I Corinthians; Defining the church

The sequence of threads in this series is expected to be as foillows;

Defining the church (current thread)
The calling and the cross
The calling and the Spirit
The calling and the teachers
The saint and his holiness
The saints and the sinner
The saints and the idols
The fellowship and the common Spirit
The fellowship and the gifts
The fellowship and the Supper
The fellowship and its love
The waiting and the resurrection

DISRAELI

adjensen
Once again, I need to re-itterate, due to my poor explanation earlier, that I do not believe that the current Roman Catholic church is the "true church"

Sorry, that was a late addition to my post, which was really just continuing the purely defensive argument with Colbe.
But it does help to draw a useful distinction.
For this pupose, I'm interested in the church in terms of something to belong to, rather than something to draw teaching from.
As "something to belong to", my point has been that if I have the relation which Paul describes with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I am automatically part of the church in the only sense that really matters.
You are reflecting on the respective merits of the institutions, like the Roman Catholic body, as teachers of doctrine, but I have been maintaining that the use of the word "church" for these human institutions is confusing and ought to be abandoned, not least because it leads to the fallacious Colbe-type line of argument.

The question of the place of Christian teachers is really a chapter three issue. I'm coming to that in due course.
The sequence will be, for the "calling" part of the definition;
"The calling and the cross"; already up and running, you may have seen it on the boards.
"The calling and the Spirit"- chapter 2.
Then "The calling and the teachers". To anticipate, the moral of chapter three is that human teachers ought not to elevate themselves too highly, which is applicable in all sorts of directions.

edit on 24-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Jesus established ONE Church because there is ONE Faith (Eph 4:5). Wasted time, protest if you like, those who did and do object broke away from the faith or today deny the faith, Roman Catholicism.

Lessons from a Protestant are all personal view, no authority. Jesus is not returning "soon" in His middle
coming to confirm, reveal it is alright, the division in Christianity. Logical, why bother to return? Which denomination/non-denomination, home church is Our Lord returning to say is the faith out of tens of
thousands of Protestant sects? The Orthodox have the Sacramental grace but reject Christ's Vicar.

It is prophesied, in an undeniable miraculous moments, God is going to show every person on the earth,
the faith and the condition of their sou as He sees it. And, warn of the soon appearance of the
anti-Christ.


God bless us all, non-Christians too,

Sorry, best I add and "L."

"It is prophesied, in an undeniable miraculous moments, God is going to show every person on the earth,
the faith and the condition of their SOUL as He sees it. And, warn of the soon appearance of the
anti-Christ."

colbe
Jesus established ONE Church because there is ONE Faith (Eph 4:5). Wasted time, protest if you like, those who did and do object broke away from the faith or today deny the faith, Roman Catholicism.

I have told you before, and I can tell you again every time you make this mistake.
You are only half right.
Your statement is made false by the last two words that you added.

It is true that Christ established the church and the one faith.
But Roman Catholicism is NOT the faith which he founded.
Roman Catholicism is only a fragment of the faith which he founded.
I belong to another fragment of the same church, the church which Christ founded.
You and I are both members of the one church, in the only sense that matters.

Your mind is confused, and we can all see its confused, because you don't understand the difference between the several different meanings that are given to the same word.
So let me try to explain once more.

The word "church" has at least four different meanings.
I will give them in the approximate order of first appearance.
1) The overall body of all the Christians in the world. "The blessed company of all faithful people". This is the church which Christ founded.
2) A local community of Christians. The Corinthians are a "church" in that sense, and Paul calls them so in the opening verse of the letter.
3) A building where Christians worship. This meaning originates after New Testament times.
4) One of the human instititions which organises a fragment of the overall church, like "the Baptist church", "the Presbyterian church". The Roman Catholic community is a "church" in this sense and ONLY in this sense. The Roman Catholic church has exactly the same status as the Baptist church and the Presbyterian church. No more. no less.

I have long argued that the "fourth meaning" of the word "church" ought to be abandoned, because it leads to exactly the same confusion of mind from which you are suffering.
You believe that the overall church (meaning no. 1) is to be identified with one of the fragments of the overall church (meaning no. 4). This is not true. It does not become true just because the authorities of your community have been deliberately promoting the same confusion of thought.
The only way you can escape this confusion is to sit down and examine the different usages of the word "church" and get them straight in your mind.
Then hopefully you will get away from your monomaniac obsession with getting other fragments of the church to join with your own self-isolated fragment.

