where is the historical church founded by Jesus Christ?

[Dokimas]

Peace to you, D. Can you elaborate on “True faith doesn’t need defending?” Every Christian knows that the Faith needs defending. And you should “not be amazed, brothers, if the world hates you.” (1 John 3:13) for it.

Jesus is the Truth and He is in no need for us to defend (protect) Him. The Truth is to be proclaimed but not defended. As Peter told us, we are to be ready to defend the reason for our hope.​

What does the idea the world hates us when we live as Jesus would have us to do with defending the faith?

 

[Poco]

Can any one answer my post #928. Thanks
Peace

Forgive me if this has been already addressed,but I’m trying to catch up on this thread,and there is so much to sift through. I was told by a RCC priest that there is no Mass in Heaven because there are no Sacraments in Heaven, no need. I read Scott Hahn’s book Lamb Supper which suggest there is Mass in Heaven. Rev. 19 the Wedding Feast of the Lamb suggest there is a Wedding feast in Heaven. What are they feasting on? I find this all very confusing.I’m a slower reader so forgive me for jumping post, this one caught my eye, so I had to ask.
Peace

Greetings, racing59! Well, I tried. I’ve searched but have not been able to find any info on whether or not there is a Mass in Heaven. At this point I would tend to agree that there is “no need” for a Mass in Heaven.
As to the “Wedding Feast of the Lamb”, while I haven’t read Scott Hahn’s book, it doesn’t seem to me they are/were “feasting on” anything. At least not in the sense of a backyard cookout!

I hope everyone else will please forgive me for drifting from the original question! :bowdown:

 

[Dokimas]

What I’m saying is that if you find evidence offensive, then you really need to be honest.

Now it seems you’re calling me a liar. No problem to me,only to your position. Ps 119:165 (I like the King James Version for this verse)

 

[Dokimas]

**I’ve read R.C Sproul, Norman Geisler, Billy Graham, Hank Hanagraaf to name a few. Not all, but many of them admit the Catholic Church stood alone and ****later **perverted her doctrines. Most say this happened by the 5th Century, although some say it happened in the 4th century.

Name some of them then.

That’s not what Scripture says.
Matt. 7:15-23** explicitly** talks about people who believe but are **not **faithful. Those who did things in his name and called upon him but were lost.

**No – I **DO understand that I belong to his only Church – his body – not a divorced faction.

The way you do this make for responding to you quite a chore. Well here goes.​

I was wondering which protestant theologians think your church went back to the 1st century.​

Your doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived, etc. The doctrine of infant baptism is another; the exclucivity of the CC for a third; transubsanciation.​

The rest I can’t figure out here.

 

[Carlan]

Just a little food for thought. Long before my Dad died he told me this story.

He said you are either A Roman Catholic or you aren’t. He said you are either hot or cold. You cannot be lukewarm. He said as you get older and think for yourself you will see what you are. You are either Hot and stand by the teachings of the Pope and the RCC or you are Cold you will reject him and the Church.

I now see what he means, and I for one am not just hot, I am on fire!!!

I trust the Pope with all my heart and soul and I will believe all he has to teach me until the day I die. I have gotten into the teachings of the Church pretty deep now for the last 4 years. And I will tell you one thing, there is not one teaching that the RCC has taught me that has ever gone in direct conflict with the word of God. ITs always in line. I thank God for the Pope and the RCC. I will stand by the RCC and the teachings forever. And I will thank Jesus everyday for leaving me the RCC the Living Christ to lead me!!!

Amen! Carlan

 

[Loboto-Me]

Originally Posted by Loboto-Me forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Exactly, because the Bible isn’t meant to be interpreted as straight forward. Agreed that when Jesus said to eat His Body and drink His Blood it wasn’t to be taken straight forward. The Church has had to have scholars interpret it properly in order to have a proper understanding of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting that the church scholars you speak of, interpret the Bible favoring their church? Not THEIR Church… THE Church, since at that time there was only ONE Church, therefore it was interesting that it was favoring everyone’s (at that time) Church. It wasn’t denying any other Christian’s theology since there was only the one theology that everyone adhered to.

