well, not most of the time in the way you mean, but it does occur occasionally in Eucharistic miracles.
http://www.concernedcatholics.org/graphics/host-2.jpg

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3602208]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This does not change the nature of air though.

BHTech
Exactly. You have prove my point. You can’t see it but its there .

Air being invisible is part of its nature. Its still air even though i can’t see it. What is being claimed though with the host is that a change has taken place and there is no evidence for it.
When Jesus did miracles there was always a change that was observable to the senses. We don’t see that at the Last Supper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is being claim by the church is a change has taken place but there is no evidence for it.
BHTech
Don’t forget you have questions on the Southern Baptists to answer. . A doctrinal list of core and non core issues would be helpful to me.

Here is a somewhat complete list of core doctrines that must be believed:

A doctrine must be regarded as fundamental if eternal life depends on it.
Eternal life is obtained through the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Since Jesus Himself is the true God incarnate (1 John 5:20; John 8:58; 10:30), the fact of His deity (and by implication the whole doctrine of the Trinity) is a fundamental article of faith (see 1 John 2:23). Our Lord Himself confirmed this when He said all must honor Him as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

The truths of Jesus’ divine Sonship and Messiahship are also fundamental articles of faith (John 20:31).

**Resurrection of Christ **
Of course, the bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental doctrine, because 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells us, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”
The Lordship of Christ **
Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of Christ. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
**
Man is justified in Christ only
And according to Romans 4:4-5, justification by faith is a fundamental doctrine as well: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

Must have faith in God:“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

Love for Christ
First Corinthians 16:22 makes love for Christ a fundamental issue: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” And a similar verse, 1 Corinthians 12:3, says that no one speaking by the Spirit of God can call Jesus accursed.
Belief that Christ is God
The truth of Jesus’ incarnation is also clearly designated a fundamental doctrine: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3). “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). Those verses by implication also condemn those who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord, for if He was not virgin-born, He would be merely human, not eternal God come in the flesh.
These are probably thee most important doctrines that must be believed.

To reject them is condemn yourself.

Other doctrines that are important but unbelief in them would not condemn you:

1. the fall of man
2. worship services
3. how much to give

Do you have hard, concrete and fast physical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Can you provide it?

I think I Corinthians 15:1-8 is the best evidence for the resurrection. Such evidence would hold well in a court of law.

Brent

 

[justasking4]

bnapgh;3601658]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not necessarily so. We should never just accept what a church teaches without first examining it as I Thessolians 5:21 exhorts us to.

bnapgh;
You mean this citation?

Quote:
19 Extinguish not the spirit. 20 Despise not prophecies. 21 But prove all things: hold fast that which is good.

Now, who exactly will tell us what ‘‘that which is good’’ means?
Can everyone do this on his/her own?

If you study the scriptures you will find what “good” means. Study the Lord Jesus and you will find what good is.

What did Peter say?

2 Peter 3:

Quote:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

If ANY disciple may misinterpret scriptures to his/her own destruction, then who can disciples rely on to know what is the ‘‘good’’ to which we should hold fast?

Followers of Christ have a responsibility to grow in the knowledge of Christ. If you are growing in your faith you will become more discerning about these things. There are also good and knowledgeable teachers that we can rely on and can help us. I’m sure there are some good teachers in the catholic church.

Now who does Scripture tell us can explain such interpretations with the Grace of the Paraclete?

Pastor-teachers and elders have this responsilbity as do other teachers.

Who can we be most certain that the Paraclete will remain with ‘‘for ever’’, so as to assure all disciples ‘‘for ever’’ of the fidelity of interpretation?

Hmmmm?

If you are referring to John 16:12-15 this was promised to those disciples in the room with Him and who would be in part responisble for the NT.

 

[BHTech]

Air being invisible is part of its nature. Its still air even though i can’t see it.

The point is that you believe it even though you can’t see it. That is the point my friend. You can’t see God but you believe in a God. None of your senses reveal God but you believe in God.

What is being claimed though with the host is that a change has taken place and there is no evidence for it.

We call it faith.

