What's Your Authority?

[SteveVH]

Who determines the original meaning of a text?

The magisterium of the Church from whence it came.

The meaning must first fit the context or it is a pretext. We know that v.9 is not speaking of biological fathers. We also understand that it doesn’t apply to spiritual fathers as in the case of St. Paul.

Why does it not apply to Paul? He told them that they didn’t have many fathers but only one, him, who became their father through Jesus Christ. On what basis do you rule Paul out and then single out Peter and his successors? If Paul was a spiritual father what is it that excludes Peter and every one of his successors from being a spiritual father? The Pope is our Holy Father and we accept it with great joy. Not sure why the insistence that there is something wrong with this title. Do you think we somehow confuse the Holy Father with God our Father in heaven?

It can therefore only refer to one person, in contrast to vs.8 and 10 which clearly are speaking of more than one. I don’ t believe its that easy to brush aside.

Why can you not just accept what really happened? Christ was speaking directly to the Pharisees who lacked humility and held themselves up as the highest authority. I seem to remember Jesus referring to them as whitewashed tombs as well. And yes, the same would apply to anyone with the attitude of the Pharisees to which he was speaking. But it need not apply to one who has humbled himself before God and is a true spiritual father, whether parish priest or pope. They are rightfully and properly called father.

Steve, do you really believe we can have no divisions?

Not when it comes to doctrinal issues concerning faith and morals. This says nothing of diversity in other respects, which is abundant within the catholic Church. But we share “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.…” (Eph 4:5). There can be no division in the truth given to the Church by Christ through the Apostles. It must be protected and guarded from all error.

For example, the source and summit of the Catholic faith is the Eucharist, that which we proclaim to be the true body and blood of our Lord, his entire Person truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity. Remember, the source and summit. Which means without this belief there would be no Catholic Church. That is how important it is. Now let me ask you. Do you believe what we believe, because if you don’t then there isn’t just a little crack, there is a great divide. To claim oneness in the face of such a fundamental difference concerning a doctrine that makes or breaks the Catholic Church doesn’t seem very reasonable.

Why was St.Paul so concerned about the division in the Corinthian church?

Because divisions shouldn’t happen and Paul was making sure they didn’t. This goes completely against your argument. If division didn’t matter then why did it matter to Paul?

What did Paul propose to cure the divisions? Did he say that all must follow Cephas because he is the one unique representative of Christ on earth.

I don’t think that was what the dispute was about, do you? It would have been odd for him to have brought up the authority of Peter. But since Paul respected Peter’s authority, if it would have been the issue I am sure Paul would have defended Peter and his role as the representative of Christ on earth.

Many seem to think that it is abundantly clear that Mt. 16:18 gives Peter all power over the church and all spiritual things. Yet there is far from universal agreement among the Fathers.

There is? It would be helpful if you could provide a source for this.

Also,without any reason or excuse every one seems to simply assume that the “keys to the kingdom” are the same thing as the “keys to the church”. Is the “kingdom” now the same the same as the “church” in this context?

I don’t know that there is much to read into his words. They’re pretty plain. The keys are the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Keys lock and unlock. Keys to a house lock and unlock entrance to the house. Keys to the kingdom of heaven lock and unlock entrance to the kingdom of heaven. The other Apostles received great authority as well, but only Peter was given the keys. Since Christ is King, yes the Church would be his kingdom which will be realized in its fullness at the end of time.

 

[SteveVH]

Before Jesus left, he promised to send the Holy Spirit, not the Magical Magisterium, to remind us of all things He had said.

You may be crossing the line here in showing contempt for another religion, in particular the Catholic religion…, on a Catholic forum…, which is against forum rules. Just saying. It would be nice to see you around here for a long time. We can all learn together.

Peace.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Our founders were much wiser than that Randy. They knew if one body were given the final say it would lead to a kind of tyranny all over again. That is why we have a 3-way balance of powers. These men were Protestants! They understood the nature of men, and unlike today, they prayed to God first, before acting.