Straightforward interpretation leads to different conclusions as evidenced by the different conclusions in “protestant” denominations. Not true. If it was just straight forward as you think, there’d be but one interpretation But I’m not the one who claimed that the interpretation should be straightforward because it just isn’t a straight forward text. All of it needed to be interpreted by those who knew all about Tradition (the unwritten word and actions), and taken into context of the WHOLE set of scriptures including the OT, and in context of the OT. The only ones who could even begin to understand what was the intention of the holy books were the scholars and clergy of the CC because they knew the Holy Book and Christianity in an intimate way and because the HS was intimately involved. It’s when the Protestantism came along that the interpretation slowly went into the “straight forward” direction and then “everyone” was understanding it in their own way and “fighting” over the meaning of the Book and its different passages. Meanwhile, back at the farm, the Catholics didn’t even have to look twice at what God was trying to reveal through his written word… They already knew what God was revealing.
**
This is in reply to Dokimas reply to my post. The black writing is mine, the purple is Dokima’s and the green is my reply to Dokima’s reply of my reply. Anyone dizzy yet?

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Loboto-Me forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Exactly, because the Bible isn’t meant to be interpreted as straight forward. Agreed that when Jesus said to eat His Body and drink His Blood it wasn’t to be taken straight forward. The Church has had to have scholars interpret it properly in order to have a proper understanding of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting that the church scholars you speak of, interpret the Bible favoring their church? Not THEIR Church… THE Church, since at that time there was only ONE Church, therefore it was interesting that it was favoring everyone’s (at that time) Church. It wasn’t denying any other Christian’s theology since there was only the one theology that everyone adhered to.

*Straightforward interpretation leads to different conclusions as evidenced by the different conclusions in “protestant” denominations. Not true. If it was just straight forward as you think, there’d be but one interpretation *But I’m not the one who claimed that the interpretation should be straightforward because it just isn’t a straight forward text. All of it needed to be interpreted by those who knew all about Tradition (the unwritten word and actions), and taken into context of the WHOLE set of scriptures including the OT, and in context of the OT. The only ones who could even begin to understand what was the intention of the holy books were the scholars and clergy of the CC because they knew the Holy Book and Christianity in an intimate way and because the HS was intimately involved. It’s when the Protestantism came along that the interpretation slowly went into the “straight forward” direction and then “everyone” was understanding it in their own way and “fighting” over the meaning of the Book and its different passages. Meanwhile, back at the farm, the Catholics didn’t even have to look twice at what God was trying to reveal through his written word… They already knew what God was revealing.

Thank you for taking the time to share your understanding. We dissagree.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

When will you understand it’s not the Bible verses you and others use that are rejected. They are wonderful verses. It’s the interpretation that is questioned in light of the rest of the Bible.

Only the catholic church has the authority to interpret correctly! The authority given to the church by christ himself.

Matthew

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Jesus is the Truth and He is in no need for us to defend (protect) Him. The Truth is to be proclaimed but not defended. As Peter told us, we are to be ready to defend the reason for our hope.​

What does the idea the world hates us when we live as Jesus would have us to do with defending the faith?

Excuse my not being clear!

Definition for defend:
protect against a challenge or attack;
to guard from harm.

Is that not what Catholics do when non-Catholics confront them on their beliefs?..or Protestants when Catholics confront them?

"…Holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents…" Titus 1:9
**
“It is right that I should think this way about all of you, because I hold you in my heart, you who are all partners with me in grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.”** Phil 1:7

To defend our Faith is to defend our Lord. And you’re right; the Truth must be proclaimed. But it also must be defended when falsehoods are brought against it. I’m sure we agree, friend. We just have misunderstood each other.

Truth suffers, but never dies. St Teresa

 

[Matariel]

Only the catholic church has the authority to interpret correctly! The authority given to the church by christ himself.

Matthew

After all, it was the Scriptures that called the Catholic Church the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”— and it was Christ who guaranteed the Catholic Church that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”.

 

[Dokimas]

Only the catholic church has the authority to interpret correctly! The authority given to the church by christ himself.

Matthew

This is what I mean by self-serving interpretations (understanding).

 

[Dokimas]

Excuse my not being clear!

