Which Church??

[benhur]

Well, then I have no idea what you mean when you say that we both belong to the catholic church?

Then why does CC say we are in union(with CC) though not perfectly ? I think she says our graces are “Catholic”.

 

[joe371]

Then why does CC say we are in union(with CC) though not perfectly ? I think she says our graces are “Catholic”.

Provide the quote.

I think I know which one you are talking about from the catechism, but please confirm? Saying that we are in union (with CC) though not perfectly, does not mean that you and I belong to the same catholic church? You do not even accept many teachings of the catholic church.

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[joe371]

right, meant #603 where you post of the history of the term “catholic” a bit.

Post 603:

Are you led by the Spirit into all truth? Do you have all of the Spirit and all of the truth?

Are you able to teach without error in all matters related to faith and morals?

In John 16, Jesus was speaking in a closed room to a very small, very select group of His disciples. The promise that the Spirit would lead them into all truth was not made out on a hillside before a crowd of thousands. Nor was it made to the 70 that Jesus sent out later. It was made to the Eleven who remained after Judas departed.

Being baptized in the Spirit is not the same as being led by the Spirit into all truth.

 

[joe371]

Perhaps the gist of his answer is that the Holy Scriptures are God-inspired/written and God aids in their reception even preservation, and lastly but perhaps most importantly, God aids in illuminating scripture to human beings, individually and or collectively. In essence He authenticates.

But not self-authenticating.

 

[benhur]

I’ve been liking the use of the map below. Where since the time of Christ can one find a Church, not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - or a “symbolic” Eucharistic meal, before the year ~1,500?

Name just one city on the map and when.

Just one city.

Jerusalem 33 AD.

Which definition of real presence ?

If we disagree on scripture about “eating”, of events depicted beginning at 33 AD, we will disagree on what early fathers also said, from churches all over Christendom.

So where is Antioch, or Lyons, or Alexandria ?

 

[joe371]

Right, I thought he was getting at the name “catholic”. We all agree the church was founded by Christ. It is said that Luther founded Lutheranism and calvin and wesley other churches. Historically speaking, in a certain fashion, no one person founded the Roman Catholic church. Some would say a city, even an empire,(or lack thereof) helped form, shape the church. I understand this is not the CC teaching. In my opinion it is hard to separate the secular from church politics, even at junctures of the schism and the reformation.

if you do not believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church to which I belong then I completely understand why you do not belong to it. However, you do not belong to the church founded by Jesus, either.

 

[benhur]

But not self-authenticating.

Well, some books are.

 

[joe371]

Jerusalem 33 AD.

Which definition of real presence ?

If we disagree on scripture about “eating”, of events depicted beginning at 33 AD, we will disagree on what early fathers also said, from church all over Christendom.

So where is Antioch, or Lyons, or Alexandria ?

When people like you and pablope disagree about a teaching, an impasse is reached. Did Jesus leave you two (Christendom) with a way to definitively resolve your differences?

 

[joe371]

Well, some books are.

Do they say - self-authenticating on the first page or something, no sarcasm intended? If you believe the scriptures (some) are authenticating that’s cool.

 

[Porknpie]

Some would say a city, even an empire,(or lack thereof) helped form, shape the church. I understand this is not the CC teaching. In my opinion it is hard to separate the secular from church politics, even at junctures of the schism and the reformation.

The Church shaped the Romans and Rome, which was 100% pagan. This triumph of Christianity over paganism is exemplified in the Egyptian Obelisk (300+ tons) in the middle of St. Peters square. A symbol of paganism, the Cross now resides on top of it, representing the triumph of Christ over all that was pagan.

Article here.

 

[eazyduzit]

Firstly, where do you get this idea that “the bible is self authenticating”? It sounds like some sort of teaching…but I know that this teaching isn’t found in the Bible.

Secondly, what does that even mean? How do you read the Epistle of Barnabas and know it’s not “not authenticated” but read Hebrews and know it is “authenticated”?

Please show me what that looks like–“self authentication”.

Fair question PR.
The reason this can be applied to the bible, as circular as it may seem, is that the Bible is God’s book.

All we need to do is compare the contender with what with the authentic portions . It must say the same thing about all the doctrines of the bible. An early contender was the “Shepherd of Hermas”. Read it and see if it compares with the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas relates some weird stuff about the boyhood of Jesus. But we already know the wedding at Cana was His first miracle so it must be spurious.

This is not so difficult or mysterious process. There simply are no other books that can reasonably compare. The third letter letter of Paul to Cor. contains no wrong doctrine but it adds nothing we don’t already have.

