Catholics. God didn't leave us His Church. Ordination legalistic

Opinions on this comment, please.

"You say God created a church, I don’t. Most scholars would agree with me. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. You can believe what you wish of course that your church’s explanation that they have authority to define all these minor rules and formula for liturgy, consecration and ordination and so on and that God cares one whit about these legalistic trivia. "

We know that Jesus was Jewish. The first Christians were also Jewish. I’m unsure what saying that Jesus was Jewish is supposed to prove.

As a Catholic, do you believe that how we do ordinations and the Eucharist are legalisitc trivia? Do you think that what we believe about ordination (apostolic succession) and the Eucharist (the real pressence as we understand it) is mere legalistic trivia?

For starters, I’d ask to see proof positive for this blanket statement.

After that, I guess my answer would depend on whether the person making the comment is Christian or not… but either way, the following from Proving Inspiration might help:

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

Jesus mentions “His church” a dozen times in Scripture. Do you read the bible?


God actually created the Church in Genesis, Adam was the first priest-king, the Vicar of Mankind; he lost his role when he disobeyed God. Your friend perhaps needs to re-read the Old Testament, there are minute details and intricacies regarding everything from Temple worship to (according to JEWISH Rabbinical scholars) how one should cut their fingernails to what to eat and drink to sexual relationships… so your friend is half-right, Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, thorough enough to have known the details that your friend now ignores…

Would it make any difference, knowing the question is directed at Catholics, if I told you that I don’t think either is legalistic trivia?


Matthew 16:18

I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it.

Those are interesting opinions, unfortunately for that opinion, those who were actually there at the time tell us dfferently. Those who were taught and ordained directly by the Apostles in the first century attest to the three levels of ordained clergy, the Eucharist and all that the Catholic Church believes and practices and has done since Christ founded it.

Are you asking me or the person who made that statement?

Are you so argumentative that you will pick a fight over nothing? Or do you have trouble understanding written English?

You’re on her list now, Kalt. Good luck. :smiley:

I’ve been on that list since I first started posting here. Her favorite jab is to say that I’m not Catholic. :rolleyes:

"You say God created a church, I don’t.

Hi all. I just found this thread, although I believe I actually responded to the statement in question on the other thread.

It seems to be that this statement is not only denying the Catholic idea that the RCC is the one true Church, and the Orthodox idea that the EOC is the one true Church; but it is also rejecting Branch Theory, since Branch Theory also affirms (albeit in a shall-we-say more creative way) that there is “one holy catholic and apostolic church”.

Then start acting like one. It disturbs me to see your attitude as anger and bitterness.

You of course have taken things completely out of their context, snipping parts and shoving them together to make a completely different statement. You should be ashamed, but then I have concluded that you really can’t understand. I’m taking Peter’s advice and putting you on ignore.

My opinion on this comment?..It’s excellent!!!..:)…(of course I read it in context on the original thread)

Hey, there’s something I didn’t think would ever happen. (I mean you utilizing the Ignore List. As far as your taking my advice about something … well, I figured that would happen eventually, although I’m surprised it took less than 1 million years. :D)

In all honesty, I really don’t like the Ignore List feature; but on the other hand, it’s a pretty good way to avoid the attitude that “if it’s on the internet, I’ve got to read it.”

Wow, Peter and SM. I’ve talked to several teens about this behavior on the Internet. A few of them got detention. :smiley:

I’m not going to lie to you, kalt: the reason I’ve (mostly) stayed out of your conversations with SM is that I’ve seen both of you take a lot of cheap shots at the other, and it didn’t strike me as a situation where a third party would be likely to smooth things out.

Having said that, I think it’s just as well that SM has decided not to continue that conversation – although I generally don’t encourage posters to announce “I’m putting so-and-so on my ignore list”. That’s seems to me to be yet another cheap shot. (And, speaking of cheap shots, your lastest post certainly shall-we-say “doesn’t disappoint”.)

Well, I’m glad that you aren’t disppointed. :wink:

I hope you will further encourage SM to ignore my posts, and not just stop that debate. The illogical statments are really too tedious to wade through and respond to. And the demands to agree with her and deny Catholic teaching are just too ridiculous to warrant more time. I gave her my final answer, No, and that’s it. I hope she never responds to anything I write. I won’t bother to answer it, if she does.

I haven’t put anyone on ignore. I, too, think it’s stupid and childish. Just skip the posts of the people you think don’t have arguments that are worth your time.

Jesus told them that they were to follow the advice of the Rabbis. And, they did that for a while, but so many gentiles became “followers of the way” that they left judaism behind, and became apostate to it.

They were then lead by dreams an visions of people like Paul…

:confused:Pardon me if this entire thread confuses the heck out of me? Kalt posted a quote from somebody and didn’t cite who said it? Then a bunch of people are talking about Kalt being on someone’s list? Then SpiritMeadow and Kalt got into it? What is the point of this thread, who made the quote cited by Kalt, and what’s going on here? Totally confused??:shrug::confused:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit