Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

[EmergencyOps]

Hello allischalmers,

LOL, maybe so, I do sometimes ask dumb questions.

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

I believe Unified Command would make for a better system in the “Body of Christ”. That is an Incident Coordination System (ICS) concept where leaders from different agencies (or in this case, denominations) make the decision jointly. It is different than the single command structure (single Incident Commander). I know it sounds like a weird comparison, but it makes sense in my emergency management mind.

-Mark

 

[Pete_1]

I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

Do you have a source for this?

Peace.

 

[mathematician]

Do you have a source for this?

Peace.

Type “Transubstantiation and modern physics” into a search engine and do your own research.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I believe that some modern non-Catholic “Protestant” Christians reject the “Real Presence” for reasons other than Biblical ones. In the Bible, Jesus is clearly and definitively stating that it will be, Truly His Body and Truly His Blood.

No, I do not believe that is the case.

*]Because, they don’t know better.

I am not sure what this means.

*]Because, someone else gave them bad information.

Having very little background on the subject, I read the Bible for the first time as an adult and because I believe you are referring to other people…I did not receive any bad information. Prior to becoming a Christian, I probably could not have told that anyone believed in a Real Presence. I don’t really recall but I do not think I knew much about that.

*]Because, they don’t actually read the Bible; they read only the verses “pointed-out” to them or a “handful of verses”, which supports their particular belief or denomination.

I have read the Bible

*]Because, they misinterpret the Bible, themselves.

That is rich actually. Anyone who disagrees misinterprets…that sounds like somethink I would say!!

*]Because, they do not have access to the Eucharist (the “Real Presence”).

No, I could walk into any Catholic Church and partake of it. Who would know I was not Catholic?

*]Because, this belief; “Is way too Catholic for them.”
And so on…

I have nothing against Catholics, why would I be hanging out here if I disliked Catholics?!?!?

What is your real reason for rejecting the “Real Presence”, in the Eucharist?

Its not biblical of course!!

I look forward to your response. God Bless You! [/FONT

Excellent
[/quote]

 

[moondweller]

It is a contradiction! Unless you, in fact believe that Jesus Christ is not God, in the second person of the Holy Trinity, it is absolutely a contradiction!

Non sequitur

I refuse to get lost in the confusion, which is your post, so I will not address your entire post (#93), which I think serves as a distraction at best.

Jimmy, you addressed NONE of my post. Nor was it a distraction but a challenge for you to do a little thinking. But you opted not to.

1. Is Jesus Christ, God?

Yes

1. Is there anything that God is unable to do?

Yes. He is unable to lie, judge unjustly, tempt anyone to do evil, or deny Himself - to name a few.

1. What are your definitions of "omnipotent” and “omnipresent”

All powerful and all present.

1. Is God capable of transforming bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

I believe He has the power to transform bread and wine into “flesh” and “blood.” But the more pertinent question here does not challenge the omnipotence of God: “Is the humanity of Jesus Christ omnipresent (i.e., can it be in more than one place at one time)?” Can true humanity (body, blood, soul & spirit) possess a divine attribute like omnipresence? The answer is, unequivocally, NO! Else it would cease to be truly human. Christ, in His humanity, can no more be in more than one place at one time (omnipresent) than you can.

If you are a true believer in Christ then one day you will have a glorified body like Christ’sPhil 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself."But your glorified body will never possess the divine attribute of omnipresence. If you claim that Christ’s glorified body does, then you must interpret the Philippian passage as Paul teaching us that Christ will transform you into divinity. That’s heresy.

Since you asked if Jesus is God I will assume you’re asking if Jesus can transform bread and wine into His Body and Blood. The answer is, NO!. Not without denying Himself, i.e., His humanity. Since Catholicism claims that the Eucharist is also the divinity of Christ, one must ask, can God transform matter into divinity? Can He create divinity out of matter? NO! Not unless He denies Himself, i.e., His divine, eternal nature. And He cannot do that.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus did not or cannot institute the Eucharist?

The question is where in the Bible does Jesus actually say that upon speaking the phrase “hoc est corpus meum” He will “transubstantiate” bread into Himself? And not just Himself, but who and what He was prior to His bodily resurrection and glorification. Remember, Catholicism views the “Eucharist” as a propitiatory sacrifice; a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So, the Catholic doctrine of the “Eucharist” demands not only that the humanity of Jesus be omnipresent, but that He must now exist simultaneously in His body of humiliation (that which is being crucified through the Eucharist) and the body of His glorification (in which He was resurrected and ascended). One cannot sacrifice a glorified, indestructible body. Talk about irreconcilable contradictions. The doctrine of your Eucharist is loaded with them.

