Do members of non-Cathoic denominations believe their church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ?

[4Squarebaby]

Well he will never be able to prove that either the UMC or AoG consider themselves THE ONE TRUE. That sort of talk is limited to those with closed communions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

People can be in the same church, yet not be in unity. I was taught in Church history class (in a Catholic school) that Christendom was united until the Great Schism. But there had been problems between East and West ***for centuries ***prior to 1054. Was there unity prior to 1054? I think not. But things came to a head in 1054, and that’s when the split became official.

I know that within the Catholic Church, its members are divided as well. One example: Traditionalists don’t like the post-Vatican II changes within the RCC and think that it has gone astray. My Traditionalist Catholic brother thinks the Novus Ordo (sp?) Mass needs to be jettisoned and avoids going to an N.O. Mass whenever possible. He has nothing but disdain for “Spirit of Vatican II” churches. Other Catholics think the RCC hasn’t gone far enough. It wants the pope to allow priests to marry and women to be ordained. Where’s the unity?

Although I don’t care for all the splits within Protestantism, I also know that I can enjoy wonderful fellowship with many Protestants whose doctrinal beliefs differ in certain respects from mine. So in spite of all the different Protestant denominations, we aren’t as divided as you might suppose.

Eusebius records a meeting that Polycarp had with the Bishop of Rome to discuss the manner in which Christ’s resurrection should be observed. Polycarp–who had been a disciple of John and acquainted with some of the other apostles as well–was a Quartodeciman and felt strongly that the Church should celebrate Christ’s passion/resurrection within the context of its historic setting: the Jewish Passover. Why did he think so? *Because that was how John and the other apostles he knew had done it!!! * The Bishop of Rome wouldn’t budge, stating that it was not the tradition that he had received. Both men felt strongly about their position, and couldn’t agree. So essentially, they agreed to disagree and parted in peace. Later on in Church history, however, the difference in practice over the celebration of Christ’s passion/resurrection became a bigger issue to Constantine and some church leaders–and the Council of Nicea forced a “unity” of practice (primarily because it didn’t want Christians to have anything in common with the Jews) … and in so doing, created a rift among Christians that lasted for centuries!

External unity is not necessarily the same as true unity.

The “divisions” you have mentioned are simply a matter of preference. It doesn’t matter if the Mass is presented in Latin/Greek or in the prevailing language of the area. It’s still the Mass; transubstantiation still takes place. You’re mixing dogma and doctrine up with discipline. Dogma and doctrine don’t change - discipline changes.

There are married priests in the Church. But priests getting married after ordination and/or ordination of women will not occur because that is not discipline. Do all Catholics jump for joy when finding this out? Of course not, but if they are Catholic they accept and practice Church teaching. If they don’t they are dissident. We aren’t as divided as you might suppose.

Your discussion of the Council of Nicea is not backed by any documentation in your post, yet you state it “forced a ‘unity’ of practice” and then go on to proclaim the reason (again, with no documentation) “because it didn’t want Christians to have anything in common with the Jews.” How do you know this? If you have documentation, please post it. Otherwise you have only an unfounded assertion.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

No, they are one part of the ONE true church: RCC/Orthodox as other ancient liturgical churches.

I have never considered the Orthodox as outsiders of the one true church.

I really,really find it sad that the RCC/Orthodox are not ONE as before. Blame falls on both sides,not just one.

I think that Harpazo was clarifying the Orthodox position. Orthodox would not claim that they are “part” of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (implying that there are other “parts”), but would claim that they are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not talking about suffragan/auxiliary/coadjutor bishops or whatever you want to call them, who act together and have joint jurisdiction. Nor am I talking about the size of dioceses. I’m talking about two bishops having completely independent jurisdiction over the same place, as is the case with Latin and Byzantine bishops. I’m pointing out that this is the sort of thing that makes you say “two denominations” when it occurs in Protestantism.

Sure. but we aren’t discussing whether they are in communion with Rome. We are discussing whether they are one church. My point is this:

1. Parallel ecclesiastical organizations exist all in communion with Rome.
2. These parallel organizations are clearly all one Church by your definition.
3. Therefore, mere parallel organization cannot be taken as proving, all by itself, that two groups not in communion with Rome form separate churches from *each other. *In other words, if the Latin and Byzantine Catholics are one Church, then the OPC and the PCA, or the Wesleyans and the Free Methodists, may be one Church as well. You have to do more than just point out that they are separate “denominations” (i.e., parallel organizations). You have to show how they differ in ways that go beyond the differences that clearly exist within your own Church.