Before Jesus left, he promised to send the Holy Spirit, not the Magical Magisterium, to remind us of all things He had said.

All three branches must exist within the bounds of the Constitution. That’s the beauty of it. They are all governed by ONE thing. They do not claim authority from somewhere else.

 

[simspt]

Our founders were much wiser than that Randy. They knew if one body were given the final say it would lead to a kind of tyranny all over again. That is why we have a 3-way balance of powers. These men were Protestants! They understood the nature of men, and unlike today, they prayed to God first, before acting.

Before Jesus left, he promised to send the Holy Spirit, not the Magical Magisterium, to remind us of all things He had said.

The disciples were the instruments the Paraclete used to bear witness of Jesus to the world. John’s Gospel takes for granted that the early Church was the means by which the Paraclete would teach the disciples, console them and convict the world. Before Jesus left in John’s Gospel we have his priestly prayer for unity that involved a vertical (like that shared between the Father and Son) and horizontal (among believers) dimension. ThIs unity was to be manifested within the Church as testimony to the world. The Paraclete was left to guide the Church (including Magisterium) into all truth. Those who did not believe in Jesus during his ministry accused Him of magic, your sarcastic label of the Magisterium as magical reminded me of those who doubted Christ…you doubt His Church he founded.

 

[eazyduzit]

You may be crossing the line here in showing contempt for another religion, in particular the Catholic religion…, on a Catholic forum…, which is against forum rules. Just saying. It would be nice to see you around here for a long time. We can all learn together.

Peace.

Steve

Sorry for the inappropriate attempt at humor, but it was hard to resist.

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #236
Before Jesus left, he promised to send the Holy Spirit, not the Magical Magisterium, to remind us of all things He had said.

MAGISTERIUM. The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Such a denial of Jesus shows the extent of ignorance, as Jesus mandated:
“Go and teach all nations….teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). That is the purpose of Christ making St Peter His Supreme Vicar – to safeguard all of His teaching – the Magisterium is simply the teaching authority of Christ’s Church.

Jesus made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Jesus gave Peter sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Such is the humour of Christ – “I shall not leave you orphans. I will come to you.”[Jn 14:18].

 

[yateanieys]

“Familiarity” with Catholicism does not necessarily mean that such a state translates into knowing that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ to teach, rule and sanctify mankind. Anyone who knowingly rejects Christ’s means of salvation (His Church) knowingly rejects Him, and condemns himself.

I mean, I don’t reject the Church the way you’re implying; then again, I was taught that the Church is comprised of all people that believed in Jesus and accepted him as their personal Savior, and there are a lot of people outside the influence of the Catholic Church that fit that description.

I suppose my grandfather and I reject Catholicism, but not in the sense that it’s not an adequate means of achieving salvation. As far as I’m concerned, it is very adequate, but then again, so are the Protestant faiths. We believe that the scope of the Church has expanded. Maybe Martin Luther and some of his followers centuries ago held a grudge against the Catholic Church when they contested indulgences. However, that was hundreds of years ago.

Maybe some Protestants still hold contempt in their heart for the behavior of some of its members, but as far as hating the Catholic Church or its traditions? I don’t think so. Most all of the Protestants I’ve met are very respectful and tolerant of the beliefs and traditions of other denominations. We might not agree with the methods or traditions, and we might debate them, but we don’t ultimately reject any other denomination as a means of achieving salvation. We reject the traditions we weren’t raised with because we were raised with different ones, and we absolutely reject the rejection of the Christ, Jesus, as the Messiah.

When it comes to Catholic tradition, our rejection is solely a matter of taste. Now, before you comment on that one, I already know that, to a Catholic, that sounds like I’m selfishly rejecting salvation through the Church and, therefore, rejecting Jesus’ teaching because I don’t like the way they handle things. Well, it’s not selfish and it’s definitely not rejecting Christ! You say it’s rejecting his teachings, but I disagree, because I was taught a different things.

