Jesuit at Fishwrap: “Jesus was wrong.”

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,625
56,258
Woods
✟4,675,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
At Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) we read the insights of Jesuit Thomas Reese, disgraced former editor of Amerika, who wins our Oaf For A Day Award. HERE What does it mean to be holy?

Jesus continues his commentary by commenting on the commandment, “You shall love your neighbor, but hate your enemy.” Actually, Jesus is wrong. There is no Old Testament injunction to hate your enemies. Leviticus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and makes no reference to enemies.

Well! There it is. Implicit in this is: “Since Jesus was wrong about this, then maybe He was wrong about other things too… and so is the Church.”

In Matthew 5 the Lord talks about personal relationships. He introduces His teachings with contrasts, beginning with the phrase:

Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις … “You have heard that it was said to the men of old,… (v.21)

And variations of this, repeated: “You have heard that it was said,…” (vv. 31, 33, 38, 43).

Christ makes reference to what people have said, not necessary what was in their Scriptures.

Jesus is NOT wrong about what they have heard was said.

But… Jesuit… Jesuita, non Jesu ita.

 

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This in my opinion is an example of an author looking for something to stir up division and trouble. The actual article he is tearing down is overall quite good I think.

The "Jesus was wrong" statement was certainly not the best way to phrase it. His point was that when Jesus says "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’" was that the Old Testament didn't call for that. So yes, he could have found a better way to say it than "Jesus was wrong."

But he doesn't use that (at least in this article) to then try to prove that Jesus was wrong about other things so we therefore know better than the Church. To say that it's "implicit" is more than a stretch.

I'm not a fan of the National Catholic Reporter but that's a pretty decent article. I have no clue why people have to look for trouble where there isn't any. There's enough real trouble to find, and it just makes people look petty and the tendency would then be to ignore them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Erose
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,844
9,382
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟441,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
At Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) we read the insights of Jesuit Thomas Reese, disgraced former editor of Amerika, who wins our Oaf For A Day Award. HERE What does it mean to be holy?

Jesus continues his commentary by commenting on the commandment, “You shall love your neighbor, but hate your enemy.” Actually, Jesus is wrong. There is no Old Testament injunction to hate your enemies. Leviticus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and makes no reference to enemies.

Well! There it is. Implicit in this is: “Since Jesus was wrong about this, then maybe He was wrong about other things too… and so is the Church.”

In Matthew 5 the Lord talks about personal relationships. He introduces His teachings with contrasts, beginning with the phrase:

Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις … “You have heard that it was said to the men of old,… (v.21)

And variations of this, repeated: “You have heard that it was said,…” (vv. 31, 33, 38, 43).

Christ makes reference to what people have said, not necessary what was in their Scriptures.

Jesus is NOT wrong about what they have heard was said.

But… Jesuit… Jesuita, non Jesu ita.


Not in the English is this understood, but in the Ancient Greek.
He does not want us to hate anyone .. however; being scriptures were written in Ancient Koine Greek, context of that language is necessary.


Etymology. From Ancient Greek μῖσος (mîsos, “hatred”) or μῑσέω (mīséō, “to hate”) (+ -ia); Devised as an alternative to the suffix -phobia, which etymologically (and clinically) denotes fear, though it is also widely used in English to denote hatred.

So since all His teachings are Love, do not judge etc... turn the other cheek... the actual translation though is hate in English, it is fear in the Ancient Greek.

AND indeed tradition carried weight. Which greatly depended on the people in the chair of Moses and Moses himself a la eye for an eye.


AND HEBREW:


deference to the rich; judge your kin fairly.


לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃
Do not deal basely with members of your people. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow [Israelite]: I am יהוה.


לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃
You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account.


לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against members of your people. Love your fellow [Israelite] as yourself: I am יהוה.


אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֙יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ׃
You shall observe My laws. You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material.


וְ֠אִ֠ישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהׇפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖הֿ לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה׃
If a man has carnal relations with a woman who is a slave and has been designated for another man, but has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there shall be an indemnity; they shall not, however, be put to death, since she has not been freed.


וְהֵבִ֤יא אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד אֵ֖יל אָשָֽׁם׃
But he must bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, as his guilt offering to יהוה, a ram of guilt offering.