It’s not entirely obvious, no. (I certainly have criteria that *I *think make one church separate from another, but they are sometimes difficult to apply to Protestantism, and they may be different from yours.) If you think I am so intelligent, why not treat me with a little more respect and actually take what I’m saying seriously? If you think I am not so intelligent after all, then perform that spiritual work of mercy called instructing the ignorant. But either way, please believe that I’m perfectly serious.

In other words, you either can’t or won’t explain what makes one organization a separate “church” from another (since it’s clear that the existence of parallel structures in one place does not).

What corresponds to “taste, menus, etc.” in your MacDonald’s analogy? How different do two churches have to be? Different Catholic “particular churches” differ quite a bit from each other, after all.

One criterion I would suggest is doctrinal difference of a kind that would present an obstacle to a minister of one denomination functioning as a minister in another.

They’re obviously not the same kind of thing–as your citation of “First Baptist Church” shows.

I’m not the one putting ecclesiological weight on the term. I would tend to define a denomination quite narrowly, as a group of local churches with a common organizational structure, not dominated by the State and not claiming to be the One True Church. But if you want to drop of the latter two qualifications, that’s fine. Note that by this standard your “sui juris” churches are actually denominations.

Again, I’m fine if you don’t like this description. “Denomination” is a handy term to use for a certain kind of (mostly American) ecclesiastical organization. But the term seems a lot more important to you than it is to me.

Well, so far that’s the only definition you’ve given. You’ve only given that implicitly, so no doubt I’m misunderstanding you. But it’s your fault, because you persistently refuse to define your terms. You don’t tell me what counts as “one” (among churches not in communion with Rome); you don’t tell me what a “denomination” is, or when one group is a “separate” church from another. You treat all these questions with great impatience, and yet you want to build some grand argument on the terms that you refuse to define. This isn’t going to work.

They would all agree that members of the other two can be true believers in Jesus, for instance.

However, I admitted that these three are good examples of separate churches.

How about you discuss how the four mainline Methodist churches in the United States are separate churches, or how the Wesleyans, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes are separate churches.

Sure they exist. St. Peter and Paul Catholic church exists. And there are many churches with that name throughout the country–but they don’t constitute a denomination.

Are you suggesting that each Baptist church is a separate church/denomination from all the others? Again, this shows that you confuse unity with organizational control. If your argument is that organizational independence equals division, then you aren’t going to get very far. That’s not self-evident at all.

Why not focus on the many *real *divisions among Protestants (like the divisions that separate the three denominations listed above–SBC, UMC and AoG?). Why insist on definitions that simply reveal how little you understand Protestantism?

Edwin

How little I understand Protestanism? Massive divisions and splits is not a complex matter to you? The more it divides the more complex the matter grows,sorry that offends you.

Now, why not focus on the ONE church Christ founded,since apparently you lack the comprehension of the ONE Church Jesus founded here on earth?

 

[Contarini]

How little I understand Protestanism?

Yes.

Massive divisions and splits is not a complex matter to you? The more it divides the more complex the matter grows,sorry that offends you.

Why would it offend me? It’s exactly what I’m saying.

The divisions have become so complex at this point that you can’t simply enumerate a bunch of “denominations” and assume that each of them represents a “Church.” This doesn’t mean that Protestantism is undivided. It means that most Protestants have long given up on the project of pointing to some part of divided Protestantism and saying “this is the true Church.” (From the initial Lutheran-Reformed division, there have been Protestants who didn’t want to do this, as a matter of fact.)

And yes, if you think that there’s a denomination called “First Baptist Church,” you don’t understand Baptists, or congregationalist versions of Protestantism generally.

Now, why not focus on the ONE church Christ founded

The thread isn’t about that.

since apparently you lack the comprehension of the ONE Church Jesus founded here on earth?

Whatever that means. To you it all seems to boil down to Rome. Your loss.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
How little I understand Protestanism?

Yes.

Nope! On the contrary,you yourself said The First Baptist Church was NOT a denomination and I told you specifically it is INDEPENDENT and self-governing…that seems pretty much like a separate entity/denomination to me. Perhaps it you who does not understand Protestanism as much you believe.

Quote:
Massive divisions and splits is not a complex matter to you? The more it divides the more complex the matter grows,sorry that offends you.

Why would it offend me? It’s exactly what I’m saying.

You sure seem to defend it at all costs and Protestanism is complex,so who are you kidding?