I was taught and I firmly believe that the Church is more than what you claim it is. The Catholic Church is made up of itself as well as all the sects that branched off from it. So, technically, you’re right, salvation is achieved only through the Catholic Church, but also by way of its offshoot denominations. The Church didn’t fail or break apart or lose some of it’s members; it simply expanded—it grew. They all teach the same overall message of salvation, they just have different traditions and disciplines.

A Catholic tells a fellow Catholic, “the Catholic faith is the only faith and all other ‘denominations’ are wrong because the Bible says Jesus said so.”
A Protestant tells a fellow Protestant, “It’s not for me, but if you believe it gets you closer to salvation, then who am I to judge? The Bible says ‘judge not, lest ye be judged.’”

I went to a Catholic Church because I was interested to see what I had been missing, but it was the service that was missing something—like a familiar feeling. I didn’t feel as comfortable there as I did at an AG church. Still, I respect the desire for salvation of members of the Church, regardless of how they want to go about achieving it. It’s just that the Catholic denomination is not the right fit for me. It wasn’t the right one for my grandfather either.

I might not agree with the whole of Catholic tradition, but I’ll never say that you are wrong for being Catholic; that’s judgement. I will say that you are wrong if you judge people as the Bible preaches against it. Since you consider Protestants to be outside the Church, that’s even more of a reason not to judge us for our beliefs, as per 1 COR 5:12.

…and you still haven’t answered my question

 

[rinnie]

We are free to agree to disagree. I have no problem with us doing so. And I never claimed such power so I’ve no clue what you’re talking about there. All I know is we both believe by faith in God and by faith in that part of the NT story of a resurrected Christ Savior. Walk in peace.

What my point I was trying to make here is this, You agree you do not have the power to speak in the name of God. And I agree with you, I have not the power either.

But just because we have faith and believe in God would indeed make us orphans. Because who would be here to lead us in that faith and belief in God?

God promised the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us in the faith we believe in. It is through this Church that the Holy Spirit is living and through this Church this Holy Spirit is teaching.

Jesus never truly left, it is through his Spirit through his Church that he Continues to teach us.

If he would have not continued this teaching and help through his Holy Spirit and the advocate did not come to the Church as promised we would be orphans.

My question is this, Did Jesus promised the Advocate on the day to Pentecost to come to the Church, or to each individual?

 

[rinnie]

We do not believe as Protestants as being outside of the RCC, we are taught Protestants do not have the fullness of the truth.

The RCC teaches we are all united in our Baptism in the name of the Trinity, but we not perfectly united for our rejection of the fullness of the truth.

 

[yateanieys]

My question is this, Did Jesus promised the Advocate on the day to Pentecost to come to the Church, or to each individual?

Yes

 

[simspt]

What my point I was trying to make here is this, You agree you do not have the power to speak in the name of God. And I agree with you, I have not the power either.

But just because we have faith and believe in God would indeed make us orphans. Because who would be here to lead us in that faith and belief in God?

God promised the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us in the faith we believe in. It is through this Church that the Holy Spirit is living and through this Church this Holy Spirit is teaching.

Jesus never truly left, it is through his Spirit through his Church that he Continues to teach us.

If he would have not continued this teaching and help through his Holy Spirit and the advocate did not come to the Church as promised we would be orphans.

My question is this, Did Jesus promised the Advocate on the day to Pentecost to come to the Church, or to each individual?

Both/and not either/or. The individuals who make up the Church. John’s Gospel places a heavy emphasis on the personal relationship between believers and God. This does not exclude the Church for it was the disciples of Jesus who made up that early Church and were commissioned to preach the Gospel with the aid of the Paraclete.

