Katholic Kiwi Kathedral (Catholocism General) - Byzantine? Ethnic? Roman? It doesn't matter. It's a place for Catholic Kiwis to discuss Catholicism and inquirers to inquire

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

And there's the rub. It's a de facto admission that at best, the Church wasn't properly in line with God to begin with.

Not really. It just means that we're doing more to fulfill God's mission. Would you consider someone who fully and firmly intends to do his boss' agenda for him but has to readjust due to changing circumstances opposed to his boss? I would just say he's doing a better job getting it done rather than saying he was never in line with his master and so would most people.

The world is complex and pretending we live in the same world that we did in the 1800s is retarded, especially when the world has changed so drastically in the last 100 yeard (and even 30 years) as to be unrecognizable. The Church's doctrines, teachings and dogmas as handed down by Christ Himself and the various Councils over the past 2 millenia is eternal but the way things get done should change in a changing world.

It's kinda silly not to engage with the world around you if you want to evangelize people. Even St. Paul, St. Peter and the other Apostles knew enough about the cultures to spread the Gospel and build up the Church. To not do so is in a sense a violation of the maxim to spread the Gospel.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Why don't you guys worship Jesus or recognize His role as the high priest and fulfillment of the law

Why do you guys claim lineage to Peter when the church wasn't established until 300 years later and is antithetical to what Peter taught?

Why are you guys obsessed with Martin Luther?

In other words the Church is the final word on all things Christianity because Christ deemed it to be so

No he didn't. God the father, christ himself, all of the apostles and all of the prophets say the messiah, Jesus Christ is the final word on all things. There is no scripture where Jesus or anyone denies this role

To say christ made a separate organization the authority is contradictory to what Moses and the apostles taught

Jesus is fulfillment of the law. He is the word, the law, the temple, the high priest. Tasking Peter with writing epistles is not a conference of authority, nor does it have anything to do with catholics (Peter wasn't a catholic)

 

[Preacher ✝]

There is no scripture where Jesus or anyone denies this role

The first and most important is that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself declared that 'the gates of hell shall not triumph against his church' when He formed the Catholic Church by granting Saint Peter, the first Pope (even though his office had not been officially titled yet), the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the powers to bind and loose. (Matthew 16:18-19) The meaning behind all of that is very deep and rooted in the Hebrew tradition of a Kingdom having a Steward when the King is away. You can see it mirrored in the Old Testament with the Kingdom of David as written in the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). The Keys of the Kingdom are a symbol of the office of Steward. Christ is our King but He ascended body and soul into Heaven and sent the Holy Spirit down to us. For the logistical and practical necessities of administering His Kingdom in His absence we need a Steward, hence why we have the office of Pope. Anyway because Christ said the gates of hell shall not triumph and Christ cannot lie as His word is truth itself that means no matter what happens it will all work out in the end. This is why we say that the Church is the sinless bride of Christ, but the men who administer the Church are no less fallen or prone to sin than the rest of us.

 

[EyeGuy]

Keep it up, I like watching the goyim fight amongst themselves.

I voted for James White because I can't stand his shtick of needlessly quoting the New Testament in (horribly pronounced) Greek simply so he can show off. Incredibly pretentious and off-putting. (My actual favorite, John Bergsma, isn't on the list.)

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I think I understand why you're having an issue.

First let me refer to scripture.

1 Corinthians 13: 9-12 -
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What Saint Paul is saying here in his first letter to the Corinthians is that we have at best a partial and unclear understand of God, even in the immediate wake of Christ. We see God through a glass, darkly, but when all is fulfilled we will have true full understanding. In many ways the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church have been an ongoing, cumulative, and collective effort to discern and refine our understanding of God.


What is relevant here is that the source of the Church's authority is not the merit of its administrators, but divine decree. In other words the Church is the final word on all things Christianity because Christ deemed it to be so, not because the men who administer the Church have achieved some level of perfect understanding. When you think about it like that it really shouldnt surprise you and its far more logical than the alternative. Christ was perfect, the rest of us are not. There is no sense trying to build anything off the merit of men, it is a poor foundation compared to the word of Christ.

Sure, but then I think the argument essentially boils down to - why would anybody believe the current Church teachings to be correct now? In 200 years, they'll be pointing back to today's Church and correcting modern "misunderstandings" to get more in line in with God as they see fit.

Some could look at that and say "cool, continuous improvement is good".
Others might look at that and say "you just keep moving the goal posts to whatever you think will increase Church membership and influence. This has nothing to do with God, these are actually business decisions".

Maybe they're both right.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

View attachment 7107669

Peter wasn't a pope though. Peter and Jesus and all of the apostles were protestant

The gates of hell line is about Mt. Hermon, according to the text. It was about Christ's triumph over the gates located there. Mt hermon is the rock he is refering to, we know this because the old testament explains that the gates of hell are there.

All this aside, there is no line there where Jesus is giving authority to Peter. The "keys" he gives to Peter are the epistles


Who told you Peter was the first pope? Peter and Jesus himself say that christ is the only pope.

