What is Christ's Church?

[skeptictank]

Blasphemy? You sound like a Pharisee who knows little about Catholicism. I would say you are the ignorant one who does not know your Christian history very well

I really don’t see how attaching labels to one another is going to further the discussion, but I suppose that is what I reap from sowing my own oppinions.

It seems blasphemous to me, but you’re entitled to your oppinions as well. As far as my ignorance, how do you gather that? I’m certainly not denying it, for my humanity necessitates that I am ignorant, but what history do you suppose that I am missing?

[qutoe]The Catholic Church did not change its doctrine of Limbo. It specifically stated that the Church see fit the faith of the unborn is up to God’s mercy.

We ourselves cannot know their faith.

Good to know.

Yes you don’t understand. You think you do, but many of us Catholics here are trying to show you what we Catholics truly believe.

I agree, I don’t understand. That is no grounds for avoiding the subject. Quite the contrary. As far as what you believe, I’m really more interested in why you believe it, and why you think that I ought to believe it.

There is. Today the Church was filled with many parishioners, listening to the homily and receiving Jesus Christ.

good to know, I still don’t connect the catholic church as an organization, to the church of christ, which is his body, consisting of those who have put their faith in him.

Skeptictank

 

[skeptictank]

If you claim that the Catholic Church added books. Well, they only added 27 NT books to Scripture.

That was not my point. I’m not familiar enough with the (I believe it was three old testament books) writtings that are not included in the protestant bibles, to make a judgement as to their inspiration, or inerrancy. Though as of now I don’t see the necessity of the writings of Macabeus, seeing as the angel Gabriel gave us the four hundered years of history between the book of daniel and the prophecy of the angel of the birth of john the batist, in advance (in the book of daniel).

The list of Books of the Bible was compelled in 382 A.D in the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo 392 A.D, and Council of Carthage 396 A.D.

These books included the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Bible written in 3rd Century BC to 1st Century BC, in Alexandria by Helenistic Jews).

Early Christians used them. The only thing that the Church added was the 27 NT text of the NT.

Second the verse only stated that nothing something be added in the Book of Revelation.

In fact Martin Luther, one of the Reformers did not think the Book of Revelations, Letter of James, should be remain in the Bible. He even called the Letters of James as the strawman…

Interesting. I appreciate the history lesson.

God Bless,

Skeptictank

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree, I don’t understand. That is no grounds for avoiding the subject. Quite the contrary. As far as what you believe, I’m really more interested in why you believe it, and why you think that I ought to believe it.
Skeptictank

I believe it because I have studied my faith. I also had question the Truth in Catholicism. I have look at the Protestant position and I find doctrines of Faith Alone, and Scripture Alone as erroneous doctrines, which is not practiced by the Apostles.

I studied hard on the historical Church and found it Catholic. I read the writings of St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius (both men were taught by St. John, the Apostle), Pope Clement, as well as Irenaeus, and other saints.

Many of these Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, they also believe in an authoritative Church, and that this Church, Christ’s Church is Apostolic.

I use to held Protestant belief before I was 21 but I remain Catholic. After through deep mediation to God, and Scripture Reading, and asking the Holy Spirit, I truly believe Jesus Christ promised his Church from error.

He promised that his Church is infallible, but its leaders is not impeccable. The practice of Scripture Alone and Faith Alone is not historically proven in Christianity during the first, second, 3rd A.D.

Even the Rapture is not even a common belief. That theory was made in the 19th Century…

St. Ignatius of Antioch when writing to the Smyrnaeans in 107 A.D. said this,

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

Second I believe that Scripture is not easy read. It is difficult to understand. This what Peter wrote concerning private interpretation:

And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16.

I don’t believe in faith alone because James said,

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. James 2:24-26

Protestant Christianity contains partial truths. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of Church.

Just as 1 Tim 3:15 states, "

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

Bible Alone is not supported by Scripture, and history, or Christian history shows that it was not practice.

Indeed the Catholic Church had done bad things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.

Though the Church supported the Inquisition it was the state government who executed the heretics. The Crusades I felt it was justified because the Eastern Orthodox Church needed the Western Christians to help them. It was a defensive means to combat Islam who capture the Holy Land.