The most recent thread in this series is;

The calling and the Spirit

DISRAELI

colbe
Jesus established ONE Church because there is ONE Faith (Eph 4:5). Wasted time, protest if you like, those who did and do object broke away from the faith or today deny the faith, Roman Catholicism.

I have told you before, and I can tell you again every time you make this mistake.
You are only half right.
Your statement is made false by the last two words that you added.

It is true that Christ established the church and the one faith. But Roman Catholicism is NOT the faith which he founded. Roman Catholicism is only a FRAGMENT of the faith which he founded. I belong to another fragment of the same church, the church which Christ founded. You and I are both members of the one church, in the only sense that matters.

Your mind is confused, and we can all see its confused, because you don't understand the difference between the several different meanings that are given to the same word.
So let me try to explain once more.

The word "church" has at least four different meanings.
I will give them in the approximate order of first appearance.
1) The overall body of all the Christians in the world. "The blessed company of all faithful people". This is the church which Christ founded.
2) A local community of Christians. The Corinthians are a "church" in that sense, and Paul calls them so in the opening verse of the letter.
3) A building where Christians worship. This meaning originates after New Testament times.
4) One of the human instititions which organises a fragment of the overall church, like "the Baptist church", "the Presbyterian church". The Roman Catholic community is a "church" in this sense and ONLY in this sense. The Roman Catholic church has exactly the same status as the Baptist church and the Presbyterian church. No more. no less.

I have long argued that the "fourth meaning" of the word "church" ought to be abandoned, because it leads to exactly the same confusion of mind from which you are suffering.
You believe that the overall church (meaning no. 1) is to be identified with one of the fragments of the overall church (meaning no. 4). This is not true. It does not become true just because the authorities of your community have been deliberately promoting the same confusion of thought.
The only way you can escape this confusion is to sit down and examine the different usages of the word "church" and get them straight in your mind.
Then hopefully you will get away from your monomaniac obsession with getting other fragments of the church to join with your own self-isolated fragment.

The term "church" often refers to the Faith, there is only one faith. Jesus established one faith, logical,
He established one Church (He used the singular "Church" in naming Peter, the first Pope, head of His Church, see Matt 16:18) who has given the world Our Lord's teachings and the greatest means to God's grace.

You are in denial of this fact using the word "fragment", a breaking away. Some of Christianity fragmented from the faith (the Orthodox and Protestantism), Roman Catholicism. Name the Christian faith (Church) Roman Catholicism fragmented from, you failed to say. Tee hee, no offense, I love you.

Jesus isn't returning soon to approve the "fragments" but to ask all the world to become Roman Catholic
like it was in the beginning in the year of 33 A.D.

reply to post by colbe

colbe
The term "church" often refers to the Faith, there is only one faith. Jesus established one faith, logical, He established one Church

Yes indeed, he established one church.
I belong to that one church, just as all the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians of the world belong to the same one church.
Your mind is still not coming to grips with the fact that the word “church” has more than one meaning, because it is used in many different ways.
When Jesus established the one church, that was in the sense which I have called Meaning no.1.
The Roman Catholic community is a human social institution organising one of the fragments of the one church, and that is what makes it “church” only in the sense of Meaning no.4.
That fourth usage is the one which ought to be abandoned, because it allows deceptive authorities to cause confusion between the two meanings.

Name the Christian faith (Church) Roman Catholicism fragmented from, you failed to say.

Yes, I can do that, but first I will describe it.
The church of the first three centuries was run by a collective leadership. At no stage in those centuries did the church as a whole ever acknowledge the leadership of one single person. You cannot identify any moment when they did so.
From the time of Constantine, they were effectively under the control of the Christian Emperors.
The Popes broke away from this collective system in two stages.
Firstly, during the seventh century, the Lombards invaded Italy and began driving out the power of the Emperors, which had the long-term effect of releasing the Popes from Imperial control.
I’ve already done a thread on this stage of the process (“The springboard of papal power”).
Then in 1054 the papal legates broke off relations with the Christian leadership in the East, thus deliberately isolating the papal fragment in the West from the main body of the church.