. For the logistical and practical necessities of administering His Kingdom in His absence we need a Steward

Where did you hear this? This is certainly true in the old testament era, as we were waiting for the messiah. But jesus says that no steward is required, and Peter explains this in yhe first couple of chapters of hebrews.

The person who came up with this "God's kingdom needs a steward" supercedes jesus?

 

[Preacher ✝]

why would anybody believe the current Church teachings to be correct now?

To think that your personal perspective on what is correct matters is prideful, and pride is a sin. As laity our duty to embrace the virtue of obedience when it comes to Christ. Christ deemed the Church to have divine authority, so by extension of our obedience to Christ we should be obedient to the Church and its teachings.

Not only is this the right and just approach, it is also in our spiritual best interest. If a shepherd misleads his flock the blame is not on the flock for being mislead but on the shepherd for misleading them, especially if it is done intentionally and with malice.

So lets apply this principle to the Church. In a hypothetical scenario where the Church was genuinely corrupt and the Pope was maliciously misleading the masses by doing something like allowing gay marriage, God would judge those responsible harshly and forgive all those who were mislead.

All this aside, there is no line there where Jesus is giving authority to Peter.

Right here you illiterate clown.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

To think that your personal perspective on what is correct matters is prideful, and pride is a sin. As laity our duty to embrace the virtue of obedience when it comes to Christ. Christ deemed the Church to have divine authority, so by extension of our obedience to Christ we should be obedient to the Church and its teachings.

Not only is this the right and just approach, it is also in our spiritual best interest. If a shepherd misleads his flock the blame is not on the flock for being mislead but on the shepherd for misleading them, especially if it is done intentionally and with malice.

So lets apply this principle to the Church. In a hypothetical scenario where the Church was genuinely corrupt and the Pope was maliciously misleading the masses by doing something like allowing gay marriage, God would judge those responsible harshly and forgive all those who were mislead.



Right here you illiterate clown.

View attachment 7107873

I'm familiar with the verse, I was the one who explained it to you. The keys to the kingdom and binding are not authority. They are commands. We k own they aren't authority because several other books say the messiah is the authority. Our high priest in the order of melchizadek and Moses, as Peter puts it

If your boss at your job tells you to sweep the floor, you don't have authority. You were just given a job. In this case jesus is telling Peter to write the epistles. It literally can't mean anything else. If it means what YOU say it means that means the beginning of hebrews and nearly all Christ's words and messianic claims become in valid.

Jesus cannot be high preist and fulfill ALL laws AND Peter do the same thing. You can only have one king

I guess we'll just pretend the rest of my post didn't exist, just like how you feel about jesus authority as alpha and omega

 

[Preacher ✝]

I'm familiar with the verse, I was the one who explained it to you. The keys to the kingdom and binding are not authority. They are commands. We k own they aren't authority because several other books say the messiah is the authority. Our high priest in the order of melchizadek and Moses, as Peter puts it

If your boss at your job tells you to sweep the floor, you don't have authority. You were just given a job. In this case jesus is telling Peter to write the epistles. It literally can't mean anything else. If it means what YOU say it means that means the beginning of hebrews and nearly all Christ's words and messianic claims become in valid.

Jesus cannot be high preist and fulfill ALL laws AND Peter do the same thing. You can only have one king

I guess we'll just pretend the rest of my post didn't exist, just like how you feel about jesus authority as alpha and omega

Your entire perspective on this is so deeply flawed that I am not sure where to begin when it comes to correcting you, and I do not believe you're asking in good faith or open to being corrected anyway.

To say the keys and powers are not authority is to be ignorant of their context and symbolism. Have you read Isaiah?

To equate things of such significance to the menial task of sweeping a floor is retarded. If you want to use a boss and job analogy then a more accurate one would be your boss is the owner of a restaurant and he has given you the job of manager, which is both a job and a source of authority.

Peter isn't the King and he isn't trying to fulfill all laws, he's the Steward and he's administering the fulfilled laws.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

To think that your personal perspective on what is correct matters is prideful, and pride is a sin. As laity our duty to embrace the virtue of obedience when it comes to Christ. Christ deemed the Church to have divine authority, so by extension of our obedience to Christ we should be obedient to the Church and its teachings.

Not only is this the right and just approach, it is also in our spiritual best interest. If a shepherd misleads his flock the blame is not on the flock for being mislead but on the shepherd for misleading them, especially if it is done intentionally and with malice.

So lets apply this principle to the Church. In a hypothetical scenario where the Church was genuinely corrupt and the Pope was maliciously misleading the masses by doing something like allowing gay marriage, God would judge those responsible harshly and forgive all those who were mislead.



Right here you illiterate clown.

View attachment 7107873

I'm familiar with the verse, I was the one who explained it to you. The keys to the kingdom and binding are not authority

If your boss at your job tells you to sweep the floor, you don't have authority. You were just given a job. In this case jesus is telling Peter to write the epistles. It literally can't mean anything else. If it means what YOU say it means that means the beginning of hebrews and nearly all Christ's words and messianic claims become in valid.

