A compelling non-Catholic argument

[guanophore]

He was initiated into the Church the same day that he was struck blind. He didn’t join with the Apostles directly for 14 years, but he was certainly part of the Church, and being taught by the Church.

(Kind of like how I haven’t met the Pope yet, but I’ve been evangelizing for the Church for nearly seven years, now.)

Actually, I think it was three days later…
Acts 9:7-12
8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 **And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. **

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”

He was introduced to the Apostles by Barnabas, but it was not until 14 years later that he was able to go and present his gospel to them.

Acts 9:27
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles,

 

[guanophore]

Yes you do. You assume that your understanding of Scripture is Truth. As you can see, this prism of assumption impacts your very interpretation of Scripture. If you are right, it is good. If you are wrong, the consequences may be grave.

So you still judge my motives? What drives my faith? What are my intentions when I pray? Can you answer these questions? If not, than you cannot answer as you have above. By the way, none of you seem to truly understand what I believe. When I attempt to explain, your preconcieved notions of my faith are aparent in your responses. Your assumption that I assume that my understanding of Scripture, is False.

You are so defensive! This says NOTHING about “judging” your faith! It simply says that the prism of assumption impacts the interpretation of scripture. this is the case for ALL of us. Regardless of our sincerity, our perceptions are colored by our life experiences, our education, the level of our spiritual training and maturity. We cannot help but look at the Scripture through the lens of our perception.

The Bible does not specifically refer to the assembly of believers as THE CHURCH. Where do you get that interpritation?

It does, and we are. There is only One Body, only One Church. All who are “in Christ” are members of the One Body. Jesus did not say He would found “churches”.

Col 1:18
18 He is the head of the body, the church;

Again you are wrong. This is not my implication.

OK, then when did the authority appointed by Christ become invalid? By whose authority was it replaced by the reformers?

Through prayer and meditation of the word. I have been a Christian for a long time, and as one of Gods sheep, I know his voice.

Yes, and it is very important for the believer to keep his ear pressed against His lips,a nd strive to hear HIm in His Word, and through the heart. However, as sincere as we all may be doing this, our ability to apprehend His voice is still colored by our perceptions.

I am also proving my point just as much. Although Paul never stated that his teaching was infallible, the Pope chooses to do the opposite.

First of all, the Pope does not “choose” himself. He is chosen by the Spirit working through the college of cardinals. He also does not “choose” any infallible proclamations. It is his duty to transmit what Jesus has revealed to the Church.

Secondly, Paul most certainly did know specifically which part of his message was infallible, and which was not.

" And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." 1 Thess 2:13

That is an arguable interpretation. Note that he said we (most likely meaning the Apostles), and not the church.

There is no separation.

Where does it say that a spiritual man is subject to the Church. I believe verse 15 says the opposite.
15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

The spiritual man knows his place in the Body, and submits to it’s Head, who is Christ. There is no separation between the Head and the Body.

"But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, "I** am Jesus, whom you are persecuting**; Acts 9:1-6

Jesus fully identifies Himself with His Body, the Church. this is why the Church is infallible. When one is subject to the Church, one is subject to God. “He who hears you, hears me”.

The Church is not an an insitution of man, but it is of divine origin. There is nothing a man can do to create or sustain the church, other than his personal decision to become a part of her.

This is where I must strongly disagree. You really believe that Christ would die if the Church was seperated from him? Where does scripture say this? Where does this belief come from?

Christ has no body here on earth now but ours. We are His hands, His feet, the eyes through which He looks. He would have no earthly presence if His Body were cut off.

 

[davidv]

Thanks. Do you believe all the teachings of the catholic church to be the teachings of Jesus?

Yes, based on her God given responsibility and authority to preach the Good News.

 

[guanophore]

Was he referring to any church authority above him for his authority to do what he was doing?

He did receive some of his learning from the Church, as he testified that he handed on that which he received (Sacred Tradition). However, he was clear that His authority, like that of the other Apostles, came directly from Christ.

This is not entirely correct. Paul got the message of the gospel directly from Christ and not any man.
Is there any reference in Paul’ letters that he appeals or mentions that Peter himself is the foundation of the church?

There would be no need for that. Paul accepted the Sacred Traditions as they were delivered to him. He accepted that Peter was the Rock upon which Christ build His Church. Somehow you seem to want to pit the apostles against one another, just as you seem to want to pit yourself against your Catholic brethren. None of this divisiveness was present, ja4, and it is not of Christ. Peter and Paul offered one another “the right hand of fellowship”, and Paul submitted the gospel he preached to the other Apostles. There was no discord or strife for supremacy, as you seem to believe.