The divisions have become so complex at this point that you can’t simply enumerate a bunch of “denominations” and assume that each of them represents a “Church.” This doesn’t mean that Protestantism is undivided. It means that most Protestants have long given up on the project of pointing to some part of divided Protestantism and saying “this is the true Church.” (From the initial Lutheran-Reformed division, there have been Protestants who didn’t want to do this, as a matter of fact.)

And yes, if you think that there’s a denomination called “First Baptist Church,” you don’t understand Baptists, or congregationalist versions of Protestantism generally.

Exactly! Divisions have grown a lot since the 16th century,so it is not so black and white…its complex. I already to you The First Baptist Church is one of many American Baptist churches. Frankly, it makes no difference to me what you assume I do not know or do know.

Quote:
Now, why not focus on the ONE church Christ founded

The thread isn’t about that.

Oh yeah? And what is more important than this thread is Christ Church and its UNITY. And Christ church is not about thousands of different churches,denominations,sects,etc or whatever term floats your boat.

Quote:
since apparently you lack the comprehension of the ONE Church Jesus founded here on earth?

Whatever that means. To you it all seems to boil down to Rome. Your loss.

Edwin

Exactly what it means! Jesus founded ONE church. What part of ONE do you not comprehend? Jesus already founded His Church…why do we need mere mortals to go off and start their own?

It all boils down to Rome? Thanks for assuming,but that is not the point. It boils down to the truth…how is that my loss? Seems more like a loss for you.

 

[gcnuss]

Do they? Do Lutherans believe their church was founded by Jesus Christ and to be infallible in matters of doctinre (sacremnts, etc). The same goes for Baptist, Anglicans, etc? I was baptized Lutheran in high school by converted to Catholicism towards the end. I don’t mean to be rude, I just want to know what other Christians really think about their denominations.

If it is not official doctrine that your denomination is the One True Church, how do you justify remaining in it?

First, I believe that the One True Church transcends earthly organizations. It includes the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant which takes it out of the realm of being subject to any one earthly power. It is subject to our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a Lutheran I believe that Lutherans are part of the One True Church. I, along with other Lutherans, do not believe that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be part of the One True Church. While I can’t speak for all Lutherans, I take seriously the position that we have the truth but we are not the only Christians who have it. I am fully convinced that Catholics, too, are part of the One True Church as are Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. For this I give thanks to God.

 

[Metamorphoo]

The “divisions” you have mentioned are simply a matter of preference. It doesn’t matter if the Mass is presented in Latin/Greek or in the prevailing language of the area. It’s still the Mass; transubstantiation still takes place. You’re mixing dogma and doctrine up with discipline. Dogma and doctrine don’t change - discipline changes.

There are married priests in the Church. But priests getting married after ordination and/or ordination of women will not occur because that is not discipline. Do all Catholics jump for joy when finding this out? Of course not, but if they are Catholic they accept and practice Church teaching. If they don’t they are dissident. We aren’t as divided as you might suppose.

Your discussion of the Council of Nicea is not backed by any documentation in your post, yet you state it “forced a ‘unity’ of practice” and then go on to proclaim the reason (again, with no documentation) “because it didn’t want Christians to have anything in common with the Jews.” How do you know this? If you have documentation, please post it. Otherwise you have only an unfounded assertion.

I would not say that the differences within the RCC that I previously mentioned are a matter of preference. There are Traditionalist Catholics who oppose the Novus Ordo Mass, altar girls, etc., because they believe it is WRONG–not merely because they prefer something else.

I have documentation regarding the Quartodeciman Controversy and the Council of Nicea: the church historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, as well as The Life of Constantine.

If you don’t have access to a hard copy of those books, here’s a couple of links where you can read about this subject online:

Here – from Ecclesiastical History-- Read chapters 23-25–talks about the nature of the controversy, including the disagreement between Anicetus and Polycarp, and Victor’s excommunication of the churches in Asia Minor that commemorted the Lord’s passion/resurrection within the context of the Jewish Passover.

In The Life of Constantine, Eusebius included a letter which Constantine wrote to all the bishops who did not attend the Council of Nicea. In it, Constantine outlines the rationale behind the Council’s decision on the dating of Easter. It’s pretty clear that “we can’t have anything in common with the Jews” was a major factor in the Council’s decision. You can read Constantine’s letter here.

It is clear that the Council forced a “unity” that only created division within the Church. Since some of the apostles that Polycarp knew observed the Passover, there was apostolic precedent that should have been considered. The Council should have allowed the Quartodecimans liberty of conscience in the matter.