The calling of the Nicene Council symbolises the way that main body had been working. It was a meeting of the collective leadership of the church, summoned by the Emperor. The Pope did not call the meeting, he did not run it, and he was not there.
As long as the Nicene Council was sitting, the Pope was under the authority of the Council rather than the other way round.
Therefore we could refer to the original main body as the “Nicene” church.
We could also call it the “Catholic” church, as the theologians of the time would have done.
But here we run into another difficulty, because the Roman community has stolen and is trying to monopolise the word “Catholic”, just as they have stolen and are trying to monopolise the word “church”.
The most accurate way of describing the situation would be to say that the Roman community is a fragment which has broken away from the Catholic church.
However, the fact that the Roman community has dishonestly appropriated the word “Catholic” makes that sound like a paradox.

You are fond of using the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “Catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Similarly the word “church” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Any claim based on those misappropriations is a dishonest line of argument.

Jesus isn't returning soon to approve the "fragments" but to ask all the world to become Roman Catholic like it was in the beginning in the year of 33 A.D.

This is absurd nonsense.
There were no Christians in Rome in 33. A.D. , not a single one, so how can can the church of that time be called “Roman”?
Your blatant ignorance of history completely destroys your credibility, and helps to destroy the credibility of the community which you represent.

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe

 

colbe
The term "church" often refers to the Faith, there is only one faith. Jesus established one faith, logical, He established one Church

Yes indeed, he established one church.
I belong to that one church, just as all the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians of the world belong to the same one church.
Your mind is still not coming to grips with the fact that the word “church” has more than one meaning, because it is used in many different ways.
When Jesus established the one church, that was in the sense which I have called Meaning no.1.
The Roman Catholic community is a human social institution organising one of the fragments of the one church, and that is what makes it “church” only in the sense of Meaning no.4.
That fourth usage is the one which ought to be abandoned, because it allows deceptive authorities to cause confusion between the two meanings.

Name the Christian faith (Church) Roman Catholicism fragmented from, you failed to say.

Yes, I can do that, but first I will describe it.
The church of the first three centuries was run by a collective leadership. At no stage in those centuries did the church as a whole ever acknowledge the leadership of one single person. You cannot identify any moment when they did so.
From the time of Constantine, they were effectively under the control of the Christian Emperors.
The Popes broke away from this collective system in two stages.
Firstly, during the seventh century, the Lombards invaded Italy and began driving out the power of the Emperors, which had the long-term effect of releasing the Popes from Imperial control.
I’ve already done a thread on this stage of the process (“The springboard of papal power”).
Then in 1054 the papal legates broke off relations with the Christian leadership in the East, thus deliberately isolating the papal fragment in the West from the main body of the church.

The calling of the Nicene Council symbolises the way that main body had been working. It was a meeting of the collective leadership of the church, summoned by the Emperor. The Pope did not call the meeting, he did not run it, and he was not there.
As long as the Nicene Council was sitting, the Pope was under the authority of the Council rather than the other way round. Therefore we could refer to the original main body as the “Nicene” church.
We could also call it the “Catholic” church, as the theologians of the time would have done.
But here we run into another difficulty, because the Roman community has stolen and is trying to monopolise the word “Catholic”, just as they have stolen and are trying to monopolise the word “church”.
The most accurate way of describing the situation would be to say that the Roman community is a fragment which has broken away from the Catholic church.
However, the fact that the Roman community has dishonestly appropriated the word “Catholic” makes that sound like a paradox.

You are fond of using the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “Catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Similarly the word “church” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Any claim based on those misappropriations is a dishonest line of argument.

Jesus isn't returning soon to approve the "fragments" but to ask all the world to become Roman Catholic like it was in the beginning in the year of 33 A.D.

This is absurd nonsense. There were no Christians in Rome in 33. A.D. , not a single one, so how can can the church of that time be called “Roman”? Your blatant ignorance of history completely destroys your credibility, and helps to destroy the credibility of the community which you represent.

edit on 10-10-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

End with a personal insult, not very Christlike. Gosh, you take one sentence at a time and write
a book afterwards. I can't take the time to reply to everyone of your comments.

