The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Grace_Seeker]

And upon that misinterpretation of scripture you’ve built your faith. Why don’t you refer back to the Greek. It says Peter is Petros and Jesus is the Petra. The Holy Ghost wrote that in Greek.

I agree that the interpretation that the Catholic Church gives to Matthew 16:18 is a misapplication. But it is not a greater misinterpretation than what you have provided. I believe you make too much of the difference between petros and petra. I quote from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. The author of the quoted section is D.A. Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (a rather conservative protestant school).

The Greek Kephas (English “Cephas”) transliterates the Aramaic, and Petros (“Peter”) is the closest Greek translation. Lampe’s argument that both kepa and petros originally referred to a small “stone”, but not a “rock” (on which something could be built), until Christians extended the term to explain the riddle of Simon’s name is baseless. True, the Greek petros commonly means “stone” in pre-Christian literature; but the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means “(massive) rock”… If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter… The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine of petra could not very well serve as a masculine name… Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun–and that is just the point!

None of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed. The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And… I don’t know of any baptist that believes Peter was the Rock. Jesus is the rock. There can’t be two rocks.

And now you do. Before becoming professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dr. Carson earned his M.Div at Baptist Seminary in Toronto, he was a Baptist pastor and a professor and dean at Northwest Baptist Theological College in Vancouver before joining the faculty at Trinity. He is one of the most respected authors in all of conservative evangelical biblical schloarship.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Baptism comes from a word that means “to cover in water.”

There is no way to have baptism without having “water baptism.” The term “water baptism” is a nonsensical repetition of terms - it means “water covered in water.”

It is also impossible to be “without water, covered in water.”

Well, I might as well be an equal opportunity refuter.

Baptism, if speaking of the word only and not a religious rite, does NOT require water. The word bapto means dip and baptizo to dip, immerse, or submerge.

In secular Greek (hence why I said if we take it without any religious inferences) bapto could be used to refer to dipping something like cloth into a dye.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

you might belong to the Body of Christ… because of your water and Holy Spirit baptism…

but

you sure don’t belong to the one Church founded by Jesus

OK. I know this might have been directed at a particular individual, but I think it is very pertinent to the whole of the original discussion here.

How is it that a person, anyone, could belong to the Body of Christ, but not belong to the Church? As I see it, the body of Christ is synonymous with the Church. They are one and the same.

 

[nerfherder]

I was not intending to patronizing. In my reading of the post that was answering you were being a bit confrontational. You did sound to me like you wanted only straight yes or no answers, and you said nobody had the guts or something to that effect to give them. I gave them straight up in binary yes or no, black or white fashion save for question one which I don’t believe can be answered in that fashion in ANY kind of dialog. Anything I would give you would be from stuff you’re apparently already reading, and judging by your further prompting, you DO want to have explanations. However, the explanations you’re going to get are always going to be open to challenge. Religion and theology still boil down to faith in the end. I was moved by God to my beliefs in a way in which I can not explain. It was sincerely profound to a point where I’m set. I too still study constantly, but from a different position. I read now from a position of increasing my knowledge, not looking to challenge what I was already blessed to receive.

I was lucky. I know this. It only took 30 years. I think what’s best is that I stay out of the contentious threads for a while. Seriously. I’ve found myself growing a bit testy the past couple days on this forum, and that’s not a good thing at any time really. Let alone when you’re wanting to win souls. Sorry if I offended, and Peace be with you. I hope you one day find whatever the heck this is that finally got a hold of me. There are no words.

Steven

I understand completely. I was grateful that you replied, and mostly grateful for the reply. I too am utterly exhausted and tend to be grumpy after four weeks on the Forum, much of it as target, and this has both distracted me, and detracted from other aspects -much more important I feel - of my spiritual journey. I keep promising myself - and Christ - that I will stop, but I am completely undisciplined about this.

Peace also to you. I hope that this blessed time will be fruitful for you, and that you will find joy after despair. This is my first Easter in a Catholic context, so it is all new, revealing, and I realise how far I have to go, although not as far as I first anticipated. My spiritual directors have been great blessings, and I thank God for their strong hearts and even stronger faith. And I thank Him too for people like you who take the wider path of faith.

Blessings,

Carol

Carol Coombe
International Advisor on HIV and Education
184 Lisdogan Avenue
Pretoria 0083
South Africa
Phone 27+12+342 2857
Cell 27+(0)82 923 0477
Fax 27+12+342 6320
Email coombe@mweb.co.za

 

[guanophore]

did you mean to say that

All members of His Church are part of the Body of Christ
but
not all members of the Body of Christ are members of the Catholic Church

??

