then you say this to me…
why is my opinion irrelevant?
Fair enough.
Yes! This is very Catholic.
This question is no more relevant than if I said,
Yes! This is very Catholic!
Yes, God constantly draws all people to himself. He loves all people beyond our comprehension and desires that each and everyone of them receive the gift of eternal life. This does not mean, however, that all those who seek him have the fullness of truth or that some may not be misguided, trusting in their own wisdom and falling into grave error.
Great point! This is exactly the command that Christ gave to His Church: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. If it is the Church that is commanded to teach then it follows that it is the Church to which we must listen.
We wholeheartedly agree. There is a lot more than is written in the Bible. It is found in the teachings, the liturgies, the sacraments, the doctrines and practices of the Church; i.e. the very life of the Church.
Yes. If we do not put flesh on the words of the Gospel they remain simply words. It matters not which faith one chooses if they do not live that faith. Calling one’s self “Catholic” is meaningless if one does not live out the truth found there. The same is true for any religion, But this does not mean that it matters not what one believes. One cannot properly live out the truth if one does not know the truth.
Steve,
The problem is your claim we don’t need church.
No I did not. I don’t believe that. So, I could not have said anything like that. If I said anything that lead anyone to believe that was what I was saying, then I did not properly communicate my beliefs. I just don’t put church on par with the Lord. I know you guys get all worked up about that, but I don’t. I apparently am not a gifted enough writer to explain my position so that it is clearly understood. I have never put the church on par with God and never will. I see great danger in doing so. Disagree all you want with me. That is fine.
Thats the problem. Of course we recognise that God is superior to a communion but the difference between Christians and you, is that we believe God has instituted a church. For instance you would not be able to say (in the example I gave showing how rediculous your belief is) that you would not join the church the apostles had established. No Christian on earth could say that and therein lies your problem. You would gladly commune with the apostles but not with the church they established.
Philo, what you just said is nuts and does not even closely relate to what I said. You are placing me in a hypothetical situation and then act as if in fact I did or said what you hypothesize I would say or do. Do you realize how far off from reality you are taking this?
No doubt you do have a relationship with God, Little Star, you seem very sincere and I have no doubt that it is a wonderful relationship. I have many non-Catholic friends who are people of great faith and live very Christian lives; better than many Catholics I know (including myself, at times
). This relationship is real and God surely blesses them. So please understand that I do not, in any way, doubt that you have a real and tangible relationship with God.What you are saying is that any one church is not of the utmost importance. But you haven’t actually answered my hypothetical. I’m not roman catholic and I’m not trying to convert you, just pointing out that if in the second century it is encumbent on us to join that which the apostles have established the same should be said of any century, unless it can be shown that which the apostles have established has been destroyed.
Ignatian,
Hi PR, can you please point out any Words from the Bahai Writings which are not the Truth?
Hi, MindNight. I wouldn’t want you simple question to get lost amid the grand debates here.
The point with my example was not to argue for any specific church, though by my example you are limited to at most five or so church communions, but rather to give a standard that should be practiced that is often ignored by most Protestantism and or non denominationals. But what many churches are we talking about in the first few centuries with different views? The church of Rome? The Greek churches? Antioch? Alexandria? Jeruselum? I have no doubt there were some differences as there have always been, but they were in communion so far as I can tell. I suspect you mean to include gnostics and ebionites and various groups into your example, in which case these were the basest sort of heretics and cannot be considered. So name these groups that have a more credible claim to apostolicty than the Roman Catholic church, The Eastern Orthodox church and the oriental orthodox. To some degree these churches can say they are historically linked to the apostles, although they disagree with each other as to doctrine, though none will deny the other’s history only the other’s orthodoxy.
Yes, as I said, I largely agree with your point. Christian unity is upheld by respecting and following the interpretations provided by the Apostles and their successors, though they should not be followed blindly, they should be studied and understood in context. When you look at the arc of history so to speak that I outlined above, the Church progressed from some degree of confusion early on, to establishing a largely united Church, to then splintering in recent centuries.