The Universal Church

[De_Maria]

I say interesting because, clearly Paul himself didn’t TOTALLY avoid controversy (or certainly quarrels about the law). From Galatians 2:11-12:

“11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”

I agree that this is strange. Let me lay it out. But first, let me mention that St. Paul was only the first person to confront a Pope. This is a regular occurence in Christian history. The most famous of these is the multiple times that St. Catherine of Sienna did so. Notice that it did not affect her Sainthood.

But, the lay out. St. Paul said.

First:

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party."

Why would St. Peter avoid eating with Gentiles when the Jews came? Is it because of the scandal of eating pork? That is my assumption. But you, perhaps, have a different understanding. Let me show you what St. Paul said about eating meat (i.e. pork) in front of those who find that practice, sinful.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

What’s the difference in this situation laid out by St. Paul and that which St. Peter did?

I personally see little to none. It is basically the same situation. So, although St. Peter’s response to St. Paul is not here divulged, it seems that St. Paul learned something from St. Peter, in the end.

But, someone might say, well that’s not the problem. The problem is that he is acting against his conscience because he is bullied by the Jews. Ok. Let’s see. Did St. Paul ever act against his conscience because he was bullied by Jews. He doesn’t admit to this, but St. Luke records it.

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

As we know, St. Paul was adamantly against circumcision.

Galatians 5:2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

So, yes, it is strange indeed. I see it as the Scriptures revealing that St. Paul was not yet perfect in his faith.

Philippians 3:12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect:…

 

[lanman87]

Lol! Protestants love divorce. So, what you’re saying is that when you proclaim your faith in Christ, publically, the first time, that is the last time you will do so. You won’t do it again, in Baptism.

Absolutely not. We proclaim Christ day by day, including in water baptism. But faith comes before baptism, it comes during baptism and it comes after baptism.

Because you interpret Scripture in the absence of the Traditions of Jesus Christ which your communion discarded.

Because many of those Traditions are not what was taught by Christ and the Apostles. They were creations of theologians and monks many years later.

But Kings and Queens are not. And it is they who established the laws which led to the burning of heretics.

Many times because they established these laws because they were trying to gain favor from the Pope/Catholic church and knew it would help them politically.

the Church simply attempted to convert the sinner from the error of his ways.

The church should have instructed the Kings and Queens to not commit murder. Instead the church encouraged them.

But the Catholic Church wields the power of life and death over mankind.

That is a horrible statement. There is no reason to murder someone. If God wants someone dead then let God take care of it. Those kings and queens and the bishops/popes who were complicit were murderers. There were no different than the Romans who killed Christians in the first 3 centuries.

 

[mcq72]

But Kings and Queens are not. And it is they who established the laws which led to the burning of heretics.

Interesting that as soon as secular powers stopped persecuting the church, the church enlisted secular powers to enforce conformity.

Twas a marriage (not necesarily made in heaven), and can you divorce now, throwing the spouse under the bus?

 

[De_Maria]

Absolutely not. We proclaim Christ day by day, including in water baptism.

Then, what was your point?

But faith comes before baptism, it comes during baptism and it comes after baptism.

Agreed. So, what is your point?

Because many of those Traditions are not what was taught by Christ and the Apostles.

We believe they were taught by Christ to the Apostles. And the Apostles to us. But you go by Scripture alone and claim that only that which is found in Scripture was taught by Christ. But you can’t find one instance of an explicit teaching about the Holy Trinity in Scripture. Not one. It was Taught by the Catholic Church centuries later.

They were creations of theologians and monks many years later.

On the contrary, it was the Holy Spirit reminding and bringing the Church deeper into all truth.

Many times because they established these laws because they were trying to gain favor from the Pope/Catholic church and knew it would help them politically.

You can surmise and assume anything you want. But you didn’t know any of them. Not one. And, your assumptions are besides the point. The point is that Jesus Christ is the Ruler of our Church. We believe the Church is the body of Christ.

The church should have instructed the Kings and Queens to not commit murder. Instead the church encouraged them.

God has never considered the death penalty assigned by due legal process, as murder. See the OT.

Romans 13:4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

That is a horrible statement…

How do you understand Acts 5? Or would you rather ignore it?

 

[De_Maria]

Interesting that as soon as secular powers stopped persecuting the church, the church enlisted secular powers to enforce conformity.

You’re believing the anti-Catholic hype.

Twas a marriage (not necesarily made in heaven), and can you divorce now, throwing the spouse under the bus?

We are all married to Jesus Christ.

Romans 7:4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Those who attack the Church are throwing Jesus Christ under the bus.

 

[mcq72]

Why would St. Peter avoid eating with Gentiles when the Jews came? Is it because of the scandal of eating pork? That is my assumption.

A convenient assumption.

Paul would have no problem if they were eating pork perhaps…but they were simply eating, and they were uncircumcised, and the “circumcising party” detested eating even unleavened bread with uncircumcised. This is what is plainly in the text. Nothing strange. No need to make Peter perfect at Paul’s expense.

 

[De_Maria]

No need to make Peter perfect at Paul’s expense.

No need to make St. Paul perfect at St. Peter’s expense. No what?

 

[mcq72]

We are all married to Jesus Christ.

Romans 7:4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Those who attack the Church are throwing Jesus Christ under the bus.

What has this to do with the church enjoined with secular powers?

 

[De_Maria]

What has this to do with the church enjoined with secular powers?

You brought it up.

 

[mcq72]

You’re believing the anti-Catholic hype

No, i am believing church history…of catholics, orthodox and protestants.

 

[De_Maria]

It’s anti-Catholic hype.

 

[mcq72]

It’s anti-Catholic hype.

Lol. Not anti orthodox or anti protestant?.. it is possible not to throw out baby with bath water on this…bad history does not do away with grace, and that His truth marches on, despite ourselves sometimes…no need for embellishment of church history

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

It’s anti-Catholic hype.

Lol. Not anti orthodox or anti protestant?..

Anti-Catholic is enough for me. And, as I see it, it’s off topic. If you want to continue in this, start another thread.

 

[lanman87]

How do you understand Acts 5? Or would you rather ignore it?

Peter, nor the church, didn’t kill Ananias and Sapphira. He didn’t even pronounce a penalty for their sin. For Ananias all he did was point out Ananias’s sin and “He breathed his last”.

Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last.

Peter then said a prophetic word concerning Sapphira. That she would join her husband.

But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.

The Lord numbers all our days and can take any of us anytime He wishes.

 

[De_Maria]

Peter, nor the church, didn’t kill Ananias and Sapphira.

Thanks for responding.

The Holy Spirit did so. But, upon whose bidding? Would they have died if they had not lied to St. Peter?

 

[lanman87]

Agreed. So, what is your point?

That confessing Christ isn’t exclusive to being baptized.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Agreed. So, what is your point?

That confessing Christ isn’t exclusive to being baptized.

Who said it was?

 

[lanman87]

And you fail to recognize that this confession is made during the rite of Baptism because you have discarded the Traditions that Our Lord commanded His Church to Teach and you to obey.

This is what you said. I’m simply pointing out that confession (confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord) is also made before baptism and isn’t exclusive to baptism.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

And you fail to recognize that this confession is made during the rite of Baptism because you have discarded the Traditions that Our Lord commanded His Church to Teach and you to obey.

This is what you said. I’m simply pointing out that confession (confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord) is also made before baptism and isn’t exclusive to baptism.

Who said that Confession of faith was exclusive to Baptism?

My point is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and a mere confession of faith, without Baptism, is not enough. I made this point in opposition to your assertion that the necessity of Baptism is an accretion to the Faith of Jesus Christ.

That is what you were asserting, is it not?

That belief is a creation of man that developed over time as Popes gained power.

Sorry to be late on this one. I didn’t see it until just now.

Actually, we believe that Jesus Christ gave the Popes, this power. We believe that He established an office which would last in perpetuity.

Pope are human just like anyone else and are prone to the same sins as anyone else. Like it or not Peter is dead. The idea that the successors to Peter have some special power handed on by Peter is another creation of man and was not part of the deposit of faith handed on by the Christ and the apostles.

But you believe all these things because you simply deny them.

First, is it because you don’t believe that Jesus could protect anyone from committing error or sins?

Or, is it because you don’t believe that the Church is an ongoing concern? In other words, you believe the Church was only something that encumbered the first generation of Christians and not others.

Whereas, we believe and it is supported by Scripture, that Jesus Christ established an ongoing concern, appointed and established an office which would continue to guide His Church in perpetuity. And these things can be proved by Scripture. Whereas, you only have your denials.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The one’s I have talked to most certainly do. And they even pull out bibles and pretend to be believers in them.

Do Catholics meet your personal criteria as Spirit filled Christians?