Total posts: 107
-->
@fauxlaw
Beyond that, I depend on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide.
Soooooo, you're basically claiming what the Church says happens with the Pope? In fact you're saying it is happening in an even fuller manner with you personally than the Church claims happens with the Pope.
So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. - Acts 8:27-31
It would seem to me that the Bible is teaching that you need someone to guide you in understanding the Bible - how can you understand unless someone explains it to you. It doesn't say that the Holy Spirit will guide you. It says the apostles, and I would argue that the Bible shows that they set up successors to teach in their place.
Such as why I do not pray to Mary, or worship her, for that matter.
Funny, what did the Apostles do after the Ascension but before Pentecost? They went and Prayed with Mary - mention specifically by name.
These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. - Acts 1:14
How about the early Christians? Have you ever thought about how they prayed? Maybe something like this?
We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all dangers.
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.
Did you ever read any of the Church fathers condemning this "heresy"? No? Odd isn't it that such "heresy" should not be condemned by the early Church. And all this happened before the Edict of Milan, the definition of the Trinity or the codification of the canon of scripture. Seems like maybe you should see what early Christians believed - those who lived closest in time to the Apostles.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope. "The first institution that was more fully documented was the Platonic Academy (Figure 1), founded in 387 BCE, with Aristotle's Peripatetic school founded in 335 BCE having derived from Plato's Academy. These schools generally had a select few pupils and were not institutions for mass education.[2] Perhaps one of the first truly international institutions of higher education was the Musaeum, an institutions that brought knowledge to it from around the known world. The Library of Alexandria was part of this institution and it served as a repository for knowledge not just from the Hellenistic world but also accumulated knowledge from Babylonia and Persia that had preceded Greek scholarship. The Musaeum largely functioned like an international university, where students would come to be educated by the best teachers. The Ptolemaic state was tolerant to scholarship and allowed individuals from many regions to come to Alexandria to be involved in this institution.[3]".https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_universities_develop%3F
I never said there weren't schools of learning, but they weren't like universities. If you wanted to learn about Platonic philosophy you'd go to the Platonic School, if you wanted to learn an Aristotolean thought you'd go to the Aristotle school.
The university system was a degree system whereby other universities would recognize the degree held at a different institution. There would be a core of required texts that students would study, on which the professors would lecture and there would be a minimum number of years of study to receive a degree. There was a differentiation between undergrad and graduate degrees and someone with a master's degree from one university could go and teach at a different university. This resulted in an international exchange of knowledge and challenge of thought.
Created:
Why would the Holy Church absorb a worldly custom of petition to the King's mother [a Queen] to intercede for us with the King, when the King, himself, [Christ] declared himself to be our Advocate with and to the Father? That would imply the Lord's Prayer to not be an effective mode of prayer, ["after this manner, pray ye"] by praying directly to the Father, in the name of Christ, for our gratitude and supplication?
Because this is the last command Jesus gave us - Behold thy mother. If you have ever asked your own mother or anyone you know to pray for you, then you are a hypocrite in asking this question. If we ask sinners to pray for us how much more should we not ask those in God's very presence to pray for us?
Mary was approached at the wedding at Cana. Jesus will not deny his mother anything that she asks for.
Everything about Mary leads directly to Jesus. The last thing she is noted as saying - "Do as He tells you."
Does Jesus honour Mary? Then why shouldn't you? Or as St. Louis de Montfort explained:
“The more we honour the blessed virgin, the more we honour Jesus Christ, because we honour Mary only that we may more perfectly honour Jesus, since we go to her only as the way by which we are to find the end we are seeking, which is Jesus.”
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Meanwhile, He expects that we do not purposefully keep people ignorant, as your Damasus did
You have a lot of allegations, but no actual facts.
Show me how Pope Damasus kept people ignorant. Show me where the Church did not permit the people to read the Bible. You refuse to back up your basic premise.
Show me how most people who lived without being able to read could afford a book that would equal 1.5 years salary. Yes the Church has been providing the means of salvation to the people for 2000 years - whether or not they could read. Jesus said that if you love him you will do what he tells you. One's ability to read the scriptures will not make or prevent someone from gaining salvation.
Your main complaint is that the technology that existed for the first 1500 years of Christianity made it easy for errors. Who created the University system - The Catholic Church. The Church has been instrumental in setting up schooling. The fact the protestantism could only occur with the creation of the printing press shows that it is not the church that Jesus created. Your complaint is that the Church did not do things prior to the printing press that could not be done prior to the printing press is ridiculous.
Are you going to tell me that every Bible produced since the printing press is a perfect translation without error? If not your argument is self invalidating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is not the church built around, if not on, the words of god from the bible?
The Three Pillars of the Catholic Church are:
1-Sacred Scripture. All of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2-Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The living tradition of the Church, the Church Fathers, the Sacred Liturgy
3-The Church’s Magisterium -- the teaching authority of the Pope and all those bishops worldwide united with him.