Definition for defend:
protect against a challenge or attack;
to guard from harm.

Is that not what Catholics do when non-Catholics confront them on their beliefs?..or Protestants when Catholics confront them?

"…Holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents…" Titus 1:9
**
“It is right that I should think this way about all of you, because I hold you in my heart, you who are all partners with me in grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense** and confirmation of the gospel.” Phil 1:7

To defend our Faith is to defend our Lord. And you’re right; the Truth must be proclaimed. But it also must be defended when falsehoods are brought against it. I’m sure we agree, friend. We just have misunderstood each other.

Truth suffers, but never dies. St Teresa

Good verses. Thank you. I am corrected.

 

[Loboto-Me]

This is what I mean by self-serving interpretations (understanding).

What do you mean self serving? The bible was interpreted by those who were most intimate with it… the Catholic Church.

It’s not our fault that those who chose/choose to separate from the Church (who had already interpreted it for ALL Christians) also don’t choose to take a “serving” by being in communion with Her at her abundant table. After all it may not be “Self-Serve” but the buffet is superb as long eat your vegetables too.

 

[Dokimas]

What do you mean self serving? The bible was interpreted by those who were most intimate with it… the Catholic Church.

It’s not our fault that those who chose/choose to separate from the Church (who had already interpreted it for ALL Christians) also don’t choose to take a “serving” by being in communion with Her at her abundant table. After all it may not be “Self-Serve” but the buffet is superb as long eat your vegetables too.

I think I’ve tried to share my thoughts on this matter. I obviously haven’t done a good job. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[Matariel]

I think I’ve tried to share my thoughts on this matter. I obviously haven’t done a good job. Let’s leave it at that.

I think what Loboto-Me is getting at is that the Church, from the beginning, believed, based on the teachings of the Apostles and the words of Christ in Scripture, that it could infallibly guide the faithful and interpret the doctrines of Christianity based on the Scriptures and apostolic Tradition. This was universally held by all for 1,500 years until the Protestants broke away. I guess Loboto-Me and I just do not understand how each individual Protestant can form their own doctrines and have this authority higher than the Church of Christ, when Christians from the beginning had acknowledged the Church’s spiritual and doctrinal authority (which St. Paul calls “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”).

This “doctrinal democracy” within Protestantism was one of the things which made me reconsider my Evangelical Protestant understanding, and eventually become a Catholic Christian.

 

[guanophore]

Rinnie, why did it not translate to Catholic in English? If you cut and style men’s hair I could drive the 1200 miles to PA to give you more time. But I’m certain I’d get a nice haircut.

It does translate into English. It reads “the church throughout” = universal. That is the meaning of Catholic. The adjective was made into a title because that is what best described the one, holy, universal and apostolic church founded by Christ. Those who separated from the Apostolic Succession were no longer considered united to the Church founded by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I could, is there one in particular that you feel we would not agree on?

I think you misunderstood my request. I was asking for the list that distinguishes between essential and non-essential doctrines.

I am sure we agree on most of them.

 

[tweetymom]

Nope Tweet, you have to get to the pearly gates before you are going to know for sure. It really would help you if you read all the Catholic stuff that’s out there. you are still going by what the other folks told you, Sorry little friend.Peace Carlan

Well maybe you will but as for me,

 

[shondrea]

Isn’t there a quote in Sciprute about, be wary those who feel they stand high, lest ye fall?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t disagree with what you are saying since there is always a final authority in life, not just the in the church.

Are you saying that you believe there is no final authority in the Church? Or are you saying that Protestants accept that there is a final authority everywhere else, but deny it in the Chruch?

The way I look at it is they may not have the fullness of truth, but many people don’t like the traditional way of worship and they prefer the newer age worship, so in the end they are still part of the church unofficially as a separated sect which has the same chance for salvation.

That is the crux of the problem, though. as soon a error is taught, the result is that people begin passing through the gates of hell. The further the sects get separated from the fullness of truth, the more likely the errors in theology will result in behavior that departs from the Apostolic standard. For that reason, they don’t have the same chance for salvation.

I am surprised to read such a thing from a person who claims to be Catholic.