JESUS MEANT WHAT HE SAID

Catholic Answers Magazine ^ | October 2022 | KARLO BROUSSARD

[ADSUM]

“The Catholic Church teaches that when we partake of the Eucharist in Holy Communion, we are consuming the actual physical body of Jesus Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1244, 1275, 1375).”

[Mark17]

Hair, fingernail clippings, baby teeth

Interesting bro. 😄

[Mark17]

I stand corrected.

😆😚

[daniel1212]

My point was merely to introduce to them the Holy Spirit as a/the source for posting, inasmuch as that seems to be novel to them.

Because few have the Spirit of Christ (been there), and are driven by a different spirit in posting of a "another Jesus," "another spirit" and "another gospel," (2 Corinthians 11:4) to their eternal horror (which I was headed to) , sad to say. Thank God for His patience and grace.

[daniel1212]

Jesus told us it requires Faith to accept God’s revealed Truths even if we do not understand the supernatural mystery. Jesus declared to Peter that revelation came from “my Father who is in heaven” Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC 153), and not simply an opinion one has come to by some other means. St. Thomas Aquinas helps us flesh out the implications of this Catholic view. He says that true faith is not simply assenting to what is known (Summa Theologiae II-II Q. 2 A.1); after all, demons do this, but they do not have faith. Instead, faith requires an act of the will—not just the intellect. God does not reward or punish people for their knowledge, but for what they choose.

And? I presume you think that you presenting an argument here but there simply is no argument here by pontificating on faith, as that is not contrary to what I said in post 55 which you are supposed to be responding, which is about the use of metaphors, nor against anything else I said.

For I made no arguments against what God can do, but as said, what God can do simply does not equate to proof of God doing what you can only imagine, and what I mainly reproved was the contortions that Catholicism must resort to in order to justify what they must resort to in their contrivances of the Lord's supper.

In miracles of God, while they can be contrary to the known laws of physics, yet when He healed someone then they were truly healed, and the wine that Christ made tasted (and I am sure would scientifically test to be just what is looked and tasted like. And Jesus body always looked and felt etc, human on earth to those who encountered Him, and never appeared as an inanimate object after His incarnation.

But rather than a strictly literal reading of the Lord's words of consecration at the last supper, which would mean the flesh and blood would look as human as it always did on earth, then since RC priests cannot confect this, then they must jump thru metaphysical hoops in order to justify how inanimate objects are the true body and blood of Christ, though unlike that of the incarnated Christ whose manifest physicality the Holy Spirit emphasizes (versus one whose appearance did not correspond to what He materially was), it is admitted that it would scientifically test to be just what is looks like, though Catholicism insist that what appears no longer exists.

Yet once this non-existent bread and or wine begins to visibly (for only the visible particles are said to be Christ) act (decaying) consistent with what the are, then the body of Christ which they are supposed to be no longer exists either under that form.

And if this was what the NT church believed then that would be manifest to be in Acts thru Revelation, which reveals how they understood the gospels, and the OT. with multiple mentions of the pastors conducting the Lord supper, and being charged and instructing in this "heart and summit of the Christian life..." the medicine of immortality... the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ, (CCC 1407, 1415) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life," (Mysterium Fidei) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out.” (CCC 1364)

Yet there is not even one evident mention of the Lord's supper in Acts, and for which it can only be presumed that texts such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed" (Acts 20:11) is a description of the Catholic Eucharist (but quite unlike any I experienced in over 1,000 Masses).

And aside from the mere mention of "feasts of charity" in Jude, then the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle, that of 1 Co. 10+11, in which (as described more fully in post #82 see, by the grace of God) the church is one bread. And not recognizing the body of Christ, the church, by acting contrary to what effectually remembering the Lord's death (which made them one with Him and each other) was contextually their sin which was reproved.

And rather than conducting the Eucharist being a unique active the ministry of Catholic priests, who offer it as a sacrifice for sins and provided to the flock as spiritual food, this is nowhere described in the inspired record of the NT church. Instead, as said, pastors (not Catholic priests) are commissioned to feed the flock by the same mean which Paul commend them to in Christ, to "the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

For as said, the word of God is the only spiritual food described which gives life, being "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock. (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)

Christians can choose not to believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as taught by Jesus and the Catholic faith. Your comment: “No way, since as conclusively shown in the past, but ignored, this is simply not Scriptural” I disagree with your opinion and I believe in the Words of Jesus.