[a] But is all it basically saying is that one will see god, be with god and spend eternity fawning like a sycophant.So the answer to my question of what will one be doing in heaven for the rest of eternity is [a] above.
A rather pejorative way of saying it. However, what I said earlier in the thread is a simple version of what the CCC says.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Why do Catholics pray to Mary?
First I think there is one major distinction to make. Protestants don't understand that there is a difference between prayer and worship. Since Protestants lack the Mass, they cannot understand the difference.
So Jesus is a king in the line of David. In the Davidic kingdom the king's mother was the queen. People would petition the queen to ask the king for favours on their behalf. When Jesus told John, here is your mother he made Mary the mother of all mankind - she is the new Eve as Jesus is the new Adam.
So we petition Mary to pray for us and to help us be like her in loving her son.
Why do archbishops, cardinals, and the pope carry the Lituus?
That is a pretty specific question - and rather biased in presentation. The origin of the Crosier is unknown.
Some writers trace an affinity with the lituus, or rod used by the Roman augurs in their divinations, while others again trace in the crosier an adaptation of the ordinary walking-sticks which were used for support on journeys and in churches before the introduction of seats (Catalani, Pont. Rom., Proleg., xx). At all events, it came at a very early date to be one of the principal insignia of the episcopal office. Just how soon is not easily determined, since in the early passages of the Fathers in which the word occurs it cannot be ascertained whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically (see 1 Corinthians 4:21) or whether it designates an ecclesiastical ornament at all. In liturgical usage it probably goes back to the fifth century (Kirchenlex., s.v. Hirtenstab). Mention of it is made in a letter of Pope Celestine I (d. 432) to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne. Staffs have indeed been found in the catacombs that date from the fourth century but their ceremonial character has not been established. The first unequivocal reference to the crosier as a liturgical instrument occurs in the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of Toledo (633). At present it is employed by bishops whenever they perform solemn pontifical functions, by right in their own dioceses and by privilege outside, and by inferior prelates whenever they are privileged to exercise pontifical functions.
You might as well ask why did Moses carry the Lituus. Popes don't currently use the Crosier.
Why is Easter celebrated on Sunday when Jesus is said to have died on Friday, and resurrected after three days and three nights?
It has to do with how the Jews counted time. Any part of the day counted as the whole "day & night."
Why is there a statue of the roman god Jupiter in the Vatican?
There isn't. This ancient statue of St. Peter, portrayed as he gives a blessing and preaches, while holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven is thought by some scholars to have been a work of Arnolfo di Cambio (1245-1302), others believe that it is a V century casting. Either way not Jupiter/Zeus/Whomever.
Why do Catholics celebrate Christmas at the winter solstice knowing full well that according to scripture, farmers were out in the field when the three wise men visited the manger?
Because it is Biblical.
We know that Elizabeth is in her 6th month of pregnancy when Jesus is conceived.
And behold, yourkinswoman Elizabeth in her old agehas also conceived a son; and this isthe sixth month with her who wascalled barren. For with God nothingwill be impossible.
So if we can establish when John the Baptist was born we can establish when Jesus was born.
Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served inthe “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripturerecords as the eighth course among the twenty four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift ofpriests served one week in the temple for twotimes each year. The course of Abias servedduring the eighth week and the thirty-secondweek in the annual cycle. However, when didthe cycle of courses begin?
In our calendar, the Day ofAtonement would land anywhere fromSeptember 22 to October 8.
Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John theBaptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. (See Luke 1:5-24) This entails that Saint John the Baptistwould have been conceived somewhere aroundthe end of September, placing John’s birth at theend of June.
Add six months to the end of June and you get the end of December for the birth of Jesus - hence December 25. For a fuller description:
Why does the Roman Catholic Church have a persistent issue--one may argue institutionalized--with their priests and pederasty?
One doesn't become a saint as soon as they put on a collar. There are many things I could discuss like the infiltration of the Catholic Church by communists in the 30, and their letting gays into the priesthood. However, this is the deepest shame to the Church that any priest should do something like this. The number of abusing priests was roughly equal to that number in the general populace.
It is not a problem only for Catholic clergy:
It was meant to be symbolic of the crushing of Satan's head as noted in Genesis. I personally think the whole thing is ugly. Many poor things have been done artistically since Vatican II. Bad art is bad art, yet it doesn't invalidate any teachings. Artistic interpretation is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
According to the epistle of James, faith without works is dead. Works like, having access to the scriptures to read them for one's self, not to be read to. You read to children. Adults should have the capacity to read for themselves, but did not for hundreds, indeed a thousand years. I've given you the reference to that fact.
So there is no salvation for the illiterate?
Once again you cannot quote where the Church forbade people from reading the Bible. Show me a church document - not an opinion piece.
