Catholic - Christian (Same or Different)

[pearl]

You’re aware that the church isn’t legitimately limited to “Bible names.” All the term “sacrament” means is “set apart.” The sacraments are set apart for special purposes. The Jewish faith had such rituals and ceremonies in which Jesus participated. The special purposes are as I indicated: outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. That’s all. They’re regarded as signs in which the work of the H. S. is especially prevalent.

So, you believe that the sacraments we celebrate today were instituted by the historical Jesus? What other 'sacraments' beside Eucharist and Baptism you believe are 'signs' of the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but that honor had responsibilities attached to it. IOW, he just wasn't a do-nothing "pretty face", and Jesus mentioned that more than once.

Even negating the partial primacy [it never was viewed as being absolute across the board], the real power rested in the laps of all the bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome. They kept up correspondence with each other and later got called in on numerus occasions to form councils to deal with important issues. Thus, that's where the real power lies.

Thanks. That clarifies things, hopefully for others, as well as me.

 

[sojourner]

So, you believe that the sacraments we celebrate today were instituted by the historical Jesus? What other 'sacraments' beside Eucharist and Baptism you believe are 'signs' of the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit?

We have Biblical evidence that Jesus either performed, or participated in, all the sacraments. The ones recognized by the RCC are:
Eucharist (a Biblical term, BTW)
Baptism (also a Biblical term)
Marriage
(Jesus participated in these ceremonies and gave them new meaning)

Anointing of the sick (Jesus healed people)
Reconciliation (Jesus forgave people)
Conferring the Holy Spirit (Jesus blew Spirit on the disciples)
Holy orders (Jesus sent out the apostles to preach and to heal)
(Jesus gave authority to the apostles to do these things in his name)

Today the church, through its representatives called by her succeeding apostles, offers these signs of inward grace to her members (and others).

 

[pearl]

Today the church, through its representatives called by her succeeding apostles, offers these signs of inward grace to her members (and others).

The Church does not say instituted by Jesus, but by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is the Church's interpretation that the sacraments are scriptural in the sense that Jesus continues to do what he did on earth. The sacrament of Anointing connected to the forgiveness of sins, the public confession of sins by Christians, but not related to baptism and Eucharist. The development of a common term (sacrament) in uniting these actions is beyond the NT. Christians baptized and celebrated the Eucharist long before any author wrote.

Today the church, through its representatives called by her succeeding apostles, offers these signs of inward grace to her members (and others).

Yes, but they are a development of the NT.

 

[sojourner]

The Church does not say instituted by Jesus, but by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is the Church's interpretation that the sacraments are scriptural in the sense that Jesus continues to do what he did on earth. The sacrament of Anointing connected to the forgiveness of sins, the public confession of sins by Christians, but not related to baptism and Eucharist. The development of a common term (sacrament) in uniting these actions is beyond the NT. Christians baptized and celebrated the Eucharist long before any author wrote.



Yes, but they are a development of the NT.

I believe I said that, since the church is the body of Christ.
Why the game-playing?

 

[DNB]

True, one of the areas is allowing the reception of the Eucharist. I think, and I may be wrong, that the RC is more accepting than the Orthodox.

I see, ...I am not sure either way?
Did you mean the qualifications for receiving it (Catechism, Communion, Sacramental status, ...)?
Thanks!

 

[DNB]

Each of them formed the leadership within the early Church even though Peter had a special designation, which really should be quite clear with answering the question on who did they say Jesus was, his "feed my sheep" order to Peter, and the fact that when there's a listing of the Twelve Peter's name is almost always put out there first. Also, when Paul had questions dealing with teachings, he said that he came to confront Peter about this.

The Apostles each had what we might call "different assignments", such as James being the main administrator and Judas the treasurer, etc. Peter became more the spiritual head after Jesus was gone, and that becomes quite clear when one reads these accounts in context and also what the very early Church believed.

I would never say clear, or unequivocal. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, there is a focus on Peter more than the others. but for both better and for worse. And, quite evidently, Paul is the dominant Apostle in the book of Acts, and in regard to his contribution to the New Testament Canon. Paul, also rather explicitly, expressed his disregard for the so-called leaders of the Church, and his repudiation of Peter for his hypocrisy. And, finally, Paul was instructed directly from Jesus Christ, not being required to first, either, meet the Apostles, or to receive directives or teachings from them.
During the first Jerusalem council, both Paul and Peter offered their insights onto the matter, but it was James who, by his 'judgment', declared what the solution would be.

'Feed my sheep' was a general statement that all disciples should follow. The rapid growth of the early Church in both number and region, could not accommodate one man presiding over the entirety of believers., nor can it to this day. Peter's confession as to who Christ was, was shared by all the apostles, but it was just to Peter that Jesus posed the question. and, 'upon this rock' could have several connotations: 1. that Peter was a leader in some sense as far as precipitating such a swift propagation of the Gospel, 2. Or, that Peter's confession is what the Church would be built on - that Jesus was the son of God.

As far as Peter's lack of dominance is concerned:

Galatians 1:15-20
15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.

Galatians 2:6-10

6But as for the highly esteemed—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—those leaders added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.9And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No they’re not. Jesus healed people and commanded the apostles to do the same. He forgave people and commanded his disciples to do the same. He participated in weddings, which, even in his day, were religious ceremonies. The Jews already had a ritual sharing of bread and wine, in which Jesus would have participated. He merely gave it new meaning. Baptism by water? Already a Jewish ritual in which Jesus participated.

Nope. You’re mistaken.

He didn’t. See above.

Again: see above.


These aren’t “pagan rituals.” They were already being practiced within the Jewish tradition. Jesus simply gave them new meaning.