And which once again means that your recourse to "begging the question" is an argument against being a Catholic, as are the rest of your attempted polemics. But this is what you chose to do by posting such provocative propaganda. It is up to you if you want to provoke more reproof.

May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)

[Elsie]

For He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner
eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning THE LORD'S BODY."

 

 

 

How's MY discerning doing??

 

1 Corinthians 12:27

 

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. - New International Version

Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. - Douay-Rheims Bible

[Elsie]

Just exactly - or how many times do you need Christ to tell you to Eat His Flesh for Life within in Him?

Tom; a few centuries from now some bozo will state that you should have liked your fingers here.

But, since there is NO record of you doing that; others will make up all kinds of things about this ol' body of mine.

But remember THIS:

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[Elsie]

I once knew a snake that was SO poor...

[daniel1212]

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN and drink his blood, you have no life in you... Just exactly - or how many times do you need Christ to tell you to Eat His Flesh for Life within in Him?

Beside by teaching that one must Eat the eucharistic to obtain life within in him, then this means that you also must be one of the TradCaths that reject Lumen Gentium 16 of Vatican Two which broadly affirms devout SS type trinitarian baptized Prots as having the Holy Spirit, the absolute fact that is that,

Nowhere in the NT interpretive of John 6, did anyone obtain spiritual life by literally eating any flesh, nor is the Lord's supper ever described as spiritual food. Instead, it is by effectually believing the word of God, the gospel, that one obtains spiritual life, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph.. 1:13) and hereafter is live according to the word of God (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father as per John 6:57, which was not by eating anything, but living by His word, with the doing of it being His "meat" as John tells us, (Jn. 4:34) thus consuming the word, letting the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others. (Col. 3:16) which is the evident means whereby pastors feed the flock. (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2) For as per Jn. 6:63, it is the word of that is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32)

But the carnally minded reject this, "having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart," (Ephesians 4:18), like as such did regarding Christ being the temple, (John 2:20) and instead choose a christ whose appearance does not corresponded to what He materially was, which manifestly incarnated Christ of Scripture looked, felt, etc. and would taste and would scientifically test to be human flesh. And which manifest physicality is emphasized in Scripture, in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning.

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6:67-68)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:14-16)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44) ... Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 11:16) Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:46-47)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

The End.

[Mark17]

I once knew a snake that was SO poor...

How poor was it? 😁

[Mark17]

Because the way Catholics flip between literal and non-literal within one discourse or from verse to verse, or sentence to sentence, indicates no genuine desire to learn and believe what Jesus actually taught and said,

Surprised?

[metmom]

Not in the least.

And that probably explains why Catholics are so confused about Scripture.

[metmom]

We're commanded to NOT eat blood.

Don’t eat the blood, the life is in the blood

Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.

Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Jesus Himself also said that the cup ws the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

[wita]

That is just one of the benefits of a living Prophet.

Now, if we are talking about confusion, that is precisely the subject anytime religion is at issue.

Confusion reigns in the Christian world exactly as it arrived from the Catholic Church minus a few points of doctrine used in an attempt to prove otherwise.

[ADSUM]

It is apparent that you do not believe in the Word (Truth) of Jesus regarding that He gave us His Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and instead accept man’s contrary belief.

As I said Jesus told us that we need real faith to understand His Truth and that comes from the Father.

Following protestant beliefs that are contrary to God’s revealed truths may not help in understanding or accepting God’s Truths or in their salvation. Christ knew who didn’t believe at Capernaum and he knows now who doesn’t believe His Word.

Your statement: “Yet there is not even one evident mention of the Lord’s supper in Acts” Perhaps you missed or didn’t understand that the breaking of the bread was an early church way of referring to the Eucharist and the Mass. (Acts 2: 42 Perhaps you missed Luke 24:13-35 The Walk to Emmaus.

Jesus established one holy catholic and apostolic church, not multiple versions of His Truth in various organizations created by men with contrary beliefs.

I follow the teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of Christ, the apostles and their successors through the Catholic Church. During Mass we hear the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist as Jesus Christ offers His Sacrifice along with all Heaven and Earth to the Father. “This is my Body.” and This is the Chalice of my Blood.”