Created:
Have you ever disagreed with any of the Catholic church's doctrines? Do you allow yourself to honestly disagree?I don't agree with everything I hear the pastor say over the pulpit. Every once in awhile, they will say something I don't agree with
Sure I have, but I change my opinion to conform to what the Church teaches. Do I like the idea of an eternal hell? No. Do I wish that there was some way for those who go to hell to be saved? Definitely. However, that is not for me to choose. The Church has been tasked with the salvation of souls and only in her can I be sure of the Truth. If I choose what is the truth, then I make myself Pope.
Now that doesn't mean I agree with everything my priest, bishop, or even the current Pontiff say (I disagree with him more than I ever thought it possible to disagree with a Pope). When they teach the faith I listen and attempt to modify my life. When they teach their own opinions, I am not obliged to follow what they say, but I give it consideration given who it is coming from.
I think the Catholic church overlooks the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Not at all. This is central to Catholicism. We are all about the need for grace to keep our feet on the path. It is through unity with the Church and her sacraments that the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit are poured out upon the body of the Church.
Most of the denominations have a unique divine history. We can kind of get a clue as to their roots just from their names (Baptist, Methodist,Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.). They had genuine revelations meant to be shared with the Body of Christ as a whole. Unfortunately, this often didn't happen. So in one sense denominations are negative when they attempt to isolate themselves from the rest of the Body. Denominations can be a positive when they agree to get together and learn/benefit from one another.
We can agree that all Christian should be united. Just as The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, all should be one in the Body of Christ. I will say that the only true unity is through the unity that Jesus established - his Church with Peter as the cornerstone. Everything else is ultimately disunity and error.
Are you familiar with Pentecostal Catholics?
Not at all.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you cant pretend that the teaching is that the "only"... florence's words... way to save an infant is to baptize it, and then still hold out hope that they can still be saved without baptism. that's illogical. the only way it could make sense is to jump through a bunch of hoops that no one who isn't catholic should be expected to jump through.
There are 3 types of Baptism. Water, blood and desire. Water is by far the normative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Jesus also said He was the Vine, and the Door. Why couldn't His reference to bread and wine be figurative?
I'll give one Old Testament and two New Testament reasons.
The Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New. The Jews had to eat the Passover Sacrifice. Here Christians have to eat the Passover sacrifice - the body and blood of Jesus.
In the New Testament the 3 synoptic Gospels all have the clear institution of the Eucharist, where Jesus says “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me” & “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.". Now if you look at the Gospel of John he doesn't have the last supper in his Gospel. John instead discusses the feeding of 5,000 for truth of the real presence.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst...
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. “I am the bread of life. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”...
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Here Jesus, says he is bread of life. The Jews grumble. Then he goes one step further saying that he is the bread and that you have to eat of this bread. The Jews began to argue. So Jesus goes full bore. He says truly, truly - i.e. I am literally saying unless you eat (and the word eat used in John is the word to gnaw like an animal on a bone) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
So what happens? Many of his followers leave him. Now does Jesus stop them or clarify his teaching? Nope. He doubles down again. He turns to the 12 and asks them are you going to leave also? He doesn't back down, he doesn't clarify. He meant exactly what he said.
The most ironic thing I have found in the bible is that those who turned away from believing that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist is this verse:
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. John 6:66 It is the only 666 verse in the new testament.
So how does the early Church view the Eucharist?
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. - 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
If the Eucharist were symbolic, you could not be so bring judgment on yourself for being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. However, if it truly is the body and blood of Jesus, then you could bring judgement on yourself if you eat it unworthily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
There is a difference between vincibly and invincibly ignorant. Only God knows who. Ignorance does not save you - the path is narrow.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..."
Yes it should not be delayed. The traditional practice was that the mother was not even there for the baptism as the child would be brought to the priest for baptism while she was still in recovery.
The purpose of this was to rebuke those who wanted baptism delayed. The Church knows that baptism is required. However, it does not limit God's ability to save those for whom baptism was not possible. The prudent response has always been that the Church baptizes into the body of Christ with all haste as we know of no other way into the Body of Christ. The Church has hope that some of those others can by saved through whatever means God chooses.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I saw your quote, but fail to see what relevance it has. You cannot show any document where the Church forbade people from reading scripture. You are simply putting your own biases on the issue.
Let me put it another way. Your style of faith is impossible without the printing press. How did Christ's Church survive for 1500 years?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you want me to pick one, i pick the salvation of infants who are unbaptized.
The Church has never dogmatically ruled on it. Limbo was a theological construct. So while it was common thought, it wasn't an actual dogma of the faith.
Next.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think u need to do a better job of showing me why it's necessary to submit my will to someone else, which is a huge thing to ask. especially when it takes hundreds of years just to establish the idea of inerrant popes on faith and morals. but anyway, i suppose this looks hashed.
The early Church can be shown to be definitively Apostolic in nature. I will assume then that if you deny the Pope you will accept the apostolic succession and you are Orthodox? No?
St. Ignatius who learned directly from St. John:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)
Do you follow the Bishop as you would the Apostles? Do you appear where the bishop is?