No, Jimmy, my belief is not a contradiction. But the Catholic doctrine of the “Eucharist” certainly is. It contradicts everything about the wonder of the true humanity of Christ and His present, glorified state in heaven. A harbinger of our own glorification.

1. Why did all the early “Protestants” accept the “Real Presence” as a Christian Truth? Were they wrong too?

The “early” Protestants were all RCs. The “early” issue was not the “Eucharist” but justification through faith alone. Luther eventually moved away from “transubstantiation” to “consubstantiation.” Others, upon study of the Scriptures, settled on a view that was more compatible with Biblical revelation - symbolic.

1. How do you respond to the many “Catholic Verses” which are used to support an argument for the “Real Presence”?

I don’t know of any “Catholic” verses. I am very familiar with the Catholic interpretation of the “Biblical” verses they claim support their view. But I consider their interpretation erroneous. It requires an aspect of faith that was never required by Jesus or His Apostles. The only object of faith in the N.T. is the glorified Christ Himself.

1. Does there exist a conflict in the Bible?

**No! ** Only a “conflict of interest” by men.

In the Bible, Jesus is clearly and definitively stating that it will be, Truly His Body and Truly His Blood.

Here’s a good example of Catholic misinterpretation. Jesus did not say, "This will be my body, " or “This will be my blood.”

What is your real reason for rejecting the “Real Presence”, in the Eucharist?

I believe the Son took on true humanity.

 

[mikey_b]

I believe He has the power to transform bread and wine into “flesh” and “blood.” But the more pertinent question here does not challenge the omnipotence of God: “Is the humanity of Jesus Christ omnipresent (i.e., can it be in more than one place at one time)?” Can true humanity (body, blood, soul & spirit) possess a divine attribute like omnipresence? The answer is, unequivocally, NO! Else it would cease to be truly human. Christ, in His humanity, can no more be in more than one place at one time (omnipresent) than you can.

I]Mikey B: You seem to say that the human Christ could only do human things yet He walks on water, performs divine miracles etc. I don’t see where He ceased to be human here.

If you are a true believer in Christ then one day you will have a glorified body like Christ’sPhil 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself."But your glorified body will never possess the divine attribute of omnipresence. If you claim that Christ’s glorified body does, then you must interpret the Philippian passage as Paul teaching us that Christ will transform you into divinity. That’s heresy.

Mikey B: What do you make of 2Peter 1:4 where the good book says that we are to share in the divine nature? To me the plan is to become one with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Since you asked if Jesus is God I will assume you’re asking if Jesus can transform bread and wine into His Body and Blood. The answer is, NO!. Not without denying Himself, i.e., His humanity. Since Catholicism claims that the Eucharist is also the divinity of Christ, one must ask, can God transform matter into divinity? Can He create divinity out of matter? NO! Not unless He denies Himself, i.e., His divine, eternal nature. And He cannot do that.

Mikey B: I don’t see why Jesus has to “deny” himself.Where do you get that from?

The question is where in the Bible does Jesus actually say that upon speaking the phrase “hoc est corpus meum” He will “transubstantiate” bread into Himself? And not just Himself, but who and what He was prior to His bodily resurrection and glorification. Remember, Catholicism views the “Eucharist” as a propitiatory sacrifice; a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So, the Catholic doctrine of the “Eucharist” demands not only that the humanity of Jesus be omnipresent, but that He must now exist simultaneously in His body of humiliation (that which **is being *****crucified through the Eucharist) and the body of His glorification (in which He was resurrected and ascended). One cannot sacrifice a glorified, indestructible body. Talk about irreconcilable contradictions. The doctrine of your Eucharist is loaded with them.
*
Mikey B: Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but Jesus is not being crucified in the Eucharist time and time again. It is a re-presentation which brings the once for all sacrifice into our time. We were not present at the time of Christ but are daily in need of forgiveness for our sins which we commit today. Through the eternal pure sacrifice we profess the great name of Jesus Christ from the rising of the sun to it’s setting. . Malachi1:11 How is this prophecy completed in your denomination?

