Catholocism the only true choice

[MrS]

The RCC changed because Martin Luther did what he did.

To some degree… but never has a doctrine changed… ever.

But then, Martin Luther changed because of what Martin Luther did… and it was not for the better… lots of new doctrines, and loss of some of the real ones.

 

[jay29]

The RCC changed because Martin Luther did what he did.

The CC corrected the abuses and nothing else. It never changed it’s doctrines nor structure as ML demanded. ML had no authority to demand change. Not one single bit.

 

[awantz]

The word Church, for 1500 years, referred only to the one group of “believers” in the world… The Catholic Church.

It has become only a bad and uncorrected habit that others, who may be part of the Body of Christ by virtue of their Trinitarian Baptism, have taken the name Church for their own use(misuse).

Yes, because like you said the Catholic Church was the ONLY body of believers.

Church in th dictionary means body of believers not the Catholic Church only.

 

[awantz]

To some degree… but never has a doctrine changed… ever.

But then, Martin Luther changed because of what Martin Luther did… and it was not for the better… lots of new doctrines, and loss of some of the real ones.

If they never changed what was the reason for Vatican two?

 

[Namesake]

The CC corrected the abuses and nothing else. It never changed it’s doctrines nor structure as ML demanded. ML had no authority to demand change. Not one single bit.

He had no authority according to the RCC. However, he effected substantial changes in the RCC. The founding fathers of the USA had no authority but they managed to change the world. You could look it up.

 

[LilyM]

If they never changed what was the reason for Vatican two?

To address disciplinary issues within the church, things like how the Mass was said, which are things that naturally do and have changed over time, not infallible and unchanging doctrine or dogma, and perhaps to refine the expression of (but never to change) doctrine or dogma.

It’s not like murder or theft stopped being serious sins after Vatican 2, or that we no longer believed that Mary was Immaculately Conceived or Assumed into heaven or anything remotely like that.

Or even that we stopped believing in the ‘no meat on Fridays’ rule - should the Church order that we not eat meat on Fridays. Such things as not eating meat are disciplines, not dogma, and are subject to change from time to time as well.

 

[MrS]

Yes, because like you said the Catholic Church was the ONLY body of believers.

Church in th dictionary means body of believers not the Catholic Church only.

Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Faith. The Faith was delivered to the Apostles, and only the Catholic Church has the unbroken line of succession/authority that began with the Apostles.

Only the Catholic Church has the Tradition, most of which was eventually written down by Catholic members, the human authors of Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not divide what Jesus founded. Men can, and do, as did the monk Martin Luther.

Thus, although the Holy Spirit can and does use other faiths to bring one to Christ and His Church, the Holy Spirit does not divide and teach different truths to different groups.

Thus, only the Catholic Church can be that part of the body of believers who have all that there is to believe.

I am not saying all Catholics do believe everything. Only the Church which Jesus founded is perfect… not the people in it.

I am not saying all non-Catholics don’t believe everythink Jesus said and taught… but I strongly think that is the case in fact.

.

 

[MrS]

Yes, because like you said the Catholic Church was the ONLY body of believers.

Church in th dictionary means body of believers not the Catholic Church only.

Church in the dictionary means what one wants it to mean today… a definition that has changed since Jesus first used the word to describe HIS work.

 

[jay29]

He had no authority according to the RCC.

He had no authority from God to do anything in terms of doctrines.He was just a priest monk.

However, he effected substantial changes in the RCC.

Nope. He confronted abuses, fine. Anything beyond that, he had no Apostolic Authority. Zippo.

The founding fathers of the USA had no authority but they managed to change the world. You could look it up.

Way to different things. Look it up.

 

[MrS]

He had no authority according to the RCC. However, he effected substantial changes in the RCC. The founding fathers of the USA had no authority but they managed to change the world. You could look it up.

I find it rather interesting that God, in His Wisdom, allowed the errors to spread from a simple monk.

Had the heretic monk been a bishop, with the powers to ordain and consecrate, we might have had a whole different, and even worse, situation on our hands.
God knows best.

And while nearly 8 million people left Catholicism, following the easy way of Luther, Calvin et al,… on the other side of the world, nearly 9 million converted to Catholicism because of the miracle involving a simple peasant…Juan Diego at Guadalupe.
God knows best.

.

 

[awantz]

I am not saying all non-Catholics don’t believe everythink Jesus said and taught… but I strongly think that is the case in fact.

It is not the case in fact.

 

[SIA]

The RCC changed because Martin Luther did what he did.

Absolutely right! I spoke with a Catholic priest once and he said that once Luther left, the RCC knew that changes were needed and would be coming in the future, some in the near future and others in the generations to come. For anyone to say that Luther was all wrong and that his intentions were ill fated or diabolical is plainly ridiculous.