Let's see what he says about those who don't believe in the real presence in the eucharist:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You miss my entire point. Read at mass? Sure, but by whom? By the officiating priest. How about reading by the people in their own homes, when they could read AND study AND pray about what they've read. Tell me when Damasus allowed that. Show me.
Can you show me where Damasus forbade it? You are permitted to do that which is not forbidden, not vice-versa.
Prior to the printing press a Bible was a ridiculously expensive thing. It would take a monk 3 years to make a new copy, it was printed on vellum which was also expensive. The modern day cost of owning a Bible would have been roughly $100,000. So if you could read, you could go and read the Bible in the Church. Only few would be wealthy enough to own a Bible, but wealthy families could purchase a copy for themselves if they so chose.
St. Jerome - patron saint of scripture study: https://taylormarshall.com/2010/09/ignorance-of-scripture-is-ignorance-of.html
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
providing all the knowledge
Taken out of context of course... providing all the knowledge that can be known. i.e. when you cannot know something except what has been revealed.
You simply cannot tell me where "heaven is" or what a person does when he/she gets there.
Because something outside of the Universe is incomprehensible. Hence, there not here.
You have had thousands of years to come up with logical and provable evidence
Not testable. Thus we are left with what has been revealed - and that is all that can be known. What is on the other side of the veil remains a mystery for all - it is that way by design.
So is all you are saying is that the bible told you - and you simply believe what the bible says? That is a yes or no question.
No. I believe what the Church proclaims to be true - the Bible is part of that. I say what my best understanding of this is. This is a good start:
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so what have we established? you've established that the bishop of rome thought he was in control in the early church. but other churches like cyprian and augustine and others didn't think that was true. and, nothing can be established in the way of an inerrant papacy as a doctrine, until hundreds of years after Christ. so why not go with 99% of the early church and ignore what the bishop of rome thought of himself? plus it's not like anyone established he was inerrant anyway, so that's just another reason, why bother listening to him?
That is a complete denial of the Holy Spirit and the very words of Christ. Jesus, logos incarnate, established a Church in which he promised all truth, without error founded on Peter. Without Peter, then everyone becomes pope, deciding for themselves what is and isn't true - the great irony of protestantism.
There were also Popes who didn't believe in Papal infallibility, but in their case because they wanted more power; they wanted the right to overrule previously defined doctrine. That is why the Church finally made a pronouncement on the topic - it needed to know what the truth on this topic was. You either believe that the promise of Jesus to Peter is true or you cannot even rely on the Bible as the Bible is a product of the Church and not vise-versa.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Church answers questions as they need to be answered. So the question was which books can be read from at mass. Since only the word of God should be read at mass the Church pronounced on it many times as the question arose.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north African council of bishops, created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, another local north African council of bishops, noted the same list of canonical books in 397. Many Protestant / Evangelical Christians take this council as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. Oddly enough, they don't accept the authority of this council on the Old Testament canon which is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north African council of bishops, created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, another local north African council of bishops, noted the same list of canonical books in 397. Many Protestant / Evangelical Christians take this council as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. Oddly enough, they don't accept the authority of this council on the Old Testament canon which is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
The Church reaffirmed the 73 books of the Bible at the Council of Florence in 1441.
As there was actual heresy with the Protestant revolt, the Church made an absolute pronouncement at the Council of Trent. This is the normal way that the Church works - when it becomes necessary to define something they do so. Otherwise they carry on under the assumption that the general understanding of the faith is correct.
Catholics were allowed to read the Bible. During the Reformation there may have been some who worried about Catholics interpreting scripture in a manner other than how it was to be understood. That is just pure propaganda.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]
You mean the Pope who said this?
“It is nothing to wonder at — that they presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed Apostle Peter… And on top of this, they call us proud when the first see has never ceased offering them whatever there is of piety. They with their utter shamelessness trust they will be able to subjugate it.. I will ask them this: the trial which they call for, where can it be held? With them (in the East), so that they may be the plaintiff, witnesses, and judges all in one? Neither human affairs nor the integrity of the divine faith must be entrusted to such a tribunal. It matters of religion (faith/morals), the canons say that the ultimate judgement must come only from the apostolic see. The powers of this world? It is not for them to judge — rather they are to learn from the bishops — and above all, from the vicar of blessed Peter about divine things. No ruler of this world, however powerful, whether Christian or not, can presume to claim this for himself, unless of course, he is a persecutor.
Sentences are different than changing the deposit of faith.
Pope Nicholas III & John XXII
What John XXIII rejected was the assertions of a sect within the Franciscan Order who called themselves “the Spirituals.” The Spirituals erroneously held that their interpretation of the rule and lifestyle of Saint Francis, especially in the matter of practicing poverty, was the the only legitamite way to follow Jesus Christ. In holding to this erroneous view, they asserted that approval of their disciplinary rule by earlier popes was a matter pertaining to faith and morals; and since the disciplinary rule was equal to the Gospel (in their erroneous view), no subsequent Pope could change or revoke it. The above decree from John XXII refuted this Spiritualist assertion. Thus, a pope could (and sometimes might have to ) modify an earlier pope’s legislation or revoke it. This pertains to matters of discipline, not faith and morals. Thus, John XXII is not even discussing the object of papal infallibility.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
However, before discussing them, one must consider the variant versions of the Holy Bible in existence, and not just by language variants, but also by what is considered canonized by the various Christian factions. There is clearly not one canonical whole to which which all Christian factions adhere. Without that, your query cannot have a solid base argument.