 

[Sherry_G]

I would not say that the differences within the RCC that I previously mentioned are a matter of preference. There are Traditionalist Catholics who oppose the Novus Ordo Mass, altar girls, etc., because they believe it is WRONG–not merely because they prefer something else.

I have documentation regarding the Quartodeciman Controversy and the Council of Nicea: the church historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, as well as The Life of Constantine.

If you don’t have access to a hard copy of those books, here’s a couple of links where you can read about this subject online:

Here – from Ecclesiastical History-- Read chapters 23-25–talks about the nature of the controversy, including the disagreement between Anicetus and Polycarp, and Victor’s excommunication of the churches in Asia Minor that commemorted the Lord’s passion/resurrection within the context of the Jewish Passover.

In The Life of Constantine, Eusebius included a letter which Constantine wrote to all the bishops who did not attend the Council of Nicea. In it, Constantine outlines the rationale behind the Council’s decision on the dating of Easter. It’s pretty clear that “we can’t have anything in common with the Jews” was a major factor in the Council’s decision. You can read Constantine’s letter here.

It is clear that the Council forced a “unity” that only created division within the Church. Since some of the apostles that Polycarp knew observed the Passover, there was apostolic precedent that should have been considered. The Council should have allowed the Quartodecimans liberty of conscience in the matter.

Uh, you forgot to mention Martin Luther, too…there have always been heretics that fall away from the one true church due to their own wrongheadedness caused by false pride. That is not news at all. There are presently over one billion Catholics in the world that follow the teachings of the one true church. Just because someone disagrees with a Church teaching does not mean that it will change.

 

[Contarini]

Nope! On the contrary,you yourself said The First Baptist Church was NOT a denomination and I told you specifically it is INDEPENDENT and self-governing

Which “First Baptist Church”? Again, “First Baptist Church” is just a term used for the oldest/principal Baptist congregation in a town. A “First Baptist Church” that is part of the Southern Baptist Convention is not entirely independent.

…that seems pretty much like a separate entity/denomination to me. Perhaps it you who does not understand Protestanism as much you believe.

The problem is that you seem to assume that organizational independence is the same thing as disunity. That prevents you from actually discussing the real ways in which Protestants are disunited.

You sure seem to defend it at all costs

I’m defending accurate use of language, precisely so we can diagnose the nature of this horrible problem (Protestant disunity) and maybe even start to talk about what we can do about it.

and Protestanism is complex,so who are you kidding?

Again, I don’t know what you mean by this. The complexity of Protestant disunity is precisely my point.

Exactly! Divisions have grown a lot since the 16th century,so it is not so black and white…its complex. I already to you The First Baptist Church is one of many American Baptist churches.

That makes no sense. A congregation calling itself “First Baptist Church” is just a local congregation. It’s not necessarily “disunited” from other Baptist churches with different titles.

Again, you just keep revealing that you don’t understand Protestantism, especially free church Protestantism.

Oh yeah? And what is more important than this thread is Christ Church and its UNITY. And Christ church is not about thousands of different churches,denominations,sects,etc or whatever term floats your boat.

You can’t just brush aside questions of terminology. Since you have been unable or unwilling to define unity, or define denomination, or define what makes one church separate from another, you have been unable to say anything meaningful or helpful about this question of the unity of the Church, which I agree with you is one of the most important things we could possibly talk about.

Exactly what it means! Jesus founded ONE church. What part of ONE do you not comprehend?

This, for instance:

By the definition of the early Church, it seems to me that “unity” means among other things that all Christians in a particular place gather together on the Lord’s day for Eucharist, in the same place, at the same time, and under the authority of the same bishop. By that standard, the Catholics in my town are not unified. A married couple who live down the road from me regularly attend different Masses at different parishes (as I’ve said before, the parishes in my town are basically non-geographical, and the two buildings are very close to each other, because originally the division was ethnic) so that the one not going to Mass can take care of their infant daughter.

I don’t think that’s unity.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that someone going to “First Baptist Church” in one town is not united with someone going to “Grace Baptist Church” in another town, even though the two churches may have the same doctrines, their pastors may regularly preach for each other, and a person moving from one town to another would naturally move from one church to another.

That makes no sense to me.

It all boils down to Rome? Thanks for assuming,but that is not the point.