In other threads, you shouldn't post from Catholic writings, the Catechism while you reject her, very hypocritical and confusing. Roman Catholicism is not a mere "community", she is the FAITH. Stand on your PO, the basis for Protestantism. More Catholic writing, don't quote it, Holy Scripture is a Catholic book.

Your answer to my question (because you reject the faith) of name the Church Roman Catholicism fragmented from is the "Nicene Church." Where is this in history? Give a first Christian who called the faith, the "Nicene Faith?" And next you state, "We could also call it the “Catholic” church, as the theologians of the time would have done." Gee, I wonder why they did that, ee hee, no offense.

DISRAELI, Peter went to Rome, your use of one year (33 A.D.), your limiting way to deny the faith again. I do not know for sure personally what year Peter went to Rome, it is a fact, the faith was centered in Rome. There was a code word used for Rome, the first Christians used one because they were being persecuted! As leader of Christianity, Peter called Rome Babylon. Peter suffered martyred there and was buried in Rome.

Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Catholic for the first time. And very, very important, Ignatius used the word EUCHARIST for the first time. You deny the Eucharist also so you're back to your personal opinion of history not the truth. Notice too, Ignatius is a Bishop and the third one, there you have a hierarchy from the start.

Time is short says Heaven, Jesus wants you to become Roman Catholic, He is going to show you personally. You already accept God desires we all to believe the same.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

reply to post by colbe

Peter went to Rome, your use of one year (33 A.D.), your limiting way to deny the faith again.

You were the one who quoted 33 A.D. originally, I was just following you.
I assumed you were talking about the very beginning of the church, just after the resurrection, and that’s what I was talking about.
On the day of Pentecost, in the second chapter of Acts, EVERY Christian in the world was in Jerusalem, meeting in the upper chamber. At that stage there were no Christians in Rome and never had been. There was no such thing as a Roman Christian.
Therefore, I have to repeat, it is absurd nonsense to describe the church of that time as “Roman”.

And next you state, "We could also call it the “Catholic” church, as the theologians of the time would have done." Gee, I wonder why they did that, ee hee, no offense.

They used the word “Catholic” because the word “Catholic” means “universal”, and they were describing the universal church.
But I have told you many times and I tell you again, the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic”.
“The Catholic church” was the self-designation of the Christian church of the early centuries.
“The Roman Catholic church” is the self-designation of a fragment which has broken away from the main body of the church.
Since the Roman Catholic church is not genuinely universal, the use of the word “catholic” in that title is inaccurate and misleading.

Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Catholic for the first time.

Yes, that is exactly my point.
He uses the word “catholic”.
He does NOT use the phrase “Roman Catholic”.
He was talking about the universal church, to which I belong.
He was NOT talking about the limited human institution which chooses to call itself “Roman Catholic”.

You are fond of using the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “Catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.

End with a personal insult, not very Christlike.

You are mistaken. Jesus was always ready to offer the blunt truth when occasion arose.
He was the one who told the Sadducees that they did not know the scripture nor the power of God.
I was only imitating his example when I told you that you display your ignorance of history whenever you discuss the subject.
And it does undermine your credibility and the credibility of the community you represent.

Gosh, you take one sentence at a time and write a book afterwards. I can't take the time to reply to everyone of your comments.

Yes, because a statement that is wrong or misleading can be made in very few words, but it might well take a much larger number of words to show why it is wrong or misleading.
If you’re always going to close off your mind to explanations, then your understanding will never be advanced.

Time is short says Heaven, Jesus wants you to become Roman Catholic

No he does not, and I can prove that logically. If he wanted me to join your community, he would not have placed you in my path to put me off.
You are God’s chosen instrument for driving people away from the Roman Catholic church, one of the most effective ever designed for the purpose.
If God really wanted me to be in the Roman Catholic church, he would have made sure that you were kept well out of the way.

The most recent thread in this series is;

The saints and the sinner

The most recent thread in this series is;

The saints and the idols

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe

 

Peter went to Rome, your use of one year (33 A.D.), your limiting way to deny the faith again.