Yes and no. All members of Christ are by default members of His Body, which is the church. The visible church is larger than the visible (Catholic) church. However, since there is only one Church, and all Christians are members of it, in some sense they are all catholic, though most do not realize this (and would be very upset to learn it, I don’t doubt). They are “separated brethren” because they have pursued doctrines that have prevented them from the fullness of Christ’s revelation.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks truly for all your observations, although it is difficult for me to agree with all of them.

We do our best.

How are we sure this got sorted out correctly? Was it through divine inspiration as a result of prayer, or negotiation, or what? What ensured that the succession remained properly intact? This seems to be a critically important point that is rarely discussed in the same breath as the security of apostolic succession.

Let me try to give an analogy.

Imagine that every child in a family has a copy of a safety deposit key. Now, the only person who is allowed to use that key is the father of the family.

We’ll pretend for the purposes of illustration that the custom of this particular family is that only one person at a time will have access to the safety deposit box. But at the same time, in order to ensure that access to the safety deposit box is never limited by anything except the complete destruction of the family, all of the children are given copies of the key. By some means, the bank manager is aware of and abides by this custom.

Something happens to the father; he is called away to an unknown country for an extended period of time. So, he appoints the eldest to be the one who has access to the safety deposit box, and makes the necessary arrangements with the bank.

Shortly after that, something happens to the eldest child - he is suddenly murdered by enemies of the family, without having had any opportunity to appoint his successor.

After an appropriate period of mourning, the remaining children draw lots among themselves to see which of them will be the one to have legal access to the safety deposit box.

But, the results are inconclusive, and three of the children come under the impression that they have been selected.

All three of them show up at the bank with their keys, claiming the right to access the box.

The bank manager tells them, “I can give access to one of you, but not to all three of you.” He then arbitrarily appoints one of them to be a temporary guardian of the box until a resolution to the dilemma is found.

So, they return home, draw lots again, and this time, one of the children is the clear choice - all of the children then agree that he is the one, and he begins to exercise his authority to access the safety deposit box on behalf of the whole family.

During the period when it was uncertain which of the children had legal access to the box, didn’t all of the children still have their keys?

And when one of the children was finally appointed in a clear manner, did the period of confusion do anything to take away his ability to have custody of the key, or to know how to be the administrator of the safety deposit box?

This is how it is with the Bishops. All of them have received the laying on of hands at the time that they became Bishops. They normally receive this from the Pope, which means that they have the Succession (by the laying on of hands) that goes back to the time of Christ. They have the “keys” of Matthew 16:18. (See Isaiah 22:22.)

But, just as Peter alone among the Apostles had the go-ahead to exercise that authority, in the same way, from that time until this, only one Bishop at a time (by custom, the Bishop of Rome) has the authority to exercise the power of the keys.

But if Rome were to be hit by a nuclear bomb, any Catholic Bishop (and indeed, any celibate Catholic male, assuming there is at least one Bishop remaining who could ordain him as a Bishop) on earth could be appointed or elected Pope. The Succession has many safeguards.

(continued …)

 

[jmcrae]

(… from above)

With God, anything is possible, no?

With God, something of such importance would be made known by clear signs and miracles.

Even if it were true that God has taken His authority away from the Catholic Church and given it to one of the Protestant churches, which one is it? It can’t be all of them, because they disagree on fundamental theological issues.

Which promise of protection did Christ give? Did He give it to the universal Christian church, or did he specifically give it only to the Roman Church?

He gave it specifically to Peter and the Apostles. Their direct successors, by the laying on of hands in a direct lineage back to Christ, are the ones to whom this authority and protection was passed on.

Those not in the line of succession do not have this protection. (Neither John Calvin nor Martin Luther, nor Simons Mennos was a Catholic Bishop at the time of his schism from the Church - so none of their successors has it. The Anglican Bishops did have it, until they deliberately threw it away by removing it from their Ordination ceremony during the time of King Edward VI. Zwingli was a successor to Martin Luther; John Knox was a successor to John Calvin - neither of them had it, and their modern-day successors do not have it, either.)

There were no members of any Christian denomination walking around while Christ was walking around.

Incorrect. The Apostles and their followers were there. The Catholic Church was there.

I know that RCC adherents are particularly immoveable on the matter of Christ passing the keys of His church to Peter and establishing the apostolic succession. But that is a matter of the faith of one particular Christian denomination.