 

[eazyduzit]

The Church shaped the Romans and Rome, which was 100% pagan. This triumph of Christianity over paganism is exemplified in the Egyptian Obelisk (300+ tons) in the middle of St. Peters square. A symbol of paganism, the Cross now resides on top of it, representing the triumph of Christ over all that was pagan.

Article here.

I think there may be more to the story than you think. In fact it really blew me away. The WASHINGTON MONUMENT and the Statue of LIBERTY are related to this. And the obelisk is not the only EGYPTIAN symbol in the Vatican. Check out a series of videos by Steve Kerr on you tube. It will come up if you put “Satan Exposed” in the you tube browser.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair question PR.
The reason this can be applied to the bible, as circular as it may seem, is that the Bible is God’s book.

All we need to do is compare the contender with what with the authentic portions . It must say the same thing about all the doctrines of the bible. An early contender was the “Shepherd of Hermas”. Read it and see if it compares with the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas relates some weird stuff about the boyhood of Jesus. But we already know the wedding at Cana was His first miracle so it must be spurious.

This is not so difficult or mysterious process. There simply are no other books that can reasonably compare. The third letter letter of Paul to Cor. contains no wrong doctrine but it adds nothing we don’t already have.

Well, in order to compare something to the Bible, you have to already have the Bible, right?

But what we’re trying to distill is: how do you know what to put in that Bible?

The answer is: you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what belongs in this Bible. At least, as it applies to the NT.

You wouldn’t know it any other way.

The Bible didn’t float down from heaven on the wings of a dove, leather bound and in King James format.

It had to be compiled.

And the men who did this didn’t have a Bible to use…in order to to determine what belonged in the Bible…right?

You get that, right?

 

[Chong]

There is no reason for any Catholic to ever be doubting Jesus is the Rock. But Jesus took the trouble to give Simon a new name which was never used for a person historically in Judaism nor culture of the area and time previously. Speaking of the whole world Jesus did empower a visible individual whose bishops in communion with him to bind and loose on earth, which is the visible world.

MJ

Yes, a new name Peter, a stone of ordinary size.
This scenario is detailed only in the book of Matthew. From then, Simon son of Jonah was referred to as Peter, or Cephas. At no one time do we see any reference to him as rock.

Lets assume that Jesus made him His heir apparent of the leadership of the church in the world. He should have been the 1st bishop at Jerusalem, or the leader of the church then. In Acts15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them…
This implied that Peter was still in Jerusalem many years after Jesus ascension.
Acts15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Acts15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
This was the final agreement of the council at Jerusalem, declared by James.

Gal 2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me…
(The name of James is mentioned before Cephas, implying that he was superior)
Gal 2:7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Peter was an apostle to the Jews; even God had to intervene during the conversion of Cornelius the Roman Centurion - a gentile).

But who was this James? James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee was beheaded by Herod, Acts12:2: And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Paul in Gal1:19 says, but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
This James seems to be the one mentioned in Matt15: 55 together with others as the brothers of Jesus.

 

[joe371]

The Church shaped the Romans and Rome, which was 100% pagan. This triumph of Christianity over paganism is exemplified in the Egyptian Obelisk (300+ tons) in the middle of St. Peters square. A symbol of paganism, the Cross now resides on top of it, representing the triumph of Christ over all that was pagan.

Article here.

 

[eazyduzit]

Well, in order to compare something to the Bible, you have to already have the Bible, right?

But what we’re trying to distill is: how do you know what to put in that Bible?

The answer is: you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what belongs in this Bible. At least, as it applies to the NT.

You wouldn’t know it any other way.

The Bible didn’t float down from heaven on the wings of a dove, leather bound and in King James format.

It had to be compiled.

And the men who did this didn’t have a Bible to use…in order to to determine what belonged in the Bible…right?

Yes, l got it. But what I don’t understand is how then did anyone at all know what was God’s word or the true gospel before the RC Church got around to authenticating everything. And did they have some automatic, no fail method like a divining rod or dowsing stick to pick from a hundred different books? Then why did it take so long to canonise 2 Peter?

You get that, right?

 

[eazyduzit]

Yes, a new name Peter, a stone of ordinary size.
This scenario is detailed only in the book of Matthew. From then, Simon son of Jonah was referred to as Peter, or Cephas. At no one time do we see any reference to him as rock.