Except that the canon of the bible was defined by the Church prior to any of the protestant factions developing. The only reason that they have a different Canon is because one man chose to remove 7 books. By what authority do they have to change the canon of scripture?
The canon of scripture had been set long long before.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Except of course the obvious example:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est - Rome has spoken, the case is closed.
Now when dealing with Pelagianism Augustine wrote:
"Do you think these Fathers -- viz. Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Hilary, Ambrose [whom he had been quoting] are to be despised because they all belong to the Western Church, and I have mentioned no Eastern Bishop among them? What are we to do, since they are Greeks and we are Latins? I think that you ought to be satisfied with that part of the world in which our Lord willed to crown the chief (primus) of His apostles (Peter) with a glorious martyrdom. If you had been willing to hear blessed Innocent, the president of that Church, you would have long ago disengaged your perilous youth from the nets of the Pelagians. For what could that holy man answer to the African Councils, except what from of old the Apostolic See and the Roman Church with all others perseveringly holds? And yet you accuse his successor Zosimus of prevarication, because he would not allow the apostolic doctrine and the decision of his successor to be rescinded. But I say no more of this, that I may not, by the praise of him who condemned you, irritate your mind, which I desire rather to heal than to wound. See what you can reply to St. Innocent, who has no other view than have those into whose council I have introduced you (viz. the Fathers whom he had quoted); with these he sits also, though after them in time, before them in rank (etsi posterior tempore prior loco)....answer him, or rather our Lord Himself, whose words he alleges....What will you say? What can you answer? For it you should call blessed Innocent a Manichean, surely you will not dare to say it of Christ?"
and
Again St. Augustine relates that while Celestius refused at Rome to condemn the views which Paulinus accused him of holding, which was equivalent to denying the authority of the Council of Carthage in 411, from which he had appealed, yet "he did not dare to resist the letters of the blessed pope Innocent,"
and
"And the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent to the Council of Carthage....What more plain and clear than this sentence of the Apostolic See? To this Celestius professed to consent when....he answered: 'I condemn them according to the sentence of your holy predecessor Innocent.'...."What of that which the same Pope wrote in answer to the Bishops of Numidia also (because he had received letters from both Councils -- that is, both of Carthage and Milevis) does it not speak clearly of infants?"
Again : he speaks of Celestius seeming to be Catholic "when he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, by which all doubt about this matter was removed."
The following passage is also to be noted, written at the end of the Saint's life: "Let blessed Innocent also reply, the prelate of the Roman Church, who in answering (rescribens) the African Episcopal Councils in your case said: (he then quotes a passage from the letter to the Council of Carthage). 'Do you see what the Catholic Faith holds by her minister?' 'Videsne quid sapiat per ministrum suum catholica fides?'"
Once again, not explicitly stated, but implicitly accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then who anointed Jesus king? It is a simple enough question.
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth - Acts 10:38
We seem to be going in circles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you don't know. It would be nice if you Christians would just for once, admit that you simply do not know , when you do not know.
HAHAHAHAHA... you are so two faced. You demand answers and when I provide all the knowledge that can be known about something you say that I refuse to acknowledge the limits of what can be known.
So you don't know. After 2,000 years you don't know the answer to either of those questions above.
Once again we were told that eye has not seen and ear has not heard - you claim that we make stuff up, but when we tell you all that we've been told you get upset? Sooooooo now you want answers to questions that cannot be answered. Make up your mind.
I have to admit that doesn't sound to exciting. But how do you know this?
Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads... the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, - Revelation 4:4&10
Once again, the extent of what we've been told.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yes Jesus gave all the apostles the ability bind and loose. But he gave Peter the Keys, as per Isaiah:
“I will depose you from your office,
And I will pull you down from your station.
“Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
“Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
“I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.
This was the office of the Steward of the King. He had the ultimate authority to act on behalf of the King. As Christ is the king, Peter is the steward.
You don't actually address my argument as to why Peter must be relied upon to be able to teach without error.
There was deference to Peter and his successors in the early Church. You won't find any valid council where the Pope did not agree to it.
Your argument is like saying that before Nicea there was no belief in the Trinity because it hadn't been expressly defined.
It is quite clear, though not explicitly defined as you want it to be:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
????? Bethany was a place you clown, not a person.
You are right. I had two thoughts in my head and conflated the two while typing and then not proof reading. I conflated Mary of Bethany and Mary sister of Simon the leper. Apologies.
????? Who anointed Jesus King of the Jews?
Well it says God did. God is defacto king after all. Pilate acknowledged it.
