Where did YOU get your authority?

[look3467]

Well, brother Steve, one thing we both have in common, and that is Jesus Christ.

I’ve enjoyed the good discussion and will remain at peace with my views.

After that, may your life richly be blessed doing the work of God in whatever way you find it worthy.

Thanks for being kind and patient in your responses.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[wisdomseeker]

, the HolyTrue Spirit descended upon them at the upper room along with others of 120.Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the .

Holy Ghost

baptized by whom? i really feel for you. you keep picking Scriptures, yet you dont seem to able to connect them.

You might want to reconsider your words quote" obey the apostles"as if they had the right to determine your souls fate.

i didnt say it. Jesus did. keep reading you might find something like "whoever hears you, hears me and the One who sent Me…

Even Jesus judged not:Jhn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

do you know what you just said?

Even Paul said:1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided

? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

again do you know what you just said?

What Paul was trying to say is that unless: Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,

Christ shall profit you nothing.

again do you know what you just said?

Again, unless the heart is changed by the Holy Spirit fire,no Apostle, priest’s words will fall on deaf ears.

is it why you refused to hear the priest?

Pride as in my independent knowledge, understanding and wisdom in the scriptures and not in the Catholic Church, you are saying?

i would be very carefull here. you might be blaspheming against the Sacred Church.

Disobedience as in not accepting the Churches interpretation of scripture, your saying?

yes. that is what i am saying. if you are not listen to the Church you are in danger of being listen to strange voices.

If you notice in all my posts that I do not discriminate between beliefs, but rather encourage the love of God within those beliefs as a sign of Gods indwelling in them.

I I I I… is irrelevant since you are not the Son or the Father or the HS.

Did you notice that my suggestion prayer indicated no condemnation? But rather to pray for understanding?

condemantion, humnnnn! judge for yourself. i say it again let your pride go and pray that prayer i gave.

I get my knowledge from them too but the stirring if from the Holy Spirit who gives me understandings.

you seem to love the I too much. let go of it.

Am I being judged as condemned for being a non-member?

member of what? you seem to have no understanding of the Church at all. you are seing the Church like many protestant do. no my friend far from it. the CC is the Body of Christ do not take her lightly. She is very important. Come and learn from her.

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?

and Jesus said: “and you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church…”. do you not see this?

The temple where Jesus resides is in you! That is where His church is (His Spirit) and where understanding and wisdom
lies.

oh my. your lack of understanding is greater than i thought.

As you know that temple was also destroyed?

and the Church took its place. the New Jerusalem. again i recommend you to pray that prayer.

What is the spiritual message Jesus was indicating?

Could it be that mankind were using the name of God in trafficking in business? Hmmm!
Den of thieves money changers?
You see, the temple in Jerusalem was just a picture of the real temple of God, being in the hearts of mankind, a spiritual church.

ask the Church. She will tell you. learn from Her.

Are you at liberty to read, and ask God directly for understanding apart from the Catholic Church?

no. Jesus left us a Church to guide and lead the faithfull.

Otherwise, we have eyes but can not see, have ears but can not hear to what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us.

Sorry. you keep selecting Scriptures without connecting them to anything. it wont work for Catholics. againg i feel for you. i know you are trying really hard.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge

? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.

Peace>>>AJ

Scriptures work beautifuly when read with the Church Jesus found. apart from that you may just make yourself really tired and still you dont know where you are going with it.

:angel1: :byzsoc:

 

[look3467]

Scriptures work beautifuly when read with the Church Jesus found. apart from that you may just make yourself really tired and still you dont know where you are going with it.

:angel1: :byzsoc:

Wisdomseeker, you just can’t follow my logic.

We are coming from two positions where one is bound and the other free.

Both positions know the Lord and worship Him as Lord but can not come together on technicalities.

(I) I will leave you to yours and continue in the faith.

For as long as you are for Him you will not be against Him.

peace>>>AJ

 

[willingheart]

First? Baptism. Right there on the beach. No delay. Second? Educate him on God, His Love, the story of salvation and God’s plan as I have been taught.

Baptise, then teach? The disciples always did it the other way around. Remember Phillip and the Ethiopian?

As I have followed many discussions on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that nothing will be resolved unless there is agreement on whether or not the RCC is the one true church of Christ. If you say it is, then you will be in agreement with everything the RCC teaches, in every detail. If you say it isn’t then you will not agree, and we can throw scripture back and forth all day long. BTW, I would like to clear up one common misconception about Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Protestant Bible study is not a free for all, “whatever you think is OK as long as you believe it.” We use Scripture to validate itself, cross reference verses, and consider context, both literal and historical, and we look for original meaning. The Holy Spirit is part of this process, as the Word is living, and as the Bible tells us, God-breathed and useful for teaching. I know many Catholics who have never read the Bible at all. (I will say that does not seem to be the case on this forum, however.)

