Cam42 Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295399588' post='2201610'] Now, imagine if Catholics, and Methodists, and Baptists, or any other Christ believing people just stopped fighting each other, and said - hey - we are essentially the same, and these doctrinal issues are just like the laws of our countries, they're always going to be different ideas and POVs on these ideas - but that's cool because it gets us sharing the word of God with each other, and talking about it (just like on this message board) - and we all are blessed from each other's insights! Wouldn't that be an amazing body of Christ? [/quote] Actually, no it wouldn't...Christ was clear in that this wasn't his desire. His desire was for there to be one Church and for that Church to continue until His coming. Matthew 16:16-19 [quote]Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: [b]That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church[/b], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/quote] [quote]respondens Simon Petrus dixit tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi respondens autem Iesus dixit ei beatus es Simon Bar Iona quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi sed Pater meus qui in caelis est et ego dico tibi quia [b]tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam[/b] et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis[/quote] [quote]ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς[/quote] He didn't talk about churches or communions or anything else....he talked about one Church. Since the Catholic Church can trace it's lineage back to St. Peter, it is clear that the one Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church. That is enough of an explanation for the Church....all other explanations come second. You are starting to interpret Scripture in a way that Christ would not approve....so, again I'll ask...on who's authority do you interpret Sacred Scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1295407658' post='2201653'] Actually, no it wouldn't...Christ was clear in that this wasn't his desire. His desire was for there to be one Church and for that Church to continue until His coming. Matthew 16:16-19 He didn't talk about churches or communions or anything else....he talked about one Church. Since the Catholic Church can trace it's lineage back to St. Peter, it is clear that the one Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church. That is enough of an explanation for the Church....all other explanations come second. You are starting to interpret Scripture in a way that Christ would not approve....so, again I'll ask...on who's authority do you interpret Sacred Scripture? [/quote] You make that decision Cam. Who do you claim I am interpreting scripture through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295408296' post='2201656'] You make that decision Cam. Who do you claim I am interpreting scripture through? [/quote] I have no idea...your intepretation is so illogical and unsound, I can't make heads nor heels of a method of interpretation. So, I'll throw it back in your court and respectfully ask for about the 9 Billionth time....on who's authority are you interpreting Sacred Scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295399588' post='2201610'] The thing about the part of the Bible dealing with Apollos is that Apollos didn't know Jesus, and he was working under John's teachings. Certainly, if I didn't know Christ, you should teach me about him, because if I am feverant about God, but I didn't know about Jesus (Like some Jews and Muslims are) - and you feel moved to teach them, then you should. But I already know about Christ, and I trust Christ - so I am not like Apollos, as I also teach about Christ, as you teach about Christ - do you see where I can use the scriptures I use and say - hey - if you trust Jesus, and you trust Jesus - it doesn't matter if we are part of the apostles group - because if they are for Jesus, than they will be for Jesus and each other. [/quote] Well, yes & no. Apollos was preaching about Jesus, though he'd only experienced the baptism of John. So he wasn't completely ignorant of the teaching of Jesus, but was not yet a Christian since he wasn't baptised. Since baptism isn't seen as necessary by other denominations, and he was teaching about Jesus, others might say he was already a Christian, actually, though not all would agree. [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295399588' post='2201610'] I kinda explained my POV about that above - it should never be about a Catholic and Methodist, but a Catholic/Christian and a Muslim or Jew, or another person who wants to know about Jesus! Now, imagine if Catholics, and Methodists, and Baptists, or any other Christ believing people just stopped fighting each other, and said - hey - we are essentially the same, and these doctrinal issues are just like the laws of our countries, they're always going to be different ideas and POVs on these ideas - but that's cool because it gets us sharing the word of God with each other, and talking about it (just like on this message board) - and we all are blessed from each other's insights! Wouldn't that be an amazing body of Christ? After all God created a world where sharks don't have the same function that trees have, which also doesn't have the same function as butter flies, which doesn't have the same function as human beings, but all work in concert to make one amazing world! [/quote] To add to what Cam said, no, I can't say Catholics are essentially the same as Baptists (I say this as one who was raised Southern Baptist). I agree with the Church that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, whilst Baptists believe it is nothing more than a symbol, and that is a huge difference. If I'm wrong, I'm an idolater, but if I'm right, then they are in grave error, and perhaps blaspheming when they speak of the Eucharist in derogatory terms (I can't speak to the degree of culpability they might have in that regard, since many Baptists I've encountered are truly ignorant of Catholic beliefs). It is true that the members of the Church do not all have the same gifts and functions, but that is not the same as actually having different beliefs, something that hasn't been seen as OK from the very beginning. But can we be truly one, as Jesus prayed in John 17, if we do not hold the same beliefs, if we do not all partake of His Body and Blood (as commanded to do)? I wish that we were all truly united, but I do not see unity in the various denominations. I'm not speaking against diversity in expressing those beliefs, for there are many liturgies (some 22 rites in the Catholic Church, with different liturgies, but the same beliefs - that is unity). God bless Edited January 19, 2011 by Archaeology cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1295442627' post='2201758'] If I'm wrong, I'm an idolater, but if I'm right, then they are in grave error, and perhaps blaspheming when they speak of the Eucharist in derogatory terms [/quote] Even if you were wrong, you would not be an idolater. You cannot be guilty of a sin without knowledge that it is a sin. Either by conscience or taught. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295482532' post='2201979'] Even if you were wrong, you would not be an idolater. You cannot be guilty of a sin without knowledge that it is a sin. Either by conscience or taught. Does that make sense? [/quote] Objectively it would still be idolatry. Culpability would likely be diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295498763' post='2202062'] Objectively it would still be idolatry. Culpability would likely be diminished. [/quote] This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295498763' post='2202062'] Objectively it would still be idolatry. Culpability would likely be diminished. [/quote] Yes I agree, it would still be idolatry but the diminished culpability would mean you were not guilty of being an idolater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295556275' post='2202306'] Yes I agree, it would still be idolatry but the diminished culpability would mean you were not guilty of being an idolater. [/quote] That's the difference. You may not be guilty of it, but you would still be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Whoever changed Cam's title, you've disappointed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1295591116' post='2202474'] Whoever changed Cam's title, you've disappointed me. [/quote] I guess you will have to be disappointed in Cam, then, because none of the moderating team (Dust included) tampered with the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295556313' post='2202309'] That's the difference. You may not be guilty of it, but you would still be one. [/quote] [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295482532' post='2201979'] Even if you were wrong, you would not be [b][s]an idolater[/s]. guilty of idolatry![/b] You cannot be guilty of a sin without knowledge that it is a sin. Either by conscience or taught. Does that make sense? [/quote] Does that meet with your approval Master? And don't call me grasshopper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Edited January 21, 2011 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295641737' post='2202618'] [/quote] Still not happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 [img]http://www.mrrooseveltracing.com/ssl/cms/assets/mr_miyagi.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts