where is the historical church founded by Jesus Christ?

[adrift]

Please do not criticize Tweety for changing her affiliation. It is an action worthy **not **of blame, but of commendation! She agreed not to use that label for herself out of conciliation for those of us that were constantly offended by it. This is a case of a person giving up what she wants to do so as not to be an offense to others. I very much appreciate her flexibility in this matter, and I think it benefits all of CAF. Now, when she posts things that are not Catholic, it does not cause confusion for people coming here trying to learn about Catholicism.

I wasn’t criticizing her for changing her affiliation.

Originally Posted by tweetymom View Post
I am not confused or lying,** how rude of you I changed affiliation because of people like you.** I am what I say i am. As far as ideas you have not presented one to me that was worth much. My belief in Jesus is very simple, the way He meant it to be. I am very glad I am a simple person and I do know the truth.

She was accusing me of causing her to change it. I had nothing to do with it. I personally was against it. It was her choice and if she was as noble as you are trying to make her out to be she wouldn’t have made the sniping remarks she made to me.

 

[Dokimas]

Elvis wrote:

[SIGN]So - because it’s not in the bible makes it untrue? That is the weakest argument I’ve ever read on these forums.

Was the story of the Mayflower Pilgrims in the Bible? Nope
Does that make it a lie?
Get real.[/SIGN]​

Take a look at my comment in context and then get back with a less condescending comment.

 

[guanophore]

How does one actually adhere yet fall short all at the same time?

I assent with my will and my mind, for example, that I should love others as I love myself. Often I act in a manner that is unloving. As a result, when I fall short, I am convicted in conscience, confess my fault, and make amends. I am constantly in a state of being conformed to that which I have already adhered.

This is what the Apsotles called “working out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

And why does the Church not listen to you and not label Catholic all those you consider not Catholic?

Why should the Church listen to me?

The Church gives the criteria for Catholicity. She tells us to examine ourselves, to see if we are in the faith. This is the responsibility of each individual. We are not even in a position to examine others. All we can do is observe their fruit, and note that the fruit is not Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

The Popes he is quoting are all before this century, and are reacting to heresies that were rampant at the time. In order to understand their statements, one must look at them in the context in which they are made. Did you read the quotes? Do you find them troublesome as well?

All these statements were made before the catechism we have now was developed.

Guan, but if the catechism we have now was not what we had then, how much longer then before the catechism is fully developed so we know for sure what the truth is?

 

[guanophore]

Guan, Rinnie asked why they have communion and I simply answered her.

Oh, right, right. Can you use the quote button, and include the question? That will help me stay on track. This is one of the fastest moving threads I have ever seen! Sorry.

 

[adrift]

Elvisman, this position is not consistent with Catholic teaching. The mystical Body of Christ is much larger than the visible body, and there are many members of it that are not “visible” in the world, or the Church that is in the world. Only Christ knows those who are His.

All who are validly baptized are joined to the Head, and we are therefore all members one of another.

Baptism leaves an indelible mark that cannot be removed, no matter how we sin. There is only one baptism. Baptism makes us children of God. That is why when a person is Baptized in another Church they become members of the Catholic Church even if they don’t understand or believe. You can be separated but never not a part of the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Oh, right, right. Can you use the quote button, and include the question? That will help me stay on track. This is one of the fastest moving threads I have ever seen! Sorry.

Is that the mulitquote button? Sorry.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s not what I said. I said the word, TRINITY is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible but that it IS *implicitly *taught. The term, TRINITY was proclaimed by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.​

I didn’t say you did. I said the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible; the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin and other doctrines about her are not explicitly in the Bible. You really have to read into verses as you have, to come up with your beliefs.

Ad while we are speaking of taking one verse and building a doctrine around it - isn’t that exactly what Protestantism has done when using 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as a defense for the extremely flawed and false doctrine of menh that is Sola Scriptura? Ummmm . . . that’s EXACTLY what they did.​

I don’t comment on ‘sola scritural’ so I have no comment. Why ask me?

Again - this is not what I said.
I said that the verse translates, "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." You and I were NEVER "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace - especially not as the word, kecharitomene described Mary, which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result.​

Again I didn’t say you said anything. I showed you the same Greek word for ‘full of grace’ was used for more than Mary so your verse can’t be used for immaculate conception, IMO.

 

[larkin31]

Is that the mulitquote button? Sorry.

I don’t know how to do it either.

 

[guanophore]

Ok so you’re like the rest of us. Human. But once the HS sorted it out for you to your understanding, you proclaim what the HS has told you according to your understanding.

I think what you might be referring to is what the Catechism calls “mental reservation”. To the extent that we do not consent with our mind and will with the Teaching of the Church, we are commanded to study, and struggle with ourselves until we can come into conformity. We are to be in a state of “faith, seeking understanding”. We are called upon to be obedient, even if we do not agree, and to pray that we may be conformed to the image of Christ.