It’s also a matter of Christian history, Christian Tradition, and Scripture.

Why does this belief apply to other mainstream Christians who have their own understandings of carrying out Christ’s teaching, who have moved away from the sometimes impenetrable doctrinal disputes which may characterise RCC down through the centuries, towards a greater focus on mission and ministry?

How so? (You’ve heard of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and her followers, at the very least, I trust …?)

Is it not possible that increasing focus on living this life with merit and compassion - as reformed churches did - and reducing focus on salvation for the individual believer may have signalled the current mainline move to greater spirituality and social responsibility? That would put protestantism on the main road - no?

I can’t parse this sentence; I have no idea what you are driving at. Can you rephrase it, please?

 

[jmcrae]

OK. I know this might have been directed at a particular individual, but I think it is very pertinent to the whole of the original discussion here.

How is it that a person, anyone, could belong to the Body of Christ, but not belong to the Church? As I see it, the body of Christ is synonymous with the Church. They are one and the same.

His language was too strong, there, I think.

I would say that anyone who has Trinitarian baptism and who is following Christ as best he can has an imperfect and invisible relationship with the Church.

We recognize this fact when they find out that Christ founded a visible Church, and seek to become visible members of His visible Church.

We have different entrance rites and initiation liturgies for these people than we do for non-Christians (unbaptized persons) who seek to join the Church.

We do, however, require all of them to attend the same Catechism classes, and after Initiation, they are all considered equally to be Neophytes during the Neophyte Year.

My personal experience with this ministry is that it is actually easier for a non-Christian to become a Catholic in thought and habit than it is for a Protestant or other Christian non-Catholic, so although it would seem to make sense on the surface for Christian non-Catholics to undergo a shorter period of Catechesis, the reality shows that they need the same catechetical formation as non-Christians.

I don’t know what the reasons for this are.

 

[guanophore]

My personal experience with this ministry is that it is actually easier for a non-Christian to become a Catholic in thought and habit than it is for a Protestant or other Christian non-Catholic, so although it would seem to make sense on the surface for Christian non-Catholics to undergo a shorter period of Catechesis, the reality shows that they need the same catechetical formation as non-Christians.

I don’t know what the reasons for this are.

I think it is because theological errors and habits of thinking and practice are harder to break, or change, than they are to develop from scratch.

 

[nerfherder]

I think it is because theological errors and habits of thinking and practice are harder to break, or change, than they are to develop from scratch.

I would certainly agree with guanophore and jmcrae, as an older baptised Canadian Baptist wishing to convert to RCC. The journey was relatively smooth as long as I kept in touch with Christ through the Bible, prayer, contemplation, reading and spiritual instruction.

The road got a lot rockier and almost - at times - impossible to tread when I learned about RCC doctrine, dogma, authority, apostolic succession, obedience and humility before earthly men, legitimacy, supremacy, transubstantiation, salvation v mission, etc etc etc. I am literally haunted by what I have seen on this Forum and observed elsewhere, particularly when it comes to RCC fundamentalism which seems particularly inimical to any sense of humanity.

The most difficult aspect for me here has been the belief of many members of RCC posting on this Forum that RCC is the one and only church, and all others are apostate, illegitimate, illegal, errant and just plain stupid - and that goes for their adherents too; that there are about 30,000 so-called christian ‘sects’ (the number seems surprisingly consistent) out there, run by Pastor Billy Bob in a tin shack down by the railroad for illiterate and gullible yokels.

(As an aside, let us remember that Billy Graham is not Roman Catholic; Mahatma Gandhi was not Roman Catholic; John F Kennedy (for all his faults) was Roman Catholic; the Mafia were comprehensively Roman Catholic. I hope I am not drawing snipers here by pointing out that every bag of potatoes has goods and bads.)

I have learned through my personal and professional life that no one has a lock on truth - and that goes for men and women, for Hindus and Christians, for Roman Catholics and Baptists, the Bible and the Q’uran.

I have learned, perhaps through my churching as a Baptist (of the very conventional Scottish kind in Canada) that we do not have prerogatives as much as we have responsibilities; that giving to and providing succour for others in this life is more important than our own personal salvation in the next; that if a religion (like Islam or Hinduism) or a belief system (Buddhism for example, which has no deity) provides comfort, direction and support for believers, then it is a Positive Good. It may not be an Absolute Truth (although then again it might be), but it is certainly a Positive Good.

I therefore refrain from casting aspersions on others’ beliefs. I wish them well. I hope they are sustained in their otherwise often very difficult lives. And we cannot know what their faith leads them to.

Nor can we know whether or not their faith will lead them to Absolute Truth which some seem to need - almost as a crutch. Our first lesson surely is that there is no Absolute Truth. We may have faith that there is, but we cannot know or prove it - and divine inspiration is not proof.

Enough. I have spoken from my perspective as one who was churched by Canadian Baptists. I may not be able to make the transition to Roman Catholicism; or I may decide that I do not wish to make the conversion. It is possible that the chasm between what I learned when I was younger, and what I am required to believe (and there is a difference between learning, and being required to believe) is too great for me to cross over.

I do know however that Christ walks with me as I go, and that whatever space I am in, He is there. I am safe in His arms and have been for years. For the most part, the church which claims to represent Him does not matter.

 

[jmcrae]

Jabulani;

So, let me get this straight. Having discovered Christ’s Church, and realizing that you needed to become a member, you joined RCIA and were all set to do so.

Until you found out that Christ’s Church has the audacity to actually say that it is Christ’s Church.

And now - not because you don’t think it is, but because you resent the apparent “lack of humility” in this bare statement of basic facts - you are taking your ball and going back home to a religion that was first heard of some time in the late 1600s.

Have I got that straight?

By the way, the Church isn’t the Church based on the sinfulness or not of the membership, but because of the laying on of hands to pass down Christ’s authority, going back to the time of Christ. Behaviour has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of righteous pagans, and plenty of sinful Catholics. (St. Peter’s first act as Pope was to deny Christ three times.) We will all be judged at the Judgement Day.

But if we want to know what Christ teaches, and how to obey Him in spirit and in truth, then it’s important to become a member of His Church. That is, indeed, the very reason that He founded it.

 

[guanophore]

I am literally haunted by what I have seen on this Forum and observed elsewhere, particularly when it comes to RCC fundamentalism which seems particularly inimical to any sense of humanity.

In my experience of fundamentalism, mine and that of others, it is most needed when one’s sense of inner security is weak. there were several years that I was part of a fundamentalist community. Looking back, I think I was drawn to it because my psyche would have fallen apart without that rigid structure. Fortunately, I was able to survive it, and move on.

The most difficult aspect for me here has been the belief of many members of RCC posting on this Forum that RCC is the one and only church, and all others are apostate, illegitimate, illegal, errant and just plain stupid - and that goes for their adherents too; that there are about 30,000 so-called christian 'sects' (the number seems surprisingly consistent) out there, run by Pastor Billy Bob in a tin shack down by the railroad for illiterate and gullible yokels.

In truth, there is some bigotry, which was what I was fishing for in starting this thread. I sure caught what I was trolling for, didn’t I? But, I want to clarify a post I made about counterfeits. I was thinking at the time of my post of a dear friend of mine with whom I prayed and studied the word for seven years. Suddenly, she quit her job, sold her home, and went off to live in a commune in Calif. with a person who calls himself Jesus Christ Lightening Amen. She fell in love with this character, who is purporting to be the incarnation of the father, son and spirit. He is teaching that he wants all of the 144,000 to live within 50 miles of himself, so they are selling off their assets and moving to his estate. He is holding the keys to the kingdom which are 1) no animal products eaten or worn 2) no shoes (everyone goes barefoot) and 3) no sex. So far as I can tell, his people are very happy, and believe that the end of the world is nigh. (I told her not to drink the kool-aid).

I have learned through my personal and professional life that no one has a lock on truth - and that goes for men and women, for Hindus and Christians, for Roman Catholics and Baptists, the Bible and the Q’uran.

I think Jesus believed He did. At least, He would not go around saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” otherwise.

we do not have prerogatives as much as we have responsibilities; that giving to and providing succour for others in this life is more important than our own personal salvation in the next; that if a religion (like Islam or Hinduism) or a belief system (Buddhism for example, which has no deity) provides comfort, direction and support for believers, then it is a Positive Good. It may not be an Absolute Truth (although then again it might be), but it is certainly a Positive Good.

Do you think that Catholics don’t believe this, by and large? Certainly those posting on this thread do not seem to.

And we cannot know what their faith leads them to.

This is an ENTIRELY Catholic saying!

Nor can we know whether or not their faith will lead them to Absolute Truth which some seem to need - almost as a crutch. Our first lesson surely is that there is no Absolute Truth. We may have faith that there is, but we cannot know or prove it - and divine inspiration is not proof.

This may be an agnostic statement? If Jesus really is the Truth, then there is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Perhaps you are saying that it is not possible for people to know that truth?

I may not be able to make the transition to Roman Catholicism; or I may decide that I do not wish to make the conversion. It is possible that the chasm between what I learned when I was younger, and what I am required to believe (and there is a difference between learning, and being required to believe) is too great for me to cross over.

I am sure your heart will lead you the right way. However, I must note that you are already well into the Tiber, and have been carried by the current!

For the most part, the church which claims to represent Him does not matter.

Since Jesus came to found only one church, and did only that, there is only one. Everyone who is part of His body is a member thereof.

 

[Kurt_G]

1. Regarding Baptism, for one, the Church is not the arrogant one. This Saturday, along with some unbaptized folks, we will welcome some adults into full communion, who were previously Baptized as Methodists and Baptists. Surely, all of us here know that the Church DOES NOT re-baptize these folks. Why? Because the Church recognizes anyone’s trinitarian baptisms as valid. In other words, these folks have been in God’s Christian family since their baptism!

Amazing, a certain amount of humility on this issue, within the Church. It doesn’t get mentioned enough…

A number of other denominations will take a fallen down Catholic, and re-baptize them in a heartbeat! (They’ll insist the first one did not count, etc. etc.)

Just thought I’d throw this in the mix…
God Bless Us All!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes and no. All members of Christ are by default members of His Body, which is the church. The visible church is larger than the visible (Catholic) church. However, since there is only one Church, and all Christians are members of it, in some sense they are all catholic, though most do not realize this (and would be very upset to learn it, I don’t doubt). They are “separated brethren” because they have pursued doctrines that have prevented them from the fullness of Christ’s revelation.

To unpack this one simple paragraph might take hours, the nuancing within Catholicism is something that requires a dictionary of connotations not just definitions.

The first sentence seems simple enough, “All members of Christ are by default member of His Body, which is the church.” But there is not agreed upon definition of what any two Catholics, let alone any two persons mean by the term “church” on this board. For one it is synonymous with the organized Catholic Church, administered through the papal see at Rome. For another it is all who are in communion with the this same group, though they themselves have different earthly leadership for the administration of the governance in local congregation. For another it is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and all other institutions that can claim apostolic origin. For another it is the entirety of Christendom, all believers of ever stripe and doctine everywhere. I confess that I am of this later group. I do not see from Matthew 16, John 21, or any of the other biblical texts provided as “proof”, even a hint of what some here subscribe to. But I suppose the eyes of faith (in this case faith in the historic teachings of the Catholic Church) things that others would not see – for instance I do not see the terms magestrium, chief shepherd or catholic any place in any of those texts, though I understand that others do. On the other hand, I see in 1 Corinthians 12 a provision for the church to be a metaphorical body that others do not.

And thus, so much of this comes down to faith, what we see, and our own peculiar usages with respect to language. I would agree that the visible church (for me meaning all Christians everywhere) is larger than the Catholic Church (a peculiar organization). But I would have no problem with then saying that since all Christians are then part of just one church and this church being then the one true Church (I do not mean the Cathooic Church, I mean here the body of Christ as a metaphor only, not an institution) that all Christians are then in some sense catholic (but not Catholic).

Futher, I believe that Jesus Christ founded on the Church and it was indeed catholic because it was universal. It was also orthodox because it taught the right and true faith. But it was not at that time neither Catholic nor Orthodox. That any institution should later arrive on the scene of history and give itself the moniker Catholic while denying the legitimacy of other Christians who did not so self-identify as being part of Christ’s universal church that he originally established is to carve up the body of Christ. To me this very act itself is evidence that this body is no longer the body that Christ founded, but has become something less than the whole of what Christ established. However, Christ is bigger than that single group. By God’s mercy, that group is still included in the whole, it cannot seperate itself from the body even though it sees others as separated from it. This is true only in the groups on eyes, but not in the eyes of Christ. Christ has assured us that nothing will bring an end to his body which since the time of his ascension has been the Church, the assembly of all people anywhere under any title who meet in his name be it 2 or 3 gathered in a storefront, or all the Christians of the earth gathered by their oneness through the Holy Spirit.

(Split my post by adding to it. See the continuation following jmcrae’s post.)

 

[jmcrae]

This supposes that God has given his authority to the Catholic Church.

I was responding to Jabulani. Jabulani was saying that the Catholic Church did have authority up until the time of the Reformation, and then lost that authority.

I was asking him, What happened to it, and where is it now?

As you can see from above, I do not believe this to be the case. He gave his authority to his disciples who exercised it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Where did it go after that?

