Cruciform
New member
Rather, Judaism renounced Him.
I'll answer your question if I can.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
ECT "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH"---not "churchES"
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Come back when you can manage to come up with something a bit more substantive than the hopelessly irrelevant ad hominem rhetoric you've wasted our time with here.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
:darwinsm:
Cruciform
New member
Already answered (Post #69).
turbosixx
New member
I know you might have trouble but try to look at it from my view point. When you think of the body of Christ, does it have different types of members with very different beliefs, different names by which Christians separate themselves from other Christians who do not believe the same? What would the "true" body call itself and how would the members identify themselves? I am of the firm belief that a true member of the body only identifies themselves as “Christian”. When I read the bible that is all I see. Christ’s church and it’s members calling themselves Christians. It’s sad but people find it odd when they ask me what type of Christian I am, and I tell them Christian.
The name didn’t come from scripture or an inspired writer, it evolved. Things that evolve might resemble the original but they are not the original.
When someone asks you what you are, what do you tell them? Christian? Catholic? Catholic-Christian? You know the Jehovah witnesses call themselves Christians. Are they Christians or a type of Christian? Are they unifying Christ by distinguishing themselves from other "Christians"? By calling yourself “Catholic” you are dividing Christ. Being a hyphenated Christian is not unity which is what Jesus wanted and the apostles as well.
I do agree with the concept of the church universal, but in Acts 9:31, kath 'oleis is describing a region of churches, not the church universal. 31So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace
The term “catholic” does not appear in scripture and was not used as the name of the church by any inspired writers.
That is exactly right, it means “Christ’s church”. These names declare the body and it's builder/owner. Shouldn’t we be called Christ’s church? He is the one who built it, purchased it with his blood and is the head. That is what the HS called it when inspiring the writers, who are we to call or describe it by any other name?
The name didn’t come from scripture or an inspired writer, it evolved. Things that evolve might resemble the original but they are not the original.
When someone asks you what you are, what do you tell them? Christian? Catholic? Catholic-Christian? You know the Jehovah witnesses call themselves Christians. Are they Christians or a type of Christian? Are they unifying Christ by distinguishing themselves from other "Christians"? By calling yourself “Catholic” you are dividing Christ. Being a hyphenated Christian is not unity which is what Jesus wanted and the apostles as well.
I have heard it said that Catholics perceive the symbols of bread and wine to be literal, not symbolic. I don't personally know any Catholics so maybe you can enlighten me. Thanks.
lifeisgood
New member
I consider you to be a very smart person Cruciform, but no dice.
Cruciform
New member
Absolutely not.
Please cite the biblical verse which states that "only terms which appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by believers to describe themselves."
I agree. My point was that neither are biblical phrases such as "the church of God" or "church of Christ" technical terms or formal names for the Church, as was wrongly assumed.
Apparently not, since the early Christian Church---being led by the Holy Spirit---was already referring to itself as "the Catholic Church" by the end of the 1st century A.D.
That's okay, since the Church is not a static, dead entity, but is rather a living and growing Body. Living things grow and develop, just as Jesus himself indicated (Mt. 13:32).
Any and all of those. Also "Christian believer," "follower of Jesus," "disciple of Christ," etc. However, historically speaking, the Church has most commonly referred to itself as "the Catholic Church.
Neither.
Rather, Protestants divided---and continue to divide---Christ by distinguishing themselves from Christ's one historic Catholic Church and her authoritative teachings beginning in the 16th century.
Agreed. Being a "Baptist Christian," "Lutheran Christian," "Pentecostal Christian," "Methodist Christian," "Episcopalian Christian," "Wesleyan Christian," "Seventh-Day Adventist Christian," "Non-Denominational Christian," "Presbyterian Christian," "Independent Bible Christian," "Evangelical Free Christian," etc. is not the unity which is what Jesus intended when he founded his one historic Catholic Church in 33 A.D.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Catholics have believed and taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist (Communion) from the very beginning of the Church. The Eucharist is both a symbol and also the reality of that which it symbolizes. In short, at the priestly prayer of consecration, the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine are supernaturally transformed into the literal (though in sacramental form) body and blood of Jesus Christ. For more info, see this.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Feel free, then, to post your disproof of my statements and question in Post #45 above.
(Thanks for the generous compliment, by the way.
)
"This" says this, 'The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ.' (Monsignor William P. Fay, General Secretary, USCCB)
I was just wondering how literal these symbols are perceived to be by Catholics. We know Peter and the other apostles said, "But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:20)
Why would Catholics ignore Peter and the other apostles and elders?
Nope, there is a lot of talk about Mosaic law prohibiting ingesting blood but no mention of Peter and the apostles.
My question is why do Catholics ignore Peter?
turbosixx
New member
I could make a lot of comments but I'm going to focus on this one for now.
When there are contradictions between the canonized bible and the "historic traditions", which one is the authority?
Cruciform
New member
Your question is decisively answered in the source provided in Post #94 above.
Cruciform
New member
There can be no contradiction or conflict within Divine Revelation (God's Word), which consist of both the written (Scripture) and unwritten (Tradition) aspects (2 Thess. 2:15). Indeed, the Bible is properly interpreted according to Tradition, and vice versa.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
turbosixx
New member
I see this as a contradiction, help me to understand you viewpoint.
1 Tim. 4:1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
Looks like your priesthood and fish on Friday.
Where was Peter mentioned in the extraneous thing you referenced?
And why can't you speak for yourself about what you believe rather than what others believe?
Cruciform
New member
Already answered (Post #45).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+