For example, if I personally do not see a problem with contraception, as was the case for many years, I am called upon to keep my dissent to myself (avoid publicly maligning the Teaching of the Church) and to work to bring myself through prayer and understanding into communion with the Church on this matter. In the meantime, I am called to be obedient to the Church by not using contraception. This is a Catholic response.

To fail to study,pray, and seek conformity with the Teaching in such a case is to fail in Catholicity. If it is done out of rebellion, then it is protesting.

Does that make sense?

 

[larkin31]

Wow

What Biblical passage is this from? I have never heard this claim before either.

Anyone? On Mary intending to remain celibate all her life? I have tried looking this up but can’t find anything…

 

[adrift]

Oh, right, right. Can you use the quote button, and include the question? That will help me stay on track. This is one of the fastest moving threads I have ever seen! Sorry.

It has to be fast the mods are looming over head.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t know how to do it either.

Larkin, watch out or Elvis might put you related to the body of Christ like me!

 

[guanophore]

This all sounds fine, but all the scripture states is that Mary is “blessed” (as are 40+ other Biblical figures and sinners) and that she is “full of grace” (only one Biblical version has this, actually. Not the KJV)

Most Bible’s translate Luke 1:28 as “highly favoured,” since the Greek word used, according to Strong’s Greek lexicon, is this:

Gk: charitoō

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3. to honour with blessings

This is really off topic in this thread. You have failed to appreciate kecharitomene in this context.

However, I will stipulate that the Apostolic Teaching on the All Holy Mother of God cannot be well extrapolated from scripture. Personally, I find the references slight. I can see how those who are separated from the Succession could lose it quickly. We see that all the original Reformers accepted the Apsostolic Teachings about Mary, but they began to get lost within one generation of the separation.

Mary is the Mother of God. He created her a pure vessel, so that He could draw His human flesh from hers.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, watch out or Elvis might put you related to the body of Christ like me!

worse things have been done to me!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hi Therese, I thank you for your caring. But I’m just sitting here wondering how is it in charity to call someone ignorant? They may or may not be ignorant. Perhaps someone understands but may disagree with something. That may make them not 100% perfect in the eyes of the CC. But it doesn’t necessarily make them ignorant nor even non Catholic for that matter. (Not that I want to open that whole thing again because I don’t).

Okay we won’t open that whole thing. But I was not necessarily calling you ignorant. What you state to some of the Catholics and non-Catholics alike can be ignorant or false about the Catholic Church. What you believe personally is between you and God, but do not spread any falsehoods about the Church so long as your religion says, “Catholic.” I am a fellow Catholic and I have an obligation to call you on that.

I would like to thank all of you who are praying for my former wife. She just got out of the hospital Saturday evening. Please keep her and her husband in your prayers as well as the family. Once again thanks to all of you.

Will do, Rev. Thank you for letting me know.

 

[adrift]

Anyone? On Mary intending to remain celibate all her life? I have tried looking this up but can’t find anything…

Mary, who was married, asked how could she get pregnant. Now I think she knew how this occurs so the question is strange unless she made a vow of virginity.

Don’t come back that she was engaged because it doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It meant that she had not yet gone to live with her husband.

 

[larkin31]

This is really off topic in this thread. You have failed to appreciate kecharitomene in this context.

However, I will stipulate that the Apostolic Teaching on the All Holy Mother of God cannot be well extrapolated from scripture. Personally, I find the references slight. I can see how those who are separated from the Succession could lose it quickly. We see that all the original Reformers accepted the Apsostolic Teachings about Mary, but they began to get lost within one generation of the separation.

Mary is the Mother of God. He created her a pure vessel, so that He could draw His human flesh from hers.

Failed to appreciate what? What is “kecharitomene”?

So, this is a matter of belief and teaching rather than of Scripture?

 

[Dokimas]

So - because it’s not in the bible makes it untrue? That is the weakest argument I’ve ever read on these forums.

Was the story of the Mayflower Pilgrims in the Bible? Nope
Does that make it a lie?
Get real.

Then you are completely ignorant of history - among other things.
The writings of Flavius Josephus, Pliny and other ancient historians speak of the martyrdom of Early Christians for their belief in the Eucharist. They were considered cannibals for their beliefs. don’t believe me? Look it up.

Crack open a history book or anything other than what was written by Lorraine Boettner or Alexander Hislop.
It is a matter of HISTORY - not Scripture that people were martyred in the name of Christ beyond the 1st Century. It does NOT have to be in Scripture for it to have happened. Using YOUR ridiculous logic stick - NOTHING has happened in the last 2000 years because it’s not in the Bible.

**Do you *also ***reject that the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 happened because the is no Scriptural proof?
This is beyond ludicrous . . .

Oh, REALLY? That’s not what the Early Church taught.
And, that’s NOT what it says in John 6.

I tried to find a martyr because of belief in transubstanciation. I couldn’t find any. Could you provide a link that reveals your fact?​

Paul taught that Jesus said to take communion in remembrance. Is he an early enough church father?

1Co 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

 

[adrift]

Failed to appreciate what? What is “kecharitomene”?

So, this is a matter of belief and teaching rather than of Scripture?

No it is Scripture and answered earlier in the thread.