I agree. I don’t follow the dogma of ex cathedra — although it has only been invoked just a few times, and all of them (I think) concern Mary.


Yes he did. He appointed his apostles. That’s what makes the RCC an apostolic Faith.


Nope. That resulted when people left the faith.

Spoiler alert: they’re all the “real church.”


That doesn’t mean that ALL learned people are “anti-Jesus.”


“Divine messengers” is a matter of faith, not historic record. We believe there have been no such people since Jesus.

You have you viewpoints and that’s your right so I’m not going to push the issue. I take refuge in the Lord and leave you in His care.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If that was even remotely true, I never would have converted to Catholicism to begin with.

Well we each have our own understanding of things. I fully believe in Jesus and the Gospels but not all the superstitions and myths created afterwards that have nothing to do with Him.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are Catholic and Christian the same, of are thy different?

That's like asking if an orange and a fruit are the same thing. Christianity is a large group that is roughly divided into three categories: Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. I realize that many fundamentalist protestants like to pretend that they are the only real Christians, but it is presumptuous -- unlike the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century.

 

[1213]

And I suppose that you think that you're the one who decides which the exact teachings of Christ are in detail, right?
...

Aren’t the exact teachings of Jesus those that are in the Bible? If other people make up own interpretations and doctrines, they are not teachings of Jesus, but teachings of the interpreters.

 

[1213]

The Church is not the Gestapo, thus there's always been dissent and always will be based on a more Italian versus German model. In Protestant history, if one disagreed with their church then splitting was commonplace.

As an educator within the Church, I teach what the Church believes, thus not necessarily my beliefs as that's my role. It's much like if I hire into a company, I do the work that I'm assigned to even if I don't like or agree with it.

Ok, thank you. So, maybe I should have said that I am speaking about “company” teachings or doctrines. I can believe that there are individuals that are not necessary thinking the exact same way. And for me the problem with Catholic Church is that its doctrines are not Biblical. But, even though I think the company is not Biblical in those issues, it can have also good things.

 

[1213]

What might these “teachings of Jesus” be? How do you know? How are they categorized and arranged? Can you give textual references for these teachings?

By what I know, they say Jesus is God all though Jesus says in the Bible:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

And there are others, which you may think are not actually teachings of Jesus, like the second commandment that they seem to ignore and denying marriage.

You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage…
1 Tim. 4:1-3

 

[pearl]

I believe I said that, since the church is the body of Christ.
Why the game-playing?

I understood you to be saying that Jesus instituted the sacraments envisioning a priesthood.

 

[pearl]

Did you mean the qualifications for receiving it (Catechism, Communion, Sacramental status, ...)?

Its a question better answered by the Orthodox members. Offhand I think the Orthodox requirement in preparation to receive Eucharist is more involved. Not all Orthodox Churches are in agreement.

 

[DNB]

Its a question better answered by the Orthodox members. Offhand I think the Orthodox requirement in preparation to receive Eucharist is more involved. Not all Orthodox Churches are in agreement.

Understood, thank you!

 

[metis]

I would never say clear, or unequivocal. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, there is a focus on Peter more than the others. but for both better and for worse. And, quite evidently, Paul is the dominant Apostle in the book of Acts, and in regard to his contribution to the New Testament Canon. Paul, also rather explicitly, expressed his disregard for the so-called leaders of the Church, and his repudiation of Peter for his hypocrisy. And, finally, Paul was instructed directly from Jesus Christ, not being required to first, either, meet the Apostles, or to receive directives or teachings from them.
During the first Jerusalem council, both Paul and Peter offered their insights onto the matter, but it was James who, by his 'judgment', declared what the solution would be.

'Feed my sheep' was a general statement that all disciples should follow. The rapid growth of the early Church in both number and region, could not accommodate one man presiding over the entirety of believers., nor can it to this day. Peter's confession as to who Christ was, was shared by all the apostles, but it was just to Peter that Jesus posed the question. and, 'upon this rock' could have several connotations: 1. that Peter was a leader in some sense as far as precipitating such a swift propagation of the Gospel, 2. Or, that Peter's confession is what the Church would be built on - that Jesus was the son of God.

As far as Peter's lack of dominance is concerned:

Galatians 1:15-20
15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.

Galatians 2:6-10

6But as for the highly esteemed—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—those leaders added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.9And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

What you'ere missing with the above is the Jewish tradition of having major players be shown with having at least one defect of some type, and a Jewish commentary on this is to show that they are fully human and not demigods. Matter of fact, the Apostles in general are shown as being morally weak at times.

We know with certainty that the 1st and 2nd century Church saw Peter as being what can be called "the first amongst equals", such as what Ignatius of Antioch wrote.

 

[metis]

Well we each have our own understanding of things. I fully believe in Jesus and the Gospels but not all the superstitions and myths created afterwards that have nothing to do with Him.

And how could you possibly know that they are just "superstitions" and made-up "myths"?

As for myself, I look at all scripture as being allegorical thus focusing on the general set of morals that are being taught, thus whether a narrative is factual, a "myth", or "superstitious" is not something I fret about.

 

[metis]

Aren’t the exact teachings of Jesus those that are in the Bible? If other people make up own interpretations and doctrines, they are not teachings of Jesus, but teachings of the interpreters.

Everything we read in the scriptures is what the authors believed was done as they were written decades later. This is a general rule when reading any history, btw.

 

[metis]

And for me the problem with Catholic Church is that its doctrines are not Biblical.

Because some are interpretations, which can obviously vary, or applications, which also can vary from scholar to scholar. You do much of the same as well all do in any serious scriptural study.