Paul was part of the leadership of the church and was not really “under” any man. He always derived his authority directly from Christ and not the other apostles.

All the Apostles were subject to one another, and all were subject to Christ. When you say things like this, it indicates that you have some serious problems with the authority that God has given to people. This is what makes it seem like you have been abused or harmed by a person or persons in a position of authority.

This is not fallacious logic but sound reasoning that follows from the those who claim the church is not united under the defintions that they use. The day will never come when all Christians will believe all alike. These days will never come before the day of Christ if it is based on the criteria that most people offer. If Christ prayed for unity and we don’t see unity by a certain criteria then the criteria is wrong and not that the prayer of Christ has failed.

I agree with you that the prayer of Christ has not failed. It is curious, though how you can accept that principle in this case, but when He prayed that the Father would lead them into all Truth by way of the HS, you say that prayer has failed because the frailty of men was greater than the power of God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Although Paul never stated that his teaching was infallible, the Pope chooses to do the opposite. Why did Paul come with fear and trembling?

I think you have a very jaded view of what the inner nature is of our popes. You somehow are predisposed to equate authority with abuse and even evil. THIS IS A TEACHING OF MAN - in particular a REBELIOUSLY MINDED MAN. There is nothing intrinsically evil with authority. Quite the opposite, true authority is always God given.

It was men such as Luther who played to the class demagoguery of medieval Europeans who were caught up in the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) of that time to rebel against authority - ALL authority. Luther offered to liberate the common man from his conscience and guilt of sin by scapegoating and sacrificing the papacy and the Church leadership to bring “power to the people” (sound familiar?). Luther let the peasants and common man as well as the state officials who wanted back power and control to have their cake and eat it to; to freely sin and still go to heaven. Wake up to what happened.

Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI PRAYED earnestly to God that he would NOT be elected as Pope because it is a HUGE responsibility. Does that sound like a man who is “power hungry”? Our popes do not seek glory and honor and lordship. Our popes serve with a spirit of humility and duty not from an attitude of as you call “supremacy” and power. There may have been a few popes over the 2,000 years who got caught up in some of the secular privileges of power. But by and large, overwhelming Catholic popes are paternal and gentle men who serve The Church and God with all their hearts, minds and souls. The popes only assert their full “power” when they are acting to decisively put down heretics and evil when it is manifest and does not yield to supplications to repent.

James

 

[guanophore]

It is still a distinction. The Head of the body is distinct from the body itself. Even if it is not severed, there is still a distinction. Your point that the body is dead if it has no head is correct. This is evidence of my point. If one can be seperated from the other, then there must be a distinction. Like a hamburger, the patty and the bread are distinct, but together, they make a burger. You cannot say that the patty and the bread are one in the same.
It is the same with the body of Christ. The church is built upon the rock. The church is not the rock.

It is a seamless integration. When Peter made a confession of faith, he was grafted into the rockyness of Christ. All who make this same profession then are built upon the foundation. I think what is confusing for many Protestants is that most of the evangelical/fundamentalist communities have totally lost the teaching on the Communion of Saints. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there are some parts of the Church that are Holy, and immutable. The Head, who is Christ, is immutable, and the HS, who is the soul of the Church, cannot err. Those saints who are already perfected in heaven are preserved forever from sin. Then there are all the angels in festal gathereing:

Heb 12:21-24
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

These represent the Holy members of the Body. It is from God that the Teachings come, and that is why they are infallible. Those members of the Body that are still on the earth battle with sin, and can fall from grace. Such falling does not make the Holy part of the Church unholy, however.

Jesus died to cleanse the Church, and that is why the Church is Holy, and infallible.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The heavenly parts of the Church are already with HIm in splendor, without any spot or wrinkle. Those of us to follow in their footsteps hope to join them.

 

[guanophore]

It would be helpfull if you would stop saying that I contradict myself. Why not just ask me to clarify my point? Tell me that you do not understand, as opposed to making accusations that I am in contradiction with myself.

I have read a number of your posts, and you have blatantly contradicted yourself. I don’t see this as a problem, however. It seems that you are working things out in your mind,and take one side and then the other.

. This is why our spirits will be given new bodies. The ones we are in are still a part of a corrupted creation. In order to be completely unified with Christ, we must be stripped of our earthly flesh. This means that we are not in the full likeness of Christ. Under those cercumstances, there is a definate distinction between the Church and Christ. The church is still wrapped in sinfull flesh, Christ is completely without sin.