That aside, I have this to say about “authority.” In the Jewish temple, access to God was limited by the priests. The very Presence of God was contained deep within the temple, in the Holy of Holies, which was only accessed by the high priest, and that only once a year after following strict ritual purification. No on else dared enter into the Presence of God for fear of death! This Holy of Holies was blocked off from the rest of the temple by a thick, woven curtain, the veil.

When Jesus breathed His last on the cross, the veil was torn open and the barrier was gone. In His act of sacrifice, Jesus had made God available to anyone who would enter. He Himself took on a “permanent priesthood,” and opened the gates of heaven to all who would believe in Him. This is a profound mystery and miracle! Everyone now had direct, unimpeded access to God! Halleluia!

Yet, sadly, the RCC has inserted itself in the position of the veil and has re-established the earthly priesthood, with all its laws and rituals. It seeks to again limit access to God! The Galatians fell into this trap when the Judaizers told them that they must also adhere to the traditions of the Jews, and Paul rebuked them, “…how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to enlaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!” (Gal. 4:9-10) And then he says at the beginning of ch. 5: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (to the law)

I understand that the RCC claims authority through Peter as “the Rock.” I have heard this verse interpreted several ways. (Peter is the Rock, Peter’s confession is the Rock, and Jesus is the Rock.) If we look to Scripture to corroborate itself, in all other instances Jesus is the rock and the cornerstone of the faith:

I Cor 10:4 - “… for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”

Eph. 2:19-20 - "…members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. " This is the church!

There are other references to Christ as cornerstone, which you probably know, and all of these references are consistent (remember I said Scripture validates itself?) with Old Testament language in which God is the “Rock of Israel,” “Rock of salvation,” “Rock and refuge,” etc.

So who is the rock and cornerstone of Christ’s church? Christ Himself. He is the supreme Authority, Redeemer and Judge. He is the way, the truth and the life. And He welcomes all who would come to Him.

I know many of you will refute what I’ve said, but this I know in my heart to be true, because of the Holy Spirit of God who lives within me.

Peace to all of you.

“On Christ the solid rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand.”

 

[elvisman]

The Holy Spirit is part of this process, as the Word is living, and as the Bible tells us, God-breathed and useful for teaching. I know many Catholics who have never read the Bible at all. (I will say that does not seem to be the case on this forum, however.)

I know many Protestants who never read the Bible either.
Thank God that salvation doesn’t depend on whether or not you’ve ever read the Bible otherwise all of the early Christians who were martyred – including Peter and Paul would be in hell.

When Jesus breathed His last on the cross, the veil was torn open and the barrier was gone. In His act of sacrifice, Jesus had made God available to anyone who would enter. He Himself took on a “permanent priesthood,” and opened the gates of heaven to all who would believe in Him. This is a profound mystery and miracle! Everyone now had direct, unimpeded access to God! Halleluia!
Yet, sadly, the RCC has inserted itself in the position of the veil and has re-established the earthly priesthood, with all its laws and rituals. It seeks to again limit access to God! The Galatians fell into this trap when the Judaizers told them that they must also adhere to the traditions of the Jews, and Paul rebuked them, “…how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to enlaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!” (Gal. 4:9-10) And then he says at the beginning of ch. 5: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (to the law)

Willingheart – we already went through all of this on another thread. Jesus DID set up his Church to have authority (Matt. 18:15-18). The Catholic Church has NEVER said that we don’t have access to God ourselves. This is a Protestant slander – and a complete lie that you have been spoon fed. The Church is not a barrier or curtain before God – it is our access to him. Remember what Jesus calls the Church in Acts 9:4-5. He calls it, “Me”. He equates his very self with his Church.

I understand that the RCC claims authority through Peter as “the Rock.” I have heard this verse interpreted several ways. (Peter is the Rock, Peter’s confession is the Rock, and Jesus is the Rock.) If we look to Scripture to corroborate itself, in all other instances Jesus is the rock and the cornerstone of the faith: 1Cor 10:4 - for they drank from the spiritual rockthat

accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." Eph. 2:19-20 - "…members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. " This is the church!
There are other references to Christ as cornerstone, which you probably know, and all of these references are consistent (remember I said Scripture validates itself?) with Old Testament language in which God is the “Rock of Israel,” “Rock of salvation,” “Rock and refuge,” etc.
So who is the rock and cornerstone of Christ’s church? Christ Himself. He is the supreme Authority, Redeemer and Judge. He is the way, the truth and the life. And He welcomes all who would come to Him. I know many of you will refute what I’ve said, but this I know in my heart to be true, because of the Holy Spirit of God who lives within me. Peace to all of you.

Yes, Jesus is our rock and our fortress and our salvation. BUT, you said that when it comes to scripture:
**“in all other instances Jesus is the rock” Not true.
Abraham was also referred to as the rock in Isaiah 51:1-2:
**“Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried;
**Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth; When he was but one I called him, I blessed him and made him many.”
Notice that God also changed Abram’s name to “Abraham” – just as he changed Simon’s name Kepha (Peter), which means “massive boulder”. Translated from Aramaic into Greek, this means “Petra”. Unfortunately, in Greek, this is a feminine noun, so “Petra” is changed to “Petros” in the Greek manuscripts.