וְכִפֶּר֩ עָלָ֨יו הַכֹּהֵ֜ן בְּאֵ֤יל הָֽאָשָׁם֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־חַטָּאת֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֑א וְנִסְלַ֣ח ל֔וֹ מֵחַטָּאת֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָֽא׃ {פ}
With the ram of guilt offering the priest shall make expiation for him before יהוה for the sin that he committed; and the sin that he committed will be forgiven him.


וְכִי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם֙ כׇּל־עֵ֣ץ מַאֲכָ֔ל וַעֲרַלְתֶּ֥ם עׇרְלָת֖וֹ אֶת־פִּרְי֑וֹ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֗ים יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֛ם עֲרֵלִ֖ים לֹ֥א יֵאָכֵֽל׃
When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden for you, not to be eaten.


וּבַשָּׁנָה֙ הָרְבִיעִ֔ת יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־פִּרְי֑וֹ קֹ֥דֶשׁ הִלּוּלִ֖ים לַיהֹוָֽה׃
In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before יהוה;


וּבַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַחֲמִישִׁ֗ת תֹּֽאכְלוּ֙ אֶת־פִּרְי֔וֹ לְהוֹסִ֥יף לָכֶ֖ם תְּבוּאָת֑וֹ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased: I יהוה am your God.


לֹ֥א תֹאכְל֖וּ עַל־הַדָּ֑ם לֹ֥א תְנַחֲשׁ֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ׃
You shall not eat anything with its blood. You shall not practice divination or soothsaying.


לֹ֣א תַקִּ֔פוּ פְּאַ֖ת רֹאשְׁכֶ֑ם וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁחִ֔ית אֵ֖ת פְּאַ֥ת זְקָנֶֽךָ׃
You [men] shall not round off the side-growth on your head, or destroy the side-growth of your beard.


וְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃
You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am יהוה.


אַל־תְּחַלֵּ֥ל אֶֽת־בִּתְּךָ֖ לְהַזְנוֹתָ֑הּ וְלֹא־תִזְנֶ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ וּמָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֖רֶץ זִמָּֽה׃
Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity.


אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֣י תִּשְׁמֹ֔רוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁ֖י תִּירָ֑אוּ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃
You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary: I am יהוה.


אַל־תִּפְנ֤וּ אֶל־הָאֹבֹת֙ וְאֶל־הַיִּדְּעֹנִ֔ים אַל־תְּבַקְשׁ֖וּ לְטׇמְאָ֣ה בָהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits, to be defiled by them: I יהוה am your God.


מִפְּנֵ֤י שֵׂיבָה֙ תָּק֔וּם וְהָדַרְתָּ֖ פְּנֵ֣י זָקֵ֑ן וְיָרֵ֥אתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {ס}
You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old; you shall fear your God: I am יהוה.


וְכִֽי־יָג֧וּר אִתְּךָ֛ גֵּ֖ר בְּאַרְצְכֶ֑ם לֹ֥א תוֹנ֖וּ אֹתֽוֹ׃
When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them.


כְּאֶזְרָ֣ח מִכֶּם֩ יִהְיֶ֨ה לָכֶ֜ם הַגֵּ֣ר ׀ הַגָּ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֗ם וְאָהַבְתָּ֥ לוֹ֙ כָּמ֔וֹךָ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
The strangers who reside with you shall be to you as your citizens; you shall love each one as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I יהוה am your God.


לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֖וֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט בַּמִּדָּ֕ה בַּמִּשְׁקָ֖ל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָֽה׃
You shall not falsify measures of length, weight, or capacity.


מֹ֧אזְנֵי צֶ֣דֶק אַבְנֵי־צֶ֗דֶק אֵ֥יפַת צֶ֛דֶק וְהִ֥ין צֶ֖דֶק יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם אֲנִי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵ֥אתִי אֶתְכֶ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
You shall have an honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin.I יהוה am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt.


וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־כׇּל־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}
You shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My rules: I am יהוה.