When Jesus did miracles there was always a change that was observable to the senses. We don’t see that at the Last Supper.

Hmmm… Does it not stand to reason that God can do what he want to do? Can he not suspend his own laws if he chooses? Yes or No? Or is he incapable of something like this?

Here is a somewhat complete list of core doctrines that must be believed:…

I will examine your doctrines and get back to you on them. I’m time limited at the moment. You missed my other questions but I will let it slip for the moment.

I think I Corinthians 15:1-8 is the best evidence for the resurrection. Such evidence would hold well in a court of law.

You think or you know? Something written 2000 years ago on a piece of paper is evidence?

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3602429]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Air being invisible is part of its nature. Its still air even though i can’t see it.

BHTech
The point is that you believe it even though you can’t see it. That is the point my friend. You can’t see God but you believe in a God. None of your senses reveal God but you believe in God.

But we do have evidence for Him in nature and in our hearts. Some of this does involove our senses. We also have in the scriptures and most clearly in the Lord Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is being claimed though with the host is that a change has taken place and there is no evidence for it.

BHTech
We call it faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When Jesus did miracles there was always a change that was observable to the senses. We don’t see that at the Last Supper.

BHTech
Hmmm… Does it not stand to reason that God can do what he want to do? Can he not suspend his own laws if he chooses? Yes or No? Or is he incapable of something like this?

I suppose so. We believe God could do all kinds of things. Thats not the issue though. The issue here is: did He do it and if He did what is the evidence for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Here is a somewhat complete list of core doctrines that must be believed:…
BHTech
I will examine your doctrines and get back to you on them. I’m time limited at the moment. You missed my other questions but I will let it slip for the moment.

We can deal with that later if you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I think I Corinthians 15:1-8 is the best evidence for the resurrection. Such evidence would hold well in a court of law.

BHTech
You think or you know? Something written 2000 years ago on a piece of paper is evidence?

Absolutely. We believe all kinds of things on far less evidence and on “pieces of paper” at that.
There are a lot of excellent books and articles on this. I highly recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The other is a lot older and its called Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

You should be able to get these on Amazon. These books should be in every Christian’ library.

 

[guanophore]

Of course answers are going to be different since catholics don’t all believe or understand in the same way. Its true of protestants to.

Persons who are not in unity with the doctrine are not Catholic. Calling themselves Catholic will not make it so.

It is much the same as you repeating that God (acting through His Body) can make errors. Saying it over and over will not make it true.

He also gave that to protestant churches. They have a mandate to spread the gospel message and build believers up in the faith.

Really!? Where in the Bible does God give a mandate to spread the gospel to anyone who is not in union with the Apostolic Teaching?

No church is infallible and incapable of error. It can be right on some things and wrong on others.

Since you seem to believe this so strongly, ja4, why are you on a Catholic Board, since you know that we believe differently? How is it you are unable to accept the differences, and move on?

What makes you think i have such ability? Who has left the catholic church because of my posts?

No one says you have the ability. It is just being pointed out that this has been your stated intention. The username of 'justasking" is disingenuous, because you are not really interested in our answers. You already have your own answers. On the contrary, you use CAF as a venue to ply your hostilities toward the Catholic faith. Many of us once shared these hostilities, bigotries, and prejudices with you. Been there, done that, got healed. You are not fooling anyone here.

Where do the apostles teach that the bread and wine becomes God?

This is considered one of the mysteries, and being as how you are still working on the fundamentals (elementary) aspects, I think you are not really ready for that yet. Anyway, it is also off topic.

Are you referring to Acts 22:16 in regards to “baptism washes away our sins”?

Also off topic. There are many scriptures that speak to this doctrine. If you are really interested, you can search the threads on baptism.

I have and continue to listen to a lot of catholic stuff. Also read a lot of catholic articles.

I am sure that the HS is able to melt the hardness of your heart.

Where do they give you this authority?

I think authority is probably not the best word to describe it. I think discernment is better. Each of us has the responsibility to “judge with right judgement”. The authority belongs to the church, and only protects individuals to the extent they are in union with Her.