 

[Cinette]

David its called “planting” a church. This happens all the time and by the way there are over 35 000 denominations in the USA alone!

One comment I would like to make is that we often hear people say, “I don’t agree with this thing the Pope is saying” or “I don’t agree with the Church on this matter” - I think we should think deeply and realise that it is not a matter of agreeing. The Church was created by Jesus and given authority and when it comes to matters of faith and morals the Church cannot err. Whether we like it or not that is what God wants and we cannot say we don’t agree. It is not easy to be a Christian and we should not expect the Church to BEND to our likes and dislikes.

 

[cazayoux]

How do you know that when Jesus says, “church” He is not referring to all believers?

We see much evidence from the NT that ‘all believers’ are to be of one heart and one mind. They are to agree. That is very different than what we see in Christianity today.

We can also refute the claim that ‘the church’ is invisible and includes all believers, because the church that Jesus founded must be a visible, authoritative church. If we disagree regarding faith and morals we need to be able to go to an authority to find out what is truth. How can we find that authority if the church is invisible?

The bible itself is authoritative, but then we get into two different people reading the same text and understanding it in different ways. Again, we need to go to the visible, authoritative church to know if either, or both, interpretations are (in)correct.

Cheers!

michel

 

[MrS]

It is not the case in fact.

If ALL non-Catholics (or any for that matter) believe ALL of what Jesus said and taught, they would come to the Eucharist and accept it as the Real Presence of the Lord… because He said so, and that has never been abrogated.

My point is that even many Catholics do not accept all that the Church Jesus founded as true … sometimes because of pride, like in matters of divorce/re-marriage or contraception… sometimes because of lack of catechisis, like Papal authority or the Scriptural richness of the Liturgy… and sometimes because of ignorance, like in matters of baptism, and other sacraments or purgatory etc.

Non-Catholics are such most often because of a rejection of one or more of the Church’s teaching which they deny from pride, mis-information, or ignorance.

Regardless, the Lord built only One Church. The Holy Spirit leads only into the Truth if we let Him.

No other Church even qualifies to be the Only True Choice.

.

 

[MrS]

Absolutely right! I spoke with a Catholic priest once and he said that once Luther left, the RCC knew that changes were needed and would be coming in the future, some in the near future and others in the generations to come. For anyone to say that Luther was all wrong and that his intentions were ill fated or diabolical is plainly ridiculous.

I don’t think any Catholic here has claimed that Luther was all wrong.

However, as a Catholic Monk, he chose to rebel, he choose to break his vows (as did his wife/nun), he chose to introduce new ideas that conformed to his personal desires… he chose to leave and rebel from outside the Church instead of remaining and working from the inside.

The Catholic Church has more “problems” to deal with from inside the Church than from without.

That is a reason why we have no fear from Protestants, Muslims, JWs, etc. They are outside the Church and have made themselves weak. They can claim guidance from the Holy Spirit all they want.

And in many cases the Holy Spirit is working in them… but it is not to keep them outside the Church… it is to lead them to the Truth, the fullness of which is only found in The Catholic Church.

.

 

[awantz]

We see much evidence from the NT that ‘all believers’ are to be of one heart and one mind. They are to agree. That is very different than what we see in Christianity today.

We can also refute the claim that ‘the church’ is invisible and includes all believers, because the church that Jesus founded must be a visible, authoritative church. If we disagree regarding faith and morals we need to be able to go to an authority to find out what is truth. How can we find that authority if the church is invisible?

The bible itself is authoritative, but then we get into two different people reading the same text and understanding it in different ways. Again, we need to go to the visible, authoritative church to know if either, or both, interpretations are (in)correct.

Cheers!

michel

I agree.

 

[awantz]

If ALL non-Catholics (or any for that matter) believe ALL of what Jesus said and taught, they would come to the Eucharist and accept it as the Real Presence of the Lord… because He said so, and that has never been abrogated.

Non-Catholics are such most often because of a rejection of one or more of the Church’s teaching which they deny from pride, mis-information, or ignorance.

Regardless, the Lord built only One Church. The Holy Spirit leads only into the Truth if we let Him.

Some non-Catholics do.

You are so wrong.

Yes and I’m a part of it.

 

[estesbob]

How do you know that when Jesus says, “church” He is not referring to all believers?

Because Scipture assure us God is not the author of confusion -when looking at the protestant world chaos and confusion reigns-there is no agreement on even the most basic doctrines concerning what is necessary for salvation or the place of Scripture.

 

[estesbob]

If they never changed what was the reason for Vatican two?

No doctines were changed at Vatican II. When studying the Church be very careful to distinguish between those things that came out of Vatican II and those things attributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II”