This very same authority continues to be how Christ administers his Church to this very day.

And how is that, exactly?

As men come together the Holy Spirit guides them. Sometimes they do not heed the Spirit well and schisms occur. This I am sure grieves the Holy Spirit, but it only damages the visible Church, it does not fracture the invisible Church for we remain united and always will by one Lord, one faith in that Lord, and one baptism in that Lord’s name.

So, we can just wish ourselves into the Church, and we magically become Christians?

What happened to that whole thing with “go forth and teach them all things, and baptize them,” etc.?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Posted by jmcrae

Even if it were true that God has taken His authority away from the Catholic Church and given it to one of the Protestant churches, which one is it? It can’t be all of them, because they disagree on fundamental theological issues.

This supposes that God has given his authority to the Catholic Church. As you can see from above, I do not believe this to be the case. He gave his authority to his disciples who exercised it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This very same authority continues to be how Christ administers his Church to this very day. Indeed, just as God could have raised the very stones to shout Hosanna at Christ’s entry to Jerusalem, so today could God create bishops the same way. (I’ll come back to this in another post.)

And so, as in the first church, the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit and administered their office in his power. So it is today. As men come together the Holy Spirit guides them. Sometimes they do not heed the Spirit well and schisms occur. This I am sure grieves the Holy Spirit, but it only damages the visible Church, it does not fracture the invisible Church for we remain united and always will by one Lord, one faith in that Lord (no faith in a specific collection of doctrines, heresy should not be defined so broadly as to include those who still belong to Jesus though they may not think as we do on all things), and one baptism in that Lord’s name.

(A note of apology to jmcrae and to all readers. In editing my post above, I added to it and it got to long. So, I deleted the last section from it which made reference to one of jmcrae’s prior posts. That section I then posted indepedent of the previous post, but as I was doing that she was also posting a response. Thus it is that her comments sandwiched between these two posts of mine refer to this second of my posts.)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, we can just wish ourselves into the Church, and we magically become Christians?

I don’t consider confessing Christ as Lord and Savior a wish but a prayer and proclamation.

What happened to that whole thing with “go forth and teach them all things, and baptize them,” etc.?

Indeed, this is exactly what ALL Christians are commissioned by Christ to do. Nothing has happened to it. It remains the charge given to everyone of us.

 

[jmcrae]

I do not see from Matthew 16, John 21, or any of the other biblical texts provided as “proof”, even a hint of what some here subscribe to.

You have told us what Peter was not being commanded to do, but you have not yet told us what you believe it is that Peter was being commanded to do.

But I suppose the eyes of faith (in this case faith in the historic teachings of the Catholic Church) things that others would not see – for instance I do not see the terms magestrium, chief shepherd or catholic any place in any of those texts, though I understand that others do.

Again (I think I’ve asked you this before) what is going on in John 21:15-19? If it isn’t Peter being ordained Chief Shepherd of the Church, then what is it? What is Peter being commanded to do, in this passage?

On the other hand, I see in 1 Corinthians 12 a provision for the church to be a metaphorical body that others do not.

And thus, so much of this comes down to faith, what we see, and our own peculiar usages with respect to language. I would agree that the visible church (for me meaning all Christians everywhere) is larger than the Catholic Church (a peculiar organization). But I would have no problem with then saying that since all Christians are then part of just one church and this church being then the one true Church (I do not mean the Cathooic Church, I mean here the body of Christ as a metaphor only, not an institution) that all Christians are then in some sense catholic (but not Catholic).

So, Christ spent three years of His valuable time and pulled 12 healthy young men away from their families and livelihoods in order to establish a metaphor?

Futher, I believe that Jesus Christ founded on the Church and it was indeed catholic because it was universal. It was also orthodox because it taught the right and true faith. But it was not at that time neither Catholic nor Orthodox. That any institution should later arrive on the scene of history and give itself the moniker Catholic while denying the legitimacy of other Christians who did not so self-identify as being part of Christ’s universal church that he originally established is to carve up the body of Christ.

The moniker “Catholic” was first written down in 110 AD. What non-Catholics were around, who weren’t either pagans or completely heretical?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t consider confessing Christ as Lord and Savior a wish but a prayer and proclamation.

Indeed, this is exactly what ALL Christians are commissioned by Christ to do. Nothing has happened to it. It remains the charge given to everyone of us.

Teach what? If we can believe anything we want to believe - if doctrine “doesn’t matter.”

Baptize whom, and why? If the Sacraments are of no importance.