No, Jimmy, my belief is not a contradiction. But the Catholic doctrine of the “Eucharist” certainly is. It contradicts everything about the wonder of the true humanity of Christ and His present, glorified state in heaven. A harbinger of our own glorification.The “early” Protestants were all RCs.

Mikey B: Doesn’t that bother you to say that the early Christians were RC’s?

The “early” issue was not the “Eucharist” but justification through faith alone. Luther eventually moved away from “transubstantiation” to “consubstantiation.”

Mikey B: Saying that you “moved away” from the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised to be with until the end of the age [Mt 28:20] should send red flags up. By moving away from the Priesthood and starting your own authority brings up many unbiblcal problems.

p.s. I’m going on vacation so will not be able to answer until I get back

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The points you make are all one sided of the symbolic interpretation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You have not proven anything other than your opinion of the symbolic Eucharist. Before one can argue the Catholic position on the Eucharist, one must understand the meanings of ancient Christian belief and Sacred Scripture interpretation to the Eucharist.

You have a misunderstanding of Transubstantiation.
You must understand the Catholic understanding of “Parousia” to “Presence”.One needs to understand Catholic 2000 year old teaching of the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the sspecies of bread and wine, In order to come against it, with a symbolic teaching.

The common arguement against the True Eucharist is the common misunderstanding of the Word Spirit in Sacred Scripture. It appears you take Spirit to mean Symbolic. Can you give a scripture in the Sacred Scripture in defining the word Spirit to be taken or translated to mean something symbolic?

Your debate is not with the 2000 year old belief in the “Parousia” of the Eucharist. Your debate is with your own translation and understanding of Spirit and Jesus present body,blood, soul and divinity in the Concecrated Host.

According to the OP, you do not believe in the teachings from Jesus and the Apostles including the first century Christian Saints and Martyrs, Who went to their death for the belief in the Consecrated Host.

Do you know when the symbolic teaching of the Eucharist began?
Yes the belief in the Eucharist began to see many changes After the Reformation and Protestant revolt. This symbolic teaching is New. You dont have the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture because, one your belief did not exist at the time the record was written, secondly Your belief or church did not cannonize the bible, The Catholic church did.

Another reason you believe in a symbolic Jesus in the bread and wine (grape juice), and not the true presence of Jesus, because you or your church was not given the authority to consecrate bread and wine to become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ himself,ordained the Apostles to do this “in memory of me”. It is true that in order to have a valid Eucharist is to have an ordained Bishop who has Apostolic succession from Peter and the Apostles. I take it you dont have Apostolic succession to speak of, because if you did you would not take the new doctrine belief of a symbolic Jesus in bread and wine.

This may surprise you, but the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is not only the True Presence of Jesus. It does have other revelations to the “Parousia”. It reveals the fulfillment of the Seder meal (Passover), It fulfills the Promises of God, to remain with his Church, and never leave her orphans, It is eternal outside of time to be present to all God’s children past, present, and future. It prefigures the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb described in Revelations. It prepares God’s children for the journey into the beatific vision of God. It is food for the souls of God’s children journey in this desert. It fulfills the Sabbath day covenant, where man is to rest in God. It is the hidden Manna given to the victor. It takes us out of the old covenant of God and the Law of Moses, into a New and everlasting covenant. It fulfills the Todah Sacrafice, in is the true blood of the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world ( a symbolic Jesus cannot suffice the demands of the Covenant of God, which requires a real death, real blood, and a real body). I can keep going on the blood of Jesus, but this is not the topic of discussion, authority is.

So it is the Eucharist that keeps you from recognizing the Roman Catholic Pope.

 

[moondweller]

You seem to say that the human Christ could only do human things yet He walks on water, performs divine miracles etc. I don’t see where He ceased to be human here.

He didn’t cease to be human when He walked on water. He walked on water as a Man, not God. When the Son incarnated into this world He walked and ministered as a Man. When He healed it wasn’t through His own divine power, but that which was provided for Him:Luke 5:17 "One day He was teaching; and there were {some} Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting {there,} who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and {from} Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was {present} for Him to perform healing."Everything Jesus did He did as a Man in complete obedience to His Father. He was the perfect Man, and as a Jew He fulfilled the all commandments and ordinances of the Law. And as the perfect Man He became God’s unblemished Lamb, fulfilling the Law’s sacrificial system. The Law, in its entirety, pointed to Him, and he fulfilled it (as a Man).John 4:34 "Jesus *said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am {He,} and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me."He’s the “second man,” called “the Last Adam.” And all who believe in Him are no longer in Adam (the sinner), but now “in Christ,” the “Last Adam,” made righteous in Him because they receive, as a gift, His righteousness (1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:12-21)

Mikey B: What do you make of 2Peter 1:4 where the good book says that we are to share in the divine nature? To me the plan is to become one with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Through regeneration we become “partakers of the divine nature,” we don’t become divine in our human nature. As spiritual men (pneumatikos), through regeneration, we now understand (know) the things freely given to us by God (1 Cor. 12-13), whereas the natural man (psuchikos) cannot, they’re foolishness to him (v. 14)

Mikey B: I don’t see why Jesus has to “deny” himself.Where do you get that from?

I explained it in that same paragraph. You need to think about it.

Mikey B: Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but Jesus is not being crucified in the Eucharist time and time again. It is a re-presentation which brings the once for all sacrifice into our time.

His, “once for all,” sacrifice is an historical event. It happened, once for all, in our time. Scripture even gives us the hours He suffered on the cross, the number of days He remained dead in the tomb, and which day He rose from the dead. There is no need to “bring it into our time,” it ALL occurred "once for all, in our time almost 2000 years ago. And there His redemptive work was “finished.”

We were not present at the time of Christ but are daily in need of forgiveness for our sins which we commit today.

No Mickey. Christ bore ALL your sins in His body, on the cross 2000 years ago: “And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross…” (1 Pet. 2:24; see Is. 53:5,6,11). Since then forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to all who BELIEVE in Him.Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Col 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Through the eternal pure sacrifice we profess the great name of Jesus Christ from the rising of the sun to it’s setting. *. Malachi1:11 How is this prophecy completed in your denomination?*That prophecy will be fulfilled in the Millennial reign of Christ. The prophecy has nothing to do with Communion or your Eucharist.

Mikey B: Doesn’t that bother you to say that the early Christians were RC’s?

I didn’t say that. I said the early Protestants, i.e., the Reformers were RCs.

Mikey B: Saying that you “moved away” from the Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised to be with until the end of the age [Mt 28:20] should send red flags up. By moving away from the Priesthood and starting your own authority brings up many unbiblcal problems.

Only to a Catholic mind. I’m “born again,” regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and as the Scripture says, I have the mind of Christ:1 Cor 2:15-16 "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."I belong to the Lord, having been bought (purchased, redeemed) with the price of His shed blood (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), and I take comfort in the words of Paul:2 Tim 2:19 "Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,”

 

[Jimmy_B]

Moondweller,

(Note: I have underlined the words here for your benefit )

John 6

**55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **

John 6

31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35
17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41
The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42
and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43
Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

Continued on next post (I don’t like to separate Bible verses)

 

[Jimmy_B]

Moondweller,

(Note: I have underlined the words here for your benefit )

Continued from last post

John 6

51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

Moondweller,

"Does this shock you?”, stop “quarreling” and stop “murmuring”. Why do you insist on using the Bible, a “Catholic Book” to try to disprove aspects of Catholicism.

Early Protestant’s were not there for the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity and this includes during the formation of the Bible.

When they (Protestants) guessed about the Bible, like you… they were wrong and you too are wrong….sorry…

Your Thoughts?

 

[jay29]

I always thought that the keeper of the Keys to Heaven was/is the leader of Christ’s Church on earth, by Christ’s own will.

 

[Namesake]

Wow it is amazing how science proves transubstantiation. You can observe the blood and body of Jesus christ in the eucharist by the effects he has to the individual. Fascinating!

If your faith was sufficiently strong science wouldn’t be so in interesting to you regarding the Eucharist. It’s about faith, not science.

And BTW, science doesn’t prove anything about transubstantiation.

 

[moondweller]

Your Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you have none of your own. I’ve now given you three posts which you’ve completely ignored. You simply repeated back to me Catholic rhetoric which I’ve heard many, many times.

 

[RWMorris]

My thoughts are that you have none of your own. I’ve now given you three posts which you’ve completely ignored. You simply repeated back to me Catholic rhetoric which I’ve heard many, many times.