Christ (nor does the Catholic Church) does not force anyone to believe His Truths or join His Church, but asks that we share it with everyone for their salvation. God loves all of us and wants to us to join Him in heaven.

The article provides an understanding of Jesús Meant What He Said about the Eucharist. While your rambling opinions and protestants views reject the teachings of Jesus on the Eucharist, it does not change God’s Truth.

Peace be with you.

[boatbums]

Still, I cannot help wondering what the impetus is for such belligerent threads, since it doesn't seem to have been the Holy Spirit.

I'm thinking it's because recently one of their biggest provocateurs was given a "time out" so someone had to pick up the slack.

You're right about the repetitive Sola Scriptura, Mary, the Eucharist threads. I don't doubt some think they are convincing others to become Catholic because they think only they can be saved while others enjoy a fight over what they see as their superior religious views. It doesn't seem to matter how many times in the past they have been disproven by better Scriptural arguments, the favorite hobbyhorses keep showing up. Those that sow discord among brethren are not looked at kindly by God.

[Hebrews 11:6]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Mine was a rhetorical "Still, I wonder" question. I knew the answer. When I was 11, my parents made a deal: my mother became a Republican like my father, and he became a Catholic like her. Family harmony! Followed by catechism and confirmation for we chillen. Such depth of spiritual commitment, doncha know....

But my Lutheran grandmother kept praying, and 16 years later I was born anew, regenerated.

I just wanted our FR/RC playmates to hear: there is another way.

[boatbums]

I have shared the teaching of the Catholic Faith which was passed down by Jesus, the Apostles and their successors for 2000 years.

You mean like some teachings that "developed" over time such as Transubstantiation which didn't even get formally defined until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? Neither Jesus nor the Apostles passed that down.

Just because your religion claims to be the same faith as Jesus established, doesn't mean it's true nor does it give them carte blanch to subordinate the Scriptures to their Traditions and demand all of Christendom accept them or be condemned.

You want to believe you have to literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus over and over to gain salvation, go ahead. Just don't expect that other Christians must also think as you do. When I partake of the Lord's Supper with fellow believers, I am confirming my faith that Jesus died for my sins - His body was broken and His precious blood was spilled out as THE atonement for my sins and the sins of the world. By eating the bread and drinking the juice of the grape, I do show the Lord's death until He comes again to receive us unto Himself. I do so in remembrance of Him. I don't have to imagine the bread turns into His REAL body and blood - it is spiritual. I know I have eternal life through faith in Christ because of the grace of Almighty God. Do you?

[boatbums]

428 Whoever is called "to teach Christ" must first seek "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus"; he must suffer "the loss of all things. . ." in order to "gain Christ and be found in him", and "to know him and the power of his resurrection, and [to] share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible [he] may attain the resurrection from the dead".17

Too bad they left out the FULL Scripture quote on that:

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Philippians 3:7-11)

[daniel1212]

It is apparent that you do not believe in the Word (Truth) of Jesus regarding that He gave us His Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and instead accept man’s contrary belief.

Rather, it is apparent that you do not realize how badly your repeated recourse to begging the question assertions makes Rc apologetics look. Your premise that I do not believe in the Word (Truth) of Jesus simply does not make that allegation true, and instead that premise begs to be established as True, but which you simply have not been able to do, nor can, and instead, having been substantively refuted, you must resort to arguments by mere assertion.

As I said Jesus told us that we need real faith to understand His Truth and that comes from the Father.

Which truism, as with God being omnipotent, simply does not make an argument true. What is true is that faith is based upon evidential warrant, which is what your illusory doceitist-type wafer/wine christ is contrary to, in Scripture and in life, as shown.

Following protestant beliefs that are contrary to God’s revealed truths

There you go again, presuming the very thing that begs to be established. Give it up, as at the least it makes Catholics - who also engage in this - look desperate. Instead, as abundantly shown and ignored except for your vain arguments by refuted assertions, it remains that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)

Your statement: “Yet there is not even one evident mention of the Lord’s supper in Acts” Perhaps you missed or didn’t understand that the breaking of the bread was an early church way of referring to the Eucharist and the Mass. (Acts 2: 42 Perhaps you missed Luke 24:13-35 The Walk to Emmaus.