Despite this, the CC remain faithful to Jesus. Even during Jesus’ time one of his own disciple betrayed him, and one even denied him three times.

Lastly, I remain Catholic because of the Blessed Sacrament. I truly believe that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly Present, just as the Gospel of John 6 states. I don’t believe it is symbolic.

Jesus is the reason why I remain Catholic.

 

[skeptictank]

I believe it because I have studied my faith. I also had question the Truth in Catholicism. I have look at the Protestant position and I find doctrines of Faith Alone, and Scripture Alone as erroneous doctrines, which is not practiced by the Apostles.

That’s nice. All of these issues are worthy of a great deal of discussion, on another thread. Can you actually prove with scripture, and tradition that the church in terms of the leadership, hierarchy, and sacraments must be depended upon?

I studied hard on the historical Church and found it Catholic. I read the writings of St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius (both men were taught by St. John, the Apostle), Pope Clement, as well as Irenaeus, and other saints.

Many of these Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, they also believe in an authoritative Church, and that this Church, Christ’s Church is Apostolic.

I use to held Protestant belief before I was 21 but I remain Catholic. After through deep mediation to God, and Scripture Reading, and asking the Holy Spirit, I truly believe Jesus Christ promised his Church from error.

Yet, what is that church? If there are those in the catholic church who are not truly saved; if there are those who, even with the sacraments, have not devoted their lives to Jesus christ; if one may be saved, and recieve the truth of god outside of the church; then the Catholic Church is rendered useless.

He promised that his Church is infallible, but its leaders is not impeccable. The practice of Scripture Alone and Faith Alone is not historically proven in Christianity during the first, second, 3rd A.D.

Again, these are topics for another thread. I think the doctrine of “faith alone” is widely misunderstood. Scripture Alone, I think is true, but only in the sense that that is the only verifiably god-inspired record.

Even the Rapture is not even a common belief. That theory was made in the 19th Century…

Actually it was made by christ, and explained by the apostles.

Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

St. Ignatius of Antioch when writing to the Smyrnaeans in 107 A.D. said this,

Quote:
You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

Yet when the bishops began acting contrary to the word of god, such was certainly not applicable.

Skeptictank

 

[skeptictank]

Second I believe that Scripture is not easy read. It is difficult to understand. This what Peter wrote concerning private interpretation:

Quote:
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16.

This is why it is important to read the scriptures prayerfully, but all of my reading has only led me to christ, and to love my bretheren. That some organization of men should have hold of my destiny with christ is unthinkable, for all things are under HIM and any who come to the father BUT (that is: EXCEPT) by him, “is a thief and a robber”. Think about that the next time you see fit to confess to a priest.

I don’t believe in faith alone because James said,

Quote:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. James 2:24-26

Yet if you examine the scriptures carefully, you will find that it is in fact that works merely follow faith.

“for no man may pluck them from my fathers hand”

“no man my pluck out of my hand.”

Protestant Christianity contains partial truths. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of Church.

Just as 1 Tim 3:15 states, "
Quote:
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

what is the household of god?

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Bible Alone is not supported by Scripture, and history, or Christian history shows that it was not practice.

But the bible as a tool of validation, and of spiritual cleansing is supported in scripture, and the Catholic Church is not validated therein.

Indeed the Catholic Church had done bad things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.

Though the Church supported the Inquisition it was the state government who executed the heretics.

No offense, but that’s like saying-

the gunstore sold the gun to the five year-old, but it was the five-year old who shot his brother.

The Crusades I felt it was justified because the Eastern Orthodox Church needed the Western Christians to help them. It was a defensive means to combat Islam who capture the Holy Land.

The sent an army of troops under the command of a group of toddlers. Justified?

Despite this, the CC remain faithful to Jesus. Even during Jesus’ time one of his own disciple betrayed him, and one even denied him three times.

Lastly, I remain Catholic because of the Blessed Sacrament. I truly believe that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly Present, just as the Gospel of John 6 states. I don’t believe it is symbolic.

I don’t see how that’s relevant to the validity of the churches claim of supremecy.

So, in other words, you agree with a bunch of the stuff that the catholic church teaches, and you don’t feel that you could adequately know god without it?