Lets assume that Jesus made him His heir apparent of the leadership of the church in the world. He should have been the 1st bishop at Jerusalem, or the leader of the church then. In Acts15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them…
This implied that Peter was still in Jerusalem many years after Jesus ascension.
Acts15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Acts15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
This was the final agreement of the council at Jerusalem, declared by James.

Gal 2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me…
(The name of James is mentioned before Cephas, implying that he was superi
Gal 2:7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Peter was an apostle to the Jews; even God had to intervene during the conversion of Cornelius the Roman Centurion - a gentile).

But who was this James? James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee was beheaded by Herod, Acts12:2: And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Paul in Gal1:19 says, but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
This James seems to be the one mentioned in Matt15: 55 together with others as the brothers of Jesus.

Way to go Chong!
But let me add that Jesus is always the Rock in the bible. He was the rock that Moses struck. He is the Chief Cornerstone, He is the Firm Foundation, and the Foundation of His church. How could any bible believer doubt it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, a new name Peter, a stone of ordinary size.
This scenario is detailed only in the book of Matthew. From then, Simon son of Jonah was referred to as Peter, or Cephas. At no one time do we see any reference to him as rock.

Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in 1 Corinthians and Galatians and in several places. Also in John 1:42

The gospel indicates the Davidic line is passed spiritually and to the person of Jesus Christ who passed this spiritual blessing to Peter person and faith.

The Syriac or Aramaic word for “rock” is kepa, which in Greek became Greek: Πέτρος, also meaning “rock”

This will help…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FPeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm&ei=uXsQULuiMsbH6AGQ_YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGr1wZYFMd3rJaKObspqQk51ulqaw&sig2=J7j7dnKEqKMd5SgsqQOLKg

Lets assume that Jesus made him His heir apparent of the leadership of the church in the world. He should have been the 1st bishop at Jerusalem, or the leader of the church then.

Actually he is the leader of the Church and there are elders or Bishops in all the Churches.

Acts 11:30 - Elders at the church of Antioch.

Acts 14:23 -Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church.

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Acts 20:17, 28 - Elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus.

Acts 21:18 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Philippians 1:1 - Bishops in the church of Philippi.

Further in Matthew since obviously that is back in play Jesus builds the Church on Peter and gives [him alone] the Keys which I’m sure you’ll agree no-where and no-one else is given the Keys? Surely thats no small thing? And “after” 16:17 being Blessed by God.

John 21- Jesus entrusts His sheep to Peter.

Luke 22 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers.

Acts 1:15 to 26 Peter presides over the meeting that elected Mathias to replace Judas.

Acts 2:14 Peter preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)

Acts 3:6 Peter performs the first miracle after Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 Peter inflicts the first punishment

Acts 10:9-16 Its revealed to Peter that the gentiles can be admitted to the Church.

Acts 10:44-48 Peter baptized the first gentiles

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 16:19, Luke 6:14-16. Acts 1:13, Peter is first?

In Acts15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them…
This implied that Peter was still in Jerusalem many years after Jesus ascension.
Acts15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Acts15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
This was the final agreement of the council at Jerusalem, declared by James.

James concurs with Peters ruling.

Gal 2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me…
(The name of James is mentioned before Cephas, implying that he was superior)
Gal 2:7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Peter was an apostle to the Jews; even God had to intervene during the conversion of Cornelius the Roman Centurion - a gentile).
But who was this James? James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee was beheaded by Herod, Acts12:2: And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Paul in Gal1:19 says, but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
This James seems to be the one mentioned in Matt15: 55 together with others as the brothers of Jesus.

James is mentioned first here because he is the elder of the Church in Jerusalem. There is no other significance as the contrast is above with Peter.

All the Apostles had veto power, theres nothing to that.

 

[Chong]

The Church shaped the Romans and Rome, which was 100% pagan. This triumph of Christianity over paganism is exemplified in the Egyptian Obelisk (300+ tons) in the middle of St. Peters square. A symbol of paganism, the Cross now resides on top of it, representing the triumph of Christ over all that was pagan.

Article here.

Hey, but the obelisk by itself represents something different. The obelisk was from Egypt, a sign of Egyptian paganism. The Roman Paganism had different gods.
By the way, the same obelisk was brought to Rome before Rome became the center of Christianity.
Today, obelisks are in many parts of the world. Outside the US Capitol is a huge obelisk but without a cross on top.

 

[Chong]

Way to go Chong!
But let me add that Jesus is always the Rock in the bible. He was the rock that Moses struck. He is the Chief Cornerstone, He is the Firm Foundation, and the Foundation of His church. How could any bible believer doubt it?

Amen!