I can’t help but assume, since you repeatedly refuse to answer my requests for you to clarify what you mean by the terms you are using. It is extremely frustrating–I would rather not guess what you mean, because I’m aware that I will probably guess wrong. But since you refuse to define your terms, the alternative is for me not to talk to you at all.

It boils down to the truth…how is that my loss? Seems more like a loss for you.

I see. So unity is about teaching the same doctrines? Doesn’t that mean that if “First Baptist Church” teaches the same doctrines as “Grace Baptist Church,” they are part of the same Church? Doesn’t that mean that if the Wesleyans and Free Methodists both agree that they teach the same doctrines, they are both part of one Church even though they have separate organizations?

And then there’s the question of different Catholic parishes teaching different doctrines, which of course you can dismiss by saying that the ones you disagree with aren’t really Catholic at all, I suppose. . . . .

Edwin

 

[ErichK]

In response to the title of this thread: When you have the power of Sola Scriptura at your fingertips, you can make ANYTHING look like truth!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

The problem is that you seem to assume that organizational independence is the same thing as disunity. That prevents you from actually discussing the real ways in which Protestants are disunited.

Okay,but has independence solved the issue of DISUNITY? Whether dependent or independent,I do not see or hear much effort by mainline Protestants to solve the chaotic divisions of Protestanism.

Quote:
and Protestanism is complex,so who are you kidding?

Again, I don’t know what you mean by this. The complexity of Protestant disunity is precisely my point.

Okay,so I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Quote:
Exactly! Divisions have grown a lot since the 16th century,so it is not so black and white…its complex. I already to you The First Baptist Church is one of many American Baptist churches.

Again, you just keep revealing that you don’t understand Protestantism, especially free church Protestantism.

Indeed,but I do understand Protestanism is very divided and continues even today.

Quote:
Oh yeah? And what is more important than this thread is Christ Church and its UNITY. And Christ church is not about thousands of different churches,denominations,sects,etc or whatever term floats your boat.

You can’t just brush aside questions of terminology. Since you have been unable or unwilling to define unity, or define denomination, or define what makes one church separate from another, you have been unable to say anything meaningful or helpful about this question of the unity of the Church, which I agree with you is one of the most important things we could possibly talk about.

I am sorry,but why do I need to go out on a limb to define unity? Did St.Paul advocate,praise or encourage divisions? If he did,then show me where? Again,does one need to wonder or question what Jesus meant by: May they ALL be ONE? It is you who has not provided what UNITY means to you and the thousands of different denominations.

Quote:
Exactly what it means! Jesus founded ONE church. What part of ONE do you not comprehend?

This, for instance:

By the definition of the early Church, it seems to me that “unity” means among other things that all Christians in a particular place gather together on the Lord’s day for Eucharist, in the same place, at the same time, and under the authority of the same bishop. By that standard, the Catholics in my town are not unified. A married couple who live down the road from me regularly attend different Masses at different parishes (as I’ve said before, the parishes in my town are basically non-geographical, and the two buildings are very close to each other, because originally the division was ethnic) so that the one not going to Mass can take care of their infant daughter.

I don’t think that’s unity.

No offense, it is very difficult to discern your instance. I would have to know a lot more details about each parish and if any one of them is even considered as belonging to the Catholic Church.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that someone going to “First Baptist Church” in one town is not united with someone going to “Grace Baptist Church” in another town, even though the two churches may have the same doctrines, their pastors may regularly preach for each other, and a person moving from one town to another would naturally move from one church to another.

That makes no sense to me.

Not all,that is not what I am trying to convey. Just because the priests here at the parish I work give mass another parish does not indicate disunity. Different parish with different names,but both under the same Rite or universal church. Is that what you are saying about the Grace Baptist Church and First Baptist Church?

Quote:
It all boils down to Rome? Thanks for assuming,but that is not the point.

I can’t help but assume, since you repeatedly refuse to answer my requests for you to clarify what you mean by the terms you are using. It is extremely frustrating–I would rather not guess what you mean, because I’m aware that I will probably guess wrong. But since you refuse to define your terms, the alternative is for me not to talk to you at all.

What does unity mean to you? What do you think Jesus meant by : May they all be ONE? Jesus founded ONE church.Did the Apostles I am pretty sure wanted ONE church,not divisions.
Quote:
It boils down to the truth…how is that my loss? Seems more like a loss for you.

I see. So unity is about teaching the same doctrines? Doesn’t that mean that if “First Baptist Church” teaches the same doctrines as “Grace Baptist Church,” they are part of the same Church? Doesn’t that mean that if the Wesleyans and Free Methodists both agree that they teach the same doctrines, they are both part of one Church even though they have separate organizations?