Skeptictank

 

[mrs_abbott]

Hi,

Of course i accept your apology and I understand how frustrating it is because there are so many false teachings out there

I have come across some tough teachings that I think I can really never intellectually understand and that is when I let faith take over. In the bible it says to not lean on our own understanding. So sometimes I just have to trust God and have Faith that whatever He means it is for a good, loving and just reason.

I just keep on studying the bible and have faith and trust the HS will continue to teach and guide me. And your right He will not be done with me until Jesus takes me home. I am continually being sanctified.

As are any Christians trying to reach Heaven. The devil tries to win us over to his side but as long as we adhere to the Truth and listen to what Jesus says, we’ll stay on track!

 

[Mannyfit75]

That’s nice. All of these issues are worthy of a great deal of discussion, on another thread. Can you actually prove with scripture, and tradition that the church in terms of the leadership, hierarchy, and sacraments must be depended upon?

Yes it is hiearchy much like the Jewish Priesthood in the OT. I don’t think Jesus left us orphans and gave us a Church.

Yet, what is that church? If there are those in the catholic church who are not truly saved; if there are those who, even with the sacraments, have not devoted their lives to Jesus christ; if one may be saved, and recieve the truth of god outside of the church; then the Catholic Church is rendered useless.

That Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church. The Sacraments are from Jesus Christ himself. The faithful Christians are saved through God’s saving grace. You cannot judge who is saved and who isn’t. That is left to God alone.

Again, these are topics for another thread. I think the doctrine of “faith alone” is widely misunderstood. Scripture Alone, I think is true, but only in the sense that that is the only verifiably god-inspired record.

Feel free to open those threads.

Actually it was made by christ, and explained by the apostles.

The Rapture from the Left Behind Series speaks of Christians before the Great Tribulation says that all Christians will be taken up into heaven, and leave non-believers behind.

Bible Christian Society states regarding the Rapture:

No, there’s not. The “Rapture” refers to a passage in First Thessalonians, chapter 4, which talks about Christians being “caught up” in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Many Christians believe, and the “Left Behind” books promote, that this being “caught up” to meet the Lord will occur before the Great Tribulation which is headed our way in the near future. Christians will simply vanish, meet Jesus somewhere in the air, and then return with Him to Heaven to await the end of time

But notice, in verse 17, Paul says that “…we who are alive, who are left,” shall be caught up. Remember that…those who are “left” get caught up to meet the Lord.

The “Left Behind” books get their name from a passage in Luke 17 and a similar passage in Matthew 24 which talk about the coming of the Lord being like the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Matthew 24 puts it this way: “As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man…they ate, they drank, they married and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Then two men will be in the field, one is taken and one is left. Two women grinding at the mill, one is taken one is left.”

“See,” Rapture enthusiasts say, “One is taken, one is left…the Rapture! Jesus takes the Christians and leaves behind non-Christians!” Two problems with that interpretation: First, Jesus’ coming is being compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! Second, remember 1 Thessalonians? It says that those who are “left” get to meet Jesus in the air. The good guys are left behind to meet Jesus.

In other words, you want to be left behind so that you can get caught up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air and accompany Him back to earth at His 2nd and final coming. There will be no Rapture like the one the Left Behind books talk about…that view is not scriptural.

Yet when the bishops began acting contrary to the word of god, such was certainly not applicable.

Not so. Even Jesus said obey the Pharisees because they seat on Moses seat, but do not practice what they do.

Jesus knows well enough that Christians must adhere to the teachings of the Church, because the Church itself is Jesus Christ.

When Paul was persecuting the Church, Jesus came to him.

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

Interpretation the Scripture on your own makes you pseudo Pope, and it is not supported by Scripture just as I stated in Peter’s Epistle.

I am not picking verse from verse. I know enough of the Scripture to back the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Protestantism in its own right is dividing. They are not truly united. They have no centralized authority, lack valid priesthood, and only rely on interpretation of the Bible on your own.

Non of the Protestants doctrines are practice if you look at the History of Christianity, you find it to be Catholic.

Find a early Church document that describe a worship in the 1st to 4th Century A.D, and come back to me if you find any document that support the Protestant way of worship.

 

[Odell]

Could you point me to some aspect of this “fullness of the truth” that I’m missing out one?

As for the Eucharist, that’s for another thread.

Actually I think It is perfict for this thread you just asked in the previose sentice what aspect of the fullness of truth am I missing. Well there is one of them.

I know you don’t really believe that. God’s teachings are “catholic” (universal) but not in the sense that you claim. Who has all of his teachings?

So you admit to not haveing the fullness of the truth in your Church? I know Jesus founded only one church and the Church would at least claim to be the right one. So yeas Gods teachings are Catholic and they are the fullness of the truth what is so hard about that? let me ask you something are there going to be denominations in heaven?

Anyone who believes in jesus christ has (not “will be given”) has everlasting life.

(Mt 7:21) “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

why would you turn to the church?

because that is what the bible says my friend

(Matt 18:15-17) 'If he refuses to listen to them tell the church if he refuses to listen to the church then treat him as a gentile or tax collector Amen I say to you whatever you bibnd on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose will be loosed is heaven "

“ Tell it to the Church.” Here we have a church that seems to be an authoritative church. Our else there would be no need to tell it to the church. Well which church do we tell it to. We have 33,000 churches to chose from. If I have an issue and go tell it to my Church and they tell me something othor than what I want to hear its ok I have thousands more to chose from. What church speaks authoritatively to fulfill this passage? And if the Church is divided how does it speak authoritatively? So not only did Jesus leave us with a Church of truth and unity he left us with an authoritative Church.

 

[skeptictank]

“See,” Rapture enthusiasts say, “One is taken, one is left…the Rapture! Jesus takes the Christians and leaves behind non-Christians!” Two problems with that interpretation: First, Jesus’ coming is being compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! Second, remember 1 Thessalonians? It says that those who are “left” get to meet Jesus in the air. The good guys are left behind to meet Jesus.

Whoever wrote that has not done their homework. Enoche was taken up “translated” according to paul, before the flood. He speaks of those who are “destroyed” as being “taken”, thus commiting the fallacy of equivocation. I’m not interested in arguing against fallacious comments.

As far as those who are “left” getting taken up, he is speaking of those who “are alive and remain” as opposed to the dead. Read your bible.

Skeptictank

 

[skeptictank]

I appreciate everyone’s replies and comments, and will be looking into the matter further.

God bless,

Skeptictank

 

[Mannyfit75]

Whoever wrote that has not done their homework. Enoche was taken up “translated” according to paul, before the flood. He speaks of those who are “destroyed” as being “taken”, thus commiting the fallacy of equivocation. I’m not interested in arguing against fallacious comments.

As far as those who are “left” getting taken up, he is speaking of those who “are alive and remain” as opposed to the dead. Read your bible.

Skeptictank

Are you blind? Where do see Enoch in that post? I think you should read the interpretation that John Martinoni.

The idea of the Rapture is taken out from the Thessalonians which is taken out of context by Evangelican
Let me re-type that post I got from Bible Christian Society;

The idea of the Rapture came out of John Darby’s intrepretation in the 1882. He came up with the theory, ohn Nelson Darby, like Edward Irving, also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, this teaching has become a hallmark of Dispensationalism.

The reading in Thessalonians refer to the Final Coming of Christ. When Jesus Comes in Glory, he will judge the living and the dead. Second the Rapture is said to be secretive.

Let’s take a closer look at this passage.

For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God**, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.**

THe voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God? That doesn’t sound secretive to me. It is public. The Rapture theory also takes that Jesus will have two Second Comings.

The Bible does only states that Jesus Second Coming is final, and lastly, there is no historical proof of the support of the Rapture.

IF you do you research, you find the Rapture comes out from John Darby.

Google John Darby yourself and you’ll find out he came up with the idea… The Rapture is alien to early Christians.

 

[Allan1972]

Interesting, that doesn’t seem to be what jesus thought.

"Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

I’m sure you’ve read this and heard it many times, but it seems to be contrary to your statement.

Thanks, I’ll have a look at it.

God bless,

Skeptictank

I’m supporting this scripture with another if it hasn’t been metioined.

“38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40For he that is not against us is on our part.” Mark 9:38

Jesus said not to forbid him because he believed in Jesus and did it in his name, not his own.