 

[rinnie]

Both/and not either/or. The individuals who make up the Church. John’s Gospel places a heavy emphasis on the personal relationship between believers and God. This does not exclude the Church for it was the disciples of Jesus who made up that early Church and were commissioned to preach the Gospel with the aid of the Paraclete.

Okay if you read in the bible the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach and preach in the CC was given by the laying of hands. We call that Holy Orders today.

Now you show me where your authority in the bible to receive the Holy Spirit to preach and teach in his Church was given. Scripture please! Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

Yes

Again where did the Advocate come in the bible to each individual in the bible? I only see the Advocate come to the CC as promised by Jesus. Again scripture please.

 

[yateanieys]

Again where did the Advocate come in the bible to each individual in the bible? I only see the Advocate come to the CC as promised by Jesus. Again scripture please.

I guess my point is that the Bible doesn’t say CC, it references “the Church,” which I believe is made up of individual believers. It’s not just an institution, it’s the living, breathing body of the Christ.

And thanks for clearing up the fullness of truth thing. I think I have a better understanding now. Thank you!

God bless you, brother

 

[simspt]

Okay if you read in the bible the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach and preach in the CC was given by the laying of hands. We call that Holy Orders today.

Now you show me where your authority in the bible to receive the Holy Spirit to preach and teach in his Church was given. Scripture please! Thanks.

I agree with you regarding Holy Orders. We are all given the task of preaching the Gospel and assisted by the indwelling of the Paraclete and Jesus. John’s Gospel is replete with passages in the last discourse CH 13 and on teaching about Jesus having to leave before another Paraclete would come and assist us with teaching and following Jesus’ commandments to love one another eg faith in action. In John’s Gospel all believers who obey Jesus’ commands receive the Spirit and are charged with bearing witness of Jesus. Not just the leaders of the Church. Jesus prays for his disciples and those who will come to Christ from their preaching. In a sense we today have the Spirits dwelling within us and are in no less a unique position that the first generations of Christians.

 

[SteveVH]

I mean, I don’t reject the Church the way you’re implying; then again, I was taught that the Church is comprised of all people that believed in Jesus and accepted him as their personal Savior, and there are a lot of people outside the influence of the Catholic Church that fit that description.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe in Jesus and believe he is their Savior. So do the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a lovely little organization who revels in telling our troops that they will burn in hell. Do you include them in your list of people that belong to the “Church”? Or are there other factors that should be taken into consideration? IOW, are you certain that what you have been taught really holds water?
yateanieys;12709080:

We believe that the scope of the Church has expanded.

Upon what is this belief based?

I disagree, because I was taught a different things.

Is this really a valid basis for disagreeing?

I was taught and I firmly believe that the Church is more than what you claim it is. The Catholic Church is made up of itself as well as all the sects that branched off from it. So, technically, you’re right, salvation is achieved only through the Catholic Church, but also by way of its offshoot denominations. The Church didn’t fail or break apart or lose some of it’s members; it simply expanded—it grew. They all teach the same overall message of salvation, they just have different traditions and disciplines.

What do you think Paul was doing in his letters to the Corinthians? They were going against the faith that he had given them. He didn’t respond with “hey, I guess the Church is expanding”. To the Galatians he said “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) Paul was admonishing certain communities for not holding to the true faith. Those that did not were to be accursed, not accepted as just another expansion of the Church. The truth given to the Apostles was to be protected and guarded and those that varied from it were considered heretics, not just another part of one big happy family.

A Catholic tells a fellow Catholic, “the Catholic faith is the only faith and all other ‘denominations’ are wrong because the Bible says Jesus said so.”

A Catholic would never such such a thing. We would say you are wrong to the degree that you differ with the faith given once to the Church by the Apostles, which has been preserved and protected by the Catholic Church since Pentecost, long before there was a Bible.

A Protestant tells a fellow Protestant, "It’s not for me, but if you believe it gets you closer to salvation, then who am I to judge? The Bible says 'judge not, lest ye be judged.