It seemed to me that JimmyB was quoting the Bible, not Catholic rhetoric, (although to me they’re the same). Here’s some more Catholic rhetoric for you:

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

• 1 Corinthians 11:29

I know, I know, Paul didn’t really mean it, you really don’t have to believe it’s Christ’s body. I mean, you know, Paul and the Apostles hadn’t been enlighted by the reformation yet.

… God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

• 1 Timothy 3:15

Wonder which Church Paul was talking about? Maybe it was the moonies.:nope: For that matter, I wonder which truth Paul was talking about? There seems to be about 30,000 versions of it.

 

[c659smith]

My thoughts are that you have none of your own. I’ve now given you three posts which you’ve completely ignored. You simply repeated back to me Catholic rhetoric which I’ve heard many, many times.

We have all answered your questions with scripture it is you who have ignored and closed your mind to truth.

Many of us have used scripture and were careful to use the books only in the King James version for your sake.

Your posts were answered. Where were they not answered if not directly to you but posted in the last 24 hrs.

 

[RWMorris]

Maybe we can’t know. Our concepts and our language arise from our experience of the world around us, and from our own subjective consciousness. We then try to turn them upon God as if such a proceeding was completely unproblematic.

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[mathematician]

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14

That’s okay, it’s only the stuff which comes from the oversized egos in Rome that I don’t accept.

 

[Jimmy_B]

My thoughts are that you have none of your own. I’ve now given you three posts which you’ve completely ignored. You simply repeated back to me Catholic rhetoric which I’ve heard many, many times.

Hello moondweller,

I’m sorry; I guess I have taken a play from the “Protestant” playbook, which is to answer a question with another question and providing a short response. I will try to be more “Catholic” in my responses to you in the future. Your response here and many others on this thread do not answer all of my questions posed to you. Would you like me to go back and re-post all my questions to you that you haven’t answered. I would if I thought that you would now answer them.

As for your comment here:

“My thoughts are that you have none of your own…You simply repeated back to me Catholic rhetoric which I’ve heard many, many times.”

Thank you for the compliment, you have just called me a “Good Catholic”. You are right, when it comes to my Catholic faith, I do not have “thoughts” or opinions of my own. My “thoughts” or opinions can be found in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

If I discover that my “thoughts” are in conflict with Catholicism, I will change those “thoughts” that are in error and make sure that they do not conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. This is because the Truth can be found in Catholicism. I repeat what the Catholic Church teaches (to the best of my ability), because it is the Truth, and the Truth never changes.

Do you actually believe that your thoughts are your own and not influences by the “thoughts” of others?

I completely surrender myself to Jesus Christ and His Church here on earth, the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a Saint and I am “fallible” so my actions at times have been in conflict with Catholicism and Christ’s teachings, but my heart, mind and soul belong to Jesus Christ and His Roman Catholic Church. This is the dramatic difference between Catholicism and many non-Catholic and “Protestant” Faiths. I do not belong to “the religion of one” or to the “religion of my own intellect”.

Thank you for your post.

God Bless You

 

[moondweller]

Your response here and many others on this thread do not answer all of my questions posed to you. Would you like me to go back and re-post all my questions to you that you haven’t answered. I would if I thought that you would now answer them.

You have no questions, Jimmy. Questions require the freedom to question.Gal 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."This is one of the reasons this Christian doesn’t recognize the RCP as my leader.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You have no questions, Jimmy. Questions require the freedom to question.Gal 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."This is one of the reasons this Christian doesn’t recognize the RCP as my leader.

Where is the humility in this statement?

Doesn’t everyone who believes what you have posted here (above), belong to “the religion of one” or to the “religion of his or her own intellect”?

Isn’t this why there is not Christian unity today and why there exists 36,000 different Christian denominations today?

Are we supposed to have God on our terms or God on His terms? If we have God on His terms, there isn’t the ‘freedom” you discuss here. We as Christians only have the “freedom” to do His will.

Galatians is a letter written by Paul to the Galatians. There was already a Church at the time of this letter and Paul was writing to the members of this Church, his Church, and my Church.

Why would Paul write, "do not be subject again to a yoke of “slavery” when referring to his own Church or religion, he wouldn’t.

However, we can be slaves to our own sin.

This is the problem one runs into with personal interpretation and taking Bible verses out of context.

The gentle guidance of Christ’s Church is not “slavery”.

Thank you for your post.