Just as Israel was built on Abraham, the Church is built on Peter. To deny this is to deny the blindingly clear prefigurement and symbolism of the Old Testament – which is what Jesus came to fulfill.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Baptise, then teach? The disciples always did it the other way around. Remember Phillip and the Ethiopian?

As I have followed many discussions on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that nothing will be resolved unless there is agreement on whether or not the RCC is the one true church of Christ. If you say it is, then you will be in agreement with everything the RCC teaches, in every detail. If you say it isn’t then you will not agree, and we can throw scripture back and forth all day long. BTW, I would like to clear up one common misconception about Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Protestant Bible study is not a free for all, “whatever you think is OK as long as you believe it.” We use Scripture to validate itself, cross reference verses, and consider context, both literal and historical, and we look for original meaning. The Holy Spirit is part of this process, as the Word is living, and as the Bible tells us, God-breathed and useful for teaching. I know many Catholics who have never read the Bible at all. (I will say that does not seem to be the case on this forum, however.)

That aside, I have this to say about “authority.” In the Jewish temple, access to God was limited by the priests. The very Presence of God was contained deep within the temple, in the Holy of Holies, which was only accessed by the high priest, and that only once a year after following strict ritual purification. No on else dared enter into the Presence of God for fear of death! This Holy of Holies was blocked off from the rest of the temple by a thick, woven curtain, the veil.

When Jesus breathed His last on the cross, the veil was torn open and the barrier was gone. In His act of sacrifice, Jesus had made God available to anyone who would enter. He Himself took on a “permanent priesthood,” and opened the gates of heaven to all who would believe in Him. This is a profound mystery and miracle! Everyone now had direct, unimpeded access to God! Halleluia!

Yet, sadly, the RCC has inserted itself in the position of the veil and has re-established the earthly priesthood, with all its laws and rituals. It seeks to again limit access to God! The Galatians fell into this trap when the Judaizers told them that they must also adhere to the traditions of the Jews, and Paul rebuked them, “…how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to enlaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!” (Gal. 4:9-10) And then he says at the beginning of ch. 5: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (to the law)

I understand that the RCC claims authority through Peter as “the Rock.” I have heard this verse interpreted several ways. (Peter is the Rock, Peter’s confession is the Rock, and Jesus is the Rock.) If we look to Scripture to corroborate itself, in all other instances Jesus is the rock and the cornerstone of the faith:

I Cor 10:4 - “… for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”

Eph. 2:19-20 - "…members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. " This is the church!

There are other references to Christ as cornerstone, which you probably know, and all of these references are consistent (remember I said Scripture validates itself?) with Old Testament language in which God is the “Rock of Israel,” “Rock of salvation,” “Rock and refuge,” etc.

So who is the rock and cornerstone of Christ’s church? Christ Himself. He is the supreme Authority, Redeemer and Judge. He is the way, the truth and the life. And He welcomes all who would come to Him.

I know many of you will refute what I’ve said, but this I know in my heart to be true, because of the Holy Spirit of God who lives within me.

Peace to all of you.

“On Christ the solid rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand.”

a lot of information and not much substance into it. no one here is denying that Christ is the Rock, we know He is the Supreme Authority and that is why we obey His Church built by Him. the Church came out of the mouth of the Master Himself and not from somebody reading the Scriptures alone.

the Household of God is not made of people who enterpret His Words in many different ways without authority. it is not made of proud men who in all wants to be the authority. think about this. selection of Scriptures to fit what you want to belief does not work around here.

the CC did not put herself in any position of authority, Jesus did. but your all’s jealousy of her beauty and authority cannot let you see this. you have no idea what you are talking about.

profound mystery? you have no idea. wait until you begin to believe in the Eucharistia.

friend give up your pride. your disobedience to the Church is disobedience to our Lord Himself.

weeds will grow together with the wheat until the final judgement.
you should watch for this.

Mother Angelic denounces: the heretics stay away from the Eucharist because they refuse to believe.

Pray for the Pilgram Church on earth. She is attacked from all sides.

 

[willingheart]

Elvis! Glad to hear from you again!

Thank God that salvation

doesn’t depend on whether or not you’ve ever read the Bible otherwise all of the early Christians who were martyred – including Peter and Paul would be in hell.

Good thing our salvation doesn’t depend on being Catholic either, or our friends Peter and Paul would be condemned under those standards as well.

The Church is not a barrier or curtain before God – it is our access to him.

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Tim 2:5

Who gives us access to God, the Church or Jesus?
No one gets to the Father, except through…the Catholic Church? Jesus said it was through Him. You can’t have it both ways. Is it free access through Jesus or restricted access through the Catholic Church? It’s what I said. All comes down to the foundation of the church and to what is the church. Is it the body of Christ, who is the Head? Or is it a particular church called the Roman Catholic Church? The physical temple, where God’s Presence was contained, is replaced with the body of the believer, temple of the Holy Spirit. Believers are the church, of which Christ is the Head.