Jesus cannot be high preist and fulfill ALL laws AND Peter do the same thing. You can

Your entire perspective on this is so deeply flawed that I am not sure where to begin when it comes to correcting you, and I do not believe you're asking in good faith or open to being corrected anyway.

Who said it was flawed? Jesus didn't. Moses didnt

To say the keys and powers are not authority is to be ignorant of their context and symbolism. Have you read Isaiah?

have YOU? It doesn't say these are authority. We know this because hebrews and other books say so.

To equate things of such significance to the menial task of sweeping a floor is retarded.

I didn't compare them. I'm saying the keys and such was a command. Not authority

If you want to use a boss and job analogy then a more accurate one would be your boss is the owner of a restaurant and he has given you the job of manager, which is both a job and a source of authority.

But he didn't make Peter manager. He told Him to do something. The managers were old covenant preists. Jesus took their place

Peter isn't the King and he isn't trying to fulfill all laws, he's the Steward and he's administering the fulfilled laws.

Scripture and Christ's own words say there is no need for a steward. Like I said. Who told you we need a steward under the new covenant?

 

[Lach]

It's very ironic that this thread's name makes a reference to the KKK, given their outspoken stance on Catholics.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Who said it was flawed? Jesus didn't.

Actually I just asked him and he said you're retarded.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Actually I just asked him and he said you're retarded.

Blaspheming the holy spirit? The unforgivable sin? Sounds about right fir a snake cultist

Who told you we need a steward under the new covenant

 

[Preacher ✝]

Blaspheming the holy spirit?

Obvious joke is obvious, also way to demonstrate your lack of understanding the nature of the Trinity.

Who told you we need a steward under the new covenant

Jesus did when he appointed a steward, if it wasnt necessary he wouldnt have done it.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

@Yamaha YM2612 I thought that I disliked Catholics, but I'm starting to hate Protestants. Just shut the fuck up already.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Obvious joke is obvious, also way to demonstrate your lack of understanding the nature of the Trinity.


Jesus did when he appointed a steward, if it wasnt necessary he wouldnt have done it.

He didn't appoint a steward though. You're just cherry picking to justify idolatry. Jesus wouldn't say something that contradicts scripture, the Father, nor himself

Also since jesus has no corporal body at the moment, my understanding of the trinity is accurate. Nice try serpent

@Yamaha YM2612 I thought that I disliked Catholics, but I'm starting to hate Protestants. Just shut the fuck up already.

Hating jesus won't get you anywhere bro. Sounds like a personal issue tbh

 

[Preacher ✝]

He didn't appoint a steward though.

Yes, he did.

You're just cherry picking to justify idolatry.

No, I'm not.

Jesus wouldn't say something that contradicts scripture, the Father, nor himself

Irrelevant to this debate.

Also since jesus has no corporal body at the moment, my understanding of the trinity is accurate.

Jesus ascended, body and soul, into Heaven. He has his corporal body in Heaven.

 

[Hassou Tobi]

I don’t want this thread to be turned into yet another debate thread. It should be a DPZ (de Protestant zone).


When we go to Mass, we are mysteriously present at the foot of the cross, watching the Savior give his life for us. And we’re also standing outside the open tomb with the women who greeted the risen Jesus. “This is for you. I give my life to you,” Jesus is saying at every Mass. “Receive my power.”

To sum up, the Mass is Christ’s sacrifice made present again. It’s not recalled, as if it had been absent or was merely a past event. It’s re-presented. And so when we go to Mass, we are connected to the life-giving power of these saving events that have the power to make all things new. And we are offering to the Father the only sacrifice that could possibly please him: the perfect offering of his perfect Son. But it is our offering as well, since the Son has generously made us members of his body.

In the Eucharist, Jesus gives us a share in God’s divine life by giving us his own blood. His plan for us goes way beyond making us into decent folks who have gotten rid of gross immorality. Jesus came so that we might share in everything he has and become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).
What is this divine nature? Essentially, it’s the inner life of the Trinity: three persons eternally pouring themselves out in self-giving love for each other. This is agape, or charity, and drinking Jesus’ blood gives us an opportunity to share in it so that it can become the principle and power of our own lives.

In order for us to stay alive, every cell in our body needs to be bathed with blood that nourishes, cleanses, and purifies our system. Similarly, taking the blood of Christ in
Communion will bring us to full spiritual vitality. It will strengthen and cleanse our entire being—spiritually and even physically, if it be God’s will.
The one we take upon our lips and into our bodies in the Eucharist is the same Jesus who raised Lazarus and healed the man born blind: the risen Lord, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom will have no end.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-go-to-mass

 

[Brennan]

I don't really mind people accusing the Church of being full of pedophiles or communists, since it's actually a means of purifying the body of Christ from things that a just society would punish with death. I mean making such accusations willy-nilly is still a mortal sin but I don't find it aggravating as, say, people sending their kids to public school where they have an actual likelihood to be harassed.

 

[Preacher ✝]