You were the one who quoted 33 A.D. originally, I was just following you.
I assumed you were talking about the very beginning of the church, just after the resurrection, and that’s what I was talking about.
On the day of Pentecost, in the second chapter of Acts, EVERY Christian in the world was in Jerusalem, meeting in the upper chamber. At that stage there were no Christians in Rome and never had been. There was no such thing as a Roman Christian.
Therefore, I have to repeat, it is absurd nonsense to describe the church of that time as “Roman”.

And next you state, "We could also call it the “Catholic” church, as the theologians of the time would have done." Gee, I wonder why they did that, ee hee, no offense.

They used the word “Catholic” because the word “Catholic” means “universal”, and they were describing the universal church.
But I have told you many times and I tell you again, the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic”.
“The Catholic church” was the self-designation of the Christian church of the early centuries.
“The Roman Catholic church” is the self-designation of a fragment which has broken away from the main body of the church.
Since the Roman Catholic church is not genuinely universal, the use of the word “catholic” in that title is inaccurate and misleading.

Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Catholic for the first time.

Yes, that is exactly my point.
He uses the word “catholic”.
He does NOT use the phrase “Roman Catholic”.
He was talking about the universal church, to which I belong.
He was NOT talking about the limited human institution which chooses to call itself “Roman Catholic”.

You are fond of using the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “Catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.

End with a personal insult, not very Christlike.

You are mistaken. Jesus was always ready to offer the blunt truth when occasion arose.
He was the one who told the Sadducees that they did not know the scripture nor the power of God.
I was only imitating his example when I told you that you display your ignorance of history whenever you discuss the subject.
And it does undermine your credibility and the credibility of the community you represent.

Gosh, you take one sentence at a time and write a book afterwards. I can't take the time to reply to everyone of your comments.

Yes, because a statement that is wrong or misleading can be made in very few words, but it might well take a much larger number of words to show why it is wrong or misleading.
If you’re always going to close off your mind to explanations, then your understanding will never be advanced.

Time is short says Heaven, Jesus wants you to become Roman Catholic

No he does not, and I can prove that logically. If he wanted ME to join your community, he would not have placed you in MY path to put ME off. You are God’s chosen instrument for driving people away from the Roman Catholic church, one of the most effective ever designed for the purpose.
If God really wanted ME to be in the Roman Catholic church, he would have made sure that you were kept well out of the way.

Roman Catholicism is logical and faithful too and miraculous, most of the personal testimonies, documented and science tested miracles are Roman Catholic.


Roman Catholicism isn't as you state "your community", it is THE faith. Your lessons make no sense at all Disraeli, why, you quote Roman Catholic saints and next deny the faith when challenged about it! You can pretend RC is not the faith but you end coming back to it. Why, history plus the miraculous shows it is the faith. Protestantism, the revolt from the faith happened in the 16th century.

Our Lord told Peter, His chosen leader on earth (Matt 16:18), Satan will not overcome the faith (singular), "My Church." The evil one hasn't not in 2000 years. Our God and Savior has kept His promise and will through the coming terrible persecution.

The underlined, wow! This is a discussion forum, discuss, instead of the personal directed negative. Do not blame me for your disbelief. Read the faith for yourself. You can search the Catechism and sacred writings, the early Church Fathers, there are libraries full. God wants not only you but everyone to become Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, it is the Remnant. God is going to personally show you, trust in prophecy, the Protestant prophetic is saying the same.

The Remnant can never be Protestant for obvious reasons, everyone deciding for themselves the meaning of Christ's teachings (the most important, rejecting Christ's revelation about the Eucharist) and if they are aware of Our Lord's true teachings, which ones they'll follow. Look at what Protestants profess and accept (women as ministers, homosexual ministers and bishops, contraception, divorce in all cases, sitting home on Sunday instead of gathering together to worship God as He commands, etc, etc.

Try to understand about authority, you can't be your own pope. Jesus said do ALL I command of you and to the Apostles, those who hear you hear Me. "Lessons" amount to "private judgment", which is PO. Why "private judgment" is a heresy.