Remember what Jesus calls the Church in Acts 9:4-5. He calls it,

“Me”. He equates his very self with his Church.

Acts 9:4-5 is about Saul’s conversion; maybe a typo?

**Just as **Israel was built on Abraham, the Church is built on Peter. To deny this is to deny the blindingly clear prefigurement and symbolism of the Old Testament – which is what Jesus came to fulfill.

God called out Abraham to be the father of His chosen people, this is true. And God continually maintained a faithful remnant from Abraham throughout time, until the fulfillment of Scripture comes in the birth of Jesus. That is why it was important to include Jesus’s geneology in the NT and to connect Him back to Abraham. (Matt. 1:1) There is a continuity here! As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are adopted into the family of God, into the family of Abraham, whom God chose to begin with. We are
“grafted in” as the Bible tells us. So if you claim that Abraham is the foundation of Israel, then he is our foundation too. (In the sense that we are a faithful remnant of Israel who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, come to fulfill the law.) So now you have three choices for your “rock” - Abraham, Peter, or Jesus. I’m still sticking with Jesus.

 

[SteveGC]

Baptise, then teach? The disciples always did it the other way around. Remember Phillip and the Ethiopian?

Yes, in most instances, you’re right. The teaching would come first, then baptism, due to consent issues. I was thinking of youth who are baptized first, under the faith of those charged with their care. Thanks for prompting me to clarify.

Protestant Bible study is not a free for all, “whatever you think is OK as long as you believe it.” We use Scripture to validate itself, cross reference verses, and consider context, both literal and historical, and we look for original meaning. The Holy Spirit is part of this process, as the Word is living, and as the Bible tells us, God-breathed and useful for teaching.

We don’t so much hold that Protestants come up with “whatever” and then believe it. Rather, we would ask, “what do you believe as a body of believers?” We see no uniformity in what you are taught, and this manifests itself in disunity of what you believe. Again, the Holy Spirit is part of many processes in the life of a Christian, even Bible interpretation…but not private interpretation, meaning…not outside the guidance of authoritative teaching. The bible is useful for teaching, but it doesn’t teach itself to someone unexposed to the teaching authority, which is Christ Himself united to His Church. And the Bible does not validate itself. It doesn’t prove it’s truth to anyone merely by the presence of the truth within it. It is Christ’s whole body of teachings which validate the Bible. Bible didn’t come first, the body of teachings did. But the Bible certainly can and should be cross-referenced to take in the whole story of salvation history and keeping things in context. But the only confirmation and validation it provides is that which you have individually been taught - outside of Scripture. That’s the problem…if what you were taught isn’t true…Scripture will not readily reveal that error to you. You did not learn what you have learned through Scripture alone. No one can honestly say this. Many claim they learn directly from the Holy Spirit in their reading, but it’s just not true. You always first get taught by someone claiming “authority”. The trick is to know whose authority is authentic.

I know many Catholics who have never read the Bible at all.

I know many of them too. But remember, Catholics hear and absorb the Scriptures at every Mass, every day. Nearly the entire Bible is read aloud every three years in The Catholic Church. And they don’t just hear Scripture, they receive historical, practical, spiritual teaching on Scripture every day as well, by men vested with Christ’s authority. Best Bible study there ever was. Even so, The Church does encourage and gives guidance to the faithful to read the Bible. Here’s some of Her guidance…read para 109-114 emphasis on 113

This Holy of Holies was blocked off from the rest of the temple by a thick, woven curtain, the veil. When Jesus breathed His last on the cross, the veil was torn open and the barrier was gone. In His act of sacrifice, Jesus had made God available to anyone who would enter. Yet, sadly, the RCC has inserted itself in the position of the veil and has re-established the earthly priesthood, with all its laws and rituals. It seeks to again limit access to God!

Yes, Hallelujah indeed. Jesus opened up the veil…but the Catholic Church did not re-close it. In keeping with your analogous logic, if She did re-close it, She would now block all but the chosen from the presence of God. She does not. All are welcome…not because men in the Catholic Church say all are welcome…but because Christ says all are welcome, and The Church is Christ’s authority on earth. She says whatever Christ says, and does as He instructs through the Holy Spirit. No one is turned away. You have every right to enter into the fullness of truth. In your temple analogy, the new covenant was not fully in place, and so all were not welcome. Hence, the veil. Now the veil is lifted…and all are welcome. The Cathoic Church isn’t a new veil…She is the safeguard of the Truth, yet does not restrict any from entering into that Truth.

Your argument about the “rock” is understandable. But, you can’t see that there is vastly superior biblical evidence for Peter as the rock if you consistently view Scripture through the lens of protestantism, which is to say, with a bias toward the idea that there is no Christ-appointed authority on earth. You’ll always see the “rock” issue your way. You were pretty close on the mark in your previous statement, in which you basically said that if you can’t accept the Catholic Church’s role as Christ’s earthbound authority, then no other biblical argument is worth exploring. But, just so you know, Catholics do claim Jesus as the supreme Authority, Redeemer and Judge also. But we also honor His actions in His appointment of representative authoriy on earth.

but this I know in my heart to be true, because of the Holy Spirit of God who lives within me.