Well is not doctrine very core? You think unity is okay if one church teaches the Eucharist is symbolic and another as the Real Presence? They’re united in certain aspects,but divided in others,and yet still part of the ONE Body of Christ? That is not what Christ founded,sorry to break the news to you.

And then there’s the question of different Catholic parishes teaching different doctrines, which of course you can dismiss by saying that the ones you disagree with aren’t really Catholic at all, I suppose. . .

. .

I beg your pardon? Now you clearly display your lack of knowledge when it is applicable to Catholicism. Different parishes teaching different doctrines? And you have evidence to support your charge?

 

[Metamorphoo]

Uh, you forgot to mention Martin Luther, too…there have always been heretics that fall away from the one true church due to their own wrongheadedness caused by false pride. That is not news at all. There are presently over one billion Catholics in the world that follow the teachings of the one true church. Just because someone disagrees with a Church teaching does not mean that it will change.

Are you calling the Quartodecimans heretics? Polycarp was a Quartodeciman, as was Melito of Sardis. In Polycarp’s case, he was a Quartodeciman because that was the practice of his mentor, the apostle John.

 

[Sherry_G]

Are you calling the Quartodecimans heretics? Polycarp was a Quartodeciman, as was Melito of Sardis. In Polycarp’s case, he was a Quartodeciman because that was the practice of his mentor, the apostle John.

You are really reaching now, aren’t you??? In fact, I am going to say, this is downright silly of you!

 

[pismopal]

Nope…the Denominations don’t think they’re the One True Church. In practice, however, they think that all non-Catholics or non-sacramentalists are the One True Church. This is an extremely uncharitable and disturbing position.

I don’t think the denoms(my former denom didn’t) claim to be the True Church but they don’t think that the Catholic Church …or the Orthodox either, are the True Church. I don’t happen to think that the Catholic position is disturbing, I just think it is demonstrably true. If it is disturbing to someone, that someone should do some study about the possibilities.

 

[Metamorphoo]

You are really reaching now, aren’t you??? In fact, I am going to say, this is downright silly of you!

You quoted my post … which was primarily about the Quartodecimans and the Council of Nicea and the problems that result from forcing outward conformity and calling it unity … and then you started talking about heretics. It didn’t make sense to me–and appeared that you were calling Quartodecimans heretics because they didn’t agree with (and in fact, thought it wrong) what some Church authorities were telling them to do. What was your point in mentioning Luther?

 

[Nicea325]

You quoted my post … which was primarily about the Quartodecimans and the Council of Nicea and the problems that result from forcing outward conformity and calling it unity … and then you started talking about heretics. It didn’t make sense to me–and appeared that you were calling Quartodecimans heretics because they didn’t agree with (and in fact, thought it wrong) what some Church authorities were telling them to do. What was your point in mentioning Luther?

Forcing outward conformity and calling it unity? Would you apply the same to ALL orthodox doctrines? Being forced? I do not understand why non-Catholics struggle to comprehend the importance of unity? No wonder Protestanism,evangelicals,funamentalists,etc are so splintered.

 

[JonNC]

First, I believe that the One True Church transcends earthly organizations. It includes the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant which takes it out of the realm of being subject to any one earthly power. It is subject to our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a Lutheran I believe that Lutherans are part of the One True Church. I, along with other Lutherans, do not believe that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be part of the One True Church. While I can’t speak for all Lutherans, I take seriously the position that we have the truth but we are not the only Christians who have it. I am fully convinced that Catholics, too, are part of the One True Church as are Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. For this I give thanks to God.

Very well said, Pastor.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In response to the title of this thread: When you have the power of Sola Scriptura at your fingertips, you can make ANYTHING look like truth!

It depends on your understanding of what the practice of sola scriptura actually invloves.

Jon

 

[Texasgringo70]

Are you calling the Quartodecimans heretics? Polycarp was a Quartodeciman, as was Melito of Sardis. In Polycarp’s case, he was a Quartodeciman because that was the practice of his mentor, the apostle John.

Metamorphoo, didn’t you know that the Apostle Peter is the only Apostle that counts? Oh, and here is the definition of unity for Nicea325: Roman Catholic Church. All else is disunity and chaos. No evidence to the contrary will be accepted. Save you breath. It is very clear to me that you will not get any concessions no matter how strong your argument might be. The only part I don’t know is if this view is shared by the majority of Catholics, or if it is a minority view.