Come to believe now in the Real Presence DISRAELI, you'll fully understand at the time of the Warning. And remember, watch as it is prophesied, the anti-Christ attempts to abolish the Eucharist (A.O.D.).


love,


colbe

colbe
, why, you quote Roman Catholic saints

Augustine is not "a Roman Catholic saint”.
He is a Catholic saint.
The Bible is not a “Roman Catholic" Bible.
It is a Catholic Bible.

I have told you many times and I tell you again, the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic”.
The word “Catholic” means “universal”. It refers to the universal church which Christ founded.
It refers to the one church which includes every Christian in the world, whether Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or even Roman.
I am a member of this global, Catholic church, which is why I'm entitled to quote the theologians of the early church and quote the Bible which belongs to all of us.

Whereas the body which calls itself the “Roman Catholic church” is a human institution, a fragment which has broken away from the main body of the church.
You are fond of this phrase “Roman Catholic church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Similarly the word “church” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.

Your community does not own the word “catholic”. You have no exclusive right to it.
Therefore any argument you make exploiting the word “catholic”and claiming any kind of monopoly is invalid.
Any future use of that line will be met by re-posting the above, to save myself labour in what is becoming a circular argument


The point about the portion you underlined is that it is true.
That is genuinely the effect you have on people.
I'm not complaining.
It is a good thing that you should be God's lighthouse, warning every passing sailor that your community is an area of dangerous water, and if they value their lives and their sanity they need to steer off in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
That's why you have never convinced anybody to join the Roman Catholic community, and you never will.

DISRAELI

colbe
, why, you quote Roman Catholic saints

Augustine is not "a Roman Catholic saint”.
He is a Catholic saint.
The Bible is not a “Roman Catholic" Bible.
It is a Catholic Bible.

I have told you many times and I tell you again, the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic”.
The word “Catholic” means “universal”. It refers to the universal church which Christ founded.
It refers to the one church which includes every Christian in the world, whether Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or even Roman.
I am a member of this global, Catholic church, which is why I'm entitled to quote the theologians of the early church and quote the Bible which belongs to all of us.

Whereas the body which calls itself the “Roman Catholic church” is a human institution, a fragment which has broken away from the main body of the church.
You are fond of this phrase “Roman Catholic church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Similarly the word “church” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.

Your community does not own the word “catholic”. You have no exclusive right to it.
Therefore any argument you make exploiting the word “catholic”and claiming any kind of monopoly is invalid.
Any future use of that line will be met by re-posting the above, to save myself labour in what is becoming a circular argument


The point about the portion you underlined is that it is true.
That is genuinely the effect you have on people.
I'm not complaining.
It is a good thing that you should be God's lighthouse, warning every passing sailor that your community is an area of dangerous water, and if they value their lives and their sanity they need to steer off in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
That's why you have never convinced anybody to join the Roman Catholic community, and you never will.

edit on 4-11-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

St. Augustine believed while he was alive and now as a saint in Heaven in the most Holy Eucharist. You
don't. Something is wrong here.

People are able to understand why God has to act to bring Christianity together. The above is the rejection of the faith. The prophesied "awakening" could happen next year.

"Lessons" are of no use, private judgment of Scripture is heresy. Its fruit is pretty obvious, error and division. How many Protestant denominations, non-denominations and home churches are there? 30, 000 and counting. Protestants do not agree on the teachings of Christ. You can't be your own pope. Why? No authority, it is simple as that, God gave the authority to interpret Holy Scripture to the Catholic Church, the faith, Roman Catholicism.

A help, read the footnotes of the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate, a great help to understand the tough verses in Holy Scripture. www.drbo.org...

One day DISRAELI, you'll proclaim, dear Lord, my God, I adore You in the most Holy Eucharist.


John 6:54
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

DISRAELI

colbe
, why, you quote Roman Catholic saints The point about the portion you underlined is that it is true. That is genuinely the effect you have on people. I'm not complaining. It is a good thing that you should be God's lighthouse, warning every passing sailor that your community is an area of dangerous water, and if they value their lives and their sanity they need to steer off in the opposite direction as quickly as possible. That's why you have never convinced anybody to join the Roman Catholic community, and you never will.

Augustine is not "a Roman Catholic saint”.
He is a Catholic saint.
The Bible is not a “Roman Catholic" Bible.
It is a Catholic Bible.