I don’t deny your conviction. We also would claim to know because of the Holy Spirit living within us…but the Holy Spirit comes to us through The Church Christ promised us, and as such, He is aligned with the teaching authority of His Church, and our hearts are aligned to the teachings of His Church…and so, in that way, we would say something very similar to what you say here.

God Bless

 

[elvisman]

Elvis! Glad to hear from you again!

Always good to talk to you!

Good thing our salvation doesn’t depend on being Catholic either, or our friends Peter and Paul would be condemned under those standards as well.

Peter and Paul were Catholic - some of the very first ones.

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Tim 2:5
Jesus is the only one who can save us - intercede for our salvation - that’s what this passage means.
1 Tim. 2:1-3, Hebrews 12:1-2, Rev. 8:3-4 all tell us that we also intercede for each other as the Body of Christ.

willingheart:
Who gives us access to God, the Church or Jesus?
No one gets to the Father, except through…the Catholic Church? Jesus said it was through Him. You can’t have it both ways. Is it free access through Jesus or restricted access through the Catholic Church? It’s what I said. All comes down to the foundation of the church and to what is the church. Is it the body of Christ, who is the Head? Or is it a particular church called the Roman Catholic Church? The physical temple, where God’s Presence was contained, is replaced with the body of the believer, temple of the Holy Spirit. Believers are the church, of which Christ is the Head.

Acts 9:4-5 is about Saul’s conversion; maybe a typo?
No typo.
Jesus tells him, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."
Saul persecuted the Church - AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven, yet Jesus says he is persecuting him.
Jesus and his Church cannot be separated.

willingheart:
God called out Abraham to be the father of His chosen people, this is true. And God continually maintained a faithful remnant from Abraham throughout time, until the fulfillment of Scripture comes in the birth of Jesus. That is why it was important to include Jesus’s geneology in the NT and to connect Him back to Abraham. (Matt. 1:1) There is a continuity here! As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are adopted into the family of God, into the family of Abraham, whom God chose to begin with. We are
“grafted in” as the Bible tells us. So if you claim that Abraham is the foundation of Israel, then he is our foundation too. (In the sense that we are a faithful remnant of Israel who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, come to fulfill the law.) So now you have three choices for your “rock” - Abraham, Peter, or Jesus. I’m still sticking with Jesus.
All 3 are the Rock - in different contexts, of course.
Jesus is the rock - of our salvation.
Abraham was the rok - the foundation upon which Israel was built.
Peter was the rock - the foundation upon which the Church was built.

 

[willingheart]

Steve, your resonses are always so intelligent and articulate, without the venom that I often hear in the posts of some others. (Elvis, I’m not talking about you.) I appreciate your respect. It is most Christ-like. :yup:

Elvis, I guess we go round and round again. But seriously, “spoon fed?” (From your last post.) Were you throwing me a bone? One might be tempted to apply that phrase to the followers of the RCC.

 

[elvisman]

Steve, your resonses are always so intelligent and articulate, without the venom that I often hear in the posts of some others. (Elvis, I’m not talking about you.) I appreciate your respect. It is most Christ-like. :yup:

Elvis, I guess we go round and round again. But seriously, “spoon fed?” (From your last post.) Were you throwing me a bone? One might be tempted to apply that phrase to the followers of the RCC.

I guess some personal history is in order.

Most of my siblings left the Catholic Church for various Protestant denominations becaue they were poorly cathechized. They used to “work” on those of us who remained Catholic, because, we too were poorly catechized.

We decided to investigate our faith instead of succumbing to anti-Catholic remarks and found that this is the one true Church that Jesus founded. My Protestant - who are still virulently anti-Catholic - siblings no longer engage us in those conversations. I love them and pray for them daily.

Cardinal John Henry Newman, himself a convert from the 19th century once remarked, "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant." He held that anybody who is truly open-minded (free of anti-Catholic bias) and studied history would come to the same conclusion that he and millions of other have because it is so painfully obvious.

When I use the term “spoon fed”, it’s because I was spoon fed the very same lies by anti-Catholics that you may have been - because your remarks were anti-Catholic.
I hope this helps.

 

[SteveGC]

Likewise, willingheart. It is often difficult to not be overly emotional about our convictions, yes? I appreciate your charity as well. And you know, you’re so right about the stumbling block of which version of the word “Church” to accept.