Perhaps you missed the word "evident" as such mentions in Acts of breaking of bread in 2 chapters does not make it evident that this was the Lord's supper, esp. as conducted by ordained priests. Yet my statement was not at all a denial that the NT practiced the effectual remembrance of the Lord's death, as I described on 1 Co. 10+11, only that the sparse mentions of this (only in 2 chapters in Acts and in one epistle, besides just "feast of charity" in Jude) is simply not consistent with this being what we see in Catholicism, with the LS being "the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," and conducting it being the central unique active function of clergy. Proof that Catholics did not write Scripture.

"And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) does not do make the Lord's supper evident, esp. as exampled by RC's, and while it does not exclude that sometimes it took place, yet this description mainly relates to daily meals such as resulted in murmuring of "the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." (Acts 6:1-2) Serving tables is not descriptive of the Lord's supper.

Acts 2:41 and Acts 20:7-11 is what best infers that the Lord's supper was taking place, but offers nothing descriptive other than breaking bread, and eating as part of church fellowship and teaching.

Perhaps you missed Luke 24:13-35 The Walk to Emmaus.

Perhaps you missed I said there is not even one evident mention of the Lord's supper in Acts " and aside from the mere mention of "feasts of charity" in Jude, then the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle, that of 1 Co. 10+11. Yet in Luke 24 there is no "take, eat, this is my body," nor any reiteration of this nor to do so, only that of "And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them" (Luke 24:30) which made them realize who this Man was and who then vanished. Thus you can only read into this Jesus providing them a sacrifice for sins and spiritual life giving food and commissioning them to do the same as a unique active function. Which is simply not there to be extrapolated, but opening the disciples eyes to Scripture is what is evident.

Jesus established one holy catholic and apostolic church...I follow the teachings of...Sacred Scripture

Yet again! Stop with your vain and desperate arguments by assertions. Repeating what you can only wish has been established as true simply will not make it so! And I already know what you profess, more so than when I ignorantly profess it myself.

Christ (nor does the Catholic Church) does not force anyone to believe

Nor does He force you to believe that you actually think you are providing an argument.

The article provides an understanding of Jesús Meant What He Said about the Eucharist.

Yes, here it is yet again. All you have done with your recourse to arguments by vain assertions is provide an argument against being a RC.

That is it. May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “You want to believe you have to literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus over and over to gain salvation, go ahead.”

Christ nor His Catholic Church forces anyone to believe God’s Truth. We all make the choice to believe or not believe the words of Jesus as Truth. As Catholics we believe just as Peter and the Apostles believed the words of Jesus because He spoke the Truth as God. (John 6:67-69) Jesus knew that many did not believe and they drew back and no longer walked with him.

Many, even today, have rejected God’s Truth and followed false teachers. How can there be thousand of different religious practices with different understanding of God’s Truths?

The Catholic faith passed down by Jesus and the Apostles has not changed for 2000 years.

Yes, the names may have changed over the years. For Example: the Eucharist has been called the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42), Lord’s Supper, the Most Blessed Sacrament, Holy Mass, Holy Communion, etc. The triune God has been called the Trinity. Purgatory.

Transubstantiation represents not a change in dogma, but further explanation of the process for human minds to help them understand a divine mystery. It takes faith to accept Jesus’ words as the Truth.

Yes, administratively as the church has grown, administrative changes have been made and clarification of morals have been addressed, such as contraception, life issues, etc.

Since Jesus dies on the cross to forgive our sins and restore mankind the opportunity to share eternity with God and Jesus told us that He would be with us always (Mt 28:20), and Jesus is the Bread of Life, why wouldn’t he give us His Body and Blood for our our nourishment and for the salvation of our souls?

The Eucharist is a Sacrament that gives us God’s grace to help us love Him, grow in our faith on the path to salvation.

You make a blanket statement without any support, perhaps just you opinion or a false teaching.

“Just because your religion claims to be the same faith as Jesus established, doesn’t mean it’s true nor does it give them carte blanch to subordinate the Scriptures to their Traditions and demand all of Christendom accept them or be condemned.?

Jesus did establish the Catholic Church and named Peter to lead it and gave him authority to baptize, teach what Jesus taught and the authority to interpret the teachings. MT 16:18-19 and 28:19 This documented in scriptures based on Sacred Tradition.

The Catholic Church does not condemn or judge, that is a role for Jesus when we die. The Church does teach God’s Truth and morals, even if many members are imperfect and sinner.