תלמוד
https://www.christianforums.com/Leviticus.19.15?with=TALMUD
סנהדרין ג׳ א:א׳

שנאמר (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם ומה טעם אמרו דיני ממונות לא בעינן דרישה וחקירה כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין


סנהדרין ג׳ א:ה׳

אלא אמר רבא תרתי קתני משום דרבי חנינא רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר מדאורייתא חד נמי כשר שנאמר (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך אלא משום יושבי קרנות


סנהדרין ל״ב ב:ד׳

כדריש לקיש דריש לקיש רמי כתיב (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך וכתיב (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הא כיצד כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאין מרומה


שבועות ל׳ א:י״ב

ת"ר (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך שלא יהא אחד יושב ואחד עומד אחד מדבר כל צרכו ואחד אומר לו קצר דבריך ד"א בצדק תשפוט עמיתך הוי דן את חבירך לכף זכות


According to the obvious measure of the many times Israel had prophets rise up repeatedly to teach them, [and archeology] many times they fell away from the truth of the teachings.

For instance Elijah had to get them to stop worshipping other gods.

What was their 'thinking' ?? well... the rule is Have No gods before Me.
Their translation: Well, He is first and then we can have other ones...


They often times would wander from the truth and start mixing it up.
Therefore; the teaching of the men of OLD [as Jesus truly spoke] were inclusive only to the Israelites and therefore; unless the people were citizens, they could hate their neighbors. Because well, it wasn't inclusive in the language.

PUT it this way - give an inch they took a yard.
Deliberately or accidentally obtuse nobody knows.

Jesus made a permanent correction. Being the Lord He made it clear.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,844
9,382
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟441,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I loved my OT classes.
They have tremendously helped me understand Jewish thinking, culture, periods of time [archeology] where they fell apart and were again had to be led back, their language and how they found ways to fall...
 
  • Like
Reactions: narnia59
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,844
9,382
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟441,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
SO I was thinking...
The quote from St Peter wresting scriptures et al.
St Philip being carried away via spirit to the Eunich.

This stuff is really why we need one home, one set of teachings, one universal ancient Church.

Ok... off my soap box. :preach:
 
  • Like
Reactions: narnia59
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Is it not written that there is "one body" not one human institution?

I'm not really sure what that has to do with the topic of the thread, but there is "one faith" (Ephesians 4:5) and "one Church" established by Christ (Matthew 16:18).

The Church Christ established is both a spiritual communion (the mystical body of Christ) and a visible institution with known leadership who were given the authority by Christ to oversee his Church. And since this leadership is composed of humans, it is also a human institution. Much like Christ himself has both a human and divine nature, so does his Church.

What Christ did not do is establish multiple human institutions (various denominations) each teaching different doctrines and professing that their interpretations and teachings are "truth." That runs quite contrary to there being "one faith."
 
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,394
508
✟116,014.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Warrior Angel wrote: "This stuff is really why we need one home, one set of teachings, one universal ancient Church."

My point is that it is written in the Bible that we have "one universal ancient Church" not that we "need one".

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Eph 3:6

Different denominations do not refute this biblical truth. There is one faith: the Christian faith.

Are you alleging that believers who are not in your church do not have Christian faith. Isn't that rather presumptuous - in fact rather self-centred (my church is the one true church simply because it is my church).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fide

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2012
1,182
574
✟127,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Warrior Angel wrote: "This stuff is really why we need one home, one set of teachings, one universal ancient Church."

My point is that it is written in the Bible that we have "one universal ancient Church" not that we "need one".

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Eph 3:6

Different denominations do not refute this biblical truth. There is one faith: the Christian faith.

Are you alleging that believers who are not in your church do not have Christian faith. Isn't that rather presumptuous - in fact rather self-centred (my church is the one true church simply because it is my church).
Self-centeredness is the fundamental tenet of today's favorite idolatry: "It's all about ME." (And "My truth is true for ME.") God, Who is ONE, can rightly declare that to be true of the only God Who IS. And that is not "presumptuous", unless truth itself is not true. And that fundamental self-contradiction ("Truth itself is NOT true!") is the delight of the evil one, and all his followers in "today's favorite idolatry."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Warrior Angel wrote: "This stuff is really why we need one home, one set of teachings, one universal ancient Church."

My point is that it is written in the Bible that we have "one universal ancient Church" not that we "need one".

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Eph 3:6

Different denominations do not refute this biblical truth. There is one faith: the Christian faith.

Are you alleging that believers who are not in your church do not have Christian faith. Isn't that rather presumptuous - in fact rather self-centred (my church is the one true church simply because it is my church).
The problem is not different denominations. The problem is these different denominations, usually professing their version of the Christian faith is based on the Bible, differ in what they believe on some very major points. And they can’t all be right.

Your profile says you're a Baptist. If you're a General Baptist, or a Free Will Baptist, then you would not believe that Once-Saved Always-Saved is true or Biblical. If you're a Southern Baptist or perhaps another variety, then you probably profess that Once-Saved Always-Saved is Biblical truth. The question as to whether a person can lose their salvation is not a "minor" point. But both positions cannot be true. Hence, once group is in error on this very important topic.

There are Christians who profess the Bible alone as the basis of their faith who do not believe in the Trinity. There are Bible-alone Christians who vary on what it means to be "born-again" (some say it's by Baptism, some say it's by accepting Christ through faith). Bible-alone Christians differ on how a person is saved, and exactly what constitutes a "work." Bible-alone Christians differ on whether Christ died for all, or only the elect. Bible-alone Christians differ on the meaning of Baptism and the age to baptize. Bible-alone Christians differ on whether communion is merely a symbol versus a belief in some version of the real presence of Christ.

None of these are trivial, non-essential aspects of the Christian faith.

When Protestantism rejected that there is indeed a visible, institutional Church that was established by Christ on the rock of St. Peter, what they are left with are individual factions who profess they have the truth of the Christian faith. But not all can be right; some by default must be in error on key points of the Christian faith. That is the reality.

So you are correct, different denominations do not refute the truth that there is one Christian faith. Christ did not leave the important questions without a means to resolution. The Biblical model to resolve doctrinal disputes is given to us in Acts 15 when the Church is being divided over the issue of whether the Gentiles must be circumcised and thereby follow the Mosaic law. The Church goes into council, with their very visible and known leadership established by Christ, and the Holy Spirit guides them into truth. It's the model the Catholic Church has followed for 2000 years. And that is where the fullness of the Christian faith is found -- in the Catholic Church.

It is not the one true Church because it is my church. It's the one true Church because Christ established it on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, appointed his apostles with his authority, and they again appointed successors to continue their role (all found in Scripture by the way). And while we do indeed recognize that there are other Christians who are in the mystical body of Christ by virtue of their Baptism and faithfulness, that does not mean they all possess the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith, because logically they cannot all possess that truth simply because of their own differences in belief.

And it is much less presumptuous to believe that Christ founded a Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) so that the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith can be known, than to believe that my little select group are the ones who have correctly interpreted the Bible over all others who disagree with us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,844
9,382
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟441,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Warrior Angel wrote: "This stuff is really why we need one home, one set of teachings, one universal ancient Church."

My point is that it is written in the Bible that we have "one universal ancient Church" not that we "need one".

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Eph 3:6

Different denominations do not refute this biblical truth. There is one faith: the Christian faith.

Are you alleging that believers who are not in your church do not have Christian faith. Isn't that rather presumptuous - in fact rather self-centred (my church is the one true church simply because it is my church).
Yes, there is One.
Yet many will not come home.
 
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,394
508
✟116,014.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
narnia59

Your 'various denominations .... runs quite contrary to there being "one faith." ' suggested that you don't think people who profess faith as members of churches, other than your own, have Christian faith. Is that what you think?

And wasn't there a split in the church a long time before what you call Protestantism - referred to as the Great Schism (1054) and there was a period when there were two popes (Avignon and Rome). How do you know which was the true pope?
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,844
9,382
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟441,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
narnia59

Your 'various denominations .... runs quite contrary to there being "one faith." ' suggested that you don't think people who profess faith as members of churches, other than your own, have Christian faith. Is that what you think?