Absolute bullsjit! So you cannot show me a single verse stating - " we are called to anoint Jesus with our lives"- ? . SO STOP LYING!!!! And it is not Logical. It is you doing what all Christians do, that is, presenting your thoughts and opinions as fact. IT IS NOT FACT and there is no logic to it.
Sorry - not Sola Scriptura here. I gave the reasoning behind my use of words. I might be wrong, but that is how I have understood that to be.
Very interesting. Particularly "the past". Did it ever occur to you that Mary Magdalene might just be " the bride" of "Song of Solomon"?
No. That is the Church. Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride of Christ.
And have you ever considered that in the Hellenised Roman province of Palestine of Jesus' time that the anointing by the woman of the Gospels is reminiscent of the love poetry connected with the rites of the "Sacred Marriage" celebrating the union of the local god and goddess? And has it even come to your consideration that the meaning of the anointing AT BETHANY! was the same "Sacred Marriage" of the sacrificed king?
No, because it specifically says what was done:
“She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial."
Now tell me, was Jesus king of the Jews?
Obviously as he was a king in the line of David. But much more than that. His kingdom was "not of this world." He is true king over all of creation. He is as much king of the Jews as he is king of the Americans, king of the Italians, etc... he is king of kings. He is king over all - hence the reason Catholics celebrate the feast of Christ the King every year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And where is "there" that is "not here" , located?
Beyond creation (here), in the presence of God "there".
Ok, that is what it is. But I also asked - what does one do when one gets to "there" that is "not here" ?Why are you finding this question so difficult?
It is because you are not actually interested. You ask disingenuous questions. I gave you the exact words of the Bible:
THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.
How can one express an existence that will be unlike any that can be experienced here. The theology of it is best expressed by St. Augustine:
Our heart is restless until it rests in you.
In heaven you will have the beatific vision - which is seeing God's face and you will spend eternity loving, worshiping and contemplating God. It is a state of perfect happiness because this is the reason for which you were created.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
My words would have more meaning if you could "hear and understand" but you cant right now. God willing when you seek God you will know the truth.
Ha! In other words you cannot define or be bothered to actually explain what you mean.
But basically scripture is verified by its holiness and by Gods spirit.
While true in a sense your same argument would be used by any religion about its faith. It doesn't say anything about how the Bible came to be and why we believe it is the word of God.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Simple. Because these books "defile the hands" i already answered that.
You'll have to explain further. None of your previous replies stated anything like that and need to be explained.
He left the church and his spirit.
What Church?
Your answers are too cryptic to actually carry on a conversation because it is so vague that there is no actual meaning in what you write.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
those quotes that you showed didn't say anything like "the pope cannot err on faith and morals'. at best they showed we should listen to the pope, maybe. very vague.
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19
So Jesus gives Peter the ability to bind and loose so strongly that it is also bound and loosed in heaven. Now since nothing impure can enter heaven, that means that Peter is being protected from binding or loosing anything contrary to God's will. In essence Peter is protected from error when acting as "Peter (Rock)".
This is further emphasized by saying that the gates of Hades will not overpower the Church built on Peter (Rock). That means that the Church cannot teach error, because if it did so it would have been overcome by the forces of hell.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't the answer to just pray for the money, and stop with the taking it from the people? Or, to pray that all the people's problems go away miraculously, and then they'd have the money?
Sorry, you seem to have Catholicism confused with prosperity gospel preachers.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Why do you believe that only these books are scripture?
Did Jesus leave a book or a Church?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i said there's no evidence of infallibility in the early church, and you just posted vague verses about peter's special role. way off the mark, on your part. it appears you have closed yourself off from truth.what do you think of those examples of contradictions i posted from the catholic church?
I fail to see where I did not show infallibility in those circumstances. You haven't actually shown why my assertion is in error.
As noted before I'm trying to deal with a single issue from each person at a time. Otherwise the conversation ends up a messy jumble. If there is one contradiction you wish to discuss after we finish infallibility that would be great.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I didn't mean individual as in a renegade priest. I understand there's a collective agreement involved.Who decides the official teaching?
The Church councils. That is the bishops in union with the Pope, definitively declaring what has been the continual teaching of the Church.
The Pope can also do the same, but usually does so through the councils.
Is God not able to give the same ability to willing or chosen vessels from different bible believing denominations?In the case of Moses it's apparent that the most of the Israelites were not interested in having a relationship with Yahweh.
Jesus made that promise to one Church. He lit a lamp and set it upon a lamp stand so to speak. That is like saying couldn't a king give anyone the ability to speak on his behalf? Well yes, but why would he? He has people to do that on his behalf. And the people can know that those ministers speak on his behalf because they are part of the official system that has been established.
The Davidic kingdom was a prefigurement of the kingdom of Christ. In the Davidic kingdom the king had ministers to work and speak on his behalf. Additionally, there was a steward (like a prime minister) who had all the authority of the king himself, save the crown. As this was the system of the Davidic kingdom, this is the system of the Catholic Chruch.