Do you apply this to your own church or are you forced to accept what they teach even though you may have some problems with it? For example just recently as you may know there is a movement on in the catholic church to declare Mary as “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
Would you have a problem believing and accepting all this since it would come from the highest authority in the catholic church?

ja4, such a formulation indicates a person who has been deeply wounded by people in positions of authority. No one is “forced to accept” anything by the Church. Jesus invites all to salvation. The Church is the way He established the invitation be made to the world. I am not at all sure that anyone can be “forced” to believe - maybe through torture and brainwashing. Did something like that happen to you, to give you this world view about authority?

You also has other people in history as i noted previously that validate my position.

True. There has never been a lack of hatred toward Christ’s Church, or a limit on protesters against Him.

That would take a lot of research that would go far beyond this forum. I would think there would be a large number that got it right.

No, ja4, that is no “beyond this forum”. If you don’t want to reasearch it now, or you don’t really know the answer, that is ok, but it is not because it cannot be done here.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3602547]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you apply this to your own church or are you forced to accept what they teach even though you may have some problems with it? For example just recently as you may know there is a movement on in the catholic church to declare Mary as “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
Would you have a problem believing and accepting all this since it would come from the highest authority in the catholic church?

guanophore
ja4, such a formulation indicates a person who has been deeply wounded by people in positions of authority. No one is “forced to accept” anything by the Church. Jesus invites all to salvation. The Church is the way He established the invitation be made to the world. I am not at all sure that anyone can be “forced” to believe - maybe through torture and brainwashing. Did something like that happen to you, to give you this world view about authority?

Lets see if a catholic is forced to believe or not. Here is what Pius said about those who rejected his proclaimation about Mary immaculate conception:
This solemnly proclaimed doctrine is expressly termed a “doctrine revealed by God”. Pope Pius IX adds that it must be “firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful”. Consequently, whoever does not make this doctrine his own, or maintains an opinion contrary to it, “is shipwrecked in faith” and “separates himself from Catholic unity”.

This is clearly a threat to all catholics to believe this and if they don’t they are essentially condemning themselves in the process since it is only through the catholic church a person can be saved. This is a classic example of being in a sense forced to believe something.

 

[guanophore]

Why would they need to be united under one name or denomination? Whether a person calls themselves a baptist or Evergreen church is irrelevant so long as they are teaching the correct doctrines.

The function of the pastor and elders in a church have this responsiblity guided by the Scriptures.

So you think that Jesus is basically not interested in unity?

Who is the “one” shepherd that Jesus identifies in john 10:16? I don’t see Him pointing out Peter in this chapter as that shepherd.

Not until later.
One generally does not need a vicar until one is absent.

Secondly, there was not a supreme i.e. one leader for the entire church for centuries after the apostles.

Nor is there today, except in the mind of ja4. The leadership of Jesus is a servant leadership, and has nothing to do whatever with “supremacy”. In fact, for the last century we have been blessed to have popes of great humility.

This just happens to be one of your favorite axes to grind, one which I note, is off topic here.

Thirdly, where in Peter’s letters do we see him identifying himself as this “one” shepherd that Jesus mentions?

If you need to discuss the issue of unity around the one Shepherd, then I suggest we open another thread, or use one of the ones open on this topic. There was no disunity among the Apostles, or between them an the Head. If you do not wish to be in unity with the successor of Peter, that is you perogative, but why attack those of us that do? How is our unity a detraction for your faith?

We have differences of understanding that i pointed out earlier. Its part of the human fallen condition. Its true also in the catholic church also. There is a wide range of interpretation of the scriptures in the catholic church. Are you aware that the catholic church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures ?

Another one of your favorite stinkbombs. Off topic, and inaccurate.

How so? Where does Jesus identify this “ONE Flock bit”? What exactly is it?

How is this in ANY way related to the topic? Is there some reason you don’t want to talk about Tradition? Could it be that your questions have been answered, and that you are not able to pursuade anyone here to your narrow viewpoint?

Not so. I’m trying to understand what they mean just as you are. Can you tell specifically what they mean i.e. where your church has interpreted this verse (John 10:16)?

Catholics don’t need to separate verses out and interpret them peicemeal. The Apostolic Teaching makes it quite clear how the verse is to be understood. However, I can’t see that it is related to the topic at all. You sure are doing a lot of spinning and bobbing today.

Not changing it at all but this must be part of this discussion. The catholic church claims to have this “shepherd” i.e. pope in which all of chriistianity to be unitied under.

How is that part of the discussion on the definition of Tradition? There is One Shepherd, who is Christ, and one flock, all who belong to Christ. Jesus ordained Peter to the task of strengthening the brethren (a charge He did not give to any other Apostles), and the Keys. Peter is joined to Christ in the work of shepherding the One Flock. I am sorry, ja4, that you find it so objectionable to realize that there are Catholics in the same flock. It is clear that you don’t want to be connected to us, and that you try as hard as you can to foment division, between yourself and us, and in between Catholics.

We need to since he supposely the first shepherd of the church.

What is this “need” that you have ja4? Since you don’t recognize him as your shepherd, how is that a “need” for you? How is it relevant to the thread topic?

What makes you think they have not? They would all claim that Christ is alone is the supreme Shepherd over the entire church.

If this is true, then they have fallen into the same secular mind about leadership as you have. Jesus Himself said He came not to be served, but to serve. He did not have an attitude of “supremacy”.

Has the catholic offically denounced and excomunicated them?

Why is it so important to you that this happen? Would this be a truimph of the divisiveness you are advocating? Most folks excommunicate themselves, so it does not have to be done by someone else. Truth is not always best served by “denouncing” those that don’t adhere to it. I know it seems to you that it is so important to “denounce” those that don’t believe as you do, but do you think it has really served you well here on CAF?

For example, is Mary the medatrix of all graces? Or is there salvation outside the catholic church? I have seen both position in the catholic church on these issues. Which one is the correct one?

How are either of these related to the topic? It seems to me that you are going thru your usual laundry list of complaints about the Church. If you don’t want to address the topic, ok, but can you take these topics elsewhere?

 

[guanophore]

Not necessarily so. We should never just accept what a church teaches without first examining it as I Thessolians 5:21 exhorts us to.

Has it ever occurred to you that the standard for the test was not the NT?

This demonstrates a number of things. One is that if the church is truly guided by the HS it can err or its not always guided by the HS which can also result in error.

No, ja4. What you are demonstrating is your lack of understanding about what the Church is. This is one of those elementary doctrines that needs work before you can get on to the more advanced material. Milk.

Is it a “truth of faith” that eating meat on Fridays during Lent is a sin?

It is a truth of faith that it is a sin to disobey those that God has put in authority over you. I know that is hard for you, because you seem to have been subject to abusive authority.

Look at the Marian dogmas. These doctrines have changed over time. The principle that Cardinal Neuman laid-- something called -"
Development of Christian Doctrine" if true would mean doctrines do change over time in that a great understanding would result in changes. This is what we see happening in the latest move to have Mary proclaimed to be “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity”. This would be a fundamental change in doctrine.

No, ja4, the priniciple was laid down by Christ when he was talking about the mustard seed growing into a tree, and when he told the Apostles they were not ready for everything yet. God’s truth is immutable. It never changes. Our ability to understand it may change. Accepting Mary as your spiritual mother would be a change for you, ja4, but not for Catholics.
Rejecting Mary as your mother means that you reject Jesus as your brother.

It is not possible to correct errors as easily when the authority is supposed to be infallible and being infallible would mean you cannot err even if you have the evidence of error.

Yes it is easy to correct. When error exists, it is easy to see that it is in the individuals. It is the doctrine that is infallible, and it is so because it came from Christ.

Here is an example from Trent. Trent called protestants heretics and condemned them. That has never been offically changed. It can’t since as far as i understand this was a kind of infallible council.

And this is an example of what, exactly?

Do you think the theologians of today have a greater understanding than those of a thousand years ago who had limited access to the scriptures?

That would depend upon how close they were to Apostolic Teaching. Clearly there were Sola Scriptura people in the Early Church too, who formed different doctrines and separated themselves from the Apostles’ teaching. What affects this is the adherance to the Teachings, not the number of years that have passed, or the level of “scholarship”.

Is it not true there has not always been 7 sacraments in the church?

Is this related to the topic?

At this point in history i don’t see Protestants going away anytime soon and its been over 500 years.

Indeed, every year they seem to go further and further away! The first Reformers would be spinning in their graves to read some of these posts!

Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct.

What does ANY Of that post have to do with the TOPIC! You are just machine gunning your unresolved issues. I agree, you are being obstinant just for the sake of being obstinant. You are not presenting a mind or heart that is open to learning. When the scripture speaks of longing for pure milk like a newborn babe, it is not talking about an obstinant 2 year old that just says “no” to everything! what is your goal here, ja4? What sort of strange needs to you get by doing this?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3602607]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why would they need to be united under one name or denomination? Whether a person calls themselves a baptist or Evergreen church is irrelevant so long as they are teaching the correct doctrines.

The function of the pastor and elders in a church have this responsiblity guided by the Scriptures.
guanophore;
So you think that Jesus is basically not interested in unity?

They are united on the essential doctrines of the faith.

Not until later.
One generally does not need a vicar until one is absent.

Even Peter does not refer to himself as the chief shepherd. We see this in I Peter 5:4.
Nor do we see the other apostles refer to him as the chief shepherd.

Nor is there today, except in the mind of ja4. The leadership of Jesus is a servant leadership, and has nothing to do whatever with “supremacy”. In fact, for the last century we have been blessed to have popes of great humility.

They also have great power and influence in the catholic church though. Do you consider the kissing the ring i.e.Ring of the Fisherman, or the Pescatorio in Italian that the pope wears a sign of humilty?

 

[guanophore]

Congratulations, by the way, for all you machine gunning, you did a great job on the quotes!

I thought a person was not excomunicated until they were offically told. Secondly, are you saying there is a difference between being excomunicated and separated?

Most people excommunicate themselves. Yes. A person has to be in communion in order to be "ex"ed. Protestants are called separated because most were never in communion, or are people like you, who obstantly refuse communion.

I’m not trying to be a smart alec about this but trying to understand what the disciples thought by their reactions to what He had just said.

You would have to take into account that jello that you believe does not exist. We know what they meant by how they lived. That is one of the advanced parts of the faith, and not available to one at elementary level such as yourself.

Do you not “show reverence” to the host when there is a Eurachristic Adoration by bowing towards it?

Reverence is shown to Christ, present in the Blessed Sacrament.

It is true i could read all there is about the catholic faith and be done with it.

Hasn’t this already happened? I thought you were “done” with the Catholic faith a long time ago?

However that would still not tell me how individual catholics believe. Secondly i think its important to discuss these matters

Why is this important to you? It seems to me that you just are interested in bullyragging Catholics about their beliefs, and advance misinformation about our Faith.

and i have respected catholic beliefs even though i don't agree with many of them.

:bigyikes:

I would love to see that post! I wonder what disrespect from you would look like, if all the bigotry you post here counts as respectful?

On this particular issue this is not an easy thing to articulate nor believe.

I agree. I recommend that you stick with the basics first, then move on to the deeper matters after a good foundation is laid.

How so? If Jesus is now saying that He has somehow “become” the bread and wine via transubnation then it would follow that He would have another nature i.e. the intrinsic or essential character of somebody or something. Do you not believe that the bread and wine is now somehow Jesus?

No, ja4, it does not “follow”. Jesus stated that the flesh is of “no avail” in understanding this mystery. What He means is that it is a divine mystery apprehended only by faith, and not by reason. It is impossible to understand it with the fleshly mind.

 

[justasking4]

Congratulations, by the way, for all you machine gunning, you did a great job on the quotes!

Most people excommunicate themselves. Yes. A person has to be in communion in order to be "ex"ed. Protestants are called separated because most were never in communion, or are people like you, who obstantly refuse communion.

You would have to take into account that jello that you believe does not exist. We know what they meant by how they lived. That is one of the advanced parts of the faith, and not available to one at elementary level such as yourself.

Reverence is shown to Christ, present in the Blessed Sacrament.

Hasn’t this already happened? I thought you were “done” with the Catholic faith a long time ago?

Why is this important to you? It seems to me that you just are interested in bullyragging Catholics about their beliefs, and advance misinformation about our Faith.

:bigyikes:

I would love to see that post! I wonder what disrespect from you would look like, if all the bigotry you post here counts as respectful?

I agree. I recommend that you stick with the basics first, then move on to the deeper matters after a good foundation is laid.

No, ja4, it does not “follow”. Jesus stated that the flesh is of “no avail” in understanding this mystery. What He means is that it is a divine mystery apprehended only by faith, and not by reason. It is impossible to understand it with the fleshly mind.

You must have had a bad hair day. Your nastier than i have ever seen you…:bigyikes:

 

[grandfather]

what did Jesus mean that they would be of one fold with one shepherd then? Does it mean that all Christians must worship identically and in exactly the same way?

 

[guanophore]

This would open up a whole big discussion and i’m not sure i could give it right now what it deserves. This would be a good discussion to have.

There is already a thread running on this topic. Please don’t do it here unless you can relate it to the Topic.

To include all the different protestant churches and denominations would take days and countless posts. Instead i chose a major denomination to look at. Lutherans, Anglicans etc i think would agree on the essentials but have differences of opinions on non-essentials or less important doctrines and practices. Even here it gets dicey.

Very dicey. For one thing, where in the Bible is the list that says “these are essentials” and the other list that says “these are non-essentials”?

The Scriptures don’t require it. It says nothing about how these things are to be done and in what way.

Sure it does! It says that we are to worship in Spirit and in Truth. Who decides that that is?

Actually, Paul has quite a bit to say to the Church in Corinth about what is to be done, not done, and in what way.

No. Oneness theology denies the Trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the faith.

According to whom? Chapter and verse, please.

Lets see if a catholic is forced to believe or not. Here is what Pius said about those who rejected his proclaimation about Mary immaculate conception:
This solemnly proclaimed doctrine is expressly termed a “doctrine revealed by God”. Pope Pius IX adds that it must be “firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful”. Consequently, whoever does not make this doctrine his own, or maintains an opinion contrary to it, “is shipwrecked in faith” and “separates himself from Catholic unity”.

This is clearly a threat to all catholics to believe this and if they don’t they are essentially condemning themselves in the process since it is only through the catholic church a person can be saved. This is a classic example of being in a sense forced to believe something.

It is sad to see that you find these pastoral words as threatening. I would think that you would agree100% that a lack of faith in divine revelation would shipwreck a person, and separate a person from God. If faith is what joins us to Him, does it not follow that a lack of faith will separate us?

In any case, no one is saved by “threats”! I suppose that there are some who convert because of the fear of hell. It is the duty of the Church to warn people before they shipwreck themselves, or separate themselves from the faith that is saving them. There is no force involved. If a person chooses to shipwreck their faith, or abandon the Church, that is their perogative!

Even Peter does not refer to himself as the chief shepherd. We see this in I Peter 5:4.
Nor do we see the other apostles refer to him as the chief shepherd.

What is the pre-occupation you have with chiefdom and supremacy? Peter acknowledges Jesus as the shepherd and guardian of souls, as he should. Holding the Keys and receiving the Petrine gift did not inflate Peter.

They also have great power and influence in the catholic church though. Do you consider the kissing the ring i.e.Ring of the Fisherman, or the Pescatorio in Italian that the pope wears a sign of humilty?

I think you are pre-occupied with the secular understanding of “power”. In fact, the Pope feels like his own life is not HIs own anymore. He said as much. He has given himself completely over to the service of God’s Church.

Yes, I would consider kissing the Pope’s ring a great act of humility on my part. It would be a way of acknowledging obedience to him as the successor of Peter. I am not sure about the significance of all the clothing he wears, but I am impressed that he put the Tiara in storage, and only wears the bishops miter.

Why is it so important for you to find fault with the Catholic Church at every turn? What benefit does it do to malign holy men like Benedict xvi?