And wasn't there a split in the church a long time before what you call Protestantism - referred to as the Great Schism (1054) and there was a period when there were two popes (Avignon and Rome). How do you know which was the true pope?
Well if you find that odd what I ask you is this...
Why would they argue over the position if the position was very unimportant?

A council meted it out.

However; because the Pope resided in Avignon for 70 years does not mean his Chair was not in Rome.

AS FOR ONE faith - go to any Mass on a Sunday and it's the same readings as one in Africa.
Could your church say as much?
And the same 'teachings' that anyone within or without wants to know what the ONE Church professes under the Pope - they can read the Catechism.
Does every baptist church do the same?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
narnia59

Your 'various denominations .... runs quite contrary to there being "one faith." ' suggested that you don't think people who profess faith as members of churches, other than your own, have Christian faith. Is that what you think?

And wasn't there a split in the church a long time before what you call Protestantism - referred to as the Great Schism (1054) and there was a period when there were two popes (Avignon and Rome). How do you know which was the true pope?
I believe I was very clear that Catholic teaching understands that those who are validly baptized and persist in faith and charity are Christians and believed to be part of the mystical body of Christ. So no, I do not believe that people who profess Christ in various denominations do not have Christian faith.

But that doesn't mean that everything they believe as Christians is true. In fact, that is not possible because they believe very different things in some cases. If you are interested in knowing that you possess the fulness of the truth you recognize that Christ founded a Church so that we may know the truth, not just an individual or particular group's interpretation of Scripture that will vary from the next one.

There was the great Schism -- the faith Christ founded remained with the guy he gave the keys -- Peter and his successors the popes. It is upon the rock of Peter that Christ founded his Church. It is to Peter he gave the office of royal steward in his kingom when he gave him the keys to the kingdom. So while we understand the Orthodox have true apostolic succession and therefore a valid priesthood, they are in schism with the true Church because they have not remained in union with the chair of Peter which posseses the keys as Christ's steward of his kingdom. It's also why they've not been able to have an ecumenical council for the last 1000 years and even though they profess a belief in the first seven councils they can't define for you exactly what makes a council valid. I would also say that without the unity the chair of Peter provides it's why they have become churches very rooted in nationalism over unity. Never more evident than now with the Russian Orthodox official church leader endorsing the war in Ukraine as God's war.

There were never two popes, there was a pope and and antipope. The true pope resigned forcing a new election and a new pope moving forward. He was willing to leave the chair in order to prevent schism and make sure the church continued in unity.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,394
508
✟116,014.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well if you find that odd what I ask you is this...
Why would they argue over the position if the position was very unimportant?

A council meted it out.

However; because the Pope resided in Avignon for 70 years does not mean his Chair was not in Rome.

AS FOR ONE faith - go to any Mass on a Sunday and it's the same readings as one in Africa.
Could your church say as much?
And the same 'teachings' that anyone within or without wants to know what the ONE Church professes under the Pope - they can read the Catechism.
Does every baptist church do the same?
It's a bit confusing when you respond to my post which was in reply to narnia59. Are you speaking on narnia59's behalf? I think it would be simpler if you replied to posts I have written to you, not other forum members. I won't reply to such posts in future.

I'm sure that at the time of the two popes they thought the office was important. The point I was making to narnia59 was that schism didn't first come in with Protestantism! There was plenty of disagreements within the Roman church before then - for instance between some popes and the Franciscans e.g. William of Ockham, as well as the examples I have given already.

As for having the same reading throughout the world - well is that it? Surely it would be better not to boast about your church in this way, or try to prove your church is better than others. For a start there's the problem of agreed criteria about what measures the quality of a church. I don't recall any particular command or advice in the NT to this effect. It would be quite a leap to go from "that they may be one" to make that mean "have the same Bible readings in each service". Why not go further and have the same sermon, suitably translated? "Comparisons are odious" or let the church that has no sin cast the first stone. Let's not go down this odious path of comparison.

Actually I've just noticed that this is a catholics only forum. (is that true?). I was responding to the what's "hot" rather than moving to the actual forum. If that's the case I'll make this my last post in this thread apart from replying finally to narnia59.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,394
508
✟116,014.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem is not different denominations. The problem is these different denominations, usually professing their version of the Christian faith is based on the Bible, differ in what they believe on some very major points. And they can’t all be right.

Your profile says you're a Baptist. If you're a General Baptist, or a Free Will Baptist, then you would not believe that Once-Saved Always-Saved is true or Biblical. If you're a Southern Baptist or perhaps another variety, then you probably profess that Once-Saved Always-Saved is Biblical truth. The question as to whether a person can lose their salvation is not a "minor" point. But both positions cannot be true. Hence, once group is in error on this very important topic.

There are Christians who profess the Bible alone as the basis of their faith who do not believe in the Trinity. There are Bible-alone Christians who vary on what it means to be "born-again" (some say it's by Baptism, some say it's by accepting Christ through faith). Bible-alone Christians differ on how a person is saved, and exactly what constitutes a "work." Bible-alone Christians differ on whether Christ died for all, or only the elect. Bible-alone Christians differ on the meaning of Baptism and the age to baptize. Bible-alone Christians differ on whether communion is merely a symbol versus a belief in some version of the real presence of Christ.

None of these are trivial, non-essential aspects of the Christian faith.

When Protestantism rejected that there is indeed a visible, institutional Church that was established by Christ on the rock of St. Peter, what they are left with are individual factions who profess they have the truth of the Christian faith. But not all can be right; some by default must be in error on key points of the Christian faith. That is the reality.

So you are correct, different denominations do not refute the truth that there is one Christian faith. Christ did not leave the important questions without a means to resolution. The Biblical model to resolve doctrinal disputes is given to us in Acts 15 when the Church is being divided over the issue of whether the Gentiles must be circumcised and thereby follow the Mosaic law. The Church goes into council, with their very visible and known leadership established by Christ, and the Holy Spirit guides them into truth. It's the model the Catholic Church has followed for 2000 years. And that is where the fullness of the Christian faith is found -- in the Catholic Church.

It is not the one true Church because it is my church. It's the one true Church because Christ established it on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, appointed his apostles with his authority, and they again appointed successors to continue their role (all found in Scripture by the way). And while we do indeed recognize that there are other Christians who are in the mystical body of Christ by virtue of their Baptism and faithfulness, that does not mean they all possess the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith, because logically they cannot all possess that truth simply because of their own differences in belief.

And it is much less presumptuous to believe that Christ founded a Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) so that the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith can be known, than to believe that my little select group are the ones who have correctly interpreted the Bible over all others who disagree with us.
The problem is not different denominations. The problem is these different denominations, usually professing their version of the Christian faith is based on the Bible, differ in what they believe on some very major points. And they can’t all be right.

Your profile says you're a Baptist. If you're a General Baptist, or a Free Will Baptist, then you would not believe that Once-Saved Always-Saved is true or Biblical. If you're a Southern Baptist or perhaps another variety, then you probably profess that Once-Saved Always-Saved is Biblical truth. The question as to whether a person can lose their salvation is not a "minor" point. But both positions cannot be true. Hence, once group is in error on this very important topic.

There are Christians who profess the Bible alone as the basis of their faith who do not believe in the Trinity. There are Bible-alone Christians who vary on what it means to be "born-again" (some say it's by Baptism, some say it's by accepting Christ through faith). Bible-alone Christians differ on how a person is saved, and exactly what constitutes a "work." Bible-alone Christians differ on whether Christ died for all, or only the elect. Bible-alone Christians differ on the meaning of Baptism and the age to baptize. Bible-alone Christians differ on whether communion is merely a symbol versus a belief in some version of the real presence of Christ.

None of these are trivial, non-essential aspects of the Christian faith.

When Protestantism rejected that there is indeed a visible, institutional Church that was established by Christ on the rock of St. Peter, what they are left with are individual factions who profess they have the truth of the Christian faith. But not all can be right; some by default must be in error on key points of the Christian faith. That is the reality.

So you are correct, different denominations do not refute the truth that there is one Christian faith. Christ did not leave the important questions without a means to resolution. The Biblical model to resolve doctrinal disputes is given to us in Acts 15 when the Church is being divided over the issue of whether the Gentiles must be circumcised and thereby follow the Mosaic law. The Church goes into council, with their very visible and known leadership established by Christ, and the Holy Spirit guides them into truth. It's the model the Catholic Church has followed for 2000 years. And that is where the fullness of the Christian faith is found -- in the Catholic Church.