I thought of something that might help, though. The protestant version of church is “body of believers”. They use it in arguing against what they think the Catholic version of church is. But you know what? It ISN’T different than our view. The Church absolutely IS a body of believers…the Church Herself teaches that…and every Catholic would quickly agree. We don’t claim it’s a building in Rome…with subordinate buildings throughout the world. Sure, this is how She manifests Herself physically in the world today, but it is not what constitutes Her being. What consitutes Her being is the unified body of believers within Her. And this unified body of believers is not akin to “exclusive club membership” like so many claim. Mystically, you are part of that body of believers too. We consider you to be, even though you dare not call yourself that bad word (Catholic), we consider you our brother/sister in Christ. But we also consider you, to some varying degree, to be separated. Not inferior, just somewhat wandering, outside the bosom of Christ’s unified body of believers, also known as, The Body of Christ. That’s another name for The Church…and Christ is The Head of the Church. We are unified to Him as a living body is never separated from its head.

I think the toughest thing is to understand why Christ would need authority on earth in the first place. I mean, why can’t** He **just continue to be the lone authority in Heaven? But, you see…He is. The Church doesn’t proclaim to be the lone authority. So, the better question is…so why would Jesus (divine as He is), need to leave a *representative authority *on earth? First, absorb the phrase representative authority. That’s a critical first step. It signifies that whatever authority is on earth, it is merely representative…it isn’t surpreme, or divine in and of itself. That authority only has that characteristic inasmuch as it is united with Christ’s supremacy and divinity. This representative authority is much like how a prime minister represents the King in the King’s absence. The OT is full of this type of normative, kingdom-based heirarchy…and it wasn’t condemned…on the contrary…that type of structure was used by God Himself to establish and unify the “body of believers” of those times.

Christ came to free us all (you obviously know this)…but in keeping with His proclamation that He is not here to abolish the ways of the OT, but to fulfill them, He continued (i.e. did not abandon) the structural means by which the NEW body of believers would be united, much like an OT “kingdom”, with a representative “prime minister” in His absence. This is why you also hear The Church referred to as “God’s Kingdom on Earth”.

…to be continued…

 

[SteveGC]

…continued from previous post…

OK, I think I can hear you now…saying, ‘but Christ is NOT absent!’. Ok, spiritually…no. You would be right, of course. Physically, though…He is quite absent. “Doesn’t matter”, you might say. “He is the lone authority spiritually!”. Well, we would say His physical absense matters rather abundantly. Why?

The answer to that lies in the nature of humans and our limited capacities to unify ourselves with God. We rely on both our spiritual being and our physical being. God, from the beginning has always honored these limited capacities, and has interacted with humans using both means. One sees physical means all over the place (whether it be a tree, an apple, a burning bush, an altar, inspired scripture, a cross, and yes, even humans themselves). With the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, our human capacity to unite with God didn’t just all of a sudden become spiritual-only. This is why Christ used material things like water, wine, bread, rocks, OT scripture, and apostles to interact with people and ultimately unite all believers.

Now…why would this physical means diminish in His physical absense?? It really makes no sense…If anything, you would think the physical means must increase not decrease, because His physical presence went away. But the truth is, it does neither. It stays the same. The truth is, He did not change the normative way in which truth comes into the world, through both spiritual and physical mediums. This is how man has always related to God. This is the reason why there is representative authority remaining on earth. Because He knows that we learn truth not only through God’s indwelling spirit, but also through the physically and tangibly manifested teachings of humans by humans. But not by just any humans…specifically “sent” humans. Whether they be prophets, priests, or apostles. They are “sent” to teach. Why “sent”? Because anyone can “teach”, but only divinely appointed men can teach Truth.

Now, you might argue, “The bible is the solely sufficient inspired “material” He gives us to teach us everything”. Ok…I only would replace the term “solely” with the term “a”. Now re-read: ‘The bible is A sufficient inspired “material” He gives us to teach us everything.’ It cannot stand alone, however. If it could, all believers would have always had bibles. For most of the years between Christ’s life and ours, most people did not. So, how could the bible be their stand-alone sufficiency? It couldn’t. There had to be something on earth to guide them unto all truth.

Enter The Church. A teaching authority. Planted as a seed through Peter, manifesting itself today as a united Christian “body of believers”, with servants who lead and shepherd the faithful, working in unison with the Holy Spirit who guides and protects Her and the Truth of Christ within Her.

And lastly, another difficult part is to stop seeing Her as yet another denomination. Yes, She was given a title which became a normative means of identifying Her in the midst of heretical schisms and false religions. This title stuck. It wasn’t a God-breathed title…just a God-breathed Church. Again, humans, in our limited capacity to “see” all things, need things like labels and titles to help us distinguish between truth and lies.
And so, The Catholic Church became this name. She looks different today than She looked in the beginning, but such is true with any acorn and it’s internal oak tree. It has changed according to the ways in which She must relate and unify the world around Her.

I don’t know if this helps or not. It helped me tremendously to see the Truth. Sorry for the insane length of this post.

God Bless.

 

[willingheart]

**Most of my siblings left the Catholic Church for various Protestant denominations becaue they were poorly **cathechized. They used to “work” on those of us who remained Catholic, because, we too were poorly catechized.

How is that the “one true church” provides poor or inconsistent catechism? Isn’t that what the Protestant churches are accused of ? Steve says we have no consistency in our teaching.
BTW, I find the differences among the denominations to be form over substance - do you sprinkle or dunk, and babies or just those who “understand”; do you allow guitar music or just organ, do you use a traditional liturgy or a more contemporary format. The basic Gospel message is the same. UNLESS you are speaking about “churches” which we would call cults - like the JW’s and the Mormons, who deny the deity of Jesus and the Trinity, and have amended the Gospel itself.

When I use the term "spoon fed", it’s because I was spoon fed the very same lies by anti-Catholics that you may have been - because your remarks were anti-Catholic.
I hope this helps.

Yes, my remarks probably were anti-Catholic Church (the institution) but I am not against Catholic people in any way. In fact, my perceptions of the Church come from ex-Catholics themselves (my husband included) and not from my church or anything it teaches. (If you’re wondering, we belong to a Methodist congregation.) My only direct experience with the Catholic Church has been attending various masses as a visitor and as a bride. We were married in the Catholic Church, but of course, we were denied mass because I am not Catholic, despite the fact that I was baptized and confirmed in a Christian church. (Some of my personal history for you.)

Certainly there are many “jumping the fence” in both directions and many misunderstandings on both sides. But I would never presume to know the heart of any person, Catholic or Protestant, nor would I hate anyone for their beliefs. I’m sure there are many saved and unsaved in both sets of pews; only God knows.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If they hold any kind of teaching position, say at a university, the bishop has authority over them. If they have a ministry of any sort that distributes anything, the bishop has authority over them. If they are just walking around talking, then they are in the same position as a normal Catholic, under the Biship but not to the same level

http://www.hismenrevealed.com/files/1779407/uploaded/10606-lrg.jpg

Hello ralphinal,

*Excellent post and excellent point! *

*Every Catholic does have a Bishop, in one way or another. We belong to an Apostolic Faith, which means that we have a leader, the Pope (Bishop of Rome) and Bishops. *

We are blessed with many Bishops, who fill many different roles within the Church. This is the way it has been since the very beginning of Christianity.

Note: Today, there are more than 2500 Catholic Dioceses, worldwide.

Additionally, we are all fortunate to have Priests, Deacons and other ordinary and extraordinary ministers… Eucharist ministers, music ministers, lecterns and so on…

*We also have teachers; this includes Priests, Professors, RCIA instructors, Catechism instructors, Catholic Apologists, Nuns and so on… *

*We are blessed with Nuns, many of whom teach our children, all of whom pray for us…I love Nuns! *

*Finally, we have the faithful, that’s you and me and all of the other lay Catholics in the world today. *(One Billion+ Catholics, worldwide).

*All authority given to the Church was given by Christ. This is supported Biblically, Historically and Traditionally. *

*Every Catholic, has an important role, every Roman Catholic has a Pope, Bishop, and in a sense, Priest and Nun, whether you are an observant Catholic or not. They all love us and pray for us. *

*The reason why so many Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations, avoid Christian History, Christian Traditions and Catholic Bible verses, is because they don’t want you to know that the Catholic Church has been given Christian and moral authority here on earth; passed down, an unbroken Apostolic Succession, starting with Saint Peter and the early Popes. *

We also have the Seven Holy Sacraments and the Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

*The Catholic Church represents the Full Deposit of Faith. *

*Catholics can defend their faith, so long as what they are saying is not in direct conflict with official Church doctrine or teachings. *

Catholics, unlike many Protestants, are not permitted to come to their own conclusions or interpretations, which are apposed to those found in Catholicism.

*If they do, they are acting as individuals and not as Catholics and are in error and acting outside of the Church. *

We are not the religion of “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”; we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in full Communion with all of the Angels and Saints in Heaven…

We have the Church, Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture!

All Gory to God!

 

[SteveGC]

How is that the “one true church” provides poor or inconsistent catechism? Isn’t that what the Protestant churches are accused of ? Steve says we have no consistency in our teaching.

Hi again. I’m glad you make this important point. There’s a big difference between the deposit of faith and catechesis.

The deposit of faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. If you will, permanent unchanging and protected record of the teachings of Christ.

Catechesis, is the education of that deposit of faith.

The difference is in possibility of error. No possiblity of error in the deposit of faith. Possible error in catechesis, due to the human element intertwined within it. The Catholic Church is full of fallible humans (yes, even the Pope). But the Holy Spirit protects Her from error in doctrinal proclamation and promulgation of truths pertaining to faith and morals. Notice I underscored doctrinal, as opposed to educational.

Catechesis, done at every level within The Church, is not protected as such. This doesn’t change the unwavering, consistent truth She maintains, but it does occasionally result in improper formation of the faithful within Her. Is this a trivial issue? Not in the least. The Church works very hard to ensure that catechesis measures up as high as humanly possible to the deposit of faith. But the world intervenes, secularism infiltrates, the sins of man interfere and skew the education. But…in defense of Church catechesis, the cases of poor catechesis is NOT the sole fault of Church leadership. The recipients (or catechumens) themselves must be properly disposed to accept the teachings as well. In fact, most cases I’ve seen of poor catechesis come as a result of improper disposition of the catechumen, not the catechist (teacher).