'"

So then you believe truth is based upon one’s private beliefs and we should just accept those beliefs as equally valid? We must make judgments as to what is true and what is not. This has nothing to do with judging individuals. Have you made a judgment as to the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church? Are their beliefs equally as valid as any other group that calls itself “Christian”?

I went to a Catholic Church because I was interested to see what I had been missing, but it was the service that was missing something—like a familiar feeling. I didn’t feel as comfortable there as I did at an AG church. Still, I respect the desire for salvation of members of the Church, regardless of how they want to go about achieving it. It’s just that the Catholic denomination is not the right fit for me. It wasn’t the right one for my grandfather either.

So, then, it is a matter of where we feel the most comfortable?

Since you consider Protestants to be outside the Church, that’s even more of a reason not to judge us for our beliefs, as per 1 COR 5:12.

Those that have been Baptized are part of the Church, in varying degrees of communion with the true Church. And, once again, there is nothing wrong in judging another’s beliefs as to whether or not they contain error. In fact, we would be negligent in not making that judgment. Have you ever heard of one who calls themselves “Christian” believing in reincarnation? I have. Should we make a judgment as to the soundness of this belief or just accept it as an expansion of the Church?

 

[yateanieys]

Whoo, STEVE

Thanks for the response, brother. I’ll try my best to clear up a couple of things and answer everything else.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe in Jesus and believe he is their Savior. So do the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a lovely little organization who revels in telling our troops that they will burn in hell. Do you include them in your list of people that belong to the “Church”? Or are there other factors that should be taken into consideration? IOW, are you certain that what you have been taught really holds water?

As was stated earlier in this thread, the Catholic Church, like every other denomination, has made mistakes in the past that were attended to and remedied (i.e. the Catholic Inquisitions: death by fire is null and void now, of course, though their justification is debated to this day). The Mormons have a very racist history and Jehovah’s Witnesses shun their brothers, but that doesn’t mean they can’t remedy those as well eventually and embrace a less hateful approach. But you’re right, maybe I should have broadened the scope a bit.

I posted this earlier. Please respond to this as well

As far as saying MAYBE we’re all right, maybe we are. As I said earlier in a reply to you. Instead of bickering over our differences, maybe we should start acknowledging the things we have in common. For instance, Catholics and Protestants both share these ideologies:

• the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth
• The Ten Commandments were sent by God as a moral behavior guide
• Love your neighbor as yourself
• Fishers of men further the Kingdom of God
• John 3:16

and those are just a few. But, my point is maybe those common factors (or a combination of others [added for clarity of position]) across faiths are the only things that truly matter

I’m not claiming to know the validity of that; I just wanted to propose an idea as to the fullness of truth. Maybe it isn’t as complicated as most make it? I know the thought makes me a heretic, but if it was, we’d all be laughing our eternal rears off when we got to Heaven!

Upon what is this belief based?

rennie helped remedy this. It was an invalid argument I understand the Catholic position on this better.

Is this really a valid basis for disagreeing?

See previous reply

What do you think Paul was doing in his letters to the Corinthians? They were going against the faith that he had given them. He didn’t respond with “hey, I guess the Church is expanding”. To the Galatians he said “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) Paul was admonishing certain communities for not holding to the true faith. Those that did not were to be accursed, not accepted as just another expansion of the Church. The truth given to the Apostles was to be protected and guarded and those that varied from it were considered heretics, not just another part of one big happy family.

The Church at Corinth went against their faith in God which Paul had established. Corinth was riddled with detestable activity. The deacons in my Church aren’t prostitutes. The members of my Church don’t sue their brothers (at least to my knowledge); I personally couldn’t even dream of that. My faith was influenced by the Pentecostal faith, but my faith in God grows stronger through faith itself. No two faiths are the same. Even one Catholic’s faith will differ greatly from every other person.

A Catholic would never such such a thing. We would say you are wrong to the degree that you differ with the faith given once to the Church by the Apostles, which has been preserved and protected by the Catholic Church since Pentecost, long before there was a Bible.

Again, see previous, previous reply

Have you made a judgment as to the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church? Are their beliefs equally as valid as any other group that calls itself “Christian”?

Westboro Baptist is plain hateful. The scope of this argument could never expand enough to account for their actions.

So, then, it is a matter of where we feel the most comfortable?

This is what I was trying to explain a couple pages back. How can anyone say that the branching of the church was or wasn’t God’s gift to us? How can anyone say that God did or did not want to further tailor the Church to his children which were growing more and more diverse with every year? Maybe it was a plan to save more people that the Catholic Church wouldn’t have been able to reach otherwise? That’s a notion, not a belief. I’m simply interested in what you guys think.

Thanks again for the replies and God bless!

 

[Erich]

The Church at Corinth went against their faith in God which Paul had established. Corinth was riddled with detestable activity. The deacons in my Church aren’t prostitutes. The members of my Church don’t sue their brothers (at least to my knowledge); I personally couldn’t even dream of that. My faith was influenced by the Pentecostal faith, but my faith in God grows stronger through faith itself. No two faiths are the same. Even one Catholic’s faith will differ greatly from every other person.
…
This is what I was trying to explain a couple pages back. How can anyone say that the branching of the church was or wasn’t God’s gift to us? How can anyone say that God did or did not want to further tailor the Church to his children which were growing more and more diverse with every year? Maybe it was a plan to save more people that the Catholic Church wouldn’t have been able to reach otherwise? That’s a notion, not a belief. I’m simply interested in what you guys think.

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes some good points. In summary:

Consider 1 Cor 11:18-19: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

*So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.

Believers in an “invisible church of true believers” tend to also be believers in the notion that there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines and as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”

The notion that that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth… is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church… they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #243
The Church didn’t fail or break apart or lose some of it’s members; it simply expanded—it grew. They all teach the same overall message of salvation, they just have different traditions and disciplines.

False.

Thus you are still quite unable to reasonably explain why the Protestant sects have rejected Christ’s command to “listen to the Church”, those whom He then describes as “like the heathen and the publican”, and don’t have:

1. The priesthood, the Eucharist (Holy Mass), Christ’s seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of His Pope, Her Tradition and all of Her Sacred Scriptures, such as:
2. The doctrine of Purgatory in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”
3. Are hopelessly confused over the gravity of indulging in many sinful activities such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia etc.

I will say that you are wrong if you judge people as the Bible preaches against it. Since you consider Protestants to be outside the Church, that’s even more of a reason not to judge us for our beliefs, as per 1 COR 5:12.

False, as the Sacred Scriptures which Christ’s Catholic Church has given us clearly tell us:
It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:

“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

#253
How can anyone say that the branching of the church was or wasn’t God’s gift to us?

From God Himself: “If he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Who has the authority to deny Christ? How could God contradict Himself?

 

[yateanieys]

From God Himself: “If he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Who has the authority to deny Christ? How could God contradict Himself?

You bring up valid points, but you’re still not accounting for one thing: if God hypothetically branched the Church, then those who lend ears and heed the teaching of those different branches would not be guilty of such ignorance.

I understand you’re adamant about everything you posted and I commend you, but you have to think hypothetically to break through a rational barrier. And I am by no means trying to offend you by questioning your debate methods. You’re a tad forceful at times, but you are no doubt versed in your faith. Repetition is noble and responsible of you as a firm believer, but if you’re going to rebut a hypothetical argument, you have to approach it from another angle. I think your current approach would be more effective with a backsliding Catholic, but I’m not Catholic.

Right now, You and I are simply deadlocked in a stalemate. I do believe there is a very simple answer to what I posited, I just don’t have a clue what it is. I have both sides of it after roughly 70 posts in this thread, but I feel like there’s a piece missing. That’s why I’m still hanging around this thread

Bless you, brother