It is not the one true Church because it is my church. It's the one true Church because Christ established it on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, appointed his apostles with his authority, and they again appointed successors to continue their role (all found in Scripture by the way). And while we do indeed recognize that there are other Christians who are in the mystical body of Christ by virtue of their Baptism and faithfulness, that does not mean they all possess the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith, because logically they cannot all possess that truth simply because of their own differences in belief.

And it is much less presumptuous to believe that Christ founded a Church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) so that the fullness of the truth of the Christian faith can be known, than to believe that my little select group are the ones who have correctly interpreted the Bible over all others who disagree with us.
Sorry for not replying more thoroughly before though as I wrote to WarriorAngel I hadn't noticed this was a catholics only forum (if that is the case). So I'll wind up with this post unless I find that is not the case.

I'm not in the US so I'm not familiar with General/Free Will Baptist. In the UK we have churches that are inside or outside the Baptist Union but that is organisational not theological; or Bible-alone as a formal group for that matter. Individual UK Baptist churches may have their own cut down new member friendly statement of faith, but just as the CofE has the 39 Articles, Baptist churches have the Baptist Confession of Faith.

As I've pointed out to WarriorAngel (as he confusingly replied on your behalf) schism did not come in with Protestantism! Do you agree?

As for Peter being the rock on which the church was founded (so not Jesus!?) that is a much discussed and far from certain matter, as it is not certain that Peter was ever in Rome.

Biblical Archaeological Society

Did the supporters of whom you call the "antipope" think he was the pope or the antipope?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sorry for not replying more thoroughly before though as I wrote to WarriorAngel I hadn't noticed this was a catholics only forum (if that is the case). So I'll wind up with this post unless I find that is not the case.

I'm not in the US so I'm not familiar with General/Free Will Baptist. In the UK we have churches that are inside or outside the Baptist Union but that is organisational not theological; or Bible-alone as a formal group for that matter. Individual UK Baptist churches may have their own cut down new member friendly statement of faith, but just as the CofE has the 39 Articles, Baptist churches have the Baptist Confession of Faith.

As I've pointed out to WarriorAngel (as he confusingly replied on your behalf) schism did not come in with Protestantism! Do you agree?

As for Peter being the rock on which the church was founded (so not Jesus!?) that is a much discussed and far from certain matter, as it is not certain that Peter was ever in Rome.

Biblical Archaeological Society

Did the supporters of whom you call the "antipope" think he was the pope or the antipope?
Protestatism was schism but it wasn't the first.

There is ample evidence Peter was in Rome but regardless it has nothing to do with his being the rock on which the Church is founded.

Historically there have been more than one occurence of an antipope. I believe in the one you are referring to however that his supporters well knew, it was a power play.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,751
1,265
✟332,711.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As for Peter being the rock on which the church was founded (so not Jesus!?) that is a much discussed and far from certain matter, as it is not certain that Peter was ever in Rome.

I apologize, I just noticed the "so not Jesus" in this.

Why would you think it has to be an either/or instead of a both/and?

For example, in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus tells Peter that Peter is the rock, Jesus refers to himself as the builder. Yet St. Paul refers to himself as building the Church in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11. And he says that there is no foundation other than Christ.

But Ephesians 2:10 and Revelation 21:14 refer to the apostles as being the foundation.

The question is not whether Christ is the rock, the foundation, the builder. He is all of these. The question is how he manifests that to the flock. He does that through Peter (the rock) and the apostles (the foundation and builders).

For a better grasp of how Scripture brings this point home, read Ezekiel 34:11-16 where God says that he himself will shepherd his people because other have led them astray. That makes God the shepherd, right? But then in verses 23-23 we read that the way he's going to become their shepherd is that he will place over them one shepherd, his servant David. God is indeed the shepherd, he is manifesting that to his people in the person of David.

So yes, Jesus is the rock; the way he manifests that to us is through the man whose name he actually changed to mean "rock" -- the person of Peter, and in turn his successors.
 
Upvote 0