And so, just as protestants do not make the claim that their body of believers is perfectly educated, nor does The Catholic Church. Rather, the deposit of faith itself is what separates us. And so, to clarify, I did not mean to infer that only your “teaching” was inconsistent, but more importantly, WHAT you are *supposed to *teach is highly inconsistent. The protestant “body of believers” has no agreement on what they must teach, what truths must people believe in, obey, etc. This is the problem. What interpretations does this “body of believers” use to unite themselves?

I find the differences among the denominations to be form over substance - do you sprinkle or dunk, and babies or just those who “understand”; do you allow guitar music or just organ, do you use a traditional liturgy or a more contemporary format. The basic Gospel message is the same.

Some of the problem is form, yes. Form, though, is not as trivial as you may think. But I would overall agree that substance is most significant. However, I would say that baptism is a “substantial” difference, as it correlates directly with salvation. Moreover, salvation without the necessity of lifelong obedience and repentance is a dangerous, substantial difference. A case could also be argued about the rejection of The Real Presence, but I won’t go there. Nonetheless, these differences, though few, are quite substantial, so much so that we find ourselves desperately praying for separated brethren to return Home.

Finally, you mentioned the Trinity as being a uniting principle among believers…and I agree. But where did you learn about the Trinity? From whom? And although it certainly can be implicitly supported from Scripture, no one I know of (personally, or otherwise) has ever made the claim that they received that knowledge from their reading of Scripture (with the Holy Spirit). No one. And so, we must recognize that the teaching of this fundamental** requirement **of belief of all Christians (the 3-person, 1 being deity), came from outside the Bible. And I’m not even interested in debating that it came from The Church. I could make irrefutable arguments of that. But I’m not. Rather, my intent is to point out that the mere fact that you believe in this fundamental concept points directly to the notion that you must acknowledge some authority outside of the Bible, yet still on this earth since Christ’s death and resurrection. Ponder about this for a little while, and I’d be happy to hear an argument about it.

God Bless

 

[elvisman]

How is that the “one true church” provides poor or inconsistent catechism? Isn’t that what the Protestant churches are accused of ? Steve says we have no consistency in our teaching.

SteveGC already answered in post 233.

BTW, I find the differences among the denominations to be form over substance - do you sprinkle or dunk, and babies or just those who “understand”; do you allow guitar music or just organ, do you use a traditional liturgy or a more contemporary format. The basic Gospel message is the same. UNLESS you are speaking about “churches” which we would call cults - like the JW’s and the Mormons, who deny the deity of Jesus and the Trinity, and have amended the Gospel itself.

What about OSAS, Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence?
Tthese are huge differences within Protestantism.

Yes, my remarks probably were anti-Catholic Church (the institution) but I am not against Catholic people in any way. In fact, my perceptions of the Church come from ex-Catholics themselves (my husband included) and not from my church or anything it teaches. (If you’re wondering, we belong to a Methodist congregation.) My only direct experience with the Catholic Church has been attending various masses as a visitor and as a bride. We were married in the Catholic Church, but of course, we were denied mass because I am not Catholic, despite the fact that I was baptized and confirmed in a Christian church. (Some of my personal history for you.)

Certainly there are many “jumping the fence” in both directions and many misunderstandings on both sides. But I would never presume to know the heart of any person, Catholic or Protestant, nor would I hate anyone for their beliefs. I’m sure there are many saved and unsaved in both sets of pews; only God knows.

Yes, I’m sure there are good and bad in every church.

 

[willingheart]

Hey guys, I have to take a break. My dear, dear aunt has passed away, and I need to get myself to Pennsylvania to be with my family. I’ll check on you all next week - I’m sure you can carry on. Thanks, Steve, Elvis. You have both given me much to ponder and research. Always a pleasure!

 

[MelanieAnne]

WillingHeart ~

My condolences on your loss and prayers for your aunt. I’m sure the others on this thread will feel the same.

Melanie

 

[SIA]

Always good to talk to you!

Peter and Paul were Catholic - some of the very first ones.
**Can you show us where Scripture says that or is that just another one of those things that doesn’t have to be in Scripture? **
Jesus is the only one who can save us - intercede for our salvation - that’s what this passage means.
1 Tim. 2:1-3, Hebrews 12:1-2, Rev. 8:3-4 all tell us that we also intercede for each other as the Body of Christ.

No typo.
Jesus tells him, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."
Saul persecuted the Church - AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven, yet Jesus says he is persecuting him.
Jesus and his Church cannot be separated.

All 3 are the Rock - in different contexts, of course.
Jesus is the rock - of our salvation.
Abraham was the rok - the foundation upon which Israel was built.
**Peter was the rock - the foundation upon which the Church **was built.