I agree that our current state of existence bears the results of corruption from sin. However, scripture is clear that we wil not be “stripped of our earthly flesh” but transformed. In fact, the language is that of putting a garment on top of another garment. We shall all be changed - not stripped, but returned to the creation state God had in mind for us in the Garden.

The only part of the church still wrapped in sin is that which has not gone on to the heavenly reward. However, those who are in heaven are unstained, though they have not yet been reunited to their physical bodies.

 

[Eschato]

It looks like your pope is also a fan of Martin Luther. Have you seen this recent article?

**That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope **
Richard Owen in Rome
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Sch�lerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict’s image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.
The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.
Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.
The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God’s Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.
Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.
In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.
Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

From The Times
March 6, 2008

Don’t suprised if someday the catholic church makes him a saint to…

Yeah, too bad… a heresy is still a heresy. I agree that his intention was not to split the Church. That would have been unthinkable, and indeed there were many letters sent from Luther that attempted to gain him reinstatement into the Church. He ultimately succumbed to the politics of his time and helped create a state church of Germany at the request of German princes.

I don’t believe that his original intent was to split the Church, but he did not stop short of that, did he? Was that for money or pride? I don’t know, but it wasn’t for Church unity, sir. He promoted more than a few heresies and married a nun, though both he and his “wife” had already vowed themselves celibate before God.

I would be extremely surprised if Luther achieved recognized sainthood.

 

[mikeledes]

No, you are wrong. I always question any assumption that were a result of anothers teachings. My beliefs are my own. Regardless of whether they agree with Calvin, Luther or Zingwe, I never just assumed they were correct. My beliefs come from my own personal study of the word. I do not know whether or not there are supposed to be more or less books in the bible. This judgement will not rest on my head, but the head of the one who added or deleted. I do trust that the 66 were inspired by the prophets and the apostles

If I’m wrong, I apologize. Now I have this question. Have you seriously studied the Catholic faith in order to see if it was true? Is this your first time participating in a Catholic forum?

Secondly, have you ever thought that there may be other books besides the 66 that you possess that may be inspired? Do you believe that if this is a possibility, then you have the responsibility to find out?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The basis is Christ. Outside of that, there is much disagreement.
Many people who attend protestant churches are not really there to follow Christs example. The lack of structure seems to attract people who want the feel good of going to church. This is unfortunate, as many are lost this way.

Protestants disagree on the core of the Gospel, salvation. Justification by faith alone, for example, means different things to different Protestants. Often one Protestant (i.e. Calvinist) may accuse another Protestant (i.e. Wesleyan) of not really believing in justification by faith alone and of teaching a “works” gospel.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Not all who make these claims are actually true. Infact, many will say that it was revealed, when it is actually just their opinion. It is also important to note, that if the Holy Spirit has revealed anything, it is True. Even if the HS appears to contradict itself, it is a missunderstanding on our part. It is important for me to study scripture daily. This way, I am more closely connected to the source of truth.

This doesn’t solve the problem. How do you know that your conclusions are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while a contradictory conclusion of a sincere Christian or Calvinist is not? How can you tell the difference between what is “revealed” and mere “opinion”?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yeah, too bad… a heresy is still a heresy. I agree that his intention was not to split the Church. That would have been unthinkable, and indeed there were many letters sent from Luther that attempted to gain him reinstatement into the Church. He ultimately succumbed to the politics of his time and helped create a state church of Germany at the request of German princes.

I don’t believe that his original intent was to split the Church, but he did not stop short of that, did he? Was that for money or pride? I don’t know, but it wasn’t for Church unity, sir. He promoted more than a few heresies and married a nun, though both he and his “wife” had already vowed themselves celibate before God.

I would be extremely surprised if Luther achieved recognized sainthood.

Good points. I don’t think Luther intended to split the church either. But the German princes sure must have loved him (and no doubt contributed to his cause and lent assistance to the rebellion) and used him to usurp Church authority to get back the power of German monarchy. Luther was duped by his own pride and fearful conscience and set himself up to be the fall guy for a revolution. Personally I never understood how anyone with common sense could ever put their faith and trust, much less their eternal salvation in a man who broke EVERY ONE of his own vows? Just what kind of people put their credibility in such a man? My opinion - not very intelligent nor spiritually enlightened men.

Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) 5.4-5: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it.”

Sainthood, if really proposed, I doubt will be accepted by all the bishops. The pope never operates to make an ex-cathedra pronouncement without full unanimous concordance with the bishops.