I believe God allows us to think and reason when studying scripture just as with anything else....like science.
Yes He does. However, Jesus also left us a Church with His authority to teach the truth and provide the sacraments.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Christ DID teach that, the truth is your journey with god is personal
Yes. And He also did teach that He had a Church. He also appointed people who could forgive sins. There was a deeply personal aspect and also a deeply communal aspect. To ignore 1/2 of it is to ignore half of the message.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't the solution to this problem obvious, if you're a member of the clergy?
Yeah, they are unfortunately going to go bankrupt. I don't know what solution the clergy is supposed to have. There are going to also be many church closures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
[A] No. It makes her more than 'just' priest and certainly higher ranking than just a disciple. It makes her an high ranking member of the priesthood; maybe an Archbishop in the Jesus movement. Maybe this is why Peter the misogynist hated her and thought her not to be " worthy of life". Men or women do not, and never have become Kings or Queens UNLESS they have been anointed & concentrated by a high ranking member of the Church with the vested power to do so. Jesus is recorded as having undergone three stages or degrees of anointing. It was only after these three degrees of anointing consecration rituals, that Jesus made his `triumphant` entry into Jerusalem as king of the JEWS.Who anointed him king ?
Not at all. It wasn't even Mary Magdalene. If I remember correctly it was the Mary the sister of Bethanhy.
“And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” - Acts 10:38
Stop it. Show me one single biblical verse where it says that? You are making things up on the hoof, AGAIN! not to mention it being irrelevant to the topic.
It is logical and in keeping with his other teachings. If "anointing" him with a mere physical object is remembered, how much more will God remember those who love him and "anoint" him by the actions in their lives.
The Bible is to be read as something that happened in the past, is happening in the present and will happen in the future.
This was an action of anointing Jesus for his death. It was honouring Jesus by pouring out something precious with abandon. In the same we we are called to pour out our most precious thing, our lives, with abandon for Christ. So do we physically anoint his body with oil? No. Do we in our hearts do so through our lives? Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Where is heaven.?
There, not here.
What is heaven and what does anyone who manages to get there do once they are there?
Heaven is being in the presence of God. Eye has not seen and ear has not heard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not sure what you mean by refuses baptism, yet are baptized. Do you mean against their will? What about someone wanting to be baptized (maybe for the sake of family, denominational tradition), but is agnostic?
Let's say that my friend who isn't Christian is in a horrible car accident and is unconscious and bleeding out. Should a Christian baptize them to save them? It wouldn't be effective if they didn't previously express a desire - hence why you shouldn't.
That part doesn't differ much from my view. When someone is found by Christ, becomes a child of God, they will want to be baptized. It would be a contradiction to be thankful for salvation, yet refuse the command to be baptized.
There are Christians who only have altar calls. Some will never get baptized because they don't feel there is a need to do so.
I think we might differ on infant baptisms. The child is not yet able to express such a desire, yet the parents baptize the child making him/her a member of the body of Christ and removing the stain of original sin from them.
Do they view Abraham's Bosom as a temporary abode before God determines where one will spend eternity?
This is where it becomes a theological debate. Are there some who stay there forever? Are there some that go to heaven? If they all go to heaven, does that mean the greatest thing in the world to do is to abort a child because it means a one way trip to heaven? Can some be rescued from there? These things are above my pay grade.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus could have more easily appeared to them himself.
Were they looking for him? Mary was.
Instead he required that they first obey the teachings of a woman who was serving in Persona Christi, at his direct command.
Did they obey her? As far as I know the Peter and John ran to the tomb. It says they believed when they saw.
As for if him telling someone to do something makes them not count as having the authority required to obey that commend, the same could be said of every disciple he gave orders to at Galilee.
There is giving authority to do something and there is just telling someone to do something that requires no actual authority.
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Where does Mary exercise any authority? She relates what she saw. Her actions have no authority even if they are true.
I could say that you have to pay your taxes by April 15 in the US (except this year). I could have phoned the IRS and asked them what day do I tell my American friends to pay their taxes by? If I relay the date of April 15th to them, even if they also work for the IRS, doesn't mean I have the authority of an IRS agent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Did he give her authority, or did he tell her to do something.
A messenger is different than a minister.
Jesus made ministers. In this case he sent Mary as a messenger to inform his ministers.
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” - Matthew 28:16-20
Here Jesus commissions the Apostles with the great commission. It is a passing of authority by the king to his ministers as he notes his authority so that they understand they are acting with his authority. Why wasn't Mary there is she had been made an apostle on Easter Sunday? Not there, because she wasn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
She had something of a high status in the Jesus movement. She was a "woman of substance" in the position to be the one to anoint Jesus' head and feet with extremely expensive expensive oils . Where did she get the authority to perform such a ritual?And didn't Jesus say :‘Wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.’ (Mark 14:9)This was not the - supposed - customary washing of the feet or head of a visiting friend or stranger . These were more likely the stages of the anointing of a king. She had to have some kind of status and authority to do this. Not to mention that Mary appears in all four gospels as one of Jesus's closest companions during his ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem.