I have told you many times and I tell you again, the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic”.
The word “Catholic” means “universal”. It refers to the universal church which Christ founded.
It refers to the one church which includes every Christian in the world, whether Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or even Roman.
I am a member of this global, Catholic church, which is why I'm entitled to quote the theologians of the early church and quote the Bible which belongs to all of us.

Whereas the body which calls itself the “Roman Catholic church” is a human institution, a fragment which has broken away from the main body of the church.
You are fond of this phrase “Roman Catholic church”.
But you need to be aware that the word “Roman” is the only part of that phrase which was acquired honestly.
The word “catholic” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.
Similarly the word “church” was seized by theft, and really belongs to the entire global body.

Your community does not own the word “catholic”. You have no exclusive right to it.
Therefore any argument you make exploiting the word “catholic”and claiming any kind of monopoly is invalid.
Any future use of that line will be met by re-posting the above, to save myself labour in what is becoming a circular argument


The point about the portion you underlined is that it is true.
That is genuinely the effect you have on people.
I'm not complaining.
It is a good thing that you should be God's lighthouse, warning every passing sailor that your community is an area of dangerous water, and if they value their lives and their sanity they need to steer off in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
That's why you have never convinced anybody to join the Roman Catholic community, and you never will.

edit on 4-11-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Roman Catholicism is the faith of Eph 4:5 not a vague "community", remember, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

You continue with your personal insults, against the rules at ATS. People are aware, prophesied events are closer.

People change when they discover something new. You can too dear DISRAELI.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Augustine is not "a Roman Catholic saint”.
He is a Catholic saint.

Actually, that's not true. Augustine is a Saint to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans. He is not a Saint in any other tradition, so either "Catholic" doesn't mean universal (which it does) or Augustine is a Saint in some, not all, traditions, meaning that Augustine is not a Catholic Saint.

reply to post by adjensen

OK, but the "saint" designation was not essential to the point being discussed at the time.
It was my right to refer to him as a writer which was being questioned.

DISRAELI

FlyersFan
Where Peter is ... there is the church

I would say the church is where Christ is.
The history of the way the church divided (such as the fact that the Papacy separated off from the East rather than the other way round) shows that the Roman Cathoilc communion is another fragment of no more than equal status with the rest.

If I belong to Christ, then I belong to the church, because that is the only true definition of membership of the church.

edit on 19-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Backwards again....

The Eastern early Church Fathers looked to Rome until the schism and the rejection of the Papacy.

They'll have little difficulty in becoming one after the Great Warning. The worry is Protestantism.

"Breaking bread", "break the bread" is a first reference to the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch first used the term Eucharist which means "giving thanks."

No way does bread and wine, sometimes juice and crackers have "equal status" with the Real Presence! Jesus Christ, our beloved God and Savior is truly present in the consecrated host and wine!! It is supernatural, trust God. Have faith, it takes true faith since you do not see a change.

Why is it so hard, if you can come to accept the Eucharist, the time ahead won't be difficult, you won't
be deceived, misled.

St. Augustine's Feast Day is August 28th. St. Augustine believed/believes in Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.

Thanks Adjensen for your post.

During the "golden age of the Fathers,” (300-600), eight Doctors of the Church particularly stand out and are called “Ecumenical Fathers” because of their widespread influence. Bronze statues of several of these eight are to be found in St. Peter’s Basilica. Four of these Doctors of the Church hailed from the Western (Latin-speaking) half of the Roman Empire.

· St. Ambrose, 340-397

· St. Jerome, 345-420

· St. Augustine, 354-430

· St. Gregory the Great (Pope), 540-604

DISRAELI
reply to post by adjensen

 

OK, but the "saint" designation was not essential to the point being discussed at the time.
It was my right to refer to him as a writer which was being questioned.

The "point " is Protestantism is not of Christ.

The problem with Protestantism, no early history, they have to refer to THE faith, to Roman Catholic saints which makes any of their defense of Protestantism moot. Luther (and the other revolters to follow) broke from the faith October 31, 1517.

I admire DSRAELI, at least he didn't name the usual ONE and only person referenced and overused, Constantine, for all of the centuries before Protestantism, they imagine no one notices in their extensive Christian history before 1517.