The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ziapueblo said:
40.png
steve-b:
As I’ve been saying all along, people freely make their own choices. If they choose wrongly, in the big issues, scripture NOT ME , says they suffer huge consequences.
Click to expand...
If someone wished to call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I see no issue with that or ajar this has to do with “choosing wrong” (I would say the same with being Orthodox). Byzantine Catholics live the Orthodox Faith. I’m sorry you take issue with this.
steve-b said:
from canon law #43 NOT me,
Click to expand...
You are correct. Even though many Byzantine Catholic Patriarchs, bishops, priest, all the way down the line see that the codes need to be changed, they are unfortunately under the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

ZP
Click to expand...
This isNOT from me it’s from the CCC

Schism = is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." 2089

So

If one is Orthodox, but is NOT in submission to the Roman Pontiff, or in communion with the Church subject to him, that is schism.
 
Last edited:
@mcq72,

Conversely, what we see with the Protestants is this:

They accepted a mass of heretical ideas, of which Solae Fide and Scriptura are central; that threw out 1,500 years of Tradition and then amassed a new tradition based upon these two heretical Solae by redefining justification by faith according to Luther’s misread of Romans 3:28 and quote mining Scripture, Tradition, Church history and the Church Fathers to support their interpretations.

While ignoring that Scripture itself never says it’s the sole normative guide for faith and morals.

Their basic hermeneutics is premised on nitpicking exact wording of Scripture and then arguing ad nauseam the meanings and intentions of the text; as well as revisionist re reading into Church history their ideas for “ proof “ that their ideas reaffirm the old and aren’t innovations.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
Either way, I answered your objections of Christ can’t be in multiple places at once, et cetera; with nothing is impossible with God.

You haven’t tackled my response yet.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that the Human Body of Christ could be two places at once. To believe so denies the incarnation and that Christ was also fully man. Only Christ divine natural is fully omnipresent.
 
@lanman87,

You deny that God can do anything that He wills?

Even impregnating a 14 year old girl without a man being involved. That’s involving human flesh of a human woman.
 
Michael16 said:
THIS IS My Blood
Click to expand...
If that Apostles understood Christ to be speaking literally then they would understand that Christ was asking them to break the Old Testament law against drinking blood. Would Christ ask them to break the Jewish law? Being good Jews, would they have complied if they understand the wine to be actual blood? Could Peter have claimed to never have eaten anything unclean (Acts 10:14) if he knew he had violated the commandment to not drink blood?
 
@lanman87,

You’re denying that Christ had Authority to teach?

He is the Word of God.
 
Michael16 said:
That’s involving human flesh of a human woman.
Click to expand...
The Spirit of God acted with human flesh.

When Christ came as a man he was fully human. He had human emotions and felt pain and was chose to limit himself to a human body. To say that the Body of Christ could be in more than one place at a time is to deny the Christ was also fully man.
 
@lanman87,

To prove the fully human, you’re denying He is fully divine.
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
THAT reality can only come from valid consecration which can only come from, valid apostolic ordination of a priest. Outside of which, that reality doesn’t happen.
Click to expand...
I understand that is what Catholicism teaches. I’m also convinced it was not part of the gospel message of Christ and the apostles and was created later by theologians who were trying to understand the Gospel message.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the 1st century DURING the life of the apostles.

Ignatius of Antioch was Bishop, ordained by apostles in ~68 a.d., and was a direct disciple of John. Meaning Ignatius and John were in the same time frame together, for at least 30+ yrs.

Ignatius wrote the following, which obviously he learned from the apostles, and John in particular.

See ch 8 for what makes http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm everything Secure AND Valid

Ignatius learned that from the apostles. BTW, Ignatius was ordained before many of the NT books were written, including Gospels.

And when Ignatius was writing to the Church of Rome, out of the 6 Churches he writes to, he identifies the Church of Rome as the one holding the presidency.
40.png
lanman87:
The fact is we (who are born of the Spirit) are all priest and Christ is our Great High Priest. We all have direct access to the throne of Grace and no longer need an earthly priest to intercede for us. Christ himself intercedes for us who are His Children by faith, through grace.
Click to expand...
The fact is, The HS doesn’t divide what Jesus established. Protestantism wasn’t started by Jesus or the HS.
 
Last edited:
@lanman87,

Earlier you were using figurative OT ingestive language. That is the preparation for Christ.

Christ didn’t contradict Himself.

Whereas conversely, using figurative language is denying the literal language Christ used.

Your exegesis requires Christ to contradict Himself.
 
@lanman87,

So, then: You’re denying that Christ could exercise His divine nature whenever He wants.
 
Michael16 said:
Your exegesis requires Christ to contradict Himself.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how. The Old Testament uses figurative ingestive language, the New Testament uses figurative ingestive language and Christ Himself uses figurative ingestive language. Seems pretty consistent to me.
 
@lanman87,

Nope. I’ve already quoted three passages in which Jesus used literal language.

You’re not being consistent and employing end arounds to preserve your position.
 
Michael16 said:
You’re denying that Christ could exercise His divine nature whenever He wants.
Click to expand...
He could have, but to make Himself more than fully human would have violated God’s plan of salvation for His people. He could have called down 10,000 Angels to save him from the cross, He could have done a lot of things be He chose to be the perfect Sacrifice for mankind. He chose to be the sinless human that took on our sins.

Even His miracles were for other people. They were exercising His Divine nature outside of His flesh and demonstrating that He was really fully God as well as fully man.
 
@lanman87,

Transubstantiating bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ for our salvation violates God’s plan for our salvation?
 
Michael16 said:
Transubstantiating bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ for our salvation violates God’s plan for our salvation?
Click to expand...
It would mean that Christ wasn’t fully human as well as fully God.
 
I don’t see how, @lanman87.

Christ’s divine nature perfected his human nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top