That in no way makes her a priest. We are all called to love Jesus and anoint him with our lives. Is it possible for an average person to be more holy than a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope? YES! We are all called to glorify God in our station in life.
She was a long disciple. One who was greatly changes by Jesus, and a great saint. All true. It doesn't mean that she was a priest. Jesus instituted the priesthood at the last supper. He chose only men for this - Jesus made this choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I'm still waiting. To tell someone to go and do something does not mean that the person is acting in Persona Christi.
I have shown that Jesus instituted the priesthood with the apostles at the last supper, and the apostles raised others to replace them. I see no laying on of hands or authority to forgive sins etc, as given to the other apostles.
Different roles .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You're disagreeing with Jesus Christ, on who can act in persona Christi.
Where? In persona Christi, means literally as Christ.
Jesus sent a woman to teach the male apostles of the Resurrection. They presumably were not children at the time. If the literal order from the mouth Jesus himself is not adequate authority, I can't imagine what would be.
I saw no mass. Could you show me where she was forgiving sins, consecrating a host, etc? To have knowledge or information is not the same as having been consecrated for a purpose. Maybe that is the issue, non-Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans don't understand the concept of consecration.
Jesus consecrated the apostles into the new priesthood at the last supper. They in turn consecrated others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Definition of apostle1: one sent on a mission2a: a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system
God has a mission for all of us. The use of apostle in the context of the priesthood (which is of course the purpose of this thread) is that the apostles were sent on a specific mission.
And again, others have used evidence that her obeying Jesus was apparently a sin because they disagree with Jesus about if women are allowed to speak or not. Yet Christ himself literally sent a woman with the explicit mission to speak in persona Christi (John 20:11-18). I've been called a heretic for this, but I choose to believe Jesus was not sinning nor leading anyone to sin with this.
Once again context. Most people receive early training about their faith from their both their mother and father. That doesn't mean that the mother is sinning. Many primary schools used to be taught by nuns, nobody would say they were sinning. There is a difference between priest and a teacher. All priests should be teachers, but not all teachers need be priests. In the context of a Mass, it is only a priest who has authority to teach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I agree. Do you feel that if an evangelical Christian missionary leads an Indonesian village to Christ, that none of the villagers would be saved because the missionaries are not part of the Catholic church?
The Church teaches that if a person is invincibly ignorant that the Catholic Church is the church of Christ, but lives out an exemplary life holding true to natural law would receive what is necessary from God to gain salvation (even if it need be instruction from an angel on his/her deathbed).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why is the Catholic church so staunch on Transubstantiation? There's certainly no scientific evidence of it. And miracles that defy natural science are generally visible and made clear.
Because this is what Jesus told them. It is his body and blood.
When you say It didn't, do you mean heliocentrism doesn't conflict with scripture. If so, I would agree with that. But my understanding was that the Catholic church's authoritative position was that it did conflict with the holy scriptures. Are you saying it was only the Protestants that opposed heliocentrism?
At the time Protestants did oppose heliocentrism. There were some Catholics who did oppose it and some who were open to it. The Church had great respect for the teachings of Aristotle, and Aristotle had been a proponent of the Geocentric model. Thus the majority of scientists of the time believed the Geocentric model to be accurate. Without conclusive proof the Church was not willing to contradict the teachings of so esteemed a philosopher. That doesn't mean that they refused to. You have to remember the Church does not act quickly, it takes time to review and consider.
There were ways to read the scriptures both ways. The Church would follow the thinking of St. Augustine:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In other words, if the water became a cleansing agent during baptismal ceremonies, anyone would be spiritually cleansed if baptized even if they weren't a believer.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it is an adult who refuses baptism yet are baptized, they have not been baptized. If it is an infant, on whom the parents act on behalf of the child, then yes.
What if someone repents, and then dies on the way to baptism?
Baptism of desire. The Church has long taught it.
Is there any reference to Limbo in scripture?
It would be viewed as Abraham's Bosom.
“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. - Luke 16:22
A place of 'natural' happiness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You strangely seem to have missed our entire discussion of Jesus making Mary his key messenger. As you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, there is no point to continuing this discussion with you.
Not at all. The fact that Mary knew something and communicated it to the Apostles does not mean that she was a priest. The function of priest is not based on knowledge.
Jesus chose those to whom the priesthood would begin at the last supper. The washing of feet was not only the obvious symbol of the master serving, but was also the institution of the priesthood.
The symbolism that Jesus used at the last supper is the same symbolism that Aaron used in the Old Testament. Jesus chose his priests, when he could have chosen women as well.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nope, God determines your soul, not church dogma
How do you know what you have to do in order to have salvation? Did God leave a Church to lead you to heaven? There are all sorts of questions that must be answered. It is nice to say me and Jesus, but is that what Christ really taught?
Created: