What is Christ's Church?

[TheGarg]

Scylla>>Those who reject this knowingly are rejecting the beliefs that Jesus taught. Many do this out of bigotry, pride and sin.

My friend, where did Jesus teach the sinlessness of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, purgatory or any number of Catholic doctrines? Don’t you agree it’d be good not to add words to Jesus’ mouth? God bless ya.

The answers to those questions are in the bible, but to understand those things, you are going to have to understand alot more than what just reading a bible will give you, for not all knowledge of God is there. Its not good to subtract from the Word for darn sure, and that is exactly what protestant leaders have done from thier beginning.

Mary was sinless, because God could not pass through an impure vassel. The assumption of Mary Comes from the Church, which has the power to bind and loose, authority given to peter by Jesus Him self.
As for purgatory is just commen sense, aside from being founded in the OT somewhere, I dont remember but your a big boy, so ill let you google it. It’s in one of those books that your boy Martin tore out of the Bible when he invented the 66 book version ].
Nothing Impure can enter heaven where the Lord is, and NT clearly states there are mortal and lesser[venial] sins, so you might die not completely in a state of Grace most people I am sure, save for those who receive Last Rites ], but yet not in bad enough shape to go Hell. That would require a place for final purification, so that we may enter the Father’s House.
Purgatory is a good thing brother, it means you on your way to heaven.

I truely am sorry if i came off harsh, I didn’t mean. May you be blessed on your Walk with the Lord.

Peace of the Lord be with you!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are correct.

Again, This is incorrect.

Again, from Dominus Iesus:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I’m wondering why you guys are so far off what the Bible teaches.

You believe that we are saved by being in the Church. I believe, and the Bible teaches, that you are put into the Church by Christ when you are saved. There is no salvation outside of Christ. However, the statement that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is simply untrue and dangerous.

I was put into the Church by Christ when I was saved, and there I remain to this today. It is for you guys to deal with, not me.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

EP>>

Pope John Paul II said that people like you were part of the Church, but not in full communion with the Church. He said nothing about you going to Hell though.

**Jesus said that people like us were part of HIS Church, and in full communion with Him and His Church. He said nothing about us going to hell either. And He also didn’t mention purgatory.

How come you are using the Pope as your authority and I am using Jesus and His Word? God bless.**

 

[water]

Jesus said that people like us were part of HIS Church, and in full communion with Him and His Church. He said nothing about us going to hell either. And He also didn’t mention purgatory.

What is His Church in your definition?
Is it the Church of division among divisions?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

What is His Church in your definition?
Is it the Church of division among divisions?

Already been answered. Will not bother commenting on your strawman. That has been addressed as well. I simply refuse to repeat myself for the hundredth time. God bless.

 

[Church_Militant]

And He also didn’t mention purgatory.

Actually, He did.

Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Implicit “purgatory”

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**Actually, He did.

Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Implicit “purgatory”**

Hey CM, I think it was just hyperbole. It had to be as there is no forgiveness of sins after death. If we are unjust at death, we remain unjust. If we are just at death, we remain just. We are in whatever state after death as we were before death. All Christians are just, therefore, they remain just after death.

Matter of fact, I’m most certain it is hyperbole. The point Jesus was making was how serious it is to speak against the Holy Ghost. Then again, Jesus could have been talking about the world “pre-cross” and the world “post-cross”. It’s a possibility, thus confirming that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgivable. What are your thoughts on that CM? God bless.

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, He did.

Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Implicit “purgatory”

Hey CM, I think it was just hyperbole. It had to be as there is no forgiveness of sins after death. If we are unjust at death, we remain unjust. If we are just at death, we remain just. We are in whatever state after death as we were before death. All Christians are just, therefore, they remain just after death.

Matter of fact, I’m most certain it is hyperbole. The point Jesus was making was how serious it is to speak against the Holy Ghost. Then again, Jesus could have been talking about the world “pre-cross” and the world “post-cross”. It’s a possibility, thus confirming that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgivable. What are your thoughts on that CM? God bless.

Well I’d agree with you except that that is not what the passage says or even implies.

Certainly Our Lord was stressing the sin of blaspehemy of the Holy Spirit (attributing an act of God to the devil), but there is also the passage where Our Lord says, “25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” (Mattew 5:25-26) That could also refer to Purgatory in the sense that unconfessed sin (at death) will need cleansing before entering to the marriage supper of the Lamb. (Matthew 22:11-14)

Now, lest you think that we Catholics deem the blood of Christ insufficient to cleanse us from sin. (Consider 1st John 1:9 here) I would offer this logical thought on cleansing and suffering. Don’t we find ourselves wounded by sins? And when one is wounded, isn’t that wound needing cleansing as part of its healing process? Isn’t it then entirely possible from the context of these passages that Purgatory is an application of the blood of Christ to cleanse us “from all unrighteousness”. How many times have we all had a wound that was cleaned and that “cleaner” was painful on contact?