I can only imagine one merit of Luther. But I don’t think it puts him even in the same universe of company as all the other saints. The only single good service I think we got from Luther was a good lesson and a purging. We get a lesson about how a conscience that is severely tortured and disordered by scrupulosity (and perhaps compounded with substance abuse and parent-child relational problems) can have devestating consequences on not only self but on everyone one has influence over. Clearly, anyone who is versed at all on Luther’s life can see he was tormented by a fear of being in constant mortal sin. So its clear that to remedy that disorder, out of grave fear he formulated a spiritually noxious remedy that would delude even common sense. He found a snake-oil that would twist the conscience with a belief in a false unconditional euphoria of salvation into imagining that it was impossible for him or any “believer in faith” to sin in a way that they could be condemned. This was probably one of Satan’s all time best accomplishments in mass destruction on individual souls. But the church survived without losing its faith or teaching. But God always turns evil into a greater good - let’s see how it plays out.

So, back to plausible merits, in essence Luther exposed a lot of members of the Church who were susceptible to rebellion and got them extricated, along with himself, when he incited the rebellion. I suppose that could be taken as a “service rendered” since it purified The Church. But somone could say that Satan deserves the credit and I don’t think anyone wants to canonize him.

Personally I think Luther pretty much said all anyone need hear in his letter to fellow to Philip Melanchthon:
Luther's Letter to Philip Melanchthon (German Reformer) in an Aug. 1:

…
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p. 282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.
…”

Yet we have in Malachi 3:2: “Who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire.”

That fire would have to burn all that rot out of him. If there would be anything left, He might finally reach heaven. If not, it would mean the fire would keep on burning him forever - “hell”.

Luther a saint? This member of The Church says “no”.

James

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
This is not fallacious logic but sound reasoning that follows from the those who claim the church is not united under the defintions that they use. The day will never come when all Christians will believe all alike. These days will never come before the day of Christ if it is based on the criteria that most people offer. If Christ prayed for unity and we don’t see unity by a certain criteria then the criteria is wrong and not that the prayer of Christ has failed.

CentralFLJames
Are you attempting to project infallability here again in your assertion that ‘the day will never come when all Christians will believe all alike’? It seems to me that some who call themselves Christians are nothing of the sort. Could it be that the day will come that Jesus told us about where ‘not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven?’

Unity will come when Jesus separates the goats from the sheep and the tares from the wheat. Just because we have heretics does not mean that The One Church is not in unity with Jesus. It just means that we still have time to save a few more souls. It has nothing to do with our criteria and has everything to do with God’s criteria. I am not worried that Christ’s prayer will fail. But I am worried that those outside of the Catholic Church are extremely vulnerable to failing Christ.

James

What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

 

[mikeledes]

What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

The problem is that there isn’t even any unity in “fundamentals” in Protestantism.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

mikeledes
The problem is that there isn’t even any unity in “fundamentals” in Protestantism.

God Bless,
Michael

Even if that is the case, is there the kind of unity in the catholic church that Jesus prayed for?

 

[CentralFLJames]

What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

No, I do not believe that Jesus’ prayer for unity has failed.

God’s justice and mercy are perfect. But perfection does not mean each person receives the same graces nor is subject to the same trials nor refinements either here nor in the fires of purification later on. All the elect are saved but not all the elect receive the same reward in heaven. While The Church has many members - none of us is a cookie cutter of the other except for carrying the common template of the Divine Jesus in our souls through the baptismal mark and through the divine imprints God scribes through His many divine graces. Some us are marked in ways different than others (Martyrs, Priests, Saints, spiritual devotional accomplishments etc.). But all the elect are marked with the common divine mark of Jesus’ as God’s children. While all saints are in perfect communion with each other and The Almighty we still on earth receive our own private robes and crowns according to how we grew through grace and in the degree of our cooperation and accomplishment. None of the saints were perfect and full of grace at all times in their life save Mary and of course Jesus by matter of His divinity.

I leave it to God to perfect His Church. I do not believe however that God is interested in an kind of compromise of truth and teaching just to increase the numbers. My personal opinion is that God is more interested in quality than he is in compromising for yield. This is hard to fathom fully at this point in my own spiritual development. But this is what I am inclined to believe at this point. Don’t get me wrong God wants EVERY soul to come to Him. But God will not suffer to let Satan corrupt a single teaching of Jesus just to ransom one errant soul from Satan. Every drop of blood shed by Jesus is precious. And Jesus’ very life was God’s living Word. God’s nature can not support ratifying a lie or false teaching. But God’s mercy can use the merits of Jesus operating through His Church to remedy or save someone on their death-bed who was committed to a false teaching all their life. We have such a notion as the Prodigals Son afterall.

Creation was made for the Glory of Jesus (and God The Father) - not for the glory of man. Salvation is a free gift to accept or to reject. I trust in God’s salvific grace won by Jesus and channeled through The One Church will make its mark on those seperated brothers who have fallen away and are among the elect. Who can deny that the grace of God does not operate to bring unity on the death bed of those who were or appear to be seperated in faith?

Only God knows for certain. New baptisms are performed every day to replace those who have departed in faith or those who passed in uncertain unity. We have much common unity and opportunity here.

James

 

[guanophore]

Even if that is the case, is there the kind of unity in the catholic church that Jesus prayed for?

It exits in the part of the church that is undefiled - made up of just men made perfect. Those on this side of the veil may not be joined in perfect unity. Certaily there is no unity in “cafeteria” Catholics.

What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

When you say that things God commanded are “impossible”, ja4, it gives the impression that you believe that God is too weak to bring about what He commands. It seems as if you believe that human willfulness is stronger than the power of God.

When God tells us not to sin, it means that we can be without sin. We can do this to the extent that we cooperate with God’s grace. When He prays for unity, it means that we can be unified, to the extent that we cooperate with God’s grace. God gave you free will, however, and if you persist in being willful and defiant, and refuse to be unified according to Jesus’ desire, you can reject His purpose for yourself. However, you cannot, as much as you try to sow the seeds of divisiveness here on CAF and elsewhere, prevent unity from occuring with those who wish to have it.

 

[mikeledes]

No, I do not believe that Jesus’ prayer for unity has failed.

God’s justice and mercy are perfect. But perfection does not mean each person receives the same graces nor is subject to the same trials nor refinements either here nor in the fires of purification later on. All the elect are saved but not all the elect receive the same reward in heaven. While The Church has many members - none of us is a cookie cutter of the other except for carrying the common template of the Divine Jesus in our souls through the baptismal mark and through the divine imprints God scribes through His many divine graces. Some us are marked in ways different than others (Martyrs, Priests, Saints, spiritual devotional accomplishments etc.). But all the elect are marked with the common divine mark of Jesus’ as God’s children. While all saints are in perfect communion with each other and The Almighty we still on earth receive our own private robes and crowns according to how we grew through grace and in the degree of our cooperation and accomplishment. None of the saints were perfect and full of grace at all times in their life save Mary and of course Jesus by matter of His divinity.

I leave it to God to perfect His Church. I do not believe however that God is interested in an kind of compromise of truth and teaching just to increase the numbers. My personal opinion is that God is more interested in quality than he is in compromising for yield. This is hard to fathom fully at this point in my own spiritual development. But this is what I am inclined to believe at this point. Don’t get me wrong God wants EVERY soul to come to Him. But God will not suffer to let Satan corrupt a single teaching of Jesus just to ransom one errant soul from Satan. Every drop of blood shed by Jesus is precious. And Jesus’ very life was God’s living Word. God’s nature can not support ratifying a lie or false teaching. But God’s mercy can use the merits of Jesus operating through His Church to remedy or save someone on their death-bed who was committed to a false teaching all their life. We have such a notion as the Prodigals Son afterall.

Creation was made for the Glory of Jesus (and God The Father) - not for the glory of man. Salvation is a free gift to accept or to reject. I trust in God’s salvific grace won by Jesus and channeled through The One Church will make its mark on those seperated brothers who have fallen away and are among the elect. Who can deny that the grace of God does not operate to bring unity on the death bed of those who were or appear to be seperated in faith?

Only God knows for certain. New baptisms are performed every day to replace those who have departed in faith or those who passed in uncertain unity. We have much common unity and opportunity here.

James

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

Even if that is the case, is there the kind of unity in the catholic church that Jesus prayed for?

Yes. Everyone who accepts all the teachings of the Church is in perfect unity with Christ, and all those who hold the true faith likewise. They are all of one mind, and one heart.

 

[davidv]

What i’m referring to is this unity itself. Many people in both protestant and catholic churches want a certain kind of unity that is impossible today and will be in the future. The reason this is, is because the church is composed of fallen men.

Do you think the prayer of Jesus for unity among His followers has failed?

There is a unity that already exists and is readily available to all who desire it. It is the Trinity. We don’t have to come up with it on our own. All that is required is that we humble ours selves, trust and obey God and follow His Son.