In this respect the same could be said of the blood of Christ in a Purgatorial state after death. As concerning duration, it may well be percieved.

The analogy is quite true that moments of ecstacy (say, in intimate union with one we love) are percieved to never last long enough, while moments of sudden and severe pain, (such as latching onto the handle of a hot skillet) are percieved to last a great while even if the instant is actually of the same duration.

Just something to consider…
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[scylla]

How come you are using the Pope as your authority and I am using Jesus and His Word? God bless.

This is a false portrayal of Catholic belief. I would be happy to discuss this with you, as this would be the same as me saying this to you.

How come you are using your Pastor as your authority and I am using Jesus and His Word?
(I would not do this as it would be dishonest and not properly presenting your belief.) This might not be your intent, but it is necessary to point out, as it is a common habit of some anti-catholics to present a false portrayal of Catholicism then show the problems with it. Please don’t fall into this habit.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Church_Militant]

This is a false portrayal of Catholic belief. I would be happy to discuss this with you, as this would be the same as me saying this to you.

How come you are using your Pastor as your authority and I am using Jesus and His Word?

(I would not do this as it would be dishonest and not properly presenting your belief.) This might not be your intent, but it is necessary to point out, as it is a common habit of some anti-catholics to present a false portrayal of Catholicism then show the problems with it. Please don’t fall into this habit.

In Christ
ScyllaI don’t think that was Brian’s intent Scylla, but both sides could do to take your post to heart I think.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Well I’d agree with you except that that is not what the passage says or even implies.

Certainly Our Lord was stressing the sin of blaspehemy of the Holy Spirit (attributing an act of God to the devil), but there is also the passage where Our Lord says, “25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” (Mattew 5:25-26) That could also refer to Purgatory in the sense that unconfessed sin (at death) will need cleansing before entering to the marriage supper of the Lamb. (Matthew 22:11-14)

Now, lest you think that we Catholics deem the blood of Christ insufficient to cleanse us from sin. (Consider 1st John 1:9 here) I would offer this logical thought on cleansing and suffering. Don’t we find ourselves wounded by sins? And when one is wounded, isn’t that wound needing cleansing as part of its healing process? Isn’t it then entirely possible from the context of these passages that Purgatory is an application of the blood of Christ to cleanse us “from all unrighteousness”. How many times have we all had a wound that was cleaned and that “cleaner” was painful on contact?

In this respect the same could be said of the blood of Christ in a Purgatorial state after death. As concerning duration, it may well be percieved.

The analogy is quite true that moments of ecstacy (say, in intimate union with one we love) are percieved to never last long enough, while moments of sudden and severe pain, (such as latching onto the handle of a hot skillet) are percieved to last a great while even if the instant is actually of the same duration.

Just something to consider…
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Thanks Michael. Much to consider. If I can be convinced that purgatory in no way slaps Christ in the face, I may consider it. You made some interesting points; if purgatory is true, I would propose that it is not associated with suffering in any way. We would only be there spiritually as our bodies would be in the ground so I don’t think our spirit can feel anything. And my guess is it would be an instantaneous purging. There is a long way for me to before I accept the teaching of purgatory though.

Even if there is a purgatory I do not believe one can use 1 Corinthians to teach it since the passage that is often used is talking about the judgement seat of Christ in which our works will be tried (burned up in the fire, or scrutinized by the Lord) and any works done for God’s glory will be rewarded while any works done for ourselves will be burned up but we will still be saved. That passage is about the judgement seat of Christ for believers, not about purgatory.

So I’m listening to you but it’s a long process.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

This is a false portrayal of Catholic belief. I would be happy to discuss this with you, as this would be the same as me saying this to you.

How come you are using your Pastor as your authority and I am using Jesus and His Word?
(I would not do this as it would be dishonest and not properly presenting your belief.) This might not be your intent, but it is necessary to point out, as it is a common habit of some anti-catholics to present a false portrayal of Catholicism then show the problems with it. Please don’t fall into this habit.

In Christ
Scylla

I don’t understand you though…because you do use the Pope as your authority. You guys admit to it and say that we are in serious sin because we don’t.

I can assure you though that my pastor is not my authority the way you think. The Lord is. He teaches me through His Word. As long as my pastor is teaching the truth, I am subject to him. If he gets off track, teaches false doctrine, or presumes to tell me what my wife and I can do in the bedroom or who I should vote for, then he is to be rejected.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I don’t think that was Brian’s intent Scylla, but both sides could do to take your post to heart I think.

No, it wasn’t my intent but you are right. I think the problem is that since nobody knows me, my sense of humour does not come out.

I was stating what you guys seem to be true and trying to make a point. There was no hostility though. I just have a different sense of humour and I understand that people who don’t know me are not going to get it.

 

[scylla]

I don’t understand you though…because you do use the Pope as your authority. You guys admit to it and say that we are in serious sin because we don’t.

I can assure you though that my pastor is not my authority the way you think. The Lord is. He teaches me through His Word. As long as my pastor is teaching the truth, I am subject to him. If he gets off track, teaches false doctrine, or presumes to tell me what my wife and I can do in the bedroom or who I should vote for, then he is to be rejected.

Please read my post carefully, the statement I presented was an example.

So if this example is correct, how does Jesus communicate to you Hoosier. You said through His Word, well me too!

I would see through Jesus’s Word that we must forgive others or we will not be forgiven.
So a requirement for Salvation must be that we forgive others.
This is in contrast with some groups that say we only have to believe in Jesus. One of us is blaspheming God Word by misrepresenting it.

I can assure you that the Pope is not my authority the way you are portraying him, as it is impossible for him to teach false doctrine, his job is to guard the teachings of Jesus.

Does it matter what is sin and what isn’t?
According to your belief system does sin matter?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t understand you though…because you do use the Pope as your authority. You guys admit to it and say that we are in serious sin because we don’t.

The Pope has been authorized by Jesus to teach in His name. (Matthew 16:18; John 21:15-19)

I can assure you though that my pastor is not my authority the way you think. The Lord is. He teaches me through His Word. As long as my pastor is teaching the truth, I am subject to him.

Aside from your own personal opinion, how would you know whether your pastor was teaching the truth? Do you imagine that you yourself are like St. John the Divine, receiving locutions directly from God? (And at the same time as believing that an ordinary sinner such as yourself has this divine ability, you also believe that your pastor, who is at least holier than you are, even if he isn’t very holy at all, isn’t doing this?)

If he gets off track, teaches false doctrine, or presumes to tell me what my wife and I can do in the bedroom or who I should vote for, then he is to be rejected.

Based on what?

How is your interpretation of the Scriptures, based on 15 - 30 minutes a day of Scripture reading, greater than your pastor’s, who prays and reads the Scriptures as a full-time job, and who presumably went to school and got at least a four-year degree in Scripture interpretation?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Not ignoring you guys but I’m in a hurry. For now I will say doesn’t the Bible say the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth? If I can’t find the truth through reading and studying the Bible why am I commanded to do so? And if I can’t, then it follows that you can’t. So why do YOU read and study your Bible (assuming that you do)?

 

[Church_Militant]

Not ignoring you guys but I’m in a hurry. For now I will say doesn’t the Bible say the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth? If I can’t find the truth through reading and studying the Bible why am I commanded to do so?

And if I can’t, then it follows that you can’t. So why do YOU read and study your Bible (assuming that you do)?I don’t think the passage that you are reffering to says anything about that truth being limited to the scriptures Brian.

Nor does 2nd Timothy 2:15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

As for Catholics reading the Bible…have a look at the thread linked in my signature.
Pax tecum,

 

[jmcrae]

Not ignoring you guys but I’m in a hurry. For now I will say doesn’t the Bible say the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth?

Yes. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. He is not the Bible. The Bible is only a small portion of the Holy Spirit’s revelation to us. We find the rest of it in the Church that Christ (the Second Person of the Trinity) founded, and to which He gave the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church - not to the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church; it consists of the writings of Christ’s Apostles and their nearest followers. It was handed down to their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, to be used in their ministry of evangelism and teaching. It was never intended to be a stand-alone document.

If I can’t find the truth through reading and studying the Bible why am I commanded to do so?

Where does it say that you are limited to only the Bible when seeking the Truth?

And if I can’t, then it follows that you can’t. So why do YOU read and study your Bible (assuming that you do)?

The Bible is only one of the many resources that I use. Of course, it is important, but being important does not equate to being the sole source of information.

If I have the text book, but I never go to class and never hear the lectures, I won’t pass the final exam.

The Bible is our “text book.” The Church is our “school.” We need both.

 

[Image_of_God]

Not ignoring you guys but I’m in a hurry. For now I will say doesn’t the Bible say the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth? If I can’t find the truth through reading and studying the Bible why am I commanded to do so? And if I can’t, then it follows that you can’t. So why do YOU read and study your Bible (assuming that you do)?

Jesus was talking about the Apostles when he said that, and most especially Peter. His you is referring to the Apostles and Peter’s succesors. If the Holy Spirit leads everyone who reads the Bible into all truth, then why is it that he is contradicting himself with so many interpretations. I can assure you that this is not the Holy Spirit. All Protestant Churches cannot be the Body of Christ, because the Body of Christ is true. This means that since all the Churches have areas that contradict, this could not possibly mean that the Spirit has lead them to these conclusions.
We read the Bible because in it, “The Father speaks to his children.” We don’t read it to come up with our own intepretations. It must be within the teachings of the Church so that heresy doesn’t arise.